Cognitive Style and English Reading Ability
认知方式与英语阅读能力
Shen Wei (申蔚)
First Military Medical
University TC, Guangzhou
Abstract
A
second language learner’s cognitive style is one of the many factors that may
influence his/her success in second language acquisition (SLA). One of
cognitive styles, Field Independence (FI) has been chosen in the present study
because it seems to attract most attention in SLA. The present study attempts
to investigate the roles that FI plays in the reading ability, one of the most
important skills in SLA. In the present study, the reading ability refers to
the ability in three most frequently occurring reading types, skimming,
scanning, and careful reading. An experiment has been conducted to explore the
relationship between the reading ability of the three reading types and FI. In
addition, the differences between effective readers and ineffective readers in
FI were investigated.
106 medical
students from the same big class in the First Military Medical University
(FiMMU) participated in the experiment. A questionnaire was designed to assess
the student’s degree of FI. Two reading comprehension tests were designed to
assess the student’s reading ability, one for skimming and scanning, and the
other for careful reading. Results show that there is a significant
relationship between FI and skimming or careful reading, and that there is a
significant difference between effective readers and ineffective readers in FI.
The findings of the present
study show a picture of the role of cognitive style of Chinese medical students
in English reading ability. In addition, they are beneficial for the Chinese
English teachers to accommodate reading classroom activities according to the
students’ different cognitive styles, so as to obtain the best reading results.
Reading is one of the basic
skills which language learners should master. Their reading capability has been
a symbol of literacy for a long time. People need to develop their reading
ability so as to read efficiently and benefit from the wealth of information in
the present world.
For
second language learners, it is essential to read well in a target language.
Reading is probably the most important skill in learning a foreign language.
And reading in another language allows for one more channel of communication
and for an important source of input.
The
importance of reading has initiated much research in SLA. And the reading
process has been one of the key aspects of reading research. With the influence
of psycholinguistics, the research of the reading process has been developed
rapidly. The well-known theories include: the bottom-up model, the top-down
model, and the interactive model.
1.1 Models of Reading Processes
From the thirties to the sixties of the twentieth century, the bottom-up model dominated the reading field because behaviorism took over the mainstream of experimental psychology during this period. The bottom-up model begins with the stimulus, i.e., the text or the input. It considers that reading is a strictly serial process from the lowest unit, the letter, to the highest unit, the passage. It considers that reading comprehension primarily depends on the decoding of words and sentences. In the bottom-up processing, to have extracted the full meaning of a written text, the reader must have processed each of its individual sentences. This, in turn, depends upon having correctly analyzed the clauses and phrases of those sentences, which depends upon having recognized the component words of those units, which depends upon having recognized their component letters (Adams 1982).
Then, in the middle of the sixties of the twentieth century, the top-down model is put forward based on cognitive psychology which became attractive to language studying. Goodman (1967) views reading as a process of hypothesis verification, whereby the readers use selected data from the text to confirm their guesses. Thus, the top-down model considers that the reading process is also serial, but contrary to the bottom-up model. It begins from the highest unit such as semantic or syntactic aspects to the lowest unit such as words or letters. What the reader has known has great effects on the reading comprehension. Goodman (1967) says that reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game. The reader first makes predictions and then uses selected data from the text to confirm his guesses. And a good reader is supposed to be a good guesser. However, a lot of researches afterwards find out that both the bottom-up and the top-down theories have their limits and they are not adequate in explaining many phenomena of the reading process. In fact, an authentic reading process, strictly speaking, is neither bottom-up processing nor top-down processing. It usually involves both kinds of processing. Then, in the seventies, a new model called “interactive model” was brought out. One of the main representatives of the interactive theory is Rumelhart’s model.
Rumelhart assumes
that the reading process is a two-directional interaction and both the reader’s
linguistic and background knowledge has great effects on the reading process.
Over-reliance on either top-down or bottom-up processing to the neglect of the other
may hamper readers. Successful reading requires a mix of top-down and bottom-up
processes (Carroll 2000).
The interactive model is
immediately popular because it is more natural. Then, in the late 1970s, the
schema theory was put forward, which is a development of the interactive model
and stresses more on the reader’s schematic knowledge, that is, the reader’s
already acquired knowledge. The reading process is considered to be the
interaction between the reader’s schematic knowledge and the text. And the
reader’s active role in the reading process is more stressed.
From the above, it is seen
that reading is not a passive process but an active one. The reader
reconstructs and creates meaning for the text. In different reading activities,
different reading processes are activated for different reading purposes.
Different reading
purposes demand different reading processes which hence result in different
reading types. According to the results of a questionnaire survey, 88.62% of
the people read to get information and people mainly use the reading techniques
of skimming, scanning and careful reading (李俊, 2001). Therefore, these
three reading techniques are chosen as three reading types studied in the
present research.
Skimming is a type of
reading in which the reader processes a text selectively in order to gain the
main idea(s) and locate particular information as efficiently as possible. The
reader may just quickly look through the title, subtitles, graphs, and topic
sentences, before they get the main idea. And chunks of the reading material
are skipped over because they contain unimportant information. Therefore,
skimming is a highly selective process.
Skimming is at least twice
faster than the reader’s normal reading (see Fry 1965:51). For an English
native adult, the general reading speed usually ranges from 250 to 500 words
per minute, while the skimming speed usually ranges from 500 to 1000 words per
minute (see Wassman & Rrinsky 1993:6).
And skimming is an
interactive process including both bottom-up processing and top-down
processing. Top-down processing is very important in skimming, “…the efficiency
with which L2 readers skim a text is likely to depend crucially on their
knowledge, either of the topic of the text being skimmed, or the structure of
the text, or both” (Urquhart & Weir 1998:252). And bottom-up processing is
also involved in skimming. “It does seem improbable that students would be able
to work out the main ideas of a text without some baseline competence in the
microlinguistic skills, without understanding some of the relations within at
least some sentences of that text” (Urquhart & Weir 1998:133).
Therefore, skimming as a
reading type has four characteristics (1) a high speed, (2) high selectivity,
(3) emphasis on the gist, and (4) an interactive process.
Scanning is a type of
reading in which the reader looks through a text quickly—not necessarily
following the linearity of the text—to locate a specific symbol or group of
symbols: e.g., a particular word, phrase, name, figure, or date. And these
symbols may have nothing to do with the gist.
Scanning has
three characteristics. Firstly, scanning is carried out at an even higher speed
than skimming. The purpose in scanning is to locate specific information
quickly. Thus, when the target is found, the reading stops. Secondly, scanning
is also very selective. The target of scanning is a specific symbol, so after
scanning, readers get some detailed information, but may know nothing or little
about the gist of the text. And thirdly, scanning mainly activates the
bottom-up process. The scanning process is regarded as a process of word recognition.
“All that is involved in scanning is word recognition; there is no need for
processing the syntax or semantics of the sentence containing the search item”
(Urquhart & Weir 1998:249). In an extreme scanning task, understanding the
particular word is even unnecessary; it's enough to recognize the letters,
because it is possible to scan for a nonsense word.
Both skimming and
scanning are fast and highly selective, while careful reading is quite slow and
not selective.
Careful reading is the kind of
reading favored by many educationalists and psychologists to the exclusion of
all other types because it is most associated with reading to learn hence with
the reading of textbooks (see Urquhart & Weir 1998:103). It can be used to
study the target language because it demands careful scrutiny and try to
comprehend all the information. Careful reading is mainly a bottom-up
processing, but top-down processing helps, for example, to make inferences
based on the context. All three reading types require various strategies in
order to fulfill the reading purposes.
In a daily
reading activity, the three reading types cannot be completely separated;
instead, they are involved together. People often first skim and scan to locate
the relevant information, then settle down to read carefully, and then skim and
scan again for the next target information. Thus, comprehension monitoring is
very important for effective reading. Monitoring provides the readers with
feedback about the particular reading process and the monitoring procedure
depends crucially on the type of reading (Urquhart & Weir 1998). “There is
no doubt that our monitoring of our reading comprehension is of major
importance. A judgment that we have not understood a text may well leave us
unsatisfied, or lead us to re-read it” (Urquhart & Weir 1998:85). Readers
need to adopt various strategies to monitor reading comprehension so that they
can read successfully and develop reading independence.
Reading is far more than passively receiving information. It is a cognitive process, mainly taking place in the human mind, and involving the active interaction between the reader and the text. And skills or strategies are needed to monitor and make the interaction more successful. The active role of the reader endows the reading process individual colors. And it is supposed that different readers tend to have different preferred reading types. Cognitive style is one of general individual differences; therefore, it is likely to be related to reading ability.
Ⅱ.Cognitive Styles
Cognitive
style, which is one of the key factors in individual differences among
learners, is assumed to play a role in second language learning by a number of
researchers. It is one of the self-consistent and enduring individual
differences in cognitive organization and functioning. Cognitive style usually
appears as dichotomies such as Field Independence (FI) versus Field Dependence
(FD), TOA versus ITOA, and aural versus visual. Either of the dichotomy is an
extreme type of the style. In reality, people usually show a predilection
towards either type. Individuals are able to alternate their cognitive style
according to concrete contexts.
In the present study, one of
cognitive styles, field-independence, has been chosen for investigation.
2.1 Characteristics
of FI/D
Field-independence as
against field-dependence is a dichotomy which has received most attention where
SLA is concerned. It is a learning style in which a learner is able to identify
or focus on particular items and is not distracted by other items in the
background or context, while field-dependence is a learning style in which a
learner tends to look at the whole of a learning task which contains many
items. The learner has difficulty in studying a particular item when it occurs
within a “field” of other items (see Richards & Platt & Platt
2000:173). In the term, “field” refers to the context of a problem. People with
FI can solve the problem without being affected by the context, or the external
conditions. For example, FI people have the ability to discern small geometric
shapes embedded in larger geometric designs. While people with FD solve the
problem depending on the context, that is, they are greatly affected by the
external conditions. Adults have quite stable FI/D styles. Robeck and Wallace
(1990:125) even found that FD/I remained relatively stable in the young
children.
According to
Chapelle (1992), Witkin and Goodenough consider that
field-independence/dependence consists of three major components: reliance on
internal versus external referents, cognitive restructuring abilities, and
interpersonal competencies. The first component means what referents people
rely on during their information processing. Internally referenced people are
analytic and more likely to make judgments based on their own decisions, while
externally referenced people are more holistic and are likely to want to
justify the judgments that they make in the wider environment, and gather
information to support what they decide. The second component refers to the
ability to either analyze a field when the field is organized or impose
structure on a field when the field lacks organization of its own. And FI/D
people are thought to have strong/weak cognitive restructuring abilities. The
last one refers to the interpersonal relationship. FI people are likely to be
aloof and not oriented towards people, with the result that their relationships
with others are less likely to be effective while FD people, in contrast, are
more likely to rely on external frames of reference for making judgments (e.g.,
rely on other people’s opinions). They are thought to be sociable,
person-oriented, and warm (Skehen 1999).
As I have mentioned about
cognitive style, it is impossible to find extreme field-independent or
field-dependent people. Brown (1987:88) also points out that some persons might
be both highly field-independent and highly field-dependent as contexts vary.
These people have “flexible cognitive style”. For this reason, people may have
FI and FD at the same time, and different contexts may invoke an appropriate
style.
2.2 FI/D in SLA
Related to the situation of
SLA, FI and FD types show different characteristics. The FI people are supposed
to have greater analytic and cognitive restructuring capabilities; therefore
they tend to be interested in abstract thinking and can do better on more
cerebral tasks. In the aptitude tests, FI/D is the general cognitive ability
which is assessed as grammatical sensitivity (Stern 1999). FI people have an
ability to analyze linguistic materials, identify their components, reassemble
them, and perhaps, explore relationships between these components. Thus, they
can separate the essential from the inessential (Skhen 1999). Besides, FI
people are likely to be able to reflect upon the skills or strategies they have
used in language learning. Stephen Krashen (1977, cited in Brown 1987:87)
suggests that adults use more “monitoring”, or “learning” strategies for
language acquisition. Lewis (1999:50) asserts that analytical language learners
enjoy checking their learning goals from time to time so as to measure their
progress; therefore, they would promote learning and development with maximum
efficiency.
In the case of reading,
especially in a large number of reading tasks, FI people tend to be good
readers because the material will contain a great deal of irrelevant
information, and it will be advantageous to devote attention to features which
help meaning to be recovered. In addition, FI readers are likely to use more
strategies to monitor the reading comprehension so that they can focus on the
reading purpose, and improve reading efficiency. During the reading
comprehension, the monitoring is used to check whether meanings accessed from
the lexicon are appropriate, whether parsing results in an acceptable sentence
structure, whether an appropriate schema has been located, whether proper
reading behaviors are used, and so on. And monitoring process includes various
strategies and requires constant attention. FI helps the reader to concentrate
on the reading purpose and finally complete the reading task successfully,
therefore, FI is supposed to be one of the important factors which affect the
reading process.
Although FI people tend to
be good at thinking, analyzing, and monitoring, they are less competent at
learning materials with social content. FD people have their advantages in
language learning, too. They are supposed to be more inclined to interpersonal
situations, wanting contact with other people and engaging in verbal
interaction with them. This may lead to greater communicative competence,
greater conversational resourcefulness, better negotiation skills, etc, all of
which should be beneficial for exposure to language and therefore language
development through interaction (Skehen 1989).
In sum, because of their
respective characteristics in cognition and affects, both FI and FD have
advantages and disadvantages in the field of language learning. FI individuals
benefit from the way they process information but are seen to avoid situations in
which language is actually going to be used for communication, FD individuals,
while comfortable and sensitive in communication situations, are not seen to be
effective information processors (Skhen 1999). Therefore, it could well be that
“natural” language learning, beyond the constraints of the classroom, requires
a field-dependent style and the classroom type of learning that involves
analysis, attention to details, and mastering of exercises, drills, and other
focused activities, requires conversely a field-independent style (Brown 1987).
There are a large number of
experimental researches trying to establish the relationship between FI and
SLA. Recent researches in SLA indeed support the claim that FI is related to
language learning results.
Naiman et al. (1978, cited
in Brown 1987: 86) find in a study of English-speaking eighth, tenth, and
twelfth graders who are learning French in Toronto that FI correlates
positively and significantly with language success in the classroom. Other more
recent studies (Hansen & Stansfield 1981, Stansfield & Hansen 1983, L.
Hansen 1984, cited in Brown 1987: 86) find relatively strong evidence in groups
of adult second language learners of a relationship between FI and cloze
testing. Chapelle and Roberts (1986, cited in Ellis 1999:504) find FI
significantly related to all measures of learning at the beginning and at the
end of a semester; and the relationship is strongest with TOEFL scores. Abraham
(1983, cited in Ellis 1999:503) reports FI related to higher incidence of
monitoring. Abraham and Vann (1987, cited in Ellis 1999:504) also find FI
related to TOEFL, greater variety of strategy use, and greater concern with
correctness. In addition, Carter (1988, cited in Ellis 1999:505) finds that FI
learners do better on measures of formal language learning. The above studies
seem to support the hypothesis that field-independent people excel in
classroom/tutored language learning with a strong emphasis on analytical
activities.
There is little
research about the relationship between FI/D and reading ability. However,
reading process is considered to have individual differences. Readers read
differently and consequently have different reading outcomes. In addition,
Malamuth’s experiment has proved that constant attention is closely related
with reading ability (Wittrock & Baker 1991). In addition, FI helps people
to concentrate on something, and channel attention to important aspects.
Therefore, the present study tries to establish the relationship between FI/D
and the reading ability of three reading types: skimming, scanning, and careful
reading.
3.1 Subjects
106 third-grade
Chinese undergraduates of the First Military Medical University (FiMMU)
participated in the study. All of them specialized in Clinical Medicine and
belonged to the same big class of 115 students. They were from different parts
of the country and had studied in FiMMU for almost two years and a half. Most
of them passed College English Test Band 4. They had similar ages ranging from
19 to 21. According to my observation, the students were cooperative when they
took the test and filled the questionnaire.
3.2 Questionnaire
A questionnaire
of 14 questions was used to evaluate the students’ degree of FI. All the questions
were designed according to the characteristics of FI. Each question was
followed by five possible answers. The subjects were asked to choose one best
answer according to self-judgment.
Because the questions asked
about the degree or the tendency of cognitive styles and the answer were on a
scale of five degrees, the minimal and maximal scores were respectively 1 and 5
for each question. In scoring, the marks of questions1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 14 needed to be changed in the following ways: 5=1; 4=2; 3=3; 2=4; 1=5
because the first answers to the questions all described the characteristics of
FI and we need to guarantee that the higher score stands for the greater degree
of FI.
The questionnaire
was prepared in Chinese so that all the students were able to understand it. It
is shown in the Appendix.
3.3 Reading Comprehension Testing Papers
Two reading comprehension
tests were used to elicit the students’ reading efficiency. The difficulty of
the tests is about that of CET band 4. One was for skimming and scanning, and
the other was for careful reading. Skimming, scanning, and careful reading
parts could be scored and analyzed separately. Altogether there were 50
questions, 12 for skimming, 8 for scanning and 30 for careful reading. The
question types included multiple-choice questions, short answers and
multiple-choice cloze (in fact, all the questions have one best choice except 8
short answers for scanning). The total score for the two reading tests was 100
points, with 2 points for each question. Therefore, the score range of
skimming, scanning, and careful reading were respectively 0-24, 0-16, and 0-60.
In the skimming and scanning
test paper, the first 3 texts for skimming, and the fourth or the last text for
scanning. The first 3 texts included 2 short passages (about200 words/text) and
1 long passage (about 900 words) to test skimming because skimming is possibly
used both for short or long reading materials in the daily reading activities.
Text 4 had 8 questions; it was an extract of indexes which were arranged
alphabetically. The subjects were required to quickly find 8 pieces of
particular information and write down the page numbers of the information.
Examples were given for the scanning section so as to make students familiar
with the question formats. All the answers to the 8 questions were Arabic
numbers so the effects of writing competence on answers were diminished to the
least. The time for the first reading compression test was15 minutes and
strictly controlled so as to maintain the high reading speed.
In the careful reading test
paper, 6 short passages (about 200 words/text) were prepared since daily
careful reading is usually carried out within short passages after the desired
information has been located. The six passages were about different topics so
as to decrease the influence of the subjects’ background knowledge on the
reading results to the least. The time for the second reading test was not
controlled since daily careful reading is usually carried on without a strict
time limit. Although there was no maximal time limit, there was a minimal time
lime, that is, 30 minutes, which is twice of the time limit required by the
speed-reading section so as to avoid the situation that the students read the
passages quickly and left as soon as possible.
Instructions were provided
in Chinese for each section, i.e., for skimming, scanning, and careful reading.
The students were required to read the passages and then answer the
comprehension questions. Their performance in reading was used to measure their
reading ability. The two reading comprehension tests will not be shown in the
Appendix of this article here, because they are too long and occupy too much
space.
Ⅳ. Results of the
Experiment
As the reading tests were
divided into three subcategories, skimming, scanning, and careful reading, the
relationships between FI and the three subcategories were analyzed by
statistical methods like Pearson Product-moment correlations.
Table 1 Correlations between
FI, skimming, scanning, careful reading and the total score of reading
|
|
|
FI |
SKIMMING |
SCANNING |
CAREFULR |
TOTAL |
|
FI |
Pearson
Correlation |
1.000 |
.279** |
.189 |
.262** |
.336** |
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
. |
.004 |
.053 |
.007 |
.000 |
|
|
N |
106 |
106 |
106 |
106 |
106 |
|
SKIMMING |
Pearson Correlation |
.279** |
1.000 |
.118 |
.359** |
.513** |
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.004 |
. |
.229 |
.000 |
.000 |
|
|
N |
106 |
106 |
106 |
106 |
106 |
|
SCANNING |
Pearson Correlation |
.189 |
.118 |
1.000 |
.121 |
.669** |
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.053 |
.229 |
. |
.217 |
.000 |
|
|
N |
106 |
106 |
106 |
106 |
106 |
|
CAREFULR |
Pearson Correlation |
.262** |
.359** |
.121 |
1.000 |
.791** |
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.007 |
.000 |
.217 |
. |
.000 |
|
|
N |
106 |
106 |
106 |
106 |
106 |
|
TOTAL |
Pearson Correlation |
.336** |
.513** |
.669** |
.791** |
1.000 |
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
. |
|
|
N |
106 |
106 |
106 |
106 |
106 |
** Correlation is
significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 1 shows
that there is a positive correlation between FI and skimming, between FI and
careful reading, and between FI and the total reading score, and all are
significant at the 0.01 level. This implies that the higher the FI, the better
results of skimming, careful reading and the general reading ability tests.
This outcome of the study agrees with the findings of recent researches that FI
correlates positively with language success in the classroom or in the formal
language learning setting. However, there is no relationship found between FI
and scanning. This failure to support the correlation is limited to the present
study in which skimming and scanning were tested within the same paper and
within the same period of time, so it is difficult to control the students’
time division for these two parts. Consequently, no relationship was found
between the scores of scanning and cognitive styles. And further researches are
needed to restudy the relationship between cognitive styles and scanning by
testing scanning with a separate paper and within a strictly controlled time
limit.
In addition,
students were divided into two groups according to the total score of the
reading tests. In the present study, the 1/3 students with highest scores
(Group 1) were regarded as effective readers, while the 1/3 students with
lowest scores (Group 2) were regarded as ineffective readers. Both Group1 and 2
had 35 students respectively.
An
Independent Samples T-test was carried out to see whether there was significant
difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in FI.
Table 2 T-test showing the significant difference between effective and infective readers in FI.
|
|
t |
df |
Sig.(2-tailed) |
|
FI |
3.447 |
68 |
.001 |
Because the critical t value
at the 0.05 significant level is 2.000, Table 2 shows the significant
difference between effective and ineffective readers in FI.
Ⅴ. Implications
and Conclusions
The findings of
the present study demonstrate that FI is an indicator of successful reading and
suggest an active role of cognitive style in reading activities. FI people tend
to be able to activate proper reading process according to the reading
purposes. Therefore, reading abilities can be improved by developing the
reader’s FI.
People often tend
to be more field-independent or more field-dependent. Some people may have
flexible cognitive styles, be able to adapt their approach to suit different
learning tasks, and are supposed to be more successful learners. During the
language learning, not only the teaching or studying methods preferred by a
certain group of learners need to be employed, but also the teaching or studying
methods which help learners to know and overcome their cognitive limitations
need to be used. “The burden on the teacher is to understand the preferred
styles of each learner and to sow the seeds for flexibility in the learner”
(Brown 1987:88). For example, an alert teacher may defuse the potential
conflicts between FD and FI by balancing structured with unstructured
activities and non-communicative with communicative situations (see Cohen
1998:16).
Furthermore, teachers need to help students to develop their analytic and monitoring abilities to achieve successful reading. For example, since reading process involves various strategies which are likely related to cognitive styles, strategy training has recently been suggested to help language learners to overcome certain blocks where they are weak.
In this way, the students
can have a balanced development between the two extreme points of the cognitive
dichotomy and achieve flexible cognitive styles in the learning process.
Students with flexible cognitive styles are supposed to be more successful in
the language learning, because they can adapt their styles to the concrete
learning task.
Bibliography
Adams, M. J. Models of
Reading. In J.F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch, eds. Language and Comprehension.
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1982: 193-202.
Brown, H. Principles of
Language Learning and Teaching. 2nd ed. Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 1987.
Carroll, David W. Psychology of
Language. 3rd ed. Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching
and Research Press, 2000.
Chapelle, C.A. Disembedding
‘Disembedded Figures in the Landscape…’: An Appraisal of Griffiths and Sheen’s
‘Reappraisal of L2 Research on Field Dependence/Independence’. Applied
Linguistics 4, 1992:375-384.
Fry, Edward B. Teaching
Faster Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Goodman, K.S. Reading: a
psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist 6,
1967: 126-135.
Ellis, R. The Study of
Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,
1999.
Li, Jun (李俊). 试论21世纪英语阅读教学的定向问题，《国外外语教学》第1期，2001:30-34。
Lin, Lianshu (林连书). 《英语实验研究方法》。广州：中山大学学报编辑部，1995。
Richards, J. C., J. Platt
& H. Platt. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching &
Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research
Press, 2000.
Skehan, P. Individual
Differences in Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold,
1989.
Skehan, P. A Cognitive
Approach to Language Learning. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press, 1999.
Urquhart, A. H. & C. J.
Weir. Reading in a Second Language: Process, Product and Practice. London: Longman,
1998.
Appendix
认 知 方 式 的 问 卷 调 查
以下是一份有关人的认知方式的调查问卷。本问卷总14题，每题均有五个选项，请选择最符合您情况的一个。
请大家一定根据自己的情况如实选择，答案无正误之分，且我们一定会为您的问卷情况保密，所以不必有心理顾虑。
一．个人简况
姓名：
年龄：
二．问卷
(1) 你的自信程度：
1很强 2较强 3一般 4较弱 5很弱
(2) 对于别人对你的看法或评价，你：
1很在乎