A Study on the Relationship between Field Cognitive Style and English Reading Strategy Choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, China has accelerated its internationalization process and made more and more achievements in cross-border exchanges and cooperation. Learning English is essential for the current generation of college students. English reading is an important means to acquire English language knowledge, understand external information, and improve English language practice skills. Since the 70s of the 20th centuries, many scholars at home and abroad have been conducting a lot of research on the correlation between reading strategies and cognitive styles, but most of them are descriptive analysis, and there are few empirical studies. In this study, 324 first-year students majoring in science and engineering of Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology were selected by random sampling method, and the questionnaires of mosaic pattern test (Chinese version) and reading strategies were conducted, and data processing was carried out by SPSS 26.0, and descriptive statistics, independent samples t-test and Pearson correlation analysis were performed. The results show that there are significant differences in the use of reading strategies among field-independent and field-dependent science and engineering freshmen. Among them, field-independent individuals are more inclined to choose metacognitive strategies, and field-dependent individuals are more inclined to choose social/emotional strategies. Teachers should give full consideration to the characteristics of students' cognitive styles in English teaching, scientifically adjust the design of activities, the selection of teaching materials and teaching methods, and provide diversified guidance to help students correctly understand themselves and improve their learning efficiency. Due to the limitation of time and sample size, there are still many shortcomings in this study, but to a certain extent, it reflects the current situation of science and engineering English learners in China, and provides empirical data support for teachers' "teaching" and students' "learning".
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".