思维风格、听力学习策略与学业成绩
摘要
第一章阐明一个人成就的高低取决于其思维风格的不同,也就是运用学习能力的方式不同。思维风格研究无论对学生个体还是对教育教学意义重大。只有尊重个体的思维风格差异,才能真正做到因材施教。理论回顾表明国内外对思维风格、听力学习策略和学业成绩中两两关系有研究,对于英语专业学生思维风格、听力学习策略与学业成绩三者之间的关系的研究还是一个空白,本文试图在这个领域作一番探讨。
思维风格是一种认知风格。认知风格是个人的信息处理习惯,不同于在能力方面的个体差异,认知描写了一个人的思维、理解、记忆或解决问题的典型方式。认知风格结构模型的发展分为模型的发现增殖期,理论的综合期,以及认知风格理论的成熟与认知风格结构模型的定型期三个阶段。
近20多年来,通过对先前的风格研究进行整合,出现了多个综合模型,张丽芳和Sternberg曾回顾主要有:Curry关于风格测量的三层"洋葱"模型,Riding和Cheema的二维认知风格模型和Sternberg的心理自我管理理论。认知风格研究的另一个趋势是人们企图将认知风格理论应用到各种专业情境中去,这导致了后来学习风格理论(Learning Style)研究的兴起和繁荣。
Grigorenko和Sternberg(2005)将以往的多种风格类型进行归纳和总结,认为可以分为以下三类:以认知为中心(Cognition-centered)的风格,以人格为中心(Personality-centered)的风格和以活动为中心(Activity-centered)的风格
1987年,美国心理学会(APA)主席、耶鲁大学心理学教授罗伯特. J.斯腾伯格(Robert J. Sternberg)提出了一种全新的风格理论一心理自我管理理论(theory of mental self-government),并在该理论中首次提出思维风格( thinking style)的概念。
按照Sternberg的观点(1997),思维风格是指人们所偏好的思考方式。该理论把人的思维和国家的管理相类比,认为不同国家有不同的治国方式,不同的人也有自己的一套自我组织和管理的“思维风格”,它们体现在一个人学习、生活和工作的方方面面。他按照5个维度将心理自我管理划分了13种思维风格,涉及功能、形式、水平、范围和倾向五个方面。一个人的自我管理方式是多种思维风格的组合。
香港大学教育学院的Li-fang Zhang (张丽芳)教授在做了大量研究的基础上,把Sternberg的思维风格概括地分为三类(Zhang L.F, & Sternberg R.J, 2005):第一类,称为思维风格类型I,由产生创造性和更高认知复杂性水平的思维风格构成,具有此类风格的人乐于挑战和冒险,包括立法型风格、审判型风格、等级型风格、整体型风格和激进型风格。第二组称为思维风格类型II,由比较趋于常规倾向和较低认知复杂性水平的思维风格构成,具有此类风格的人倾向于赞同他人或者权威定向,包括执法型风格、局部型风格、平等竞争型风格和保守型风格。第三组称为思维风格类型III,包括无政府型风格、专制风格、内向型风格和外向型风格,他们既不属于类型I也不属于类型II,然而,他们可以依赖具体任务的风格要求,可能显示来自两组的风格特点。一般来说,思维风格类型I与传统上被认为是积极的人类品质(包括深层次学习方法、高自尊、高认知发展水平以及整体思维模式)呈正相关的。而思维风格类型II则与消极的人类品质(包括浅层学习方法、低自尊、低认知发展水平、分析的思维模式以及神经质人格特质)呈显著的正相关。
Sternberg和Wagner编制的思维风格问卷(The Thinking Styles Inventory)是最重要的一个测量工具,是心理学领域运用最广泛的思维方式测量工具(Steinberg, 1992)。因为Sternberg把人的思维风格分成了13种,这13种思维方式又可以汇聚到功能、形式、水平、范围和学习5个维度上(Steinberg, 1994),该量表由13个分量表组成,每一个分量表代表一种思维风格。共有104道题目,每一道题目是一句陈述,要求被试在一个利克特式的七点量表上评价每一句陈述对于自己的符合程度。最后将得出被试在13种思维风格上的分数,每种风格上的得分在1--7分之间。
第二语言学习策略的研究开始于70年代中期,率先进入这一领域的是美国的Rubin、加拿大的Naiman、Frohlich和Todesco等人,迄今已有30年余年了。研究的问题主要涉及:(1)善学语言者使用的策略;(2)善学语言者与不善学者在使用策略上的差异;(3)策略的使用与第二语言成绩的关系;(4)影响语言策略使用的因素;(5)语言策略培训的方式及其成效。围绕这些课题的研究成果不断涌现,对第二语言教学的理论与实践产生了巨大影响。
语言学习策略是学习者在语言习得和使用过程中,为提高任何方面的第二语言水平而有意识采取的特殊的行为和方法。成功的语言学习者往往根据语言任务的性质、学习材料、个性特点、学习目的及学习阶段恰当地使用各种不同的策略(O’Malley& Chamot, 1990;Oxford, 1990)。国外比较流行的三种归类:
O’Malley和Chamot(1990)根据信息处理的理论,将策略分为三大类:元认知策略、认知策略和社会/情感策略。Oxford (1990)根据策略与语言材料的关系将策略分为两大类:直接策略和间接策略。Cohen (1998)根据运用策略的目的,把学习策略分为两大类:学习语言的策略和运用语言的策略。文秋芳(1993)依据Skehan(1989)的观点,将策略分为两大类:管理策略和语言学习策略。管理策略与学习过程有关,语言学习策略与语言学习材料直接有关。
学习策略也可以根据技能分类,包含听与读的接受性技能和说与写的产出性技能。(Cohen, 2006) Language Strategy Use Survey就是由Cohen, Oxford和Chi (2001)发展的基于技能的学习策略使用目录。Listening Strategy Use Survey是它的组成部分。
听力是语言学习的技能之一,是通过听觉器官和大脑的认知活动,并运用语音、词汇、语法和各种非语言知识,把感知到的声音转化为信息的过程。Anderson (1988)认为听力是一个包括注意、理解、记忆和评价的积极过程,是听者借助已有的知识,运用各种策略,达到对所听内容的理解的心理过程。听力学习策略是第二语言学习策略的一个重要组成部分,其研究是以学习策略研究为理论依据的,学习策略是为有效学习所采取的一系列措施和行动,那么,听力学习策略则是指学习者为学好听力而采取的一系列措施和行动。听力学习策略量表要能测量语音知识,语言文化背景知识,合理推测的能力等方面。
本研究采用的听力考试涉及英语专业四级考试(TEM 4)的听力部分和属成就考试的英语视听说课程期末考试。
第二章分析国内外同类课题研究状况,思维风格相关研究涉及概念的界定、社会化研究和教育领域内的思维风格研究等方面。并得出了中国大学生在思维风格方面的一些总体特点。(张厚粲等, 1999)
学习策略研究在二语习得研究中一直占有很重要的地位。它正随着认知理论的发展而在不断地发展与完善。大部分学者的研究结果大致可总结为以下几点:①成功者与不成功者存在较大的学习策略差异性,前者的学习策略优于后者;②学习策略与学习成绩具有显著相关关系;③学习策略研究结果对外语教学具有重大指导意义。
虽然第二语言学习策略的研究有了很大发展,但对听力学习策略的研究则相对较少。总体说来,对听力策略的研究结果表明:听力策略对听力成绩具有一定的预测力。
针对TEM4听力测试的相关研究肯定了TEM4听力测试的专业性和权威性;项目难度中等,区分度非常理想;男女生在听写、听力和有统计上的显著性差异;加强听写训练是提高学生听力水平、增强听力教学效果的有效手段。查阅相关文献,思维风格、听力学习策略与听力学业成绩三者关系的研究较少。
第三章为研究方法,首先提出问题:
1.思维风格是否影响英语专业学生听力学习策略的选择?
2.思维风格能否预测英语专业学生TEM4听力测试成绩或听力学业考试成绩?
3.听力学习策略与TEM4听力测试成绩或听力学业考试成绩的关系如何?
调查研究对象来自上海外国语大学英语学院一年级、二年级学生。本研究使用的工具包括两份问卷(问卷A --思维风格问卷,问卷B --听力策略使用问卷)、听力测试卷为TEM4试卷和视听说期末考试卷。采用SPSS 13.0统计分析软件和Excel进行数据处理,使用Lisrel 8.70建立结构方程模型Structural Equation Model (SEM)、进行ANOVA分析、回归分析及相关分析。
第四章为研究结果,使用Excel和SPSS13.0 for Windows软件分析TEM4听力部分试卷和视听说期末试卷,通过描述思维风格的总、体特点、思维风格的年级特点、思维风格的性别特点、得出思维风格与听力学习成绩的关系。通过描述听力学习策略的总体特点、听力学习策略的性别特点、听力学习策略的年级特点得出听力学习策略与学业成绩的关系;使用Lisrel 8.70建立结构方程模型(SEM)、用SPSS13.0 for Windows做相关分析,得出思维风格、听力学习策略与学业成绩的的关系。
对所有有效被试(一、二年级共435人)的思维风格得分总体情况进行描述性分析,发现学生思维风格类型与武欣,张厚粲(1999)的结论基本相同。
实验结果表明:一年级学生思维风格、听力学习策略与听力学习成绩两两相关。二年级学生思维风格与听力学习策略相关,思维风格和听力学习策略不能预测听力学习成绩。
第五章对研究结果进行了讨论,在思维风格与学业成绩的关系中讨论了思维风格的总体特点、思维风格的年级特点和思维风格的性别特点等,提出了创新能力的培养。在听力学习策略与学业成绩的关系中讨论了听力学习策略的总体特点、听力学习策略的性别特点和听力学习策略的年级特点等,指明这些特点与相关与其身心发展的特点和环境特点紧密相连。指明思维风格、听力学习策略和听力学习成绩的相关在一、二年级中有差异产生的可能原因:1)考试题型; 2)听力测试材料的口语真实性和情景化; 3)英语母语的交际环境vs我国外语课堂教学与测试(二语教学vs外语教学)。
文章的第六章为结语,提出了思维风格的匹配、培养学生创新思维风格和本研究的局限性。学生个体有差异,而在学业成绩上的差异往往是由于思维风格不同而产生。心理科学在二语研究中发挥了重要作用,能以更加科学的而方法帮助我们审视二语习得中的现象。斯腾伯格的思维理论对人的认知能力有了崭新的阐释,Cohen和Oxford设计的听力策略使用量表,作为SILL的提高版,更针对各学习技能而选择策略,选用视听说课程考试和TEM4考试试卷分别对两个年级的学生进行测试,用结构方程模式建模和用SPSS13.0统计,结果发现一年级思维风格、听力学习策略和学业成绩两两相关;二年级思维风格和听力学习策略相关。
本次研究中一年级和二年级学生使用了相同的思维风格量表和听力学习策略量表,但学业成绩依据的是不同的测试卷。受试水平不同,成绩参照试卷不同,有可能造成研究结论有部分差异。视听说试卷中采用了较多样化的试题类型,便能测出思维风格、听力学习策略与学业成绩的相关关系。建议TEM4听力考试中能适量增加一些主观题题型,在保证信度的情况下增强效度。
本研究考察了学生的思维风格、听力学习策略和学业成绩的特点及其关系,研究结果为我们提供了实证性资料。学生要善于发现和熟悉自己的学习风格,发展这些风格,更好地选择适合自身的学习策略,向成功迈进。教师不仅应该注意学习知识的传授,同时还应该充分认识到教学风格和学生思维风格的匹配,提高听力教学的效果;同时也必须丰富测试题型和测试手段,让具有不同思维风格的学生从中收益。注意培养学生创新思维风格。
本研究的样本量还较小,导致结构方程模型中的一些指标还不够理想,而且样本范围也存在地域和学校类别的局限性。四级考试中听力部分考试题型较单一,需提高主观题的权重。听力策略量表中的策略在考试中使用频率并不高,可能量表的外籍设计者较少考虑到了EFL的学习环境等,希望在以后的研究中有所改进。
Traditionally, many psychologists and educators have believed that people's successes and failures are attributable mainly to individual differences in abilities.(Sternberg, 1997; Li-fang Zhang, 2002) People may be practically identical in their abilities and yet have very different styles. A style is a preferred way of thinking. It is not an ability, but rather how we use the abilities we have. Society does not always judge people with equal abilities as equal. Rather, people whose thinking styles match those expected in certain situations are judged as having higher levels of abilities, despite the fact that what is present in not ability, but fit between those people's thinking styles and the tasks they are confronting.
Styles are of interest to educators because they predict academic performance in ways that go beyond abilities.(Oxford, 1994; Rossie-Le, 1995; Reid, 1995;秦晓晴,2006) They are also of interest because when teachers take styles into account, they help improve both instruction and assessment.
Chapter 1 begins with thes literature review of thinking style, listening strategy and some achievement tests a, TEM4 (Test for English Majors, Grade Four) and final test of listening and speaking course.
The development of cognitive style is restrospected first. The origin of the construct of style can be traced back as far as 1937 and the concept has evolved over time and has taken many different forms. Among these works, three major integrative models of styles stand out in the literature. The first is Curry's (1983) Three-layer "Onion" Model. The second is Riding and Cheema's (1991) Model of Two Style Dimensions. After examining over 30 style labels in the literature based on the descriptions, correlations, methods of assessment, and effects on behavior of these style labels, Riding and Cheema concluded that they could be grouped into two principal cognitive styles: wholist-analytic and verbal-imagery. The former concerns whether an individual tends to process information in wholes or in parts; while the latter pertains to whether an individual has a tendency to represent information while thinking verbally or one does so in mental pictures. The final and most recent endeavor in integrating works on styles is Sternberg's theory of mental self-government.
The important division of thinking style is also examined. Grigorenko & Sternberg's(2005) model are the integration of different models and comprises cognition-centered style, personality-centered and activity-centered styles. Styles in the cognition-centered tradition most closely resemble abilities. Moreover, like abilities, styles in this tradition are measured by tests of maximal performance with "right" and "wrong" answers.Witkin's(1962) field-dependence-independencemodel and Kagan's (1976) reflectivity-impulsivity model are introduced. The personality-centered tradition considers styles as most closely resembling personality traits. Furthermore, like personality traits, styles in this tradition are measured by tests of typical performance. Major work in this tradition has been done by Myers and McCaulley (1988) based on Jung's (1923) theory of personality types. Holland's (1973, 1994) theory of vocational types and Gregorc's (1979) model of types of styles also fall into this tradition. The activity-centered tradition focuses on the notion of styles as mediators of various forms of activities that tend to arise from aspects of both cognition and personality. One major group of works in this tradition is represented by similar theories of deep- and surface-learning approaches proposed by Marton (1976), Biggs (1978). Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government
Using the word‘‘government’’metaphorically, Sternberg contended that just as there are different ways of governing a society, there are different ways that people use their abilities. These preferred ways of using one’s abilities are defined as‘‘thinking styles.’’According to Sternberg, there are 13 thinking styles which fall along 5 dimensions: 1) functions (including the legislative, executive, and judicial styles), 2) forms (monarchic, hierarchical, oligarchic, and anarchic styles), 3) levels (global and local styles), 4) scopes (internal and external styles), and 5) leanings (liberal and conservative styles). According to the theory of mental self-government, people vary in their relative preferences for these styles and may use more than one style as well as flexibly switch from one to another as they adapt to changing task requirements. The stylistic preferences are also viewed as being socialized and as functions of one’s interactions within the sociocultural environment.
Li-fang Zhang and Sternberg (2005) arrive at the three-dimensional model of thinking style.Type I thinking styles are the ones that tend to be more creativity-generating and that denote higher levels of cognitive complexity, including the legislative (being creative), judicial (evaluative of other people or products), hierarchical (prioritizing one’s tasks), global (focusing on the wholistic picture), and liberal (taking a new approach to tasks) styles. Type II thinking styles are styles that suggest a norm-favoring tendency and that denote lower levels of cognitive complexity, including the executive (implementing tasks with given orders), local (focusing on details), monarchic (working on one task at a time), and conservative (using traditional approaches to tasks) styles. Type II thinking styles include anarchic, oligarchic, internal and external styles. They belong to neither Type I nor Type II styles, however, they may exhibit the characteristics of both of them in accordance with the situation.
The theory of mental self-government has been operationalized through inventories, including the Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI; Sternberg & Wagner, 1992), which have been shown to be reliable and valid for U.S. and Hong Kong samples. Furthermore, results from such research have shown some value of the theory and have generated a number of implications for teaching and learning in educational settings. In the United States, Sternberg and Grigorenko conducted a series of studies.
A set of findings indicated significant relationships between students' learning styles and such demographic data as students' socioeconomic status(SES) and birth order (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1995). Specifically, participants of higher SES status tended to score higher on the legislative style. Likewise, participants who were later-borns in their family scored higher on the legislative style than participants who were earlier-borns. A third data set indicated that teachers inadvertently favored those students who had thinking styles similar to their own (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1995). In a more recent study, Grigorenko and Sternberg (1997) found that certain thinking styles contribute significantly to prediction of academic performance over and above prediction of scores on ability tests. Their study also indicated that students with particular thinking styles benefited better on some forms of evaluation than on others.
Sternberg & Wagner's Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI) (1992) is employed to test thinking styles. It is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 65 items. The inventory has 13 subscales, with 5 items on each subscale. For each item, respondents are asked to rate themselves on a 7-point scale anchored by 1 (does not characterize you at all) and 7 (characterizes you extremely well). These 13 subscales correspond to the 13 thinking styles described in Sternberg's theory of mental self-government.
Oxford divided learning strategies into two main groups: direct strategies and indirect strategies. Direct strategies consist of subconscious strategies directly involving the target language while indirect strategies provide indirect support for language learning through more conscious strategies such as focusing, planning, evaluating. These two classes are subdivided into six subcategories: memory, cognitive, compensation, social, affective and metacognitive.
Unlike Oxford, O’Malley and Chamot have differentiated strategies into three categories depending on the level or type of processing involved: metacoginitive, cognitive and social/affective. They grounded the study of learning strategies within the information-processing model of learning developed by Anderson. Metacognitive strategies involve consciously directing one’s efforts into the learning task. These strategies are higher order executive skills that may entail planning learning, monitoring the process of learning, and evaluating the success of a particular strategy. They have an executive function. In O’Malley and Chamot framework of learning strategies, metacognitive strategies include advance organizers, directed attention, selective attention, self-management, advance preparation, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. Learning strategies can also be divided in terms of four skills. Listening is an integral portion of learning strategy. Language Strategy Use Survey (2001) by Cohen, Oxford and Chi, is an upgraded version of Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (1990) . Listening Strategy Use Survey (2001) is one section of it and adopted in the present research. It checks candidates' level from the perspectives of phonetics, background knowledge, prediction, body language and the use of original audio-visual materials.
Listening comprehemion is a cognitive process, in which listeners use both bottom-up and top-down processing to comprehend the aural text. Researches show listening trategy may predict achievements. Students of different language proficiency adopt different strategies.
The objectives of the TEM4 tests are: to evaluate English language teaching and learning at the end of the foundation state in the light of the national teaching syllabus; and to bring about beneficial washback effects on teaching and learning. As TEM4 was originally regarded as a means to check the implementation of the national teaching syllabuses, test content reflect the requirements in the syllabuses. Test content included listening, reading and writing for TEM4. TEM4 papers incorporate subjective and objective components, to varying degrees. Reliability and validity are the two facotors that arouse attention. Listening section are the focus of the research. Specifications for the listening component in TEM4 are listed and they are assessed by statistical analysis of the testing paper. The requirements of the listening and speaking course are designed in accordance with the national ELT syllabuses for English language majors. Final achievement tests are those administered at the end of a course of study. Clearly the content of these tests must be related to the courses with which they are concerned. The contents of a final achievement test should be based directly on a detailed course syllabus. Test categories are examined and discussed including discrete point or integrative testing, the objective testing or subjective testing. Authenticity is also concerned. Test techniques are discussed in relation to particular abilities. Test format for both TEM4 and Listening Course final exam are identified.
Chapter 2 presents the fruits of the researches on thinking style, listening strategy and listening achievement respectively and the correlation among them. The associations among them are partially confirmed. The findings have been inconsistent.
College students of Shisu pariticipated in the research. Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI; Sternberg & Wagner, 1992) and Listening Strategy Use Survey are employed. Meanwhile, researchers' interest in identifying the contributions of thinking styles to students' academic performance has never ceased, mainly because of the fact that the emergence of theories of styles was deeply rooted in the need for explaining students' individual differences in academic performance that are beyond the explanation of their abilities. The earliest investigation into the contribution of thinking styles to academic achievement was conducted by Sternberg and Grigorenko (Grigorenko & Stemberg, 1997) among two groups of identified gifted children participating in the Yale Summer School Program. The authors found that whereas the judicial and legislative thinking styles contributed positively to a student's success in a variety of academic tasks, the executive thinking style tended to contribute negatively to success in these tasks. A more recent study of the predictive power of thinking styles for academic achievement was conducted by Zhang (2002), whose research participants were U.S. university students. Results from this study revealed that the conservative style positively predicted students' grade point averages, whereas the global and liberal styles negatively did so. In Hong Kong, three such studies (Zhang, 2001; Zhang & Stemberg, 1998) have been carried out. Whereas one of the three studies (Zhang, 2001) was conducted among school children, the remaining two had university student participants. Results from all three studies suggested the following relationships between thinking styles and academic achievement. That is, in general, thinking styles that require conformity (conservative), respect for authority (executive), and a sense of order (hierarchical) were positively related to academic achievement. Thinking styles that are creativity generating (legislative and liberal styles) tended to contribute negatively to academic achievement. Furthermore, a preference for working individually (internal style) was positively correlated with academic achievement, whereas a preference for working in groups (external style) was negatively associated with academic achievement. Finally, mixed findings were obtained for the judicial style, which demonstrated a positive effect on achievement among secondary school students and male university students but had a negative effect on achievement among female university students.
Zhang Hou-can (1999) uses Sternberg's TSL to measure thinking styles of Chinese university students. He compares the individual difference with regards to gender, literary and science subjects, geographical regions and arrives at the characteristics of thinking styles of Chinese university student:. In general, Chinese students get high scores in legislative, hierarchic and liberal styles, but low in conservative and local styles. Students in science subjects score higher than those in literary subjects. Male students gain higher marks than female students, especially for students in science subjects. Male students tends to be more liberal and monarchic than female students.
Many language learning strategies have been found to correlate with language proficiency and performance. Therefore, most educators now accept the assumption that the use of learning strategies has become guidepost for distinguishing high from low skilled learners. They have also begun to recognize the influence that learning strategy use may have on the acquisition of a second or foreign language. They also acknowledge that students can be taught to learn the language if they are also taught the strategies that facilitate language acquisition.
Only a few researches shows the correlation among thinking style, learning strategy and achievement.
Some research shows that learning styles have a significant influence on learners’learning strategy choices. There is evidence that the Judging scale correlates positively with seven sets of learning strategies. Thus it turns out to be the most influential learning style variable affecting learners’learning strategy choices. Compared with low achievers, high achievers are more capable of exercising strategies that are associated with their non-preferred styles. Based on the available research results, it is proposed that learning styles may influence learners’language learning outcomes through their relationship with learning strategies.(邓俊民, 2003;郝玫;付红霞, 2002;秦晓晴,2006)
Chapter 3 addresses the research questions, mainly on the research method. Participants are the Grade 1 and Grade 2 students from college of English, Shisu .
They use the same Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Style Inventory (1992), Language Strategy Use Survey (2001). Grade 1 students use the final exam paper of Listening and Speaking Course. Grade 2 students use the listening section of TEM4 paper.
Chapter 4 shows the results. The analyses of the two paper are given. Structural Equation Model (SEM) made by Lisrel 8.70 and SPSS13.0 for Windows are selected to analyse the data. Descriptive analyses of thinking styles of the total 435 students are shown. The relationships among thinking styles, listening strategy and listening achievement are revealed.
In terms of thinking styles, university students tend to be more legislative, executive, hierarchic, external and liberal rather than oligarchic and conservative. Respectively, students tend to be legislative most, judicial least; hierarchic most, oligarchic least. They are more global, external and liberal. The results echoes Zhang Hou-can's conclusion (1999) to the great extent.
The characteristics of thinking styles in different grades are examined. The more capable students in Grade 1 tended to score significantly higher on the local thinking style. The less capable students in Grade 1 students tended to score significantly higher on the oligarchic thinking style. While the less capable students in Grade 2 students tended to score significantly higher on the anarchic thinking style.
The characteristics of thinking styles of different genders are examined. Male students tended to score significantly higher on the legislative, global and conservative thinking styles. Male students are extremely significan higher on internal thinking styles(p<0.001).
Effective listening strategies rank as L2--listen to talk shows on the radio, watch TV shows, or go see movies in the new language; L12--listen for those key words that seem to carry the bulk of the meaning; L18--pay attention to the context of what is being said. Rarely used listening strategies are L8- make an effort to remember unfamiliar sounds I hear, and ask a native speaker later; L3--In a restaurant or store where the staff speak the target language, I usually ask questions in it so I can pratice listening to native-speaker talk.
The characteristics of listening strategy of different genders are examined. Male students tended to score significantly higher on the L14---pay attention to where pauses tend to come and how long they last. Female students tended to score significantly higher on the L1---regularly attend out-of-class events where the new language is spoken.
Grade 2 students tended to score extremely significantly higher on the L4--encounter people in public having a conversation in the target language, listen to see if I can get the gist of what they are saying. L6--constantly look for associations between the sound of a word or phrase in the new language with the sound of a familiar word. L25--draw on my general background knowledge in an effort to get the main idea (p<0.001). Grade 2 students tended to score significantly higher on the 9--pay special attention to specific aspects of the language; for example, the way the speaker pronounces certain sounds. L15-- pay attention to the rise and fall of speech by native speakers—the“music”of it. L26-- watch speakers’gestures and general body language to help me figure out the meaning of what they are saying (p<0.01). Grade 2 students tended to score significantly higher on the L13-- Listen for word and sentence stress to see what native speakers emphasize when they speak (p<0.05).
The associations between listening strategy and listening achievement are obtained. In Grade 1, high achievers tended to score significantly higher on the L8- make an effort to remember unfamiliar sounds I hear, and ask a native speaker later & L11-- sometimes prepare for a guest lecture or special talk I will hear in the target language by reading some background materials beforehand (p<0.05); high achievers tended to score extremely significantly higher on the L14 --pay attention to where pauses tend to come and how long they last(p< 0.001) . In Grade 2, High achievers tended to score significantly higher on the L4--encounter people in public having a conversation in the target language, listen to see if I can get the gist of what they are saying. & L17--make every effort to understand what I have heard without translating it word-for-word into my native language (p<0.05)。
Next the correlations between thinking style, listening strategy and listening achievement are identified. No associations are justified between the former two and listening achievement, no Structural Equation Model (SEM) is built up. But SEM has been constructed between thinking style and listening strategy. Use SPSS13.0 to analyse the data. The conclusion is: In Grade 1, Correlation exists among thinking style, listening strategy and listening achievement. In Grade 2, thinking style correlates with listening strategy only.
Chapter 5 proceeds to have a discussion on the phenomena obtained in Chapter 4. They are connected with the growth of the students. The cultivation of creative thinking grounded on the thinking style theory is raised. Different correlations between in Grade 1 and Grade 2 can be understood from the perspectives of testing format, authenticity and contextualization of the listening materials, ESL vs EF, etc..
Chapter 6 turns to be the ending part. Some problems remains to be explored and solved including matching of thinking styles in teaching, learning and testing, creative thinking styles cultivation. Lastly, the limitations of the research are pointed out.
This research focuses on the relationship between Thinking Styles and Listening Strategy, and their associations with Listening Achievement among English majors. The research has integrated psychological study, teaching methodology and testing method. Structural Equation Model (SEM) and SPSS13.0 are selected to analyse the data. The results show that Thinking Styles influence Listening Strategy, Thinking Styles & Listening Strategy may not forecast Listening Achievement. The result of the present study will make contributions to the development and improvement of classroom teaching and testing, the matching of learner's thinking style, learning style and instructor's teaching style. The research also sheds light on the cultivating students' creative abilities.
思维风格是一种认知风格。认知风格是个人的信息处理习惯,不同于在能力方面的个体差异,认知描写了一个人的思维、理解、记忆或解决问题的典型方式。认知风格结构模型的发展分为模型的发现增殖期,理论的综合期,以及认知风格理论的成熟与认知风格结构模型的定型期三个阶段。
近20多年来,通过对先前的风格研究进行整合,出现了多个综合模型,张丽芳和Sternberg曾回顾主要有:Curry关于风格测量的三层"洋葱"模型,Riding和Cheema的二维认知风格模型和Sternberg的心理自我管理理论。认知风格研究的另一个趋势是人们企图将认知风格理论应用到各种专业情境中去,这导致了后来学习风格理论(Learning Style)研究的兴起和繁荣。
Grigorenko和Sternberg(2005)将以往的多种风格类型进行归纳和总结,认为可以分为以下三类:以认知为中心(Cognition-centered)的风格,以人格为中心(Personality-centered)的风格和以活动为中心(Activity-centered)的风格
1987年,美国心理学会(APA)主席、耶鲁大学心理学教授罗伯特. J.斯腾伯格(Robert J. Sternberg)提出了一种全新的风格理论一心理自我管理理论(theory of mental self-government),并在该理论中首次提出思维风格( thinking style)的概念。
按照Sternberg的观点(1997),思维风格是指人们所偏好的思考方式。该理论把人的思维和国家的管理相类比,认为不同国家有不同的治国方式,不同的人也有自己的一套自我组织和管理的“思维风格”,它们体现在一个人学习、生活和工作的方方面面。他按照5个维度将心理自我管理划分了13种思维风格,涉及功能、形式、水平、范围和倾向五个方面。一个人的自我管理方式是多种思维风格的组合。
香港大学教育学院的Li-fang Zhang (张丽芳)教授在做了大量研究的基础上,把Sternberg的思维风格概括地分为三类(Zhang L.F, & Sternberg R.J, 2005):第一类,称为思维风格类型I,由产生创造性和更高认知复杂性水平的思维风格构成,具有此类风格的人乐于挑战和冒险,包括立法型风格、审判型风格、等级型风格、整体型风格和激进型风格。第二组称为思维风格类型II,由比较趋于常规倾向和较低认知复杂性水平的思维风格构成,具有此类风格的人倾向于赞同他人或者权威定向,包括执法型风格、局部型风格、平等竞争型风格和保守型风格。第三组称为思维风格类型III,包括无政府型风格、专制风格、内向型风格和外向型风格,他们既不属于类型I也不属于类型II,然而,他们可以依赖具体任务的风格要求,可能显示来自两组的风格特点。一般来说,思维风格类型I与传统上被认为是积极的人类品质(包括深层次学习方法、高自尊、高认知发展水平以及整体思维模式)呈正相关的。而思维风格类型II则与消极的人类品质(包括浅层学习方法、低自尊、低认知发展水平、分析的思维模式以及神经质人格特质)呈显著的正相关。
Sternberg和Wagner编制的思维风格问卷(The Thinking Styles Inventory)是最重要的一个测量工具,是心理学领域运用最广泛的思维方式测量工具(Steinberg, 1992)。因为Sternberg把人的思维风格分成了13种,这13种思维方式又可以汇聚到功能、形式、水平、范围和学习5个维度上(Steinberg, 1994),该量表由13个分量表组成,每一个分量表代表一种思维风格。共有104道题目,每一道题目是一句陈述,要求被试在一个利克特式的七点量表上评价每一句陈述对于自己的符合程度。最后将得出被试在13种思维风格上的分数,每种风格上的得分在1--7分之间。
第二语言学习策略的研究开始于70年代中期,率先进入这一领域的是美国的Rubin、加拿大的Naiman、Frohlich和Todesco等人,迄今已有30年余年了。研究的问题主要涉及:(1)善学语言者使用的策略;(2)善学语言者与不善学者在使用策略上的差异;(3)策略的使用与第二语言成绩的关系;(4)影响语言策略使用的因素;(5)语言策略培训的方式及其成效。围绕这些课题的研究成果不断涌现,对第二语言教学的理论与实践产生了巨大影响。
语言学习策略是学习者在语言习得和使用过程中,为提高任何方面的第二语言水平而有意识采取的特殊的行为和方法。成功的语言学习者往往根据语言任务的性质、学习材料、个性特点、学习目的及学习阶段恰当地使用各种不同的策略(O’Malley& Chamot, 1990;Oxford, 1990)。国外比较流行的三种归类:
O’Malley和Chamot(1990)根据信息处理的理论,将策略分为三大类:元认知策略、认知策略和社会/情感策略。Oxford (1990)根据策略与语言材料的关系将策略分为两大类:直接策略和间接策略。Cohen (1998)根据运用策略的目的,把学习策略分为两大类:学习语言的策略和运用语言的策略。文秋芳(1993)依据Skehan(1989)的观点,将策略分为两大类:管理策略和语言学习策略。管理策略与学习过程有关,语言学习策略与语言学习材料直接有关。
学习策略也可以根据技能分类,包含听与读的接受性技能和说与写的产出性技能。(Cohen, 2006) Language Strategy Use Survey就是由Cohen, Oxford和Chi (2001)发展的基于技能的学习策略使用目录。Listening Strategy Use Survey是它的组成部分。
听力是语言学习的技能之一,是通过听觉器官和大脑的认知活动,并运用语音、词汇、语法和各种非语言知识,把感知到的声音转化为信息的过程。Anderson (1988)认为听力是一个包括注意、理解、记忆和评价的积极过程,是听者借助已有的知识,运用各种策略,达到对所听内容的理解的心理过程。听力学习策略是第二语言学习策略的一个重要组成部分,其研究是以学习策略研究为理论依据的,学习策略是为有效学习所采取的一系列措施和行动,那么,听力学习策略则是指学习者为学好听力而采取的一系列措施和行动。听力学习策略量表要能测量语音知识,语言文化背景知识,合理推测的能力等方面。
本研究采用的听力考试涉及英语专业四级考试(TEM 4)的听力部分和属成就考试的英语视听说课程期末考试。
第二章分析国内外同类课题研究状况,思维风格相关研究涉及概念的界定、社会化研究和教育领域内的思维风格研究等方面。并得出了中国大学生在思维风格方面的一些总体特点。(张厚粲等, 1999)
学习策略研究在二语习得研究中一直占有很重要的地位。它正随着认知理论的发展而在不断地发展与完善。大部分学者的研究结果大致可总结为以下几点:①成功者与不成功者存在较大的学习策略差异性,前者的学习策略优于后者;②学习策略与学习成绩具有显著相关关系;③学习策略研究结果对外语教学具有重大指导意义。
虽然第二语言学习策略的研究有了很大发展,但对听力学习策略的研究则相对较少。总体说来,对听力策略的研究结果表明:听力策略对听力成绩具有一定的预测力。
针对TEM4听力测试的相关研究肯定了TEM4听力测试的专业性和权威性;项目难度中等,区分度非常理想;男女生在听写、听力和有统计上的显著性差异;加强听写训练是提高学生听力水平、增强听力教学效果的有效手段。查阅相关文献,思维风格、听力学习策略与听力学业成绩三者关系的研究较少。
第三章为研究方法,首先提出问题:
1.思维风格是否影响英语专业学生听力学习策略的选择?
2.思维风格能否预测英语专业学生TEM4听力测试成绩或听力学业考试成绩?
3.听力学习策略与TEM4听力测试成绩或听力学业考试成绩的关系如何?
调查研究对象来自上海外国语大学英语学院一年级、二年级学生。本研究使用的工具包括两份问卷(问卷A --思维风格问卷,问卷B --听力策略使用问卷)、听力测试卷为TEM4试卷和视听说期末考试卷。采用SPSS 13.0统计分析软件和Excel进行数据处理,使用Lisrel 8.70建立结构方程模型Structural Equation Model (SEM)、进行ANOVA分析、回归分析及相关分析。
第四章为研究结果,使用Excel和SPSS13.0 for Windows软件分析TEM4听力部分试卷和视听说期末试卷,通过描述思维风格的总、体特点、思维风格的年级特点、思维风格的性别特点、得出思维风格与听力学习成绩的关系。通过描述听力学习策略的总体特点、听力学习策略的性别特点、听力学习策略的年级特点得出听力学习策略与学业成绩的关系;使用Lisrel 8.70建立结构方程模型(SEM)、用SPSS13.0 for Windows做相关分析,得出思维风格、听力学习策略与学业成绩的的关系。
对所有有效被试(一、二年级共435人)的思维风格得分总体情况进行描述性分析,发现学生思维风格类型与武欣,张厚粲(1999)的结论基本相同。
实验结果表明:一年级学生思维风格、听力学习策略与听力学习成绩两两相关。二年级学生思维风格与听力学习策略相关,思维风格和听力学习策略不能预测听力学习成绩。
第五章对研究结果进行了讨论,在思维风格与学业成绩的关系中讨论了思维风格的总体特点、思维风格的年级特点和思维风格的性别特点等,提出了创新能力的培养。在听力学习策略与学业成绩的关系中讨论了听力学习策略的总体特点、听力学习策略的性别特点和听力学习策略的年级特点等,指明这些特点与相关与其身心发展的特点和环境特点紧密相连。指明思维风格、听力学习策略和听力学习成绩的相关在一、二年级中有差异产生的可能原因:1)考试题型; 2)听力测试材料的口语真实性和情景化; 3)英语母语的交际环境vs我国外语课堂教学与测试(二语教学vs外语教学)。
文章的第六章为结语,提出了思维风格的匹配、培养学生创新思维风格和本研究的局限性。学生个体有差异,而在学业成绩上的差异往往是由于思维风格不同而产生。心理科学在二语研究中发挥了重要作用,能以更加科学的而方法帮助我们审视二语习得中的现象。斯腾伯格的思维理论对人的认知能力有了崭新的阐释,Cohen和Oxford设计的听力策略使用量表,作为SILL的提高版,更针对各学习技能而选择策略,选用视听说课程考试和TEM4考试试卷分别对两个年级的学生进行测试,用结构方程模式建模和用SPSS13.0统计,结果发现一年级思维风格、听力学习策略和学业成绩两两相关;二年级思维风格和听力学习策略相关。
本次研究中一年级和二年级学生使用了相同的思维风格量表和听力学习策略量表,但学业成绩依据的是不同的测试卷。受试水平不同,成绩参照试卷不同,有可能造成研究结论有部分差异。视听说试卷中采用了较多样化的试题类型,便能测出思维风格、听力学习策略与学业成绩的相关关系。建议TEM4听力考试中能适量增加一些主观题题型,在保证信度的情况下增强效度。
本研究考察了学生的思维风格、听力学习策略和学业成绩的特点及其关系,研究结果为我们提供了实证性资料。学生要善于发现和熟悉自己的学习风格,发展这些风格,更好地选择适合自身的学习策略,向成功迈进。教师不仅应该注意学习知识的传授,同时还应该充分认识到教学风格和学生思维风格的匹配,提高听力教学的效果;同时也必须丰富测试题型和测试手段,让具有不同思维风格的学生从中收益。注意培养学生创新思维风格。
本研究的样本量还较小,导致结构方程模型中的一些指标还不够理想,而且样本范围也存在地域和学校类别的局限性。四级考试中听力部分考试题型较单一,需提高主观题的权重。听力策略量表中的策略在考试中使用频率并不高,可能量表的外籍设计者较少考虑到了EFL的学习环境等,希望在以后的研究中有所改进。
Traditionally, many psychologists and educators have believed that people's successes and failures are attributable mainly to individual differences in abilities.(Sternberg, 1997; Li-fang Zhang, 2002) People may be practically identical in their abilities and yet have very different styles. A style is a preferred way of thinking. It is not an ability, but rather how we use the abilities we have. Society does not always judge people with equal abilities as equal. Rather, people whose thinking styles match those expected in certain situations are judged as having higher levels of abilities, despite the fact that what is present in not ability, but fit between those people's thinking styles and the tasks they are confronting.
Styles are of interest to educators because they predict academic performance in ways that go beyond abilities.(Oxford, 1994; Rossie-Le, 1995; Reid, 1995;秦晓晴,2006) They are also of interest because when teachers take styles into account, they help improve both instruction and assessment.
Chapter 1 begins with thes literature review of thinking style, listening strategy and some achievement tests a, TEM4 (Test for English Majors, Grade Four) and final test of listening and speaking course.
The development of cognitive style is restrospected first. The origin of the construct of style can be traced back as far as 1937 and the concept has evolved over time and has taken many different forms. Among these works, three major integrative models of styles stand out in the literature. The first is Curry's (1983) Three-layer "Onion" Model. The second is Riding and Cheema's (1991) Model of Two Style Dimensions. After examining over 30 style labels in the literature based on the descriptions, correlations, methods of assessment, and effects on behavior of these style labels, Riding and Cheema concluded that they could be grouped into two principal cognitive styles: wholist-analytic and verbal-imagery. The former concerns whether an individual tends to process information in wholes or in parts; while the latter pertains to whether an individual has a tendency to represent information while thinking verbally or one does so in mental pictures. The final and most recent endeavor in integrating works on styles is Sternberg's theory of mental self-government.
The important division of thinking style is also examined. Grigorenko & Sternberg's(2005) model are the integration of different models and comprises cognition-centered style, personality-centered and activity-centered styles. Styles in the cognition-centered tradition most closely resemble abilities. Moreover, like abilities, styles in this tradition are measured by tests of maximal performance with "right" and "wrong" answers.Witkin's(1962) field-dependence-independencemodel and Kagan's (1976) reflectivity-impulsivity model are introduced. The personality-centered tradition considers styles as most closely resembling personality traits. Furthermore, like personality traits, styles in this tradition are measured by tests of typical performance. Major work in this tradition has been done by Myers and McCaulley (1988) based on Jung's (1923) theory of personality types. Holland's (1973, 1994) theory of vocational types and Gregorc's (1979) model of types of styles also fall into this tradition. The activity-centered tradition focuses on the notion of styles as mediators of various forms of activities that tend to arise from aspects of both cognition and personality. One major group of works in this tradition is represented by similar theories of deep- and surface-learning approaches proposed by Marton (1976), Biggs (1978). Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government
Using the word‘‘government’’metaphorically, Sternberg contended that just as there are different ways of governing a society, there are different ways that people use their abilities. These preferred ways of using one’s abilities are defined as‘‘thinking styles.’’According to Sternberg, there are 13 thinking styles which fall along 5 dimensions: 1) functions (including the legislative, executive, and judicial styles), 2) forms (monarchic, hierarchical, oligarchic, and anarchic styles), 3) levels (global and local styles), 4) scopes (internal and external styles), and 5) leanings (liberal and conservative styles). According to the theory of mental self-government, people vary in their relative preferences for these styles and may use more than one style as well as flexibly switch from one to another as they adapt to changing task requirements. The stylistic preferences are also viewed as being socialized and as functions of one’s interactions within the sociocultural environment.
Li-fang Zhang and Sternberg (2005) arrive at the three-dimensional model of thinking style.Type I thinking styles are the ones that tend to be more creativity-generating and that denote higher levels of cognitive complexity, including the legislative (being creative), judicial (evaluative of other people or products), hierarchical (prioritizing one’s tasks), global (focusing on the wholistic picture), and liberal (taking a new approach to tasks) styles. Type II thinking styles are styles that suggest a norm-favoring tendency and that denote lower levels of cognitive complexity, including the executive (implementing tasks with given orders), local (focusing on details), monarchic (working on one task at a time), and conservative (using traditional approaches to tasks) styles. Type II thinking styles include anarchic, oligarchic, internal and external styles. They belong to neither Type I nor Type II styles, however, they may exhibit the characteristics of both of them in accordance with the situation.
The theory of mental self-government has been operationalized through inventories, including the Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI; Sternberg & Wagner, 1992), which have been shown to be reliable and valid for U.S. and Hong Kong samples. Furthermore, results from such research have shown some value of the theory and have generated a number of implications for teaching and learning in educational settings. In the United States, Sternberg and Grigorenko conducted a series of studies.
A set of findings indicated significant relationships between students' learning styles and such demographic data as students' socioeconomic status(SES) and birth order (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1995). Specifically, participants of higher SES status tended to score higher on the legislative style. Likewise, participants who were later-borns in their family scored higher on the legislative style than participants who were earlier-borns. A third data set indicated that teachers inadvertently favored those students who had thinking styles similar to their own (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1995). In a more recent study, Grigorenko and Sternberg (1997) found that certain thinking styles contribute significantly to prediction of academic performance over and above prediction of scores on ability tests. Their study also indicated that students with particular thinking styles benefited better on some forms of evaluation than on others.
Sternberg & Wagner's Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI) (1992) is employed to test thinking styles. It is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 65 items. The inventory has 13 subscales, with 5 items on each subscale. For each item, respondents are asked to rate themselves on a 7-point scale anchored by 1 (does not characterize you at all) and 7 (characterizes you extremely well). These 13 subscales correspond to the 13 thinking styles described in Sternberg's theory of mental self-government.
Oxford divided learning strategies into two main groups: direct strategies and indirect strategies. Direct strategies consist of subconscious strategies directly involving the target language while indirect strategies provide indirect support for language learning through more conscious strategies such as focusing, planning, evaluating. These two classes are subdivided into six subcategories: memory, cognitive, compensation, social, affective and metacognitive.
Unlike Oxford, O’Malley and Chamot have differentiated strategies into three categories depending on the level or type of processing involved: metacoginitive, cognitive and social/affective. They grounded the study of learning strategies within the information-processing model of learning developed by Anderson. Metacognitive strategies involve consciously directing one’s efforts into the learning task. These strategies are higher order executive skills that may entail planning learning, monitoring the process of learning, and evaluating the success of a particular strategy. They have an executive function. In O’Malley and Chamot framework of learning strategies, metacognitive strategies include advance organizers, directed attention, selective attention, self-management, advance preparation, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. Learning strategies can also be divided in terms of four skills. Listening is an integral portion of learning strategy. Language Strategy Use Survey (2001) by Cohen, Oxford and Chi, is an upgraded version of Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (1990) . Listening Strategy Use Survey (2001) is one section of it and adopted in the present research. It checks candidates' level from the perspectives of phonetics, background knowledge, prediction, body language and the use of original audio-visual materials.
Listening comprehemion is a cognitive process, in which listeners use both bottom-up and top-down processing to comprehend the aural text. Researches show listening trategy may predict achievements. Students of different language proficiency adopt different strategies.
The objectives of the TEM4 tests are: to evaluate English language teaching and learning at the end of the foundation state in the light of the national teaching syllabus; and to bring about beneficial washback effects on teaching and learning. As TEM4 was originally regarded as a means to check the implementation of the national teaching syllabuses, test content reflect the requirements in the syllabuses. Test content included listening, reading and writing for TEM4. TEM4 papers incorporate subjective and objective components, to varying degrees. Reliability and validity are the two facotors that arouse attention. Listening section are the focus of the research. Specifications for the listening component in TEM4 are listed and they are assessed by statistical analysis of the testing paper. The requirements of the listening and speaking course are designed in accordance with the national ELT syllabuses for English language majors. Final achievement tests are those administered at the end of a course of study. Clearly the content of these tests must be related to the courses with which they are concerned. The contents of a final achievement test should be based directly on a detailed course syllabus. Test categories are examined and discussed including discrete point or integrative testing, the objective testing or subjective testing. Authenticity is also concerned. Test techniques are discussed in relation to particular abilities. Test format for both TEM4 and Listening Course final exam are identified.
Chapter 2 presents the fruits of the researches on thinking style, listening strategy and listening achievement respectively and the correlation among them. The associations among them are partially confirmed. The findings have been inconsistent.
College students of Shisu pariticipated in the research. Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI; Sternberg & Wagner, 1992) and Listening Strategy Use Survey are employed. Meanwhile, researchers' interest in identifying the contributions of thinking styles to students' academic performance has never ceased, mainly because of the fact that the emergence of theories of styles was deeply rooted in the need for explaining students' individual differences in academic performance that are beyond the explanation of their abilities. The earliest investigation into the contribution of thinking styles to academic achievement was conducted by Sternberg and Grigorenko (Grigorenko & Stemberg, 1997) among two groups of identified gifted children participating in the Yale Summer School Program. The authors found that whereas the judicial and legislative thinking styles contributed positively to a student's success in a variety of academic tasks, the executive thinking style tended to contribute negatively to success in these tasks. A more recent study of the predictive power of thinking styles for academic achievement was conducted by Zhang (2002), whose research participants were U.S. university students. Results from this study revealed that the conservative style positively predicted students' grade point averages, whereas the global and liberal styles negatively did so. In Hong Kong, three such studies (Zhang, 2001; Zhang & Stemberg, 1998) have been carried out. Whereas one of the three studies (Zhang, 2001) was conducted among school children, the remaining two had university student participants. Results from all three studies suggested the following relationships between thinking styles and academic achievement. That is, in general, thinking styles that require conformity (conservative), respect for authority (executive), and a sense of order (hierarchical) were positively related to academic achievement. Thinking styles that are creativity generating (legislative and liberal styles) tended to contribute negatively to academic achievement. Furthermore, a preference for working individually (internal style) was positively correlated with academic achievement, whereas a preference for working in groups (external style) was negatively associated with academic achievement. Finally, mixed findings were obtained for the judicial style, which demonstrated a positive effect on achievement among secondary school students and male university students but had a negative effect on achievement among female university students.
Zhang Hou-can (1999) uses Sternberg's TSL to measure thinking styles of Chinese university students. He compares the individual difference with regards to gender, literary and science subjects, geographical regions and arrives at the characteristics of thinking styles of Chinese university student:. In general, Chinese students get high scores in legislative, hierarchic and liberal styles, but low in conservative and local styles. Students in science subjects score higher than those in literary subjects. Male students gain higher marks than female students, especially for students in science subjects. Male students tends to be more liberal and monarchic than female students.
Many language learning strategies have been found to correlate with language proficiency and performance. Therefore, most educators now accept the assumption that the use of learning strategies has become guidepost for distinguishing high from low skilled learners. They have also begun to recognize the influence that learning strategy use may have on the acquisition of a second or foreign language. They also acknowledge that students can be taught to learn the language if they are also taught the strategies that facilitate language acquisition.
Only a few researches shows the correlation among thinking style, learning strategy and achievement.
Some research shows that learning styles have a significant influence on learners’learning strategy choices. There is evidence that the Judging scale correlates positively with seven sets of learning strategies. Thus it turns out to be the most influential learning style variable affecting learners’learning strategy choices. Compared with low achievers, high achievers are more capable of exercising strategies that are associated with their non-preferred styles. Based on the available research results, it is proposed that learning styles may influence learners’language learning outcomes through their relationship with learning strategies.(邓俊民, 2003;郝玫;付红霞, 2002;秦晓晴,2006)
Chapter 3 addresses the research questions, mainly on the research method. Participants are the Grade 1 and Grade 2 students from college of English, Shisu .
They use the same Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Style Inventory (1992), Language Strategy Use Survey (2001). Grade 1 students use the final exam paper of Listening and Speaking Course. Grade 2 students use the listening section of TEM4 paper.
Chapter 4 shows the results. The analyses of the two paper are given. Structural Equation Model (SEM) made by Lisrel 8.70 and SPSS13.0 for Windows are selected to analyse the data. Descriptive analyses of thinking styles of the total 435 students are shown. The relationships among thinking styles, listening strategy and listening achievement are revealed.
In terms of thinking styles, university students tend to be more legislative, executive, hierarchic, external and liberal rather than oligarchic and conservative. Respectively, students tend to be legislative most, judicial least; hierarchic most, oligarchic least. They are more global, external and liberal. The results echoes Zhang Hou-can's conclusion (1999) to the great extent.
The characteristics of thinking styles in different grades are examined. The more capable students in Grade 1 tended to score significantly higher on the local thinking style. The less capable students in Grade 1 students tended to score significantly higher on the oligarchic thinking style. While the less capable students in Grade 2 students tended to score significantly higher on the anarchic thinking style.
The characteristics of thinking styles of different genders are examined. Male students tended to score significantly higher on the legislative, global and conservative thinking styles. Male students are extremely significan higher on internal thinking styles(p<0.001).
Effective listening strategies rank as L2--listen to talk shows on the radio, watch TV shows, or go see movies in the new language; L12--listen for those key words that seem to carry the bulk of the meaning; L18--pay attention to the context of what is being said. Rarely used listening strategies are L8- make an effort to remember unfamiliar sounds I hear, and ask a native speaker later; L3--In a restaurant or store where the staff speak the target language, I usually ask questions in it so I can pratice listening to native-speaker talk.
The characteristics of listening strategy of different genders are examined. Male students tended to score significantly higher on the L14---pay attention to where pauses tend to come and how long they last. Female students tended to score significantly higher on the L1---regularly attend out-of-class events where the new language is spoken.
Grade 2 students tended to score extremely significantly higher on the L4--encounter people in public having a conversation in the target language, listen to see if I can get the gist of what they are saying. L6--constantly look for associations between the sound of a word or phrase in the new language with the sound of a familiar word. L25--draw on my general background knowledge in an effort to get the main idea (p<0.001). Grade 2 students tended to score significantly higher on the 9--pay special attention to specific aspects of the language; for example, the way the speaker pronounces certain sounds. L15-- pay attention to the rise and fall of speech by native speakers—the“music”of it. L26-- watch speakers’gestures and general body language to help me figure out the meaning of what they are saying (p<0.01). Grade 2 students tended to score significantly higher on the L13-- Listen for word and sentence stress to see what native speakers emphasize when they speak (p<0.05).
The associations between listening strategy and listening achievement are obtained. In Grade 1, high achievers tended to score significantly higher on the L8- make an effort to remember unfamiliar sounds I hear, and ask a native speaker later & L11-- sometimes prepare for a guest lecture or special talk I will hear in the target language by reading some background materials beforehand (p<0.05); high achievers tended to score extremely significantly higher on the L14 --pay attention to where pauses tend to come and how long they last(p< 0.001) . In Grade 2, High achievers tended to score significantly higher on the L4--encounter people in public having a conversation in the target language, listen to see if I can get the gist of what they are saying. & L17--make every effort to understand what I have heard without translating it word-for-word into my native language (p<0.05)。
Next the correlations between thinking style, listening strategy and listening achievement are identified. No associations are justified between the former two and listening achievement, no Structural Equation Model (SEM) is built up. But SEM has been constructed between thinking style and listening strategy. Use SPSS13.0 to analyse the data. The conclusion is: In Grade 1, Correlation exists among thinking style, listening strategy and listening achievement. In Grade 2, thinking style correlates with listening strategy only.
Chapter 5 proceeds to have a discussion on the phenomena obtained in Chapter 4. They are connected with the growth of the students. The cultivation of creative thinking grounded on the thinking style theory is raised. Different correlations between in Grade 1 and Grade 2 can be understood from the perspectives of testing format, authenticity and contextualization of the listening materials, ESL vs EF, etc..
Chapter 6 turns to be the ending part. Some problems remains to be explored and solved including matching of thinking styles in teaching, learning and testing, creative thinking styles cultivation. Lastly, the limitations of the research are pointed out.
This research focuses on the relationship between Thinking Styles and Listening Strategy, and their associations with Listening Achievement among English majors. The research has integrated psychological study, teaching methodology and testing method. Structural Equation Model (SEM) and SPSS13.0 are selected to analyse the data. The results show that Thinking Styles influence Listening Strategy, Thinking Styles & Listening Strategy may not forecast Listening Achievement. The result of the present study will make contributions to the development and improvement of classroom teaching and testing, the matching of learner's thinking style, learning style and instructor's teaching style. The research also sheds light on the cultivating students' creative abilities.
引文
Allport G. W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. [M]. New York: Holt Co., 1937
Bachman, Lyle F.. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. [M].OUP. 1990.
Bachman, Lyle F. & Adrian S. Palmer . Language Testing in Practice. [M].OUP. 1996
Bernardo A B l, Zhang L F & Callueng. Thinking styles and academic achievement among Filipino students.[J]. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. Vol. 163. 2002.
Biggs, J. B. Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. [J]. Higher Education.1979.
Brown, H.D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 3rd edition.[M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 1994
Cambell , D. T. & Fiske , D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix [ J ] .Psychological B ulletin 1958, 56/ 2 : 81-105.
Carrell, P. & L. Monroe. Learning styles and composition [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1993, 77: 146-162.
Chamot, A.U Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching. [J] Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2004(1): 14-26.
Cohen, A.D. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language [M]. London: Longman , 1998.
Cohen, A.D. & Susan J. W. Styles- and Strategies-Based Instruction: A Teachers' Guide [M]. The Board of Regents of the University of the University of Minnesota. 2006
Curry L. An organization of learning styles theory and constructs [J]. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED235185. 1983.
Dai D.Y.& Feldhusen J.F. A valldation study of the thinking styles inventory: impllcations for gifed education. Roeper Review, 1999, 21(4): 302-313
Ely , C. M. Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL [A] . In J . M. Reid (ed. ) . Learning Styles in the ESL / EFL Classroom [C] . Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. 1995.
Francisco C. & Elaine HH. Learning and thinking styles: an analysis of their interrelationship andinfluence on academic achievement. Educational Psychology. 2000, 20 (4): 413-430
Green. M. and Oxford. R. L. Adult language learning style and strategies in an intensive training setting [J]. Modern Language Journal. 1990.
Green, M.J. & Oxford, R.. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender[J]. TESOL Quarterly. 1995 (2): 261-297.
Grigerenko E L., & Sternberg R J. Thinking style [A], In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zcidncr (eds. ) International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence. [M]. New York, Plenum Press, 1995.
Guilford J. P. Cognitivestyles: What are they?[J]. Educational and Psychological Measurement . 1980. Hsiao, T.Y. & Oxford, R.. Comparing theoriesof language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis [J]. Modern Language Journal, 2002 (2): 368-383.
Hughes A. Testing for Language Teachers [M] . Cambridge : CUP , 1989. 59 - 62 , 137.
Jamieson , J. The cognitivie styles of reflection/ impassivity and field independence and field dependence and ESL success. [J]. Modern Language Journal 76 :491 - 501. 1992.
Jones A. E. Reflection-Impulsivity and Wholist-Analytic:two fledglings? or is R-I a cucckoo? [J]. Educational Psychology. 1997.
Kagan J. Individual difference in the resolution of response uncerainty [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965.
Kagan J , Rosman B L , Day D et al. Information Processing in the child significance of analytic and reflective attitudes [J]. Psychological Monographs. 1964: 175 - 78
Keefe, J.W. School applications of the learning style concept: Student learning styles [M]. 1979. Kinsella, K. Understanding an Empowering Diverse Learners in the ESL Classrooms [A]. Learning
Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 1995
Kolb D.A. The Learning style inventory: technical manual. Boston: MA.[D]. McBer.1976.
Kush, J.C. Field-Dependence, cognitive ability, and Academic achievement in Anglo American and Mexican American Students [J]. Journal of cross-cultural psychology .1996; 27(5): 561-575.
Li-fang Zhang. Are thinking styles and personality types related? [J] . Educational Psychology. Vol. 20. 2000.
Li-fang Zhang. Do thinking styles contribute to academic achievement beyond self-rated abilities?[J]. The Journal of Psychology. Vol. 135. 2001.
Li-fang Zhang. Approaches and thinking styles in teaching. [J].The Journal of Psychology. Vol.135. 2001.
Li-fang Zhang. Thinking Styles, Self-esteem, and Socio-economic Status [J]. Personality and Individual Differences . 2001, 31:1333-1346
Li-fang Zhang. Do Styles of thinking matter among Hong Kong secondary school students?[J]. Personality and Individual Difference. 2001, 31(3):289-301
Li-fang Zhang & Sternberg R J. Thinking styles across cultures: Their relationships with student learning.[A] In: R J Sternberg, L F Zhang (Eds.) Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. [M] Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001. 197~226
Li-fang Zhang. Thinking styles and modes of thinking: Implications for education and research. [J]. The Journal of Psychology. 2002
Li-fang Zhang. Thinking styles and cognitive development [J]. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 2002. 163 (2): 179-195
Li-fang Zhang. Field-dependence/independence: cognitive style or perceptual ability?––validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. [J]. Elsevier Ltd. 2004
Li-fang Zhang. Revisiting the Predictive Power of Thinking Styles for Academic Performance [J]. The Journal of Psychology. 2004
Li-fang Zhang. Thinking Styles and the big five personality traits revisited [J]. Elsevier Ltd., 2005.
Li-fang Zhang & Sternberg R J. A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review[J]. 2005, 17(1):1一53
Martinsen O. Cognitive style and insight. Ph.D. Thesis [D], Faculty of Psychology. Norway: University of Bergen, 1994.
Marton, F., & Booth, S.A. Learning and Awareness [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1997.
Messick , S. A. Validity [A]. In R. L. Linn (ed. ) . Educational Measurement 3rd edn [M]. New York : Macmillan.Pp. 77-96. 1988.
Myers P B, Myers K D. Personality Type Indicator (Revised). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1993
Myers I B, McCaulley M H. Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto[M], CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1988
Miller A. Cognitive styles: an integrated mode [J]. . Educational Psychology. 1987.
Morley, J. Listening comprehension in second/foreign language instructio [A]. n. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language(2nd ed.; pp. 81-106) [M]. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. 1991..
Naiman, N., Frohlich,M., Stern, H. & Todesco, A. The Good Language Learner [M]. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1978.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U. & Walker, C.. Some applications of cognitive theory to second language acquisition [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1987 (2): 287-306.
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A.U. Learning strategies in second languge adquisition [M]. Cambridge Universtiy Press, 1990.
Oxford, R. L.. A New Taxonomy for Second Language Learning Strategies [M]. Washington, D.C.: ERIC
Clearing-house on Language and Linguistics, 1985.
Oxford, R.L. Language learnging strategies: What every teacher should know. [M] Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1990.
Phillips, V. A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency [J]. The CATESOL Journal, November, 1991
Qin Xiaoqing & Li Jie. Language learning styles and learning strategies of tertiary-level English learners in China [J]. RELC. 2006.
Rayner S. & Riding R. J. Towards a categorization of cognitive styles and learning styles [J]. Educational
Psychology. 1997, 17 : 5 - 271
Reid, J. M., Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom [M]. Prentice Hall Regents Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1998.
Rezler A, Rezmovic V. The learning preference inventory [J]. Journal of Applied Health. 1981
Riding R. J. On the nature of cognitive style[J]. Educational Psychology.1997, 17 : 29 - 49.
Riding R. J. & Cheema, I. Cognitive styles--An overview and integration[J]. Educational Psychology. 1991, 11 : 193 - 215.
Riding R. J. & Stephen G. R. Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies: Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behaviour [M]. London, David Fulton Publishers. 1998.
Rossi-Le, L. Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students[A]. In Reid, J.M. (ed.) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom [M]. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.1995:118- 125
Rubin, J.. What the“good”language learner can teach us [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1975 (1): 41-51.
Saracho, O. N. Students' preference for field dependence-independence teacher characteristics [J]. Educational Psychology, 1991. 11, (3–4), p.323–332. .
Stern, H.. What can we learn from the good language learner? [J]. Canadian Modern Review, 1975 (2): 304-318.
Sternberg R J. Thinking styles:Theory and assessment at the interface between intelligence and personality[A]. In: R J Steinberg, P Ruzgis (Eds.) Intelligence and Personality[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 169~187
Sternberg R.J. & Li-fang Zhang. Styles of Thinking as a Basis of Differentiated Instruction [A]. Theory into Practice [C]. ProQuest Eduction Journals, 2005.
Sternberg R.J. Thinking Styles [M]. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Sternberg R.J. Wagner R K. Thinking styles inventory. (unpublished test), Yale University. CT: New Haven, 1992.
Tennant M. Psychology and Adult Learning [M]. London: Rontledge, 1988.
Vernon P E. Multivariate. Approaches to study of cognitive style, In J. R. Royce ed. Multivariate Analysis and Psychological theory [M]. London Academic press, 1973.
Wenden, A.. Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners [J]. Language Learning, 1987 (4): 573-597.
Weir C J. Communicative Language Testing [M] . Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd. , 1990: 43 - 44.
Witkin H.A., Moore C. A., Goodenough D. R., & Cox P.W. Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive style and their educational implications [J]. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47:1-64
Zhang L F. Further cross-cultural validation of the theory of mental self-government [J]. The Journal of Psychology, 1999, 133 (2):165-181
Zhang L F.& Sternberg. R.J. The nature of intellectual styles[M]. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. 2006, 112-114
Zhang L.F. & Huang J. Thinking styles and the five factor model of Personality[J]. European Joumal of Personality, 2001, 15: 465-476
Ellis, R..第二语言习得研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
布罗斯纳安著、毕继万译,中国和英语国家非语言交际对比[M],北京语言学院出版社, 1991.
曹爱萍.非英语专业大学生感知学习风格与学习策略的相关关系研究[D],北京:首都师范大学,2006.
戴炜栋.中国的二语习得研究:回顾、现状与前瞻[J].外国语, 2005 (6)
戴运财.场独立/依靠的认知方式和第二语言习得[J].外语教学与研究, 2002年34卷03期
党争胜.TEM考试听力试题分析与建议[J],外语电化教学.2004年2月
邓俊民.学习策略、学习风格与英语成绩相关性研究[J],天津职业技术师范学院学报, 2003年13卷02期.
高校英语专业四级考试大纲修订小组.高校英语专业四级考试大纲(2004年新版)[Z].上海:上海外教育出版社,2004.
郝玫;付红霞.多元智能、学习风格、学习策略与英语成绩的相关研究[J],外国语言文学.2006年23卷04期
侯玉波.社会心理学.[M].北京大学出版社. 2002
侯玉波.实用心理学. [M].中国人民大学出版社. 2005
户进菊.大学生英语学习策略研究.河南职业技术师范学院学报. [J]. 2004, 2:113-116.
侯杰泰、温忠麟、成子娟.《结构方程模型及其应用》[M].北京:教育科学出版社, 2003.
黄子东.西方二语/外语听力理解策略研究述评. [J].外语界. 1998年第2期
蒋祖康.学习策略与听力的关系—中国英语本科学生素质调查分报告之一.[J].外语教学与研究. 1994年01期
纪康丽.外语学习中元认知策略的培训[J].外语界, 2002
江新.汉语作为第二语言学习策略初探[J].语言教学与研究, 2000第1期
刘绍龙.背景知识与听力策略-------图式理论案例报告[J].现代外语.1996年第2期
路文军.大学生学习风格与英语听力效果相关研究[J].鲁东大学学报:哲学社会科学版, 2007 年24卷03期
李洪玉.思维策略[M].百花文艺出版社. 2002
李洪玉.思维风格与教学[J].天津师范大学学报(社会科学版). 2004年第5期.
李洪玉,姜德红,胡中华.中学生思维风格发展特点的研究[J].心理发展与教育, 2004, 20 (2): 22- 28
李建梅,罗列,听写训练在英语听力教学中的实证研究[J].西南交通大学学报(社会科学版) , 2004年第5卷第05期
林崇德.学习心理学丛书[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社, 1999.
林丰勋.中学生思维风格:结构、功能及其在智力活动中的作用[D].北京:北京师范大学, 2004
林丰勋,孟庆茂.中学生思维风格与人格特质的关系[J].心理发展与教育, 2003, 19(4): 27-32
林丰勋,孟庆茂·中学生的思维风格与学业成绩.[J].教育研究与实验,2003, 3: 45-46
林琼.第二语言听力理解不成功者的元认知研究[J].外语界, 2002第2期
刘润清,吴一安.中国英语教育研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
刘振前等.高低分组分项四级成绩与学习策略的关系研究[J].外国语言文学, 2005, 2:112-117.
罗斐,吴国宏.斯腾伯格思维风格理论述评[J].心理科学. 2004年27卷03期: 718-720
马晓梅等.大学英语学习者语言学习风格研究[A].中国高校英语教学改革现状与发展策略研究[C]. 北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2003, 183-197
彭康洲、李清华.应用IRT模型分析TEM4听力理解项目的质量[J].外语教学理论与实践. 2009 年第3期
秦晓晴.硕士研究生使用英语学习策略特点的实证研究[J].外语教学, 1998 上海外国语大学TEM考试中心. TEM考试效度研究[M].上海外语教育出版社, 1997
束定芳,华维芬.中国外语教学理论研究(1949-2009)/新中国成立60周年外语教育发展研究丛书. 上海外语教育出版社, 2009.
苏远连.论听力学习策略的可教性现代[J].现代外语, 2003, (1) 孙多.思维风格及其对教育的启示[J].安徽广播电视大学学报, 2007年第3期。
王初明.应用心理语言学[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社, 1990, 107.
王初明,亓鲁霞.外语听力策略个案研究[A].桂诗春主编.中国学生英语学习心理[C].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1992.
王立非.认知风格研究及其对外语教学的启示[J].山东外语教学, 1998, (4)
王立非,陈功.第二语言学习策略的认知模式的构建与解读[J].外语与外语教学,2009年第6期.
王立非,文秋芳.英语学习策略培训与研究在中国———记全国首届“英语学习策略培训与研究” [J].外语界, 03 (6) :49--54.
王友良.大学新生英语学习策略与性别的关系[J].湖南第一师范学报, 2004, 2: 55-56, 65.
王宇.关于中国非英语专业学生听力策略的调查[J].外语界.2002年06期
文秋芳.英语学习成功者与不成功者在方法上的差异[J].外语教学与研究, 1995, 3:61-66.
文秋芳.大学生英语学习策略变化的趋势及其特点[J].外语与外语教学, 1996,4:43-46.
文秋芳.英语学习者动机、观念、策略的变化规律与特点[J].外语教学与研究, 2001 (2): 105-110
文秋芳.文秋芳英语教育自选集[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
文秋芳,王海啸.学习者因素与大学四级考试成绩的关系[J].外语教学与研究.1996 (4): 33-39.
文秋芳,王立非.英语学习策略理论研究[M].陕西师范大学出版社. 2003.
文秋芳,王立非.英语学习策略实证研究[M].陕西师范大学出版社. 2003.
文秋芳,王立非.中国英语学习策略实证研究20年[J].外国语言文学, 2004
吴一安.中国英语本科学生素质调查报告[J].外语教学与研究, 1993 (1)
陆国君、吴兴东.语篇结构图式与语调范式对英语听力理解的影响.[J].外语教学与研究. 2007 年第39卷第2期
潘之欣.交际性听力理解测试任务设计研究[J].外语界,2007(1).
吴勇毅,陈钰.善听者与不善听者听力学习策略对比研究[J].汉语学习:学术版, 2006
武和平.元认知及其与外语学习的关系[J].国外外语教学, 2000年第2期
武欣,张厚粲.思维风格测验在大学生中的初步应用[J].心理科学. 1999 (22): 293-297.
肖红.大学英语听力课堂中的学习策略教学[J].长沙民政职业技术学院学报. 2006年第13卷第1期
修旭东、肖德法.英语写作策略、八级写作认知过程及成绩关系的结构方程模型研究[J].外语教学与研究,2006年第6期.
许保芳、袁凤识、李涛.从TEM4看外语学习者单项技能的性别差异. [J].国外外语教学, 2007年3 期
许芳,李寿欣,金玉华.斯腾伯格思维风格理论的研究进展[J].山东教育学院学报, 2006(1): 19--21
徐子亮.汉语作为外语教学的认知理论研究[M].华语教学出版社.2000.
杨翼.高级汉语学习者的学习策略与学习效果的关系[J].世界汉语教学, 1998
俞国良.创造力心理学[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社, 1997.
袁晓琳等.大学生的语言学习观念与英语学习策略研究[J].心理与行为研究, 2006, 2:154-159.
周启加.英语听力学习策略对听力的影响--英语听力学习策略问卷调查及结果分析[J].解放军外国语学院学报. 2000年第3期.
郑磊磊,刘爱伦.思维风格与创造性倾向关系的研究[J].应用心理学, 2000, 6 (2): 14-20
邹申.考试、教学及其他---写在《英语专业四八级考试大纲》出版之际[J].外语界.1994年第3期
邹申.听力测试中的交互性探究——兼谈TEM8考试听力项目的修订[J].外语电化教学.2004
邹申.关于考试科学属性的思考——兼谈高校英语专业四、八级考试大纲(2004年新版)的修订[J].中国外语.2006年第3期.
邹申.语言测试[M].上海外语教育出版社. 2005.
赵德全,周大军.高校英语学习者策略的特点及变化趋势[J].河北大学学报(哲学社会科学版). 2007年第32卷第03期
赵文学,王艳芝.大五人格特质维度与大学生英语学习成绩关系研究[J].昌吉学院学报, 2006年第3期
Bachman, Lyle F.. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. [M].OUP. 1990.
Bachman, Lyle F. & Adrian S. Palmer . Language Testing in Practice. [M].OUP. 1996
Bernardo A B l, Zhang L F & Callueng. Thinking styles and academic achievement among Filipino students.[J]. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. Vol. 163. 2002.
Biggs, J. B. Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. [J]. Higher Education.1979.
Brown, H.D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 3rd edition.[M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 1994
Cambell , D. T. & Fiske , D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix [ J ] .Psychological B ulletin 1958, 56/ 2 : 81-105.
Carrell, P. & L. Monroe. Learning styles and composition [J]. Modern Language Journal, 1993, 77: 146-162.
Chamot, A.U Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching. [J] Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2004(1): 14-26.
Cohen, A.D. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language [M]. London: Longman , 1998.
Cohen, A.D. & Susan J. W. Styles- and Strategies-Based Instruction: A Teachers' Guide [M]. The Board of Regents of the University of the University of Minnesota. 2006
Curry L. An organization of learning styles theory and constructs [J]. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED235185. 1983.
Dai D.Y.& Feldhusen J.F. A valldation study of the thinking styles inventory: impllcations for gifed education. Roeper Review, 1999, 21(4): 302-313
Ely , C. M. Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL [A] . In J . M. Reid (ed. ) . Learning Styles in the ESL / EFL Classroom [C] . Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. 1995.
Francisco C. & Elaine HH. Learning and thinking styles: an analysis of their interrelationship andinfluence on academic achievement. Educational Psychology. 2000, 20 (4): 413-430
Green. M. and Oxford. R. L. Adult language learning style and strategies in an intensive training setting [J]. Modern Language Journal. 1990.
Green, M.J. & Oxford, R.. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender[J]. TESOL Quarterly. 1995 (2): 261-297.
Grigerenko E L., & Sternberg R J. Thinking style [A], In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zcidncr (eds. ) International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence. [M]. New York, Plenum Press, 1995.
Guilford J. P. Cognitivestyles: What are they?[J]. Educational and Psychological Measurement . 1980. Hsiao, T.Y. & Oxford, R.. Comparing theoriesof language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis [J]. Modern Language Journal, 2002 (2): 368-383.
Hughes A. Testing for Language Teachers [M] . Cambridge : CUP , 1989. 59 - 62 , 137.
Jamieson , J. The cognitivie styles of reflection/ impassivity and field independence and field dependence and ESL success. [J]. Modern Language Journal 76 :491 - 501. 1992.
Jones A. E. Reflection-Impulsivity and Wholist-Analytic:two fledglings? or is R-I a cucckoo? [J]. Educational Psychology. 1997.
Kagan J. Individual difference in the resolution of response uncerainty [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965.
Kagan J , Rosman B L , Day D et al. Information Processing in the child significance of analytic and reflective attitudes [J]. Psychological Monographs. 1964: 175 - 78
Keefe, J.W. School applications of the learning style concept: Student learning styles [M]. 1979. Kinsella, K. Understanding an Empowering Diverse Learners in the ESL Classrooms [A]. Learning
Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 1995
Kolb D.A. The Learning style inventory: technical manual. Boston: MA.[D]. McBer.1976.
Kush, J.C. Field-Dependence, cognitive ability, and Academic achievement in Anglo American and Mexican American Students [J]. Journal of cross-cultural psychology .1996; 27(5): 561-575.
Li-fang Zhang. Are thinking styles and personality types related? [J] . Educational Psychology. Vol. 20. 2000.
Li-fang Zhang. Do thinking styles contribute to academic achievement beyond self-rated abilities?[J]. The Journal of Psychology. Vol. 135. 2001.
Li-fang Zhang. Approaches and thinking styles in teaching. [J].The Journal of Psychology. Vol.135. 2001.
Li-fang Zhang. Thinking Styles, Self-esteem, and Socio-economic Status [J]. Personality and Individual Differences . 2001, 31:1333-1346
Li-fang Zhang. Do Styles of thinking matter among Hong Kong secondary school students?[J]. Personality and Individual Difference. 2001, 31(3):289-301
Li-fang Zhang & Sternberg R J. Thinking styles across cultures: Their relationships with student learning.[A] In: R J Sternberg, L F Zhang (Eds.) Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. [M] Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001. 197~226
Li-fang Zhang. Thinking styles and modes of thinking: Implications for education and research. [J]. The Journal of Psychology. 2002
Li-fang Zhang. Thinking styles and cognitive development [J]. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 2002. 163 (2): 179-195
Li-fang Zhang. Field-dependence/independence: cognitive style or perceptual ability?––validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. [J]. Elsevier Ltd. 2004
Li-fang Zhang. Revisiting the Predictive Power of Thinking Styles for Academic Performance [J]. The Journal of Psychology. 2004
Li-fang Zhang. Thinking Styles and the big five personality traits revisited [J]. Elsevier Ltd., 2005.
Li-fang Zhang & Sternberg R J. A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review[J]. 2005, 17(1):1一53
Martinsen O. Cognitive style and insight. Ph.D. Thesis [D], Faculty of Psychology. Norway: University of Bergen, 1994.
Marton, F., & Booth, S.A. Learning and Awareness [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1997.
Messick , S. A. Validity [A]. In R. L. Linn (ed. ) . Educational Measurement 3rd edn [M]. New York : Macmillan.Pp. 77-96. 1988.
Myers P B, Myers K D. Personality Type Indicator (Revised). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1993
Myers I B, McCaulley M H. Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto[M], CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1988
Miller A. Cognitive styles: an integrated mode [J]. . Educational Psychology. 1987.
Morley, J. Listening comprehension in second/foreign language instructio [A]. n. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language(2nd ed.; pp. 81-106) [M]. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. 1991..
Naiman, N., Frohlich,M., Stern, H. & Todesco, A. The Good Language Learner [M]. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1978.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U. & Walker, C.. Some applications of cognitive theory to second language acquisition [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1987 (2): 287-306.
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A.U. Learning strategies in second languge adquisition [M]. Cambridge Universtiy Press, 1990.
Oxford, R. L.. A New Taxonomy for Second Language Learning Strategies [M]. Washington, D.C.: ERIC
Clearing-house on Language and Linguistics, 1985.
Oxford, R.L. Language learnging strategies: What every teacher should know. [M] Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1990.
Phillips, V. A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency [J]. The CATESOL Journal, November, 1991
Qin Xiaoqing & Li Jie. Language learning styles and learning strategies of tertiary-level English learners in China [J]. RELC. 2006.
Rayner S. & Riding R. J. Towards a categorization of cognitive styles and learning styles [J]. Educational
Psychology. 1997, 17 : 5 - 271
Reid, J. M., Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom [M]. Prentice Hall Regents Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1998.
Rezler A, Rezmovic V. The learning preference inventory [J]. Journal of Applied Health. 1981
Riding R. J. On the nature of cognitive style[J]. Educational Psychology.1997, 17 : 29 - 49.
Riding R. J. & Cheema, I. Cognitive styles--An overview and integration[J]. Educational Psychology. 1991, 11 : 193 - 215.
Riding R. J. & Stephen G. R. Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies: Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behaviour [M]. London, David Fulton Publishers. 1998.
Rossi-Le, L. Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students[A]. In Reid, J.M. (ed.) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom [M]. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.1995:118- 125
Rubin, J.. What the“good”language learner can teach us [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1975 (1): 41-51.
Saracho, O. N. Students' preference for field dependence-independence teacher characteristics [J]. Educational Psychology, 1991. 11, (3–4), p.323–332. .
Stern, H.. What can we learn from the good language learner? [J]. Canadian Modern Review, 1975 (2): 304-318.
Sternberg R J. Thinking styles:Theory and assessment at the interface between intelligence and personality[A]. In: R J Steinberg, P Ruzgis (Eds.) Intelligence and Personality[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 169~187
Sternberg R.J. & Li-fang Zhang. Styles of Thinking as a Basis of Differentiated Instruction [A]. Theory into Practice [C]. ProQuest Eduction Journals, 2005.
Sternberg R.J. Thinking Styles [M]. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Sternberg R.J. Wagner R K. Thinking styles inventory. (unpublished test), Yale University. CT: New Haven, 1992.
Tennant M. Psychology and Adult Learning [M]. London: Rontledge, 1988.
Vernon P E. Multivariate. Approaches to study of cognitive style, In J. R. Royce ed. Multivariate Analysis and Psychological theory [M]. London Academic press, 1973.
Wenden, A.. Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners [J]. Language Learning, 1987 (4): 573-597.
Weir C J. Communicative Language Testing [M] . Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd. , 1990: 43 - 44.
Witkin H.A., Moore C. A., Goodenough D. R., & Cox P.W. Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive style and their educational implications [J]. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47:1-64
Zhang L F. Further cross-cultural validation of the theory of mental self-government [J]. The Journal of Psychology, 1999, 133 (2):165-181
Zhang L F.& Sternberg. R.J. The nature of intellectual styles[M]. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. 2006, 112-114
Zhang L.F. & Huang J. Thinking styles and the five factor model of Personality[J]. European Joumal of Personality, 2001, 15: 465-476
Ellis, R..第二语言习得研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
布罗斯纳安著、毕继万译,中国和英语国家非语言交际对比[M],北京语言学院出版社, 1991.
曹爱萍.非英语专业大学生感知学习风格与学习策略的相关关系研究[D],北京:首都师范大学,2006.
戴炜栋.中国的二语习得研究:回顾、现状与前瞻[J].外国语, 2005 (6)
戴运财.场独立/依靠的认知方式和第二语言习得[J].外语教学与研究, 2002年34卷03期
党争胜.TEM考试听力试题分析与建议[J],外语电化教学.2004年2月
邓俊民.学习策略、学习风格与英语成绩相关性研究[J],天津职业技术师范学院学报, 2003年13卷02期.
高校英语专业四级考试大纲修订小组.高校英语专业四级考试大纲(2004年新版)[Z].上海:上海外教育出版社,2004.
郝玫;付红霞.多元智能、学习风格、学习策略与英语成绩的相关研究[J],外国语言文学.2006年23卷04期
侯玉波.社会心理学.[M].北京大学出版社. 2002
侯玉波.实用心理学. [M].中国人民大学出版社. 2005
户进菊.大学生英语学习策略研究.河南职业技术师范学院学报. [J]. 2004, 2:113-116.
侯杰泰、温忠麟、成子娟.《结构方程模型及其应用》[M].北京:教育科学出版社, 2003.
黄子东.西方二语/外语听力理解策略研究述评. [J].外语界. 1998年第2期
蒋祖康.学习策略与听力的关系—中国英语本科学生素质调查分报告之一.[J].外语教学与研究. 1994年01期
纪康丽.外语学习中元认知策略的培训[J].外语界, 2002
江新.汉语作为第二语言学习策略初探[J].语言教学与研究, 2000第1期
刘绍龙.背景知识与听力策略-------图式理论案例报告[J].现代外语.1996年第2期
路文军.大学生学习风格与英语听力效果相关研究[J].鲁东大学学报:哲学社会科学版, 2007 年24卷03期
李洪玉.思维策略[M].百花文艺出版社. 2002
李洪玉.思维风格与教学[J].天津师范大学学报(社会科学版). 2004年第5期.
李洪玉,姜德红,胡中华.中学生思维风格发展特点的研究[J].心理发展与教育, 2004, 20 (2): 22- 28
李建梅,罗列,听写训练在英语听力教学中的实证研究[J].西南交通大学学报(社会科学版) , 2004年第5卷第05期
林崇德.学习心理学丛书[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社, 1999.
林丰勋.中学生思维风格:结构、功能及其在智力活动中的作用[D].北京:北京师范大学, 2004
林丰勋,孟庆茂.中学生思维风格与人格特质的关系[J].心理发展与教育, 2003, 19(4): 27-32
林丰勋,孟庆茂·中学生的思维风格与学业成绩.[J].教育研究与实验,2003, 3: 45-46
林琼.第二语言听力理解不成功者的元认知研究[J].外语界, 2002第2期
刘润清,吴一安.中国英语教育研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000.
刘振前等.高低分组分项四级成绩与学习策略的关系研究[J].外国语言文学, 2005, 2:112-117.
罗斐,吴国宏.斯腾伯格思维风格理论述评[J].心理科学. 2004年27卷03期: 718-720
马晓梅等.大学英语学习者语言学习风格研究[A].中国高校英语教学改革现状与发展策略研究[C]. 北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2003, 183-197
彭康洲、李清华.应用IRT模型分析TEM4听力理解项目的质量[J].外语教学理论与实践. 2009 年第3期
秦晓晴.硕士研究生使用英语学习策略特点的实证研究[J].外语教学, 1998 上海外国语大学TEM考试中心. TEM考试效度研究[M].上海外语教育出版社, 1997
束定芳,华维芬.中国外语教学理论研究(1949-2009)/新中国成立60周年外语教育发展研究丛书. 上海外语教育出版社, 2009.
苏远连.论听力学习策略的可教性现代[J].现代外语, 2003, (1) 孙多.思维风格及其对教育的启示[J].安徽广播电视大学学报, 2007年第3期。
王初明.应用心理语言学[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社, 1990, 107.
王初明,亓鲁霞.外语听力策略个案研究[A].桂诗春主编.中国学生英语学习心理[C].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1992.
王立非.认知风格研究及其对外语教学的启示[J].山东外语教学, 1998, (4)
王立非,陈功.第二语言学习策略的认知模式的构建与解读[J].外语与外语教学,2009年第6期.
王立非,文秋芳.英语学习策略培训与研究在中国———记全国首届“英语学习策略培训与研究” [J].外语界, 03 (6) :49--54.
王友良.大学新生英语学习策略与性别的关系[J].湖南第一师范学报, 2004, 2: 55-56, 65.
王宇.关于中国非英语专业学生听力策略的调查[J].外语界.2002年06期
文秋芳.英语学习成功者与不成功者在方法上的差异[J].外语教学与研究, 1995, 3:61-66.
文秋芳.大学生英语学习策略变化的趋势及其特点[J].外语与外语教学, 1996,4:43-46.
文秋芳.英语学习者动机、观念、策略的变化规律与特点[J].外语教学与研究, 2001 (2): 105-110
文秋芳.文秋芳英语教育自选集[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
文秋芳,王海啸.学习者因素与大学四级考试成绩的关系[J].外语教学与研究.1996 (4): 33-39.
文秋芳,王立非.英语学习策略理论研究[M].陕西师范大学出版社. 2003.
文秋芳,王立非.英语学习策略实证研究[M].陕西师范大学出版社. 2003.
文秋芳,王立非.中国英语学习策略实证研究20年[J].外国语言文学, 2004
吴一安.中国英语本科学生素质调查报告[J].外语教学与研究, 1993 (1)
陆国君、吴兴东.语篇结构图式与语调范式对英语听力理解的影响.[J].外语教学与研究. 2007 年第39卷第2期
潘之欣.交际性听力理解测试任务设计研究[J].外语界,2007(1).
吴勇毅,陈钰.善听者与不善听者听力学习策略对比研究[J].汉语学习:学术版, 2006
武和平.元认知及其与外语学习的关系[J].国外外语教学, 2000年第2期
武欣,张厚粲.思维风格测验在大学生中的初步应用[J].心理科学. 1999 (22): 293-297.
肖红.大学英语听力课堂中的学习策略教学[J].长沙民政职业技术学院学报. 2006年第13卷第1期
修旭东、肖德法.英语写作策略、八级写作认知过程及成绩关系的结构方程模型研究[J].外语教学与研究,2006年第6期.
许保芳、袁凤识、李涛.从TEM4看外语学习者单项技能的性别差异. [J].国外外语教学, 2007年3 期
许芳,李寿欣,金玉华.斯腾伯格思维风格理论的研究进展[J].山东教育学院学报, 2006(1): 19--21
徐子亮.汉语作为外语教学的认知理论研究[M].华语教学出版社.2000.
杨翼.高级汉语学习者的学习策略与学习效果的关系[J].世界汉语教学, 1998
俞国良.创造力心理学[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社, 1997.
袁晓琳等.大学生的语言学习观念与英语学习策略研究[J].心理与行为研究, 2006, 2:154-159.
周启加.英语听力学习策略对听力的影响--英语听力学习策略问卷调查及结果分析[J].解放军外国语学院学报. 2000年第3期.
郑磊磊,刘爱伦.思维风格与创造性倾向关系的研究[J].应用心理学, 2000, 6 (2): 14-20
邹申.考试、教学及其他---写在《英语专业四八级考试大纲》出版之际[J].外语界.1994年第3期
邹申.听力测试中的交互性探究——兼谈TEM8考试听力项目的修订[J].外语电化教学.2004
邹申.关于考试科学属性的思考——兼谈高校英语专业四、八级考试大纲(2004年新版)的修订[J].中国外语.2006年第3期.
邹申.语言测试[M].上海外语教育出版社. 2005.
赵德全,周大军.高校英语学习者策略的特点及变化趋势[J].河北大学学报(哲学社会科学版). 2007年第32卷第03期
赵文学,王艳芝.大五人格特质维度与大学生英语学习成绩关系研究[J].昌吉学院学报, 2006年第3期