Article published in:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 63 (1984) ► pp. 1–21

The Role of Field Independence in Foreign Language Instruction

| School of Education - Stanford University
Based on the educational implications of field (in)dependence as described by Witkin et al. (1977), a series of hypotheses are formulated concerning the role of FI in L2-learning with different methods. Most existing L2-research, in contrast, has studied FI, usually assessed with the EFT, as an aptitude for learning with any particular teaching method, and has yielded somewhat inconsistent results, with a tendency to mild positive correlations between FI and L2-achievement. It is argued that FI in L2-learning should be viewed in the aptitude-treatment interaction paradigm and a series of suggestions are made concerning the assessment of FI as well as the design and the outcome measures for such interaction research.
Published online: 01 January 1984
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.63.01dek
References

References

BERG, M.R. & HARRIS, L.J.
(1980) : The effect of experimenter location and subject anxiety on cerebral activation as measured by lateral eye movements. Neuropsychologia 18, 89–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
BIALYSTOK, E. & FROHLICH, M.
(1978) : Variables of classroom achievement in second language learning. The Modern Language Journal 62, 327–336.Google Scholar
BROWN, H.D.
(1973) : Affective variables in second language acquisition. Language Learning 23, 231–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1977) : Cognitive and affective characteristics of good language learners. In C. Henning (ed.) : Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum. Los Angeles : UCLA, 349–354.Google Scholar
(1980) : Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.) : Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
CHASTAIN, K.
(1975) : An examination of the basic assumption of 'individualized' instruction. The Modern Language Journal 59, 334–355.Google Scholar
CHICKERING, A.W.
(1976) : The double bind of field dependence/independence in program alternatives for educational development. In S. Messick, et al.. : Individuality in Learning. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 79–89.Google Scholar
CORDER, S.P.
(1976) : The study of interlanguage. In G. Nickel (ed.) : Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, vol. 2. Stuttgart : Hochschulverlag, 9–34.Google Scholar
CRONBACH, L.J. & SNOW, R.E.
(1977) : Aptitudes and Instructional Methods. A Handbook for Research on Interactions. New York : Irvington.Google Scholar
DE FAZIO, V.J.
(1973) : Field articulation differences in language abilities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 25, 351–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DILLER, K.C.
(1976) : Criteria for adapting language teaching methods to the learning styles and abilities of students. In G. Nickel (ed.) : Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, vol. 3. Stuttgart : Hochschulverlag, 341–351.Google Scholar
DOYLE, W.
(1978) : Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education 5, 163–198.Google Scholar
GENESEE, F.
(1978) : Individual differences in second language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review 34, 490–504.Google Scholar
GENESEE, F. & HAMAYAN, E.
(1980) : Individual differences in second language learning. Applied Pyscholinguistics 1, 95–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
GOLDSTEIN, K.M. & BLACMAN, S.
(1978) : Cognitive Style : Five Approaches and Relevant Research. New York : John Wiley.Google Scholar
GRIPPIN, P.C.
(1973) : Field independence and reflection-impulsitivity as mediators of performance on a programmed learning task with and without strong prompts. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association (University Microfilms 73–19, 674).Google Scholar
GRIPPIN, P.C. & OHNMACHT, F.W.
(1974) : Field independence and dogmatism as mediators of performance on a programmed learning task with and without strong prompts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (ERIC Reproduction Service ED 095220).Google Scholar
HANSEN, J. & STANSFIELD, C.
(1981) : The relationship of field-dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning 31, 349–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
HARTNETT, D.D.
(1975) : The Relation of Cognitive Style and Hemispheric Preference to Deductive and Inductive Second Language Learning. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
HAUPTMAN, P.C.
(1971) : A structural approach versus a situational approach, to foreign-language teaching. Language Learning 21, 235–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
HOSENFELD, C.
(1979) : A learning-teaching view of second language instruction. Foreign Language Annals 12, 51–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
KAGAN, D.M.
(1980) : Syntactic complexity and cognitive style. Applied Psycholinguistics 1, 111–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
KAGAN, S. & BURIEL, R.
(1977) : Field dependence-independence and Mexican-American culture and education. In J.L. Martinez (ed.) : Chicano Psychology. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
KRASHEN, S.D.
(1981) : Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acguisition and learning. In : K.C. Diller (ed.) : Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitutde. Rowley (Mass.) : Newbury House, 155–175.Google Scholar
KRASHEN, S.D., SELIGER, H. & HARTNETT, D.
(1974) : Two studies in adult second language learning. Kritikon Litterarum 3, 220–228.Google Scholar
LEFEVER, M.M. & EHRI, L.C.
(1976) : The relationship between field independence and sentence disambiguation ability. Journal of Psycho Unguis tic Research 5, 99–104.Google Scholar
LINN, M.C. & KYLLONEN, P.
(1981) : The field-dependence-independence construct : some, one or none. Journal of Educational Psychology 73, 261–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
NAIMAN, N., FROHLICH, M., STERN, H. & TODESCO, A.
(1978) : The Good Language Learner. Toronto : Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
NELSON, K.
(1981) : Individual differences in language development : implications for development and language. Developmental Psychology 17, 170–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
PACKER, J. & BAIN, J.D.
(1978) : Cognitive style and teacher-student compatibility. Journal of Educational Psychology 70, 864–871. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
PETERS, A.M.
(1977) : Language Learning strategies : Does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Language 53, 560–573. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
PETERSON, P.L. & SWING, S.R.
in press) : Beyond time on task : students' reports of their thought processes during direct instruction. The Elementary School Journal.
POOLE, M.E.
(1978) : Exploration of relationship between linguistic, cognitive and verbal processing. Psychological Reports 43, 639–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ROSENSHINE, B. & FURST, N.F.
(1973) : The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R.M.W. Travers (ed.) : Second Hanbook for Research on Teaching. Chicago : Rand McNally, 122–183.Google Scholar
SMITH, P.D.
(1970) : A comparison of the Cognitive and Audiolingual Approaches to Foreign Language Instruction. The Pennsylvania Foreign Language Project. Philadelphia : Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
TRIM, J.L.M., RICHTERICH, R., VAN EK, J.A. & WILKINS, D.A.
(1980) : Systems development in adult language language learning : a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults. Strasbourg : Council of Europe.Google Scholar
TUCKER, W., HAMAYAN, E. & GENESEE, F.
(1976) : Affective, cognitive and social factors in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review 23, 214–226.Google Scholar
VALETTE, R.
(1969) : The Pennsylvania project, its conclusions and its implications. The Modern Language Journal 53, 396–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
VAN EK, J.A.
(1975) : The threshold level in a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.Google Scholar
VAN ELS, T., EXTRA, G., VAN OS, C. & BONGAERTS, T.
(1977) : Handboek voor de Toegepaste Taalkunde. Groningen : Wolters-Noordhoff. Google Scholar
WAPNER, S.
(1976) : Process and context in the conception of cognitive style. In S. Messick, et al. (eds) : Individuality in Learning. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 73–78.Google Scholar
WELLS, W.
(1978) : Aptitude à l'apprentissage d'une langue second et style cognitif. Paper presented at the Fifth International Congress of Applied Linguistics (Abstract in LLBA 12, n° 13, AILA Suppl. n° 2, p. 108a).Google Scholar
WESCHE, M.B.
(1981) : Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods and diagnosis of learning problems. In K.C. Diller (ed.) : Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley (Mass.) : Newbury House, 119–154.Google Scholar
WITKIN, H.A.
(1976) : Cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. In S. Messick, et al. (eds) : Individuality in Learning. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 38–72.Google Scholar
WITKIN, H.A., DYK, R.B., FATERSON, H.F., GOODENOUGH, D.R. & KARP, S.A.
(1962) : Psychological Differentiation : Studies of Development. New York : John Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
WITKIN, H.A. & GOODENOUGH, D.R.
(1981) : Cognitive Styles : Essence and Origins. Field Dependence and Field Independence. New York : International Universities Press.Google Scholar
WITKIN, H.A., GOODENOUGH, D.R. & OLTMAN, P.K.
(1979) : Psychological differentiation : current status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 1127–1145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
WITKIN, H.A., MOORE, C.A., GOODENOUGH, D.R. & COX, P.W.
(1977) : Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research 47, 1–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar