Carol Chapelle and Joan Jamieson, in their recent article in the TESOL Quarterly (Vol. 20, No. 1, March 1986), report the results of an experiment to determine the desirability of using ESL lessons in the PLATO system with field-dependent (FD) and fieldindependent (FI) learners. One of their main findings in regard to these computer-assisted language learning (CALL) lessons was significant negative correlation between field independence and both time [spent on the lessons] and attitude [toward the lessons], indicating that highly field independent students tended not to like to work on CALL (p. 36). The second major finding was a lack of any significant correlation between time spent using and end-of-semester performance on the language measures after other relevant variables had been entered (p. 40). These comments are intended to extend Chapelle and Jamieson's discussion of these results by making certain implications of the article more explicit and by bringing some related points into the discussion of and its potential relationship to learning style. Much courseware in is designed on the pattern of programmed instruction (PI), which involves breaking a body of information down into components and sequences of components so that a learner can work at a desired individual pace with little or no assistance. The ESL lessons in the PLATO system are of this type; they are essentially a set of highly structured drill-and-practice lessons on discrete points of language (Stevens, 1983). Considering the nature of these lessons, one might have expected the FI learners, rather than the FD learners, to be the ones who would like the PLATO lessons. The systematicness of these lessons would seem to fit very well with the learning style of the FI individual, who tends to approach problem solving analytically (p. 32), in contrast with that of the FD individual, who tends to