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

متن کامل پایان نامه مقطع کارشناسی ارشد رشته :زبان انگلیسی

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:

  1. 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.

تعداد صفحه : 156قیمت : 14000تومان

بلافاصله پس از پرداخت ، لینک دانلود پایان نامه به شما نشان داده می شود

و در ضمن فایل خریداری شده به ایمیل شما ارسال می شود.

پشتیبانی سایت :        09309714541 (فقط پیامک)        info@arshadha.ir

در صورتی که مشکلی با پرداخت آنلاین دارید می توانید مبلغ مورد نظر برای هر فایل را کارت به کارت کرده و فایل درخواستی و اطلاعات واریز را به ایمیل ما ارسال کنید تا فایل را از طریق ایمیل دریافت کنید.

--  -- --

مطالب مشابه را هم ببینید

فایل مورد نظر خودتان را پیدا نکردید ؟ نگران نباشید . این صفحه را نبندید ! سایت ما حاوی حجم عظیمی از پایان نامه های دانشگاهی است. مطالب مشابه را هم ببینید. برای یافتن فایل مورد نظر کافیست از قسمت جستجو استفاده کنید. یا از منوی بالای سایت رشته مورد نظر خود را انتخاب کنید و همه فایل های رشته خودتان را ببینید