Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:22:12.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Dependence-Independence in Second-Language Acquisition: Some Forgotten Aspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Carolina Tinajero  and
Fernanda Páramo
Carolina Tinajero*
Affiliation:
University of Santiago de Compostela
Fernanda Páramo
Affiliation:
University of Santiago de Compostela
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Carolina Tinajero, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Facultad de Psicología.Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Campus Universitario Sur. 15706 – Santiago de Compostela (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the role of sex and intelligence in the relationship between field dependence-independence and second language acquisition for a sample of 383 students (187 girls and 196 boys) aged between 13 and 16. The Portable Rod and Frame Test (PRFT) and the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) were used to evaluate cognitive style. A two-way covariance analysis, with intelligence as the covariate, was employed to investigate differences in second language achievement between students classified as either field-dependent or field-independent. A cluster analysis using z scores was examined to study the performance of subjects classified as either field-dependent or field-independent according to scores obtained on the EFT and the PRFT (“coincident” subjects) and those classified as field-dependent in one test and field-independent in the other (“non-coincident” subjects). No statistically significant differences between the two groups were obtained when cognitive style was defined by scores on the PRFT. When field dependence-independence was measured by scores on the EFT, field-independent girls performed better than field-dependent girls (p < .005), but this outcome was not observed for boys. These results suggest a differential contribution of the “perceptive” and “cognitive” components of field dependence-independence and a modulating role by sex.

En el presente estudio se examina el papel del sexo y de la inteligencia en la relación de la dependencia-independencia de campo con la adquisición de una segunda lengua en una muestra de 383 chicos y chicas de entre 13 y 16 años. Se utilizó el Portable Rod and Frame Test (PRFT) y el Embedded Figures Test (EFT) para evaluar el estilo cognitivo. Se aplicó un analisis de covarianza de doble vía, con la inteligencia como covariable, con el objetivo de comparar el rendimiento de dependientes e independientes de campo. Además, se realizó un análisis de conglomerados con las puntuaciones típicas para explorar el rendimiento de los sujetos clasificados como dependientes o independientes de campo según el EFT y el PRFT (“coincidentes”) y aquéllos clasificados como dependientes de campo en una prueba e independientes de campo en la otra (“no coincidentes”). No se obtuvieron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en rendimiento según las puntuaciones en el PRFT. Clasificados los sujetos según el EFT, las chicas independientes de campo rendían mejor que las dependientes de campo (p <. 005), lo que no ocurría entre los chicos. Estos resultados sugieren una contribución diferencial de los componentes “perceptivo” y “cognitivo” de la dependencia-independencia de campo y un efecto modulador del sexo.

Keywords

cognitive stylefield dependence-independencesecond-language acquisitionestilo cognitivodependencia-independencia de campoadquisición de una segunda lengua
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 1 , May 1998 , pp. 32 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, R. (1983). Relationship between use of the strategy of monitoring and cognitive style. Studies in Second-language acquisition, 6, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, R. (1985). Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 689–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, R., & Chapelle, C.A. (1992). The meaning of Cloze test scores: An item difficulty perspective. Modern Language Journal, 76, 468–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alptekin, C., & Atakan, S. (1990). Field dependence-independence and hemisphericity as variables in L2 achievement. Second Language Research, 6, 135–149.Google Scholar
Balistreri, E., & Busch-Rossnagel, N.A. (1989). Field independence as function of sex, sex-roles, and the sex-role appropriateness of the task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloom-Feshbach, J. (1980). Differentiation: Field dependence, spatial ability, and hemispheric specialization. Journal of Personality, 48, 135–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brenet, F., Ohlmann, T., & Marendaz, C. (1988). Interaction vision/posture lors de la localisation d'une cible enchasée. Bulletin de Psychologie, 388, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodzinsky, D.M. (1985). On the relationship between cognitive styles and cognitive structures. In Neimark, E.D., De Lisi, R., & Newman, J.L. (Eds.), Moderators of competence (pp. 147–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, H.D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cairns, E., Malone, S., Johnston, J., & Cammock, T. (1985). Sex differences in children's group embedded figures test performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 653–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, E.F. (1988). The relationship of field-dependent/independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: A preliminary report. Modern Language Journal, 72, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R.B., & Cattell, A.K.S. (1973). Measuring Intelligence with The Culture Fair Test. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1988). Field independence: A source of language test variance? Language Testing, 5, 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992). Field independence/dependence in second-language acquisition research. Language-Learning, 42, 47–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as second language. Language Learning, 36, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chynn, W.W., Garrod, A., Demick, J., & DeVos, E. (1991). Correlations among field dependence-independence, sex, sexrole stereotype, and age of pre-schoolers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 747–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.T., & Roof, K.D. (1988). Field dependence and strategy use. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Anglejan, A., & Renaud, C. (1985). Learner characteristics and second-language acquisition: A multivariate study of adult immigrants and some thoughts on methodology. Language Learning, 35, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J.K. (1991). Educational implications of field dependenceindependence. In Wapner, S., & Demick, J. (Eds.), Field dependence-independence: Cognitive style across the life span. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Educational Testing Service. (1983). TOEFL Test and score manual. Princeton, NJ: ETS.Google Scholar
Globerson, T. (1983). Mental capacity, mental effort, and cognitive style. Developmental Review, 3, 292–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Globerson, T. (1989). What is the relationship between cognitive style and cognitive development? In Globerson, T. & Zelniker, T. (Eds.), Cognitive style and cognitive development (pp. 71–85). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Goodenough, D.R. (1981). An entry in the great frame-tilt judging contest. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 43–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodenough, D.R., Cox, P.W., Sigma, E., & Strawderman, W.E. (1985). A cognitive-style conception of the field-dependence dimension. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 5, 687–706.Google Scholar
Goodenough, D.R., Oltman, P.K., & Cox, W. (1987). The nature of individual differences in field dependence. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, L. (1984). Field dependence-independence and language testing: Evidence from six Pacific islands' cultures. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, J., & Stanfield, C. (1981). The relationship of fielddependent-independent cognitive style to foreign language learning achievement. Language Learning, 31, 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulfish, S. (1978). Relationship of role identification, self-esteem, and intelligence to sex differences in field independence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 835–842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jamieson, J. (1992). The cognitive styles of reflection impulsivity and field independence dependence and ESL success. Modern Language Journal, 76, 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, J., & Chapelle, C. (1987). Working styles on computers as evidence of second language learning strategies. Language Learning, 37, 523–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogan, N. (1971). Las implicaciones de los estilos cognitivos en la educación. In Lesser, G.S. (Ed.), La psicología en la práctica educativa (pp. 303–366). México: Trillas.Google Scholar
Laosa, L.M. (1980). Maternal teaching strategies and cognitive styles in Chicano families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marendaz, C. (1985). Global precedence and field dependence: Visual routines? Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 5, 727–745.Google Scholar
McKenna, F.P. (1983). Field dependence and personality: A reexamination. Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, F.P. (1984). Measures of field dependence: Cognitive style or cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, F.P., Duncan, J., & Brown, D. (1986). Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: A re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. Ergonomics, 29, 649–663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messick, S. (1994). The matter of style: Manifestations of personality in cognition, learning, and teaching. Educational Psychologist, 29, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noel, B., & Baligand, F. (1984). Analyse des resultats aux items du G.E.F.T. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, 21, 225–236.Google Scholar
Ohlmann, T. (1983). Dépendance-indépendance du champ et conduites cognitives. Grenoble: Laboratoire de Psychologie Experimentale.Google Scholar
Ohlmann, T. (1990). La perception de la verticale lors de conflicts vision/posture. Un exemple de processus vicariants. In Reuchlin, M., Longeot, D., Marendaz, C., & Ohlmann, T. (Eds.), Conaî tre différemment (pp. 33–66). Nancy, France: Presses Universitaires.Google Scholar
Oltman, P.K. (1968). A portable rod and frame apparatus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26, 503–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pande, C.G., & Kothari, S. (1969). Field dependence and the Raven's progressive matrices. Psychologia, 12, 49–51.Google Scholar
Raven, J. (1962). Colored progressive matrices. New York: Psychological Corp.Google Scholar
Snow, R.E., & Lohman, D.F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In Linn, R.L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 263–331) New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Tinajero, C., & Páramo, M.F. (1990). Field dependence-independence and performace in school: An argument against neutrality of cognitive sytle. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1079–1087.Google Scholar
Tinajero, C., & Páramo, M.F. (1997). Field dependence-independence and academic achievement: A re-examination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Blerkom, M.L. (1988). Field dependence, sex role, selfperceptions, and mathematics achievement in college students: A closer examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernon, P. (1972). The distinctiveness of field independence. Journal of Personality, 40, 366–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witkin, H.A. (1979). Socialization, culture, and ecology in the development of group and sex differences in cognitive style. Human Development, 22, 358–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H.A., & Asch, S.E. (1948a). Studies in space orientation. III. Perception of the upright in the absence of visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 603–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H.A., & Asch, S.E. (1948b). Studies in space orientation. IV. Further experiments on perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 762–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H.A., & Berry, J.W. (1975). Psychological differentiation in cross cultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 4–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H.A., Dyk, R.B., Faterson, H.F., Goodenough, D.R., & Karp, S.A. (1962). Psychological differentiation. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H.A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1977). Field dependence revised. Princeton, N.J.: Research Bulletin E.T.S.Google Scholar
Witkin, H.A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origin. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Witkin, H.A., Goodenough, D.R., & Oltman, P.K. (1979). Psychological differentiation: Current Status. Journal of Personality and Social Psyhology, 37, 1127–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S.A (1971). A manual for the embedded figures tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.Google Scholar