متن کامل پایان نامه مقطع کارشناسی ارشد رشته :زبان انگلیسی

 

 

 

عنوان : پایان نامه رشته زبان انگلیسی:تفاوت مهارت نوشتن گروهی زبان آموزان درونگرا و برونگرا

 

 

 

دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی

 

واحد تهران مرکزی

 

دانشکده زبان‌های خارجی، گروه زبان انگلیسی

 

 

 

پایان نامه برای دریافت درجه کارشناسی ارشد (M.A)

 

عنوان:

 

تفاوت مهارت نوشتن گروهی زبان آموزان درونگرا و برونگرا

 

 

 

استاد راهنما:

 

دکتر عبدالله برادران

 

 

 

سال تحصیلی 94-93

 

برای رعایت حریم خصوصی نام نگارنده پایان نامه درج نمی شود

 

(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)

 

تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :

 

(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)

 

ABSTRACT

 

The present study is an attempt to investigate the difference between extrovert and introvert EFL learners’ cooperative writing. Initially 150 intermediate learners were asked to participate in the study. They sat in a PET and 90 homogenous learners, in term of language proficiency, were selected to fill Persian translation of Eysenck Personality Inventory questionnaire. Based on the results, 30 introvert and 30 extrovert learners were randomly assigned to two experimental groups. Both groups received a model of cooperative learning, i.e. Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) as their treatment. After the treatment was done, they were asked to cooperatively write two essays in descriptive voice on two different topics. Their writings were scored based on Jacobs, Zingraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, and Hughery (1981) scoring profile by two raters, and the mean of each student’s scores was considered as their cooperative writing score. Then the performance of extrovert and introvert learners on the test was compared using independent samples t-test. The results indicated that introvert learners significantly outperformed extrovert learners.

 

TABLE OF CONTENT

 

ABSTRACT. 1

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 1

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS. i

 

LIST OF TABLES. iii

 

LIST OF FIGURES. iv

 

 

 

C H A P T E R   I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE. 1

 

1.1 Introduction. 2

 

2.1 Statement of the Problem.. 5

 

3.1 Statement of the Research Question. 8

 

4.1 Statement of the Research Hypothesis. 9

 

5.1 Definition of Key Terms. 9

 

6.1 Significance of the Study. 10

 

7.1 Limitations and Delimitation. 11

 

 

 

C H A P T E R   II : REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE. 12

 

2.1 Overview.. 13

 

2.2 Need for Writing. 13

 

2.3 Cooperative Writing: subcategory of Cooperative Learning. 15

 

2.4 Cooperative Writing Features. 17

 

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 ).

 

By the sake of writing, learners can participate in a productive practice which sometimes can motivates them to learn new language elements and structures during constant process of reviewing and drafting. Moreover, according to Celce-Murcia (1991), it fosters higher order cognitive activities and mental processing, which is an important component of learning. In addition, it invites feedback, either overt or covert, based on which students make adjustments in their learned language system.

 

Writing has always been regarded as an important part of academic life which serves different functions and purposes. But writing has always been a difficult skill (Graham, Harris & Manson, 2005) so teachers need some ways to encourage learners and motivate them to write. One way for motivating learners to write is use of cooperative learning techniques. Humans are social and cooperation has been used in all aspects of our lives.  So, cooperative learning groups in learning situations can be an acceptable teaching approach.  (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Kagan, 1990; Slavin, 1995).

 

According to Deutch (1999) Kurt Lewin field theory and social interdependence have great roles in cooperative

 learning. Social interdependence started in early 1900s. Kurt Koffka who was one of the major figures of Gestalt psychology suggested that interdependence is different in dynamic wholes. “For interdependence to exist there must be more than one person or entity involved, and the persons or entities must have impact on each other in that a change in the state of one causes a change in the state of the others. It may be concluded that it is the drive for goal accomplishment that motivates cooperative and competitive behavior.” (Sharan, 2010, p.113)

 

In the late 1940s, one of Lewin’s graduate students, Morton Deutsch, extended Lewin’s reasoning about social interdependence and formulated a theory of cooperation and competition. Deutsch’s basic premise was that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines how individuals interact with each other which, in turn, largely determine outcomes. “Positive interdependence tends to result in promotive interaction; negative interdependence tends to result in oppositional interaction, and no interdependence results in an absence of interaction.”(Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. 2008, p.121)

 

Cooperative writing is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. In this way students will interact with each other and the teacher during the instructional session. As Johnson & Johnson (2008) stated within cooperative situations, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other group members.

 

“The basic elements are Positive interdependence, Promotive interaction, Interpersonal and small group skills, Group processing, and individual and group accountability which are essential for effective group learning, achievement, and higher-order social, personal and cognitive skills (e.g., problem solving, reasoning, decision-making, planning, organizing, and reflecting).” (Johnson, D.W & Johnson R.T. 2005, pp.285-360)

 

According to Sharan, Y. (2010) the benefits of cooperative learning are a better mutual relationship, respect, and higher communication. It also has advantages in thinking strategies.  Competitive learners have difficulty in obtaining a balance between being competitive and interacting with others. Their emotional interaction and trust are two other concerns.

 

Personality types are distinguished from personality traits, which come in different levels or degrees. For example, according to type theories, there are two types of people, introverts and extroverts.), Myers and Briggs (1995 as cited in Bernsterin, Penner, Clarke, Stewart, and Roy 2008) introversion and extroversion are part of a continuous dimension, with many people in the middle.

 

Although extroversion maybe considered as socially desirable, it is not always an advantage. Conversely, while introversion maybe perceived as less socially desirable, it is strongly associated with positive traits such as intelligence and giftedness for many years, researchers have found that introverts tend to be more successful in academic environments, which extroverts may find boring. Personality traits, along with other factors such as skill and interest, are used to predict future academic and career performance.”(Ryckman 2004, p.61).

 

2.1 Statement of the Problem

 

Many EFL teachers complain and wonder why their students do not show considerable improvement in their writings every time they check the students’ writings. This shortcoming on the part of a student’s maybe partly due to personality traits and partly due to atmosphere of the class which is more competitive and teacher-centered rather than cooperative and learner-centered.

 

Surely, these teachers are not aware of benefits of cooperative writing. Moreover, they may not be aware that learning will not occur at all until students are motivated and psychologically and affectively ready to learn.

 

Furthermore, teachers probably expect all the students to the inputs in an identical way despite their totally different personalities. Put in other words, these teachers ignore the fact that each student is totally different human being with his/her unique cognitive style and personality.

 

According to Hobson & Schafermeyer (1994) writing is a productive activity that involves learners in an active participation and activates their mental processing by its nature of revision, examination and decision making which require higher order of thinking skills.

 

It also seems that teachers need to create a classroom atmosphere that encourages students to participate in all activities including writing. In most of the cases, classes are populated and consist of mixed-ability students, with fast and slow students together. Given these situations, how can the teacher involve all the students in the activities and let them have an active role in the class? A possible solution to this problem is that the teacher should increase the opportunity for students’ participation. Many ways have been proposed in this regard. One way is Cooperative Writing.

 

The researcher’s interest in Cooperative writing came from the observation of Iranian EFL learners in Tehran institutions and universities which had problems in group work with their learning and mostly had competitive rather than cooperative interests and how it is possible to boost cooperation among them through teaching writing skill.

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 استفاده 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

 

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.

 

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)

متن کامل پایان نامه مقطع کارشناسی ارشد رشته :زبان انگلیسی

 

 

 

عنوان : پایان نامه رشته زبان انگلیسی:The Effect of Three Semantic Mapping Strategies on the Reading Comprehension of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners in Kerman

 

 

 

 

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

 

برای رعایت حریم خصوصی نام نگارنده پایان نامه درج نمی شود

 

(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)

 

تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :

 

(ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل اصلی به داخل سایت بعضی متون به هم بریزد یا بعضی نمادها و اشکال درج نشود ولی در فایل دانلودی همه چیز مرتب و کامل است)

 

Table of Contents

 

Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………….….I

 

Table of Contents ………………………………………….………………………….….…II

 

List of Tables……………………………………………………….…………..……………VI

 

List of Graphs……………………………………………………………………………….VII

 

Abstract ………………………………………………………………….…………….…VIII

 

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

 

• Overview……………………………………………………………………………….1

 

• Rationale and Background…..……………………………………..………………….1

1-2-1. Foreign Language Learning Strategies..……………………………………………1

 

1-2-2. Learning Strategies and Learning Skills………….….………….…………….…..2

 

1-2-3. Learning Strategies and Reading Comprehension…..…………………..…………3

 

1-2-3-1. Visual Reading vs. Reading Comprehension………………………………5

 

1-2-4. Semantic Mapping and Reading Comprehension……….…………….… ……….6

 

1-2-4-1. The Effectiveness of Semantic Maps………..……………………………8

 

1-2-4-2. Problems of Implementation. ……………….……………………..…….12

 

• Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………..……..13

 

• 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

 

 

 

• 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.