Main Article Content


This study investigated the effect of instructional methods and students’ cognitive styles toward speaking skill. It was an experimental research using a two-factor ANOVA at 0.05 and 0.01 significance level. Because an interaction between the variables involved was found, the analysis was then continued by Tuckey Test. The data was collected using oral test rating scale and a cognitive style questionnaire. The findings showed the following points: (1) the speaking skill of the students taught by CLL (Cooperative Language Learning) was higher than the students taught by TBL (Task-Based Language Learning); (2) the speaking skill of FD (Field Dependent) students was higher than FI (Field Independent) students; (3) there was an interaction between instructional methods and cognitive style to speaking skill; (4) the speaking skill of the students taught by CLL was higher than the students taught by TBL in the group of FD students; (5) there was no significant difference of the speaking skill of the students taught by CLL and the students taught by TBL in the group of FI students. The findings above led to a conclusion that generally CLL was more effective than TBL in teaching speaking skill. Moreover, besides instructional methods, cognitive style also gives a significant effect to students’ speaking skill.

Article Details

How to Cite
Kaniadewi, N. (2017). The Effect of Instructional Methods and Cognitive Styles toward Speaking Skill. Journal of ELT Research: The Academic Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 44-54. Retrieved from


  1. Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy - Third Edition. London: Longman.
  3. Guillot, A., Collet, C., & Dittmar, A. (2004). Relationship between visual and kinesthetic imagery, field dependence-independence, and complex motor skills. Journal of Psychophysiology, 18, 190–198.
  4. Hansen, L. (1984). Field dependence-independence and language testing: Evidence from six pacific island cultures, TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 311-324.
  5. Liu, W., & Chepyator-Thomson, J. R. (2009). Field dependence–independence and physical activity engagement among middle school students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 125-136.
  6. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Rahmani, B. D. (2016). The relationship between field dependence-independence and reading strategy toward reading comprehension. Journal of ELT Research, 1(1), 37-51.
  8. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching – Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Saracho, O. N. (1997). Teachers’ and Students’ Cognitive Styles in Early Childhood Education. London: Bergin and Garvey.
  10. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice - Second Edition. The USA: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
  11. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking Styles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Tinajero, C., & Paramo, F. (1998). Field Dependence-Independence in Second Language Acquisition: Some Forgotten Aspects. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 32-38.
  13. Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman.
  14. Woolfolk, A. (1993). Educational Psychology – Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
  15. Zhang, L. (2004). Field-dependence/independence: cognitive style or perceptual ability? -validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(6), 1295–1311.