The Moderating Role of Cognitive Style (FD/FI) on the Relationship Between Cultural Information Preference and English Writing Performance

Year 2025, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 139 - 157, 23.12.2025

Yanyao Deng

https://doi.org/10.35207/later.1775058

Abstract

This study investigates how cognitive style (CS)—field-dependent (FD) versus field-independent (FI)—moderates the relationship between implicit cultural attitudes and English writing performance (EWP) among Chinese learners of English. The purpose was to explore how individual cognitive and affective factors interact to shape second language (L2) writing development, addressing a gap in research that often treats these dimensions separately. A total of 85 ESL/EFL learners completed three tasks: (1) the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) to identify FD/FI cognitive styles, (2) an Implicit Association Test (IAT) measuring preferences toward sociocultural information (SCI) and written corrective feedback (WCF), and (3) an AI-assessed academic writing task to evaluate EWP. Correlational analyses examined relationships among the variables, and moderation analyses tested whether CS influenced the effect of implicit attitudes on writing outcomes. Results showed that implicit cultural attitudes significantly predicted EWP, while CS alone did not directly affect writing performance. However, CS moderated the relationship: FD learners benefitted most when their implicit preference favoured SCI, whereas FI learners displayed consistent performance regardless of preference. These findings highlight the interplay between cognition and culture in shaping L2 writing. Pedagogical implications suggest tailoring writing instruction to learners’ implicit attitudes and cognitive profiles.

Keywords

Cognitive styles , Cultural and cognitive impact , Implicit attitude , ESL writing

References

• Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 721–754.
• Al-Hoorie, A. H., Hiver, P., Kim, T.-Y., & De Costa, P. I. (2021). The identity crisis in language motivation research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 136–153.
• Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
• Baghestani, S. (2018). The impact of field dependence/independence cognitive styles on learners' recall and retention of vocabulary and grammar. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(5), 1027–1035.
• Baker, W., & Fang, F. (2021). ‘So maybe I’m a global citizen’: Developing intercultural citizenship in English medium education. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1748045
• Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2021). The effects of task complexity and classroom environment on learners’ engagement in L2 classroom task interaction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
• Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
• Byram, M. (2021). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence: Revisited. Multilingual Matters.
• Carpenter, T. P., Pogacar, R., Pullig, C., Kouril, M., Aguilar, S., LaBouff, J., Isenberg, N., & Chakroff, A. (2019). Survey-software implicit association tests: A methodological and empirical analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 51(5), 2194–2208. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01293-3 PubMed
• Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301
• Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Innovations and challenges in language learning motivation. Routledge.
• Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.
• Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.
• Farangi, M. R., Rashidi, N., & Jokar, M. (2025). Preferences for written corrective feedback among field-dependent and field-independent EFL Learners: A mixed-methods investigation. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 101700.
• Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
• Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
• Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
• Hansen, J., & Stansfield, C. (1981). The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning, 31(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01389.x
• Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N. C., ... & Talmy, S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 361-421.
• Isabelli-García, C., Bown, J., Plews, J. L., & Dewey, D. P. (2018). Language learning and study abroad. Language Teaching, 51(4), 1–40.
• Kafipour, R., & Noordin, N. (2021). The relationship between cognitive styles and language learning strategies among EFL learners. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1–17.
• Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
• Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1749827
• Kurdi, B., Seitchik, A. E., Axt, J. R., Carroll, T. J., Karapetyan, A., Kaushik, N., & Banaji, M. R. (2019). Relationship between the implicit association test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. American Psychologist,
• Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2025). Toward explainable AI-powered writing tutors: Integrating learner profiles for personalized feedback. Computers and Education, 210, 105012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105012
• Li, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (Eds.). (2021). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences. Routledge.
• Lightbown, P. M. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford University Press.
• Mykytyn, P. P., Jr. (1989). Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT): An individual's perceived level of effectiveness in a group setting. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(4), 951–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448904900426
• Parker, J., & Jiang, L. (2024). Capturing the dynamics of second language development: A longitudinal study of motivation and proficiency. Language Learning, 74(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12622
• Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389.
• Ruiyang, R., & Hassan, H. (2024). Exploration of implicit culture belief among English major students in China. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(3), 248-259.
• Rezaee, A. A., & Farahian, M. (2012). The impact of cognitive style on the use of communication strategies by Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(5), 1011–1016. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.5.1011-1016
• Shao, K. (2024). Beyond single cohorts: The imperative for diversity in individual differences research. System, 122, 103245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103245
• Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.
• Teimouri, Y., Plonsky, L., & Tabandeh, F. (2020). L2 grit: Passion and perseverance for second-language learning. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820921895
• Tseng, W., Liou, H.-J., & Kang, Y. (2024). The validity of self-reported language proficiency: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 46(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263123000451
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64.
• Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
• Zhang, H., Wu, Y. J., & Thierry, G. (2020). Field independence is associated with more successful second language pronunciation learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49(5), 803–813.