ABSTRACT

The present study is an attempt to investigate the difference between extrovert and introvert EFL learners’ cooperative writing. Initially 150 intermediate learners were asked to participate in the study. They sat in a PET and 90 homogenous learners, in term of language proficiency, were selected to fill Persian translation of Eysenck Personality Inventory questionnaire. Based on the results, 30 introvert and 30 extrovert learners were randomly assigned to two experimental groups. Both groups received a model of cooperative learning, i.e. Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) as their treatment. After the treatment was done, they were asked to cooperatively write two essays in descriptive voice on two different topics. Their writings were scored based on Jacobs, Zingraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, and Hughery (1981) scoring profile by two raters, and the mean of each student’s scores was considered as their cooperative writing score. Then the performance of extrovert and introvert learners on the test was compared using independent samples t-test. The results indicated that introvert learners significantly outperformed extrovert learners.

TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT. 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS. i

LIST OF TABLES. iii

LIST OF FIGURES. iv

 

C H A P T E R   I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE. 1

1.1 Introduction. 2

2.1 Statement of the Problem.. 5

3.1 Statement of the Research Question. 8

4.1 Statement of the Research Hypothesis. 9

5.1 Definition of Key Terms. 9

6.1 Significance of the Study. 10

7.1 Limitations and Delimitation. 11

 

C H A P T E R   II : REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE. 12

2.1 Overview.. 13

2.2 Need for Writing. 13

2.3 Cooperative Writing: subcategory of Cooperative Learning. 15

2.4 Cooperative Writing Features. 17

2.4.1 Positive Interdependence and Individual Accountability. 18

2.4.2. Processing Group Interaction. 18

2.4.3. Peer Feedback. 19

2.5. Cooperative writing in EFL classrooms. 19

2.6. Perspectives on cooperative writing. 21

2.7. Benefits of Cooperative Approach in EFL Writing Classroom.. 25

2.8. Preparing EFL Students for peer response in writing classrooms. 26

2.9. Guidelines for preparing EFL students for peer response. 27

2.10. Personality Factors and Teaching Writing. 30

 

C H A P T E R   III : METHODOLOGY.. 37

3.1. Overview.. 38

3.2. Participants. 38

3.3. Instrumentation. 39

3.3.1 Personality Questionnaire. 39

3.3.2 Preliminary English Test (PET) 40

3.2.2 Essay Writing Test 42

3.2.3 Writing Rating Scales. 42

3.4 Procedure. 43

3.5. Design. 45

3.6. Statistical Analysis. 45

 

 

C H A P T E R  IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.. 47

4.1. Introduction. 48

4.2. Participant Selection. 48

4.2.1. Descriptive Statistics of the PET Piloting. 49

4.2.2. Descriptive Statistics of the PET Administration. 50

4.2.3. Identifying the Degree of Extroversion. 51

4.3. Posttest 54

4.4. Testing the Null Hypothesis. 56

4.5. Discussion. 57

 

C H A P T E R   V : CONCLUSION, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. 61

5.1. Introduction. 62

5.2. Restatement of the Problem.. 62

5.3. Pedagogical Implications. 64

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research. 66

 

REFRENCES. 68

 

Appendices. 76

APPENDIX A: Eysenck Personality Inventory. 77

APPENDIX B: Preliminary English Test (PET) 80

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Piloting. 49

Table 4.2 Reliability of the PET in the Pilot Phase. 50

Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics for PET Proficiency Test 51

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the Participants’ Performance in EPI 52

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of the Participants’ E-Score in EPI 53

Table 4.6 Reliability of the EPI Questionnaire. 54

Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics for the Essay Writing Posttest in Both Groups  54

-Test on the Performance of Both Groups in the Essay Writing Posttest 56

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

Figure 4.1 Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the PET Piloting. 49

Figure 4.2 Histogram of the Scores Obtained on the PET Administration. 51

Figure 4.3 Histogram of the Participants’ Scores in EPI 52

Figure 4.4 Histogram of the E Scores of the Participants in EPI 53

Figure 4.5 Histogram of the Writing Posttest Scores Obtained by the Introvert Group  55

Figure 4.6 Histogram of the Writing Posttest Scores Obtained by the Extrovert Group  55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C H A P T E R   I

 

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

 

1.1 Introduction

Living in 21 century and being a part of the global village, writing in English is a fundamental skill. Writing well is a necessity for academic success and a basic requirement for communication. ” It is unique and stands out of the four skills of language because its nature allows for examination and reexamination, debate and decision making, choice and revision and cognitive activities which require higher order thinking skills of communicator” (Hobson& Schafermeyer, 1994, p.51 ).

By the sake of writing, learners can participate in a productive practice which sometimes can motivates them to learn new language elements and structures during constant process of reviewing and drafting. Moreover, according to Celce-Murcia (1991), it fosters higher order cognitive activities and mental processing, which is an important component of learning. In addition, it invites feedback, either overt or covert, based on which students make adjustments in their learned language system.

Writing has always been regarded as an important part of academic life which serves different functions and purposes. But writing has always been a difficult skill (Graham, Harris & Manson, 2005) so teachers need some ways to encourage learners and motivate them to write. One way for motivating learners to write is use of cooperative learning techniques. Humans are social and cooperation has been used in all aspects of our lives.  So, cooperative learning groups in learning situations can be an acceptable teaching approach.  (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Kagan, 1990; Slavin, 1995).

According to Deutch (1999) Kurt Lewin field theory and social interdependence have great roles in cooperative learning. Social interdependence started in early 1900s. Kurt Koffka who was one of the major figures of Gestalt psychology suggested that interdependence is different in dynamic wholes. “For interdependence to exist there must be more than one person or entity involved, and the persons or entities must have impact on each other in that a change in the state of one causes a change in the state of the others. It may be concluded that it is the drive for goal accomplishment that motivates cooperative and competitive behavior.” (Sharan, 2010, p.113)

In the late 1940s, one of Lewin’s graduate students, Morton Deutsch, extended Lewin’s reasoning about social interdependence and formulated a theory of cooperation and competition. Deutsch’s basic premise was that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines how individuals interact with each other which, in turn, largely determine outcomes. “Positive interdependence tends to result in promotive interaction; negative interdependence tends to result in oppositional interaction, and no interdependence results in an absence of interaction.”(Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. 2008, p.121)

Cooperative writing is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. In this way students will interact with each other and the teacher during the instructional session. As Johnson & Johnson (2008) stated within cooperative situations, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other group members.

“The basic elements are Positive interdependence, Promotive interaction, Interpersonal and small group skills, Group processing, and individual and group accountability which are essential for effective group learning, achievement, and higher-order social, personal and cognitive skills (e.g., problem solving, reasoning, decision-making, planning, organizing, and reflecting).” (Johnson, D.W & Johnson R.T. 2005, pp.285-360)

According to Sharan, Y. (2010) the benefits of cooperative learning are a better mutual relationship, respect, and higher communication. It also has advantages in thinking strategies.  Competitive learners have difficulty in obtaining a balance between being competitive and interacting with others. Their emotional interaction and trust are two other concerns.

Personality types are distinguished from personality traits, which come in different levels or degrees. For example, according to type theories, there are two types of people, introverts and extroverts.), Myers and Briggs (1995 as cited in Bernsterin, Penner, Clarke, Stewart, and Roy 2008) introversion and extroversion are part of a continuous dimension, with many people in the middle.

2.1 Statement of the Problem

Many EFL teachers complain and wonder why their students do not show considerable improvement in their writings every time they check the students’ writings. This shortcoming on the part of a student’s maybe partly due to personality traits and partly due to atmosphere of the class which is more competitive and teacher-centered rather than cooperative and learner-centered.

Surely, these teachers are not aware of benefits of cooperative writing. Moreover, they may not be aware that learning will not occur at all until students are motivated and psychologically and affectively ready to learn.

چکیده

هدف از انجام این پژوهش بررسی بازخورد استنباطی بر روی دقت و روانی بیان است. بدین منظور شصت زبان  آموز دختر سطح متوسط موسسه زبان معرفت از طریق آزمون همگون سازی(PET) انتخاب شدند و بطور تصادفی در دو گروه کنترل و آزمایش تقسیم شدند. سپس از طریق پیش آزمون ،بصورت یک مصاحبه ساخت مند، سطح روانی و دقت بیان آنها سنجیده شد. در کلاس گروه آزمایش به مدت سیزده هفته بازخورد استنباطی انجام شد در صورتی که گروه کنترل هیچ بازخوردی در این مدت دریافت نکردند.بعد از سیزده هفته از هر دو گروه پس آزمون ،بصورت مصاحبه ساخت مند ، گرفته شد. سپس برای سنجش تأثیر گذاری بازخورد استنباطی از روش های آماری ANCOVA و t-test استفاده  نمرات پیش آزمون و پس آزمون با یکدیگر مقایسه شد.در نتیجه ی تحلیل آماری مشخص شد که بازخورد استنباطی سبب بهبود دقت و روانی بیان زبان آموزان گردیده است.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements. v

Abstract vi

Chapter One. 1

Introduction. 1

1.1. Background of Purpose. 1

1.2. Theoretical Framework. 2

Corrective Feedback Types. 2

1.2.1. Positive vs. Negative Feedback. 4

1.2.2. Implicit vs. Explicit Feedback. 5

1.2.3. Reformulations vs. Prompts Feedback. 6

1.3. Statement of the Problem.. 8

1.4. Research Questions: 9

1.5. Research Hypotheses. 9

1.6. Significance of the Study: 10

1.7. Definition of Key Terms. 10

Chapter Two. 13

Review of Related Literature. 13

2.1. Introduction. 13

2.3. Hypotheses behind Corrective Feedback. 14

2.3.1. Schmidt‘s Noticing Hypothesis. 14

2.3.2. Long‘s Interaction Hypothesis. 15

 

2.3.3. Swain’s Output Hypothesis. 16

2.4. Corrective Feedback and Accuracy. 16

2.5. Corrective Feedback and Fluency. 18

Chapter Three. 21

Methodology. 21

3.1. Introduction. 21

3.2. Participants and Setting. 21

3.3. Instrumentation. 21

3.4. Procedure. 23

3.5. Study Design. 24

Chapter Four. 25

Data analysis, Discussions and Results. 25

4.1. Introduction. 25

4.2. Data analysis and investigation of research questions. 25

4.2.1. Descriptive Statistics. 25

4.2.2 Inferential statistics. 29

4.3. Discussion. 34

Chapter Five. 36

Conclusion. 36

5.1. Introduction. 36

5.2. Conclusion. 36

5.3. Pedagogical Implications. 38

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research. 38

References. 39

Appendix (1): Test specification. 44

Appendix (2): Accuracy measures. 48

Appendix (3): Fluency measures. 49

Appendix (4): Homogeneity Test and Pretest 50

Appendix (5): posttest 51

 

Abstract

 

The present study was conducted to investigate the effect of elicitation feedback on speaking accuracy and fluency. To fulfill the purpose of the study, 60 female intermediate learners at Marefat Language Institute were chosen by means of administering a proficiency test preliminary English test (PET). They were randomly divided into two homogeneous groups, one as the experimental group and the other as the control one. These learners were pretested through a structured interview to check their current speaking accuracy and fluency level.

Of course, the experimental group was provided with elicitation feedback, while the control group received no feedback. After thirteen sessions of treatment, the two groups were post tested through another structured interview. The scores of the participants demonstrated that the experimental group performed better than the control group. The analysis of the data was done through the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and t-test. Finally, it was concluded that employing elicitation feedback has positive effect on speaking accuracy and fluency.

Key words: elicitation feedback, accuracy, fluency

 

Chapter One

چکیده

 

یادگیری و آموزش لغات زبان خارجی از دیدگاه اکثر زبان آموزان و معلمان ایرانی مهمترین جنبه یادگیری زبان است. نحوه آموختن و آموزش لغات به طور موثر و کارآمد هنوز یک موضوع بحث برانگیز است. گرچه مطالعات بسیاری در زمینه یادگیری لغات انجام شده است اما مطالعات کمی بر روی یادگیری جنبه های مختلف دانش لغات از طریق خواندن صورت گرفته است. هدف این تحقیق بررسی تأثیر خواندن و درک مفاهیم بر روی یادگیری سه جنبه از دانش لغات از جمله تشخیص فرم لغت، تشخیص معنای لغت و تولید لغت در بین زبان آموزان خارجی می باشد. همچنین این تحقیق به بررسی این موضوع می پردازد که خواندن روی کدام جنبه از دانش لغات بیشترین تأثیر را دارد. جهت انجام تحقیق، دو متن شامل 20 لغت جدید به همراه معانی فارسی آنها  بعنوان ابزار جمع آوری اطلاعات مورد استفاده قرار گرفت تا دانش لغات زبان آموزان سنجیده شود. شرکت کنندگان در تحقیق حاضر شامل 40 زبان آموز مذکر ایرانی سطح متوسط در آموزشگاهی در شهر شیراز بودند. از شرکت کنندگان خواسته شد متن ها را خوانده و به چند سوال درک مطلب پاسخ داده و بلافاصله پس از خواندن متن و پس از گذشت دو هفته، دانش لغات آنها توسط سه تست تشخیص فرم لغت، تشخیص معنای لغت و تولید لغت مورد بررسی قرار گرفت.

نتایج بدست آمده توسط آزمون آماری تحلیل واریانس بیانگر این است که خواندن و درک مفاهیم بر روی هر سه جنبه از دانش لغات هم در کوتاه مدت وهم در بلند مدت مؤثر بوده است. همچنین نتایج حاکی از آن است که در کوتاه مدت تأثیر خواندن و درک مفاهیم بر روی تشخیص معنای لغت بیشتر از تشخیص فرم و تولید لغت می باشد و در بلند مدت تأثیر خواندن و درک مفاهیم بر روی تشخیص فرم لغت بیشتر از دو جنبه دیگر است.

واژگان کلیدی: فراگیران زبان انگلیسی بعنوان زبان خارجه، خواندن و درک مفاهیم، دانش لغات، تشخیص فرم لغت، تشخیص معنای لغت، تولید لغت

Abstract

Foreign language vocabulary learning and teaching is considered as a major aspect of L2 acquisition by both learners and teachers. It is still a contentious issue how learners acquire vocabulary effectively and efficiently or how it can best be taught. Although much research has been done to examine how vocabulary is learned by English as Foreign Language learners (EFL), few studies have examined how different dimensions of vocabulary knowledge are learned through reading a text. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of reading comprehension on three dimensions of vocabulary knowledge, namely form recognition, meaning recognition and production among EFL learners. Furthermore, it investigates which dimension of vocabulary knowledge benefits most from reading comprehension. To conduct the study, two reading texts included 20 target words with their Persian translation were employed as data collection instruments to measure the participants’ vocabulary knowledge. The participants were 40 Iranian male intermediate EFL learners at a language institute in Shiraz. They were asked to read the texts and answer a number of comprehension questions. Their vocabulary knowledge was examined immediately after reading the texts and two weeks later by three tests of form recognition, meaning recognition and production.

One-way repeated measure ANOVA was employed to examine the differential effects of reading a text on different dimensions of vocabulary knowledge. The results indicated that reading comprehension has statistical effects on the acquisition of three dimensions of vocabulary knowledge in both short and long term retention. It also indicated that in short term retention, reading comprehension promoted the acquisition of meaning recognition knowledge more than the form recognition and production in the post-test. However, with regard to long term retention, the findings revealed that reading comprehension promoted the acquisition of form recognition knowledge more than the other two dimensions of vocabulary knowledge.

Key words: EFL learners, reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, form recognition, meaning recognition, production

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

 

1.0. Overview

This chapter is concerned with an introduction of the study, statement of the problem, significance of the study, purpose of the study, research questions, research hypotheses, and definition of the key terms.

1.1. Introduction

Vocabulary is one of the significant aspects of language, which plays a great role in L2 learning. As noted by Swan and Walter (1984) vocabulary acquisition is the largest and the most significant task that language learners face.

Furthermore, vocabulary acquisition is crucial for the acquisition of skills: reading, writing, and listening. Without enough vocabulary, listening, reading comprehension, writing and speaking are inefficient. Besides, as noted by Wilson (1986) without grammar very little can be conveyed; without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed. Thus, vocabulary learning is an essential part of language learning. Learning words can be considered as the most important aspect of second language acquisition (Knight, 1994).

Learners, who recognize the communicative power of vocabulary, might reasonably aim to acquire a working knowledge of a large number of words – the more words they have, the more precisely they can express the exact meanings they want to.

Rubin and Thompson (1994) found that vocabulary learning is the heart of mastering a foreign language, since one cannot speak, understand, read, or write a foreign language without knowing many words. In many countries, there are many EFL students who have never had the opportunity to converse with any native speakers even though they have access to different types of materials written in the English language. Therefore, the need for reading and extracting information from these texts seems to be vital. As noted by Sofiyatun (2009), “The success of learning any subject matter depends on the competence of reading comprehension” (P.2). By reading books, magazines, newspapers, and bulletins, people can gain a lot of information. Therefore, it can be assumed that the success of obtaining information depends on the reading itself.

One common belief among first language (L1) researchers is that most of words acquired by children during the process of first language acquisition are acquired incidentally in that words are learned when the child’s attention is focused on an on-going task (e.g., talking to his/her parents or reading or listening to a story) rather than specific lexical items. Specifically, the most common task through which children expand their vocabulary knowledge is reading comprehension (Anderson et al., 1988; Nagy, 1988). For instance, Anderson et al. (1988) claim that, during primary and secondary school years, when children acquire literacy knowledge, they usually read about one million words per year and therefore it would be probable that reading activities are a more important source of L1 vocabulary acquisition than other language skills, particularly the listening skill.

Up to the 1980s, grammar was the central study area for second language acquisition research. However, in the last three decades, vocabulary has become a major focus of linguistic works or, to quote Meara (1995), “has mushroomed enormously” (p.11), even being at the heart of theories such as the Lexical Learning Hypothesis. According to Malvern et al. (2008), “vocabulary knowledge is indispensable to acquire grammar” (p.270).

The heightened interest in L2 vocabulary over the last two or three decades has brought with it a number of suggestions of how vocabulary knowledge should be modeled. It has long been accepted that vocabulary knowledge is instrumental in reading comprehension (Alderson, 2000; Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Mezynski, 1983; Read, 2000).

Indeed, although sometimes L2 learners need only partial knowledge of a word in comprehension, more lexical knowledge is obviously desirable in many situations. Over the years, lexical researchers have developed various criteria for understanding what is involved in knowing a word. An early definition (Cronbach, 1942) divided vocabulary knowledge in to two main categories: knowledge of word meaning (generalization, breadth of meaning, and precision of meaning) and levels of accessibility to this knowledge (availability and application).The obvious weakness in this definition is the lack of a place for other aspects of lexical knowledge, such as spelling, pronunciation, morpho syntactic properties, and collocation. Later on, Richards (1976)

چکیده:

افزایش سطح دانش  لغتی و واژگان دانش آموزان همواره مورد توجه و خواست دبیران بوده است اما روش ها و تکنیک های موجود در این زمینه زیاد موفقیت آمیز نبوده اند و اکثر روش های موجود نیز وابسته به آموزگار و سطح توانایی وی  می باشند. در این تحقیق محقق سعی نموده تا تاثیر استفاده از روش تیم تیچینگ(تدریس گروهی) را در میزان یادگیری لغت دانش آموزان مقطع راهنمایی بسنجد. برای این منظور از مجموع 114 دانش آموز، پس از اجرای آزمون KET تعداد 76 نفر از دانش آموزان که نمره آنها یک SD بالا یا پائین میانگین بود انتخاب شده و به صورت تصادفی به دو گروه شاهد و گروه آزمایشی تقسیم شدند. سپس برای حصول اطمینان از همگن بودن دانش آموزان از لحاظ دانش واژگان، یک آزمون لغت نیز از آنها گرفته شد.

به هر کدام از این دو گروه(کلاس) تعداد 6درس از سال دوم راهنمایی( به مدت 12 هفته یا 24 جلسه 75  دقیقه ای) با بهره گرفتن از وسایل و ابزار مشابه و همچنین طرح درس مشابه تدریس شد با این تفاوت که در گروه آزمایش، تدریس بین دو آموزگار تقسیم شده و از روش تیم تیچینگ استفاده شد. در پایان یک آزمون پایانی لغت از دو گروه به عمل آمد و برای اینکه مشخص شود که آیا تفاوت معنا داری بین نمره کسب شده توسط گروه گواه و گروه آزمایش وجود دارد یا خیر از نرم افزار SPSS و آزمون T مستقل استفاده شد. مشخص شد  که دانش آموزان گروه آزمایش نتیجه بهتری را نسبت به گروه شاهد کسب کردند و درنتیجه مشخص شد که روش فوق( team teaching یا تدریس گروهی) تاثیر مثبتی را در افزایش سطح دانش لغتی دانش آموزان دارد.

 

Abstract

Improving students’ vocabulary achievement has always been a matter of interest for teachers, because of the diverse essence of the vocabulary, but current approaches; methods have not been successful enough in teaching and enhancing students’ word knowledge (Shen, 2003). Moreover, the practicality of most of these approaches is dependent on the teachers (Carten, 2007). The present study has examined the possible effects of team-teaching on the vocabulary achievement of Iranian junior high school students.  To this end, 114 intermediate EFL learners participated in the study. To ensure their homogeneity, initially, the researcher administered a Key English Test (KET). Those who scored one standard deviation above and below the mean were selected as the participants of the study. After excluding the extreme scores 76 participants remained, who were randomly assigned to experimental and the control groups. Then, to ensure the homogeneity of the participants in terms of their vocabulary knowledge of the current study a vocabulary test was given to both groups. A t-test was run and it was observed that there was no significant difference between the scores of the students in both groups. Both groups were taught six lessons of their formal textbook for about 24 sessions (12 weeks, each session about 75 minutes). The students in experimental group received the instruction by two teachers. Finally, a post-test was administrated to both groups. To see whether team-teaching had any statistically significant impact on vocabulary achievement of the students or not; an independent sample t-test was used. The analysis of the results showed that the participants receiving the treatment in the experimental group mastered taught vocabularies better. So team-teaching had positive effect on the vocabulary achievement of Iranian EFL learners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement

Abstract

CHAPTER I Background and Purpose

1.1 Introduction. 2

1.2 Statement of the Problem.. 8

1.3 Statement of the Research Question. 10

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypothesis. 10

1.5 Definition of Key Terms. 10

1.5.1 Vocabulary achievement 10

1.5.2 Team-Teaching. 11

1.6 Significance of the Study. 11

1.7 Limitations and Delimitation. 13

1.7.1 Limitations of the study. 13

1.7.2 Delimitation of the study. 13

1.8 Assumptions. 13

CHAPTER II Review of the Related Literature

2.1 Introduction. 15

2.2 The characteristics of co-teaching. 17

2.3 Different version of co-teaching. 19

2.4 Issues Involved in Team Teaching. 23

2.5 Related studies. 27

2.6 Vocabulary teaching. 30

2.6.1 Presentation of new lexical items. 32

2.6.2 Review and consolidation of lexical items. 35

2.6.3 Studies on the vocabulary: 38

CHAPTER III Methodology

3.1 Participants. 46

3.2 Instrumentation. 46

3.2.1 Homogeneity vocabulary test 46

3.2.2 Language Proficiency test 47

3.2.3 Vocabulary achievement post test 48

3.2.4 Observation and conversation. 49

3.2.5 Questionnaire. 49

3.2.6 Materials. 50

3.3 Procedure. 50

3.3.1 Piloting the tests. 50

3.3.2 Homogenizing the Participants. 50

3.3.3 The Treatment 51

3.4 Design. 56

3.5 Statistical Analysis: 57

CHAPTER IV Results and Discussion

4.1 Introduction . 59

4.2 Results and Discussion. 60

4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics for the Piloting KET Proficiency Test 60

 

4.2.1.2 Descriptive Statistics of the KET Main Administration for Homogenization. 61

4.2.2 Descriptive Statistics of the grammar Pre-test 63

4.2.3 Analysis of posttest 65

4.2.3Analysis of Student Questionnaire. 67

4.2.3 Analysis of Teacher’s Questionnaire. 69

4.3 Discussion  …70

CHAPTER V Conclusions, Pedagogical Implications, and Suggestions for Further Research

5.1 Restatement of the Problem.. 76

5.2 Overview of the Study. 76

5.3 Pedagogical Implications. 76

5.3.1 mplications for Teaching and Teacher Training. 77

5.3.2 Implications for Materials Development 77

5.4 Suggestions for Further Research. 77

References. 79

Appendices: 85

 

 

List of Tables

Table 2.1: different type of co-teaching . .19

Table 3.1: The contents and titles of the lessons .52

Table 3.2 Teacher’s Actions during Co-Teaching … …53

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test piloting 60

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test .60

Table 4.3: Reliability of the KET Proficiency Test Piloting . ..61

Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics for KET Main Administration for Homogenization.61

Table 4.5: The Results of Normality Check of the Distribution of scores on KET…..61

Table 4.6: Independent Sample T-test for Control and Experimental Groups’ KET scores …63

Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics for the Results of the Pre-test . . 64

Table 4.8: Results of Normality of Distribution of Scores for vocabulary homogeneity test . .64

Table 4.9: Independent Samples T- Test for Pre-test ..65

Table 4.10 Group Statistics of the team-teaching and normal class Participants for post test scores . 65

Table 4.11 Independent Samples T-Test of the team-teaching and normal class Participants for post-test 67

Table 4.12 Student Responses to Social Validity Questions . . .68

Table 4.13 Teacher’s Responses to Social Validation Questions 69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Figures

Figure 4.1: The Histogram of Scores of KET Main Administration 62

Figure 4.2 Comparing scores obtained from post-test . .66

Figure  4.3 Student Responses to Social Validation Questions 69

 

 

 

 

 

To those who have tried to wipe out unawareness and darkness and finally they died in Anonymity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

Background and Purpose

 

 

1.1 Introduction

Nowadays English is known as the language of the science, everyday communication and most widely used language in the world. Although it is a well-known fact that Mandarin Chinese is the most commonly spoken language on the planet, we should know that “while English does not have the most speakers, it is the official language of more countries than any other language” (Flamiejamie, 2008). English, also, is the language in which the sciences are most often discussed and presented. A study done in 1997 indicated that 95% of scientific publications and submissions, even at that time, were done in English (collegeofenglishmalta.com). Therefore, it seems that learning English is a need for everyone who wants to keep himself updated and in touch with real out world. In learning English, language skills and language components cannot be separated. Language components can complete the language skills. In order to learn English the students should be able to use suitable structures and master grammar and vocabulary. Vocabulary is an important language component for forming words and building English sentences. Harmer also claimed, “Language structures make up the skeleton of language and it is vocabulary that provides the vital organs and the flesh.” (Harmer, 1994 as cited in Baniabdelrahman, 2013) There is no doubt about the importance of vocabulary. “It is necessary in the sense that words are the basic building blocks of the language, the units of meaning from which larger structures such as sentences, paragraphs and whole text are formed” (Read, 2000, p 1).  “Without a good working knowledge of words and their meanings, both written and verbal communication will be muddied or poorly understood” (wisegeek.com). Wilkins (1972) believed that, without learning grammar very little can be conveyed and without learning vocabulary, nothing at all can be conveyed. Researchers suggest that early elementary students’ word knowledge is a determinant of reading comprehension both in early elementary school and throughout their schooling (Hansen, 2009). Some research findings also disclose that students who have acquired more vocabulary items, they will be more likely to articulate and communicate the massage. Therefore, as a result their achievement in speaking skills is better than those who are short of vocabulary understanding or have acquired less vocabulary items. Since vocabulary is important in communication, the students should master it. In this regard, Hippner-page also believes that “vocabulary is the key component which guarantees acquiring a second language and becoming a functional and fluent reader and writer of a second language” (2000, p. 7).

Baumann and Kameenui (1991) believed that we need to have a good vocabulary size to speak and write naturally and effectively. Students’ word knowledge is also linked strongly to their academic success (As cited in Baker, Simmons, & Kameenui, 2007). Moreover it is believed that “perhaps the greatest tools we can give students for succeeding, not only in their education but more generally in life, is a large, rich vocabulary and the skills for using those words” (Pikulski & Templeton, 2004). If we are not sure that Knowledge of this vocabulary will guarantee success, it will be clear that lack of knowledge of vocabulary can ensure failure (Biemiller, 1999 as cited in Jobrack, 2010).

Some researchers (Harley, 1996; Yoshii, and Flaitz, 2002) point to vocabulary learning as a vital part of each student’s life, while other researchers though accept the importance of vocabulary acquisition in language proficiency and academic achievement; their ideas about how vocabulary should be learned have varied widely. (Ghabanchi & Anbarestani, 2008) Unfortunately, learning vocabulary is not easy for students and most of students believe memorizing and learning vocabulary is a difficult, boring, and tedious task. Moreover, what is hard to learn, is easy to forget. So finding ways to increase students’ vocabulary growth throughout the school years must become a major educational priority.

Everyone remembers some words better than others, because of the nature of the words, the circumstances they are learnt under, and the methods of teaching (Ur, 1996). The attention drawn to the important role of vocabulary unveils the importance of vocabulary and the most effective ways to teach vocabulary. Here the teacher plays the most important role in creating the learning context and choosing methods used in the classroom. Especially in EFL contexts in which there is a little chance for the students to encounter English language out of the classroom.  In addition, Hedge believes that “Although the teacher’s ultimate role may be to build independence in students by teaching them good strategies for vocabulary learning, s/he will frequently need to explain new words” (2008, p. 112).  Books and materials developers provide teachers with different ways of presenting new words to the students such as using synonyms, antonyms, translation, minimal pairs, description, illustration, using context, association of ideas, examples, and many other ways, which usually demand qualified and knowledgeable teachers to put the most proper in practice. It was claimed that learners need to be given explicit instruction of vocabulary strategy in order to facilitate their awareness of vocabulary learning strategies that they can use to learn their own outside the classroom (Atay & Ozbulgan, 2007 as cited in Chen & Hsiao, 2009). Moreover, there is no doubt that “the teacher’s role in vocabulary development is critical” (Yopp, Yopp, & Bishop, 2010).

As mentioned before, there are different techniques and strategies by which the teachers can teach a new vocabulary; but most of them are teacher-dependent and their practicality or impracticality is a function of teachers’ performance. Since different teachers have different abilities, capabilities, resources, personalities and characteristics teaching vocabularies by two or more  teachers (known as co-teaching) sharing their knowledge and competence may be efficient and helpful in teaching vocabularies. Teaming can bring out the creative side of teachers. Woodrow Wilson once said, “I not only use all of the brains I have, but all I can borrow” (28th president of US, 1856 – 1924). His acknowledged reliance on others may fit our co-teaching context as well. This also shows the fact that “A community of peers is important not only in terms of support, but also as a crucial source of generating ideas and criticism” (Sykes, 1996, as cited in Jang, 2006).

The very binging point of co-teaching was in 1975, in which Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This act stated that free and appropriate public education (FAPE) must be provided for all children (Right, 2010). After that, a very important project (No-Child Left behind) in USA was applied in which they tried to provide a better teaching context for students with disabilities (either physical or mental) and facilitate their learning by using two teachers in the classroom. In those classes, they used a pull out model in which these types of students; were pulled out by the second teacher and there they were taught individually and privately.  A similar approach was used in classes in which most of the students were emigrants whose native language was something rather than English. In these classes one of the teachers was mainstream teacher (e.g. math, geology) and the second teacher was an English teacher who tried to eliminate the speaking and listening problems of the students. The setting of the classroom and the role of teachers in those classes shaped different models of co-teaching.

Co-teaching has many benefits for both teachers and students; it can reduce the stigma often associated with being identified as having a disability. It creates a stronger system of support for effective instruction among the adults responsible for educating students (Friend, 2008 as cited in Mulgrew & Gentile, 2010). It also develops respect for differences,   teamwork skills, and an appreciation for diversity(flexibility), it also provides peer models, empathetic skills, affirmation of individuality; beside that co-teaching enhances instructional knowledge base, increases ways of creatively addressing challenges, foster better peer relationship among students in the classroom and promotes a more rigorous curriculum,  teachers will learn from each other’s expertise and expand the scope of their teaching capacity(Rosario, Coles, Redmon, & Strawbridge, 2010; Walther-Thomas, 1997; Leavitt, 2006; Nickelson, 2010)

 

Cook and Friend (1996) described five forms of variations in co-teaching:

(1) One teaching/one assisting: a technique in which one teacher takes an instructional lead while the other assists students when necessary.

(2) Station teaching: dividing the class content and room arrangement, with each teacher working on a specified part of the curriculum and classroom, so that students rotate from one station to the other.

(3) Parallel teaching: both teachers plan the instruction but divide the class into two halves, each taking responsibility for working with one-half of the class.

(4) Alternative teaching: organizing a classroom into one large group and one small group, where one teacher is able to provide main instruction, the other to review a smaller group of students; and

(5) Team teaching: teachers take turns in leading discussions or both playing roles in demonstrations.

Among mentioned diversities of co-teaching, team-teaching has received special attention and if we go through the history of co-teaching this approach has been applied more (e.g. teaching ESP), which may be because of its advantages over the other approaches. Despite the potential for problems to arise through a lack of collaboration and cohesiveness within a team, there are potential pedagogical advantages for those willing to adopt this form of teaching. Historically, team teaching has been seen as a practice suited for gaining better control of large groups of students (Ivins, 1964 as cited in Wang, 2010).  When team teaching is organized and carried out effectively, students, parents and school faculty feel positive effects. Research shows that students taught using a team teaching approach have higher levels of achievement.  Additionally, schools that employ team teaching have teachers who are more satisfied with their job, resulting in an improved work climate (Flynn , 2010). Leavitt believes that “team-teaching boasts many pedagogical and intellectual advantages: it can help create a dynamic and interactive learning environment, provide instructors with a useful way of modeling thinking within or across disciplines, and inspire new research ideas and intellectual partnerships among faculty”. (2006, p.10)

On the other hand, team teaching gives teachers the opportunity “to teach in a different way, and to learn in a different way” (Leavitt, 2006, p. 16). Poor teachers can also be observed, critiqued, and improved by the other team members in a nonthreatening, supportive context (stateuniversity.com).

Team-teaching also allows teachers to respond effectively to different needs of their students, lower the teacher-student ratio, and empower teachers with a professional expertise that meets their students need. Team-teaching also aims to facilitate students’ understanding of concepts from a variety of viewpoints (Hanusch , Obijiofor, & Volcic, 2009).

In team teaching classes, students can develop critical-thinking skills by synthesizing multiple perspectives and relating the information to a larger conceptual framework (Davis, 1995 as cited

Kerman

ABSTRACT

 

The thrust of the current study was to investigate the relationship among EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies (SILL), learning style preferences (PLSP), and creativity (CR). To this end, a group of 148 male and female learners, between the ages of 19 and 32, majoring in English Translation and English Literature at Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran were randomly selected and were given three questionnaires: the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire by Oxford (1990), the Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP) questionnaire by Reid (1984), and a questionnaire of creativity (ACT) by O’Neil, Abedi, and Spielberger (1992). The relationship among language learning strategies, learning style preferences, and creativity was investigated using Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. The results of this study indicated that there were significant and positive correlations between EFL learners’ learning strategies and learning style preferences (r = 0.83, p < 0.05), learning strategies and creativity (r=0.73, p < 0.05), and learning style preferences and creativity (r = 0.88, p < 0.05). Also, there were significant and positive correlations among different language learning strategies and learning style preferences, different language learning strategies and creativity, and different learning style preferences and creativity.  Running multiple regression showed that social strategy predicted 79.9 percent of scores on creativity, cognitive strategy increased the predictive power to 82.1 percent, affective strategy added up the percentage of prediction to 82.6 percent, and finally the metacognitive strategy leveled the prediction to 93.2 percent. Also, results of multiple regression for learning styles showed Kinesthetic learning style is the only variable entering the model to predict 93.1 percent of scores on creativity. It can be concluded that the obtained results may help EFL teachers and educators to bear in mind the benefits of developing their learners’ learning strategies and learning style preferences when dealing with promoting creativity in learners.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION.. IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. IV

ABSTRACT.. v.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……..VI

LISTS OF TABLES. IX

LISTS OF FIGURES. XI

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS. XII

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE. 1

1.1Introduction. 2

1.2 Statement of the Problem… 7

1.3 Statement of the Research Questions. 8

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypotheses. 10

1.5 Definition of Key Terms. 11

1.5.1 Language Learning Strategies. 11

1.5.2 Learning Style preferences. 12

1.5.3 Creativity. 12

1.6 Significance of the Study. 13

1.7 Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions. 16

1.7.1 Limitations. 16

1.7.2 Delimitations. 18

1.7.3 Assumptions. 19

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE.. 20

2.1         Introduction. 21

2.2         Language Learning Strategies. 21

2.2.1      Definitions of Language Learning Strategies. 22

2.2.2 Background of Research on Language Learning Strategies. 25

2.2.3      Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies. 26

2.2.4      Method to Investigate Learning Strategies. 35

2.2.5      Researches on Learning Strategies. 38

2.3 Language Learning Style. 43

2.3.1 What is Learning Style?. 43

2.3.2 Development of Learning Style. 45

2.3.3 Background of Research on Learning Styles. 54

2.3.4 Fundamentals of Learning Styles. 55

2.3.5 Definitions of Learning Styles. 56

2.3.6 Researches on Learning Styles. 60

2.3.7 Differences between Language Learning Styles and Strategies. 65

2.4 Creativity. 66

2.4.1 The History of Creativity. 66

2.4.2 The Background of Creativity. 68

2.4.3 Attributes of Creativity. 70

2.4.4 Barriers to Creativity. 72

2.4.5 Promoting Creativity. 73

2.4.6 Important Cognitive Processes Involved in Creativity. 75

2.4.7 Researches on Creativity. 77

CHAPTER III: METHOD.. 80

3.1 Introduction. 81

3.2 Participants. 81

3.3 Instrumentation. 82

3.3.1 Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) 82

3.3.2 The Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP) 86

3.3.3 Creativity Questionnaire (ACT) 89

3.4 Procedure. 93

3.5 Design. 95

3.6 Statistical Analyses. 95

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 97

4.1 Introduction. 98

4.2 Results of the Study. 100

4.2.1 Testing Assumptions. 100

4.3 Testing the Null Hypotheses. 108

4.3.1 Testing the First Null Hypothesis. 108

4.3.2 Testing the Second Null Hypothesis. 112

4.3.3 Testing the Third Null Hypothesis. 115

4.3.4 Testing the Fourth Null Hypothesis. 119

4.3.5 Testing the Fifth Null Hypothesis. 123

 

4.3.6 Testing the Sixth Null Hypothesis. 127

4.3.7 Testing the Seventh Null Hypothesis. 132

4.3.8 Testing the Eighth Null Hypothesis. 136

4.4 Construct Validity. 139

4.5 Conclusion. 142

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS. 146

5.1 Introduction. 147

5.2 Procedure and Summary of the Findings. 147

5.3 Discussion. 153

5.4 Pedagogical Implications. 158

5.4.1 Implication for EFL Teachers. 158

5.4.2 Implication for EFL Learners. 160

5.4.3 Implications for EFL Syllabus Designers, Curriculum Developers and Material Producers. 161

5.5. Suggestions for Further Research. 162

REFERENCES. 164

APPENDICES. 184

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

LISTS OF TABLES

 

Table 3.1:  Reliability Index of SILL and Its Subcomponents ………. . . 87

Table 3.2:  Reliability Index of PLSP and Its Subcomponents ……….. . ….90

Table 3.3: Subcomponents and Items of the Persian Creativity Test ……….. ………..93

Table 3.4: Reliability Index of Creativity Questionnaire ……… .94

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of SILL .. ………….. . 102

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics of PLSP ….104

Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of ACT .105

Table 4.4: Correlations between Language Learning Strategies, Learning Style Preferences

and Creativity.. 110

Table 4.5: Correlations between Subcomponents of Language Learning Strategies and Learning

Styles Preferences 114

Table 4.6: Correlation between EFL Learners’ Language Learning Strategies and Creativity…117

Table 4.7: Correlations between EFL Learners’ learning Style Preferences.and Creativity…… 121

Table 4.8: Model Summary; Regression Analysis Predicting Creativity by Using Components                              of Learning Style Preferences and Language Learning Strategies . 125

Table 4.9: ANOVA Test of Significance of Regression Model Predicting Creativity by Using

Subcomponents of Learning Style and Strategies . … ..127

Table 4.10: Model Summary, Regression Analysis Predicting Learning Strategy by Using Sub- components of Learning Style Preferences … … .129

Table 4.11: ANOVA Test of Significance of Regression Model Predicting Learning Strategy by Using the Subcomponents of Learning Style Preferences ….130

Table 4.12: Excluded Variables of Learning Style Preferences ..130

Table 4.13: Model Summary; Regression Analysis Predicting Creativity by Using Components

of Language Learning Strategies . .133

Table 4.14: ANOVA Test of Significance of Regression Model Predicting Creativity by Using

Components of Language Learning Strategies .134

Table 4.15: Model Summary; Regression Analysis Predicting Creativity by Using Components

of Learning Style Preferences ..136

Table 4.16: ANOVA Test of Significance of Regression Model; Predicting Creativity by Using

Components of Learning Style Preferences ..137

Table 4.17: Sampling Adequacy and Sphericity Assumptions .. ..139

Table 4.18: Total Variance Explained . 140

Table 4.19: Rotated Components Matrix …. .. . .141

Table 4.20:  Summary of the Findings … ….143

 

 

 

LISTS OF FIGURES

 

Figure 4.1: Scatter Plot of Testing Linearity Assumption of Language Learning Strategies and

Learning Style Preferences .. ..106

Figure 4.2: Scatter Plot of Testing Linearity Assumption of Language Learning Strategy and

Creativity .. .107

Figure 4.3: Scatter Plot of Testing Linearity Assumption of Learning Style Preferences and

Creativity .. .107

Figure 4.4: Scatter Plot of Studentized Residuals for Creativity . … .109

Figure 4.5: Scatter Plot of Testing Linearity Assumption of Language Learning Strategies,

Learning Style Preferences and Creativity . ..112

Figure 4.6: Linearity Assumption of EFL Learners’ Language Learning Strategies and

Creativity … ..118

Figure 4.7: Scatter Plot of Testing Linearity Assumption of EFL Learners’ Learning Style

Preferences and Creativity .. .123

Figure 4.8: Scatter Plot of Predicting Creativity by Using Components of Language Learning

Strategies and Learning Style Preferences …128

Figure 4.9: Scatter Plot of Testing Assumptions of Linearity and Homoscedasticity .131

Figure 4.10: Scatter plot of Predicting Creativity by Using Components of Language Learning

Strategies .135

Figure 4.11: Scatter plot of Predicting Creativity by Using Components of Learning Style

Preferences ..138

 

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS

 

 

L1: Native Language

L2: Foreign Language

ESL: English as a Second Language

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

CR: Creativity

PLSP: Perceptual Learning Style Preference

SILL: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

ACT: Abedi-Schumacher Creativity Test

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

 

 

 

1.1  Introduction

 

Today, it is almost known that each learner has his/her especial way of learning that may have a fundamental role in his/her success or failure (Fewell, 2010; Zare & Noordin, 2011). Over the recent decades most of the researchers have gradually moved from focusing on teaching paradigms toward exploring individual characteristics (Carson & Longhini, 2002; Oxford & Anderson, 1995). Therefore, the individuals and their differences have been the subject of many studies. Along these lines it seems that there is a highly demanding need to expand studies in these lines (Ghonsooly, Elahi, & Golparvar, 2012; Gilakjani & Ahmadi, 2011; Mohebi & Khodadady, 2011). As Grenbell and Harris (1999) state “methodology alone can never be a solution to language learning. Rather it is an aid and suggestion” (p.10). Most of the theories of learning are all attempts to describe universal human traits in learning (Brown, 2007). They seek to explain globally how people perceive, filter, store, and recall information. Such processes do not account for the differences across individuals in the way they learn, or for differences within any one individual (Brown, 2007) which are very important factors in the process of learning.

Among different personal traits, individual learners’ learning style preferences provide valuable insights into the educational context (Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Sternberg, 1990; Xu, 2011).  Learning style is inherent and pervasive and is a blend of cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements (Willing, 1988). Learning style includes four aspects of a person: a) preferred or habitual patterns of mental functioning; b) patterns of attitudes and interests that affect what an individual will pay most attention to in a learning situation; c) a tendency to seek situations compatible with one’s own learning patterns; and d) a tendency to use certain learning strategies and avoid others (Brown, 2000).

Keefe (as cited in Brown, 2000) stated that learning styles might be thought of as “cognitive, affective, and physiological traits that are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment” (p. 114).

Dyer (1995) noted that each preferred learning style has a matching preferred method of instruction. When mismatches exist between learning styles of the learners in a class and the teaching style of the teacher, the students may become bored and inattentive in class, do poorly on tests, get discouraged about the courses, the curriculum, and themselves, and in some cases change to other curricula or drop out of school (Felder, 1996). Therefore, identifying these learning styles, which are stated by Cornett (1983) as the overall patterns that give general direction to learning behavior, might be a key element to raise instructors’ awareness of their weaknesses and strengths and impede negative feedbacks. Accordingly, Reid (1995) states that developing an understanding of learning environments and styles “will enable students to take control of their learning and to maximize their potential for learning” (p. 25).

Also, Brown (2007) believes that every individual approaches a problem or learns a set of facts from a unique perspective. In this view, the learner is considered as an active participant that the effects of teaching will be partly dependant on what s/he knows such as his/her prior knowledge, what s/he thinks about during learning and his/her active cognitive processes (Weinstein & Underwood, 1985). This has brought attention to language learning strategies which an individual learner applies during the learning process to facilitate second language learning (Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1991).

Learning strategies are “any set of operations, plans, or routines used by learners to facilitate the obtaining, retrieval, storage and use of information” (Macaro, 2006, p. 342).

Many scholars such as Eliss (1994); O’Malley and Chamot (1996); Oxford (1990); Rubin (1978); Stern (1992) have classified learning strategies into categories, but Oxford’s classification is popular (Eliss, 2008). Her taxonomy consists of direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies are specific procedures that learners can use to improve their language skills. Indirect strategies, on the other hand, include things such as evaluating one’s learning and cooperating with others (Elis, 2008). Furthermore, the frequency use of strategies and particular types of strategies vary among EFL learners. In this respect the influential effect of learning style should also be considered as suggested by Carson & Longhini, (2002); and Littlemore, (2001).

Researchers such as Ehrman (1989) and Oxford (1995) suggest that learning style has a significant influence on students’ choice of learning strategies, and that both styles and strategies affect learning outcomes. But in spite of the diversity of researches on learning styles and strategies, relatively no studies have addressed the relationship between these two variables and another very influential factor in foreign language learning process called creativity (CR).

Humans are all born with a potential for creativity and creativity can be nurtured “at all stages and in all fields of human endeavor” (Sarsani, 2005, p. 47). To this end, according to Agarwal (1992), developing CR at all levels in the education system is increasingly recognized as being critical in improving educational attainment and life skills, particularly in second or foreign language learning and teaching.  “Discussion of creativity in relation to language teaching and learning has been extensive and continues to be a very major point of application of a wide range of theories of creativity” (Carter, 2004, p. 213). In fact, “Creativity is an inherent aspect of all pedagogical tasks” (Mishan, 2005, p. 83).

The field of creativity as it is known today has been developed basically thanks to the outstanding attempts made by Guilford and Torrance (Sternberg, 2009). In the modern world, creativity is fundamentally important in all aspects of life and since creativity is complex in nature different viewpoints have been put forward to explain the concept emphasizing different aspects of it (Sarsani, 2006).

“Creativity is generally characterized as the ability to create new and original products which are considered as appropriate for the features and limitations of a given task, where products can refer to a variety of ideas, viewpoints, and innovations” (Lubart, 1994, p.15). “These products must be original as they should not be just a mere copy of what already exists” (Lubart & Guignard, 2004, p. 43).

According to Sarsani (2005), “Philosophy sees creativity as a process of change” (p. 132). Education must thus “Enable people to generate and implement new ideas and to adapt positively to different changes in order to survive in the current world” (Jeffrey, Craft & Leibling, 2001, p. ix). In all actuality, “Creativity is an inherent aspect of all pedagogical tasks” (Mishan, 2005, p. 83).

Correspondingly, the ability to shift between  different modes of  styles and strategies while performing in a creative setting  and understanding the relationship among these variables might provide an explanation on how well an individual corresponds to the phenomena of language learning.

چکیده

 

تحقیق حاضر جهت بررسی ارتباط میان بکارگیری راهکارهای خواندن و درک متون توضیحی و استدلالی میان زبان آموزان در سطوح مختلف زبان صورت گرفته است. هدف محقق از انجام این تحقیق یافتن هر گونه ارتباط قابل توجه بین راهکارهای خواندن و درک متون توضیحی و استدلالی است. شرکت کنندگان این تحقیق 120 نفر از زبان آموزان کانون زبان ایران بودند که بر اساس آزمون تعیین سطح به سه گروه تقسیم شدند. سطح مبتدی شامل 44 نفر و سطوح متوسط و پیشرفته هر کدام بترتیب دارای 51 و 25 نفر بودند. در اولین جلسه، نسخه فارسی پرسشنامه راهکارهای خواندن توسط زبان آموزان تکمیل شد. این پرسشنامه یکی از گسترده ترین ابزار برای سنجش استراتژی های خواندن میباشد که در سال 1990 توسط آکسفوورد اختراع شد. در جلسه دوم، شرکت کنندگان ملزم به انجام یک تست خواندن درک مطلب بودند. این تست شامل چهار درک مطلب بود ( دو متن توضیحی و دو متن استدلالی). در این راستا جهت نیل به هدف تحقیق، محقق از ضریب همبستگی پیرسون وتحلیل رگرسیون چندگانه استفاده نمود. یافته های تحقیق حاضر حاکی از آن بود که رابطه مثبتی میان بکارگیری راهکارهای خواندن و درک متون توضیحی و استدلالی میان زبان آموزان در سطوح مختلف زبان وجود داشته و بدین ترتیب فرضیه های صفر این مطالعه رد شد. همچنین استراتژی های خواندن بعنوان یک عامل مهم در درک متون توضیحی و استدلالی مشخص شد.

ABSTRACT

This study was an ex post facto descriptive attempt to investigate the relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and comprehension of expository and argumentative text across different proficiency levels. In order to fulfill the purpose of this study, 120 female EFL learners aged within the range of 14 to 30 years participated in the study. The sample was selected from one of the branches of ILI language school. As proficiency levels were considered as a variable in this study, each level namely beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels included 44, 51, and 25 participants. Students were assigned to each level through the International Language Institute’s (ILI) placement test. In the first session, a Persian version of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire was administered to students. The SILL is the most widely used instrument for identifying reading strategies and in was created by Oxford (1990). In the second session, the participants took the reading tests. Each subject was assigned a test booklet which contained four reading passages (two expository and two argumentative passages). The Flesch Reading Ease formula was used in order to determine the suitable level of texts. Flesch Reading Ease Formula is considered one of the oldest and most accurate readability formulas. Finally, Pearson correlation and multiple regression analyses were used to analyze the data. The results of this research revealed that, there is a significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of reading strategies and their comprehension of expository and argumentative texts across different proficiency levels. Also it was shown in the data analysis that EFL learners’ use of reading strategy was a significant predictor of their comprehension of expository and argumentative texts.

 

 

 

 

                                                            Table of Contents

 

Acknowledgment iii

Abstract … iv

List of Contents v

List of Tables . .ix

List of Figures … . xii

CHAPTER I: Background and Purpose

   1.1 Introduction .. …2

1.2 Statement of the Problem .. 5

1.3 Statement of the Research Questions .. …8

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypotheses 10

1.5 Definition of Key Terms ..12

1.5.1 Argumentative text ..12

1.5.2 Expository text 12

1.5.3 Proficiency level ……………………………………………………………………………………………13

1.5.4 Reading strategy . ..13

 

    1.6 Significance of the Study .14

    1.7 Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumption ..16

 

CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature

2.1 What is reading?……………………………………………………………………………………………………19

2.1.1 Importance of reading . .. 22

2.1.2 Approaches to reading skill .. 25

2.1.3 Reading comprehension theories ..26

2.1.3.1 Schema Theory … 27

2.1.3.2. Sub skills View of Reading 28

 

2.1.4 Different Kinds of Reading ..31

2.1.5 Teaching and Learning Reading ..34

 

2.1.6 Strategy 36

 

2.1.6.1 Learning Strategy ..39

2.1.6.2 Reading Strategies .. 39

2.1.6.2.1 Extensive and Intensive Reading Strategies .. 46

2.1.6.2.2 Cognitive Strategies … 47

2.1.6.2.3 Metacognitive Strategies 49

2.1.6.2.4 Compensation Strategies 50

2.1.6.2.5 Scanning and Skimming Reading Strategies .51

2.1.7 L1/L2 Reading Strategies .. ..55

2.1.8. Learner Strategy Training … 58

2.2 Text . .59

2.2.1 Text comprehension … 60

2.2.2 Text type .. ..62

2.2.2.1 Expository text . 68

2.2.2.2 Students with Learning Disabilities and Expository Text … 70

2.2.2.3 Argumentative text . ..73

2.2.3 Connectives, text types, and reading comprehension .. ..76

2.2.4 Two Approaches to Text Type Analysis .. .77

2.2.5 Genre and Text Type .79

CHAPTER III: Method

3.1 Introduction … 86

3.2 Participants .. .88

3.3 Instrumentation … .88

3.3.1 Test of Reading Comprehension . .. .88

 

3.3.2 Reading strategies questionnaire … .91

3.4 Procedure .. 91

3.5 Design . .93

3.6 Statistical Analysis .. .94

CHAPTER IV: Research and Discussion

4.1 Introduction ..96

4.2 Restatement of the Research Hypotheses . 96

4.3 Reliability Analysis ..98

4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the SILL Questionnaire .99

4.5 Descriptive Statistics of the Reading Comprehension Tests . .101

4.6 Testing the Hypotheses of the Study . .107

4.7 Discussion of the Findings .. 124

CHAPTER V: Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications

5.1 Introduction .130

5.2 Procedures and Summery of the Findings . .130

5.3 Pedagogical Implications … .131

5.4 Suggestions for Further Research . ..133

References … 134

Appendices

Appendix A . .153

Appendix B . ..158

Appendix C .. .160

Appendix D .. 162

Appendix E . ..164

Appendix F .. .166

Appendix G .. 167

Appendix H .. 169

Appendix I … .171

Appendix J 173

Appendix K .. 175

Appendix L .. .177

Appendix M ..179

 

 

 

 

Lists of Tables

Table 2.1 Genres and Text Types .. .182

Table 3.1 Readability Statistics of the Texts Selected for Beginners . 183

Table 3.2 Readability Statistics of the Texts Selected for Intermediates . ..184

Table 3.3 Readability Statistics of the Texts Selected for Advanced . 185

Table 3.4 The Variables of the Study … ..186

Table 4.1 Reliability statistics of the reading comprehension test for beginner learners …187

Table 4.2 Reliability statistics of the reading comprehension test for intermediate learners .188

Table 4.3 Reliability statistics of the reading comprehension test for advance learners ….189

Table 4.4 Descriptive statistics of the obtained scores on reading strategy use questionnaire 190

Table 4.5 Normality checks of SILL scores distributions ..191

Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of the Obtained Scores on expository text comprehension tests …192

Table 4.7 Normality checks of Expository test scores distributions .. .193

Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics of the Obtained Scores on argumentative text comprehension  tests … .194

Table 4.9 Normality checks of Argumentative test scores distributions 195

Table 4.10 Correlation between reading strategies and expository text comprehension ….196

Table 4.11 Correlation between beginner learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text    comprehension … ..197

Table 4.12 Correlation between intermediate learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension ..198

Table 4.13 Correlation between advanced learners’ use of reading strategies and expository text comprehension .199

Table 4.14 Correlation between reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension ..200

Table 4.15 Correlation between beginner learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension . .201

Table 4.16 Correlation between intermediate learners’ use of reading strategies an argumentative text comprehension . .202

Table 4.17 Correlation between advanced learners’ use of reading strategies and argumentative text comprehension . .203

Table 4.18 Model Summary . ..204

Table 4.19 ANOVA of regression model .. .205

Table 4.20 Model Summary . ..206

Table 4.21 ANOVA of regression model … 207

Table 4.22 Model Summary .. .208

Table 4.23 ANOVA of regression model .. .209

Table 4.24 Model Summary … 210

Table 4.25 ANOVA of regression model … 211

Table 4.26 Model Summary . ..212

Table 4.27 ANOVA of regression model … 213

Table 4.28 Model Summary … 214

Table 4.29 ANOVA of regression model .. .215

Table 4.30 Model Summary … 216

Table 4.31 ANOVA of regression model … 217

Table 4.32 Model Summary … 218

Table 4.33 ANOVA of regression model … 219

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lists of Figures

Figure 4.1 Distribution of Beginners’ SILL Scores .. ..221

Figure 4.2 Distribution of Intermediates’ SILL Scores .. 222

Figure 4.3 Distribution of Advances’ SILL Scores .. ..223

Figure 4.4 Distribution of Beginners’ Expository Test Scores . ..224

Figure 4.5 Distribution of Intermediates’ Expository Test Scores . 225

Figure 4.6 Distribution of Advances’ Expository Test Scores . ..226

Figure 4.7 Distribution of Beginners’ Argumentative Test Scores .. ..227

Figure 4.8 Distribution of Intermediates’ Argumentative Test Scores . ..228

Figure 4.9 Distribution of Advances’ Argumentative Test Scores .229

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

                 

   Background and Purpose

                        

 

 

 

1.1 Introduction

Language-teaching methodology has seen a dramatic increase in attention to the strategies investment that learners can make in their own learning process. The learning of any skill involves a certain degree of investment of one’s time and effort. According to brown (2001) A language is probably the most complex set of skills one would ever seek to acquire; therefore, an investment of strategies is necessary in the form of developing multiple layers of strategies for getting that language in to one’s brain.

Reading is a fundamental skill for English foreign/second language (EFL/ESL) learners (Anderson, 2003). Rivers (1981) considers reading as the most significant activity in language classrooms since it acts not only as a source of information and a pleasurable activity, but also as a means of consolidating and extending one’s knowledge of the language. According to Anderson (2003), it is an essential skill for learners of English and for most of learners it is the most important skill to master in order to ensure success in learning. With strengthened reading skill, learners of English tend to make progress in other areas of language learning.

In the last two decades, attention has been paid to understanding what proficient readers typically do while reading, including identifying the strategies they use and how and under what conditions they use those strategies. This line of research has been useful in instructing non-proficient first and second-language readers to increase their awareness and use of reading strategies to improve comprehension (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). For successful reading, students are required to understand the meaning of text, critically evaluate the message, remember the content and apply the new-found knowledge flexibly (Pressley, 2000). In order to reach these objectives, proficient readers use a variety of strategies before, during and after the reading of a text in order to comprehend the text and prevent any problem which may occur during this process. In other words, strategies are considered as the most beneficial tools any reader can use for controlling progress of and for ensuring success in reading. Applying strategic behavior in reading requires that readers intentionally engage in planned actions under their control (Alexander, Graham & Harris, 1998).

Beside the importance of reading strategies, text comprehension is also crucial. Text comprehension is an interactive process in which linguistic elements in a discourse or text interact with each other to create the “texture” of a text (Halliday & Hassan, 1976, de Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981). The second level of interactions is between bottom-up and top-down processing of texts take place in the readers’ minds, or between linguistic knowledge and world knowledge (Eskey, 1988, Grabe & Stoller, 2002). The third level of interaction is an interpretive one between the reader and a text, or between the reader and the writer through a text (Nuttal, 1996, Ozono and Ito, 2003). Lipson and Wixon (1986), among others, claim that research on reading ability as well as reading disability should adopt an interactive view. Such a view takes into account the dynamic process of reading in which the reader, text, process, and the setting conditions of the reading situation interact in an active and flexible manner. This claim should be extended to reading in a foreign language as well. In fact, to understand how foreign language learners comprehend texts, many researchers have emphasized the need to study the differential contribution of text-based characteristics such as genre, text structure parameters, and textual markers (Geva, 1992; Camiciottoli. 2003; Carrel, 1985).

In addition, the readers’ ability to comprehend a text may vary as a function of the text type (Schneuwly, 1997; Alverman, et al., 1995). According to Neubert (1985) text types motivate particular frames and act out certain scenarios. They recast the linguistic material available in the system of a language into socially efficient, effective and appropriate moulds. He believes that texts are various instances clustering around a holistic experience that has been shared over time. This ‘prolonged interactive experience’ takes the shape of prototypical encounters and this empirical prototypicality is then translated into the concept of the prototype text. Other scholars have come up with their own text typologies. More specifically, Werlich (1976) distinguishes between five text types: description, narration, argumentation, instruction, and exposition text types.

In today’s society it is essential to be able to read fluently, particularly, expository and argumentative texts (Chambliss, 1995; Gresten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Understanding the rhetorical relations of texts is to be at the heart of the comprehension process of the text and of the writers’ intention in the text (Alavi, 2001). It follows that if readers can infer textual relations in less demanding texts, they may not be as successful when they have to read and learn from texts that are more demanding, i.e. when they have to learn from expository text, or pinpoint niches from argumentative texts. This difficulty may further illustrate the challenges facing readers of English as a foreign language as the focus of literacy programs shifts from “learning to read”, a prominent target in the primary grades to “reading to learn” through English at the university (Chall, et al, 1996).

Berman and Katzenberger (2004) suggested that the well-formed expository texts are constructed beginning from high school. Expository texts are written to convey, describe, or explain non-fictional information. It is more difficult for ESL/EFL learners to understand these types of materials than narrative texts because they have specific text structures, contain technical