Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol 3, No 4 (2012), 806-813, Jul 2012
doi:10.4304/jltr.3.4.806-813

Cognitive Styles and Performance on Schema-based Cloze Multiple Choice Item Tests: A Fairness Issue

Ebrahim Khodadady, Azar Hosseini Fatemi, Saba Etminan

Abstract


This study reports the performance of 253 undergraduate and graduate students of English on the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and a schema-based cloze multiple choice item test (SBCMCIT) and its subtests as measures of cognitive styles and English language proficiency, respectively. Although field independent (FI) test takers outperformed their field dependent (FD) counterparts on the SBCMCIT, their performance showed relatively weaker and unexpectedly negative relationships with the GEFT. Assigning the participants to low, middle, and high proficiency groups on the basis of their standardized scores on the SBCMCIT and correlating them with the GEFT, however, showed that neither low nor high proficiency groups employed their cognitive styles because their performance on the two tests did not reveal any significant correlations. The middle proficiency group, however, employed both FD and FI cognitive styles to compensate for their partially acquired language proficiency and thus their scores on the SBCMCIT and two of its subtests showed significant correlations with the GEFT. The results are discussed in terms of cognitive styles and fairness in language testing.


Keywords


cognitive styles; field dependency; field independency; schema theory; fairness

References


 

[1] Allinson, C., & Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 119-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00801.x

[2] Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[3] Duagtkin, L. (May 7, 2005) Why don‟t we just kiss and make up? New scientist, 2498, p.35, Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg186249810300.

[4] Fountain, R. L., & Nation, P. (2000). A vocabulary-based graded dictation test. RELC Journal 31, 29-44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003368820003100202

[5] Gholami, M. (2006). The effect of content schema type on Iranian test takers‟ performance. Unpublished MA thesis, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran.

[6] Goldstein, K., & Blackman, S. (1978). Cognitive style. New York: Wiley.

[7] Gregorc, A. F. (1982). An adult‟s guide to style. Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems.

[8] Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51, 847-871.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679805100701

[9] Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary Imaginations. London, Penguin.

[10] Jarvis, M. (2005). The psychology of effective learning and teaching. UK: Nelson Thrones Ltd.

[11] Kahtz, A.W., & Kling, G.J. (1999). Field-dependent and field-independent conceptualization of various instructional methods with an emphasis on CAI: A qualitative analysis. Educational Psychology, 19, 413-428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341990190403

[12] Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning styles: An overview. In Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

[13] Khodadady, E. (1997). Schemata theory and multiple choice item tests measuring reading comprehension. Unpublished PhD thesis, the University of Western Australia.

[14] Khodadady, E. (1999a). Multiple-choice items in testing: Practice and theory. Tehran: Rahnama.

[15] Khodadady, E. (1999b). Reading media texts: Iran-America relations. Sanandaj: Kurdistan University Press.

[16] Khodadady, E. (2008). Schema-based textual analysis of domain-controlled authentic texts. Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 2(4), 431-448.

[17] Khodadady, E., & Herriman, M. (2000). Schemata theory and selected response item tests: from theory to practice. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation on language assessment (pp. 201-222). Cambridge: CUP.

[18] Luk, S. C. (1998). The relationship between cognitive style and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 137-147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00055

[19] Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

[20] Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[21] Pask, G. (1976). Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[22] Pask, G. (1988). „Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual or learning style.” In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles (Ch. 4, 83-100). New York: Plenum Press.

[23] Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2007). Is field dependence or independence a predictor of EFL reading performance? TESL Canada Journal, 24(2), 82-108.

[24] Witkin, H.A. (1974). Psychological differentiation: studies of development. New York: Wiley.

[25] Witkin, H.A., Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. Field Dependence and Field Independence. New York: International Universities Press.

[26] Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). A Manual for the Group Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.


Full Text: PDF


Journal of Language Teaching and Research (JLTR, ISSN 1798-4769)

Copyright @ 2006-2012 by ACADEMY PUBLISHER – All rights reserved.