چکیده:
Although investigating the factors that influence test scores is important, a majority of stakeholders show a paucity of attention towards individual learner differences due to having large classes of L2 learners. This study sought to explore the possible effect of working memory and cognitive style on L2 learners’ metaphorical test performance. The study was conducted in 2 phases. The first phase was quantitative, and the second consisted of a series of case studies using “think-aloud protocol” and “retrospection.” In the statistical phase, aimed at shedding light on the effect of the cognitive style of field (in)dependence (FI/FD) on metaphorical test performance, 80 senior undergraduates majoring in English Translation were selected through a truncated test of TOEFL adopted from Barron (2004). Metaphorical test performance was analyzed through recognition, text-based true-false, and scripturally implicit questions, refined by conducting factor analysis. Moreover, the participants’ cognitive style of FI/FD was identified via GEFT. In the qualitative part, after analyzing the verbal reports of 8 informants, the participants’ strategy preferences were examined. Results revealed the impact of the cognitive style of FI/FD and working memory on the participants’ strategy preferences. Due to the advent of learner-centered approaches, this study has some implications for L2 pedagogy discussed in the paper.
خلاصه ماشینی:
"L2 Learners’ Strategy Preference in Metaphorical Test Performance: Effects of Working Memory and Cognitive Style Mahmood Hashemian* Ph. D.
This study sought to explore the possible effect of working memory and cognitive style on L2 learners’ metaphorical test performance.
Metaphorical test performance was analyzed through recognition, text-based true-false, and scripturally implicit questions, refined by conducting factor analysis.
In their study of L2 learners’ explanations of conceptual metaphor and cognitive style variables, Boers and Littlemore (2000), through using the Ridingʼs (1991) computer-assisted test, asked a group of 71 students of Business and Economics in the University of Brussels to explain three conceptual metaphors.
The third material was the metaphor tests consisting of three parts: recognition, text-based true-false, and text-based scripturally implicit questions from the books English Idioms in Use (McCarthy & O’Dell, 2002) and Idioms Organiser (Wright, 1999), given to the participants in order to investigate their metaphorical performance.
Data Collection Procedure Overall, the quantitative research consisted of three phases: assessing proficiency, cognitive style, and metaphorical test performance, each with its own specific procedures.
36 As the last part of the data collection, in order to assess the participants’ metaphorical test performance, the metaphor tests consisting of recognition, text-based true-false, and text- based scripturally implicit questions were given to the participants according to their code for GEFT.
Therefore, the current study naturally follows the fact that L2 learners with different cognitive styles process conceptual metaphors in different ways—through using different subcomponents of their WM."