Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T05:28:40.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationships Between Use of the Strategy of Monitoring and the Cognitive Style*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Roberta G. Abraham
Roberta G. Abraham
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study addresses the question of whether observed differences in the use of the strategy of monitoring (as defined by Krashen) is related to four rather stable cognitive styles. Subjects were 40 Spanish-speaking adults in a university ESL program. Each subject's use of monitoring was assessed by comparing the degree of correctness s/he demonstrated with respect to one morpheme, third-person-singular s, in elicited speech, taken to represent his/her acquired knowledge of the morpheme, and on three writing tasks—fill-in-the-blank, proofreading, and composition—taken to represent acquired knowledge modified by conscious application of the third-person-singular rule. It was hypothesized that the most monitoring would occur on the fill-in-the-blank test, and the least on the composition. The cognitive styles hypothesized to be related to monitor use were field independence, reflection, flexible control, and preference for processing information by written word.

No significant differences in the amount of monitoring on the three written tasks were noted. Field independence was positively related to the amount of monitoring on all written tasks, and reflection weakly but positively related to the amount of monitoring on the proofreading task. Implications for further research are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Fall 1983 , pp. 17 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, R. 1979. The nature of cognitive style and its importance to the foreign language teacher. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 168 358.Google Scholar
Abraham, R. 1981. The relationship of cognitive style to the use of grammatical rules by Spanish-speaking ESL students in editing written English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1978. A theoretical model second language learning. Language Learning 28.69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1979. The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Canadian Modern Language Review 35.372–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., and Fröhlich, M.. 1977. Aspects of second language learning in classroom settings. Working Papers on Bilingualism 13.1–26. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., and Fröhlich, M.. 1978. Variables of classroom achievement in second language learning. Modem Language Journal 62.327–336.Google Scholar
Corbett, S. 1979. A comprehension-based approach to Spanish: Interaction with preferred sensory modality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Corder, S. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin.Google Scholar
Doron, S. 1973. Reflectivity-impulsivity and their influence on reading for inference for adult students of ESL. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. and Burt, M.. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23.245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, C. 1978. The Stroop Color and Word Test: A Manual for Clinical and Experimental Uses. Chicago: Stoelting Co.Google Scholar
Hansen, J. and Stansfield, C.. 1981. The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning 31.349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houck, N., Robertson, J., and Krashen, S.. 1978. On the domain of the conscious grammar: Morpheme orders for corrected and uncorrected ESL student transcriptions. TESOL Quarterly 12.335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, J., Rosman, B., Day, D., Albert, J., and Phillips, W.. 1964. Information processsing in the child: Significance of analytical and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 78:1 (Whole No. 578).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, G. 1954. Need and regulation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, ed. by Jones, M. R.. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Fairview Park, N.Y.: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S., Butler, J., Birnbaum, R., and Robertson, J.. 1978. Two studies in language acquisition and language learning. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 39/40.73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linn, R. and Slinde, J.. 1977. The determination of the significance of change between pre-and posttesting periods. Review of Educational Research 47.121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, A. 1978. Improved oral test scores through delayed response. Modern Language Journal 62.321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H., and Todesco, A.. 1978. The Good Language Learner. Research in Education Series, No. 7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Nieves, T. In preparation. A Spanish Version of the ELSIE. Master's thesis, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Oltman, P., Raskin, E., and Witkin, H.. 1971. Group Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, Cal.: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Reinert, H. 1976. One picture is worth a thousand words? Not necessarily! Modern Language Journal 60.160–168.Google Scholar
Salkind, N. and Wright, J.. 1977. The development of reflection-impulsivity and cognitive efficiency. Human Development 20.377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. and Tucker, G. R.. 1974. Error analysis and English-language strategies of Arab students. Language Learning 24.69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, C. and Covitt, G.. 1978. Monitor use in adult second language production. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 39/40.103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. 1979. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning 29.181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, G. R., Hamayan, E., and Genesee, F.. 1976. Affective, cognitive and social factors in second-language acquisition. Canadian Modem Language Review 32.214–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twyford, C. W. 1980. The effect of syntactic information, pragmatic expectation, and cognitive style on learner's comprehension of a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Witkin, H., Oltman, E. Raskin, and Karp, S.. 1971. A Manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, Cal.: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar