The Correlation of Field Cognitive Style and Working Memory Capacity with English Reading Strategy of Second Language Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding written text is crucial in language acquisition, and the cognitive style and working memory capacity of an individual play crucial roles in determining their level of reading comprehension. Individual differences may result in different reading strategies being employed during the reading process. Research has demonstrated that cognitive style and working memory capacity can impact language learning outcomes like vocabulary acquisition, grammar comprehension, and speaking fluency. However, there is a lack of research on how these cognitive factors relate to the reading strategies utilized by English as a second Language learners. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between Field-Independent and Field-Dependent (FI/FD) cognitive styles and working memory capacity in relation to the utilization of English reading strategies among freshmen engineering majors at BIPT. Data is gathered utilizing the theoretical model of FI/FD cognitive styles, working memory capacity and English reading strategies. The collected data includes results from the Cognitive Style Figure Test (CSFT), Reading Span Test, and a questionnaire on English reading strategies, which are then analyzed using SPSS 22.0. The findings from the thorough analysis show that there exists a notable relationship between working memory capacity and the utilization of reading strategies in relation to FI/FD cognitive styles. Students exhibiting an FI cognitive style tend to favor the implementation of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, whereas those with an FD style are inclined towards employing social/affective strategies. Additionally, disparities in the use of reading strategies are observed between students with high and low working memory capacity. Students with high working memory capacity demonstrate a higher tendency to employ cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social/emotional strategies when compared to those with low memory capacity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".