Transcript Individual Difference Variables

Individual Difference
Variables
Second Language Acquisition
Instructor: Prof. 陳錦芬
Presenter: Linda 黃怡綾 9346002
2005/3/28
1
Cognitive style
the different
Development of cognitive
style ways or
approaches that people
• The effect of bilingualism
onofIQ
have
thinking and
information.
• The inappropriatenessprocessing
of traditional
tests of
(ex.) verbal
or visual
intelligence for ethnic minority
children:
modes
1. Cultural equivalence of the items
2. Self-fulfilling prophecy
• Cognitive styles from different cultural
background and aspects of its functioning
2
Cohen’s conceptual styles:
• Analytic: typical of the mainstream in the
united states
• Relational: typical of many minoritylanguage children
(Similar analyses: V. John, 1972; Ramirez &
Castaňeda, 1974; Other: Ausubel, 1968;
Hill, 1972; H.D. Brown, 1980)
3
Field
independence/dependence:
• Herman A. Witkin’ s original formulations
the theory was strongly value laden. Later,
Witkin emphasized the value-free nature
and on the positive social competencies of
field dependent individuals.
• Manuel Ramirez, Alfredo Castaneda (1974)
prefered to use “field sensitive” as the
opposite term.
4
Assumption of Manuel Ramirez &
Alfredo Castaneda:
• Cognitive styles involve more than a method
of cognition and are culturally linked, derive
ultimately from the styles of a cultural group.
Members of the same cultural group are
thought to approach the world in the same
way and will succeed in an educational system
that takes this world view into consideration.
Research proposed the teaching strategies be
matched to the preferred cognitive style of the
child.
• But, Kagan & Buriel, 1977, did not support
5
their findings
HOW TO ASSESS THE
COGNITIVE STYLE?
• FI: Portable Rod and Frame Test, Child
Embedded Figures Test
→awkward consequence of measuring strength
in the social competence of the field sensitive
individual
→a deficit in weak performance on a spatial task
• ∴ Child Rating Form (Ramirez & Castaneda,
1974)
→problems of reliability & validity
6
It didn’t reflect
• Bernal’s research, 1971,
foundfunctioning,
the task
cognitive
but rather
favored Anglo children because
of a
familarity“differential experience readiness”
among
with the
ethnic groups. In this unfamilarity
study, the groups
test content and
could be equated in their performance
testing experiences.
under conditions where practice was given
on similar items with feedback
7
How the dichotomies relates to
language learning?
• Genesse & Hamayan, 1980: FI subjects
do well in literacy-related aspects of
language learning in an immersion context.
• Politzer & Ramirez, 1981: similar finding in
an American high school bilingual program
• Valencia, 1980-1: field sensitive ones are
more imaginative in verbally describing
social situations
8
Other cognitive variables
• Ramirez & Castaneda, 1974, found more
traditional rural Mexican-Americans are
more field sensitive ∵a strong identification
with family, community, & ethnic group. But,
Edward De Avila & Sharon Duncan (1980)
failed to find significant differences using
age as a covariate and the CEFT as the
measure of field independence in a test of
Ramirez & Castaneda hypothesis
9
• De Avila & Duncan (1980a) pointed out that a
very small percent of the variance in school
achievement is predicted by cognitive style
variables. They focused more on general
aspects of cognitive development: in contrast
to results from verbal IQ tests, when tested on
more dynamic measures of cognitive
functioning, Mexican-American children do not
display lower test scores; in 1979, proficient
bilingual children show superior development
of a “ metaset” that enables them to shift
flexibly among alternative solutions to
problems involving abstract symbolic
10
representation.
• De Avila, Cohen & Intili (1981) attempted
to determine the extent to which
instruction deliberately intended to further
cognitive development would promote the
academic achievement of minoritylanguage children: an instructional
approach that stresses experiential
knowledge and problem solving can have
positive effects on the school achievement
of minority-language children
11
Learner Characteristics
Learning style: Linda Ventriglia (1982)
identified 3 basic language learning styles:
1. beading: beaders acquire words incrementally,
& internalize the semantic meanings of
individual words before they begin stringing
them together
2. braiding: braiders use an integrative strategy
based on syntactical relations, acquire the
new language in chunks or phrases, without
conscious analysis.
12
3. orchestrating: orchestrators process the
new language initially on a phonological
basis, their understanding is based on a
grasp of meaning implied by intonation;
rely on oral models for language learning
※Implication: teachers should make
adjustments in their presentation of the
new language to the learning style of the
child
13
Intelligence
John B. Carroll, a co-developer of the MLAT,
wrote in 1981: “verbal intelligence is required in
foreign language courses depends upon the degree to
which the mode of instruction puts a premium on a
student’s verbal intelligence in order to understand
the content of instruction”.
• Verbal intelligence, thus, plays a greater role
in L2 learning when the material is taught in a
formal manner with great emphasis on
reasoning analytically about verbal material.
14
• Genesee & Hamayan, 1980, it may be
one reason why intelligence has been
found to correlate less strongly with L2
learning in younger in an immersion
setting or in a bilingual classroom.
• Little research on the relationship between
intelligence and language learning in
bilingual settings ∵the problems of
measurements; except Duncan & De Avila,
1979
15
Personality factors
• Factors relating to self: Self-esteem,
Inhibition, Ego-permeability, Anxiety
• Interpersonal variables: Empathy,
Extroversion, Aggression, Conformity,
sociability
• Almost no research on personality
factors and child language learning may
be due to the difficulty in measuring such
variables in young children.
16
• Swain & Burnaby (1976): perfectionist
tendencies, quickness to grasp new concepts
were found to be positively related to French
achievement; talkativeness, sociability were
not found to be significant predictors of
individual differences.
• Lily Wong Fillmore (1982b) also found it’s not
necessarily the case socially outgoing children
made the most progress in classroom second
language learning. Quiet children apparently
can acquire a great deal by being “active
listeners” and progressed more.
17
How student characteristics interact
with instructional practices?
• Wong Fillmore’s finding: different children
fare better under different types of
instruction, which similar to the idea that
no one method is ideal for all children.
• However, empirical evidence for the utility
of such an approach for improving
educational procedures is weak (Cronbach
& Snow, 1977).
18
Why is it weak?
• 1. Measuring is quite primitive
• 2. Learner style or cognitive style variables
may be task-specific and may be changed
by instructions and other situational
variables
• 3. Not all instructional methods are ideal
for all individuals and that the tasks of
research is to identify those methods that
maximize the outcome for different
individual.
19
What student x instructional interactions tell
about in L2 learning in children?
1. Wong Fillmore argued that the classroom
organization, proportion of native speakers,
and the manner in which the input is
presented all interact with the personality and
motivational characteristics of the child in
determining eventual outcome.
2. Hamayan, Genesee, and Tucker (1977): the
personality traits of conformity and control
correlated with L2 learning in a conventional
program, but not in a French immersion
program (formal grammar training and rote
memorization which have less value in an
immersion program).
20
3. The level of familiarity of minoritylanguage children with the target language
such as English: Cummins (1981b), in
contrast, immigrant children who have built
up literacy-related skills in their L1 acquire
these skills more quickly in a L2 than do
native-born children
21
4. The need to accommodate teachers’
instruction to the cultural styles of ethnic
minority children:
• Philips (1972), Van Ness (1981), Boggs (1972)
points to the effectiveness of adjusting
instructional practices to the international
patterns to which children accustomed.
• Jordan, D’Amato, & Joesting, 1981, has similar
finding with Hawaii children in a bilingual school;
children who were taught to be cooperative,
interdependent (values in the home) were more
successful when moved to the mainstream
school.
22
Implication of pupil’s characteristics and
their interaction with instructional practice:
Instructional practices may be more
beneficial to the language learning of
some children, with certain backgrounds,
than for other children, from other
backgrounds.
Ethnographic research: accommodation to
the child’s habitual ways of interacting with
adults and peers makes the transition to
the world of the school easier and less
likely to result in failure.
23
Age
Optimal age issue
Wong Fillmore, 1982a, the older may do
better at the task of learning a L2 in the
school context ∵they have betterdeveloped cognitive strategies.
Hakuta, 1983, the older have superior
test-taking skills than their L2 learning
ability.
24
CPH; younger-is-better?
Krashen, Long, Scarcella (1979) endorsed a
younger-is-better position in terms of ultimate
achievement
Fathman, 1975; Patkowski, 1980; Snow &
Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1978: ultimate proficiency in
Morphology, syntax is highest among informal
learners who have begun acquisition from1215.
Izzo, 1981, have similar findings with the
testing method of Asher & Price’s (1967)
25
physical response.
Stern, Burstall, & Harley, 1975:given the same
amount of exposure, older children are better L2
learners than younger ones.
Similar results were found by Ekstrand (1964,
1976); Bühler (1972); Florandr & Jansen (1968);
Gorosch & Axelsson (1964) in European studies.
Why?
1. Instructional techniques used for young children
were inappropriate, which emphasize on formal
grammatical analysis.
2. The Canadian research found no difference
from immersion programs ∵little emphasis is on
the formal aspects of grammar for older ones to
be advantaged.
26
3. Cummins (1979b): The findings that older
children learn better in school settings is
consistent with the “linguistic
interdependence hypothesis”. It means
the older ones whose ability to deal with
literacy-related language is more
developed, would acquire cognitive/
academic L2 skills more rapidly.
Cummins (1980b): the older and younger
children have their own different
advantages in learning L2
27
Linguistic interdependence hypothesis
suggests that certain aspects of the pupil’s
level of L1 proficiency are important
determinants of the outcome of the L2
learning process in classroom settings. What
matters are skills in dealing with contextreduced communication (older children
should have an advantage).
Conclusion: Early exposure to meaningful
context-embedded communication from
teachers and peers in bilingual classrooms is
important for L2 learning. (Cummins,1981b;
Wong Fillmore, 1982a)
28
Age and instruction
The age of the children have an influence on the
typ of instruction chosen:
 Western researchers: communication-based or
natural approach
Pupils will benefit from meaningful, communicative
activities.
 Soviet researchers: grammar-oriented approach
Lg learning as a process of an increasing
awareness of the rule-governed features of the
TL.
－Little empirical research testing the contentions
of the schools of thought
29
Age and exiting
• How long a child should be instructed in
the school language before being exited to
a program where instruction is entirely in
the L2 under the consideration of retaining
a bilingual component throughout the
primary and high schools?
…It’s hard to answer!
30
1. Difference in English ability among minoritylanguage children
2. To distinguish oral and literacy-related language
skills
 Jim Commins (1981b) what does it mean to be
proficient in English?
Result in Canada: about 2 years to master the
context-embedded aspects of English
proficiency; 5-7 years to master the contextreduced cognitive skills
 Paul Rosier (1977): children in bilingual
program showed some initial inferiority on tests
but later surpassed the other group receiving
the direct method; it took 3-4 years to show up
31
 Lily Wong Fillmore (1982a, 1982c): in studies of
bilingual classrooms, minority lg children acquire
oral communicative skills quickly within 2 or 3
years. But it took much longer to attain the level
of proficiency required for understanding the
language in its instructional uses (about 4-6
years)
What criteria are to be used determine whether the children are
sufficiently adept in the second language to do well academically?
Assessment of context-embedded language
skills do not provide information about the child’s
ability to understand and use language for
abstract, academic purposes for survive in the
all-English curriculum
32
Conclusion
• SLA is a complex and overdetermined
process, the measurement of individual
difference variables is too crude to explain
much of the variance.
• The most consistent results have been
obtained with the age variable. It may be
the child’s advantage to begin instruction
in reading and writing in the L2 only after
oral language skills are established.
33
34
More: Analytic and Relational
cognitive styles
• The analytic style of the school is formal, very
sensitive to stimulus, and looking at nonobvious attributes. It is lineal instruction,
leaving relational students at great
disadvantage. It’s notable among
businessmen and some academic fields.
• The relational style is global, general, selfcentered and disposed to instill rather than
abstract properties. It is more sweeping,
Gelstalt in character, even circular. It’s
observable among artists, creative writers and
occupations requiring considerable sensitivity.
35
Portable Rod and Frame Test
• The subject sits in a dark room ( in the portable
version of RFT, looks inside box) and sees a rod
enclosed by an square frame. The rod can rotate
around its center which is at the center of the
square. Both rod and frame are illuminated and
highly visible against the dark background. For
every item the subject must direct the
experimenter step by step to rotate the rod until it
is truly vertical.
36
Child Embedded Figures Test
• CEFT was developed by Karp and Konstadt
(1963) for children who are 5 years or older. It
was modified by employing a number of similar
forms and complex figures and eliminating
some of the practical disadvantages of the
Goodenough & Eagle version which refers to
complex figures were drawings of familiar but
caricatured objects. Young children would
research for a simple form which was
integrated in one of the pieces of the jigsaw
puzzle.
37
CHILD RATING FORM
The instrument originally developed by
Ramirez and Alfredo Castanada
It was a direct observation format yielding
frequency of behavior scales that could be
completed by the teacher or older children in a
self-report survey.
38
H.D. Brown’s cognitive style
variables:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Field independence/ dependence
Reflectivity/ Impulsivity
Tolerance/ Intolerance of ambiguity
FI: distinguish
parts from a whole; take
Broad/ Narrow
category width
an analytic approach to information
Skeletonization/ Embroidery
processing
FD: organize the world in terms of
wholes, perceive the larger view; takes
an integrative approach to
information processing
39