متن کامل پایان نامه مقطع کارشناسی ارشد رشته :زبان انگلیسی
عنوان : The Relationship among EFL Learners’ Use of Language Learning Strategies, Reading Strategies, and Reading Comprehension
Islamic Azad University
At Central Tehran
Faculty of Foreign Languages
English Department
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (TEFL)
The Relationship among EFL Learners’ Use of Language Learning Strategies, Reading Strategies, and Reading Comprehension
ADVISOR:
Dr. ABDOLLAH BARADARAN
READER:
Dr. MANIA NOSRATINIA
November 2013
برای رعایت حریم خصوصی نام نگارنده پایان نامه درج نمی شود
(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)
تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :
(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship among EFL learners’ use of learning strategies, reading strategies, and reading comprehension. To fulfill this objective, 150 female EFL learners, between 25 and 42 years old, who were selected randomly from amongst those who were attending in upper-intermediate level of Safir language school were asked to take part in a piloted PET reading comprehension test and two questionnaires on Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), and Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS). After discarding incomplete answer sheets, the acceptable cases were used in statistical analysis.
At first the PET was piloted and it was declared that it was reliable. Then the results from the main administration were analyzed to exclude the descriptive data; it showed that there was no skewness in the results. The next step was to test the hypotheses; in this regards, Pearson’s product moment correlation was applied and the outcome showed that the three hypotheses were rejected.
After analyzing the results it was concluded that the use of reading strategies has positive effect (r=0.93) on learners’ learning. Also it was shown that using learning strategies has a positive effect (r=0.61) on learners’ reading comprehension; construing that the reading strategies and language learning strategies have positive and high correlation with learners’ comprehension.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1
1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Statement of the Problem 5
1.3 Statement of the Research Questions 6
1.4 Statement of the Research Hypotheses 7
1.5 Definition of Key Terms 7
1.5.1 Learning Strategies 7
1.5.2 Reading Comprehension 8
1.5.3 Reading Strategies 8
1.6 Significance of the Study 9
1.7 Limitations and Delimitations 11
1.7.1 Limitations 11
1.7.2 Delimitations 12
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 13
2.1 Introduction 14
2.2 Language Learning Strategies 14
2.2.1 Categories of Language Learning Strategies 15
2.2.2 Language Learning and Strategy use 17
2.3 Reading 21
2.3.1 Types of Reading 22
2.3.2 Components of Reading 23
2.4 Reading Comprehension 25
2.4.1 Theories of Reading Comprehension 26
2.4.2 Definitions of Reading Comprehension 27
2.4.3 Categories of Reading Comprehension 28
2.5 Reading Strategies 29
2.5.1 Definitions of Reading Strategies 31
2.5.2 Categories of Reading Strategies 32
2.5.3 Reading Strategies and Reading Comprehension 33
CHAPTER III: METHOD 36
3.1 Introduction 37
3.2 Participants 37
3.3 Instrumentations 37
3.3.1 The Language Learning Questionnaire 38
3.3.2 The Reading Strategies Questionnaire 40
3.3.3 Reading Comprehension Test 41
3.4 Procedure 41
3.5 Design 42
3.6 Statistical Analysis 42
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS OF DATA 43
4.1 Introduction 44
4.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Pilot Study 44
4.3 Descriptive Statistics of the Main Administration 46
4.3.1 Descriptive Statistics of the Language Learning Questionnaire 46
4.3.1.1 Memory Strategies 48
4.3.1.2 Cognitive Strategies 50
4.3.1.3 Compensation Strategies 51
4.3.1.4 Meta-cognitive Strategies 53
4.3.1.5 Affective Strategies 54
4.3.1.6 Social Strategies 56
4.3.1.7 Comparing the SILL’s Categories 57
4.3.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Reading Strategies Questionnaire 59
4.3.3 Descriptive Statistics of the Reading Comprehension Test 60
4.4 Testing the Hypotheses 61
4.4.1 Testing the First Hypothesis 62
4.4.2 Testing the Second Hypothesis 62
4.4.3 Testing the Third Hypothesis 63
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 65
5.1 Introduction 66
5.2 Procedure and Summary of the Findings 66
5.3 Discussion 67
5.4 Pedagogical Implications 69
5.4.1 Implications for EFL Teachers 70
5.4.2 Implications for EFL Learners 71
5.4.3 Implications for Syllabus designers 72
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research 72
REFERENCES 73
APPANICES 81
Appendix A: Learning Strategies Questionnaire 82
Appendix B: Reading Strategies Questionnaire 84
Appendix C: Reading Comprehension Test 86
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of the PET Reading Comprehension Test Piloting 45
Table 4.2: Reliability of the PET Reading Comprehension Test Piloting 45
Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of the SILL Questionnaire Administration 47
Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics of the Memory Strategies 49
Table 4.5: Descriptive Statistics of the Cognitive Strategies 50
Table 4.6: Descriptive Statistics of the Compensation Strategies 52
Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics of the Meta-cognitive Strategies 53
Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics of the Affective Strategies 55
Table 4.9: Descriptive Statistics of the Social Strategies 56
Table 4.10: Descriptive Statistics of the SILL Categories Means 58
Table 4.11: Descriptive Statistics of the SORS Questionnaire Administration 59
Table 4.12: Descriptive Statistics of the PET Reading Comprehension
Test Administration 60
Table 4.13: Correlation between Reading Strategies and Reading
Comprehension 62
Table 4.14: Correlation between Language Learning Strategies and
Reading Comprehension 63
Table 4.15: Correlation between Language Learning Strategies and
Reading Strategies 64
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Score Distribution of the SILL Questionnaire 48
Figure 4.2: Score Distribution of Memory Strategies 50
Figure 4.3: Score Distribution of Cognitive Strategies 51
Figure 4.4: Score Distribution of Compensation Strategies 53
Figure 4.5: Score Distribution of Meta-cognitive Strategies 54
Figure 4.6: Score Distribution of Affective Strategies 56
Figure 4.7: Score Distribution of Social Strategies 57
Figure 4.8: Score Distribution of Compensation Strategies 58
Figure 4.9: Score Distribution of the SORS Questionnaire 60
Figure 4.10: Score Distribution of the PET Questionnaire 61
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
1.1 Introduction
Reading is one of the most essential skills for every day interactions; practically, every portion of life comprises reading. Reading includes the activation of relevant knowledge and related language skills to exchange the information from one person to another. In this regard, one has to focus one’s attention on the reading materials and integrate previously obtained knowledge and skills to grasp the things someone else has written (Chastain, 1988).
Reading is similar to listening in that they are both receptive skills, during which readers decode the message of the writer and try to rebuild it (Rashtchi & Keyvanfar, 2010). Indeed, reading can be identified as a negotiation between the reader and the text or between the reader and the author. Throughout such an active participation, the reader tries to either personally decipher the text or recognize the author’s original intention.
It is worth mentioning that in fact, reading does not occur unaccompanied; rather, it always occurs within a social context for a particular motive. People might read a text, such as a manual, to get information on how to do something or how to use something. Besides, they might study textbooks and course books to learn something; Furthermore, they sometimes read the texts such as emails or messages in order to socialize with their friends. People also read the texts related to their daily life, such as reading a map to find the shortest itinerary to a particular destination. Constantly one reads for pleasure; some examples of reading for pleasure include reading a novel or browsing the internet. Finally, under some circumstances, reading might happen for a blend of intentions.
It is always recommended that the readers use reading to increase their general awareness of language as well as their world knowledge; for, reading is a skill that can be accomplished privately on one’s own velocity. Reading skill is far more momentous for EFL learners. It is crucial to a student’s success in school, and further, to becoming a lifelong learner.
Reading is also a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols in order to construct or derive meaning (reading comprehension). Reading is a necessary tool for language acquisition, communication, and sharing information and ideas. It includes a complex interaction between the text and the reader which is affected by the reader’s prior knowledge, experiences, attitudes, and language community in cultural and social situations.
Effective reading is not a process that every individual can achieve (Nunan, 1999). Rather, it is difficult to learn, especially for those who want to read texts in a second or foreign language. When learning a foreign language, reading is an essential skill to acquire in order to increase knowledge and exchange information (Chien, 2000; Dlugosz, 2000; Salinger, 2003; Huang, 2005). However, most English instructors still concentrate on correcting the learners’ grammatical mistakes or increasing their vocabulary. To improve learners’ reading abilities, the instructors must wisely consider effective strategies and supportive tools. In contrary, the instructors seldom teach learners how to effectively use learning strategies to improve their reading comprehension; consequently, learners cannot master the language skills effectively (Berkowitz 1986; Carnine and Carnine 2004; Chi, 1997; Griffiths, 2008; Rivard and Yore 1992; Tsao, 2004).
Strategies are defined as specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students (often deliberately) use to improve their progress in developing L2 skills. These strategies can facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of the new language. They are also tools for the self-directed involvement, which is necessary to develop language skills (Oxford, 1990).
Learner strategies, as one of the most important categories of strategies, are specific attacks that learners make on different problems when receiving input or producing output. One type of strategies used by language learners is learning strategies.
Park (1995) defines learning strategies as “the mental activities that people use when they study to help themselves acquire, organize, or remember incoming knowledge more efficiently” (p. 35).
Also, it is generally accepted that among the strategies, reading strategies are one of the most beneficial ones that any reader can use for ensuring success in reading (Afflerbach, Pearson, and Paris, 2008). They are of interest for what they reveal about the way readers manage their interactions with written text, and how these strategies are related to reading comprehension (Carrell, Pharis, &Liberto, 1989). Emphasizing on the key role of reading strategies, Afflerbach, Pearson, and Paris (2008) characterize them as “deliberate, goal directed attempts to control and modify the reader’s efforts to decode text, understand word, and construct meanings out of text” (p. 15). These strategies range from simple fix-up strategies such as simply rereading difficult segments and guessing the meaning of an unknown word from context, to more comprehensive strategies such as summarizing and relating what is being read to the reader’s background knowledge (Janzen, 1996).
Taking the role of all mentioned strategies into consideration, each of these could be just as a piece of the puzzle. The correlation between reading comprehension as a target and any of these strategies on the one hand and the relationships between each pair of them on the other hand can provide us a more holistic yet precise approach toward reading.
عنوان : THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG EFL TEACHERS’ TEACHING STYLES, NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING, AND AUTONOMY
ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY
CENTRAL TEHRAN BRANCH
GRADUATE SCHOOL
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (TEFL)
THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG EFL TEACHERS’ TEACHING STYLES, NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING, AND AUTONOMY
ADVISOR:
-
ABDOLLAH BARADARAN
Winter 2014
برای رعایت حریم خصوصی نام نگارنده پایان نامه درج نمی شود
(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)
تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :
(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)
ABSTRACT
The present study was an attempt to investigate the potential relationship among three variables, namely English Language Teachers’ Teaching Styles(TS), Neuro-Linguistic Programming(NLP), and Autonomy (Au). To this end, at the onset of the study, a group of 200 experienced English language teachers at various language schools in Tehran, inter alia Asre Zaban Language Academy, with at least two years of teaching experience were given three questionnaires relevant to the variables of the study, among which 162 instruments were returned. After being verified, 129 questionnaires, which had been thoroughly completed, were selected. In order to seek the relationship between the variables, non-parametric Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney tests as well as Spearman rho were employed; as a result of which a significant relationship was detected between TS and AU and NLP and TS; however, in terms of the third null hypothesis, NLP was found to be significantly related only to General autonomy. In addition, regression analysis was performed to see whether or not the degree of prediction between the five teaching styles and NLP as predictor variables was different towards teachers’ autonomy as predicted variable; to this end, preparatory analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity. Consequently, teachers’ teaching styles turned out to be the superior variable in predicting teachers’ autonomy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page …….. ……………………………………………………………………I
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………….. ……………………..V
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………VII
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………..XI
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………..XIV
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE……………………………..….1
1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….2
1.2. Statement of the Problem………………………………………….…..…….4
1.3. Statement of the Research Questions…………..…………………….………..5
1.4. Statement of the Research Hypotheses ………………………………………6
1.5. Definition of Key Terms…………………………..…………..…………….7
1.5.1. Teachers’ teaching Styles:………………………………………….……………..7
1.5.2. Autonomy:……………………………………………………………………8
1.5.3. Neuro-Linguistic Programming:……………..……………………………….9
1.6. Significance of the Study…………………………………………..……….10
1.7. Limitations, Delimitations ……………………………………………….…11
1.7.1. Limitations……………………………………………………………….….11
1.7.2. Delimitations…….…………………………………………………………12
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE…………………..13
2.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………14
2.2. Teachers’ Teaching Styles………………………………………………….15
2.2.1. Definition & Influencing Factors…………………………………..………15
2.2.2. Learners’ side: learning styles, strategies, prefer..ences and nee…….……..17
2.2.3. Performance and Context…………………………………………….…….20
2.2.4. Teaching Approaches and Methodologies………………………………….21
2.3. Neuro-Linguistic Programming………………..…………………….…….24
2.3.1. History………………………………………………………………………25
2.3.2. Definition…………….………………………………………….………….26
2.3.3. NLP Fundamentals, Products & Essence……………………………..……29
2.4. Autonomy…………………………………………………………………..31
2.4.1. Definition ………………………………………………………..………..31
2.4.2. Learners’ Autonomy vs. Teachers’ Autonomy………………………….…34
2.4.3. Autonomy in Language Learning Setting…………..………………..…….38
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY…………..…………………………….…….41
3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………..….42
3.2. Participants……………………………………………………….…………42
3.3. Instrumentation…………..…………………………………………………43
3.3.1. Grasha Teaching Style Inventory Questionnaire …………………………..44
3.3.2. Neuro-Linguistic Programming Questionnaire …………………………….45
3.3.3. Teacher Autonomy Survey…………………………………………………48
3.4. Procedure…..…………………………………………………………………49
3.5. Design……………………………………………………………………….50
3.6. Statistical Analyses…………………………………………………………51
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………52
4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………53
4.2. The Results of the Study…………………………………………….……..54
4.2.1. Reliability of the Instruments…………………………………………..…..54
4.2.1.1. Reliability of Teachers’ Autonomy Scale……….…………………….54
4.2.1.2. Reliability of Grasha Teaching Style Inventory….…………………55
4.2.1.3. Reliability of NLP Scale…………………………………………….56
4.2.2. Testing the First Null Hypothesis:…………….………………………..….56
4.2.2.1. Frequency Statistics of Different Teaching Styles……………………….57
4.2.2.2. Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………..58
4.2.2.3. Tests of Normality…………………………..………………………… 72
4.2.2.4. Final Results 75
4.2.3. Testing the Second Null Hypothesis……………………………………….78
4.2.3.1. Frequency Statistics of Different Teaching Styles.…… …………….….78
4.2.3.2. Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………..80
4.2.3.3. Tests of Normality……………………………………………………….86
4.2.3.4. Final Results………………………………………………………………87
4.2.4.. Testing the Third Null Hypothesis…………………………………………………..90
4.2.4.1. Assumption of Linearity………………..…………………………………90
4.2.4.2.Assumption of Normality……..……………………………………………..92
4.2.4.3. Final Results 92
4.2.4. Testing the Fourth Null Hypothesis..………………………………………93
4.2.4.1. Assumption of Multicollinearity…………………………………………94
4.2.4.2. Assumption of Normality…………………………………………………97
4.2.4.3. Assumption of Homoscedasticity………………………………..………99
4.3. Discussion……………………………………………………………………110
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS…….113
5.1. Introduction……………..…………………………………………………114
5.2. Procedure and Summary of the Findings…………….…………………..114
5.3. Conclusion………………………………………………………………..116
5.4. Pedagogical Implications…………………..……………………………..117
5.4.1. Implications for EFL Teachers……………………………………………117
5.4.2. Implications for EFL Learners……………………………..……………..118
5.4.3. Implications for Language School Managers……………………………..119
5.4.4. Implications for Syllabus Designers………………………………………120
5.5. Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………………121
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..122
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………131
Teaching Autonomy Scale (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005)……………………………….132
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Reza Pishghadam, 2011)……………………..135
Teaching Style Inventory: Version 3.0 (Grasha, 1994)………………………….136
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Distribution of Questions with Relevant Teaching Styles 45
Table 3.2 Distribution of Questions with Relevant Autonomy Types 49
Table 3.3 The Categories of the Variables 50
Table 4.1 Reliability of Each Factor of NLP Questionnaire .56
Table 4.2 Expert Frequency Statistics ……………………………………. 57
Table 4.3 Formal Authority Frequency Statistics 57
Table 4.4 Personal Model Frequency Statistics 57
Table 4.5 Facilitator Frequency Statistics 57
Table 4.6 Delegator Frequency Statistics 58
Table 4.7 General, Curriculum and Total Autonomy Descriptives 58
Table 4.8 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Expert Teaching Style 60
Table 4.9 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Formal Authority Teaching Stylee 62
Table 4.10 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Personal Model Teaching Style 65
Table 4.11 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Facilitator Teaching Style 67
Table 4.12 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Delegator Teaching Style 70
Table 4.13 Tests of Normality Regarding Expert 73
Table 4.14 Tests of Normality Regarding Formal Authority 73
Table 4.15Tests of Normality Regarding Personal Model 74
Table 4.16 Tests of Normality Regarding Facilitator 74
Table 4.17 Tests of Normality Regarding Delegator 74
Table 4.18 Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Expert 75
Table 4.19 Comparing Autonomy acrossCategories of Formal Authority 76
Table 4.20 Comparing Autonomy acrossCategories of Personal Model 76
Table 4.21 Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Facilitator 77
Table 4.22 Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Delegator 77
Table 4.23 Expert Frequency Statistics 78
Table 4.24 Formal Authority Frequency Statistics 78
Table 4.25 Personal Model Frequency Statistics 78
Table 4.26 Facilitator Frequency Statistics 78
Table 4.27 Delegator Frequency Statistics 79
Table 4.28 NLP Descriptive Statistics 80
Table 4.29 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Expert Teaching Style 80
Table 4.30 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Formal Authority Teaching Style 82
Table 4.31 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Personal Model Teaching Style 83
Table 4.32 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Facilitator Teaching Style 84
Table 4.33 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Delegator Teaching Style 85
Table 4.34 Tests of Normality Regarding Expert Style 86
Table 4.35 Tests of Normality Regarding Formal Authority Style 86
Table 4.36 Tests of Normality Regarding Personal Model Style 87
Table 4.37 Tests of Normality Regarding Facilitator Style 87
Table 4.38 Tests of Normality Regarding Delegator Style 87
Table 4.39 Comparing NLP across Categories of Expert 88
Table 4.40 Comparing NLP across Categories of Formal Authority 88
Table 4.41 Comparing NLP across Categories of Personal Model 88
Table 4.42 Comparing NLP across Categories of Facilitator 89
Table 4.43 Comparing NLP across Categories of Delegator 89
Table 4.44 Tests of Normality 92
Table 4.45 Correlations among Curriculum, General and Total Autonomy and NLP 93
Table 4.46 General Autonomy Correlations 94
Table 4.47 Curriculum Autonomy Correlations 95
Table 4.48 Total Autonomy Correlations 96
Table 4.49 Descriptive Statistics of General Autonomy, Styles and NLP 101
Table 4.50 Descriptive Statistics of Curriculum Autonomy, Styles and NLP 102
Table 4.51 Descriptive Statistics of Total Autonomy, Styles and NLP 102
Table 4.52 Variables Entered/Removed 102
Table 4.53 Variables Entered/Removed 103
Table 4.54 Variables Entered/Removed 103
Table 4.55 Model Summary (General Autonomy) 104
Table 4.56 Model Summary (Total Autonomy) 104
Table 4.57 Model Summary (Curriculum Autonomy) 104
Table 4.58 ANOVA (General Autonomy) 105
Table 4.59 ANOVA (Curriculum Autonomy) 105
Table 4.60 ANOVA (Total Autonomy) 105
Table 4.61 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: General Autonomy) 107
Table 4.62 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy) 108
Table 4.63 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy) 110
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 General Autonomy Scatter Plot 90
Figure 4.2 Curriculum Autonomy Scatter Plot 90
Figure 4.3 Total Autonomy Scatter Plot 90
Figure 4.4 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals
Dependent Variable: General Autonomy 98
Figure 4.5 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals
Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy 98
Figure 4.6 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals
Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy 99
Figure 4.7 Scatter plot of the Standardized Residuals Dependent Variable: General Autonomy 100
Figure 4.8 Scatter plot of the Standardized Residuals Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy 100
Figure 4.9 Scatter Plot of the Standardized Residuals Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy 101
CHAPTER
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE
-
Introduction
With the spread of globalization, language learning and teaching, as many other skills, are gaining more and more prominence every day. This phenomenon, language learning and teaching, has two sides: teacher and learner who influence the process in different ways. Menken (2000) believes that half of all teachers may anticipate educating an English language learner during their career. Along the same lines, according to Vieira and Gaspar (2013), with regard to impact on education effectiveness, teachers arise as a significant factor, accounting for about 30% of the variance on pupils’ achievement. Students have different learning styles and familiarity with learning style differences will help instructors; so teachers apply different teaching styles that suit their setting and their students’ needs. To overcome mismatches between learning styles of learners and the teaching styles of the instructors, teachers should tailor their approach to meet student learning needs meaning that they can combine teaching styles for different types of content and diversity of student needs. According to Purkey & Novak (1984, p. 13), “Good teaching is the process of inviting students to see themselves as able, valuable, and self-directing and of encouraging them to act in accordance with these self-perceptions”.
According to Brown (2000) and Mitchell &Myles (2004), different
theories in language learning have been studied through a variety of perspectives, many of which have shown that understanding significant elements in multiple and diverse perspectives, not in a single factor, is very critical. One of the approaches to communication, learning and personal development that has received much popularity is Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP); it appears to be utilized to a large extent in education today; whereas academic world is still silent regarding this subject (Tosey P, Mathinson J, 2010). NLP approach to learning and teaching emphasizes internal or mental factors as contrasted with environmental or external factors as many traditional behaviorists, Carey et al, diagnosed that there has been a growing and developing education literature referring to both adults and children right from the time of the publication of the earliest popular books on NLP and teaching and learning (Harper,1982; Dilts, 1983a; Jacobson, 1983). According to Hardingham (1998), NLP has been seen as one of the resources to enhance effectiveness of language instruction. In addition, NLP claims to be efficacious in achieving excellence of performance, ameliorating classroom communication, raising self-esteem, optimizing students’ motivation and attitudes, facilitating personal growth in students and even alter their attitude to life (Thornbury, 2001, p.394). Moreover, Helm (1989) argues that “Teachers use a variety of instructional techniques, but again not know how to comprehend what is thought” (p1). In most of the instructional institutions, there are several issues when teaching is considered. Multiple intellectuals involved in the field of educational reform assert that empowering teachers is where we can commence solving the schools’ problems (Melenyzer, 1990; Short, 1994). Along the same line, allowing teachers more freedom in the instructional environment could be one of the major factors resulting in the empowerment of instructors since they are permitted to use their experience and insights in making decisions and solving the problems. Pearson and Moomaw (2006) stated that:
if teachers are to be empowered and regarded as professionals, then like other professionals, they must have the freedom to prescribe the best treatment for their students as doctors or lawyers do for their clients. This freedom is teacher autonomy. (p.44).
On the other hand, according to Masouleh and Jooneghani (2011), the term autonomy has sparked considerable controversy, inasmuch as linguists and educationalists have failed to reach a consensus as to what autonomy really is. In fact, autonomy in language learning is a desirable goal for philosophical, pedagogical, and practical reasons. Street (1988), believes teacher autonomy is “the independence teachers maintain in exercising discretion within their classrooms to make instructional decisions”. (p. 4).
This study is to focus on the important educational factors that can prove how teachers’ teaching styles, autonomy and NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) can be related to each other.
در جامدات، نیروهای بین مولکولی به قدری قویتر از انرژی جنبشی هستند که باعث سخت شدن جسم و در نتیجه عدم جاری شدن آن میگردند. مولکولها در مکانهای خاصی جای میگیرند و فقط در اطراف این مکانها میتوانند حرکت نوسانی رفت و برگشتی بسیار کوچک انجام دهند. مرکز ثقل ماده در ساختار آنها ثابت است و حجم و شکل هندسی معینی دارند. جامدات نظم ساختاری بلند برد دارند و به دو دستهی بیشکل و بلوری دستهبندی میشوند. جامدات بلوری همگن هستند و اتمهای آنها دارای آرایش منظمی بوده، خواص فیزیکی و نوری متنوعی را از خود نشان میدهند.
مایعات و گازها شاره هستند یعنی جریان مییابند و نمیتوانند مانند جامدات با اعمال نیروی پسزنی کشسانی، در مقابل تغییر شکل مقاومت کنند. در گازها فاصلهی مولکولها نسبتاً زیاد بوده و آزادی حرکت قابل توجهی دارند. ظرف را بدون توجه به شکل فیزیکیاش، تقریباً همگن پر میکنند و دارای تراکمپذیری مناسبی هستند. سادهترین گازها، گازهای ایدهآل هستند که در آنها هیچ بر هم کنشی بین مولکولها در نظر گرفته نمیشود.
در حالت مایع، مولکولها نسبت به گازها به هم نزدیکترند، توسط نیروی گرانش کاتورهای توزیع شدهاند، مولکولها در همهی جهات آزادی
حرکت دارند و به دلیل نیروی دافعهی کوتاه برد میان اتمها یا مولکولها تا اندازهای در آنها نظم کوتاه بردی دیده میشود و از گازها چگالترند. اتمها و مولکولهای مایعات به راحتی میتوانند جا به جا شوند. مایعات به دلیل نداشتن نظم مکانی دور برد، در مقابل تغییر شکل برشی، مقاومتی از خود نشان نمیدهند و تحت تأثیر نیروی وزن یا نیروهای دیگر، به آسانی جریان مییابند. در قرن نوزدهم میلادی، در میان تقسیمات مواد، فاز جدیدی از ماده تحت عنوان بلور مایع کشف شد که هم دارای خاصیت شناوری همچون مایعات بوده و هم تا حدی نظم بلوری داشت. در واقع این مواد، دارای ساختاری بین یک سیال همسانگرد و بلور جامد بود .در این قرن، پزشک آلمانی به نام رودلف
ویرکو[1] اولین کسی بود که حالت مایع بلوری را به کمک میکروسکوپ مشاهده کرد. در سال1853 میلادی ، یک مادهی نرم و شناور را از هستهی عصب توصیف کرد و آن را میلین[2] نامید. این ماده به صورت چربی سفید رنگ بوده و بعضی از اعصاب را میپوشاند. البته وی در آن زمان متوجه نشد که این ماده یک مایع بلوری است. تا این که در سال 1888 میلادی، یک گیاهشناس اتریشی به نام فردریک رنیتزر[3] مشاهده کرد که وقتی کلسترول بنزوات[4] را ذوب میکند مانند سایر ترکیبات ذوب نمیشود، بلکه به طور واضح دو نقطهی ذوب دارد به طوری که در 5/145 درجه سانتیگراد ذوب شده و به یک مایع کدر تبدیل میشود و در 5/178 درجه سانتیگراد دوباره ذوب میشود و مایع کدر یکباره شفاف میشود[1]. به علاوه این پدیده برگشتپذیر است. رنیتزر نامهای به اتولمان[5] نوشت و مشاهدهی خود را شرح داد و همچنین نمونه را برای وی فرستاد. اتولمان هم بر روی شارهی کدر آزمایشهایی انجام داد و گزارش داد که بلوری شدن را در مایع کدر مشاهده کرده است. وی این حالت را فاز میانی نامید[2].
جرج فریدل[6] در سال 1920 میلادی بلورهای مایع را دستهبندی نمود. تا سال 1924 میلادی، جزئیات بلور مایع خیلی روشن نبود تا اینکه دانیل ورلاندر[7] نشان داد که بلور مایع به جای اینکه دارای مولکول با شکل کروی باشد از مولکولهای میلهای شکل تشکیل شده است و از نظر موقعیت مکانی به طور نسبی مرتب میباشد و علاوه بر آن جهتگیری مولکولها به سمت معینی میباشد و همین امر موجب بروز جهتهای متفاوت در این بلورها میشود.
[1] Rudolf Virchow
[2] Myelin
[3] Friedrich Reinitzer
[4] Cholesteryl Benzoate
[5] Otto Lehmann
Georges Freidel
[7] Daniel Vorlander
عنوان : The Relationship between Teacher-Reflection and Teacher-Efficacy of Novice and Experienced EFL Teachers
ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY
AT CENTRAL TEHRAN
GRADUATE SCHOOL
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (TEFL)
The Relationship between Teacher-Reflection and Teacher-Efficacy of Novice and Experienced EFL Teachers
Advisor:
Dr. Nasim Shangarfam
Reader:
Dr. Abdollah Baradaran
September 2014
برای رعایت حریم خصوصی نام نگارنده پایان نامه درج نمی شود
(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)
تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :
(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to find out if the reflection level of Iranian English teachers is related to their self-efficacy level and hence to explore if work experience is a determining factor in teachers’ efficacy and reflection. An additional aim of the study was to investigate if teachers’ self-efficacy components and their reflection levels are related. Two instruments were employed to quantify the two constructs. To measure teacher’s reflection levels, English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory (ELTRI) (2010) was used and the participants’ self-efficacy was measured by Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) (2009). First the subjects were divided into novice and experienced groups. ELTRI and TSES were distributed in both groups to measure their reflection and self-efficacy levels. The participants were 721 EFL teachers teaching in private language schools, mainly in Safir Language Academy. As the case is for the students, the majority of Safir English teachers are female. As a result, not only did the findings of this study confirm a positive relationship between EFL teachers’ reflection and their self-efficacy, but also the same result among novice and experienced EFL teachers could be investigated. In addition, a significant relationship among reflection and components of self-efficacy of EFL teachers and that of novice and experienced teachers could be detected. Investigation of relationship between reflective teaching on one hand and self-efficacy on the other, allows teacher educators to select and train more efficacious and effective teachers in which not only the students benefit from their experience and effective teaching through their instructions but also more awareness will be injected in their teaching pattern. Book developers and policy makers can also benefit from this research to include more reflective tasks in their teachers’ guides in order to incline employment of action research based on reflection in their classrooms and set new standards in English teacher education.
1.1 Introduction. 8
1.2 Statement of the Problem.. 10
1.3 Statement of the Research Questions. 15
1.4 Statement of the Research Hypotheses. 16
1.5 Definition of the Key Terms. 18
1.6 Significance of the Study. 20
2.1 Introduction. 25
2.2 Teachers’ Self-efficacy. 26
2.2.1 Theories of Teacher Self-Efficacy. 27
2.2.2 Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Constructs. 31
2.2.3 Teacher Self-Efficacy Inventories. 36
2.3 Reflective Teaching. 40
2.3.1 Definition. 40
2.3.2 Background of Reflective Teaching. 42
2.3.3 Models of Reflection. 43
2.3.4 Reflective Teaching Inventories. 62
2.3.5 Literature Related to Self-Efficacy and Reflective Teaching. 66
2.5 Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks. 86
2.6 Summary. 87
3.1 Introduction. 89
3.2 The Participants. 89
3.3 Instrumentation. 90
3.3.1 Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) 90
3.3.2 English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory (ELTRI) 92
3.5 Design. 97
3.6 Statistical Analysis. 98
4.1 Introduction. 100
4.2 Testing Assumptions. 100
4.3 Analysis of Outliers. 101
4.4 Testing Assumptions. 101
4.5 The First Null Hypothesis. 102
4.6 The Second Null Hypothesis. 104
4.7 The Third Null Hypothesis. 105
4.8 The Fourth Null Hypothesis. 106
4.9 The Fifth Null Hypothesis. 109
4.10 The Sixth Null Hypothesis. 111
4.11 The Seventh Null Hypothesis. 114
4.12 The Eighth Null Hypothesis. 116
4.13 The Ninth Null Hypothesis. 118
4.14 The Tenth Null Hypothesis. 120
4.15 The Eleventh Null Hypothesis. 122
4.16 The Twelfth Null Hypothesis. 124
4.17 The Thirteenth Null Hypothesis. 127
4.17.1 Predicting EFL Teachers’ Self-Efficacy by Experience. 127
4.17.2 Predicting EFL Teachers’ Reflection by Experience. 129
4.18 Reliability Indices. 131
4.19 Construct Validity of Reflection Questionnaire. 132
4.20 Construct Validity of Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. 135
4.21 The Fourteenth Null Hypothesis. 137
4.22 The Fifteenth Null Hypothesis. 139
4.23 Discussion. 140
5.1 Introduction. 145
5.2 Conclusion. 147
5.3 Implications of the Study. 149
5.3.1 Pedagogical Implications for English Teachers. 150
5.3.2 Implications for English Teacher Educators. 150
5.3.3 Implications for English Language Schools. 151
5.3.4 Implications for Policy Makers. 152
5.3.5 Implications for Book Developers. 152
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research. 152
Appendix A: 169
Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) 169
Appendix B: 172
English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory (ELTRI) 172
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Introduction
Reflective teaching is a familiar topic in English teacher education (Yayli, 2009; Ray & Coulter, 2008; Lord & Lomicka, 2007; Halter, 2006; Korthagen, 2004). While the idea dates back to the thirties (Dewey, 1933) and more rigorously in education to the early eighties (Schon, 1983), the “terms ‘reflection’ and ‘reflective practitioner’ are now common currency in articles about teacher education and teachers’ professional development” (Griffiths, 2000, p. 539). Reflection, in its technical sense, and thinking are not synonymous; reflection goes beyond everyday thinking, in that it is more organized and conscious (Stanley, 1998). For instance, when experienced non-reflective teachers encounter a problem while teaching, they might hastily decide on the issue based on what they can see, unable to see what in fact caused the problem. Similarly, when they think their lesson went on well, they might have noticed the reactions of louder students only. Reflection, accordingly, implies a more systematic process of collecting, recording and analyzing our own and our students’ thoughts and observations (Zeichner & Liston, 1996).
To be brief, reflective teaching means observing what one does in the classroom, contemplating the reasons one does it, and thinking about if it is effective – a process of self-observation and self-evaluation. A reflective practitioner is a person who has extensive knowledge about teaching (Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Korthagen & Wubbels, 1995) and is interested in the improvement of her/his teaching (Griffiths, 2000). She/he is aware that “experience is insufficient as a basis for development” (Richards & Lockhart, 1996, p. 4) and acknowledges that “much of what happens in teaching is unknown to the teacher” (Richards & Lockhart, 1996, p. 3) unless she/he critically reflects upon them. A reflective practitioner also believes that “much can be learned about teaching through self-inquiry” (Richards & Lockhart, 1996, p. 3). She/he does classroom investigation by keeping journals, writing lesson reports, conducting surveys and questionnaires, videotaping or audio recording of lessons, and observing peers (Farrell, 2004; Richards & Lockhart, 1996).
Notwithstanding the fact that reflective teaching is currently believed to be the dominant approach in education (Farrell, 2004; Korthagen, 2004; Zeichner & Liston, 1996; Richards & Lockhart, 1996), it seems to be flawed in some ways (Fendler, 2003). At the outset, no published report exists showing improvement in the teaching quality or teachers’ self-efficacy resulting from practicing reflective teaching (Akbari, 2007).
Self-efficacy is another feature that has been found associated with teaching effectiveness, achievement, and motivation (Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008; Eun & Heining-Boynton, 2007; Barkley, 2006; Milner, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Having conducted a large-scale literature review on teachers’ self-efficacy, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) reported self-efficacy to be positively related to students’ own self-efficacy, greater levels of teacher planning and organization, teachers’ openness to new ideas, their readiness to try new methods, their persistence, their becoming less critical of students, their greater enthusiasm for teaching and their commitment to it. With all the positive outcomes on students and teachers, few practical ways have been suggested to boost self-efficacy beliefs in teachers (Chan, Lau, Nie, Lim, & Hogan, 2008; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
The first aspect regarding experienced teachers is efficiency in processing of information in the classroom. Experienced teachers have the ability to transmit information. The second point is that experienced teachers are able to select information in processing. The third point is that experienced teachers consider students’ need and respond to a variety of events in the classroom.
Researchers have fruitfully used the construct of experienced to explore the knowledge that superior teachers possess (e.g.Berliner, 1986; Borko &Livingston, 1989; Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein, &Berliner, 1988). ).Differences between experienced and novice teachers have been researched from the perspective of teacher cognition. Specifically, researchers have attempted to outline how features of the classroom may be mentally represented by both experienced and novice teachers ((e.g. Hogan, Rabinowitz & Craven, 2003). )Comparisons of experienced and novice teachers have shown that they differ in how they perceive and interpret classroom events (Calderhead, 1981)think and make decisions ((Berliner, 1987; Clark & ) (Peterson, 1986), )and develop experienced in pedagogical and content knowledge (Berliner, 1986).
This research, hence, was an attempt to investigate a relationship between novice and experienced EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and self –reflection and to discover the components of each on novice and experienced EFL teachers
Islamic Azad University
Science and Research, Bandar Abbas Branch
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts (M. A) In Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)
Title:
The Relationship between Teacher-Student Rapport and Students Willingness to Cheat among Iranian High School Students in Bandar Abbas
Advisor:
Hajar Khanmohammad, Ph.D
Reader:
Mehrdad Zarafshan, Ph.D
November, 2013
برای رعایت حریم خصوصی نام نگارنده پایان نامه درج نمی شود
(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)
تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :
(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents page
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..i
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………………………………ii
Table of contents…………………………………………………………………………………..iii
List of tables…………………………………………………………………………………………VI
List of figures……………………………………………………………………………………….vii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………..viii
Chapter1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1.Preliminaries…………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
1.2. Statement of the problem……………………………………………………………………………..3
1.3. Significance of the study………………………………………………………………………………..4
1.4. Purpose of the study and research questions………………………………………………..5
1.5. Research question ………………………………………………………………………………………..5
1.6. Research hypothesis……………………………………………………………………………………..5
1.7. Definition of key terms ……………………………………………………………………………..6
1.7. Limitations and delimitations………………………………………………………………………..6
Chapter 2. Review of the related literature ……………………………………..8
2.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….9
2.2. Cheating and its types…………………………………………………………9
2.3. Cause of cheating……………………………………………………………. 15
2.4. Application of cheating……………………………………………………… 18
2.5. Side effect of cheating………………………………………………………. 18
2.6. Feedback of cheating………………………………………………………… 21
2.7. Definition of rapport………………………………………………………..23
2.8. Benefits of building rapport between student and teacher……………………..23
2.9. Rapport- building strategies………………………………………………….24
2.10.Rapport, learning and teaching………………………………………………25
2.11. The relationship between student-teacher rapport …………………………35
Chapter3 Methodology………………………………………………………….37
3.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..40
3.2. Design ……………………………………………………………………….40
3.3. Participant…………………………………………………………….………41
3.4. Instrument……………………………………………………………………41
3.5. Rapport and cheating questionnaires……………………………………..41
3.6. Data collection procedure……………………………………………………42 3.7.
Data analysis procedure………………………………………………………42
Chapter 4 Data analysis and result ………………………………………………….…48
3.8. Introduction…………………………………………………………………49
Chapter 5 Discussion, Conclusion, Implications, and Suggestions ……………..62
3.10. Introduction………………………………………………………………..63
3.11. Discution……………………………………………………………………63
3.12. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..63
3.13. Implication………………………………………………………………….63
3.14. Suggestion…………………………………………………………………64
Reference………………………………………………………………………….66
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………79
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1. Students’ major in high school…………………………………………..45
Table 2. Students’ average in high school…………………………………………46
Table3. Item statistic………………………………………………………………46
Table4. Descriptive statistic for students’ rapport…………………………………47
Table5. Descriptive statistic for students’ cheating……………………………….48
Table6. Correlation between rapport and cheating………………………………..49
Table7. Nonparametric test for cheating and rapport……………………………..51
Table8. Kruskal-Wallis Test. Rapport ranks ……………………………………..52
Table9. Kruskal-Wallis Test. Cheating ranks……………………………………..53
Table10. Table of response frequency ……………………………………………54
Table11. Response percent………………………………………………………..54
List of Figures
Figures Page
Figure1. Correlation graph between relationship and cheating………………..50
Abstract
Cheating has become one of the major problems on many high schools and college campuses. It is most prevalent at the college level. However, there have been reports of cheating incidents occurring at high school level. This research quantitatively would study the relationship between teacher- student rapport and students willingness to cheat in English classes of Iranian high schools in Bandar Abbas, with an average of between 17-18 years of age. First, they were given two questionnaires to answer. One questionnaire about rapport and another about cheating. From data collected, using correlation coefficient it was made clear that there was not any significant relationship between teacher students rapport and students willingness to cheat( i.e.: whether it would increase or decrease cheating in exams). Studying the views of high school students on such a serious issue as cheating could be beneficial in looking at ways to prevent and address this problem in future.
Key words: academic dishonesty, rapport, cheating
Chapter I
Introduction
- Introduction