2.4.1 Positive Interdependence and Individual Accountability. 18

2.4.2. Processing Group Interaction. 18

2.4.3. Peer Feedback. 19

2.5. Cooperative writing in EFL classrooms. 19

2.6. Perspectives on cooperative writing. 21

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

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

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

2.10. Personality Factors and Teaching Writing. 30

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

3.1. Overview.. 38

3.2. Participants. 38

3.3. Instrumentation. 39

3.3.1 Personality Questionnaire. 39

3.3.2 Preliminary English Test (PET) 40

3.2.2 Essay Writing Test 42

3.2.3 Writing Rating Scales. 42

3.4 Procedure. 43

3.5. Design. 45

3.6. Statistical Analysis. 45

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

4.1. Introduction. 48

4.2. Participant Selection. 48

4.2.1. Descriptive Statistics of the PET Piloting. 49

4.2.2. Descriptive Statistics of the PET Administration. 50

4.2.3. Identifying the Degree of Extroversion. 51

4.3. Posttest 54

4.4. Testing the Null Hypothesis. 56

4.5. Discussion. 57

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

5.1. Introduction. 62

5.2. Restatement of the Problem.. 62

5.3. Pedagogical Implications. 64

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research. 66

REFRENCES. 68

Appendices. 76

APPENDIX A: Eysenck Personality Inventory. 77

APPENDIX B: Preliminary English Test (PET) 80

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Piloting. 49

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

Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics for PET Proficiency Test 51

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

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

Table 4.6 Reliability of the EPI Questionnaire. 54

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

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

 

LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

Figure 4.3 Histogram of the Participants’ Scores in EPI 52

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

C H A P T E R I

 

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

1.1 Introduction

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

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

3.2.6Materials. 50

3.3 Procedure. 50

3.3.1 Piloting the tests. 50

3.3.2 Homogenizing the Participants. 50

3.3.3 The Treatment 51

3.4 Design. 56

3.5 Statistical Analysis: 57

CHAPTER IV Results and Discussion

4.1 Introduction . 59

4.2 Results and Discussion. 60

4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics for the Piloting KET Proficiency Test 60

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

4.2.2 Descriptive Statistics of the grammar Pre-test 63

4.2.3 Analysis of posttest 65

4.2.3Analysis of Student Questionnaire. 67

4.2.3 Analysis of Teacher’s Questionnaire. 69

4.3 Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………………70

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

5.1 Restatement of the Problem.. 76

5.2 Overview of the Study. 76

5.3 Pedagogical Implications. 76

5.3.1 mplications for Teaching and Teacher Training. 77

5.3.2 Implications for Materials Development 77

5.4 Suggestions for Further Research. 77

References. 79

Appendices: 85

List of Tables

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

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

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

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test piloting…………………60

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for KET Proficiency Test ………………………….60

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4.13 Teacher’s Responses to Social Validation Questions ……………………69

List of Figures

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

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

Figure 4.3 Student Responses to Social Validation Questions ……………………69

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

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

Background and Purpose

 

1.1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Purpose of Study…………………………………………………………….……….14

• The Significance of the Study……………………………………………………..…15

• Research Questions………………………………………………………………..…16

• Research Hypotheses……………………………………….……………………..….16

• Definition of Key Words……………………………………………………………..17

1-8-1. Semantic Map……………………………………………………………………17

1-8-1-1. Characteristics of Semantic Maps………….……………………………20

1-8-1-2. Constructing semantic Maps……………………..………………………22

1-8-1-3. Steps of Semantic Mapping……………………………………………..24

1-8-1-4. Types of Semantic Mapping…………………………………………….24

1-8-2. Reading Comprehension……………………………………….……………….. 32

1-8-2-1. Decoding………………………………………………..………….……..33

1-8-2-2. Vocabulary…………………………………..…………….……….……..34

1-8-2-3. World Knowledge………………………..…….…………………….…..34

1-8-2-4. Active Comprehension Strategies…………..……………………………35

• Limitations of the Study…………………………………………..………………….36

CHAPTERTWO: REVIW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

2-1. Introduction………………………………………………..…………………………….37

2-2. Theories Relating to Semantic Maps…………………………………………………….37

2-3. Theoretical Section………………………………………………….……………….….39

2-4. Practical Section…………………………………………………………..…………..…42

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3-1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………55

3-2. Participants…………………………………………………………………………….…55

3-3. Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………….…….56

3-4. Procedures…………………………………………………………………………..……58

3-4-1. Procedures of Developing a Semantic Map……………………………………..58

3-4-2. Procedures of a Semantic Mapping Activity…..……………………….……….61

3-4-2-1. Introducing the Topic………………………..…………………………….61

3-4-2-2. Brainstorming…………………………………….……………………….61

3-4-2-3. Categorization…………………………………………………………….62

3-4-2-4. Personalizing the Map……………………………………………………63

3-4-2-5. Post-assignment Synthesis……………….……..…………………….….63

3-4-3. Procedures of Reading Tests………………………….……………………….…64

3-5. Design……………………………………………………………………………………66

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4-1. Introduction………………………………………..………………………………….…67

4-2. Validity and Reliability of the Study………………………………………..…………..68

4-2-1. Validity of the Pre-test and Post-test……………………………..…….…………68

4-2-2. Validity of the Semantic Maps……………………………..…………….…..…..68

4-3. Reliability of the Tests…………………………………………….………………….…69

4-4. The Conditions of the Research Variables………………….…………………….……..70

4-4-1. Pre-test and Post-test Variable Scores in Experimental Group……..…..………..70

4-4-2. Pre-test and Post-test Variable Scores in Control Group………..….…..…………73

4-5. Consideration of Research Hypotheses……………………………….…………….…..75

4-5-1. First Hypothesis……………………………………………………………………75

4-5-2. Second Hypothesis……………………………..…………………………………78

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

5-1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………81

5-2. Summery…………………………………………………………………………………81

5-3. Discussion of Findings………………………………………..……………………..…..82

5-4. Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………………….….84

5-5. Suggestions for Further Study…………………………………………….……….……86

References…………………………………………………………….……………………..88

Appendixes………………………..………………………………..……………………..…96

Appendix A: Reading Comprehension Test as Pre-test……………….…………………..…96

Appendix B: Reading Comprehension Test as Post-test………………………..….……….98

Appendix C: Reading Comprehension Lesson 1 and the Related Semantic map..…………100

Appendix D: Reading Comprehension Lesson 2 and the Related Semantic map………..…102

Appendix E: Reading Comprehension Lesson 3 and the Related Semantic map…….…….104

Appendix F: Reading Comprehension Lesson 4 and the Related Semantic map…….…….106

Appendix G: Reading Comprehension Lesson 5 and the Related Semantic map……….….108

Appendix H: Reading Comprehension Lesson 6 and the Related Semantic map…….…….110

Appendix I: Reading Comprehension Lesson 7 and the Related Semantic map……….…..112

Appendix J: Reading Comprehension Lesson 8 and the Related Semantic map………..….114

List of Tables

Table 4.1:The correlation of test-retest…………………………………….…………….…69

Table 4.2:Pre-test and post-test statistics in experimental group………………..………….71

Table 4.3:Pre-test and post-test statistics in control group……………………………….….73

Table 4.4:T-test statistics for comparison between mean scores of experimental and control groups in post-test………………………………….…………………………………….…..76

Table 4.5:The comparison between the pre-test and the post-test in experimental group…………………………….……………………………………………………………77

Table 4.6:The post-test statistics for three subgroups: A, B and C………………….………79

List of Graphs

Graph 4.1:Pre-test descriptive statistics in experimental group…………………..………..72

Graph 4.2:Post-test descriptive statistics in experimental group……………………………72

Graph 4.3:Pre-test descriptive statistics in control group…………………………………..74

Graph 4.4:Post-test descriptive statistics in control group………………………………….74

Graph 4.5:The comparison of the post-test scores distributed in experimental and control group………………………………………………………………………………………….76

Graph 4.6:Statistics of sub-groups A, B and C in the post-test……………………………..80

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

 

1.5.3 Creativity. 12

1.6 Significance of the Study. 13

1.7 Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions. 16

1.7.1 Limitations. 16

1.7.2 Delimitations. 18

1.7.3 Assumptions. 19

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE.. 20

2.1 Introduction. 21

2.2 Language Learning Strategies. 21

2.2.1 Definitions of Language Learning Strategies. 22

2.2.2 Background of Research on Language Learning Strategies. 25

2.2.3 Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies. 26

2.2.4 Method to Investigate Learning Strategies. 35

2.2.5 Researches on Learning Strategies. 38

2.3 Language Learning Style. 43

2.3.1 What is Learning Style?. 43

2.3.2 Development of Learning Style. 45

2.3.3 Background of Research on Learning Styles. 54

2.3.4 Fundamentals of Learning Styles. 55

2.3.5 Definitions of Learning Styles. 56

2.3.6 Researches on Learning Styles. 60

2.3.7 Differences between Language Learning Styles and Strategies. 65

2.4 Creativity. 66

2.4.1 The History of Creativity. 66

2.4.2 The Background of Creativity. 68

2.4.3 Attributes of Creativity. 70

2.4.4 Barriers to Creativity. 72

2.4.5 Promoting Creativity. 73

2.4.6 Important Cognitive Processes Involved in Creativity. 75

2.4.7 Researches on Creativity. 77

CHAPTER III: METHOD.. 80

3.1 Introduction. 81

3.2 Participants. 81

3.3 Instrumentation. 82

3.3.1 Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) 82

3.3.2 The Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP) 86

3.3.3 Creativity Questionnaire (ACT) 89

3.4 Procedure. 93

3.5 Design. 95

3.6 Statistical Analyses. 95

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 97

4.1 Introduction. 98

4.2 Results of the Study. 100

4.2.1 Testing Assumptions. 100

4.3 Testing the Null Hypotheses. 108

4.3.1 Testing the First Null Hypothesis. 108

4.3.2 Testing the Second Null Hypothesis. 112

4.3.3 Testing the Third Null Hypothesis. 115

4.3.4 Testing the Fourth Null Hypothesis. 119

4.3.5 Testing the Fifth Null Hypothesis. 123

4.3.6 Testing the Sixth Null Hypothesis. 127

4.3.7 Testing the Seventh Null Hypothesis. 132

4.3.8 Testing the Eighth Null Hypothesis. 136

4.4 Construct Validity. 139

4.5 Conclusion. 142

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS. 146

5.1 Introduction. 147

5.2 Procedure and Summary of the Findings. 147

5.3 Discussion. 153

5.4 Pedagogical Implications. 158

5.4.1 Implication for EFL Teachers. 158

5.4.2 Implication for EFL Learners. 160

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

5.5. Suggestions for Further Research. 162

REFERENCES. 164

APPENDICES. 184

 

LISTS OF TABLES

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics of PLSP……………………………………………………….104

Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of ACT……………………………………………………….105

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

and Creativity..………………………………………………………………………110

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

Styles Preferences……………………………………………………………………114

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

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

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

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

Subcomponents of Learning Style and Strategies……………………….…………..127

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

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

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

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

of Language Learning Strategies………………………………….……………….133

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

Components of Language Learning Strategies…………………………………….134

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

of Learning Style Preferences……………………………………………………..136

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

Components of Learning Style Preferences………………………………………..137

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

Table 4.18: Total Variance Explained……………………………………………………….…140

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

Table 4.20: Summary of the Findings ………………………………………………………….143

LISTS OF FIGURES

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

Learning Style Preferences………………………..………………………………..106

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

Creativity……………………………………………………………………..…….107

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

Creativity………………………………………………………………..………….107

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

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

Learning Style Preferences and Creativity…………………………………….…..112

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

Creativity……………………………………………………………………………..118

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

Preferences and Creativity………………………………………………..………….123

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

Strategies and Learning Style Preferences……………………………………………128

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

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

Strategies………………………………………………………………………….135

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

Preferences………………………………………………………………………..138

 

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS

 

L1: Native Language

L2: Foreign Language

ESL: English as a Second Language

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

CR: Creativity

PLSP: Perceptual Learning Style Preference

SILL: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

ACT: Abedi-Schumacher Creativity Test

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

 

1.1 Introduction

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

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

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

Terms…………………………………………………………………..12

1.5.1 Argumentative text …………………………………………………………………..12

1.5.2 Expository text ………………………………………………………………………12

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

1.5.4 Reading strategy………………………………………………………………….…..13

1.6 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………….14

1.7 Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumption ……………………………………………..16

 

CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature

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

2.1.1 Importance of reading …………………………………….……………………..……22

2.1.2 Approaches to reading skill ……………………………………………..……………25

2.1.3 Reading comprehension theories ……………………………………………………..26

2.1.3.1 Schema Theory …………………………………………………………………27

2.1.3.2. Sub skills View of Reading ……………………………………………………28

2.1.4 Different Kinds of Reading …………………………………………………………..31

2.1.5 Teaching and Learning Reading ……………………………………………………..34

2.1.6 Strategy ………………………………………………………………………………36

2.1.6.1 Learning Strategy ……………………………………………………………..39

2.1.6.2 Reading Strategies …………………………..…………………………………39

2.1.6.2.1 Extensive and Intensive Reading Strategies ……………..……………46

2.1.6.2.2 Cognitive Strategies ……………………………………………………47

2.1.6.2.3 Metacognitive Strategies ………………………………………………49

2.1.6.2.4 Compensation Strategies ………………………………………………50

2.1.6.2.5 Scanning and Skimming Reading Strategies ………………………….51

2.1.7 L1/L2 Reading Strategies ………………..…………………………………………..55

2.1.8. Learner Strategy Training ……………………………………………………………58

2.2 Text ……………….……………………………………………………………………….59

2.2.1 Text comprehension ……………………………………………………………………60

2.2.2 Text type ……………..………………………………………………………………..62

2.2.2.1 Expository text ……….…………………………………………………………68

2.2.2.2 Students with Learning Disabilities and Expository Text ………………………70

2.2.2.3 Argumentative text …………………….………………………………………..73

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

2.2.4 Two Approaches to Text Type Analysis ……..……………………………………….77

2.2.5 Genre and Text Type ………………………………………………………………….79

CHAPTER III: Method

3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………86

3.2 Participants …………………………………………………………..…………………….88

3.3 Instrumentation …………………………………………………………………………….88

3.3.1 Test of Reading Comprehension …….……………………………………..………….88

3.3.2 Reading strategies questionnaire ……………………………………………………….91

3.4 Procedure …………………..………………………………………………………………91

3.5 Design …………….……………………………………………………………………….93

3.6 Statistical Analysis ………………..……………………………………………………….94

CHAPTER IV: Research and Discussion

4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………..96

4.2 Restatement of the Research Hypotheses …………………….……………………………96

4.3 Reliability Analysis ………………………………………………………………………..98

4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the SILL Questionnaire ………………………………………….99

4.5 Descriptive Statistics of the Reading Comprehension Tests ……………….…………….101

4.6 Testing the Hypotheses of the Study ……………………………….…………………….107

4.7 Discussion of the Findings ………………..………………………………………………124

CHAPTER V: Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications

5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….130

5.2 Procedures and Summery of the Findings ….…………………………………………….130

5.3 Pedagogical Implications ………………………………………………………………….131

5.4 Suggestions for Further Research ……………………………….………………………..133

References………………………………………………………………………………………134

Appendices

Appendix A …………………….…………………………………………………………….153

Appendix B …………………….……………………………………………………………..158

Appendix C …………..……………………………………………………………………….160

Appendix D ………..…………………………………………………………………………162

Appendix E ………….………………………………………………………………………..164

Appendix F ……………..…………………………………………………………………….166

Appendix G ……………………………………..……………………………………………167

Appendix H …………………..………………………………………………………………169

Appendix I …………………………………………………………………………………….171

Appendix J ……………………………………………………………………………………173

Appendix K ……………………………………………..……………………………………175

Appendix L …………..……………………………………………………………………….177

Appendix M …………………………………………………………………………………..179

Lists of Tables

Table 2.1 Genres and Text Types ………………..…………………………………………….182

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

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

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

Table 3.4 The Variables of the Study …………………………………………………………..186

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

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

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

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

Table 4.5 Normality checks of SILL scores distributions ……………………………………..191

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

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

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

Table 4.9 Normality checks of Argumentative test scores distributions ………………………195

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4.18 Model Summary ……………….…………………………………………………..204

Table 4.19 ANOVA of regression model ………..…………………………………………….205

Table 4.20 Model Summary ………………………….………………………………………..206

Table 4.21 ANOVA of regression model ………………………………………………………207

Table 4.22 Model Summary …………………………………………………………..……….208

Table 4.23 ANOVA of regression model ……………………………..……………………….209

Table 4.24 Model Summary ……………………………………………………………………210

Table 4.25 ANOVA of regression model ………………………………………………………211

Table 4.26 Model Summary …………………….……………………………………………..212

Table 4.27 ANOVA of regression model ………………………………………………………213

Table 4.28 Model Summary ……………………………………………………………………214

Table 4.29 ANOVA of regression model ……………………………..……………………….215

Table 4.30 Model Summary ……………………………………………………………………216

Table 4.31 ANOVA of regression model ………………………………………………………217

Table 4.32 Model Summary ……………………………………………………………………218

Table 4.33 ANOVA of regression model ………………………………………………………219

 

 

Lists of Figures

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

Figure 4.2 Distribution of Intermediates’ SILL Scores …………..……………………………222

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

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

Figure 4.5 Distribution of Intermediates’ Expository Test Scores ………………….…………225

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

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

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

Figure 4.9 Distribution of Advances’ Argumentative Test Scores …………………………….229

 

CHAPTER I

 

Background and Purpose