认知风格与附带词汇习得的实证性研究 第3页
Up to now, it may be safe to conclude that the correlation between FI and IVA performance has been well established. FI plays an important role and is one of the significant factors in predicting the success of IVA.
It is proven that AT/I cognitive style exert significantly different influence upon the immediate post-test score. The learners with a high degree of AT over performed low AT in the reference of new words in reading. There are several reasons for the results:
More tolerant people are relatively “open-minded” in accepting ideologies and events and facts that contradict their own views; they are more innovative and creative, and not cognitively or affectively disturbed by ambiguity and uncertainty. By contrast, persons with a low tolerance of ambiguity are more “close-minded”, more dogmatic, tend to reject items that are contradictory or slightly incongruent with their existing system; they wish to see every proposition fit into an acceptable place in their cognitive organization, and if it does not fit, it is rejected (Brown, 1987). Extensive reading, as we all know, is an extremely demanding task and it requires the learner to cope with information gap, unexpected language and situations, new cultural norms and substantial ambiguous stimulus. Therefore it makes sense that persons with HAT assess the new information and ambiguous situations as “desirable” while people with LAT as “sources of threat”. As a result, learners with higher AT will take and retain more word knowledge from reading.
As referred in chapter two, researchers found that AT is positively related with risk-taking. The risk-taking behavior is regarded as a positive predictor of good language learners (Rubin 1975). To acquire new words form reading material, a reader will have to take the risk of making inference about the unknown words they encountered in reading, ignoring the inexactness of such guess. Guessing from context is a complex activity drawing on a range of skills and types of knowledge. It is worth bearing in mind that it is a sub-skill of reading and depends heavily on learners’ ability to read with a good level of proficiency. Learners with higher AT are more capable of inferential processing and generate more effective inferences than lower AT readers, and thus are able to gain larger amount of target input from their L2 reading than their less tolerant peers.
However, the notion that more ambiguity tolerant students have better performances in language learning is challenged by the results of delayed post-test, in which there is no significant difference among the 3 groups with different degree of AT, that is to say, the AT cognitive style has no effect on the IVA in the long run. The findings can be explained in this way: each of the AT and AI learner has its own strengths and faults. In IVA process, although learners with high AT are likely to gain more words form context due to their tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainties in EFL input, they will inevitably learn some inexact language forms which will do harm to their retention for new words that were incidentally gained form reading material, so slower progress they will make than the learners with a low degree of AT. This explains that learners with 本文来自优文论文网原文请找QQ752018766 HAT and LAT achieve similarly in the delayed post-test two weeks later.
The T-test results demonstrated significant differences between effective and ineffective learners in their FDI and ATI, and effective learners tend to be highly field independent and more ambiguity tolerant learners.
Firstly, effective and ineffective learners demonstrated significant differences in their field sensitivity, which proves that FI is an indicator of succ 毕业论文
http://www.youerw.com essful vocabulary learning. People with HFI tend to be good at storing and retrieving information, spelling and locating resources. As a result, HFI people are inclined to be good readers. Besides, people with HFI are thought to be independent and sensitive to details, and have the ability to separate easily the key details from an ambiguous context through the use of analysis. Thus they might be good at language learning activities such as finding patterns, organizing data to make inferences, and learning rules.
Secondly, effective and ineffective learners demonstrated significant differences in their degree of ATI. The results imply that effective and ineffective learners tolerate the language ambiguity appearing in IVA process differently, effective learners are better at tackling language complexity than ineffective learners. The higher they can tolerate, the better they can understand, the more information they take in. besides, the interaction between TA and language strategies also plays an essential role to contribute to the difference between effective and ineffective learners. The studies on language strategies have presented that successful learners and unsuccessful learners apply remarkably different strategies and that the interaction between them significantly results in different language performance. Zhang (2004) finds that students with high level of AT tend to select language learning strategies appropriately and use them effectively in tackling language tasks whereas students with low level of TA usually will not tolerate any ambiguous language input, consequently summon up all the language learning strategies for a particular language task no matter if they are appropriate for it.
上一页 [1] [2] [3]
认知风格与附带词汇习得的实证性研究 第3页下载如图片无法显示或论文不完整，请联系qq752018766
