1887
Volume 63, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Based on the educational implications of field (in)dependence as described by Witkin et al. (1977), a series of hypotheses are formulated concerning the role of FI in L2-learning with different methods. Most existing L2-research, in contrast, has studied FI, usually assessed with the EFT, as an aptitude for learning with any particular teaching method, and has yielded somewhat inconsistent results, with a tendency to mild positive correlations between FI and L2-achievement. It is argued that FI in L2-learning should be viewed in the aptitude-treatment interaction paradigm and a series of suggestions are made concerning the assessment of FI as well as the design and the outcome measures for such interaction research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.63.01dek
1984-01-01
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BERG, M.R. & HARRIS, L.J.
    (1980) : The effect of experimenter location and subject anxiety on cerebral activation as measured by lateral eye movements. Neuropsychologia18, 89–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BIALYSTOK, E. & FROHLICH, M.
    (1978) : Variables of classroom achievement in second language learning. The Modern Language Journal62, 327–336.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BROWN, H.D.
    (1973) : Affective variables in second language acquisition. Language Learning23, 231–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (1977) : Cognitive and affective characteristics of good language learners. In C. Henning (ed.) : Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum. Los Angeles : UCLA, 349–354.
  5. (1980) : Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.) : Prentice-Hall.
  6. CHASTAIN, K.
    (1975) : An examination of the basic assumption of 'individualized' instruction. The Modern Language Journal59, 334–355.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CHICKERING, A.W.
    (1976) : The double bind of field dependence/independence in program alternatives for educational development. In S. Messick , et al. : Individuality in Learning. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 79–89.
  8. CORDER, S.P.
    (1976) : The study of interlanguage. In G. Nickel (ed.) : Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, vol. 2. Stuttgart : Hochschulverlag, 9–34.
  9. CRONBACH, L.J. & SNOW, R.E.
    (1977) : Aptitudes and Instructional Methods. A Handbook for Research on Interactions. New York : Irvington.
  10. DE FAZIO, V.J.
    (1973) : Field articulation differences in language abilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology25, 351–356.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DILLER, K.C.
    (1976) : Criteria for adapting language teaching methods to the learning styles and abilities of students. In G. Nickel (ed.) : Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, vol. 3. Stuttgart : Hochschulverlag, 341–351.
  12. DOYLE, W.
    (1978) : Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education5, 163–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GENESEE, F.
    (1978) : Individual differences in second language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review34, 490–504.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GENESEE, F. & HAMAYAN, E.
    (1980) : Individual differences in second language learning. Applied Pyscholinguistics1, 95–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GOLDSTEIN, K.M. & BLACMAN, S.
    (1978) : Cognitive Style : Five Approaches and Relevant Research. New York : John Wiley.
  16. GRIPPIN, P.C.
    (1973) : Field independence and reflection-impulsitivity as mediators of performance on a programmed learning task with and without strong prompts. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association (University Microfilms73–19, 674).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. GRIPPIN, P.C. & OHNMACHT, F.W.
    (1974) : Field independence and dogmatism as mediators of performance on a programmed learning task with and without strong prompts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (ERIC Reproduction Service ED 095220).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HANSEN, J. & STANSFIELD, C.
    (1981) : The relationship of field-dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning31, 349–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HARTNETT, D.D.
    (1975) : The Relation of Cognitive Style and Hemispheric Preference to Deductive and Inductive Second Language Learning. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of California at Los Angeles.
  20. HAUPTMAN, P.C.
    (1971) : A structural approach versus a situational approach, to foreign-language teaching. Language Learning21, 235–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. HOSENFELD, C.
    (1979) : A learning-teaching view of second language instruction. Foreign Language Annals12, 51–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. KAGAN, D.M.
    (1980) : Syntactic complexity and cognitive style. Applied Psycholinguistics1, 111–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. KAGAN, S. & BURIEL, R.
    (1977) : Field dependence-independence and Mexican-American culture and education. In J.L. Martinez (ed.) : Chicano Psychology. New York, Academic Press.
  24. KRASHEN, S.D.
    (1981) : Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acguisition and learning. In : K.C. Diller (ed.) : Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitutde. Rowley (Mass.) : Newbury House, 155–175.
  25. KRASHEN, S.D. , SELIGER, H. & HARTNETT, D.
    (1974) : Two studies in adult second language learning. Kritikon Litterarum3, 220–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LEFEVER, M.M. & EHRI, L.C.
    (1976) : The relationship between field independence and sentence disambiguation ability. Journal of Psycho Unguis tic Research5, 99–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LINN, M.C. & KYLLONEN, P.
    (1981) : The field-dependence-independence construct : some, one or none. Journal of Educational Psychology73, 261–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. NAIMAN, N. , FROHLICH, M. , STERN, H. & TODESCO, A.
    (1978) : The Good Language Learner. Toronto : Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
  29. NELSON, K.
    (1981) : Individual differences in language development : implications for development and language. Developmental Psychology17, 170–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. PACKER, J. & BAIN, J.D.
    (1978) : Cognitive style and teacher-student compatibility. Journal of Educational Psychology70, 864–871.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. PETERS, A.M.
    (1977) : Language Learning strategies : Does the whole equal the sum of the parts?Language53, 560–573.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. PETERSON, P.L. & SWING, S.R.
    (in press) : Beyond time on task : students' reports of their thought processes during direct instruction. The Elementary School Journal.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. POOLE, M.E.
    (1978) : Exploration of relationship between linguistic, cognitive and verbal processing. Psychological Reports43, 639–647.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. ROSENSHINE, B. & FURST, N.F.
    (1973) : The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R.M.W. Travers (ed.) : Second Hanbook for Research on Teaching. Chicago : Rand McNally, 122–183.
  35. SMITH, P.D.
    (1970) : A comparison of the Cognitive and Audiolingual Approaches to Foreign Language Instruction. The Pennsylvania Foreign Language Project. Philadelphia : Center for Curriculum Development.
  36. TRIM, J.L.M. , RICHTERICH, R. , VAN EK, J.A. & WILKINS, D.A.
    (1980) : Systems development in adult language language learning : a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults. Strasbourg : Council of Europe.
  37. TUCKER, W. , HAMAYAN, E. & GENESEE, F.
    (1976) : Affective, cognitive and social factors in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review23, 214–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. VALETTE, R.
    (1969) : The Pennsylvania project, its conclusions and its implications. The Modern Language Journal53, 396–404.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. VAN EK, J.A.
    (1975) : The threshold level in a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
  40. VAN ELS, T. , EXTRA, G. , VAN OS, C. & BONGAERTS, T.
    (1977) : Handboek voor de Toegepaste Taalkunde. Groningen : Wolters-Noordhoff.
  41. WAPNER, S.
    (1976) : Process and context in the conception of cognitive style. In S. Messick , et al.(eds) : Individuality in Learning. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 73–78.
  42. WELLS, W.
    (1978) : Aptitude à l'apprentissage d'une langue second et style cognitif. Paper presented at the Fifth International Congress of Applied Linguistics (Abstract in LLBA 12, n° 13, AILA Suppl. n° 2, p. 108a).
    [Google Scholar]
  43. WESCHE, M.B.
    (1981) : Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods and diagnosis of learning problems. In K.C. Diller (ed.) : Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley (Mass.) : Newbury House, 119–154.
  44. WITKIN, H.A.
    (1976) : Cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. In S. Messick , et al.(eds) : Individuality in Learning. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 38–72.
  45. WITKIN, H.A. , DYK, R.B. , FATERSON, H.F. , GOODENOUGH, D.R. & KARP, S.A.
    (1962) : Psychological Differentiation : Studies of Development. New York : John Wiley.
  46. WITKIN, H.A. & GOODENOUGH, D.R.
    (1981) : Cognitive Styles : Essence and Origins. Field Dependence and Field Independence. New York : International Universities Press.
  47. WITKIN, H.A. , GOODENOUGH, D.R. & OLTMAN, P.K.
    (1979) : Psychological differentiation : current status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37, 1127–1145.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. WITKIN, H.A. , MOORE, C.A. , GOODENOUGH, D.R. & COX, P.W.
    (1977) : Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research47, 1–64.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.63.01dek
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error