COQNITIVE STYLE
:
IMPLICATIONS
FOR
LEARNINQ AND INSTRUCTION
161
REFERENCES
ALLPORT,
G.
W.
Personality:
a
psychological
interpretation.
New
York:
Holt,
1937.
BELLER,
E.
K.
Methods of language training and co nitive styles in lower-class children. Paper
mad
at the annual meeting of the American Efucational Research Association, New
York,
February,
1967.
BOLUS
M.
The basis of pertinence: a study of the test performance
of
aments, dements, and normal
chiidren of the same mental age.
Archives
of
Psycholofly,
1937,
30,
(Serial No.
212).
. ..
BROYERMAN,
D.
M.
Cognitive styles and intriindihdualvariabion in abilities.
Joukl
of
Person-
alitu,
1960,
98,
240.256.
BRUNER,
J.,
GOODNOW,
J.,
&
AUSTIN, G.
A
study
of
thinking.
New
York:
Wiley,
1956.
COOP, R. H.,
&
BROWN,
L.
D. The effects of teaching method and cognitive style on categories of
achievement.
Journal
of
Educational Psychology,
in press.
GARDNER R., HQLZMAN,
P..S.,
KLEIN, G., LINTON, H.,
&
SPENCE,
D.
S.
Cognitive control:
a
study
of individual consistencies in cognitive behavior.
Psychological
Issues,
1959,
I,
(Whcle No.
4).
GUILFORD,
J.
P.
Threa
faces of intellect.
The American Psychologist,
1959,
14,
469-479.
KAQAN,
J.,
Moss,
H.
A.,
&
SIQEL,
I.
E.
The psychological significance
of
styles of conceptualization.
In
J.
F.
Wnght and
J.
Kagan (Eds.),
Basic cognitive proceeses in children. Monograph
of
the
Sm’ety
for
Research
in
Child
Deuelopmat,
1963,
98,
73-1 12.
KAQAN,
J.,
Moss, H. A.,
&
SIQEL,
I.
E.
Conceptual style and the u.e
of
affect labels.
Mern’lLPaZmr
Quurterly,
1960,
6,
261-278.
KAQAN,
J.,
ROSMAN,
B., DAY, D.,
ALBERT,
J
&
PHILLIPS,
W. Information rocessing in the child:
significance of analytic and reflective azitudes.
Psychological
Mo~grap%,
1964,
Y8,
(1,
Whole
No.
578).
LEE,
L.
C., KAQAN,
J.,
&
RABSON,
A.
The influence
of
a preference
for
analytic categorization upon
concept acquisition.
Child Deuelqpment,
1963,34,435442.
MCCAIN,
F.
The relation between cognitive style and associative performance in verbal and pictorial
concept formation tasks. Unpubliihed study, Indiana University,
1968.
SCOTT,
N.,
&
SIQEL,
I.
E.
Effects
of
inquiry training in physical science on creativity and cognitive
stylea of elementary school children. bsearch report
for
United States Office
of
Education,
1965.
SIEQEL,
L.,
&
SIEQEL,
L.
C. Educational
set:
a determinant of acquisition.
Journal
of
EdzccotionCrl
SIOEL,
I.
E.,
JARMAN,
P.;
&
HANESIAN, H. Styles of categorization and their intellectual and person-
WERNER,
H.
Comparative psychdoga,
of
mental
development.
New
York:
International University
WITKIN,
H.
A
DYK R. B.,
FATE~SON,
H. D., GOODENOUQE,
D.
R.,
&
&YS,
S.
A.
Psa,chob&aZ
P~ychobw, 1965,
66,
1-12.
ality correlate
in
young children.
Humn
Dwebp&,
1967, f0,1-17.
Press,
1948.
dijerent&h.
dew
York:
Wiley,
1962.
COLLEGE STUDENTS’ VIEWS
OF
THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF AN “IDEAL” PROFESSOR
RONALD
H.
MUELLER’,
PAUL
J.
ROACH,
AND
JOHN
A.
MALONE
University
of
Windaor
The rating
of
college professors by their students has been
a
widely-researched
topic
in
the United States. In Canada, however, very little has been done in this
area. McComas
(1965)
has reported that the most important characteristics
of
the
“effective” teacher included “having
a
sense
of
humor,” “knowledge of subject
matter,” “equitable in manner of grading,” “enthusiasm for teaching,” and “show-
ing
an
interest in students.”
On
the other hand, characteristics
of
the
“poor”
teacher included “insufficient knowledge
of
subject matter,” ‘(poorly organized
classes,”
“showing partiality in grading,” and “not really enjoying teaching.”
Morton
(1965)
has found that in almost every case the more mature students,
*Now at University of New Hampshire.