Cognitive style refers to a special, relatively consistent and stable manner in which one perceives the environment, interacts with it, masters learning, creates concepts, thinks and eventually makes decisions. In the current paper we use the model by Keen (1973) and Botkin (1974), according to which there are two main styles: systematic (deep approach) and intuitive style (surface approach). The study aims to examine whether and to what extent individual’s cognitive styles affect the decision making when it comes to a career choice, i.e. a field of study. Participants in the research were 153 students, from three fields of study: engineering, humanities, business and management. The Cognitive Styles Inventory by Martin L. P. (1998) was used as an instrument in the present study. The results show that the humanities students obtained statistically significantly higher score on the scale of intuitive style compared to the management and engineering students (F = 5,472, p < 0,005). Also the results indicate that there is a statistically significant but low correlation between intuitive cognitive style and academic success, operationalized as grade point avarage(r = 0,184*). No significant gender differences were found.
References
1.
Sternberg RJ. Thinking Styles. 1997.
2.
Osipow SH. Cognitive styles and educational-vocational preferences and selection. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 16(6):534–46.
3.
Parpala Anna, Lindblom‐Ylänne Sari, Komulainen Erkki, Litmanen Topi, Hirsto Laura. Students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching–learning environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010;80(2):269–82.
4.
Ramsden P. Context and Strategy. Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. 1988. p. 159–84.
5.
Riding R, Cheema I. Cognitive Styles—an overview and integration. Educational Psychology. 1991;11(3–4):193–215.
6.
Roberts A. Cognitive styles and student progression in architectural design education. Design Studies. 2006;27(2):167–81.
7.
Saracho ON. Teachers’ and Students’ Cognitive Styles in Early Childhood Education. 1997.
8.
Schoenfeld A. Mathematical Problem Solving.
9.
Severiens SE, Ten Dam GTM. Gender differences in learning styles: A narrative review and quantitative meta-analysis. Higher Education. 1994;27(4):487–501.
10.
Smith EE i MKS. Cognitive Psychology Mind and Brain.
11.
Newton PM. The Learning Styles Myth is Thriving in Higher Education. Frontiers in Psychology. 6.
12.
Turan SŞ, M. Cognitive Style in Educational Administration: An Introduction and Critique,Educational Administration. Theory and Practice. 19(ue 4):505–14.
13.
Watkins D, Astilla E. Field Independence as a Predictor of Filipino University Engineering Grades. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1981;41(3):893–5.
14.
Witkin HA, Goodenough DR, Karp SA. Stability of cognitive style from childhood to young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 7(3, Pt.1):291–300.
15.
Witkin HA, Moore CA, Goodenough D, Cox PW. Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications. Review of Educational Research. 1977;47(1):1–64.
16.
Yaman HD, Ayvaz S, Ü. Achievement motivation of primary mathematics education teacher candidates according to their cognitive styles and motivation style. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 7(2):125–42.
17.
YOUNG JD, KELLEHER WE, McRAE LSE. FIELD INDEPENDENCE AND BUSINESS STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT: A NOTE. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1989;69(3):997–8.
Hasanagić A. Psihološke osnove pripreme djece za školu, Centar za napredne studije.
21.
Bahar M, Hansell MH. The Relationship Between Some Psychological Factors and their Effect on the Performance of Grid Questions and Word Association Tests. Educational Psychology. 2000;20(3):349–64.
22.
Baron P. Deep and surface learning: Can teachers really control student approaches to learning in law? The Law Teacher. 2002;36(2):123–39.
23.
Biggs JB. Student Approaches to Learning and Studying.
24.
Byrne M, Flood B, Willis P. The relationship between learning approaches and learning outcomes: a study of Irish accounting students. Accounting Education. 2002;11(1):27–42.
25.
WU DC. Learning Styles And Satisfaction In Distance Education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 15(4).
26.
Evans C, Cools E, Charlesworth ZM. Learning in higher education – how cognitive and learning styles matter. Teaching in Higher Education. 2010;15(4):467–78.
27.
Su C, Fan KK, Xiao P wei. The Effects of Learning Styles and Meaningful Learning on the Learning Achievement of Gamification Health Education Curriculum. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2015;11(5).
28.
Frantz J. Learning styles among nursing students, the implications for higher education institutions: A systematic review. South African Journal of Higher Education. 28(6).
29.
Amernic JH, R. J. Enns. Levels of Cognitive Complexity and Design of Accounting Curriculum. The Accounting Review. 54(1)):133–46.
30.
Gul F, Huang A, Subramaniam N. Cognitive Style as a Factor in Accounting Students’ Perceptions of Career-Choice Factors. Psychological Reports. 1992;71(3_suppl):1275–81.
31.
Ismail HA i M, K A. Personality and cognitive style differences among matriculation engineering and information technology students. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education. 3:1.
32.
Jones HS i W, M. Effect of Cognitive Style on Performance in Introductory Financial Accounting and the Decision to Major in Accounting. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education. 8:7–26.
33.
Kogan N. Cognitive Styles in Infancy and Early Childhood (Psychology Revivals).
34.
Kozhevnikov M. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin. 133(3):464–81.
35.
Kvaščev R. Sposobnosti za učenje i ličnost, Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
36.
L.P M. Cognitive style inventory, The Pfeiffer Library. 8.
37.
Nelson BJ. An Investigation of the Impact of Learning Style Factors on College Students Retention and Achievement.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
