1. Theoretical background: nature or nurture?
Before the 1970s, individual differences had been synonymous with differences in ability (Willing 1988:35), at least in the field of learning theory. Nevertheless, many psychologists in the 1950s and 1960s became increasingly concerned about the narrowness of abilities measured by standard intelligence (IQ) tests. Emphasis on abstract logical reasoning seemed to restrict intelligence to "convergent thinking" towards pre-determined answers but excluded the type of "divergent thinking" which leads to imaginative or creative innovation. Guildford (1965) introduced a model of the structure of the intellect in which he differentiated between a number of cognitive operations including convergent and divergent thinking (Lovell 1980:104). Divergent thought soon became equated with creativity, but although his (1975) concepts of fluency, flexibility and originality are still widely used, the value of his contributions to the understanding of creative thinking is now thought to be questionable (Ochse 1990:205).
The real value of Guildford’s distinction was realised by Hudson (1968) who suggested that tests of divergent thought were not so much a measure of creativity as a sampling of the individual’s preferred style of thinking (Lovell 1980:105). From a study of sixth form science and arts students, Hudson found that science students, specially those specialising in physics, tended to prefer a convergent style of thinking and saw themselves as basically cold, dull and unimaginative. Similarly, arts students, particularly those specialising in English literature, history and modern languages, were more likely to be divergent thinkers and saw themselves as warm, imaginative and exciting but at the same time lacking in manliness and dependability (Lovell 1980:105).
Hudson’s work was important in that it also showed a connection between style of thinking (or cognitive style) and the learners’ social behaviour and self-image.
Cognitive style and learning strategies - Monografias.com