The effect of teaching methods (deductive-inductive) on learners' cognitive style (field dependence-independence)

isitl¥€ Stfiia {F i^ id Depedee^Ci

r t d e p a ^ d e n c e ^

Siii& m Stt^ d T b T fia F s c y f i t j O i L e t t c r s

£ lie iristityte Q i ¿£Coii©^ics ^ n d S o c ia l Scie n ce s

O f Bi^feo3ii^ OiiBivaiPSEty

|gi Psrt.^a:

O f Ttia ^^©oiirerriersts

iii Li i i;v3

Oegraa O f

■'Tfie T©aichlrift^

“ vS>

Ish

r®I

ON LEARNERS' C O G N I T I V E STYLE (FIELD D EP E N D E N C E -INDEPENDENCE )

A THESIS

S U B M I TT E D TO THE F A CULTY OF LETTERS

AND THE INSTITUTE OF ECON O M I C S AND SOCIAL SC I E N C E S OF BILKENT U N I V E R SI TY

IN P A R T I A L F U L F IL L M E N T OF THE R E Q I R E ME NT S FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

IN THE T E A C H I N G OF E N G L I S H AS A F O R E I G N L AN GU A G E

BY

DILEK B E H C E T O G U L L A R I AUGUST 1992

i

06

i

BILKENT U N I VE R SI TY

INSTITUTE OF E CONOMICS AND SOCI A L S CI EN CE S MA THESIS EX A M I N A T I O N RESULT FROM

AU G U S T 31, 1992

The examining committee a ppointed by the

Institute of E conomics and Social S ci en ce s for the thesis examination of the MA TEFL s tu d e n t

Dilek BEHCETOGULLARI

has read the thesis of the student. The committee has decided that the thesis

of the student is s a t i s f a c t o r y

-Thesis title The Effect of Teaching

Methods (D ed uc ti v e- In d uc ti v e) on L e a r n e r s 'C og ni ti v e Style

(Field D e p e n d e n c e - Independen c e )

Thesis A d visor Dr. James C. Sta l k e r

Bilkent University, MA TEFL P r o g r am

C o mm i t t e e M e mbers Dr. Lionel Kaufman

Bilkent University, MA TEFL Pro g r a m Dr. Eileen Walter

We certify that we have read this thesis and that in our combined opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of M a ster of Arts.

James C- Stalker (A d v i s o r ) Lionel K'aufman (Committee Member) E i 1een W a 1 ter (Committee Member)

Approved for the

Institute of E c on o m i c s And Social Scien c e s

Ali K a r a o s m a n o g 1u Director

C H A P T E R LI S T OF TABLES. 1.0 I N T R O D U C T I O N - - . PAGE viii 1

1-1 B a c k g r o u n d and Goals of the S t u d y ... 1

1.1.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ... 1 1-2 S t a t e me n t of R es ea rc h Q u e s t i o n ... 3 i-2.1 D e f i n i t i o n s ... 3 1.2.2 Stat e m e n t of E x p e c t a t i o n s ... 5 1-3 H y p o t h e s e s ... 6 1-3-1 Hyp o t h e s i s 1 ... 6 1-3-2 H y p o t h e s i s 2 ... 6 1-3.3 V a r i a b l e s ... 7 1-4 O v e r v ie w of M e t h o d o l o g y ... 7 1- 4.1 Sub j ec t s ... 7 1.4.2 P r o c e d u r e s ... 9 1-5 O v e r v ie w of Analytical P r o c e d u r e s ... 10 1- 6 Plan of O r g a n i z a t i o n ... 10 2.0 R E V IE W OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ... 11 2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ... 11 2.2 C o n c eptual B a c k g r o u n d ... 11 2 - 2.1 Trends in T E F L ... 12 2 - 3 Theor e t i c a l A s s u m p t i o n s ... 13

2.3.1 Description of L e arning Style and Co g n i t i v e S t y l e ... 14

2.3.2 The C o gn i t i v e Style of Field D e p e n d e n c e - I n d e p e n d e n c e ... 17

2.4 The Impact of P e r s o nality on L a n g u ag e

L e a r n i n g ... 20

2.4.1 The Effect of Field D e p e n d e n t -Independent C og ni t i v e Style on L a nguage L e a r n i n g ... 20

2.4.2 The Effect of FDI C o g ni t iv e Style on Cloze Test P e r f o r m a n c e ... 25

2.4.3 C o n f l icting Res e a r c h F i n d i n g s ... 26

2-5 The Learn i n g S ty l e s of Field D ep en de n t and Independent L e a r n e r s ... 28 2.5.1 Educational Implications of S t u d i e s ... 33 2 - 6 C o n c l u s i o n ... 35 3 . 0 M E T H O D O L O G Y ... 36 3 - 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ... 36 3-2 S u b j e c t s ... 37 3-3 M a t e r i a l s ... 38 3.3.1 T es t s ... 39

3.3.1.1 Group Embedded F i gures Test.. 39

3.3.1.2 Pre- and P o s t - T e s t s ... 41

3.3.2 Teaching M a t e r i a l s ... 42

3-4 T r e a t me n t and Data C o l l e c ti on Procedures-- 44

3.4.1 T r e a t m e n t ... 44 3.4.2 T e s t i n g ... 46 3-5 V a r i a b l e s ... 46 3-6 Analytical P r o c e d u r e s ... 47 4-0 D ATA A N A L Y S I S ... 49 4-1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ... 49 4 - 2 Data A n a ly si s P r o c e d u r e ... 50

4 - 3 P r e s e n t a ti on of D a t a ... 51

4.3.1 R e l a t i o ns hi p Between Teaching method and C o g n i t iv e S t y l e ... 51 4.3.2 R e l a t i on sh i p Between C o gn i ti ve Style and P e r fo rm an c e on D if fe r e n t Test T y p e s ... 53 4.3.3 Com p a r i s o n of the FI S t u de n ts P e r f o r m an c e Across the G r o u p s ... 57 4.3.4 C o m p a r i s o n of Overall P e r f o rm a nc e By C o g n it i v e S t y l e . . ... 59 4,4 F a r t h e r A n a l y s i s - , - ... 60 4.4.1 Compa r i s o n by G r o u p s ... 60 4.4.2 Com p a r i s o n by C o g n i ti ve S t y l e ... 62 4.4.3 Compa r i s o n by T e s t s ... 64 4,5 R e s ul t s and S u m m a r y ... 66 5.0 C O N C L U S I O N ... 68 5-1 S u mmary of the S t u d y ... 68^^ 5.1.1 C o n c l u s i o n s ... 69 5 - 2 A s s e s s m e n t of the S t u d y ... 71 5.3 Pedag o g i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s ... 73 5-4 I m p l i c a t i o n s for F ur th er R e s e a r c h ... 74 B I B L I O G R A P H Y ... 76 AP P E N D I C I E S ... 82 APPENDIX A. GEFT T e s t ... 82

LISI OF TABLES

page

TABLE 4-1 Overall Nean Scores and Standard

Deviations of Groups by Cognitive Style

and Methods of Teaching ... 52 TABLE 4.2 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of the

Deductive Group on Multiple Choice and

Cloze Tests ... 54 TABLE 4.3 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of the

Inductive Group on Multiple Choice and Cloze

Tests ... 55

TABLE 4.4 Results of Two-Way ANOVA for

Deductive/Inductive and FI/FD on Multiple

Choice Test ... 56 TABLE 4-5 Results of Two-Way ANOVA for

Deductive/Induetive and FI/FD on Cloze

Test... 56

TABLE 4-6 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of FI Students on Multiple Choice and Cloze

Tests... 58

TABLE 4.7 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of FD Students on Multiple Choice and Cloze

Tests... 59

TABLE 4-8 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of All Field-Independent and Field-Dependent

Students... 59

TABLE 4-9 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Multiple Choice Test Results According to Deductive and

Inductive Groups... 60 TABLE 4-10 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Cloze

Test Results According to Deductive and

Inductive Groups ... 62 TABLE 4.11 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of

Multiple Choice Test Results According to

TABLE 4.12 (lean S cores and Standard Deviations of Cloze- Test Results According to Field-Independence

and Dependence ... 63 TABLE 4-13 (lean Scores and Standard Deviations of FI

Students on Multiple Choice and Cloze

Test... 64

TABLE 4-14 Ilean Scores and Standard Deviations of FD Students on Multiple Choice and Cloze

I would like to express my d e e p e s t gratitude, to my thesis advisor Dr. James Stalker, whose invaluable efforts and gu i d a n c e made this thesis possible.

I would also like to extend my g r a ti t ud e to Dr. Lionel Kaufman and Dr. Eileen Wa l t e r for their comments and guida n c e in statistical an a l y s i s t h r oughout this s t u d y .

I owe special thanks to Dr. Cem Alptekin who provided me with the GEFT test.

I am also grateful to the collea g u e s at the BUSEL testing unit for their a ss is ta n ce during the preparation of the tests and for their k indness and cooperation

throughout my study.

My thanks are also due to my class m a t e s in the MA TEFL program for their comme n t s and helpful suggestions.

Finally, I wish to thank my s i sters for supporting me with their u n d e r s ta nd i ng and patience during the writing of this thesis.

rhi0 purpose of this study was to i n v estigate the r e l a t i on s h i p between a learner s cognitive style (field d e p en d e n c e - i n d e p e n d e n c e ) and the teaching method (d e d u c t i v e — i n d u e t i v e ) used. The h ypothesis was that subje c t s identified as field independent would score signifi c a n t l y higher than those identified as field de p e n d e n t on tests after having de d u c t i v e lessons and subjects identified as field d e p e n d e n t would score s i gnificantly higher than those who were field i n d ependent on tests after having inductive lessons- It was further hypothesized that there would be s i g ni f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between field depe n d e n t and field i ndependent p a rticipants in their scores on two d i ff e r e n t types of tests, m ul ti pl e - c h o i c e and cloze tests, after having de d u c t i v e or inductive teaching.

A number of studies, which examined the r e l a t i o ns h i p between cognitive style and second language test performance, revealed that a field i n d e p endent cognitive style is significantly related to a higher level of ac h i e v e m e n t on d i f f erent types of tests. In almost all studies a s ig n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h ip was found between field i n dependence and s u ccess on m u l t i p le - c ho ic e tests. In addition, many s t udies found a r e l a t ionship between field i n de p en d e n ce and cloze tests, However, a l though many studies found the same relati o n s h i p between field i n d ep e n d en c e and cloze tests, in a few studies, no s ig n i fi c a n t relati o n s h i p was found between field

this study aimed to explore the influence of field d e p e n d e n t - i n d e p e n d e n t cognitive styles on second language test performance, especially as it relates to p e r f o r m a n c e on a d i sc re t e- po i nt type of measure, a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e test, and an in t e g r a t i v e type of measure, the cloze test. Thus, in an att e m p t to a d dress the issue of possible c ognitive style bias in second language learning, this study compares the a c hi e ve m e n t patterns of students on two measures; a m u lt i p l e choice test and a cloze test.

Because many studies support the a d v a n ta ge of f i e l d - i n d e p e nd e n c e on second language test performance, this study also aimed to in v e s t i g a t e w h e t h e r a particular teaching method best suits a stud e n t with a particular cognitive style.

The data in this study indicate several controversial findings. The most important finding is that the h ypothesis that c ognitive style is an i m p ortant factor in second language learning was not v a l i dated when the sample was taken as a whole or when it was analyzed within the groups. However, when the data were analyzed within or across the groups, by taking the type of the tests into account, a c ognitive style bias for field indepe n d e n c e was found in the m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e test, but not in the cloze test and no cogn i t i v e style bias for field d e p e n d en ce was found in either

test-claims that field in d e p e n d e n t learners would achieve higher test scores in g r ammar lessons taught deductively, and field d ep e n d e n t learners would a c hi e v e higher test scores in lessons taught inductively, was rejected, since the findings did not indicate any interaction between the meth o d s and the cogn i t i v e style: That is, as hypothesized, field in d e p e n d e n t learners in the d ed uc ti v e group performed better than field d e p en de nt learners on both tests, but field de p e n d e n t learners in the i n d u ctive group did not perform better than the field inde p e n d e n t learners in the same group- Instead, field inde p e n d e n t learners performed better in this g r oup as well. The findings v al id a t e the null h yp o t h e s i s that claims that there is no r el at io n sh ip between the learners' cognitive style and the teaching methods. Furthermore, the study c onfirms the findings of res e a r c h that field i nd ep e n d e n t learners are better language learners.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. B A C K G R O U N D AND G O A L S OF THE STUDY 1.1.1 Introduction

The fact that eome learners are more successful at acquiring a second language than others has led to i n ve s t i g a t i o n s of individual c ha ra ct e ri st i cs as predictors of successful L2 acquisition; thus, learners have become the main interest of second language researchers- As Moody (1972) states, a number of studies done in this field show that personality is important in second language acquisition because personality traits, in particular, cognitive style, make a d i ff e re nc e in how people learn- The studies reveal that learners who have p a r t icular personality traits are more successful than others. The co g n i t i v e style of field i n d e p endence is one of those traits which research indicates favours language learners, and its counterpart, field dependence, d i s fa v ou rs

learners-A1t h o u g h a number of r e search studies have investigated the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the learner's cognitive style and the degree of a ch ie v e m e n t in learning a second language, very little research exists which i n v e s tigates w h e t h e r particular methodol o g i c a l a p p r o a c h e s would be more a d v a n t ag eo us for particular cognitive styles. The major goal of

not students with diff e r e n t c ognitive styles respond d i f f e rently to di f f e r e n t types of teaching- In particular, the purpose of the study is to d et er m i n e w h ether a particular teaching method or strategy best answers the needs of each cognitive style (field d ep e n de n c e - i n d e p e n d e n c e ) , and i ncreases the possibility of success for learners with that c ognitive style.

Abraham (1985) studied the r e l a t i on sh ip between the cognitive style of field d e p e n d e n c e - i n d e p e n d e n c e and teaching methods- She investigated w h e t h e r less r u 1e-oriented language teaching might be beneficial for field d ependent learners and r u 1e -o r i e n t e d language teaching might be beneficial for field i n d e p endent learners- The result of the e x p er i me nt indicated a positive answer to the q u estion and thereby suggested that language i nstruction could be i n d i vidualized so as to a c c o m mo da t e stu d e n t s with d if f e r e n t tendencies along the c ontinuum of cogn i t i v e style known as field d e p e n d e n c e i n d e p e n d e n c e -However, A b raham's study was conducted in an ESL e n v i r o n m e n t

-The study reported here was carried out in an EFL envi r o n m e n t rather than an ESL one in order to test A braham's h ypothesis in a d i f f e r en t environment- Confi r m a t i o n of A br ah a m ' s co n c l u s i o n s would support individualized instruction- In any

d i f f e r e n ce s in learning a grammatical item in a second language and points out the complexity of the e n tire process, a process which still calls for careful, cumulative research which e xp lo r e s the r el a t i o n s h i p between discovery and transfer of learning in second language acquisition. This study also e m p h a s i z e s the importance of psychology, c ognitive sciences and language pedagogy in language

learning and suggests further research in this field.

1.2 S T A TE M E N T OF R E SE AR CH Q UE ST IO N

The purpose of this study was to d e t er m in e w h ether field i n dependent stu d e n t s a ch i e v e higher scores on tests when taught gram m a r lessons with a d ed u c t i v e approach and field d e p e n de nt s t udents a c hieve higher scores when taught with an i nductive approach- This study also aimed to in v e s t i g a t e whe t h e r diff e r e n t c o g nitive styles respond differ e n t l y to v a rious test types.

1-2.1 D e f i n i t i on s

C o g ni t i v e Style: C og n i t i v e style refers to individual d i f f e r e n c e s in perceiving, thinking and processing information (Keefe, 1979; Hansen & Stansfield, 1 9 G 1 ) .

G o o d en o u g h and Cox (1977) note:

L e a r n e r s d i ffer in the str a t e g i e s they use to stru c t u r e and g e n e r a li ze information as concepts- The cognitive style "field d e p e n d e n c e - i n de p en de nc e " has been related e mpirically to these differences- A field- i n d ependent (FI) person a pp r o a c h e s problem solving s i t u a t i o n s analytically, while a f i e l d - d e pe n d e nt (F D ) person a pp ro a c h e s them in a more global way- That is, a FI person is able to detect patterns and subpatterns, w hile a FD person is capable of perceiving

the total picture in a s i t u a t i o n

-Field i n d e p e n d en ce (FI): Field i nd ep e n d e n c e refers to the c o g nitive style which enables the person bo perceive individual items that may be relatively di f f i c u l t to d i s t i ng ui s h from their visual background- This ability is thought to be a s s ociated with a more analytical (left-brained) c o g n itive style

(Naiman et a l ., 1978).

Field d e p en d e n ce (FD): Field d e p e n d en ce refers to the c o g n i t i v e .style w hich enab l e s the person to per c e i v e all parts of the o r g a nized field as a total e x pe r i e nc e (Naiman et al-, 1978)- This ability is thought to be a s s ociated with a holistic c o gnitive sty 1e

-D e d u c ti v e Approach: In this study the d e d uc t iv e a p p r o a c h refers to a teaching method in which a n a l y t i c type a c t i v i t i e s are used- It refers to r u l e - o r i en t e d language teaching in which the rules, patterns, str u c t u r e s of the language are given to the s t u d e n t s explicitly- In this e n v i r o nm en t s t udents

those rules to language use. E xa m p l e s are given after s t u d e n t s learn the rules in d e d uc t iv e teaching

(Abraham, 1985).

Inductive Approach: In this study the inductive a pp ro a c h refers to a teaching method or style in which c o m m u n ic a t i ve act i v i t i e s are used. In inductive teaching the rules about the language are not given explicitly. The lesson is taught through exa m p l e s and stude n t s formulate the rules about the language by themselves. In other words, students are given plenty of exa m p l e s of how language is used to c o m m u n i c a t e from which they can g e n e r al iz e the rules

(Abraham, 1985).

1-2-2 S t a te m e n t Of E xp ec t a t i o n

This study expected to find that there is a r e la t i o n sh i p between the learner's c ognitive style (field d e p e n de n c e -i nd ep en d en ce ) and the teaching a p p r o a c h or style ( de du c t i v e - i n d u c t i v e teaching). Therefore, the study investigated w h ether or not indu c t i v e teaching is an a pp r o p r i a t e app r o a c h to be emp l o y e d for field d ep en d e n t learners, and d ed uc ti v e teaching is an a p p r o pr ia t e a pproach to be e mployed for field i n d ependent learners. Since many stud i e s implied that field independent learners have an a d va n ta g e over field de p e n d e n t learners in learning a second language, it was hypothesized that less

rule-beneficial for field d e pendent learners, and they would a c h i e v e a higher rate of success in learning a second language when an a lt e r n a t i v e a p proach of teaching is provided.

1.3 H Y P O T H E S E S 1-3-1 H y p ot h s i s 1

Null Hypothesis: There is no rel a t i o n s h i p between learners' cognitive style of field d e p e n d e n d e n c e - i n d e p e n d e n c e and p e r formance in a gra m m a r test after being taught with either an inductive or d e d u c t i v e approach in an EFL enV i ronmen t .

Experi m e n t a l Hypothesis: Field independent learners will d e m on s t r a t e s i gnificantly superior test p e rf o r m a n c e after using a d ed u c t i v e approach to learning a grammar point, while field de p e n d e n t learners will d e m o n s t ra te s i gnificantly superior test p e rf o r m a n c e after using an inductive approach.

1-3-2 H y p ot h s i s 2

Null Hypothesis: There is no rela t i o n s h i p between the 1e a r n e r s 'cognitive style of field d e p e n d e n c e - i n d e p e n d e n c e and their performance on two d i f fe r e n t tests of grammar, a m u l t i p l e -c h oi ce and a cloze

test-students in the de d u c t i v e group will perform better than the field depe n d e n t students on the multiple- choice test, and the field d e p e n d e n t students in the indu c t i v e group will perform better than field in d e p e n d e n t students on the cloze test (See section 2-4.2 and 2.4.3).

1.3.3 V a r i a b le s

The v ariables in this study are:

D e p en d e n t Variable: P er fo r m a n c e on two post

t r e a tment grammar tests, one cloze, one m ultiple c h o i c e .

Independent Variables: a) C o g n i t iv e style, i.e., field independence versus field dependence; b) Teaching method, i.e., de d u c t i v e versus inductive a p p r o a c h .

1.4 O V E R V I E W OF M E T H O D O L O G Y 1-4-1 Subjects:

Forty subjects between the ages of 18 and 21 p a r t i cipated in the study- The subjects were Turk i s h students in the i n t e r mediate level of the

Intensive English Pro g r a m at Bilkent University School Of English Lan g u a g e ( B U S E D in Ankara, Turkey. The selection of subjects consisted of three steps- Firstly, the Pr o g r e s s Test at BUSEL was used to d e t e r m i n e the proficiency level of the

students. Students who were placed at the LI level (lower intermediate) as a result of the given P r ogress Test were selected. Secondly, a pre-test, containing q u e stions about two gram m a r items that were later taught, was admi n i s t e r e d to all LI level interm e d i a t e students. By applying the interval scale, the students were categorized on the basis of the scores in the pre-test and the stude n t s who got low scores on the pre-test were selected. Thirdly, the students' degree of field d e p e n de n ce -indepe n d e n c e was measured by the G ro u p E mb ed d e d Figu r e s Test (GEFT), developed by Qltman, Raskin and Witkin (1971). The GEFT is a group a d m i n i st e re d test that requires the subjects to o u t l i ne a simple geom e t r i c shape within a complex design. The GE F T contains 18 complex desi g n s in whi c h simple geom e t r i c figures are embedded and sub j e c t s are asked to perceive and o u t l i n e these sim p l e figures within the larger complex d e s i g ns in a given period of time. The more simple figures subjects locate w i thout becoming distracted by the larger complex figures, the more they are supposed to be FI (Alptekin & Atakan, 1990). S c ores on the GEFT range from 0 (highly FD) to 18 (highly FI). The s ub je c t s who had a score of 11 or above, in this study, were regarded as FI and the ones who had a score below 11 were regarded as FD. The cut off of 11 was chosen on the basis of an earlier study by Ab r a h a m (1981)

i n d e p endent and the high field d ep en d e n t subje c t s were selected and those who were in the middle were eliminated- Thus, the final 40 sub j e c t s who p a r t icipated throughout the study were deter m i n e d by their pe r f o r m a n c e on the pre-test and their c ognitive style of field d e p en d e n c e - i n d e p e n d e n c e . That is, 20 FD (10 male, 10 female) and 20 FI (10 male, 10 female) subjects, having similar proficiency levels were

s e 1e c t e d .

1.4.2 P r o c e d u r e s

The subjects were divided into two gro u p s each having an equal number of subje c t s (507.) who were FD and FI- The researcher taught each of the classes for eight hours after the students' regular classes in B U S E L . However, different teaching met h o d s were employed in each group- The subje c t s in group A were taught two specified grammar items through the traditional d e d u c t i v e a p proach in w hich the rules and e x p l a n at i o n s were given explicitly, and the s ub j e c t s in group B were taught the same gram m a r items through an i n d u ctive approach in which lots of e xa mp l e s but no rules were given- A post-test c ontaining the same q u e s ti o n s given in the pre-test was given to the s ubjects in both groups at the end of the eight hour course- A cloze test and a m ul t i p l e - c h o i c e test were used in the pre-and p ost-tests to test the grammar items

-1.5 O V E RV I E W OF A N A L Y T I C A L P RO CE D U R E S

A factorial r e search design was used to measure the d i f fe r e n c e s between mean scores- T-test and AMOVA statistical proce d u r e s were used to anal y z e the data. A t-test was used to compare the mean scores of groups and s ubgroups gained from the post-tests. The mean scores were also compared in an ANOVA design to see if there was an interaction between the two inde p e n d e n t variables: field d e pe nd e nc e versus ind e p e n d e n c e and

t h e ■induetive versus d ed uc ti v e

approach-1.6 PLAN OF O R G AN I Z A T I O N

C h a p t e r 1 introduces the study, presents the research statement, variables, hypothesis, and defines the

concepts-Ch a p t e r 2 reviews the studies on the role of cognitive style in learning a second language.

C h a p t e r 3 d e s c r i b e s how the data were collected and the i nstruments used in the study.

C h a p t e r 4 presents and a n alyzes the

data-C h a p t e r 5 offers a summary of the study, conclu s i o n s and discus s i o n of general implications.

R E V I E W OF THE L I T E R A T U R E

2-1 INTRDD U C T I O N

This chapter provides the conceptual background for this study through a review of the professional literature focusing on the ideas and early research on the effect of personality and c o g n itive style on second language learning. Field d ep en de n ce

-inde p e n d e n c e c o g nitive styles which are the main concern of this study will be d e s c ribed in this c h a p t e r .

2.2 C O N C E P T U A L B A C K G R O U N D

During the past few decades a major shift has occurred in the view of language taken by linguists,

psychologists, a n t h r o p o 1ogists and philosophers, giving impetus to a c o r r e sponding change of focus in foreign language teaching. The early seve n t i e s brought new demands for experimental support for language learning theories; and as a c on s e q u e n c e language acqu i s i t i o n research today is empiri c a l l y oriented. Theo r i s t s and resea r c h e r s are actively i n v e s t igating issues from the order of acqu i s i t i o n of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s to the efficacy of error correction. They are trying to track the effect of var i o u s teacher behaviours, d i f f e re nt learner styles, c l a ssroom o r g a n i z a t i o n , and af f e c t i v e

factors on s t udent success- L i n g uists and language teachers are searching for new ways to teach

language. Sociologists, anthropologists,

p h il o so p h e r s and p s y c h ologists are r e -examining the natu r e of language and its r el a t i o n s h i p to human thought and social interaction. C o g n i t i v e p s yc h o l o g i s t s are studying the w orkings of the human brain and p s y c h o l i ng ui s ts are investigating how

language is processed in the brain, and the r e la t io n s h i p of language to general cognitive functioning (Losiewicz, 1988). In relation to these studies, new ways can be discovered to teach

language to the second language learners.

2-2-1 T r ends in TEFL

The explosion of teaching m e t h o do l og ie s in the late 1970s and early 1980s increased o p tions in the selection of TEFL methods and materials- Since then there has been a steadily growing interest in considering the task from the learner's point of view and in changing the focus of classrooms from a teacher- c e n t r e d one to a learner-centred one. Therefore, since the 1970s, research concerns in the field of second language learning have shifted from the m e thods of teaching to learner c ha ra ct e r i s t i c s and their possible influence on the process of acquiring a second language (Rubin & W e n d e n , 1987).

attention has been focused on the individual learner as a central el e m e n t in the complex process of learning another language. Given this concern resea r c h e r s have attempted to identify particular learner traits and cognitive processes which enhance or hinder progress in learning another language

(Hansen & Stansfield, 1981).

2 - 3 TH E O R E T I C A L A S S U M P T I O N S

While most people acquire a basic competence in their first language, second language learners display great variability in the level of

proficiency they attain in the new language (Hansen & Stansfield, 1985). It has been observed that some students a pproach the language learning task in more successful ways than others. That is, all other things being equal, some students will be more successful than others in learning a second or foreign language. The learning strategy literature assumes that some of this success can be attributed to partic u l a r sets of cognitive and m et a c o g n i t i v e b e h aviours which learners engage in. It is also assumed that successful learners will differ to some extent in the particular sets of cognitive processes and b e h aviours which they use to enable them to be successful. For example, given the same learning environment, the same target language, the same

native language, and the same language level, some learners tAiill be more analytic in their appro a c h to the learning task while others will be more intuitive; some learners will prefer to use written mate r i a l s to access a foreign language whi l e others will prefer to hear the language. It is assumed that there will be several paths to success depending on the i n dividual's learning style (Rubin &c Wenden, 1987). However, as A b raham and Vann (1987) state, no single strategy, c ognitive style, or learner cha r a c t e r i s t i c seems s uf fi c i e n t to explain success in language learning.

2-3.1 D e s c r iption of L earning S t y l e and C o g n i t i v e Style

The term learning style indicates preferred or habitual patterns of mental functioning and dealing with new information (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990). According to Fischer and F i scher (1979) learning style refers to a p e rvasive quality in the learning strate g i e s or the learning behaviour of an individual. Keefe (1979) desc r i b e s learning style as "cognitive, affective, and physiological traits that are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment" (p. 4). Most of the research to date has enabled the educational theorists and r e searchers to identify the learner's

ch a r a c t e r i s t i C 5 that account for some of the d i f f e r e n c e s in how stude n t s learn- At least twenty di f f e r e n t d i m e n s i o n s of learning style have been identified, including visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile.

Educational theorists and r es e a r c h e r s have also investigated the concept of c o g n i t iv e s ty l e and identified as many as twenty d if fe r e n t c og ni t i v e styles. The concept cognitive style is one of three major categories of student learning styles- The other two categories of student learning styles are: affective and physiological styles (Hunt, 1979)- Keefe (1979) d e s c r i b e s c ognitive styles as "information processing habits r ep re s e n t i n g the learner's typical mode of perceiving, thinking, problem solving and remembering" (p. 3). Acco r d i n g to Hansen and Stansfield (1981) cogn i t i v e style is a psychological term used to d es cr ib e individual d i ff e r e n c e s in the way one habitually tends to perceive, organize, analyze, or recall i nformation and experience. Reid (1987) def i n e s c og n i t i v e style as "how the mind actually functions, how it p rocesses information or is a f fected by each i n d i v i d u a l ' s perception" (p- 88). Ac c o r d i n g to Alptekin and Atakan (1990) c o g nitive styles are the "specific and relatively stable ways" in which learners perceive and ap p r o a c h mental tasks- That

is they refer to an "individual's preferred perceptual and intellectual mode" (p. 135).

V a rious groups of researchers have worked with pieces of this complex cognitive profile; each group has its own taxonomy and terminology. For example, Witkin (1976), Witkin, Moore, G oo de n o u g h and Cox (1977), and Witkin, Moore, Oltman, Goodenough, Friedman, Owen and Raskin (1977) have written widely about field independent (analytic) versus field dependerit (global) approaches to exper i e n c i n g the e n vi r o n m e n t and processing information. Kagan and Messer (1975) have discussed conceptual tempo: reflectivity (slower, more calculated guesses) versus impulsivity (quick, risk-taking guesses) in the responses of learners. Hill (1971) has i n vestigated cognitive style mapping, an inventory process that references preferred types of media, instructional strategies, and structure of the environment. Messick et al. (1976) have listed more than twenty dimens i o n s of cognitive style, including those of Witkin and Kagan and sensory (perceptual) modality p r e f e r e n c e s .

Each cognitive style represents a continuum of style in information processing, and each person has a place some w h e r e on that continuum- One such cont i n u u m is the cognitive style dimension of field d ep e n de n c e and i n d e pe nd e nc e— the focus of this

study

-2 - 3 . -2 The C o g n i t i v e S t y l e Of Field D e p e n d e n c e - I n d e pendence

The concept of learning styles come from at least three traditions: 1) the study of perception and Ges t a l t psychology; 2) ego psychology; and 3)

the theories of Carl Jung. The experimental study of perception and the G e stalt tradition are the o r i g i n s of the field d e p en d e n ce -i n d e p e n d e n c e cognitive style (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990). The field d e p e n de nc e - inde p e n d e n c e (FDI) cognitive style, which is one of the most widely researched learning style dimensions, has been described and r esearched e x t ensively by Ulitkin. Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, and Cox (1977) define it as "the extent to whi c h a person perceives part of a field as d i s c r e t e from the surrounding field as a whole, rather than embedded, o r ,..the extent to which a person p e r c eives analytically" (p. 7). A n other def i n i t i o n of Witkin et al. (1977) states that "the FDI dime n s i o n of cognitive style r e p r esents the "extent to whi c h an individual relies primarily on the self or is influenced by the world outside" (p. 48).

These contrasting tendencies are believed to affect both cognitive and social b e h a viours and abilities. FI is associated with grea t e r art i c u l a t i o n and compe t e n c e in c ognitive ana l y s i s

and res true tur ing and FD with a more global a p p r o a c h and greater social and i n t e r p e r s o n a 1 c o mp e t e n c e (Carter, 1988).

The research literature related to FDI shows that the cognitive restruc t u r i n g abil i t i e s associ a t e d with FI extend into the verbal domain, at least with regard to the native language- FI people are better able to select from a complex field those cues relevant to a particular problem; in contrast, FD learners may have difficulty focusing on the r elevant cues (Dickstein, 1968; Witkin & Goodenough, 1977). Witkin and Goo d e n o u g h propose that FD persons develop an interpersona 1 o r i e n tation which not only allows them to focus on other people for information and s tructure but also leads to c o mp e t e n c e in underst a n d i n g and dealing with others. They offer a review of the research evidence, concluding that field d e p e n d e n t people are strongly interested in others, sens i t i v e to social cues, apt to display emotional openness, seen as outgoing by other people, and may possess social skills that are

less evid e n t in field independent individuals.

Witkin et al. (1979) states that field independents, on the other hand, are believed to have d eveloped more d e f i n i t e boundaries between the outer world and the inner core of attributes, needs, and feelings often described as the self- There is a greater autonomy from external sources of

information, especially from such a common source as other people, when performing intellectual tasks or participating in social situations. In theory this s e l f - r e l ia n c e leads to a more impersonal o ri e n t a t i o n among field independent people. Acco r d i n g to Naiman et a l . (1978) FI persons are able to perceive individual items that may be relatively d i f f i cu lt to d is t i n g u i s h from their visual background. This ability is thought to be assoc i a t e d with a more analytical (left-brained) cognitive style. FD persons, on the other hand, perceive all parts of the organized field as a total experience.

Harnett (1980) d es c r i b e s FI learners as verbal, analytic, serialist, and s e q u e n t i a 1- su cc es s iv e and FD learners as imaginal, relational, holistic, and simult a n e o u s synthetic. Harnett refers to the cognitive modes of the FI as a na ly ti c and the FD as holistic. Alptekin and Ataka n ' s (1990) d e f i n i t i o n is as foilows

Field independence (FI), on the whole, has been classified as an a na ly ti c c ognitive style and it refers to one's tendency to perceive specific items in an e m bedding context. Field d e p e n d en ce (F D ), on the other hand, has been classified as a hol i s t i c style and it c ha ra ct e r i z e s the tendency to perceive all parts of a given context as a global e xp er ie n ce such that the parts embedded within the context are not easily differentiated. In other words, in their ext r e m e forms, one will not be able to "see the forest for the trees" in the case of FI, yet one will only see the forest in the case of FD-

2-4 THE IMPACT OF P E R S O N A L I T Y ON L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G Since personality traits make a d if fe r e n c e in how people learn and what they learn, it is assumed that they have an impact on language learning. The effect of personality on language learning has been studied a number of times and some rel a t i o n s h i p s between the personality and language learning have been explored (Moody, 1988). The studies showed that learners who have p a r ticular personality traits are more likely to succeed in second language learning. For example, Rossier (ctd in Moody, 1988) found a positive correlation between e x t r a v e r s i ó n and oral fluency in English. Tole r a n c e for ambiguity is another important style dimension; those who can more readily t o lerate ambiguity often show better language learning p e r f o rm an c e than those with less such tolerance (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990). Field independence is among the cogn i t i v e styles which has been found to be related to s u ccess in

second language learning.

2-4-1 T he Effect of Field D e p e n d e n c e — I n d e p e n d e n c e C o g n i t i v e S t y l e On L a n g u a g e Le a r n i n g

The importance of the learners' c ognitive style in second language learning has been revealed by many researchers- Many studies i n dicate that there is a relationship between the learners' cognitive style and the degree of a ch ie ve m en t in learning a

second language. One learner c h a r acteristic that appears to be related to progress in learning a second language is the cognitive style of field

i n d e p e nd e n c e (Abraham, 1985).

" F I , in particular, has been found to correlate positively and signi f i c a n t l y with L2 learning in school settings where the target language is taught formally" (Alptekin 8< Atakan, 1990, p- 136). For example, in the studies carried out by Bialystok and Frö h l i c h (1977, 1978), Carroll (1975), Hansen and Stansfield (1981), S tansfield and Hansen (1983), Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern and Todesco (1978), and Tucker, Hamayan and Ge n e s s e e (1976), field i n de p e n d e n t students have been found to do significantly better in mult i p l e - choice achie v e m e n t tests, cloze tests, and standa r d i z e d paper-and- pencil tests than more field d ep en de n t

students-Naiman, Fröhlich and Stern (1975), in their study of E n g li s h - s p e a k i n g Canadian students learning French as a second language (FSL) in Canada, reported that FI was a signif i c a n t predictor of L2 proficiency as m e asured by an imitation test which required the student to repeat a sentence in French. Two other studies in the same e nv i r o n m e n t found that: 1) FI predicted success on a general French a c h i e v e m e n t test (Tucker, Hamayan & Genesee, 1976). In a study of s e venth grade learners, they found that field independent stu d e n t s received higher

scores on the Test de R e n d ement en Français, Niveau 5, a standa r d i z e d m u l t i p le -c ho i ce achievement test of spelling, listening comprehension, vocabulary and grammar; and 2) FI showed a s i g n i ficant positive correlation with a c h i e v e m e n t on French reading,

listening, writing and grammar tests (Bialystok & Fröhlich, 1978).

In a study of eighth, tenth, and twelfth grade Canadian learners of French, Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern and Todesco (1978) found that field i n d ependence was related to success for twelfth graders on the listening section of a French a c h ievement test and an imitation test. Results of the study conducted by Naiman et al. indicated that FI was significantly related to better p e r f o rmance on imitation and listening comprehension tasks, especially at more advanced stages of French study. This group also found that FI and FD stu d e n t s appeared to process and produce linguistic s t r uctures in different ways. Carroll (1975) also found that field i n dependence was significantly related to foreign language a ptitude as measured by the Modern Language Aptit u d e Te s t .

Hansen and S t a n s f ie ld 's (1981) study of college-level students in S p anish also showed field inde p e n d e n c e to be significantly correlated with scores on tests of linguistic, c o mmunicative and i n t egrative competence. T h r e e -hundred students in a

b e g i n n i n g - 1e v e 1 Spanish course at the University of C o 1o r a d o - B o u 1der formed the sample group for their research and the students were graded separately on their linguistic, communicative and integrative competence during a semester. In this study the students' linguistic coinpetenre was measiired with written discrete-point examinations (Written Exam Grade Average) of Spanish grammatical knowledge, and on the Final Exam t h e i r c o m m u n i c a t i v e competence was measured by an Oral Grade Average and an Oral Skill Evaluation and their integrative competence was measured by a multip l e - c h o i c e Cloze Test. The students' Final Course Grades were also used as a measure of integrative language skill. The results showed that students with a relatively greater degree of field independence, as opposed to field dependence, achieved at a higher level on all six measures of Spanish proficiency- However the most marked relationship was between field independence and high performance on the integrative measure, a multiple - c h o i c e cloze.

Likewise, Genesee and Hamayan (1980), in their study of first grade English-speaking students in a French immersion programme in Canada, found significant and positive correlations between FI and both general achievement in French and French listening comprehension skills. Abraham (1983) also found significant correlations between FI and the

иве of the strategy of monitoring by ESL students on each of three tasks: f i 1 1-i n - t h e- b la nк , p r o o f r e a d i n g , and composition- In the United States, R o berts (1983) also obtained significant c o rr e l a t i o n s between FI and scores on traditional tests of an a nalytic nature. Chape l l e and Roberts (1984) found FI to be a sign i f i c a n t predictor of success on a m u l ti p l e- ch o ic e grammar test given to ESL students after the study in an intensive English program- Chape l l e and Roberts (1986) and Carter (1988) found further support for the correlation of FI with L2 learning in the case of college students in an ESL e n v i r o n m e n t

-In a recent study in an ESL situation, field- i n d e p endence was found to be one of a number of learner cha r a c t e r i s t i c s significantly related to a c h i e v e m en t in Fren c h by adult immigrants, as m e asured by the Test de R en d e m e n t en Français and teacher ev a l u a t i o n s (d'Anglejan & Renaud, 1985)- Finally, the most recent research in this field was conducted in an EFL situation by Alptekin and Atakan (1990). This study also shows a positive c o r r e lation between FI and L2 achievement- The GEFT scores and scores on m easures of L2 a c h i e vement indicated si g n i f i c a n t and positive a s s ociations between perf o r m a n c e on the GEFT and performance on all EFL tests and subtests which were d iscrete- point, achievement, cloze, grammar, reading and