Working Styles on Computers as Evidence of Second Language Learning Strategies

Data collected on 33 ESL students working with computerized spelling and dictation lessons were used to infer three learning strategies: advance preparation, monitoring input, and monitoring output. Subjects' cognitive styles were measured by the Group Embedded Figures Test (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, and Karp 1971) for field independence and the Matching Familiar Figures Test (Yando and Kagan 1968) for reflection/impulsivity. English proficiency was measured by the TOEFL. An analysis of amount of strategy use in a variety of situations revealed that all strategies were employed more frequently for the more complex dictation task than for the simple spelling task, and that only one strategy (monitoring input) was used more frequently by the low-level students. Examining the correlates of strategy use indicated that advance preparation and monitoring output were significantly related to field independence, that advance preparation was significantly related to reflection/impulsivity, and that advance preparation and monitoring input were significant, negative predictors of performance on the TOEFL. This research concludes that learning strategies need to be considered in concert with cognitive style, and that computer collection of strategy data is a reliable method for examining strategies on different activities over a long period of time.

[1]  S G Smith,et al.  Educational uses of the PLATO computer system. , 1976, Science.

[2]  J. Kagan,et al.  The effect of teacher tempo on the child. , 1968, Child development.

[3]  Ellen Bialystok,et al.  The Role of Conscious Strategies in Second Language Proficiency , 1981 .

[4]  Vicki Arnold,et al.  Second Language Reading: A Curricular Sequence for Teaching Reading Strategies , 1981 .

[5]  J. Rubin.  WHAT THE GOOD LANGUAGE LEARNER CAN TEACH US , 1975 .

[6]  Rocco P. Russo,et al.  LEARNING STRATEGIES USED BY BEGINNING AND INTERMEDIATE ESL STUDENTS , 1985 .

[7]  Andrew D. Cohen,et al.  SOME USES OF MENTALISTIC DATA IN SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH1 , 1981 .

[8]  S. Messer,et al.  Reflection-impulsivity: A review. , 1976 .

[9]  Carol A. Chapelle,et al.  AMBIGUITY TOLERANCE AND FIELD INDEPENDENCE AS PREDICTORS OF PROFICIENCY IN ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE , 1986 .

[10]  A. Wenden.  LITERATURE REVIEW: THE PROCESS OF INTERVENTION , 1983 .

[11]  Rocco P. Russo,et al.  Learning Strategy Applications with Students of English as a Second Language , 1985 .

[12]  Andrew D. Cohen,et al.  Toward Assessing Interlanguage Performance: The Relationship between Selected Errors, Learners' Characteristics, and Learners' Explanations. , 1976 .

[13]  Joan Rubin,et al.  Study of Cognitive Processes in Second Language Learning1 , 1981 .

[14]  Roberta G. Abraham.  Relationships Between Use of the Strategy of Monitoring and the Cognitive Style , 1983, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[15]  R. Alan Meredith.  Improved Oral Test Scores through Delayed Response. , 1978 .

[16]  President’s Remarks , 1974 .

[17]  C. A. Moore,et al.  Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications , 1977 .

[18]  Carol Hosenfeld.  Learning about Learning: Discovering Our Students' Strategies* , 1976 .

[19]  Carol A. Chapelle,et al.  Language Lessons on the PLATO IV System. , 1983 .

[20]  Jacqueline Hansen,et al.  The Relationship of Field-Dependent-Independent Cognitive Styles to Foreign Language Achievement. , 1981 .