Previous research has suggested a relationship between cognitive styles, personality types and second language learning proficiency. A significant case of this are two models proposed by Ehrman, one in 1996 and later by Ehrman and Leaver in 2005, called “the four-track model” and “the E & L construct” respectively. Both models combine the concepts of field independence/dependence, personality types, and ego boundaries with second language learning.
Field independence (FI) is a cognitive learning style that researchers in the past have found to be related to greater success in formal classroom settings (for review see Hoffman, 1997) and in multiple choice and cloze type test questions (Alptekin & Atakan, 1990; Chapelle, 1988; Genesee, & Hamayan, 1980; Salmani-Nodoushan, 2007). On the other hand, field dependence (FD), the opposite pole of FI, has been suggested to give students an advantage in learning communicatively (Carter, 1988; Ehrman, 1996).
As for personality types, Ehrman (1996; Leaver, Ehrman & Shekhtman, 2005) uses the framework of the Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, Hammer, 2003) which is a personality test that has been used extensively in educational settings (Myers et al., 2003). It divides personality styles into four independent bipolar scales: extroversion-introversion, intuition-sensing, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving (Lawrence, 1993). Ehrman and Oxford (1990) found that, depending on their MBTI types, students’ uses of learning strategies differ. Finally, the concept of ego boundaries in Ehrman’s four-track model and the E & L Model is related to the Hartmann Boundary Questionnaire (HBQ), which has been used in the past as a test of tolerance for ambiguity (Hartmann, 1991).
Each of these constructs – FD/FI, MBTI, and HBQ – has been proposed by Ehrman (1996) to be important factors which lead to different advantages and disadvantages for students learning English as a second language along four tracks. For example, track one, the interpersonal track, is predicted to lead to greater communicative success, while track two, the cognitive flexibility track, is hypothesized to lead to greater academic success. Track three involves hard work, effort and persistence in practice and completing assignments but also leads to language proficiency. Track four involves control, that is in analysis, planning and concentration in order to reach language proficiency (1996, p. 123).
To date, however, very little empirical research has been conducted to confirm the predictions made by Ehrman’s (1996) four-track model. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the predicted relationships between field independence, personality type and ego boundaries to EFL student’s university level and their English proficiency. Specifically, the focus of the study is on track two, the cognitive flexibility track. One hundred and twenty-three students attending EFL courses at three different universities in Taiwan participated in this study. The three universities differed according to their academic rankings: the highest level university was labeled “University A” in this study due to the highest minimum university entrance exam scores that are required from their students. The same rationale was applied to the labeling of the lowest level university as “University C” and an intermediate level university as “University B.”
Each student was given four tests. The first three tests measure their learning styles and personalities, namely, the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), which is a measure of FD/FI, the MBTI, and the HBQ. The fourth test is an English proficiency test. In this study, the sample tests of two levels of the Language Training and Testing Center’s (LTTC) General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) were administered. The sample reading, writing, listening, and speaking tests of the GEPT high-intermediate level were administered to thirty-eight English-majored students at University A while the sample four-skills tests of the GEPT elementary level were administered to thirty-six students with various majors at University B. At University C, forty-nine students took their school sponsored English Proficiency test in reading, listening and writing, and also took the same sample GEPT elementary speaking test that was given to the students at University B.
The first research question asked was: Is there a relationship between the level of university a student attends and his/her cognitive styles or personality types? Ehrman’s Four track model predicts that “track two students”, i.e., students who are FI, intuitive, and have thinner ego boundaries would do better academically. If that prediction is true, results should show that University A, with its higher test score requirements, have more students with those learning styles and personality types than University B and University C. Chi-square tests were conducted to test this hypothesis.
The second research question asked was: Do students with different personality types or cognitive styles perform differently on EFL tests of reading, listening, writing, and speaking? Again, Ehrman’s four-track model predicts that track two students would have higher test scores. To test this prediction, students were first divided into groups according to their cognitive styles and personality types, then the means of the GEPT reading, listening, writing and speaking sections of the different groups of students were compared through t-tests and Mann-Whitney U analysis.
Results of this study show that the predictions made by Ehrman (1996) regarding track two students are only partially confirmed. For the first research question, the results of the chi-square tests did indicate that there were significantly more track two students at University A; that is, at University A there are indeed more FI students, N type students, and thin boundary students compared to University B and University C. However, because the students from the three universities are not randomly selected nor were their majors controlled, they are not truly representative of the population of their respective university. Thus, these results do not confirm that track two students are definitely better language learners or higher achievers. For the second research question, no cognitive styles or personality types seemed to have an advantage on any of the English proficiency tests. In other words, in most cases, the FI students did not perform significantly differently from the FD students. The same finding held true for the thin vs. thick ego boundaries students and the students who belong to the opposite ends of the MBTI bipolar scales. Thus, for the second research question the null hypothesis is accepted and the predicted outcomes of four-track model fail to be confirmed by this study.

比較臺灣大學生的人格類型及認知型態與其英語測驗表現之關係

認知型態、人格類型與第二語言學習成效有關的事實在許多研究指出，而其中更以美國學者Ehrman之研究最為著稱；她分別在1996年及2005年與Leaver提出兩種模式：『the four-track model』及『The E & l Construct』。其兩項研究皆以『沒有領域依附感』（field independence/dependence）、人格類型與自我界限（ego boundaries）與第二語言學習成效結合做深入比較。『沒有領域依附感』(field independence (FI))是一種認知學習型態，且研究者曾發現此類學習型態在正式教室情境學習、選擇式考題、克漏字測驗有顯著相關性(Bialystok & Fröhlich, 1978; Tinajero & Paramo, 1998)。另一方面『有領域依附感』（Field Dependence (FD)）則有研究指出學習者較適合溝通式學習情境(Carter, 1988; Ehrman, 1996; Johnson, Prior & Artuso, 2000)。
Ehrman使用麥布二氏人格類型測驗(Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)) (1996; Leaver, Ehrman & Shekhtman, 2005)的架構，而其也廣泛地在教學領域中應用以研究學習成效。麥布二氏人格類型分為四組兩極的類別：外向/內向(extroversion-introversion)、感覺/直觀(intuition-sensing)、思考/感受(thinking-feeling)以及判斷/知覺(judging-perceiving) (Lawrence, 1993)。
Ehrman及Oxford的研究發現，根據不同人格類型特質，學習者採用不同學習策略。而Ehrman的『four-track model and the E & L Model』與Hartmann之心界問卷(Hartmann Boundary Questionnaire (HBQ))在研究人格特質上相關，並曾用來避免產生模擬含糊的狀況。
以上每一項研究的思想架構：FD/FI、MBTI及HBQ都曾是美國學者Ehrman提出應用第二語言學習者成效高低的重要元素。舉例來說，架構一(track one)：人際互動(interpersonal)，預期溝通成效表現卓越；而架構二(track two)：認知彈性(cognitive flexibility)，則預設學業成績表現顯著；架構三(track three)：辛勤認真( hard work)，牽涉完成課業的努力及持續力，但也可以成就語言能力；架構四(track four)：控制( control)，則有語言學習中分析、計畫及專注有關。
然而對Ehrman四個架構( four-track model)的推斷並沒有足夠的實驗證明。因此本論文旨在深入研討『沒有領域依附感』(field independence)、人格類型及自我界限對以英文作為外語學習的大學學生程度及其英語能力影響相互關係。本論文研究對象為台灣三大所大學共計一百二十三名學生，而此三所大學根據學業排行為甲大學為L1大學，其大學聯考排行為三所之冠，以此類推乙大學為L2大學及丙大學為L3大學。每位參與研究之學生做四項測驗；前三項測驗評估出其學習型態及人格特質，包括Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT)，麥布二氏人格測驗(MBTI)及Hartmann心界問卷(HBQ)，其中GEFT測出『沒有領域依附感』及『領域依附感』程度。第四項測驗是英文能力測驗，本研究中採用財團法人語言測驗中心(The Language Training & Testing Center)研發全民英語能力測驗(GEPT)初級及中高級題組。中高級測驗對象為三十八名英文主修L1大學學生，而初級測驗對象則為八十五L2及L3大學學生，其主修則並非英文。
本論文提出第一項研究問題為：參與研究之大學類型與評估之人格類型是否有關？就Ehrman之『四架構模式』(four-track model)而言，Ehrman提出，架構二(track two)學生為『沒有領域依附感』(FI)、感受類型人格特質及較低自我界限者學業表現較優。若此預測為真，在L1大學的受測學生應可驗證結果，其入學成績要求較高，且學生應顯示出此類學習型態及人格類型。本論文以方式檢定(chi-square tests)以證明此說法。
第二項研究問題為：任何人格類型是否提供英語文能力測驗之閱讀、聽力、寫作或口說優勢？Ehrman再次預測架構二(track two)學生有較高的測驗成績表現。另一方面架構一(track one)學生則溝通表達較佳，此類學生為有領域依附感、感覺型、較低自我界限。為驗證此假說，受測學生依其學習型態、人格類型及GEPT測驗閱讀、寫作、聽力及口說各項分類並以t-tests作比較。
本研究結果顯示Ehrman (1996)關於架構二(track two)學生的預測僅部分成立。針對第一項研究問題，方式檢定(chi-square tests)結果確實顯現甲大學有較多架構二(track two)類型學生，相較於乙大學及丙大學，甲大學的確有較多學生是『沒有領域依附感』(field independence)人格類型、感覺類型(N type)且具較低自我界限。但參與本研究的大學並非隨機取樣且其主修無法控制一致，故不能成為代表性。因此這些結論並無法確立架構二(track two)類型學生確實較擅長語言學習或成績表現較佳。針對第二項研究問題，並無認知型態或人格類型有利於英語能力測驗。在大多數情形中，『沒有領域依附感』(FI))與FD類型學生並無顯著差異，對心界問卷結果亦然。 本研究提供Ehrman之『四架構模式』(four-track model)驗證，並深入探討語言能力測驗之所謂標準測驗確實與學習者之學習型態及人格類型關係緊密。對第二語言學習者及教育工作者，本論文將有助於大家更進一步多方面的瞭解學習過程的人格類型、學習型態及語言學習成致之相互影響，並且討論相關測驗在外語學習研究之應用。

References
Abraham, R. G. (1985). Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly 20(4), 689-702.
Adcock, C. J., & Webberley, M. (1971). Primary mental abilities. Journal of General Psychology, 84(2), 229-243.
Alptekin, C., & Atakan, S. (1990). Field dependence-Independence and hemisphericity as variables in L2 achievement. Second Language Research, 6(2), 135-149.
Bertini, M., Pizzamiglio, L., & Wapner, S. (Eds.). (1986). Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application: two symposia in memory of Herman A. Witkin. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bialystok, E., & Fröhlich, M. (1978). Variables of classroom achievement in second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 62(7), 327-336.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Carter, E. F. (1988). The relationship of field-dependent/independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: a preliminary report. Modern Language Journal, 72(1), 21-30.
Chapelle, C. A. (1988). Field independence as a source of language test variance? Language Testing, 5, 62-82.
Chapelle, C. A. (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), 375-384.
Chapelle, C. A., & Green, P. (1992). Field independence/dependence in second language acquisition research. Language learning, 42(1), 47-83.
Chapelle, C. A., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning. 36(1), 27 – 45.
Chiang, H.-H. (2004). The relationship between field sensitivity/field independence and the use of vocabulary learning strategies of EFL university students in Taiwan (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2004). Retrieved June 25, 2007, from ProQuest database (AAT3143596).
Chiang, H.-H. (2006). The relationship between cognitive learning style and the use of vocabulary-learning strategies of EFL university students in Taiwan. In Selected papers from the fifteenth international symposium and book fair on English teaching (pp. 325-335). Taipei: Crane.
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of Psychological Testing. (4th ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
Crutchfield, R. S. (1959). Personal and situational factors in conformity to group pressure. Acta Psychologica, 15, 381-386.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Pub.
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. L. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquistion (pp. 589 – 630). Oxford: Blackwell.
Duda, R., & Riley, P. (2001). Learning Styles. In M Byram (ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 346-351). New York: Routledge.
Ehrman, M. E. (1994). The type differentiation indicator and adult foreign language learning success. Journal of Psychological Type, 30, 10-29.
Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. London: Sage.
Ehrman, M. E. (1998). Field independence, field dependence, and field sensitivity in another light. In J. M. Reid (ed.), Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom (pp. 62–70). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Ehrman, M. E. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. In J. Arnold (Eds.), Affect in language learning (pp. 68–86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ehrman, M. E., & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language education: the visible and invisible classroom. London: SAGE
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal 74(3), 311-327.
Eysenck, H. (1991). Dimensions of personality: the biosocial approach to personality. In J. Strelau and A. Angleitner (eds.), Explorations in temperament: international perspectives on theory and measurement (pp. 87-103). London: Plenum.
Felder, R. M., & Henriques, E. R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.
Fitzgibbons, D., Goldberger, L., & Eagle, M. (1965). Field dependence and memory for incidental material. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21, 743–749.
Fleenor, J. W., & Mastrangelo, P. M. (2001). [Review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form M ]. In B. S. Plake & J. C. Impara (Eds.), (pp. 816-818) The fourteenth mental measurements. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (1980). Individual differences in second language learning, Applied Psycholinguistics. 1, 95-110.
Goodenough, D. (1986). History of the field dependence construct. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio & S. Wapner (Eds.), Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application (pp. 5-13). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Griffin, R., & Franklin, G. (1996). Can college academic performance be predicted using a measure of cognitive style? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24(4), 375-379.
Griffiths, R., & Sheen, R. (1992). Disembedded figures in the landscape: a reappraisal of L2 research on field dependence/independence. Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 133-148.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643–679.
Hansen, J., & Stansfield, C. (1981). The relationship of field-dependent-independent cognitive style to foreign language achievement. Language Learning, 31(2), 349–367.
Hansen, L. (1984). Field dependence/independence and language testing: Evidence from six Pacific Island cultures. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 311 - 324.
Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries in the mind: A new psychology of personality. New York: Basic.
Hartmann, E. (1994). 自得其樂的性格 [Boundaries in the mind: A new psychology of personality]. (張東曜 Trans.) Taipei. (Original work published 1991).
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A., (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Hoffman, S. Q. (1997). Field dependence/independence in second language acquisition and implications for educators and instructional designers. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 221-234.
Jensen, G. H. (2003). Learning styles. In J. A. Provost & S. Anchors (Eds.), Using the MBTI instrument in colleges and universities (pp. 123-155). Glendale FL: CAPT.
Johnson, J., Prior, S., & Artuso, M. (2000). Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production. Language Learning, 50(3), 529-567.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Jung, C. (1971). Psychological types. (H. G. Baynes & Rev. R. F. Hul, Trans.) Bollingen Series 20, 6. Princeton, NJ; Princeton University. (Original work published 1921).
Kaufman, N. L., & Kaufman, A. S. (2001). [Review of the test Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder Scales]. In B. S. Plake & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 183-187). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Kolb, D. (1985). Learning styles inventory. Boston: McBer.
Kuntzendorf, R. G., Hartman, E., Cohen, R., & Cutler, J. (1997). Bizarreness of the dreams and daydreams reported by individuals with thin and thick boundaries. Dreaming, 7, 265-271.
Language Training and Testing Center [LTTC]. (2006a, June). General English Proficiency Test High-Intermediate Level Sample Test 2. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.
Language Training and Testing Center [LTTC]. (2006b, November). General English Proficiency Test Elementary Level Sample Test 3. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.
Lawrence, G. (2000). People types and tiger stripes (3rd ed.). Gainesville, FL: CAPT.
Leaver, B. L., Ehrman, M. & Shekhtman, B. (2005). Achieving success in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liou, H. C. (1994). Relating learner characteristics to language learning: cognitive styles and learning strategies. Selected Papers of the 11th Conference on English teaching and learning in the ROC (pp. 1-18). Taipei: Crane.
Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 241-265.
McKenna, F. P. (1984). Measures of field dependence: Cognitive style or cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 593–603.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenck, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (2003). MBTI Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Myers, I. B., & Meyers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: understanding personality type. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nelson, G. L. (1995). Cultural differences in learning styles. In J.M. Reid (Eds.). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 123-132). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Norušis, M. J. (2006). SPSS 15.0 statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Oltman, P. K., (1986). Psychological differentiation theory in social and cross-cultural psychology. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio, & S. Wapner (Eds.), Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application (pp. 85 - 91). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (1999). “Style wars” as a source of anxiety in language classrooms. In D. J. Young (Ed.). Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 216 – 237). New York: McGraw Hill.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1989). An organismic process model of Witkin’s field-dependence—independence. In T. Globerson & T. Zelniker (Eds.). Cognitive style and cognitive development ( pp. 36 – 70). Norwood NJ: Ablex
Paul, A. M. (2004). The cult of personality testing. New York: Free Press.
Raskin, E. (1986). Counseling implications of field dependence-independence in an educational setting. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio & S. Wapner (Eds.), Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application (pp. 107–113). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Revelle, W., Anderson, K. J., & Humphreys, M. S. (1987). Empirical tests and theoretical extensions of arousal based theories of personality. In J. Strenau and H. J. Eysenck (Eds.), Personality dimensions and arousal. London: Plenum.
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.
Rubin, J., & Thompson (1994). How to be a more successful language learner. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Ruble, D. N., & Nakamura, C. Y. (1972). Task orientation versus social orientation in young children and their attention to relevant social cues. Child Development. 43(2), 471-480.
Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2002). Field dependence/independence and iranian EFL learners’ performance on communicative tests. Retrieved January 2004, from http://www.geocities.com/nodoushan/HomePage.html
Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2007). Is Field dependence or independence a predictor of EFL reading performance? TESOL Canada Journal, 24(2), 82-108.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
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. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern language review, 31(4), 304-318.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg & L.-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 1 – 21) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tieger, P. D., & Baron-Tieger, B. (1998). The art of speed reading people: How to size people up and speak their language. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Tinajero, C., & Paramo, M. F. (1998). Field dependence-independence cognitive style and academic achievement: A review of research and theory. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 227-251.
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. E., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological Differentiation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R., (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New York: International Universities Press.
Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.