وبلاگ

توضیح وبلاگ من

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

 
تاریخ: 05-11-99
نویسنده: نویسنده محمدی

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

 

 

 

(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

 

 

4.2.2.4. Final Results                                                                                                 75

 

4.2.4.3. Final Results                                                                                       92

 

Teaching Autonomy Scale  (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005)……………………………….132

 

 

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 4.3 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

دانلود مقاله و پایان نامه

 

 

Table 4.51 Descriptive Statistics of Total Autonomy, Styles and NLP                                          102

 

Table 4.52 Variables Entered/Removed                                                                                                    102

 

Table 4.53 Variables Entered/Removed                                                                                                    103

 

Table 4.54 Variables Entered/Removed                                                                                                    103

 

Table 4.55 Model Summary (General Autonomy)                                                                        104

 

Table 4.56 Model Summary (Total Autonomy)                                                                                        104

 

Table 4.57 Model Summary (Curriculum Autonomy)                                                                  104

 

Table 4.58 ANOVA (General Autonomy)                                                                                    105

 

Table 4.59 ANOVA (Curriculum Autonomy)                                                                               105

 

Table 4.60 ANOVA (Total Autonomy)                                                                                                    105

 

Table 4.61 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: General Autonomy)                                            107

 

Table 4.62 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy)                                                  108

 

Table 4.63 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy)                                                            110

 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

 

 

Figure 4.1 General Autonomy Scatter Plot                                                                              90

 

Figure 4.2 Curriculum Autonomy Scatter Plot                                                                         90

 

Figure 4.3 Total Autonomy Scatter Plot                                                                                                90

 

Figure 4.4 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals

 

Dependent Variable: General Autonomy                                                                                     98

 

Figure 4.5 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals

 

Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy                                                                               98

 

Figure 4.6 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals

 

 Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy                                                                                                   99

 

Figure 4.7 Scatter plot of the Standardized Residuals Dependent Variable: General Autonomy        100

 

Figure 4.8 Scatter plot of the Standardized Residuals Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy    100

 

Figure 4.9 Scatter Plot of the Standardized Residuals Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy         101

 

 

CHAPTER

 

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE

 

  • Introduction

     

 

With the spread of globalization, language learning and teaching, as many other skills, are gaining more and more prominence every day. This phenomenon, language learning and teaching, has two sides: teacher and learner who influence the process in different ways. Menken (2000) believes that half of all teachers may anticipate educating an English language learner during their career. Along the same lines, according to Vieira and Gaspar (2013), with regard to impact on education effectiveness, teachers arise as a significant factor, accounting for about 30% of the variance on pupils’ achievement. Students have different learning styles and familiarity with learning style differences will help instructors; so teachers apply different teaching styles that suit their setting and their students’ needs. To overcome mismatches between learning styles of learners and the teaching styles of the instructors, teachers should tailor their approach to meet student learning needs meaning that they can combine teaching styles for different types of content and diversity of student needs. According to Purkey & Novak (1984, p. 13), “Good teaching is the process of inviting students to see themselves as able, valuable, and self-directing and of encouraging them to act in accordance with these self-perceptions”.

 

According to Brown (2000) and Mitchell &Myles (2004), different

 

theories in language learning have been studied through a variety of perspectives, many of which have shown that understanding significant elements in multiple and diverse perspectives, not in a single factor, is very critical. One of the approaches to communication, learning and personal development that has received much popularity is Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP); it appears to be utilized to a large extent in education today; whereas academic world is still silent regarding this subject (Tosey P, Mathinson J, 2010). NLP approach to learning and teaching emphasizes internal or mental factors as contrasted with environmental or external factors as many traditional behaviorists, Carey et al, diagnosed that there has been a growing and developing education literature referring to both adults and children right from the time of the publication of the earliest popular books on NLP and teaching and learning (Harper,1982; Dilts, 1983a; Jacobson, 1983). According to Hardingham (1998), NLP has been seen as one of the resources to enhance effectiveness of language instruction. In addition, NLP claims to be efficacious in achieving excellence of performance, ameliorating classroom communication, raising self-esteem, optimizing students’ motivation and attitudes, facilitating personal growth in students and even alter their attitude to life (Thornbury, 2001, p.394). Moreover, Helm (1989) argues that “Teachers use a variety of instructional techniques, but again not know how to comprehend what is thought” (p1). In most of the instructional institutions, there are several issues when teaching is considered. Multiple intellectuals involved in the field of educational reform assert that empowering teachers is where we can commence solving the schools’ problems (Melenyzer, 1990; Short, 1994). Along the same line, allowing teachers more freedom in the instructional environment could be one of the major factors resulting in the empowerment of instructors since they are permitted to use their experience and insights in making decisions and solving the problems. Pearson and Moomaw (2006) stated that:

 

if teachers are to be empowered and regarded as professionals, then like other professionals, they must have the freedom to prescribe the best treatment for their students as doctors or lawyers do for their clients. This freedom is teacher autonomy. (p.44).

 

 On the other hand, according to Masouleh and Jooneghani (2011), the term autonomy has sparked considerable controversy, inasmuch as linguists and educationalists have failed to reach a consensus as to what autonomy really is. In fact, autonomy in language learning is a desirable goal for philosophical, pedagogical, and practical reasons. Street (1988), believes teacher autonomy is  “the independence teachers maintain in exercising discretion within their classrooms to make instructional decisions”. (p. 4).

 

        This study is to focus on the important educational factors that can prove how teachers’ teaching styles, autonomy and NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming)‏ can be related to each other.


فرم در حال بارگذاری ...

« دانلود پایان نامه ارشد : تبلیغات در تئاتر ایرانپایان نامه ارشد:شبیه سازی قلب راکتور VVER-1000 و محاسبه ضریب تکثیر قلب با استفاده از کد محاسباتی MCNPX »
 
مداحی های محرم