موضوع: "بدون موضوع"
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
Introduction
1.1. Background of Purpose
English is an international language and the desire for learning English for communication is increasing. So, many language learners seemingly attend language classes to improve their speaking ability. According to Folse (2006), the ability to speak a language is synonymous with knowing that language for most people, since speech is the most basic means of human communication. Realizing the high importance of this skill in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) programs is very important to developing ways of giving feedback that are in line with various L2 acquisition theories in order to reduce students` errors in their speaking and scientifically scrutinizing the effects of them.
Over the years, the role of corrective feedback (CF) in EFL or English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms has been an argumentative issue. Feedback is an important part in teaching and learning, so it has been considered in both second language theories and language pedagogy. It is a challenge for language teachers to ensure that learners develop accuracy in their speaking as well as fluency. Feedback has a corrective function so giving more attention to it can improve the learners` performance through learning process. Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving, and processing information (Brown, 2001; Burns & Joyce, 1997).
Teachers should be careful in providing corrective feedback because it has both positive and negative effects. The positive effects of feedback can make language learning more effective since it helps L2 learners notice the gap between their utterances and the target forms, which elicits uptake or repair. This can promote changes in their inter language systems and lead them to the next linguistic developmental stage. Moreover, when learners understand that making mistakes is a part of the learning process, and that their teachers try to help them learn target forms, they are likely to take risks and build up confidence through practice. On the other hand, the negative effects can hinder learners’ language development by creating barriers between teachers and their students and raise the students’ level of anxiety (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994).
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) offered the following assumptions concerning what is involved in knowing a word: frequency, register, syntax, derivation, association, semantic features, and polysemy. These assumptions of lexical knowledge are more inclusive than Cronbach’s framework, because Richards not only incorporated morphological and syntactic properties into the concept but also considered such aspects as word frequency and register characteristics. However, pronunciation, spelling, and collocation seem to be some obvious missing aspects in the framework.
1.2. Purpose of the Study
This study focuses on two important aspects of language, namely vocabulary and reading comprehension.
More specifically, the present study aims to investigate the effects of reading comprehension on three dimensions of L2 vocabulary knowledge. The three dimensions of vocabulary knowledge which are investigated in the current study are form recognition, meaning recognition and production.
:
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
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 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
List of Figures
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 in Yanamandram & Noble, 2006). Students’ experience also benefits from team-taught course structures. For example, Wilson and Martin (1998) found that students who participated in team-taught classes reported improved teacher-student relationships.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
During last decades of English teaching, vocabulary has received little attention. Beside “grammar has always been at the center of attention in teaching English but vocabulary received little attention and mostly has been neglected in the literature of English language teaching and learning despite the fact that errors of vocabulary are potentially more misleading than those of grammar” (Hedge, 2000, p. 111). Nowadays the effect of vocabulary knowledge on the other areas of language learning has made it to gain its importance (e.g. “appears that teaching of lexis has been acknowledged or re-acknowledged to be important for improving students’ reading comprehension” ( Hyde, 2002, p. 7))
To be a fluent and accurate speaker of English language you need to know a body of English words and vocabularies. According to statistics, “An Average educated speaker needs to know about 17,000 words” (Goulden, Nation, & Read 1990, as cited in Hedge, 2000, p. 111). Researchers have found that vocabulary knowledge in primary school can predict how well students will be able to comprehend the texts they read in high school (Biemiller, 2001). The importance of vocabulary achievement is so much that Wilkins (1974) believes that “Without grammar, very little can be conveyed. Without vocabulary, nothing can be conveyed”. This importance is much more brilliant in primary levels so that “the National Research Council (1998) concluded that vocabulary development is a fundamental goal for students in the early grades” (reading.uoregon.edu). Based on National Reading Panel (2000), vocabulary is one of the essential elements of reading. (Nikoopour & Amini Farsani, 2012). During the past 10 years, Jeanne Chall and his colleague (1989) focus on the study of vocabulary and how vocabulary growth might be encouraged. They had come to the conclusion that vocabulary growth was inadequately addressed in current educational curricula, especially in the elementary and preschool years and that more teacher-centered and planned curricula were needed. (1983, as cited in Biemiller, Teaching Vocabulary Early, direct, and sequential, 2000)
Islamic Azad University
Bandar-Abbas Branch
Department of Foreign Languages
The Effect of Three Semantic Mapping Strategies on the Reading Comprehension of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners in Kerman
Supervisor:
Dr. Mohammad Shariati
Advisor:
Dr. Masoud Sharififar
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (M.A)
May, 2011
(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)
تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :
(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTERTWO: REVIW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
List of Tables
List of Graphs
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of semantic mapping strategies on reading comprehension of learners in intermediate level and also to determine the most effective strategy type among: teacher-initiated, student-mediated and teacher-student interactive strategies. Some 60 female participants in high school participated in the study.
Two valid reading comprehension tests were used in this study as pre-test and post-test. To investigate the effect of semantic mapping strategies a treatment after the pre-test and before the post-test was conducted in order to teach semantic mapping strategies to learners. To analyze the recorded data, Sample T-test was used. To determine the best strategy among the three considered kinds, factor analysis was conducted.
The final analysis showed that using semantic mapping strategies before, during or after reading texts increased the comprehension of the learners and among the three kinds of semantic mapping strategies in this study; teacher-initiated, student-mediated and teacher-student interactive kind; the latter is the most effective one.
Keywords: Semantic mapping strategies, Reading comprehension
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
- Overview
The current study investigated the patterns of semantic mapping strategies in reading comprehension texts acquired by Iranian learners of intermediate level. It is essentially a study on the comprehension of texts by EFL learners in Kerman.
The chapter discusses the place of the current study in the context of foreign language reading comprehension and semantic mapping research, the nature of semantic mapping strategies and the need to conduct a study of semantic mapping in reading comprehension within a foreign language learning context. Given the theoretical framework of the study, the main purposes and the significance of the study, two research questions are formulated.
- Rationale and Background
In this section, going from the general to detailed issues, the basic framework of the present study according to the current learning issues is regarded.
1.2.1 Foreign language learning strategies. Learning strategies are “techniques, approaches, or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning and recall of both linguistic and content area information” (Wenden, 1987:6). Oxford (1990) considered that “any specific action taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” is a language learning strategy. Oxford (1990) divided strategies into two major types, direct and indirect. The indirect strategies are divided into metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. Metacogntive strategies, like advanced organizers, are “actions which go beyond purely cognitive devices, and which provide a way for learners to coordinate their own learning process” (p. 136).
Cohen (1998:8) expressed the following:
Since strategies themselves have sometimes been referred to as ‘good’, ‘effective’, or ‘successful’ and the converse, it needs to be pointed out that with some exceptions, strategies themselves are not inherently good or bad, but have the potential to be used effectively whether by the same learner from one instance within one task to another instance within that same task, from one task to another, or by different learners dealing with the same task. Perhaps if enough learners in a given group successfully use a given strategy in a given task, then claims could be made for the effectiveness of that strategy in that instance for that group. Otherwise, it is safest to refer to what often amounts to panoply of potentially useful strategies for any given task.
Furthermore, various researchers suggested (Ellis, 1994) that one trait of good language learners is that they are able to cater their foreign language learning strategy use to their proficiency level demands.
دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی
واحد تهران مرکزی
دانشکده زبانهای خارجی
گروه زبان انگلیسی
پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد رشته آموزش زبان انگلیسی
عنوان:
بررسی رابطه میان بکارگیری راهبردهای یادگیری ، سبک های یادگیری و
خلاقیت زبان آموزان
استاد راهنما:
دکتر مانیا نصرتی نیا
استاد مشاور:
دکتر بهدخت مال امیری
سال تحصیلی: 1393-1392
(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 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.
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 4.4: Correlations between Language Learning Strategies, Learning Style Preferences
Table 4.5: Correlations between Subcomponents of Language Learning Strategies and Learning
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 4.9: ANOVA Test of Significance of Regression Model Predicting Creativity by Using
Table 4.13: Model Summary; Regression Analysis Predicting Creativity by Using Components
Table 4.14: ANOVA Test of Significance of Regression Model Predicting Creativity by Using
Table 4.15: Model Summary; Regression Analysis Predicting Creativity by Using Components
Table 4.16: ANOVA Test of Significance of Regression Model; Predicting Creativity by Using
LISTS OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Scatter Plot of Testing Linearity Assumption of Language Learning Strategies and
Figure 4.2: Scatter Plot of Testing Linearity Assumption of Language Learning Strategy and
Figure 4.3: Scatter Plot of Testing Linearity Assumption of Learning Style Preferences and
Figure 4.5: Scatter Plot of Testing Linearity Assumption of Language Learning Strategies,
Figure 4.6: Linearity Assumption of EFL Learners’ Language Learning Strategies and
Figure 4.7: Scatter Plot of Testing Linearity Assumption of EFL Learners’ Learning Style
Figure 4.8: Scatter Plot of Predicting Creativity by Using Components of Language Learning
Figure 4.10: Scatter plot of Predicting Creativity by Using Components of Language Learning
Figure 4.11: Scatter plot of Predicting Creativity by Using Components of Learning Style
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.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
In learning a second or foreign language, every language learner tries to cope with the problems in his/her own way. That is because every individual learns and organizes information in a unique perspective (Brown, 2007). In fact individual learner variables influence learning outcomes. These variables as Larsen-Freeman (1991) notes include age, socio-psychological factors, creativity, personality, cognitive style, hemisphere specialization, learning strategies, learning styles and other factors such as memory, gender, etc. In a view to the research done over the good language learners, Ehrman (1996) and O’ Malley & Chamot (1990) found that successful language learners are not characterized by their use of special strategies that others do not use, but instead by their ability to coordinate strategies with their own learning style preferences.
Beside language learning styles and language learning strategies, the importance of creativity in learning language cannot be underestimated. Ottó (1998) argues that creativity is an important factor which differs among individual learners.
Despite the indicated support of creativity as a prominent aspect of teaching/learning (Agarwal, 1992; Albert & Kormos 2011; Lee & Kim, 2011; Ormerod, Fritz, & Ridgway, 1999), little effort has been devoted to analyzing the variables that make learners more creative (Carter, 2004). Researches into language learning strategies and learning styles so far has been insufficient to find any relationships among the style preferences of learners, the strategies that learners use and the degree of creativity of language learners (Ghonsooly, 2012; Khaksar, 2008; Pishgadam, 2001; Salehi & Bagheri, 2011). Based on the above-mentioned points, it seems that knowing the possible relationship among language learning strategies, learning style preferences, and creativity may have a positive impact on language learning. Therefore, this study was intended to see whether there is a significant relationship among these three variables -use of language learning strategies, learning style preferences, and creativity, regarding EFL learners.
