Theory and Practice in Language Studies Contents - Academy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

884 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES[16] Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp 13-103). New York: American Councilon Education.[17] Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[18] Nevo, N. (1989). Test-taking strategies on a multiple-choice test of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 6 (2), 199-215.[19] OECD, (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge andskills. Paris: OECD.[20] Park, S. (2009). Verbal report in language testing. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies, 2, 287-307.[21] Purpura, J. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high and low-abilitytest-takers: a structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing, 15 (3), 339-379.[22] Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.[23] Rouet, J. F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Erboul, A. B., & Miligo, V. (2001). Effect of information search tasks on the comprehension ofinstructional text. Discourse Processes, 31 (2), 163-186.[24] Rupp, A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes theconstruct: a cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23 (4), 441-474.[25] Sarojani, K. & Krishnan, D. (2011). Careful versus expeditious reading: The case of IELTS reading test. Academic ResearchInternational, 1 (3), 25-35.[26] Sasaki, M. (2000). Effects of cultural schemata on students‟ test-taking processes: a multiple data source approach. LanguageTesting, 17 (3), 85-114.[27] Song, M. Y. (2008). Do divisible subskills exist in second language (L2) comprehension? A structural equation modelingapproach. Language Testing, 25 (4), 435-464.[28] Urquhart, A. S. & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. Essex: Pearson EducationLtd.[29] Van Steensel, R., Oostdam, R., & van Gelderen, A. (2013). Assessing reading comprehension in adolescent low achievers:Subskills identification and task specificity. Language Testing, 30 (1), 3-21.[30] Weir, C.J., & Khalifa, H. (2008a). A cognitive processing approach towards defining reading comprehension, CambridgeESOL: Research Notes, 31, 2-10.[31] Weir, C.J., & Khalifa, H. (2008b). Applying a cognitive processing model to Main Suite reading papers, Cambridge ESOL:Research Notes 31, 11-16.[32] Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: an evidence-based approach. Palgrave: Macmillan.[33] Weir, C., Hawkey, R., Green, A., & Devi, S. (2008). The cognitive processes underlying the academic reading construct asmeasured by IELTS. IELTS Research Reports, 9, 157-189.[34] Weir, C. J., Hawkey, R., Green, A., Unaldi, A., & Devi, S. (2008). The relationship between the academic reading construct asmeasured by IELTS and the reading experiences of students in their first year of study at a British university. IELTS ResearchReports, 9, 97-156.[35] Weir, C. J., Yang, H., & Jin, Y. (2000). An empirical investigation of the componentiality of L2 reading in English foracademic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[36] Yamashita, J. (2003). Processes of taking a gap-filling test: comparison of skilled and less skilled EFL readers. LanguageTesting, 20 (3), 267-293.Godefroid B. Katalayi is a PhD Candidate in Language Education, Faculty of Education, University of the Western Cape, SouthAfrica. He is also Senior Lecturer at “Institut Superieur Pedagogique de Kananga”, Democratic Republic of the Congo where helectures Language testing and English teaching modules at the Department of English. His research interest includes test validity andthe teaching of reading.Sivakumar Sivasubramaniam is Associate Professor and Head of the Language Education Department in the Faculty ofEducation at the University of the Western Cape, Republic of South Africa (RSA). He also serves the Editorial Board of the Journalof English as an International Language (EILJ) as Chief Editor and the Editorial Board of Asian EFL Journal (AEJ) as AssociateEditor. He has been a foreign language/ second language educator for over thirty years now and has taught English in India, Ethiopia,Thailand, Bahrain, Armenia, and U.A.E prior to relocating to the Western Cape. He holds an MA in English Literature from theUniversity of Madras, India, an MA in (Linguistics) TESOL from the University of Surrey, U.K and a PhD in Applied Linguisticsfrom the University of Nottingham, U.K. His research interests include response-centred reading/ writing pedagogies, literaturebasedlanguage pedagogies, constructivism in EIL, second language advocacy, narratives in language education and text-basedapproaches to academic and social literacy practices.© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 885-893, June 2013© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.doi:10.4304/tpls.3.6.885-893A Field-independent View of FieldindependenceAntoine G. KhouryDefense Language Institute-Foreign Language Center, CE/EP/LTD Ft. Gordon, GA, USAAbstract—This article is an attempt to understand a particular aspect of the Ehrman and Leaver (henceforthE&L) scale of cognitive learner styles. It describes the scale and observes that of its first two variables thesecond one was added at a later point to remedy, as it seems, an ambiguity in the first variable but thataddition duplicated a logical flaw now tainting both variables: having contradictory terms as poles. As a result,these two variables cannot function as the scoring continuums they are meant to be. All that could have beenavoided had E&L taken advantage of an old insight by Ramirez and Castaneda, who suggested juxtaposingfield sensitivity (rather than field dependence) with field independence. Replacing the first two variables withone a la Ramirez and Castaneda may have been precisely what the E&L Scale needed to retain its consistencyand effectiveness as a scoring tool. E&L were aware of that option but apparently chose not to use it in avariable. That, however, rendered their logically shaky scale theoretically excessive with no added pedagogicalbenefits.Index Terms—variable, cognitive style, learning style, preference, pole, opposite, contradictory, synoptic,ectenic, field independence, field sensitivity, Ehrman, Leaver, Ramirez and CastanedaI. INTRODUCTIONField-independence is a characteristic of a learning style whereby the learner tends to show a preference for decontextualizingan item; that is, for separating it from its field in order to re-contextualize it with a new interestmotivatedfocus. 1 Examples of a field are a discipline of knowledge, a theoretical framework, a system of rules, apractical activity, a textual environment, a social milieu, a language, a tourist area, etc. 2 Field-sensitivity, on the otherhand, is a learner‘s tendency to stick to the given context, surrender to its field, as it were, and perhaps indiscriminatelyinteract with its components. Field-independence and field-sensitivity are respectively the synoptic poles of the 1st and2nd variables on the Ehrman and Leaver (henceforth E&L) scale of cognitive learner preferences. 3As opposite poles to field independence and field sensitivity, field dependence and field insensitivity lack the clarityof their opposite poles: they are not equally well defined in terms of preferential content. The ambiguity surroundingtheir use will be a focus of this paper.Field-independence and field-sensitivity are pillars of learning and information processing. They are also pillars offield (Read: text, activity, design, etc) interpretation and review since interpretation is a mode of field-processing.While representing a field-independent critique, this paper has no intention of becoming insensitive to the field. Afterall, field-independence as an intellectual approach or a method of scrutiny is certainly not field-alienation; it can andshould remain loyal to the field without compromising its own intellectual honesty.II. COGNITIVE LEARNER PREFERENCESGoing back to the above-mentioned cognitive learner preferences, they are different ways in which learnersspontaneously tend to process new information. They have been given various names and described in different ways.They have been called preferences, tendencies, needs and comfort zones. They have been likened to the spontaneoustendencies to cross one‘s arms or legs in a certain order and to use one‘s right or left hand in writing, to one‘s preferredor ‗dominant‘ hand‘, that is. For example, if a person prefers to learn sequentially, ―it will come relatively automaticallyto follow a textbook outline, whereas learning ―randomly‖ with no set agenda from outside will be slow, awkward, verytiring until we get practiced at it, and the product will probably not be as mature.‖ (Anonymous 2011, p. 1-2) 4 On theother hand, the preferences of the random or non-linear learner are reversed. The full title is: A Field-independent View of Field-independence as a Variable on the Ehrman & Leaver Scale of Cognitive Styles1 ―Item‖ or ―figure‖ is used for what receives focus, while ―field‖ is used for context and background.2 Examples of separated items are given on p. 5 of this paper3 Please see the scale on p. 34 This is an unpublished manuscript put out for DLIFLC (Defense Language Institute-Foreign Language Center) internal use as part of a trainingprogram for Diagnostic Assessment Specialist trainees under the oversight of DLI Associate Provost Dr Betty Lou Leaver. This writing is available atthe Faculty Development Division, Directorate of Language Science and Technology, DLIFLC, DoD Center, Monterey Bay, 400 Gigling Road,Seaside, CA 93955.© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
Page 3 and 4: ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
Page 5 and 6: THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STU
Page 7: THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STU
Page 10 and 11: 872 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
Page 34 and 35: عَ‏896 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN L
Page 72 and 73:
934 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Mean of strategy954 THEORY AND PRAC
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
1000 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAG
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 219:
Call for Papers and Special Issue P
Page 222:
(Contents Continued from Back Cover
show all

Theory and Practice in Language Studies Contents - Academy ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?