Does Field Independence Relate to Performance OnCommunicative Language Tests

Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan*
English Department, University of Zanjan, Iran.
Periodicity:October - December'2006
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.3.3.716

Abstract

Recent language testing research investigates factors other than language proficiency that may be responsible for systematic variance in language test performance. One such factor is the test takers' cognitive styles. The present study was carried out with the aim of finding the probable effects of Iranian EFL learners' cognitive styles on their performance on communicative tests. For purposes of the present study, it was hypothesized that field (in)dependence would introduce systematic variance into Iranian EFL learners' communicative-test performance. 240 junior and senior students all majoring in English took the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), the 1990 version of IELTS, and the Communicative Test (CT) designed for the present study. The results of the present study provided evidence that the field-dependent (FD) subjects, compared to their field independent (FI) counterparts, performed much better on the CT. It was, therefore, concluded that test takers' cognitive styles may be viewed as a source of systematic variance in performance on communicative language tests.

Keywords

Cognitive Styles, Communicative Test, Communicative Language Tests.

How to Cite this Article?

Mohammad Ali Salmani-Nodoushan (2006). Does Field Independence Relate to Performance on Communicative Language Tests? i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3), 79-85. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.3.3.716

References

[1]. Abraham, R. G. (1983). Relationship between the use of the strategy of monitoring and the cognitive style. Studies in second language acquisition. 6, 17-32.
[2]. Aitken, K. G. (1977). Using cloze procedure as an overall language proficiency test. TESOL Quarterly. 11, 59-67.
[3]. Alderson, J. C. (1991). Language testing in the 1990s: How far have we come? How much further do we have to go? In Anivan, 1991.
[4]. Alptekin, C., & Atakan, S. (1990). Field dependenceindependence and hemisphericity as variables in L 2 achievement. Second language research. 6 (2), 135- 149.
[5]. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern language journal. 75, 460-472.
[6]. Anivan, S. (Ed.). (1991). Current developments in language testing. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
[7]. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[8]. Bacon, S. M. (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies, and cognitive and affective response in foreign language listening. Modern language journal. 76, 160-178.
[9]. Bialystok, E. (1990a). Communication strategies. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
[10]. Bialystok, E. (1978a). Language skills and the learner: the classroom perspective. In Charles H. Blatchford and Jacquelin Schachter (Eds.). On TESOL '78. 224-231. Washington, D.C.:TESOL.
[11]. Bialystok, E., & Fröhlich, M. (1978). Variables of classroom achievement in second language learning. Modern language journal. 62(7), 327-336.
[12]. Brown, J. D. (1987). Principles and practices in second language teaching and learning. Rowley, Mass.: Prentice Hall.
[13]. Carter, E. F. (1988). The relationship of fielddependent/independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: a preliminary report. Modern language journal. 72, 21-30.
[14]. Chapelle, C. (1992). Disembedding "disembedded figures in the landscape ...": An appraisal of Griffiths and Sheen's "reappraisal of L research on field dependence- 2 independence." Applied linguistics. 13, 375-384.
[15]. Chapelle, C., & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Cloze method: What difference does it make? Language testing. 7, 121-146.
[16]. Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992). Field dependence/independence in second language acquisition research. Language learning. 42, 47-83.
[17]. Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language learning. 36, 27-45.
[18]. Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. D., (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19]. Ehrlichman, H. (1977). Field-dependenceindependence and lateral eye-movements following verbal and spatial questions. Perceptual and motor skills. 53, 935-944.
[20]. Ehrman, M. 1990. The role of personality type in adult language learning: An ongoing investigation. In Parry and Stanfield, 1990.
[21]. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern language journal. 74, 311-327.
[22]. Farhady, H. (1982). Measures of language proficiency from the learner's perspective. TESOL Quarterly. 16, 43-59.
[23]. Genesee, F. and Hamayan, E. (1980). Individual differences in second language learning. Applied psycholinguistics. 1, 95-110.
[24]. Griffiths, R., & Sheen, R. (1992). Disembedded figures in the landscape: A reappraisal of L2 research on field dependence-independence. Applied linguistics. 13, 133-148.
[25]. Hansen, L. (1984). Field dependenceindependence and language testing: evidence from six Pacific island cultures. TESOL Quarterly. 18, 311-24.
[26]. Hansen, J. & Stanfield, C. (1981). The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive style to foreign language achievement. Language learning. 31, 349- 367.
[27]. Hansen-Strain, L. (1984). Field dependenceindependence and language testing: evidence from six Pacific island cultures. TESOL Quarterly. 18, 311-324.
[28]. Higgs, T. V., & Clifford, R. T. (1982). The push toward communication. In Higgs, 1982a.: 57-79.
[29]. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
[30]. Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Todesco, A., & Stern, H. H. (1978). The good language learner. Research in Education Series7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
[31]. Oltman, P. k., Raskin, E., & Witkin, H. A. (1971). Group Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
[32]. Stanfield, C. (1981). Dictation as a measure of Spanish language proficiency. International review of applied linguistics. 69, 121-128.
[33]. Trayer, M. (1991). Learning style differences: Gifted vs. regular language students. Foreign language annals. 24, 419-425.
[34]. Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New York: International University Press.
[35]. Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest? Modern language journal. 75, 426-439.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.