Is Field Dependence/Independence a Source of Test Bias in Iranian EFL Majors" Cloze Test Performance?
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Recent language testing research investigates factors other than language proficiency that may be responsible for systematic variance in languagetest 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 cloze tests. For purposes of the present study, it was hypothesized that field (in)dependence would introduce systematic variance into Iranian EFL learners`` cloze test performance. 30 female students all majoring in English Translation at Shiraz Islamic Azad University took the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), a reduced version of TOEFL test, and a cloze test. The results of the present study provided evidence that the field-dependent (FD, hereafter) subjects performed the same as their field independent (FI, hereafter) counterparts on the cloze test. It was, therefore, concluded that test takers`` cognitive styles may not be viewed as a source of systematic variance in performance on cloze tests and hence, may not be a source of test bias.
Abstract
Recent language testing research investigates factors other than language proficiency that may be responsible for systematic variance in languagetest 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 cloze tests. For purposes of the present study, it was hypothesized that field (in)dependence would introduce systematic variance into Iranian EFL learners`` cloze test performance. 30 female students all majoring in English Translation at Shiraz Islamic Azad University took the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), a reduced version of TOEFL test, and a cloze test. The results of the present study provided evidence that the field-dependent (FD, hereafter) subjects performed the same as their field independent (FI, hereafter) counterparts on the cloze test. It was, therefore, concluded that test takers`` cognitive styles may not be viewed as a source of systematic variance in performance on cloze tests and hence, may not be a source of test bias.
참고문헌 (26)
- Abraham, R. G., "Relationship between the use of strategy of monitoring and the cognitive style", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, pp.17~32 (1983)
- Alptekin, C., "Field dependence-independence and hemisphericity as variables in L2 achievement", Second Language Research, 6(2), pp.135~149 (1990)
- Bachman, L. F., "Fundamental considerations in language testing" (1990), Oxford University Press
- Bailey, P., "Using learning style to predict foreign language achievement at the college level", System, 28, pp.115~133 (2000)
- Bosacki, S., "Field independencedependence and self- esteem in preadolescents: Does gender make a difference?", Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(6), pp.691~703 (1997)
- Brown, J. D., "Principles and practices in second language teaching and learning" (1987), Prentice Hall
- Brown, H. D., "Principles of language learning and teaching" (2000), Prentice-Hall
- Carter, E. F., "The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: A preliminary report", Modern Language Journal, 72, pp.21~30 (1988)
- Chapelle, C., "Disembedding “disembedded figures in the landscape…”: An appraisal of Griffiths and Sheen’s “reappraisal of L2 research on field dependence-independence”", Applied Linguistics, 13, pp.375~384 (1992)
- Chapelle, C., "Field independence", dependence in second language acquisition research, 1992, pp.42, 47~83
- Chapelle, C., "Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language", Language Learning, 36, pp.27~45 (1986)
- Dulay, H., "Language two" (1982), Oxford University Press
- Ehrman, M., "Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom", pp.62~70 (1997), Regents Prentice Hall
- Ehrman, M., "Cognitive styles in the service of language learning", System, 31, pp.393~415 (2003)
- Genesee, F., "Individual differences in second language learning", Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, pp.95~110 (1980)
- Hansen, J., "The relationship of field dependentindependent cognitive style to foreign language achievement", Language Learning, 31, pp.349~367 (1981)
- Hansen-Strain, L., "Field dependence-independence and language testing : Evidence from six Pacific island cultures", TESOL Quarterly, 18, pp.311~324 (1984)
- Jamieson, J., "The cognitive styles of reflection", impulsivity and field independence, The Modern Language Journal, pp.1992, 76(4)[DOI]
- Krashen, S. D., "Second language acquisition and second language learning" (1981), Pergamon Press
- Morgan, H., "Cognitive styles and classroom learning" (1997), Praeger
- Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A., "Does field independence relate to performance on communicative language tests?", Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3), pp.79~85 (2006)
- Stansfield, C. W., "Field dependence–independence as a variable in second-language cloze test performance", TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), pp.29~38 (1983)
- Tavakoli-Araqi, A., "The effect of instructions on the examinees’ performance on multiple choice cloze test", master’s, pp.1998
- Witkin, H., "Fielddependent and field independent styles and their educational implication", Review of Educational Research, 47, pp.1~64 (1977)
- Yang, R., "The relationship between learning styles and L2 learning", Sino-US English Teaching, 3(9), pp.25~28 (2006)
- Zarei, S., "The effect of EFL students’ L2 proficiency and age on their overall pattern of vocabulary learning strategy use", master’s, pp.2004