| December 2006 home | PDF Full Journal |

Volume 8. Issue 4
Article 6

Title
Role of Cognitive Style of Field-dependence/ independence in Using Metacognitive and Cognitive Reading Strategies by a Group of Skilled and Novice Iranian Students of English Literature

Authors
Behzad Ghonsooly and Ahmad-Reza Eghtesadee

Bio Data
Dr. Behzad Ghonsooly is an associate professor at Ferdowsi University in Mashhad. He got his Ph.D. in applied linguistics from Stirling University. He has supervised more than 15 M.A. theses in TEFL. He has written a book and published 15 articles in different local and international journals. He has also presented papers at nine conferences.

Ahmad Reza Eghtesadee has an M.A. degree in TEFL from Ferdowsi University. He has published articles on different issues of language teaching in local Iranian EFL journals. He is currently a Ph.D. student in TEFL at Tarbiat Modares University in Tehran.  

Abstract                                                     
This study aimed at investigating the role of cognitive style of field-dependence/ independence (FD/FI) in using metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies in novice and skilled readers. Therefore, a TOEFL test was used to select some low and advanced level subjects, and the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was employed to determine the cognitive style of subjects. Ultimately, based on the results of TOEFL and GEFT, 12 subjects (3 skilled field-dependent, 3 skilled field-independent, 3 novice field-dependent and 3 novice field-independent) were selected. The subjects were sophomore and senior students of English at Ferdowsi University.

Each group of skilled and novice subjects were given two reading texts and they were asked to read the texts and say aloud whatever occurred in their minds while reading (think-aloud method). The subjects' voices were recorded and then transcribed. The resulting transcriptions which are called “protocols” were analyzed on the basis of a classification of metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies and the employed strategies were identified. Next, the frequencies of metacognitive and cognitive strategies employed by each group of subjects were obtained and to compare these frequencies, a Chi-Square technique was used. The results of the Chi-Square technique showed that the difference between frequency of metacognitive and cognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and those used by novice field-independent readers is not meaningful. This may mean that cognitive style of field-dependence/independence does not influence the use of metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies in novice readers. However, the difference between the frequency of metacognitive and cognitive strategies used by skilled field-dependent and skilled field-independent readers was meaningful which may mean that cognitive style of FD/FI influences the use of reading strategies in skilled readers.

It was also found that the difference between metacognitive and cognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent and skilled field-dependent subjects was not meaningful. This may mean that the level of proficiency does not influence the use of metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies in field-dependent subjects. However, the difference between the metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies used by novice field-independent and skilled field-independent readers was meaningful which may mean that cognitive style of FD/FI influences the use of metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies when readers are field-independent. 

Introduction                                                                                      
Reading is a very important skill in learning a foreign language and reading comprehension is claimed to be the main purpose of foreign language teaching in Iran. But acquiring and mastering this skill seems complex to many learners and they often find it difficult to exploit this skill in their learning experience. On the other hand, the findings of many ESL/EFL research projects have shown the positive effect of learning strategy instruction on enhancing reading comprehension of learners. But the point is that many individual differences such as age, sex, attitudes, motivation, setting, level of proficiency, etc can influence the use of learning strategies. One factor which has rarely been investigated is the cognitive style of field-dependence/independence which has been suggested as “potentially important in second language acquisition” (Larsen Freeman and Long, 1991, p. 193). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the role of cognitive style of FD/FI in using metacognitive and cognitive strategies in reading by a group of skilled and novice field-dependent and field-independent readers. To investigate such a role, the following null hypotheses were formulated:

H01: There is no significant difference between metacognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and those used by novice field-independent readers
H02: There is no significant difference between cognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and those used by novice field-independent readers.
H03: There is no significant difference between metacognitive strategies used by skilled field-dependent readers and those used by skilled field-independent readers.
H04: There is no significant difference between cognitive strategies used by skilled field-dependent readers and those used by skilled field-independent readers.
H05: There is no significant difference between metacognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and those used by skilled field-dependent readers.
H06: There is no significant difference between cognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and those used by skilled field-dependent readers.
H07: There is no significant difference between metacognitive strategies used by novice field-independent readers and those used by skilled field-independent readers.
H08: There is no significant difference between cognitive strategies used by novice field-independent readers and those used by skilled field-independent readers.

Review of Literature                                    
Cognitive Style
The term cognitive style refers to “variations among individuals in the preferred way of perceiving, organizing, or recalling information and experience” (Stansfield and Hansen, 1983, p. 263). Witkin, Oltman, Raskin and Karp (1971) also define cognitive style as “self-consistent modes of functioning which individuals show in their perceptual and intellectual activities” (p. 3). As mentioned earlier, among the various identified cognitive styles, cognitive style of field-dependence/ independence has been suggested potentially more significant for second language acquisition. Witkin, Oltman, Raskin and Karp (1971) provide the following description of field dependence/independence cognitive style.

In a field-dependent mode of perceiving, perception is strongly dominated by the overall organization of the surrounding field and parts of the field are experienced as ‘fused’. In a field-independent mode of perceiving, parts of the field are experienced as discrete from the organized ground (p.4).

Brown (1993) defines field-independent style as “the ability to perceive a particular relevant item or factor in a field of distracting items” and field dependence as “the tendency to be dependent on a total field so that parts embedded within the field are not easily perceived though the total field is perceived clearly as a unified whole” (p. 106).

   In order to determine the field-dependence or independence of learners, various tests have been developed by researchers but the version most widely used in second language acquisition is the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT).This test contains three sections and in each section, some simple forms have been hidden in more complex geometric forms. The subject’s task is to locate these simple forms. The first section is used essentially for practice and the time limit for second and third sections is five minutes for each. The score is determined by the number of correct simple forms identified in the second and third section of the test.

Subjects who score high on GEFT are considered field independent and those who score low are considered field dependent. But this classification has been rejected by some scholars (Brown 1993; Chapelle and Green, 1992; Elliott, 1995). They maintain that though a high score on GEFT indicates field independence, a low score does not necessarily imply relatively high field dependence. However, to establish a firmer criterion for field-dependence/ independence classification, Case (1974) and Scardamalia (1977) suggest a statistical operation. According to this criterion, subjects whose scores on GEFT are less than 1/4 standard deviation (SD) below the mean are considered field-dependent (i.e. FD<mean -1/4 SD), and those whose scores are more than 1/4 standard deviation above the mean are classified as field independent (i.e. FI>mean +1/4 SD). Subjects with a score between 1/4 standard deviation below the mean and 1/4 standard deviation above the mean can be called field-intermediate (FInt) who may show characteristics of both field-dependent and field-independent people.

There are a considerable number of studies that have investigated the relationship between field-dependence/independence and L2 Learning. Brown (1993) proposes two conflicting hypotheses regarding the relationship of field-dependence/independence cognitive style and L2 learning. In his first hypothesis, he states that “field independence is closely related to classroom learning that involves analysis, attention to details, and mastering of exercises, drills and other focused activities”(p.106).

The second conflicting hypothesis proposed by Brown is that “primarily field dependent persons will, by virtue of their empathy, social out–reach and perception of other people, be successful in learning the communicative aspects of second language” (p.107). The findings of Johnson, Prior and Artuso (2000) provide evidence for this second hypothesis.

These “paradoxical” hypotheses lead Brown (1993) to conclude that “clearly both styles are important” and “language learning in the ‘field’ beyond the constraint of the classroom, requires a field – dependent style and the classroom types of learning requires conversely, a field – independent style” (pp. 107-8).

   Seliger (1977), in a study, found that field-independent learners interacted more in the classroom. He argues that this was because of the field-independent subjects’ indifference to the approval of others and their risk–taking characteristics (cited in Chapelle and Green, 1992). His result could be interpreted contradictory to the hypothesis that speaking ability may be closely related to field-dependent cognitive style (Hansen and Standfield, 1981, cited in Elliott, 1995).

Brown (1993) points out that field-dependence/independence are not in “complementary distribution” and students are able to exercise both field-dependence/independence in different situations.
Besides those who maintain a relationship between field-dependence/ independence and second language learning, there are some other researchers who deny any role for field-dependence/independence. Ellis (1994) states that the research into field-dependence/independence has shed little light on the relationship between this cognitive style and L2 learning and concludes that “field-dependence/independence does not appear to be an important factor in SLA” (p.507). Moreover, Griffith and Sheen (1992), particularly dismissive of field-dependence/ independence, argue that “field dependence/independence does not have and never has had any relevance for second language learning”, because the concept of field-dependence/independence is "theoretically flawed" (p.133). However, Chapelle (1992) calls this view into question and states that “Griffiths and Sheen have confused fundamental theoretical and research issues” (p. 375) and the relation between field-dependence/independence and second language learning has a logical foundation and specific benefits might be gained through careful examination of its evaluational results.

   Cognitive style of FD/FI has been also found important in language testing. Bachman (1990) hypothesizes that those “with high degree of field-independence would perform well on discrete point tests, in which the items are unrelated to one another and to the overall context in which they occur” (p.275). He also hypothesizes that persons with low field-independence degrees “perform well on integrative tests such as the cloze and the oral interview, in which they are not required to be conscious to discrete items”. Chapelle and Roberts (1986) reported significant correlation between field-independence and cloze test in adult ESL students (cited in Chapelle and Green, 1992).

To summarize the research findings, field-independence has been shown to be significantly and positively related to scores on several standardized paper – and – pencil tests, to the use of monitoring, and to success on the integrative measures of imitation and cloze.

Learning Strategies
The term 'learning strategies' refers to “special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information” (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990, p. 1). A distinction is usually made between learning strategies and communication strategies which “are problem-oriented, that is they are employed by the learner because he lacks or can not gain access to linguistic resources required to express an intended meaning” (Ellis, 1991, p. 181).

Factors Influencing Learning Strategy Use            
Researchers investigating language learning strategies have found that various factors can affect strategy choice by learners. Oxford (1989) mentions some of these factors including the language being learned, the learning goals, the level of learning (or the proficiency of learners), the learner’s self-awareness, age and sex. Moreover, she maintains that affective variables such as attitudes, motivational level, motivational orientation, personality factors and learning experiences also play a role in the strategy use. Wharton (2000) also refers to proficiency level, cultural background, first and other languages learnt, motivation, foreign language versus second language settings, gender and language learning styles as factors affecting the types, numbers and frequency of use of language learning strategies.

Ellis (1994) in reviewing the factors that have been found to affect strategy choice refers to learner beliefs about language learning, age, strength of motivation, the type of motivation and goals, learner’s personal background, language being learnt, setting and the task. He maintains that little research has been done to investigate the role of factors such as aptitude, learning styles, personality factors, sex and socioeconomic status in learning strategy choice.

Learning Strategy Classification
Researchers have differently classified learning strategies but one classification which is based on Anderson's theory of information processing is the one resented by O'Malley and Chamot (1990).
O'Malley and Chamot identify three categories of language learning strategies, i.e. metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective learning strategies. Metacognitive strategies are “higher order executive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learning activity” (p.44). The metacognitive learning strategies identified by O’Malley and Chamot and their definitions are as follows:

1. Planning: previewing the main ideas and concepts of the material to be learnt, often by skimming the text for the organizing principle.
2. Directed attention: deciding in advance to attend in general to a learning task and to ignore irrelevant distracters.
3. Functional planning: planning for and rehearsing linguistic components necessary to carry out an upcoming language task.
4. Selective attention: deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of input; often by scanning for key words, concepts and/or linguistic markers.
5. Self-management: understanding the conditions that help one learn and arranging for the presence of these conditions.
6. Monitoring: checking one’s comprehension during listening or reading and checking the accuracy and/or appropriateness of one’s oral or written production while it is taking place.
7. Self-evaluation: checking the outcomes of one’s own language learning  against a standard after it has been completed (p.37)

Cognitive strategies are “more directly related to individual learning tasks and entail direct manipulation or transformation of the learning material” (p.8). The cognitive strategies identified by O’Malley and Chamot and their definitions are as follows:      

1. Resourcing: using target language reference materials such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, or textbooks.
2. Repetition: imitating a language model, including overt         practice and silent rehearsal.
3. Grouping: classifying words, terminology, or concepts         according to their attributes or meaning.
4. Deduction: applying rules to understand or produce the       second language or making up rules based on language         analysis.
5. Imagery: using visual images (either mental or actual) to        understand or remember new information.
6. Auditory representation: planning back in one’s mind the   sound of a word, phrase, or longer language sequence.
7. Keyword method: remembering a new word in the second   language by: (a) identifying a familiar word in the first          language that sounds like or otherwise resembles the new       word and (b) generating easily recalled images of some          relationship with the first language homonyms and the new word in the second language.
8. Elaboration: relating new information to prior knowledge,     relating different parts of new information to each other or  making meaningful personal associations with the new      information.
9. Transfer: using previous linguistic knowledge or prior skills   to assist comprehension or production.
10. Inferencing: using available information to guess the meaning of new items, predict outcomes, or filling missing information.
11. Note–taking: writing down key words and concepts in  abbreviated verbal, graphic, or numerical form while listening or reading.
12. Summarizing: making a mental, oral, or written summary of new information gained through listening or reading.
13. Recombination: constructing a meaningful sentence or larger language sequence by combining known elements in a new way.
14. Translation: using the first language as a base for understanding and/or producing second language (p.138).
 

Finally social/affective strategies are referred to as “a broad grouping that involves either interaction with another person or ideational control over affect” (p. 45). The social/affective strategies identified by O’Malley and Chamot and their definitions are as follows:             

Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 12 students majoring in English at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. In order to select these subjects, first, a group of 33 English seniors and 30 English sophomores were given a TOEFL test and on the basis of the results of the TOEFL, students were classified into elementary, intermediate and advanced level subjects. Then, the same students were given the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), and on the basis of the results of GEFT, they were classified as field-dependent, field-intermediate or field-independent. To select the ultimate subjects, from the advanced group, three field-dependent and three field-independent subjects were chosen to represent skilled field-dependent (SFD) and skilled field-independent (SFI) readers. From elementary group, three field-dependent and three field-independent subjects were also selected to represent the novice field-dependent (NFD) and novice field-independent (NFI) readers. It should be noted that since the design of the study was an Ex-post-facto design and the aim was NOT to investigate the effectiveness of strategy instruction in FD/FI subjects, the participants didn't receive any explicit instruction in using metacognitive and cognitive strategies in the course of this study.

Instruments
The measuring instruments used in this study consisted of a TOEFL test, the GEFT test, four reading texts and a tape recorder and some cassettes.
                                                                                  
To select the appropriate reading texts, since the participants were majoring in English literature, in order to control the effect of different subjects' familiarity with the topic and genre, eleven literary texts were selected and by using the Fog index of readability, the difficulty levels of the texts were computed. But, since the Fog index of readability is a linguistic formula, two university professors of English were also asked to judge on the appropriateness of the texts. Finally, two texts were selected for skilled readers and two texts were also selected for novice readers. (See appendix A).

Procedure
The data collection procedure in this study was think-aloud method. The subjects were given the two reading texts and they were asked to read the text and say the main idea of the texts but while reading they should say aloud whatever occurred in their minds and whatever they thought about while reading. To encourage learners to verbalize their thoughts, they were allowed to use their mother tongue i.e. Persian. The subjects' voices were recorded and then transcribed and in these transcription the following symbols which have also been used by Ghonsooly (1997) were used:

S2 = sentence number
/03/ = time
/    / = utterance boundary
 ‘    ’ = utterances read in English as it originally appeared in the text
----- = decoding
ä = rising intonation
æ = falling intonation
RS = reading silently
RRA = resuming reading aloud

The resulting transcriptions are called “protocols” (See Appendix B for a sample protocol). It was tried to analyze these transcriptions on the basis of O’Malley and Chamot’s classification of learning strategies, but since their classification was in fact a classification of learning strategies in general not reading strategies and furthermore, some new strategies were identified and some strategies were not exactly the same as those defined by O'Malley and Chamot, it was tried to define a new set of reading strategies. Some of these strategies which are accompanied by an asterisk (*) below have also been identified by Ghonsooly (1997).

Metacognitive Reading Strategies  
1. Planning: This strategy refers to the reader’s decision on the way to read the text and what to search for in the text.
2.Monitoring (problem identification at word level): This strategy refers to the reader’s identification of a problem at word level and stating the existence of such a problem.
3.* Evaluation (Problem identification at sentence/discourse level): This strategy is observed when the reader comes across a problem in understanding a sentence or a set of sentences and states this difficulty.
4.*Evaluation (Reprocessing to get the gist): This strategy occurs when the reader fails to comprehend a sentence or part of the text and either states his aim to reread that part or starts to read the missed part again.
5.Self-questioning: This strategy refers to the reader’s asking himself a question accompanied by rising intonation with the purpose of clarifying a problem in comprehension.  
6. Self-correction (Correcting a previous hypothesis): This strategy occurs when the reader discovers the falsity of a prior guess or inference after reading more of the text. 
7.Self-correction (Correcting a wrong pronunciation): This strategy occurs when the reader mispronounces a word and repeats the word to correct the pronunciation. 
8. Selective attention (Identifying important information): This strategy occurs when the reader identifies the important parts of the text
9. *Selective attention (Ignoring trivial or difficult sections): This strategy occurs when the reader can not understand part of the text but he decides to ignore it either because he regards that part unimportant in comprehending the whole text or because he finds that part difficult to process.

Cognitive Reading Strategies
1. Using background knowledge: This strategy refers to using knowledge about the world and the contents of the text that contributes to understanding and processing the text. This strategy corresponds to what O'Malley and Chamot call elaboration. 
2. Prediction: This strategy refers to predicting the content of the text based on the information presented in part of the text.
3. Repetition to get the meaning of a word: This strategy occurs when the reader repeats a word or a phrase in order to remember or retrieve the meaning from the long term memory.                                               
4. Repetition before a difficult word: Sometimes the repetition of a word is not because of the reader’s attempt to remember its meaning, rather the reason for repeating the word is that it occurs before a difficult word and by repeating the first word, the reader takes time to decode or understand the difficult word or item.
5. Paraphrase: This strategy refers to the reader’s attempt to either provide synonyms and antonyms for a word or restating the contents of a sentence in his own words.            
6. Inferencing: This strategy refers to using the context or the knowledge of suffixes and prefixes to guess the meaning of an unknown word.
7. Inferencing (Reprocessing to get the meaning of a word): This strategy refers to the act of rereading a phrase, a clause or a sentence in order to infer or guess the meaning of an unknown word.
8. Translation: This strategy refers to using L1 to provide equivalents for a word or stating the contents of a sentence.
9. * Watchers: This strategy refers to reader’s attempt to keep an unfamiliar item or vocabulary in mind to be tackled later on by getting help from incoming information.
10.Using a dictionary: This strategy refers to the simple act of referring to a dictionary to look up the meaning of an unknown word or item. This strategy corresponds to what O’Malley and Chamot call resourcing.
11. * Decoding: This strategy refers to breaking a word into syllables in order to easify the pronunciation or processing its meaning. This strategy is often followed by a repetition of the word.
12. *Word identification based on phonological similarity: This strategy refers to the reader’s attempt to get the meaning of an unknown lexical item by comparing it to its closest possible neighbor, which bears some phonological similarity.
13. Grammatical analysis: This strategy refers to using the knowledge of grammar to interpret and understand a word, a phrase or a sentence. This strategy corresponds to what O’Malley and Chamot call deduction.
14. Imagery: This strategy refers to using visual images and visualizing the content of a text in order to understand.

After identifying the employed strategies (See appendix C for a sample profile of data analysis), the frequency of metacognitive and cognitive strategies was computed. In order to test the hypotheses of the study, due to the nature of the data which are frequencies, a Chi-Square statistical technique was used.

A note which should be kept in mind is that as Brown (1993) maintains strategies are "contextualized battle plans" which vary intraindividually so that each person may use different learning strategies in different times and situations and for different purposes. Thus, the strategies used by the subjects should be interpreted as those employed in an academic setting for the purpose of main idea construction of a reading text.

Results and Discussions            
Having analyzed the subjects’ protocols, the frequency of cognitive and metacognitive strategies was computed in each group of subjects. The following tables show the frequency of these strategies in each group of subjects.

Table 1: Total frequency and percentage of strategies

As Table 1 shows, the frequency of cognitive strategies is higher than the one of metacognitive strategies. Tables 2 and 4 show the frequency of each cognitive and metacognitive strategy in different groups of subjects. In these tables, the following abbreviations have been used:                                                
Problem identification at word level = (PIWL)
Problem identification at sentence/discourse level = (PISL)
Reprocessing to get the gist = (RGG)
Self-Questioning = (Self-Q)
Correcting a previous hypothesis = (CPH)
Correcting a wrong pronunciation = (CWP)
Identifying important information = (III)
Ignoring trivial or difficult sections = (ITDS)
Using background knowledge = (UBK)
Repetition to get the meaning of word = (GMW)
Repetition before a difficult word = (BDW)
Reprocessing to get the meaning of a word = (RGMW)
Using a dictionary = Dic
Word identification based on phonological similarity = WIBPS

Table 2: Frequency of metacognitive strategies

Table 3: Frequency of cognitive strategies

As explained earlier, to test the hypotheses of the study, Chi-Square statistical technique was used to determine the significance or insignificance of the observed differences.

Ho1: There is no significant difference between metacognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and those used by novice field-independent readers.

The result of the Chi-Square test for this hypothesis is shown in the table below.

Table 4: Chi-Square test for Ho1

As the information in table 4 indicates since the value of observed c2 is smaller than the critical value of c2, the first hypothesis of the study (Ho1) is retained. In other words, there is no statistically meaningful difference between metacognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and the metacognitive strategies used by novice field-independent readers and the cognitive style of field-dependence/independence seems not to influence novice readers’ use of metacognitive strategies.

The reason may be that language learners at elementary levels have no idea about metacognition, in general and metacognitive reading strategies, in particular. The small number of metacognitive strategies used by novice readers in this study (23 by field-dependent readers and 29 by field-independent readers) is indicative of such unfamiliarity. Even, from 29 metacognitive strategies used by novice field-independent readers, 17 strategies are evaluation (RGG) strategies used by NFI3 subject, and if we ignore these 17 strategies because they may be the result of some extraneous factors and individual differences which are not clear, and in fact are not in the focus of this study, the number of metacognitive strategies used by NFI subjects is 12 which is a very small number. In novice field-dependent readers also, from 22 metacognitive strategies, 8 strategies are evaluation (RGG) strategies used by NFD1 subject. If we ignore these 8 strategies, the number of metacognitive strategies is 13 (compare 12 strategies used by novice field-independent readers).
All this indicates the necessity of explicit instruction on metacognition and metacognitive reading strategies at elementary levels. Learners at this level should know these strategies and should have opportunities to use them.

Regarding the high frequency of evaluation (RGG) strategy used by both NFI and NFD readers, it can be claimed that all learners are familiar with this strategy even in their L1 and they have often been told that they should reread a sentence or paragraph when they cannot understand it or when it does not make sense to them.

Ho2: There is no significant difference between cognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and those used by novice field-independent readers.
The result of Chi-Square test for this hypothesis is shown in table 5.

Table 5: Chi-Square test for Ho2

As it can be seen from the table above, the value of observed c2 is 0 which may mean cognitive style of field-dependence/independence has no influence on using cognitive reading strategies at elementary levels.
Looking back at table 3, it is seen that cognitive strategies of repetition (GMW) and decoding have been mostly employed by both NFD and NFI subjects. The reason may be that all readers are familiar with these two simple strategies and even a learner naturally repeats a difficult new word to see if it rings a bell to him or decodes and breaks it down into its parts especially if it is a long word.  However, if we omit these two strategies from table 3, the number of cognitive strategies used by NFD subjects is 17 and the number of strategies used by NFI subjects is 25 which again indicate the necessity of strategy instruction and more practicing opportunities for readers at elementary levels.

Table 6: Chi-Square test for Ho3

As the result of Chi-Square test indicates, the third hypothesis of the study is rejected. In other words, the difference between metacognitive strategies used by skilled field-dependent and skilled field-independent subjects is statistically meaningful.
Since these subjects are advanced, and they should be all familiar with metacognitive strategies such as monitoring (PIWL), evaluation (RGG), evaluation (PISL) and self-questioning, though not necessarily in technical terms, it can be claimed that the reason for such a difference in using these strategies may be the cognitive style of field-dependence/independence. This is in line with Abraham’s (1983) finding that field-independent subjects used more monitoring strategy. What this indicates is the necessity of perhaps explicit instruction and more practicing opportunities and conscious employment of metacognitive strategies by skilled field-dependent readers.

Ho4: There is no significant difference between cognitive strategies used by skilled field-dependent readers and those used by skilled field-independent readers. The table below shows the result of Chi-Square test for Ho4.

Table 7: Chi-Square test for Ho4

The value of c2 rejects this hypothesis strongly and it means that the difference between cognitive strategies used by skilled field-dependent and skilled field-independent subjects is significant and meaningful.
Looking back at table 3, it can be claimed that since the level of proficiency of subjects is the same (i.e. advanced), the apparent difference may be because of the cognitive style of readers. Here again, the necessity of more practicing opportunities in cognitive strategies for skilled field-dependent subjects is clear.

Ho5: There is no significant difference between metacognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and those used by skilled field-dependent readers. Result of Chi-Square test for this hypothesis is shown in the table below.

Table 8: Chi-Square test for Ho5

The value of c2 in the above table confirms this hypothesis i.e. the difference between metacognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and skilled field-dependent readers, is not meaningful. What this implies is that in field-dependent readers, the level of proficiency does not have a strong influence on the metacognitive strategies used or put it in another way, subjects with cognitive style of field-dependence, regardless of their level of proficiency use a few metacognitive strategies. This finding implies the necessity of strategy instruction and providing the field-dependent readers with practicing opportunities regardless of their level of proficiency.

Ho6: There is no significant difference between cognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and those used by skilled field-dependent readers. Table 9 shows the result of Chi-Square test for Ho6.

Table 9: Chi-Square test for Ho6

The value of observed c2 retains this hypothesis i.e. the difference between cognitive strategies used by novice field-dependent readers and those used by skilled field-dependent subjects is not meaningful.

But looking at table 3, some eye-catching differences can be seen, e.g. UBK, repetition (GMW), paraphrase and decoding. Examining the table more closely, it appears that the frequency of some simple strategies such as repetition (GMW), and decoding is higher in novice field-dependent subjects (10 and 15 in comparison to 3 and 5 respectively), while the frequency of more complicated strategies such as UBK and paraphrase which require more command on the L2 is higher in skilled field-dependent subjects. Therefore, though the statistical computation shows no significant difference, based on the above-mentioned accounts it can be claimed that the level of proficiency of field-dependent readers influences the type of cognitive strategies they use so that novice field-dependent readers use simple cognitive strategies such as repetition (GMW) and decoding, while skilled field-dependent readers use strategies such as UBK and paraphrase. However, the possible role of other individual differences should be kept in mind and the results should be interpreted cautiously. In general, it can be claimed that both groups of NFD and SFD readers require strategy instruction and more opportunities to practice using cognitive strategies.

Ho7: There is no significant difference between metacognitive strategies used by novice field-independent readers and those used by skilled field-independent readers. The result of Chi-Square test for this hypothesis is shown in the table below.

Table 10: Chi-Square test for Ho7

The value of observed c2 rejects this hypothesis, i.e. there is a meaningful difference between metacognitive strategies used by novice field-independent and skilled field-independent readers. Looking back at table 2, this difference is clear. Even from among 19 strategies of evaluation (RGG), 17 strategies have been used by NFI3 subject which is indicative of the possible role of other individual differences.
Therefore, it can be claimed that in case of field-independent readers, the level of proficiency influences the metacognitive strategies used by the subjects. What this means is the necessity of strategy instruction and extensive practicing opportunities for novice field-independent readers.

Ho8: There is no significant difference between cognitive strategies used by novice field-independent readers and those used by skilled field-independent readers. To test the final hypothesis of the study, the Chi-Square statistical technique was also used and its result is shown in the table below.

Table 11: Chi-Square test for Ho8

As the information in table 3 indicates since the value of observed c2 is much greater than the critical value of c2, this null hypothesis is rejected. The rejection of this hypothesis means that the difference between cognitive strategies used by novice field-independent and skilled field-independent subjects is meaningful. Referring to table 3, this difference can be obviously seen. This table also shows that novice field-independent readers resort more to simple cognitive strategies such as repetition and using dictionaries.

To put this finding in other words, it can be claimed that field-independent readers’ level of proficiency influences their use of cognitive strategies. This finding also indicates the necessity of cognitive strategy instruction for novice field-independent readers. The finding of this study can be summarized as follows:

1. At elementary levels, the cognitive style of field-dependence/ independence does not seem to influence the metacognitive and cognitive strategies used by field-dependent and field-independent readers. The reason for this may be the fact that in elementary levels, learners do not use many learning strategies and the little difference between the few strategies used by field-dependent and field-independent readers can not be ascribed to the cognitive style of field-dependence/independence with certainty. 

2. At advanced levels, the cognitive style of field-dependence/independence seems to influence the type of strategies used so that the field-independent readers tend to use more metacognitive and cognitive strategies.

3. The proficiency level of field dependent readers does not seem to have a great influence on using the metacognitive strategies in that neither skilled field-dependent readers nor novice field-dependent readers use many metacognitive strategies.

4. The proficiency level of field dependent readers seems to influence the use of cognitive strategies so that skilled field-dependent readers tend to use more cognitive strategies.

Pedagogical implications of the study
The result and conclusions of this study indicate that level of proficiency and cognitive style of field-dependence / independence are both important factors in using metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies. Knowing from the previous research that reading strategy use leads to better comprehension and more successful reading, the findings of this study imply more careful planning in reading strategy instruction. The findings imply that at elementary levels explicit metacognitive and cognitive strategy instruction is necessary for both field-dependent and field-independent readers and all readers should be given adequate opportunities to practice all sorts of metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies. Not only are this strategy instruction and practicing opportunities necessary for novice field-dependent and field- independent readers but they are also vital for advanced level and skilled field-dependent readers. Teachers should try to provide extensive opportunities for all readers and encourage all novice and skilled field-dependent readers to use these strategies. This statement does not mean that skilled field-independent readers do not need practicing opportunities, rather they may also benefit from these opportunities and become more aware of the reading strategies. The final word is that, since this research was a case study, its results and conclusions can not be generalized with certainty and many more research projects are still needed to replicate this study.   

References
Abraham, R. G. (1983). Relationship between use of the strategy of monitoring and cognitive style. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 17-32.

Akbari, R. (2001). Language learning strategies: Key concepts and research issues. Roshd Foreign Language Teaching Journal, 15(59), 40-52.

Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implication. (2nd. ed.). New York: Freeman.

Arabsolghar, F. & Elkins, J. (2001). Teachers’ expectations about students’ use of reading strategies, knowledge and behavior in grades 3, 5 and 7. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(2), 154-162.

Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University press.

Baker, L. & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-359). New York: Longman.

Baker, L. & Brown, A. (1984). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In T. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language and the structure of prose (pp. 21-33). New York: International Reading Association.

Brown, J.D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher’s guide to statistics and research design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, A., Armbruster, B. & Baker, L. (1996). The Role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Drasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 49-75). Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, H. D. (1993). Principles of language learning and teaching. Indiana: Prentice Hall.

Case, R. (1974). Structures and strictures: Some functional limitations on the course of cognitive growth. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 544-574.

Case, R. & Globerson, T. (1974). Field-independence and central computing space. Child Development, 45, 722-778.

Chamot, A. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 13-23.

Chapelle, C. & Green, P. (1992). Field independence/dependence in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 42(1), 47-83.

Chapelle, C. (1992). Disembedding ‘Disembedded figures in the landscape...’: An appraisal of Griffiths and Sheen’s "reappraisal of L2 research on field dependence/independence". Applied Linguistics, 13(4), 375-383.

Chynn, E. W., Garrod, A., Demick, J. & Devos, E. (1991). Correlations among field-dependence/independence, sex, sex-role stereotype, and  age of preschoolers. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 73, 747-756.

Collins, V., et al. (199?). Metacognition and its relation to reading comprehension: A synthesis of the research. Retrieved from: idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech23.html

Dubin, F. & Bycina, D. (1991). Academic reading and ESL/EFL teacher. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 195-215). USA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Elliott, A. R. (1995). Field independence/dependence, hemispheric specialization, and attitude in relation to pronunciation accuracy in Spanish as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 356-369.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1991). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Garner, R. (1988). Metacognition and reading comprehension. New Jersy: Albex Publishing Corporation.

Ghazanfari, M. (2001). Out – of – class language learning strategies: The case of Iranian university students. Iranian Journal of Teaching Languages, 1(4), 19-37.

Ghonsooly, B. (1997). Introspection as a method of describing competence in L2 reading comprehension. Unpublished Doctoral  Dissertation. Stirling University.

Griffiths, R. & Sheen, R. (1992). Disembedded figures in the landscape: Appraisal of L2 research on field dependence/independence. Applied Linguistics, 13(2). 133-148.

Hansen, L. (1984). Field-dependence/independence and language testing: Evidence from six pacific island cultures. TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 311-324.

Hawkins, B. (1991). Teaching children to read in a second language. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 169-184). USA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Jamieson, J. (1992). The cognitive styles of reflection/impulsivity and field- independence/dependence and ESL success. The Modern Language Journal, 76(iv), 491-501.

Janizen, J. (1996). Teaching strategic reading. TESOL Journal, Autumn, 6-9.

Johnson, J., Prior, S. & Artuso, M. (2000). Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production. Language Learning, 50(3), 529-567.

Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. A. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: Longman.

Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategies, Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 241-265.

McDonough, S. H. (1995). Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.

Mitchell, R & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (1996). Learner strategy training in the classroom: An action research study. TESOL Journal, Autumn, 35-41.

Oltman, P., Raskin, E. & Witkin, A. (1971). Group embedded figures test. New York: Consulting Psychologists Press.

O'Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (1994). Language learning strategies: An update. Eric clearing–house on language and linguistics.

Padron, Y., n (1992). The effect of strategy instruction on bilingual students’ cognitive strategy use in   reading. Retrieved from:
www.ncbe.gwn.edu/ncbepubs/symposia/reading/article7/padron92.pdf

Rankin, J. M. (1988). Designing think–aloud studies in ESL reading, Reading in a Foreign Language, 4(2), 119-132.

Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.

Rivers, W. P. (2001). Autonomy at all cost: An ethnography of metacognitive self-assessment and self-management among experienced language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 279-289.

Scardamalia, M. (1977). Information processing capacity and the problem of horizontal decalage: A demonstration using combinatorial reasoning tasks. Child Development, 48(1), 28-37.

Sheorey, R. & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449.

Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and  L2 readers. Retrieved from: www.readingmatrix.com/articles/singhal/

Song, M. J. (1998). Teaching reading strategies in an ongoing EFL university reading classroom. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8, 41-54.

Srivastava, P. (1997). Cognitive style in educational perspective. New Delhi: Mehra Offset Press.

Stansfield, C. & Hansen, J. (1983). Field-dependence/independence as a variable in second language cloze test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), 29-38.

Stern, H. H. (1991). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vann, R. J. & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2). 177-192.

Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203-243.

Witkins, H., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E. & Karp. S. (1971). A Manual for the embedded figures test. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Witkin, H. & Goodenough, D. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New York: International University Press.

Woods, D. (1997). Decision making in language learning: A lens for examining learner   strategies. Retrieved from: http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/97/oct/woods.html

Appendix A

Text 1 - Skilled readers
With the obvious and important exceptions of Milton and Marvell, plus a scattering of minor poets like Francis Quarles and George Wither, very little of enduring literature of the early seventeenth century was the work of Puritans or Puritan sympathizers. The great Puritan art forms of the age were the sermon and the religious tracts. This is not just the joke it may seem. Puritan sermons, of which there were many thousands, explored in intimate detail the psychology of Christian groping for evidence of salvation, and Puritan tracts developed forceful ways of exciting the zeal of their readers. Yet on the whole, the Puritans mistrusted the adornments of literary art on the same principle that they suspected graven idols (statues, stained-glass windows, and paintings), music, and religious rituals. These were all allurements and enticements of the sensual word. They threatened to contaminate and diffuse the pure spiritual energy of divinely infused faith. Though the Puritans did not directly compete with the old forms of courtly literature, they subjected those who did not follow the old forms to heavy moral and social pressure. And on another level entirely, philosophers like Bacon and Hobbes campaigned unrelentingly against the use of insignificant words and merely decorative language. Like the Puritans, but from another angle, they insisted on a plain, direct manner of unequivocal prose. Though doubtless not put forward with this intent, one effect of the plain new language (sometimes summarized as “one-word-one-thing”) was to undermine the whole intricate structure of the correspondent universe.

Although favorable to the essay, literary conditions in the early nineteenth century were unfavorable in the extreme to writing for the stage. By a licensing act that was not repealed until 1843, only the Drury Lane and Covent Garden theaters had the right to produce “legitimate”-that is to say, spoken-drama. The other theaters were restricted by law to entertainments in which there could be no dialogue except to music, and so put on mainly dancing, pantomime, and various types of musical plays. The two monopoly theaters were vast and ill-lighted, and their audiences were noisy and unruly; as a result, actors played in a grandiose and orotund style. To succeed under such conditions, plays had also to be blatant and magniloquent, so that the drama of that period (fettered also by rigid moral and political censorship) tended to the extremes of either farce or melodrama. None of the plays written by the professional playwrights of the time is read nowadays. They survive mainly in the limbo of the scholarly monographs on the history of the theater.

Text 1 - Novice readers
There have been a number of important American novelists in this century, but F. Scott Fitzgerald is one of the more interesting ones. Born in 1896, educated at Princeton, his novels describe the post-war American society, very much caught up in the rhythms of jazz. In 1920, the same year that he published his first book, This Side of Paradise, he married Zelda Sayre, also a writer. His most famous book The Great Gatsby appeared in 1925. Fitzgerald had a great natural talent, but he was a compulsive drinker. A brilliant success in his youth, he never made the adjustments necessary to a maturing writer in a changing world. His later novels, All the Sad Young Men, Tender is the Night, and The Last Tycoon, were less successful, so that when he died in 1940 his books were out of print and he had been almost forgotten. His reputation now is far greater than it was in his lifetime, especially since the film version of his novel The Great Gatsby was released.

There are many ways of communicating without using speech. Signals, signs, symbols, and gestures may be found in every known culture. The basic function of a signal is to impinge upon the environment in such a way that it attracts attention, as, for example, the dots and dashes of a telegraphic circuit. Coded to refer to speech, the potential for communication is very great. While less adaptable to the codification of words, signs contain greater meaning in and of themselves. A stop sign or a barber pole conveys meaning quickly and conveniently. Symbols are more difficult to describe than either signals or signs because of their intricate relationship with the receiver’s cultural perceptions. In some cultures, applauding in a theater provides performers with an auditory symbol of approval. Gestures such as waving and handshaking also communicate certain cultural messages.

Appendix B
Transcription of the think aloud data revealed by SFI2
/Ok/What is the gist of this text here?/I should have first a preview of the text/S1/‘With the obvious and important exceptions of Milton and Marvell’ /Milton ä?/I know him/‘But Marvell/who’s Marvell?ä/‘plus a scattering of minor poets like Francis Quarles and George Wither very little of the enduring literature of the early 17th century was the work of Puritans or Puritan sympathizers’ /01/‘sympathizers’/‘sympathizers’/It may be related to sympathy/‘very little of the enduring literature’/‘enduring literature’/permanent or lasting literature may be /S2/‘The great Puritan art forms of the age’/02/‘of the age?ä/of the era/‘were the sermon and the religious tracts’/02/S3/‘This is not just the joke it may seem’ /S4/‘Puritan sermons of which there were many thousands explored in intimate detail’/02/‘the psychology of Christian groping for evidence of salvation’ /02/ ‘and the Puritan tracts developed forceful ways of exciting the zeal of their readers’/02/What does it mean?/ ‘the intimate detail’/the close detail’/‘the psychology of Christian groping for evidence of salvation’/‘salvation‘/perfect happiness/‘groping for evidence of salvation’ may be actually looking for evidence of salvation/S5/‘Yet, on the whole, Puritans mistrusted the adornments of literary art on the same principle that they suspected graven idols, statues, stained-glass windows and paintings’/02/‘music and religious rituals’/S6/‘These are all allurements and enticements of the sensual world’/02/S7/‘They threatened to contaminate and diffuse the pure spiritual energy of divinely infused fain’/03/‘They threatened to contaminate and diffuse the pure spiritual energy of divinely infused faith’ /01/‘the sensual world’/01/‘these are allurements and enticements of the sensual world’/02/they threatened to contaminate the pure world of religion may be/S8/‘Though the Puritans did not directly compete with old forms of literature, they subjected those who did not follow old forms to heavy moral or social pressure’/S9/‘And on another level, entirely philosophers like Bacon and Hobbes campaigned unrelentingly against the use of insignificant words and merely decorative language’ /02/ ‘campaigned’ /01/ campaigned unrelentingly’/They campaigned against the use of insignificant words/S10/‘Like Puritans but from another angle, they insisted on a direct, plain manner of unequivocal prose’/01/‘unequivocal prose’/I haven’t seen this word/ ‘unequivocal’ /S11/‘Though doubtless not to put forward with this intent, one effect of the plain, new language, sometimes summarized as one-word-one- thing, was to undermine the whole intricate structure of the correspondent universe’/02/‘to understand the whole intricate’/complex/‘structure of the correspondent universe’/02/this sentence is very complicated/‘the whole intricate structure of the correspondent universe’/the universe outside corresponds the universe in the literature/this outside universe actually has got intricate structure/the text talks about a school of literature, its followers and its philosophers/