Files in this item
|(no description provided)|
|Title:||Cognitive Styles, Working Styles on Computers and Second Language Learning|
|Author(s):||Jamieson, Joan M.|
|Department / Program:||Education|
|Degree Granting Institution:||University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|
|Subject(s):||Education, Technology of|
|Abstract:||Using a population of English as a second language (ESL) adult students, this study observed relationships among the cognitive styles of Reflection/Impulsivity (R/I) and Field Independence (FI), working styles on computerized language lessons (interaction rate and errors, editing and listening), and second language (L2) learning.
The subjects (46 adults from 13 different countries) were studying only ESL. In addition to regular classes, students could work for 4 hours every week on computerized ESL lessons. Working style data was collected over the course of the semester. The computerized lessons were ESL listening lessons on PLATO in which a student listened to an utterance and had to type either one word (Spelling Lessons) or one sentence (Dictation Lessons). To determine English proficiency and improvement, students were given the Test of English as a Foreign Language in the beginning and end of the semester. Measures of FI and R/I were administered.
Corrections between cognitive styles indicated a significant, positive relationship between FI and the Efficiency aspect of R/I. Correlations between cognitive style and L2 learning indicated that both FI and Efficiency were significantly and positively related to high TOEFL scores; however, multiple regression analysis showed that FI was more important than Efficiency. Correlations between cognitive styles and working styles showed that FI and the Impulsivity aspect of R/I had significant and positive relations to fast response time; moreover, multiple regression analysis indicated that they were both independent predictors. The Reflection dimension of R/I had significant, positive correlations with slow response time and listening a lot. Correlations between working styles and L2 learning indicated that subjects who had high TOEFL scores worked quickly and accurately, and did not listen repeatedly to audio cues. The only strong evidence for prediction of improvement on the TOEFL was in the Listening subpart; not surprisingly, repeated listening to the audio cue had a significant, negative relation to improvement.
Overall, good language learners had the following characteristics: Field Independence, Efficiency, fast working, accurate, and did not listen repeatedly. The poor language learner was the opposite: slow, inaccurate, and listened repeatedly. Implications for teaching and research are pointed out.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1986.
|Date Available in IDEALS:||2014-12-15|