پایان نامه رشته زبان انگلیسی:THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG EFL TEACHERS’ TEACHING STYLES, NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING, AND AUTONOMY

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.

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

موضوعات: بدون موضوع لینک ثابت

فرم در حال بارگذاری ...

فید نظر برای این مطلب