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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

892 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIEShave used the term ‗field dependence for such positive responsiveness to the surrounding background, followingEhrman (1996b, 1997), we treat this kind of processing as a separate style, called ―field sensitivity‖.‖ (Ehrman &Leaver 2003, p 397) Indeed, since ―separate‖ is not necessarily ‗different in kind‘, the ―positive responsiveness‖attached to field dependence could easily become the ―floodlight‖ of field sensitivity in contradistinction to the―spotlight‖ of field independence. (Ehrman & Leaver 2003, p 397) 24 But again, what shall we make of E&L‘s claim thatfield dependence is the ectenic pole of Variable 1?All that suggests, in effect, that labeling a pole synoptic or ectenic is a matter of viewpoint despite statisticalcorrelations and systematic push; it goes to show that at least in Table 1‘s first two variables such pole-labeling is not areflection of the descriptive content of the poles? How else could Variable 1‘s ectenic field dependence suddenlyconvert into or underlie Variable 2‘s synoptic field sensitivity? How could synoptic field independence suddenlyemerge as a ―spotlight‖ in contradistinction to the ―floodlight‖ of synoptic field sensitivity and remain synoptic?As a reader, one gets the impression that E&L were not attentive to the fact that a qualitative difference separated thefirst two variables from the four types they generated from them-- or Table 1 from Table 2. They talk about the twotables as though they were two sides of the same coin. The muddle may have started with using opposites andcontradictories on Table 1 without adequately distinguishing between them.XII. THE MERITS AND DEMERITS OF TABLE 2We may further ask at this point: Has any real gain been achieved through the new table? What was gained bydiscarding Ramirez and Castaneda‘s insight or through generating the four learner types? An inspection of Table 2 willreveal that nothing of substance has been actually gained that was not already available from another source.Perhaps the main merit of Table 2, in contradistinction to Table 1 (the E&L Scale), is that it does not show fieldindependence and field dependence and likewise field sensitivity and field insensitivity as opposite poles of variables.More positively, it conjoins field independence and field sensitivity as Type 1. Nonetheless, that could have beensecured by simply adding a variable to Table 1 that adhered to Ramirez and Castaneda‘s insight and replaced the firsttwo variables. That would have come with the added benefit of a tool for measuring a learner‘s field sensitivity vs. herfield independence. So why settle for a type when a variable/scoring continuum is available? After all, it is almost trueby definition that a preference for one of these two poles will limit the other and being equally good at both in anyiteration of the E&L Questionnaire can only mean a score of 5 on the E&L continuum.Furthermore, the pedagogical relevance of Type 2 and Type 3 is questionable not only because they find nomeasurement on Table 2 but more importantly because these learner types are comfortable either with out-of-context orwith in-context material (respectively field independence or field sensitivity). Although Type 2 learners may find―comfort‖ with focusing on out-of-context materials and Type 3 may find comfort with in-context material, noresponsible teacher is likely to find comfort with such exclusive focus on the part of actual learners. Nor is she expectedto—given that the main goal of the E&L Questionnaire is to help all learners to become all-rounded students.Additionally, Type 2 and Type 3 may be declared pedagogically redundant to the extent they provide no learnerpreference information that would not be available through a variable including field sensitivity and field independenceand replacing the current first two variables on Table 1, as already pointed out. Indeed, such an added or replacementvariable could provide, directly or indirectly, all the information needed to identify and measure learner preferencesregarding the poles in question. After all, field dependence as the negation of field independence represents a zero scorein field independence, as we believe to have showed above. And to the extent a positive content is attached to fielddependence, it should be covered by and held measureable as field sensitivity, as we also tried to show above.Something similar can be said about field insensitivity with reference to field sensitivity. Finally, it is hard to knowwhat to think about learners of Type 4 (both field dependent and field insensitive or learners with zero score in fieldindependence and field sensitivity). Would they lack field-related preferences? Would they lack both the preferencesand the abilities normally associated with them? Would a ―normal‘ teacher be able to help them? Would they need onewith specialty skills? Are they a learner type or a patient kind? It seems hard to tell.So, not much was gained after all by creating the new table from Variables 1 & 2. The E&L Scale discarded Ramirezand Castaneda‘s insight but in substance failed to go beyond it. Creating Table 2 was made possible by disregardingRamirez and Castaneda‘s juxtaposition of field independence and field sensitivity in a variable yet only to readmit it asType 1 on Table 2 itself.XIII. CONCLUSIONIf the radical difference between ‗opposites‘ and ‗contradictories‘ and between ‗variables‘ and ‗types‘ isacknowledged and the above analysis is valid, the E&L Scale-- notwithstanding its pedagogical benefits on the practicalside-- is both logically flawed and theoretically excessive. It namely contains two variables with contradictories as poles;24 They write: ―In contrast to a field independent learner, a field sensitive learner makes skilled use of a floodlight to maintain awareness of the entireforest, registering the presence of all the flora, fauna, and moment-to-moment changes in the environment.‖ (Ehrman & Leaver 2003, p 397)Elsewhere they add that field independence ―can be compared to a spotlight that focuses sharply on one thing in contrast to field sensitivity.‖ (Ehrman& Leaver 2003, p 404)© 2013 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 893that is, with one of their poles being the negation of the other and consequently having zero value. This logical defect isnot without practical consequence and a variable with such a defect cannot be the scoring continuum that an E&Lvariable is meant to be. 25 In consequence, the E&L Scale has one variable too many: Variables 1 and 2 had better becompacted into one variable: Field sensitivity vs. field independence. This would reduce the scales 10 variables to 9.But what shall we say about the synoptic categorization of these two poles, about their polar similarity, that is?Shouldn‘t field sensitivity and field independence satisfy the requirements of polar opposition to be in one variable?There are two ways, in my view, for approaching this issue:Option One: Giving up the ectenic and synoptic labeling of poles altogether; that would by no means affect theopposition between the two poles of any variable or change the latter‘s continuum character as a scoring tool for learnerpreferences. In consequence, a variable a la Ramirez and Castaneda would include field independence with fieldsensitivity as opposites without regard to polar orientation.Option Two: Labeling field independence ectenic. If polar orientation is retained, the synoptic dimension of fieldsensitivity seems a bit too pervasive to be denied or tweaked; but that is not the case with field independence, whichseems to lend itself to both synoptic and ectenic interpretations depending on field and item or background and figure.As a result, a variable a la Ramirez and Castaneda would then include ectenic field independence with field sensitivityas its synoptic pole and thereby compact the first two ―problematic‖ variables of Table 1 into a single variable. Thismight leave Table 2 intact but ineffectual.Finally, Table 1 and Table 2 seem motivated by a systematization ideal that could not really be sustained. On thepractical side, the nomenclatures synoptic and ectenic do not seem to have added pedagogical value to the E&L Scalethat it did not already have. They could not prevent their scale, a pedagogically useful tool, from becoming logicallytainted and theoretically excessive. Beyond synoptic and ectenic, it seems that the E&L Scale is better served with 9variables than its current 10: logically, theoretically and pedagogically.REFERENCES[1] Anonymous. (2011). About Learning Styles: Adapted from Chapter 4 of Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding SecondLanguage Learning Difficulties: Looking Beneath the Surface. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (Unpublished forinternal DLIFLC use)[2] Changju Shi. (2011). A Study of the Relationship between Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies. Higher Education StudiesVol. 1, No. 1. (www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/hes/article/download/10732/7562) Retrieval date: March 13, 2013.[3] Dreyer, C. & Oxford, R. (1996). Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency among Afrikaans-speakers inSouth Africa. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives (pp. 61-74).Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.[4] Ehrman, M. (1996). Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties: Looking Beneath the Surface. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.[5] Ehrman and Leaver (2002). Learning Style Questionnaire v. 2.0. (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/17926771/E-and-L-Learning-Style-Questionnaire) Retrieval date: March 14, 2013.[6] Ehrman, M. E. & Leaver, B. L. (2003). Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System 31: 393-415.[7] Ramı´rez III, M., Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural Democracy, Bicognitive Development and Education. Academic, New York.Antoine G. Khoury was born in Beirut, Lebanon. He got his BA Degree from the American University ofBeirut, his MA Degree from Universitaet Heidelberg in Heidelberg, Germany, and his PhD Degree fromHannover Technische Universitataet in Hannover, Germany—all degrees in Philosophy. His doctoraldissertation, written in German, was centered in Edmund Husserl‘s Phenomenology. Khoury has three booksand a number of scholarly articles published in Beirut, Lebanon. One of them was the first book-sizedintroduction to Phenomenology in the Arabic language. Khoury taught at various universities in Lebanon,Germany and the United States before he retired in 2006. Since then Khoury has been employed at theDefense Language Institute-Foreign Language Center as an Academic Specialist. His duties includecoordinating and providing teacher training and professional development activities. Khoury‘s currentresearch interest centers on methodologies of foreign language teaching.25 To remind, the scoring continuum for the scale is graduated 1-9.© 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 80 and 81:
942 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE
Page 82 and 83:
ISSN 1799-2591Theory and Practice i
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?