RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FIELD DEPENDENCE/ INDEPENDENCE AND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF FEMALE EFL STUDENTS

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)

Volume 6 (3), July 2014; 208-‐220 Farsi, M., et al EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org

208

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FIELD DEPENDENCE/ INDEPENDENCE AND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF

FEMALE EFL STUDENTS

Mitra Farsi

Lecturer, Linguistics and Foreign language Department,Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Fars, Iran

Mohamad S. Bagheri

English Department, Dean of Foreign Languages College,Islamic Azad University,Shiraz, Iran

Maryam Sharif

Lecturer, Linguistics and Foreign language,Payamnoor University,Department,19395-4679,Tehran, Iran

Fateme Nematollahi

M.A Student of English Translation, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Fars, Iran

ABSTRACT The research aimed atthe influence of field dependent-independent (FD/FI) on proficiency test.The cognitive style (FD/FI) was considered as an independent variable and proficiency test as the dependent variable. Eighty six freshman female students of English as a foreign language (EFL) at Kerman University, Iran participated in the study. At first, the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT, Witkin et al., 1971) was given to the participants in order to identify field dependent/independent groups. Then, the participants were given a proficiency test. The results indicatethat there was a positive relationship between FI and language proficiency of the participants. KEYWORDS: field dependence (FD), field independence (FI), language proficiency 1. Introduction Individual differences between language learners which are generally categorized under personality, affective and cognitive factors may account for some of the variations in facility in L2 proficiency(Rastegar, 2003). Recently, language researchers have investigated a number of factors other than language proficiency that can affect language performance. One of these factors is individual attributes of the language learners or their cognitive styles. Attempts at identifying factors whichaffect test scores have resulted in taxonomy of factors,although such taxonomies tend to be neither exhaustive nor comprehensive. One potential area for closer study is test-takers’ cognitive styles or individual differences (Salmani-Nodoushan, 2007).



209

Keefe (1979) states that many language instructors are aware of the fact that individual learner differences more or less contribute to the success of language learning. However, cognitive style remains a controversial issue in ESL/EFL research. One potential area for closer study is test-takers’ cognitive styles. The cognitive styleconcept refers to the link between personality and cognition that influences how one learns things in general and the particular approach one adopts when dealing with problems (Keefe, 1979). Cognitive styles are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment. In theory, numerous cognitive styles may exist (Keefe, 1979). According to Larsen-Freeman (2001), a variety of learner differences are grouped into three main categories: (1) attributes that indicate who learners are (e.g., age, aptitude, personality, and social identities); (2) conceptualization, indicating how they conceptualize second-language acquisition (e.g., motivation, attitude, and beliefs); and (3) actions, indicating what they do (e.g., learning strategies). Hansen and Stansfield (1982) saythat some students with special cognitive style perform consistently better than other students on a particular language test. Moreover, Chapelle and Roberts (1986) state that a good language learner is one who is field independent and tolerant of ambiguity. The results of their investigations confirm thehypothesis that FI isthe characteristics of a good language learner and predict success in language learning. Nevertheless, only a few of the possible number of cognitive styles have received attention from L2 researchers in recent years; two such areas are fielddependent/independent. The study of field dependent/independent cognitive style in relation to ESL/EFL issues still has a potential to be worthwhile. Research has shown that the construct of field dependence and field independence (FD/FI) can cnosider some of the differences in second language proficiency (Carter, 1988; Chapelle & Green, 1992; Chapelle & Roberts, 1986). Salmani (2007) conducted a comprehensive research to find out the relationship between FD/FI and performance on different tests. Data analysis revealed that field independence in particular has been found to correlate positively and significantly with L2 learning in school settings where the target language is taught formally. In another study conducted by Cook, Friedman, and Wagner (1998), grade 5 students completed multiple choice exams and measures of cognitive style. The results indicated that FD/FI did not relate to answer changing frequency, but concluded that exam performance improved with greater field independence. Fajen et al. (1997) conducted two experiments on listening and reading, concerning FD/FI cognitive styles. The results of both studies indicated that FI participants seemed to use a tacit structure strategy, whereas FD participants appeared to display structuring skills whilenote-taking. Paramo andTinajero (1997) investigated the relationship between cognitive styles and student achievement in several subject domains (English, mathematics, natural science, social science, Spanish, and Galician). The researchers asserted that cognitive style was a significant source of variation in overall performance of students. That is, field independent subjects outperformed their field dependent counterparts.



210

In another study, Casey et al. (1995) found that field independent students performed better than field dependent subjects only on one of the technical courses. The result of Griffin&Franklins' (1996) study indicated that FI students performed significantly better on course tests. The study also suggested that FI students had higher academic potential than their FD counterparts. Shalbafan (1996) investigated whether the findings of earlier researches on the relation between FD/FI and EFL learners' achievement could be extrapolated to Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability. His results showed that where the form of a writing task was considered, FI students performed better than their FD counterparts. Liu and Reed (1995) found that field independent and field dependent students learned vocabulary equally well throgh a contextually rich hypermedia program. Field-independent subjects consistently achieve higher academic levels than field-dependent subjects, whether specific subjects or global performance are considered (Davis, 1991). Dwyer and Moore (1995) indicated that the field independent learners are superior to field dependent learners on tests measuring different educational objectives. Lu and Suen’s (1995) study revealed a substantial interaction between cognitive style and assessment approach. They concluded that field-independent students scored substantially higher on a performance-based assessment than did field-dependent students. Astudy conducted by Yaghoubi (1994) indicated that FI individuals were better achievers in language classes and that an FI cognitive style was conducive to language-learning. The results of Bean’s study also indicated that FI positively correlated with English-language ability and years of education. However, in other studies (Carter, 1988; Hansen & Stansfield, 1984) FD/FI was found to have a significant effect even in the early stages of language learning. Another study performed by Mccorkle and Cohen (1988) showed that field independent students will perform at a significantly higher level than relatively field dependent students in college-level, introductory economics courses. Along the same lines, both Chapelle and Roberts (1986) and Carter (1988), found support for the correlation of FI with L2 learning in the case of college students. Abraham (1983) reported FI related to higher incidence of monitoring. Abraham and Vann (1987, as cited in Ellis, 1994) also find FI related to TOEFL, greater variety of strategy use, and greater concern with correctness. An essential aspect that has been ignored in past research efforts is the possible influence of other variables like gender on the observed relationship between cognitive style and language learning. For example, the prevalence of field dependence differs ingirls and boys; girls, on average, exhibiting greater field dependence than boys (Cairns et al., 1985; Witkin, 1979). To summarize the research findings, field-independence has been shown to be positively related to scores on several standardized paper-and-pencil tests, and to success on the integrative measures of dictation and cloze test. The above studies seem to support the hypothesis that field-independent people outperformin classroom/tutored language learning with a strong emphasis on analytical activities.



211

METHODOLOGY The study intended to investigate whether there is any significant relationship between field dependence/independence and proficiency test. Participants Eighty six female freshman students of English Literature and English Translation at Kerman University participated in this study. Cluster sampling procedure was used for selecting the participants. The reason of choosing female students is dueto studies performedby researchers. Considerable research exists on biological sex differences in cognitive styles. In this regard,Rezaeian (2001) and Joffe (1987, as cited in Rezaeian, 2001) found that boys are more FI and girls are more FD. To shed more light on the role of gender, in this respect female students were selected to act as participants in this study. So the tests and questionnaire were taken from both males and females subjects and then males were excluded from the sample. Instruments The following instruments were employed to collect data: 1. The Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT), Field dependence / Independence (Witkin et al., 1971). 2. Michigan ECPE Proficiency Test (Briggs et al., 1997). Group Embedded Figures Test(GEFT), Field Dependence/ Independence The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was used to classify subjects’ field sensitivity. The ease of administrating and scoring the test, as well as the evidence given in literature with respect to its reliability and validity, make GEFT a satisfactory instrument in research requiring group testing, and consequently, it was chosen as an instrument for measuring FD/FI in the present study. Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) is developed by Witkin et al. (1971). Witkin et al. (1971) reported a Spearman-Brown reliability coefficient of 0.82 for their instrument. Funk, Nelson and Panek (1980, as cited in Salmani, 2009) reanalyzed data from an earlier investigation to determine the reliability and validity of the GEFT. They found that the GEFT had adequate split-half reliability. The reliability of GEFT was reported by Elliotte (1995) to be 0.90. Rezaeian (2001) also determined its reliability to be 0.89 through test-retest method. Other studies have also reported adequate reliability and validity for the GEFT (Cano, Garton, & Raven, 1992; Brenner, 1997; Raven & Sexton, 1999, as cited in Rezaeian, 2001). The GEFT instrument contains three sections with 25 complex figures from which participants are asked to identify eight simple forms (labeled A to H). The first section is for the sake of practice. Participants receive no points in this part. It has seven figures and takes two minutes. Section two and three include nine complex figures each. The respondents are asked to find the simple forms (A to H) in the complex figures and to trace them in pencil directly over the lines of the complex figures. Since the first seven items on the GEFT are not scored, the maximum score (indicating the highest level of field independence) is 18. Each item has one point. Participants are giventen minutes to answer the second and the third part. Each part has five minutes. Section three also scores nine. The higher a student’s score, the more field independent she would be.



212

Those whose scores on GEFT are equal to or more than mean are classified as field independent and those whose scores are less than mean are field dependent. GEFT is a perceptual psychological test, in which the subject’s task is to locate a previously seen simple figure within a larger complex figure that has been organized to obscure or embed the simple figure. An example of such a simple form hidden in a complex one is presented below in figures 1 and 2.

Complex figure Simple figure

Figure 1: A sample item ofGEFT

Simple figure Simple figure within the complex one

Figure 2: The answer to the task provided in GEFT

A field independent person will be able to focus on the relevant details and ignore confusing information in the context. A field dependent person, on the other hand, will be distracted by all additional lines and figures and will prove to be largely influenced by the context of surroundings. Thus, the former will be successful in the above task. What needs to be stressed at this point, however, is that the notions of field dependence and field independence represent poles in a continuum rather than alternatives. Individuals vary in the extent to which they lean towards FD or FI. Therefore,it is not desirableto classify them as better or worse learners because of their greater or smaller field sensitivity. The goal is to analyze their cognitive tendencies, predict the areas of learning in which they may encounter problems and help them solve these problems.



213

Michigan Proficiency Test In order to evaluate English proficiency of the participants, a short version of Michigan proficiency test was chosen to this end. The examination is for the Certificate of Proficiency in English (ECPE), which is a test battery for assessing English proficiency as a second language, developed at English Language Institute of the University of Michigan (ELIUM). It is a standardized test administered once a year in 25 countries. The short form is consistedof 35 items which are embedded in four different sections: cloze, grammar, vocabulary, and reading. In cloze test, language is tested at discourse level as well as sentence level. Bothgrammar and vocabulary as well as discourse are specifically tested in the cloze section. At discourse level, examinees are expected to be able to understand the organization of the text and establish the author's intentions. Many of the answer choices are grammatically correct at phrase or sentence level, but are semantically incorrect at discourse level. At sentence level, examinees must be able to analyze the syntax of sentences and to determine what part of speech the missing item is (e.g. noun, verb, adverb, etc.). All grammar items are of the sentence completion type. Each item is one or two sentences long with a blank in one of the sentences. Examinees must select, from four answer choices, the one that is grammatically correct in that context. In vocabulary section, examinees need to have adequate control of the vocabulary in order to function in a variety of contexts ranging from informal to formal. Examinees should be aware of the scope of vocabulary at proficiency level the Passage used on the Reading Comprehension part of the test is approximately 250 words in length. Questions generally require examinees to make inferences in order to find the correct answer. Answers for some questions can be found in a specific sentence or phrase, while for others information must be extracted from different parts of the text (Briggs et al., 1997).

Data Collection In order to conduct the research and to reduce the unwanted error variance produced by fatigue, the data collection was carried out in three separate sessions. At first, all the students took the GEFT which comprised 18 geometrical simple figures embedded in more complex figures. For each one, students had to find the simple figure embedded in the complex one. The test included three parts. The first part which had seven figures and took two minutes was just for the sake of practice. The second part was composed of nine figures students had only five minutes to complete this part and they got one point for each figure done correctly. The possible range of scores was from zero to eighteen. The higher a student's score, the more field independent she would be. It is worth mentioning that before the administration of all the above tests, the participants were provided with some instructions about how to test. They were also assured that all results would be confidential.

Data Analysis After correcting the papers, the data collected through the administration of GEFT, cloze and proficiency test are statistically analyzed. SPSS is utilized to analyze the data. The statistical test of Pearson Product Moment Correlation is used to analyze the data. This investigation was conducted to examine how the cognitive styles of FD/FIare related to the performance of the



214

participants in cloze and proficiency tests. The Independent variable of the study was field dependence / field independence. The dependent variables are cloze and proficiency test.

Figure 3: Variables of the Study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Descriptive Results of the Variables In order to determine the descriptive statistics of the variables, the descriptive analysis was carried out. These results are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Descriptive statistical indexes of the variables

N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

FD/I 86 17.00 00.00 17.00 9.01 4.05

ECPE 86 23.00 4.00 27.00 15.61 5.15

Valid N (listwise) 86

The following Figures (5 and 6) illustratethe distribution of scores of different variables compared to normal curves.

Independent Variables:

FD/FI

FD / FI

Dependent Variables: proficiency

test test



215

Figure 4: The histogram of Field dependence scores

Figure 5: The histogram of ECPE scores

The results of this statistical analysis are givenin Table 2.

Mean= 9.01 Std. Dev.= 4.051

N= 86

Field dependence

Mean= 15.62 Std. Dev.= 5.159 N= 86



216

Table 2: Correlation between FD and ECPE Field dependence ECPE

Field dependence Pearson Correlation 1 .218*

Sig. (2-tailed) .044

N 86 86 ECPE Pearson Correlation .218* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .044 N 86 86

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). As Table 2/shows, there is a low positive correlation between FD and ECPE (r= 0.21). In other words, higher level of FI is associated with higher level of proficiency. The scatter plots in Figure 6.shows the magnitude of the total correlation.

Figure 6: Scatter plot of the correlation between FD and ECPE

Discussion The main objectives of this study were to examine the effects of field dependence as a cognitive style on proficiency test of EFL learners. In other words, the correlations of the cognitive style (field dependence) as independent variable on proficiency test as dependent variables were investigated. In this study, it was found that there was a low significantcorrelation between FI and proficiency test. In other words, higher level of FI is associated with higher level of language proficiency. This finding is in line with the study that was conductedby Salmani (2007). The results of Salmani's research (2007) revealed that individuals’ cognitive styles resulted in a significant

Fiel

d de

pend

ence



217

difference in their overall test performance in the proficient, semiproficient, and fairly proficient groups, but not in the low-proficient group. The finding also indicated that cognitive style resulted in a significant difference in participants’ performance on true-false, sentence completion, outlining, scanning, and elicitation tasks in all proficiency groups. Field independence in particular has been found to correlate positively and significantly with L2 learning in school settings where the target L Being aware of the students' cognitive styles cause the teacher to know and decide perfectly about the types of the tests to be given to the students for different purposes. Moreover, when teachers consider the students' cognitive styles, they would adapt the different testing and teaching procedures to the students' cognitive styles. These style-based differences in the substance of cognition shape the nature of ability and knowledge structures that an individual forms as well as their higher-order organization. Thus cognitive styles are both performance and competence variables combined: styles influence not only the utilization of cognitive structures but also their development. As a consequence, cognitive styles have potentially profound implications for learning and the structuring of knowledge (Messick, 1994). It is generally admitted that the application of psychological issues to educational problems has been of crucial importance for the successful teaching and testing process. Educators are expected to notice the exceptional relationship between learners’ cognitive functioning and linguistic functioning, as well as to individualize their instruction in order to meet the requirements of particular students. It should take the form of a programmed teaching phenomenon, which allows educators to accommodate individual learner differences (IDs), and in which students are able to work at their own pace and use the materials they find comprehensible. It is believed that the knowledge of IDs is essential for a better understanding of learners’ needs and the proper adaptation of teaching methods. Ellis (1994) notices that L2 learners differ in the rate of acquisition and that this difference is the result of individual factors. In the current research, the attention has been paidon FD/FI, cognitive style. Although certain ways of approaching a task give greater success to one student than to another, it is possible for any individual to evoke appropriate styles in different contexts and to benefit from them. The teacher’s role is to help students use different styles according to the tasks that are to be performed. So it is a problem that all the students are treated in the same way, also their scores on tests are interpreted by the same scale. Although some EFL students panic and get confused when they encounter some difficult words or grammar points in proficiency tests,others do not pay attention to difficulties or confusing facts in tests. Still others tend to be calm and open-minded in dealing with difficulties or confusing facts when they read. Being aware of students’ cognitive abilities and trying to accommodate their individual needs, helping them evoke particular cognitive style in different learning situations should be perceived by contemporary educators as essential factors in an effective teaching process.



218

CONCLUSION The result of this study has theoretical and practical significance. It has theoretical significance, because factors other than knowledge of language are involved in the performance of the students on MC proficiency. Students with different cognitive styles do differently on the different tests. Teachers can gear their attention on these styles in their students and present material accordingly. In this way, they will have more successful students. The researches in the field of testing are fewer than researches in teaching and learning. It has practical significance for teachers, students, test designers, material developers and many others interested in this area. The teacher would pay attention to individual differences and cognitive styles and try to use different methods in class to encourage the learners to compensate for their deficiencies. Learners also benefit from the results by finding the main sources of their inefficiencies and the barriers to their learning and consequently try to overcome them. The teachers also should be more cautious in interpreting the scores of the students on cloze test performance and proficiency tests. Material developers can also benefit from the results, because keeping the differences between FD/FI in employing materials in course books are beneficial for both students and teachers.

REFERENCES Abraham, R. (1983). Relationship between use of the strategy of monitoring and cognitive

style.Studies in Second-languageacquisition, 6, 17-32. Abraham, R. (1985). Field independence-dependence and the teaching of

grammar.TESOLQuarterly, 20, 689-702. Abraham, R., & Chapelle, C.A. (1992). The meaning of Cloze test scores: An item difficulty

perspective. Modern LanguageJournal, 76, 468-479. Biggs, J.B. and Moore, P.J. (1993).The Process of Learning.Prentice Hall, Australia. Briggs, S., Dobson, B., Rohlick, Th., Spaan, M., & Strom, E. (1997). Examination for the

Certificate of Proficiency in English, 4-7. 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. Cano, J., Garton, B. L., & Raven, M. R.(1992).Learning styles, teaching styles, andpersonality

styles of preservice teachers ofagricultural education. Journal of AgriculturalEducation, 33(1), 46-52.

Carter, E. F. (1988). The relationship of field dependent/field independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: A preliminary report. Modern Language Journal, 72 (1), 21-30.

Casey, B., Day, D. A., Murphy, H. J., & Young, J. D. (1997).Scores on the Group Embedded Figures Test by undergraduates in information management.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 1135-1138.

Chapelle, C. (1992). Disembedding “disembedded figures in the landscape …”: An appraisal of Griffiths and Sheen’s Reappraisal of L2 research on field dependence/independence. AppliedLinguistics, 13, 375-384.

Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992) Field independence/dependence in second-language acquisition research. Language Learning, 49, (1), 47-83.



219

Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language.Language Learning, 36 (1), 27-45.

Cook, G., Friedman, S., & Wagner, D., (1998). Staying with their first impulse? The relationship between impulsivity/reflectivity, field dependence/field independence and answer changes on a multiple-choice exam in a fifth-grade sample. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31(3), 166-175.

Davis, J.K. (1991). Educational implications of field dependence/independence. In S. Wapner, & J. Demick (Eds.), Fielddependence-independence: Cognitive style across the life span.

Dwyer, F. M., & Moore, D. M. (1995).Effect of color coding and test type (visual/ Verbal) on students identified as possessing different field dependence level, ERIC Document No.Ed 380 078.

Elliotte, A. R. (1995). Field dependent/independent, hemispheric specialization, and attitude in relation to pronunciation accuracy in Spanish as a foreign language. Modern language Journal, 73 (3), 356-71.

Fajen, B.R., Gillespie, G., Rickards, J.P., & Sullivan, J.F. (1997). Signaling, note taking, and field independence-dependence in text comprehension and recall. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 89, 508-517.

Hansen, J., & Stansfield CH. (1982).Field dependence-Independence as a variable in Second Language Cloze Test Performance,3, 6-15.

Keefe, J.W. (1979). Learning style: An overview.In Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs.Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1-17.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential success in second language acquisition.In: Breen, M.P. (Ed.), Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Directions in Research. Longman, London, 12–24.

Liu, M., & Reed, W.M. (1995).The relationship between the learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 419-434.

Lu, C., & Suen, H.K. (1995). Assessment approaches and cognitive styles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32(1), 1-17.

Mccorkle, S., Cohen, M. (1988). Field Dependence/ Field Independence and student Achievement Economic. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association(9th, Neworlearns, April 1988).

Messick, S. (1994). Human abilities and modes of attention: The issue of stylistic consistencies in cognition. Paper presented at the First Spearman Seminar. University of Plymouth, UK, July 21-23.

Rastegar, M. (2003). Affective, And Personality Predicators of Foreign-Language Proficiency Among Iranian EFL Learners. . Unpublished MA thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz, 1-3.

Rezaeian, M. (2001).An investigation into the relationship between field dependence/independence, sex and age towards EFL proficiency in Iranian college students.Unpublished MA thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz.

Shalbafan, K. (1996). On the role field dependence/field independence in Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Tehran.

Salmani-Nodoushan, M.A. (2007). Text familiarity, reading tasks, and ESP test performance: A study on Iranian LEP and non-LEP university students. Reading Matrix, 3(1), 1-14.



220

Tinajero, C., & Páramo, M, F . (1997). Dependence-independence and academic achievement: a re-examination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199-212.

Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971).Group Embedded Figures Test Manual.Palo Alto, CA :Consulting Psychologist Press.

Yaghoubi, R. (1994). The relationship between field-independent/field-dependent cognitive style, Persian students and their English language proficiency.Unpublished master’s thesis, AllamehTabatabaii University, Iran.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FIELD DEPENDENCE/ INDEPENDENCE AND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF FEMALE EFL STUDENTS

Documents

Transcript of RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FIELD DEPENDENCE/ INDEPENDENCE AND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY OF FEMALE EFL STUDENTS