متن کامل پایان نامه مقطع کارشناسی ارشد رشته :زبان انگلیسی

 

عنوان : The Relationship among EFL Learners’ Use of Language Learning Strategies, Reading Strategies, and Reading Comprehension

 

 

 

 

 

Islamic Azad University

 

At Central Tehran

 

Faculty of Foreign Languages

 

English Department

 

 

 

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (TEFL)

 

 

 

The Relationship among EFL Learners’ Use of Language Learning Strategies, Reading Strategies, and Reading Comprehension

 

 

 

ADVISOR:

 

Dr. ABDOLLAH BARADARAN

 

READER:

 

Dr. MANIA NOSRATINIA

 

 

 

November 2013

 

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 purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship among EFL learners’ use of learning strategies, reading strategies, and reading comprehension. To fulfill this objective, 150 female EFL learners, between 25 and 42 years old, who were selected randomly from amongst those who were attending in upper-intermediate level of Safir language school were asked to take part in a piloted PET reading comprehension test and two questionnaires on Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), and Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS). After discarding incomplete answer sheets, the acceptable cases were used in statistical analysis.

 

At first the PET was piloted and it was declared that it was reliable. Then the results from the main administration were analyzed to exclude the descriptive data; it showed that there was no skewness in the results. The next step was to test the hypotheses; in this regards, Pearson’s product moment correlation was applied and the outcome showed that the three hypotheses were rejected.

 

After analyzing the results it was concluded that the use of reading strategies has positive effect (r=0.93) on learners’ learning. Also it was shown that using learning strategies has a positive effect (r=0.61) on learners’ reading comprehension; construing that the reading strategies and language learning strategies have positive and high correlation with learners’ comprehension.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                                                                        ii

 

ABSTRACT                                                                                               iii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                         iv

 

LIST OF TABLES                                                                                    vii

 

LIST OF FIGURES                                                                                  viii

 

 

 

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE                                   1

 

1.1 Introduction                                                                                          2

 

1.2 Statement of the Problem                                                                     5

 

1.3 Statement of the Research Questions                                                   6

 

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypotheses                                                 7

 

1.5 Definition of Key Terms                                                                       7

 

1.5.1 Learning Strategies                                                                            7

 

1.5.2 Reading Comprehension                                                          8

 

1.5.3 Reading Strategies                                                                   8

 

1.6 Significance of the Study                                                                      9

 

1.7 Limitations and Delimitations                                                              11

 

1.7.1 Limitations                                                                               11

 

1.7.2 Delimitations                                                                                      12

 

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE             13

 

2.1 Introduction                                                                                          14

 

2.2 Language Learning Strategies                                                               14

 

2.2.1 Categories of Language Learning Strategies                                      15

 

2.2.2 Language Learning and Strategy use                                        17

 

2.3 Reading                                                                                                21

 

2.3.1 Types of Reading                                                                     22

 

2.3.2 Components of Reading                                                          23

 

2.4 Reading Comprehension                                                                      25

 

2.4.1 Theories of Reading Comprehension                                       26

 

2.4.2 Definitions of Reading Comprehension                                             27

 

2.4.3 Categories of Reading Comprehension                                              28

 

2.5 Reading Strategies                                                                                29

 

2.5.1 Definitions of Reading Strategies                                             31

 

2.5.2 Categories of Reading Strategies                                                        32

 

2.5.3 Reading Strategies and Reading Comprehension                     33

 

CHAPTER III: METHOD                                                                       36

 

3.1 Introduction                                                                                          37

 

3.2 Participants                                                                                          37

 

3.3 Instrumentations                                                                                  37

 

3.3.1 The Language Learning Questionnaire                                              38

 

3.3.2 The Reading Strategies Questionnaire                                               40

 

3.3.3 Reading Comprehension Test                                                  41

 

3.4 Procedure                                                                                             41

 

3.5 Design                                                                                                  42

 

3.6 Statistical Analysis                                                                               42

 

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS OF DATA                                                   43

 

4.1 Introduction                                                                                          44

 

4.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Pilot Study                                                         44

 

4.3 Descriptive Statistics of the Main Administration                                46

 

4.3.1 Descriptive Statistics of the Language Learning Questionnaire         46

 

4.3.1.1 Memory Strategies                                                      48

 

4.3.1.2 Cognitive Strategies                                                    50

 

4.3.1.3 Compensation Strategies                                             51

 

4.3.1.4 Meta-cognitive Strategies                                            53

 

4.3.1.5 Affective Strategies                                                     54

 

4.3.1.6 Social Strategies                                                          56

 

4.3.1.7 Comparing the SILL’s Categories                                57

 

4.3.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Reading Strategies Questionnaire          59

 

4.3.3 Descriptive Statistics of the Reading Comprehension Test               60

 

4.4 Testing the Hypotheses                                                                        61

 

4.4.1 Testing the First Hypothesis                                                    62

 

4.4.2 Testing the Second Hypothesis                                                         62

 

4.4.3 Testing the Third Hypothesis                                                  63

 

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS                         65     

 

5.1 Introduction                                                                                          66

 

5.2 Procedure and Summary of the Findings                                                       66

 

5.3 Discussion                                                                                            67

 

5.4 Pedagogical Implications                                                                      69

 

5.4.1 Implications for EFL Teachers                                                 70

 

5.4.2 Implications for EFL Learners                                                 71

 

5.4.3 Implications for Syllabus designers                                         72

 

5.5 Suggestions for Further Research                                                                  72

 

REFERENCES                                                                                         73

 

APPANICES                                                                                             81

 

Appendix A: Learning Strategies Questionnaire                                        82

 

Appendix B: Reading Strategies Questionnaire                                          84

 

Appendix C: Reading Comprehension Test                                                     86

 

 

 

List of Tables

 

Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of the PET Reading Comprehension Test Piloting               45

 

Table 4.2: Reliability of the PET Reading Comprehension Test Piloting                       45

 

Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of the SILL Questionnaire Administration                           47

 

Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics of the Memory Strategies                                           49

 

Table 4.5: Descriptive Statistics of the Cognitive Strategies                                          50

 

Table 4.6: Descriptive Statistics of the Compensation Strategies                                            52

 

Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics of the Meta-cognitive Strategies                                 53

 

Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics of the Affective Strategies                                           55

 

Table 4.9: Descriptive Statistics of the Social Strategies                                                         56

 

Table 4.10: Descriptive Statistics of the SILL Categories Means                                            58

 

Table 4.11: Descriptive Statistics of the SORS Questionnaire Administration                       59

 

Table 4.12: Descriptive Statistics of the PET Reading Comprehension

 

Test Administration                                                                                              60

 

Table 4.13: Correlation between Reading Strategies and Reading

 

Comprehension                                                                                           62

 

Table 4.14: Correlation between Language Learning Strategies and

 

Reading Comprehension                                                                              63

 

Table 4.15: Correlation between Language Learning Strategies and

 

Reading Strategies                                                                                        64

 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

Figure 4.1: Score Distribution of the SILL Questionnaire                                                         48

 

Figure 4.2: Score Distribution of Memory Strategies                                                    50

 

Figure 4.3: Score Distribution of Cognitive Strategies                                                   51

 

Figure 4.4: Score Distribution of Compensation Strategies                                           53

 

Figure 4.5: Score Distribution of Meta-cognitive Strategies                                          54

 

Figure 4.6: Score Distribution of Affective Strategies                                                    56

 

Figure 4.7: Score Distribution of Social Strategies                                                                       57

 

Figure 4.8: Score Distribution of Compensation Strategies                                           58

 

Figure 4.9: Score Distribution of the SORS Questionnaire                                            60

 

Figure 4.10: Score Distribution of the PET Questionnaire                                                                61

 

CHAPTER I

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

 

1.1 Introduction

 

Reading is one of the most essential skills for every day interactions; practically, every portion of life comprises reading. Reading includes the activation of relevant knowledge and related language skills to exchange the information from one person to another. In this regard, one has to focus one’s attention on the reading materials and integrate previously obtained knowledge and skills to grasp the things someone else has written (Chastain, 1988).

 

Reading is similar to listening in that they are both receptive skills, during which readers decode the message of the writer and try to rebuild it (Rashtchi & Keyvanfar, 2010). Indeed, reading can be identified as a negotiation between the reader and the text or between the reader and the author. Throughout such an active participation, the reader tries to either personally decipher the text or recognize the author’s original intention.

 

It is worth mentioning that in fact, reading does not occur unaccompanied; rather, it always occurs within a social context for a particular motive. People might read a text, such as a manual, to get information on how to do something or how to use something. Besides, they might study textbooks and course books to learn something; Furthermore, they sometimes read the texts such as emails or messages in order to socialize with their friends. People also read the texts related to their daily life, such as reading a map to find the shortest itinerary to a particular destination. Constantly one reads for pleasure; some examples of reading for pleasure include reading a novel or browsing the internet. Finally, under some circumstances, reading might happen for a blend of intentions.

 

It is always recommended that the readers use reading to increase their general awareness of language as well as their world knowledge; for, reading is a skill that can be accomplished privately on one’s own velocity. Reading skill is far more momentous for EFL learners. It is crucial to a student’s success in school, and further, to becoming a lifelong learner.

 

Reading is also a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols in order to construct or derive meaning (reading comprehension). Reading is a necessary tool for language acquisition, communication, and sharing information and ideas. It includes a complex interaction between the text and the reader which is affected by the reader’s prior knowledge, experiences, attitudes, and language community in cultural and social situations.

 

Effective reading is not a process that every individual can achieve (Nunan, 1999). Rather, it is difficult to learn, especially for those who want to read texts in a second or foreign language. When learning a foreign language, reading is an essential skill to acquire in order to increase knowledge and exchange information (Chien, 2000; Dlugosz, 2000; Salinger, 2003; Huang, 2005). However, most English instructors still concentrate on correcting the learners’ grammatical mistakes or increasing their vocabulary. To improve learners’ reading abilities, the instructors must wisely consider effective strategies and supportive tools. In contrary, the instructors seldom teach learners how to effectively use learning strategies to improve their reading comprehension; consequently, learners cannot master the language skills effectively (Berkowitz 1986; Carnine and Carnine 2004; Chi, 1997; Griffiths, 2008; Rivard and Yore 1992; Tsao, 2004).

 

Strategies are defined as specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students (often deliberately) use to improve their progress in developing L2 skills. These strategies can facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of the new language. They are also tools for the self-directed involvement, which is necessary to develop language skills (Oxford, 1990).

 

Learner strategies, as one of the most important categories of strategies, are specific attacks that learners make on different problems when receiving input or producing output. One type of strategies used by language learners is learning strategies.

 

Park (1995) defines learning strategies as “the mental activities that people use when they study to help themselves acquire, organize, or remember incoming knowledge more efficiently” (p. 35).

 

Also, it is generally accepted that among the strategies, reading strategies are one of the most beneficial ones that any reader can use for ensuring success in reading (Afflerbach, Pearson, and Paris, 2008). They are of interest for what they reveal about the way readers manage their interactions with written text, and how these strategies are related to reading comprehension (Carrell, Pharis, &Liberto, 1989).  Emphasizing on the key role of reading strategies, Afflerbach, Pearson, and Paris (2008) characterize them as “deliberate, goal directed attempts to control and modify the reader’s efforts to decode text, understand word, and construct meanings out of text” (p. 15). These strategies range from simple fix-up strategies such as simply rereading difficult segments and guessing the meaning of an unknown word from context, to more comprehensive strategies such as summarizing and relating what is being read to the reader’s background knowledge (Janzen, 1996).

 

Taking the role of all mentioned strategies into consideration, each of these could be just as a piece of the puzzle. The correlation between reading comprehension as a target and any of these strategies on the one hand and the relationships between each pair of them on the other ha

متن کامل پایان نامه مقطع کارشناسی ارشد رشته :زبان انگلیسی

 

عنوان : THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG EFL TEACHERS’ TEACHING STYLES, NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING, AND AUTONOMY

 

 

 

ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY

 

CENTRAL TEHRAN BRANCH

 

GRADUATE SCHOOL

 

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

 

 

 

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (TEFL)

 

 

 

THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG EFL TEACHERS’ TEACHING STYLES, NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING, AND AUTONOMY

 

 

 

ADVISOR:

 

1. ABDOLLAH BARADARAN

    

 

 

 

Winter 2014

 

برای رعایت حریم خصوصی نام نگارنده پایان نامه درج نمی شود

 

(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)

 

تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :

 

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

 

ABSTRACT

 

The present study was an attempt to investigate the potential relationship among three variables, namely English Language Teachers’ Teaching Styles(TS), Neuro-Linguistic Programming(NLP), and Autonomy (Au). To this end, at the onset of the study, a group of 200 experienced English language teachers at various language schools in Tehran, inter alia Asre Zaban Language Academy, with at least two years of teaching experience were given three questionnaires relevant to the  variables of the study, among which 162 instruments were returned. After being verified, 129 questionnaires, which had been thoroughly completed, were selected. In order to seek the relationship between the variables, non-parametric Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney tests as well as Spearman rho were employed; as a result of which a significant relationship was detected between TS and AU and NLP and TS; however, in terms of the third null hypothesis, NLP was found to be significantly related only to General autonomy. In addition, regression analysis was performed to see whether or not the degree of prediction between the five teaching styles and NLP as predictor variables was different towards teachers’ autonomy as predicted variable; to this end, preparatory analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity. Consequently, teachers’ teaching styles turned out to be the superior variable in predicting teachers’ autonomy.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Title Page …….. ……………………………………………………………………I

 

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………IV

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………….. ……………………..V

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………VII

 

LIST OF TABLES         ………………………………………………………………..XI

 

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………..XIV

 

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE……………………………..….1

 

1.1     Introduction………………………………………………………………….2

 

1.2.    Statement of the Problem………………………………………….…..…….4

 

1.3.    Statement of the Research Questions…………..…………………….………..5

 

1.4.    Statement of the Research Hypotheses       ………………………………………6

 

1.5.    Definition of Key Terms…………………………..…………..…………….7

 

1.5.1. Teachers’ teaching Styles:………………………………………….……………..7

 

1.5.2. Autonomy:……………………………………………………………………8

 

1.5.3. Neuro-Linguistic Programming:……………..……………………………….9

 

1.6.    Significance of the Study…………………………………………..……….10

 

1.7.    Limitations, Delimitations ……………………………………………….…11

 

1.7.1. Limitations……………………………………………………………….….11

 

1.7.2. Delimitations…….…………………………………………………………12

 

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE…………………..13

 

2.1.    Introduction…………………………………………………………………14

 

2.2.    Teachers’ Teaching Styles………………………………………………….15

 

2.2.1. Definition & Influencing Factors…………………………………..………15

 

2.2.2. Learners’ side: learning styles, strategies, prefer..ences and nee…….……..17

 

2.2.3.          Performance and Context…………………………………………….…….20

 

2.2.4.          Teaching Approaches and Methodologies………………………………….21

 

2.3.    Neuro-Linguistic Programming………………..…………………….…….24

 

2.3.1. History………………………………………………………………………25

 

2.3.2.          Definition…………….………………………………………….………….26

 

2.3.3.          NLP Fundamentals, Products & Essence……………………………..……29

 

2.4.    Autonomy…………………………………………………………………..31

 

2.4.1.   Definition ………………………………………………………..………..31

 

2.4.2. Learners’ Autonomy vs. Teachers’ Autonomy………………………….…34

 

2.4.3. Autonomy in Language Learning Setting…………..………………..…….38

 

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY…………..…………………………….…….41

 

3.1.    Introduction……………………………………………………………..….42

 

3.2.    Participants……………………………………………………….…………42

 

3.3.    Instrumentation…………..…………………………………………………43

 

3.3.1. Grasha Teaching Style Inventory Questionnaire …………………………..44

 

3.3.2. Neuro-Linguistic Programming Questionnaire …………………………….45

 

3.3.3.          Teacher Autonomy Survey…………………………………………………48

 

3.4.    Procedure…..…………………………………………………………………49

 

3.5.    Design……………………………………………………………………….50

 

3.6.    Statistical Analyses…………………………………………………………51

 

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………52

 

4.1.    Introduction…………………………………………………………………53

 

4.2.    The Results of the Study…………………………………………….……..54

 

4.2.1.          Reliability of the Instruments…………………………………………..…..54

 

4.2.1.1.       Reliability of Teachers’ Autonomy Scale……….…………………….54

 

4.2.1.2.       Reliability of Grasha Teaching Style Inventory….…………………55

 

4.2.1.3.       Reliability of NLP Scale…………………………………………….56

 

4.2.2. Testing the First Null Hypothesis:…………….………………………..….56

 

4.2.2.1. Frequency Statistics of Different Teaching Styles……………………….57

 

4.2.2.2. Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………..58

 

4.2.2.3. Tests of Normality…………………………..…………………………   72

 

4.2.2.4. Final Results                                                                                                 75

 

4.2.3. Testing the Second Null Hypothesis……………………………………….78

 

4.2.3.1. Frequency Statistics of Different Teaching Styles.……    …………….….78

 

4.2.3.2. Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………..80

 

4.2.3.3.  Tests of Normality……………………………………………………….86

 

4.2.3.4. Final Results………………………………………………………………87

 

4.2.4.. Testing the Third Null Hypothesis…………………………………………………..90

 

4.2.4.1. Assumption of Linearity………………..…………………………………90

 

4.2.4.2.Assumption of Normality……..……………………………………………..92

 

4.2.4.3. Final Results                                                                                       92

 

4.2.4. Testing the Fourth Null Hypothesis..………………………………………93

 

4.2.4.1. Assumption of Multicollinearity…………………………………………94

 

4.2.4.2. Assumption of Normality…………………………………………………97

 

4.2.4.3. Assumption of Homoscedasticity………………………………..………99

 

4.3. Discussion……………………………………………………………………110

 

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS…….113

 

5.1.    Introduction……………..…………………………………………………114

 

5.2.    Procedure and Summary of the Findings…………….…………………..114

 

5.3.    Conclusion………………………………………………………………..116

 

5.4.    Pedagogical Implications…………………..……………………………..117

 

5.4.1. Implications for EFL Teachers……………………………………………117

 

5.4.2. Implications for EFL Learners……………………………..……………..118

 

5.4.3.           Implications for Language School Managers……………………………..119

 

5.4.4. Implications for Syllabus Designers………………………………………120

 

5.5.    Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………………121

 

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..122

 

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………131

 

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

 

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Reza Pishghadam, 2011)……………………..135

 

Teaching Style Inventory: Version 3.0 (Grasha, 1994)………………………….136

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

 

 

Table 3.1 Distribution of Questions with Relevant Teaching Styles                                          45

 

Table 3.2 Distribution of Questions with Relevant Autonomy Types                                                 49

 

Table 3.3 The Categories of the Variables                                                                                           50

 

Table 4.1 Reliability of Each Factor of NLP Questionnaire                                                      .56

 

Table 4.2 Expert Frequency Statistics …………………………………….                                  57

 

Table 4.3 Formal Authority Frequency Statistics                                                                                  57

 

Table 4.4 Personal Model Frequency Statistics                                                                                     57

 

Table 4.5 Facilitator Frequency Statistics                                                                                    57

 

Table 4.6 Delegator Frequency Statistics                                                                                              58

 

Table 4.7 General, Curriculum and Total Autonomy Descriptives                                             58

 

Table 4.8 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Expert Teaching Style                                    60

 

Table 4.9 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Formal Authority Teaching Stylee              62

 

Table 4.10 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Personal Model Teaching Style                    65

 

Table 4.11 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Facilitator Teaching Style                          67

 

 

Table 4.12 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Delegator Teaching Style                          70

 

Table 4.13 Tests of Normality Regarding Expert                                                                                      73

 

Table 4.14 Tests of Normality Regarding Formal Authority                                                           73

 

Table 4.15Tests of Normality Regarding Personal Model                                                                         74

 

Table 4.16 Tests of Normality Regarding Facilitator                                                                         74

 

Table 4.17 Tests of Normality Regarding Delegator                                                                         74

 

Table 4.18 Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Expert                                                                  75

 

Table 4.19 Comparing Autonomy acrossCategories of Formal Authority                                                  76

 

Table 4.20 Comparing Autonomy acrossCategories of Personal Model                                                    76

 

Table 4.21 Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Facilitator                                                          77

 

Table 4.22 Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Delegator                                         77

 

Table 4.23 Expert Frequency Statistics                                                                                                     78

 

Table 4.24 Formal Authority Frequency Statistics                                                                                    78

 

Table 4.25  Personal Model Frequency Statistics                                                                                      78

 

Table 4.26 Facilitator Frequency Statistics                                                                                                78

 

Table 4.27 Delegator Frequency Statistics                                                                                                79

 

Table 4.28 NLP Descriptive Statistics                                                                                             80

 

Table 4.29 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Expert Teaching Style                                  80

 

Table 4.30 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Formal Authority Teaching Style                             82

 

Table 4.31 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Personal Model Teaching Style                    83

 

Table 4.32 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Facilitator Teaching Style                                     84

 

Table 4.33 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Delegator Teaching Style                                         85

 

Table 4.34 Tests of Normality Regarding Expert Style                                                                   86

 

Table 4.35 Tests of Normality Regarding Formal Authority Style                                                               86

 

Table 4.36 Tests of Normality Regarding Personal Model Style                                                                 87

 

Table 4.37 Tests of Normality Regarding Facilitator Style                                                             87

 

Table 4.38 Tests of Normality Regarding Delegator Style                                                              87

 

Table 4.39 Comparing NLP across Categories of Expert                                                                           88

 

Table 4.40 Comparing NLP across Categories of Formal Authority                                                88

 

Table 4.41 Comparing NLP across Categories of Personal Model                                                              88

 

Table 4.42 Comparing NLP across Categories of Facilitator                                                           89

 

Table 4.43 Comparing NLP across Categories of Delegator                                                            89

 

Table 4.44 Tests of Normality                                                                                                        92

 

Table 4.45 Correlations among Curriculum, General and Total Autonomy and NLP                      93

 

Table 4.46 General Autonomy Correlations                                                                                94

 

  Table 4.47 Curriculum Autonomy Correlations                                                                                        95

 

Table 4.48 Total Autonomy Correlations                                                                                                    96

 

Table 4.49 Descriptive Statistics of General Autonomy, Styles and NLP                                                  101

 

Table 4.50 Descriptive Statistics of Curriculum Autonomy, Styles and NLP                                102

 

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

 

Table 4.52 Variables Entered/Removed                                                                                                    102

 

Table 4.53 Variables Entered/Removed                                                                                                    103

 

Table 4.54 Variables Entered/Removed                                                                                                    103

 

Table 4.55 Model Summary (General Autonomy)                                                                        104

 

Table 4.56 Model Summary (Total Autonomy)                                                                                        104

 

Table 4.57 Model Summary (Curriculum Autonomy)                                                                  104

 

Table 4.58 ANOVA (General Autonomy)                                                                                    105

 

Table 4.59 ANOVA (Curriculum Autonomy)                                                                               105

 

Table 4.60 ANOVA (Total Autonomy)                                                                                                    105

 

Table 4.61 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: General Autonomy)                                            107

 

Table 4.62 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy)                                                  108

 

Table 4.63 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy)                                                            110

 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

 

 

Figure 4.1 General Autonomy Scatter Plot                                                                              90

 

Figure 4.2 Curriculum Autonomy Scatter Plot                                                                         90

 

Figure 4.3 Total Autonomy Scatter Plot                                                                                                90

 

F

igure 4.4 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals

 

Dependent Variable: General Autonomy                                                                                     98

 

Figure 4.5 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals

 

Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy                                                                               98

 

Figure 4.6 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals

 

 Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy                                                                                                   99

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

CHAPTER

 

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE

 

• Introduction

   

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

رشد جمعیت و به موازات آن مصرف روز افزون  و بکارگیری روش های جدید علمی و فنی باعث افزایش تولید محصولات مصرفی شده و این مرهون استفاده بالای منابع انرژی موجود در جهان می شود. مصرف بی رویه از منابع انرژی و پیامد های نامطلوب زیست محیطی آن تفکر چاره اندیشی را در بشر قوت بخشیده است. در حال حاظر اصلی ترین منبع انرژی (به طور متوسط در مقیاس جهانی نزدیک به % 70 ) را سوخت های فسیلی مثل زغال سنگ، نفت، و گاز طبیعی به خود اختصاص داده اند و به دنبال این ها منابع سوخت های هسته ای و منابع هیدرولیکی هستند که می توانند به عنوان تامین کننده منبع انرژی مد نظر باشند. سوخت های فسیلی  جزء منابع انرژی تجدید نشدنی هستند. محدودیت ها و عدم امکان بازیافت سوخت های فسیلی، سوزاندن نامعقولانه و دیگر فاکتور های منفی نه تنها ضرورت استفاده بهینه و بجا از سوخت های فسیلی را می طلبد، بلکه ضرورت جایگزین کردن منابع انرژی دیگر را به جای سوخت های فسیلی به عنوان مسئله مهم وجدی مطرح می سازد. منابع هیدرولیکی نیز که مربوط به منابع انرژی تجدید شونده هستند مورد استفاده قرار می گیرند. اما هنوز نمی توانند به طور کامل مشخصا و تماما جایگزین سوخت های فسیلی شوند.

 

 

امید های فراوانی به سوخت هسته ای و انرژی هسته ای وجود دارد، جاییکه اورانیوم به عنوان سوخت مصرف می شود. اورانیوم نه تنها در سطح زمین بلکه در اعماق اقیانوس ها ی جهان به وفور یافت می شود. این امکان که بتوان تمامی ذخائر اورانیوم را به سوخت هسته ای قابل شکافت تبدیل کرد وجود دارد. با سوختن اورانیوم در راکتور های هسته ای سوخت ثانویه ای بنام پلوتونیوم  به دست می آید. تولید سوخت هسته ای ثانویه می تواند موجب کاهش ضرورت استخراج اورانیوم طبیعی شود.

 

تاریخ پیشرفت و گسترش انرژی هسته ای نسبتا کوتاه است. می توان شروع آن را از راه اندازی اولین نیروگاه برق اتمی در اتحاد جماهیر شوروی سابق در ژانویه 1954 دانست. سپس در پی آن در بریتانیای کبیر 1956، ایالات متحده آمریکا 1958 و در ادامه در بسیاری از کشورهای جهان. عملا در دهه 1950 بود که اولین تجربه صنعتی استفاده از انرژی هسته ای با اهداف صلح آمیز صورت گرفت.

 

تولید قدرت بواسطه شکافت هسته ای در راکتور‎هایی که معمولا با سوخت اورانیوم بارگذاری شده است مستلزم یک واکنش زنجیره ای کنترل شده می‎باشد. عبارت واکنش ذنجیره ای کنترل شده  بدین معنی است که سیستم بگونه ای مرتب شده است که تعداد نوترون‎هایی که باعث شکافت هسته ای در یک نسل (چرخه) می‎شوند دقیقا برابر با تعداد نوترون‎های نسل بعد باشند. در این حالت وضعیت راکتور در حالت تعادل یا به اصطلاح بحرانی است.

­ای بر بلور مایع

 

یونانیان باستان، عالم را متشکل از چهار عنصر آتش، خاک، آب و هوا می­دانستند. امروزه دانشمندان به کمک این عناصر، تمام اجزای تشکیل دهنده­ی جهان را آن­طور که هست، توضیح می­دهند. آتش بیانگر انرژی و سه عنصر دیگر بیانگر سه حالت ماده جامد، مایع و گاز می­باشد.

 

در جامدات، نیروهای بین مولکولی به قدری قوی­تر از انرژی جنبشی هستند که باعث سخت شدن جسم و در نتیجه عدم جاری شدن آن می­گردند. مولکول­ها در مکان­های خاصی جای می­گیرند ­و فقط در اطراف این مکان­ها می­توانند حرکت نوسانی رفت و برگشتی بسیار کوچک انجام دهند. مرکز ثقل ماده در ساختار آن­ها ثابت است و حجم و شکل هندسی معینی دارند. جامدات نظم ساختاری بلند برد دارند و به دو دسته­ی بی­شکل و بلوری دسته­بندی می­شوند. جامدات بلوری همگن هستند و اتم­های آن­ها دارای آرایش منظمی بوده، خواص فیزیکی و نوری

 متنوعی را از خود نشان می­دهند.

 

مایعات و گازها شاره هستند یعنی جریان می­یابند و نمی­توانند مانند جامدات با اعمال نیروی پس­زنی کشسانی، در مقابل تغییر شکل مقاومت کنند. در گازها فاصله­ی مولکول­ها نسبتاً زیاد بوده و آزادی حرکت قابل توجهی دارند. ظرف را بدون توجه به شکل فیزیکی­اش، تقریباً همگن پر می­کنند و دارای تراکم­پذیری مناسبی هستند. ساده­ترین گازها، گازهای ایده­آل هستند که در آنها هیچ بر هم کنشی بین مولکول­ها در نظر گرفته نمی­شود.

 

در حالت مایع، مولکول­ها نسبت به گازها به هم نزدیک­ترند، توسط نیروی گرانش کاتوره­ای توزیع شده­اند، مولکول­ها در همه­ی جهات آزادی حرکت دارند و به دلیل نیروی دافعه­ی کوتاه برد میان اتم­ها یا مولکول­ها تا اندازه­ای در آن­ها نظم کوتاه بردی دیده می­شود و از گازها چگال­ترند. اتم­ها و مولکول­های مایعات به راحتی می­توانند جا به جا شوند. مایعات به دلیل نداشتن نظم مکانی دور برد، در مقابل تغییر شکل برشی، مقاومتی از خود نشان نمی­دهند و تحت تأثیر نیروی وزن یا نیروهای دیگر، به آسانی جریان می­یابند. در قرن نوزدهم میلادی، در میان تقسیمات مواد، فاز جدیدی از ماده تحت عنوان بلور مایع کشف شد که هم دارای خاصیت شناوری همچون مایعات بوده و هم تا حدی نظم بلوری داشت. در واقع این مواد، دارای ساختاری بین یک سیال همسانگرد و بلور جامد بود .در این قرن، پزشک آلمانی به نام رودلف

 

 

 

ویرکو[1] اولین کسی بود که حالت مایع بلوری را به کمک میکروسکوپ مشاهده کرد. در سال1853  میلادی ، یک ماده­ی نرم و شناور را از هسته­ی عصب توصیف کرد و آن را میلین[2] نامید. این ماده به صورت چربی سفید رنگ بوده و بعضی از اعصاب را می­پوشاند. البته وی در آن زمان متوجه نشد که این ماده یک مایع بلوری است. تا این که در سال 1888 میلادی، یک گیاه­شناس اتریشی به نام فردریک رنیتزر[3] مشاهده کرد که وقتی کلسترول بنزوات[4] را ذوب می­کند مانند سایر ترکیبات ذوب نمی­شود، بلکه به طور واضح دو نقطه­ی ذوب دارد به طوری که در 5/145 درجه سانتی­گراد ذوب شده و به یک مایع کدر تبدیل می­شود و در 5/178 درجه سانتی­گراد دوباره ذوب می­شود و مایع کدر یک­باره شفاف می­شود[1]. به علاوه این پدیده برگشت­پذیر است. رنیتزر نامه­ای به اتولمان[5] نوشت و مشاهده­ی خود را شرح داد و هم­چنین نمونه را برای وی فرستاد. اتولمان هم بر روی شاره­ی کدر آزمایش­هایی انجام داد و گزارش داد که بلوری شدن را در مایع کدر مشاهده کرده است. وی این حالت را فاز میانی نامید[2].

 

جرج فریدل[6] در سال 1920 میلادی بلورهای مایع را دسته­بندی نمود. تا سال 1924 میلادی، جزئیات بلور مایع خیلی روشن نبود تا این­که دانیل ورلاندر[7] نشان داد که بلور مایع به جای این­که دارای مولکول با شکل کروی باشد از مولکول­های میله­ای شکل تشکیل شده است و از نظر موقعیت مکانی به طور نسبی مرتب می­باشد و علاوه بر آن جهت­گیری مولکول­ها به سمت معینی می­باشد و همین امر موجب بروز جهت­های متفاوت در این بلورها می­شود.

 

[1] Rudolf Virchow

 

[2] Myelin

 

[3] Friedrich Reinitzer

 

[4] Cholesteryl Benzoate

 

[5] Otto Lehmann

 

Georges Freidel

 

[7] Daniel Vorlander

متن کامل پایان نامه مقطع کارشناسی ارشد رشته :زبان انگلیسی

 

عنوان : The Relationship between Teacher-Reflection and Teacher-Efficacy of Novice and Experienced EFL Teachers

 

 

 

 

 

ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY

 

AT CENTRAL TEHRAN

 

GRADUATE SCHOOL

 

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

 

 

 

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (TEFL)

 

 

 

The Relationship between Teacher-Reflection and Teacher-Efficacy of Novice and Experienced EFL Teachers

 

 

 

Advisor:

 

Dr. Nasim Shangarfam

 

 

 

Reader:

 

 Dr. Abdollah Baradaran

 

 

 

September 2014

 

برای رعایت حریم خصوصی نام نگارنده پایان نامه درج نمی شود

 

(در فایل دانلودی نام نویسنده موجود است)

 

تکه هایی از متن پایان نامه به عنوان نمونه :

 

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

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

 

The purpose of this research was to find out if the reflection level of Iranian English teachers is related to their self-efficacy level and hence to explore if work experience is a determining factor in teachers’ efficacy and reflection. An additional aim of the study was to investigate if teachers’ self-efficacy components and their reflection levels are related.  Two instruments were employed to quantify the two constructs. To measure teacher’s reflection levels, English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory (ELTRI) (2010) was used and the participants’ self-efficacy was measured by Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) (2009). First the subjects were divided into novice and experienced groups. ELTRI and TSES were distributed in both groups to measure their reflection and self-efficacy levels. The participants were 721 EFL teachers teaching in private language schools, mainly in Safir Language Academy. As the case is for the students, the majority of Safir English teachers are female. As a result, not only did the findings of this study confirm a positive relationship between EFL teachers’ reflection and their self-efficacy, but also the same result among novice and experienced EFL teachers could be investigated. In addition, a significant relationship among reflection and components of self-efficacy of EFL teachers and that of novice and experienced teachers could be detected. Investigation of relationship between reflective teaching on one hand and self-efficacy on the other, allows teacher educators to select and train more efficacious and effective teachers in which not only the students benefit from their experience and effective teaching through their instructions but also more awareness will be injected in their teaching pattern. Book developers and policy makers can also benefit from this research to include more reflective tasks in their teachers’ guides in order to incline employment of action research based on reflection in their classrooms and set new standards in English teacher education.

 

1.1     Introduction. 8

 

1.2     Statement of the Problem.. 10

 

1.3     Statement of the Research Questions. 15

 

1.4     Statement of the Research Hypotheses. 16

 

1.5   Definition of the Key Terms. 18

 

1.6 Significance of the Study. 20

 

2.1     Introduction. 25

 

2.2     Teachers’ Self-efficacy. 26

 

2.2.1     Theories of Teacher Self-Efficacy. 27

 

2.2.2     Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Constructs. 31

 

2.2.3     Teacher Self-Efficacy Inventories. 36

 

2.3    Reflective Teaching. 40

 

2.3.1     Definition. 40

 

2.3.2     Background of Reflective Teaching. 42

 

2.3.3     Models of Reflection. 43

 

2.3.4     Reflective Teaching Inventories. 62

 

2.3.5     Literature Related to Self-Efficacy and Reflective Teaching. 66

 

2.5    Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks. 86

 

2.6    Summary. 87

 

3.1     Introduction. 89

 

3.2    The Participants. 89

 

3.3     Instrumentation. 90

 

3.3.1     Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) 90

 

3.3.2     English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory (ELTRI) 92

 

3.5     Design. 97

 

3.6     Statistical Analysis. 98

 

4.1 Introduction. 100

 

4.2 Testing Assumptions. 100

 

4.3 Analysis of Outliers. 101

 

4.4 Testing Assumptions. 101

 

4.5 The First Null Hypothesis. 102

 

4.6 The Second Null Hypothesis. 104

 

4.7 The Third Null Hypothesis. 105

 

4.8 The Fourth Null Hypothesis. 106

 

4.9 The Fifth Null Hypothesis. 109

 

4.10 The Sixth Null Hypothesis. 111

 

4.11 The Seventh Null Hypothesis. 114

 

4.12 The Eighth Null Hypothesis. 116

 

4.13 The Ninth Null Hypothesis. 118

 

4.14 The Tenth Null Hypothesis. 120

 

4.15 The Eleventh Null Hypothesis. 122

 

4.16 The Twelfth Null Hypothesis. 124

 

4.17 The Thirteenth Null Hypothesis. 127

 

4.17.1 Predicting EFL Teachers’ Self-Efficacy by Experience. 127

 

4.17.2 Predicting EFL Teachers’ Reflection by Experience. 129

 

4.18 Reliability Indices. 131

 

4.19 Construct Validity of Reflection Questionnaire. 132

 

4.20 Construct Validity of Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. 135

 

4.21   The Fourteenth Null Hypothesis. 137

 

4.22 The Fifteenth Null Hypothesis. 139

 

4.23 Discussion. 140

 

5.1     Introduction. 145

 

5.2 Conclusion. 147

 

5.3     Implications of the Study. 149

 

5.3.1   Pedagogical Implications for English Teachers. 150

 

5.3.2    Implications for English Teacher Educators. 150

 

5.3.3     Implications for English Language Schools. 151

 

5.3.4     Implications for Policy Makers. 152

 

5.3.5     Implications for Book Developers. 152

 

5.4     S

uggestions for Further Research. 152

 

Appendix A: 169

 

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) 169

 

Appendix B: 172

 

English Language Teaching Reflection Inventory (ELTRI) 172

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

Introduction

 

 Reflective teaching is a familiar topic in English teacher education (Yayli, 2009; Ray & Coulter, 2008; Lord & Lomicka, 2007; Halter, 2006; Korthagen, 2004). While the idea dates back to the thirties (Dewey, 1933) and more rigorously in education to the early eighties (Schon, 1983), the “terms ‘reflection’ and ‘reflective practitioner’ are now common currency in articles about teacher education and teachers’ professional development” (Griffiths, 2000, p. 539). Reflection, in its technical sense, and thinking are not synonymous; reflection goes beyond everyday thinking, in that it is more organized and conscious (Stanley, 1998). For instance, when experienced non-reflective teachers encounter a problem while teaching, they might hastily decide on the issue based on what they can see, unable to see what in fact caused the problem. Similarly, when they think their lesson went on well, they might have noticed the reactions of louder students only.  Reflection, accordingly, implies a more systematic process of collecting, recording and analyzing our own and our students’ thoughts and observations (Zeichner & Liston, 1996).

 

      To be brief, reflective teaching means observing what one does in the classroom, contemplating the reasons one does it, and thinking about if it is effective – a process of self-observation and self-evaluation. A reflective practitioner is a person who has extensive knowledge about teaching (Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Korthagen & Wubbels, 1995) and is interested in the improvement of her/his teaching (Griffiths, 2000). She/he is aware that “experience is insufficient as a basis for development” (Richards & Lockhart, 1996, p. 4) and acknowledges that “much of what happens in teaching is unknown to the teacher” (Richards & Lockhart, 1996, p. 3) unless she/he critically reflects upon them. A reflective practitioner also believes that “much can be learned about teaching through self-inquiry” (Richards & Lockhart, 1996, p. 3). She/he does classroom investigation by keeping journals, writing lesson reports, conducting surveys and questionnaires, videotaping or audio recording of lessons, and observing peers (Farrell, 2004; Richards & Lockhart, 1996).

 

      Notwithstanding the fact that reflective teaching is currently believed to be the dominant approach in education (Farrell, 2004; Korthagen, 2004; Zeichner & Liston, 1996; Richards & Lockhart, 1996), it seems to be flawed in some ways (Fendler, 2003). At the outset, no published report exists showing improvement in the teaching quality or teachers’ self-efficacy resulting from practicing reflective teaching (Akbari, 2007).

 

      Self-efficacy is another feature that has been found associated with teaching effectiveness, achievement, and motivation (Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008; Eun & Heining-Boynton, 2007; Barkley, 2006; Milner, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Having conducted a large-scale literature review on teachers’ self-efficacy, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) reported self-efficacy to be positively related to students’ own self-efficacy, greater levels of teacher planning and organization, teachers’ openness to new ideas, their readiness to try new methods, their persistence, their becoming less critical of students, their greater enthusiasm for teaching and their commitment to it. With all the positive outcomes on students and teachers, few practical ways have been suggested to boost self-efficacy beliefs in teachers (Chan, Lau, Nie, Lim, & Hogan, 2008; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).

 

     The first aspect regarding experienced teachers is efficiency in processing of information in the classroom. Experienced teachers have the ability to transmit information. The second point is that experienced teachers are able to select information in processing. The third point is that experienced teachers consider students’ need and respond to a variety of events in the classroom.

 

Researchers have fruitfully used the construct of experienced to explore the knowledge that superior teachers possess (e.g.Berliner, 1986; Borko &Livingston, 1989; Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein, &Berliner, 1988). ).Differences between experienced and novice teachers have been researched from the perspective of teacher cognition. Specifically, researchers have attempted to outline how features of the classroom may be mentally represented by both experienced and novice teachers ((e.g. Hogan, Rabinowitz & Craven, 2003). )Comparisons of experienced and novice teachers have shown that they differ in how they perceive and interpret classroom events (Calderhead, 1981)think and make decisions ((Berliner, 1987; Clark & ) (Peterson, 1986), )and develop experienced in pedagogical and content knowledge (Berliner, 1986).

 

    This research, hence, was an attempt to investigate a relationship between novice and experienced EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and self –refl