1 / 38

Individual Difference Variables

2. Cognitive style . Development of cognitive styleThe effect of bilingualism on IQ The inappropriateness of traditional tests of intelligence for ethnic minority children: 1. Cultural equivalence of the items 2. Self-fulfilling prophecy Cognitive styles from different cultural background and aspects of its functioning.

early
Download Presentation

Individual Difference Variables

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. 1 Individual Difference Variables Second Language Acquisition Instructor: Prof. ??? Presenter: Linda ??? 9346002 2005/3/28

    2. 2 Cognitive style Development of cognitive style The effect of bilingualism on IQ The inappropriateness of traditional tests of intelligence for ethnic minority children: 1. Cultural equivalence of the items 2. Self-fulfilling prophecy Cognitive styles from different cultural background and aspects of its functioning

    3. 3 Cohen’s conceptual styles: Analytic: typical of the mainstream in the united states Relational: typical of many minority-language children (Similar analyses: V. John, 1972; Ramirez & Castaneda, 1974; Other: Ausubel, 1968; Hill, 1972; H.D. Brown, 1980)

    4. 4 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.

    5. 5 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 their findings

    6. 6 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

    7. 7 Bernal’s research, 1971, found the task favored Anglo children because of a “differential experience readiness” among ethnic groups. In this study, the groups could be equated in their performance under conditions where practice was given on similar items with feedback

    8. 8 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

    9. 9 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

    10. 10 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 representation.

    11. 11 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 minority- language children: an instructional approach that stresses experiential knowledge and problem solving can have positive effects on the school achievement of minority-language children

    12. 12 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.

    13. 13 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

    14. 14 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.

    15. 15 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

    16. 16 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.

    17. 17 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.

    18. 18 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).

    19. 19 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.

    20. 20 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).

    21. 21 3. The level of familiarity of minority-language 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

    22. 22 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.

    23. 23 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.

    24. 24 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 better-developed cognitive strategies. Hakuta, 1983, the older have superior test-taking skills than their L2 learning ability.

    25. 25 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 from12-15. Izzo, 1981, have similar findings with the testing method of Asher & Price’s (1967) physical response.

    26. 26 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.

    27. 27 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

    28. 28 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 context-reduced 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)

    29. 29 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

    30. 30 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!

    31. 31 1. Difference in English ability among minority-language 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 context-reduced 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

    32. 32 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

    33. 33 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.

    34. 34

    35. 35 More: Analytic and Relational cognitive styles The analytic style of the school is formal, very sensitive to stimulus, and looking at non-obvious 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, self-centered 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.

    36. 36 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.

    37. 37 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.

    38. 38 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.

    39. 39 H.D. Brown’s cognitive style variables: Field independence/ dependence Reflectivity/ Impulsivity Tolerance/ Intolerance of ambiguity Broad/ Narrow category width Skeletonization/ Embroidery

More Related