Vocabulary Knowledge and Field Dependence/Independence Cognitive Styles

Subject Areas :

Nassim Golaghaei ¹ (دانشجو)
Mortaza Yamini ² (عضو هیات علمی)

Received: 2012-12-28 Accepted : 2013-01-22 Published : 2013-03-04

Keywords: GEFT, Keywords: Field dependence, passive vocabulary, active vocabulary,

Abstract :

    Abstract This article is primarily bidirectional in that it is concerned with two fields of cognitive styles of field-dependence/independence on the one hand and breadth of vocabulary knowledge on the other hand. In other words, this research is primarily intended to investigate the nature of the students' vocabulary knowledge in the field of passive and active knowledge of L2 words as a whole with regard to their preferred cognitive style of field –dependency/independency. The research method was that 60 juniors were selected. They were then bisected to two groups on the basis of their preferred cognitive styles of field-dependency / independency. Three types of tests, the passive version of Vocabulary Levels Test, the Productive Version of the Vocabulary Levels Test, and the Group Imbedded Figures Test were administered to a group of 60 undergraduate students majoring in the field of English Language Teaching. The conclusion drawn after the analysis of the data was that the participants in the field-independent group outperformed their field-dependent counterparts dealing with both passive and productive vocabulary levels. Finally, the findings of this research could be interpreted as being supportive of the idea that the field-dependent/independent cognitive style could be considered as an effective factor influencing the learners' vocabulary learning in the field of second language acquisition.

References:

منابع

      

Adamopoulos, R. (2004). Personality and second language acquisition. ENGL. 539. Retrieved from http:// salisbury. edu/acu/ portfolio samples.

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (2005). Psychological testing. Prentice Hall of India.

Brown. H, D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. By Pearson Education, Inc.

Cook, V. (1991). Second language learning and language teaching. New York:  Routledge, Chapman and Hall.

Cruickshank, D. R., & Jenkins, D. B., & Metcalf, K. K. (2006). The act of teaching. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Golkar, M., & Yamini, M. (2007). Vocabulary proficiency and reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 7(3), 88-107.

Hatch, E., & Brown ,C. (1995). Semantics and language education. Cambridge University Press.

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing Journal, 16 (1).

Laufer, B., & Paribakht, S.T. (1998).The relationship between passive and active vocabularies. Effects of language learning contexts. Language  Learning Journal, 48(3), 365-391.

Nation, P. (1993).Measuring readiness for simplified material: A Test of the                   first 1,000 words of English. RELC Anthology Series, 31, 193-203.

Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001).Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-58.

Schoonen, R., & Verhallen, M. (2008). The assessment of deep word knowledge in young first and second language learners. Language Testing Journal, 25(2), 211-236.

Shaw, H., & Date, P.  (1986). Handbook of English. Mc-Hill. Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.

Srivastava, V.P. (1997). Cognitive style in educational research. Anmol Publications . New Delhi-1100002, India.

William, M., & Burden, L. R. (1997).

Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.

Yamini, M., & Rahnama , M. (2008). Relation between field dependence /independence, ambiguity tolerance/ intolerance and reading comprehension global and local items. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 63-72