Field dependence-independence and hemisphericity as variables in L2 achievement

Abstract

Following an extensive review of the literature, this study explores the relationship between L2 achievement and two learner characteristics -field dependence-independence and hemisphericity. Sixty-nine Turkish students of 11 to 12 years of age in an intensive EFL programme were administered the GEFT, the CLEM, and tests of L2 achievement. Significant positive correlations were observed between the GEFT scores and scores on L2 achievement tests. As expected, field independent learners performed better on the discretepoint and cloze tests. Hemisphericity, however, was not found to be related to L2 achievement. These results are evaluated critically and their implications for further research are discussed.One of the factors which accounts for differences in the manner students learn concerns the area of cognitive styles. Cognitive styles can be defined as the specific and relatively stable ways in which learners perceive and approach mental tasks. As such, they refer to an individual's preferred perceptual and intellectual mode. Hartnett (1980) classifies learners into two major categories with respect to the various dimensions of cognitive style that have been identified. The first group is said to be field independent, verbal, analytic, serialist, and sequential-successive. In contrast, the second group is described as field dependent, imaginal, relational, holist, and simultaneous-synthetic. Hartnett refers to the cognitive modes of the former group as 'analytical' and to those of the latter as 'holistic'.L2 learners are no exception to the above generalizations. Some prefer to use a more analytic approach to second language learning problems, while others prefer to tackle them in a predominantly holistic manner. However, learners' relatively stable preferences in this regard do not imply that there exist two distinct types of human beings. What is instead at issue here is a person's tendency to rely on a particular cognitive style more than the other. Otherwise, individuals are known to make use of varying degrees of analytic and

Field Dependence as a Factor in Second Language Communicative Production

“…This positive association between GEFT and L2 performance has been found for students learning English as a second language, either in their home country (Alptekin & Atakan, 1990;Hansen, 1984) or in the United States (Chapelle & Roberts, 1986;Hansen-Strain, 1987;Jamieson, 1992), and for English-speaking students learning a second language at school or university (Abraham, 1983;Carter, 1988;Elliot, 1995aElliot, , 1995bGenesee & Hamayan, 1980;Hansen & Stansfield, 1981Naiman et al, 1978;Stansfield & Hansen, 1983;Tucker, Hamayan, & Genesee, 1976). Two studies have examined strategy use and FDI.…”

The Impact of Task Type and Cognitive Style on Vocabulary Learning

“…It is recommended that they make a balance between deliberate learning and incidental learning, between learning from meaning-focused input/output and form-focused instruction, between cognitive restructuring demands and global understanding (Mancy and Reid, 2004), between controlled and free production, and between socially insensitive and socially aware situations (Wyss, 2002). In line with Town (2003), it is also recommended that despite the traditional myth that field-independence is correlated with more language learning success (Chapelle, 1995;Chapelle and Green, 1992;Alptekin and Atakan, 1990), field dependent and field independent styles each enhances language learning in its own way. Other research studies also support this suggestion (Salamian, 2002& Salmani, 2006.…”

“…5, No. 9;2012 learning (Chapelle 1995;Chapelle and Green, 1992;Alptekin and Atakan, 1990), researchers insist that both field dependent and field independent styles may enhance second language learning in their own ways (Tianjero & Paramo, 1998) so that field independent learners excel at classroom learning which requires analysis and attention to details, and field dependent ones excel at learning the communicative aspects of language learning (Brown, 2000& Town, 2003.…”

Brain Dominance and Test Format: A Case of Vocabulary

“…Studies with regard to the relationship between hemisphericity and L2 achievement have not been supportive. Alptekin and Atakan (1990) explored the relationship between L2 achievement and two learner characteristics, field dependence-independence and hemisphericity. They determined subjects' trait-level hemisphericity (a stable tendency to activate a given hemisphere) by means of their conjugate lateral eye movements (CLEM).…”