Article published In: ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 143/144 (2004) ► pp.61–88
On the Relationship between Impulsivity / Reflectivity Cognitive Style and Performance on TMU English Exam
Published online: 1 January 2004
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.143.0.504646
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.143.0.504646
Abstract
Performance on language tests varies as a function of various factors. These factors, according to Bachman (1990) include: communicative language ability, test method facets, personal attributes that are not related to the ability we want to measure, and random factors which are unpredictable and temporary. Since the purpose of language tests is to measure language ability, a fundamental concern in the development and use of language tests is to identify potential sources of error and test bias in a given measure of language ability and to minimize the effects of these factors, hence to maximize the reliability and the validity of the tests. This study with 1984 male and female PhD candidates with an age range of 21-51 who took the Tarbiat Modarres University (TMU) TOEFL-like English Examination as a prerequisite for their admission for PhD programs attempted to identify one of the potential sources of test bias called impulsivity / reflectivity (Imp/Ref) cognitive style.
The purpose of the present study was two fold: On the one hand, the present research attempted to investigate the relationships and interaction between impulsivity/reflectivity, age, sex and performance on TMU English Exam. This, on the other hand, required restandardization of Persian Impulsiveness Questionnaire in Iran. To achieve this purpose of the study, having gone through the restandardization procedures, the data obtained from 1822 subjects regarding impulsivity/reflectivity were factor-analyzed through Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) in order to check the construct validity of the test. To achieve the main objective of the research, the subjects were classified into three groups of high, medium and low impulsives to see if this cognitive style has any relationship with Ph.D. candidates’ performance on TMU English Exam. Moreover, the role of gender and age in the subjects’ performance and the interaction effect of impulsivity, age and sex on their performance were taken into consideration. The results revealed that both impulsivity and gender are significant factors in the subjects’ performance. The overall main effect of age and the interaction effect were found to be non significant.
Key Words: Cognitive style, Impulsivity, Reflectivity, TMU English Exam
References (37)
BARRATT, E. S. (1959). Anxiety and impulsiveness related to Psychomotor efficiency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 191–198.
BARRATT, E. S. & PATTON, J. H. (1983). Impulsivity: cognitive, behavioral and psychophysiological correlates. In Zuckerman, M.(ed.), Biological bases of sensation seeking, impulsivity and anxiety (pp. 77–122). New York: Earlbaum.
BARRATT, E. S. Pattone, J., Olsson, N. G. & Zuker, G. (1981). Impulsivity and paced tapping. Journal of Motor Behavior, 131, 286–300.
DORON, S. (1973). Reflectivity-Impulsivity and Their influence on Reading for Inference for Adult Students of ESL. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
EHRMAN, M. and R. Oxford. (1990). Adult Language Learning Styles and Strategies in an Intensive Training Setting. Modern Language Journal, 74,3, 311–27.
EYSENCK, H.J., SYBIL B. & G. EYSENCK (1999). Manual of the Eyscnck Personality Scales (EPS Adult), Hodder & Stoughton, London Sydney Auckland.
EYSENCK, H. J. and S. B. C. EYSENCK, (1973). On the Nature of Extroversion. In H. J. Eysenck, Eysenck on Extroversion. Great Britain: Fletcher and Son Ltd.
EYSENCK, S. B. G. & EYSENCK, H. J. (1977). The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality. Biritish Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 161, 57–68.
EYSENCK, S. B. G., PEARSON, P. R., EASTING, G. & ALLSOPP, J. F. (1985). Age norms for impulsiveness, Venturesomeness and empathy in adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 61, 613–619.
EYSENCK, S. B. G. & ZUCKERMAN, M. (1978). The relationship between sensation- seeking and Eysenck’s dimensions of personality, British Journal of Psychology, 691, 483–487.
GERBING, D. W., Ahadi, S. A. & Patron, J. H. (1987). Toward a conceptualization of impulsivity: Components across the behavioral and self-report domains. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 221, 357–379.
HAGHIGHI, M. (forthcoming). On the Reliability of TMU English Exam. Master’s Thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran.
HANSEN, J. (1984). Field dependence-independence and language testing evidence from six pacific island cultures. TESOL QUARTERLY, 181, 311–24
HATCH, E. & A. LAZARÍAN (1991). The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics, New York, Newbury House Publishers.
JAMIESON, J. (1992). Cognitive Style of Reflection/Impulsivity and Field Independence/ Dependence and ESL Success. The Modern Language Journal, 76, iv, 491–501.
Kagan, J. (1965). Reflection/impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 361, 609–628.
KAGAN, J., PEARSON, L. and WELCH, L. (1966). Conceptual Impulsivity and Inductive Reasoning. Child Development, 371, 583–594.
KAGAN, J. and ROSMAN, B. L. (1964). Cardiac and respiratory correlates of attention and an analytic attitude. Journal of Experimental child Psychology., 11, 50–63.
KAGAN, J., ROSMAN, B. L., DAY, D., ALBERT J. and PHILLIPS W. (1964). Information processing in the child significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychol. Monogr., 781, 1–578.
KlANY, G. R. (1997) Extroversion and Pedagogical Setting As Sources of Variation in Different Aspects of English Proficiency. Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex, The United Kingdom.
KlANY, G. R. and M. Nazarpour (2001). On the Construct Validity of TMU English Exam. Paper Presented in Tabriz Azad University Conference on Issues in Language Teaching and Learning.
MILANOVIC, M. (1988). The construct validation of a preformance-based batery of English language prograll tests Unpublished doctoral disertation, University of London.
NEWSOM, R. S. and A. J. H. Gaite. (1972). The Retention of Logically Meaningful Versus Psychologically Meaningful Prose Material. Paper Presented at the Meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Minueapolis.
(1980). A Comment on specific variance versus global variance in certain EFI tests. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (4), 527–530.
PEARSON, P. R. (1986). Impulsivity and Religosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 1, 89–94.
PIROUZNIA, M. (1994). The Impact of Impulsivity/ Reflectivity on EFL Reading Comprehension, MA Thesis. Tehran University.
READENCE, J. E. & R. S. Baldin, (1978). The relationship of cognitive style and phonics instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 721: 1, 44–5.
SCALES, A. M. (1984). Alternatives to Standardized Tests in Reading Eduction: Cognitive Styles and Informal Measures. Negro Educational Review, 381, 2, 99–106.
SPOLSKY, B. (1973). What does it mean to know a language? Or how do yon get someone to perform his competence? In J. W. Oiler & J. C. Richards (Eds.) Focus on the learner: Pragmatic Perspectives for the language teacher (164-176). Rowley, Mass.: Newbary House.
STANFIELD, C., & HANSEN, J. (1983). Field dependence-independence as a variable in second language cloze test performance. TESOL QUARTERLY, 171, 29–38.
WANGER, COOK, FIEDMAN and STEPHEN. (1998) Staying with their First Impulse?: The Relationship between Impulsivity/ Reflectivity, Field Dependence/ Field Independence and Answer changes on a Multiple-Choice Exam in a Fifth-Grade Sample. Journal of Research and Development in Eduction, 311, 3, 166–75.