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.
فرم در حال بارگذاری ...
