فرمت فایل : WORD (قابل ویرایش)
تعداد صفحات:147
پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد رشته آموزش زبان انگلیسی
The Difference between Field-Dependent and Field-Independent EFL Learners’ Critical Thinking and Use of Oral Communication Strategies
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vii
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1
1.1. Introduction 2
1.2. Statement of the Problem 8
1.3. Statement of the Research Questions 9
1.4. Statement of the Research Hypotheses 11
1.5. Definition of Key Terms 14
1.5.1. Field-Dependence/Field-Independence 14
1.5.2. Critical Thinking 15
1.5.3. Oral Communication Strategies 15
1.6. Significance of the Study 16
1.7. Limitation and Delimitation 17
1.7.1. Limitation 17
1.7.2. Delimitation 18
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 12
2.1. Introduction 13
2.2. Critical Thinking 22
2.2.1 History of Critical Thinking 22
2.2.2. Definition of CT 24
2.2.3. Dimensions of CT and Other Core Skills 29
2.2.4. CT and the Individual Learner 34
2.3 Field-Dependency/Independency Cognitive Style 37
2.3.1. Historical and Theoretical Foundations 37
2.3.2. Cognitive vs. Learning Style 42
2.3.3. Definitions 44
2.3.4. The Behavior Associated with FD/FI 46
2.3.5. What Affects DF/FI 52
2.3.6. FD/FI Cognitive Style and Language Learning 54
2.4. Communication Strategies 58
2.4.1. Communicative Competence 59
2.4.2. Strategic Competence 60
2.4.3. CSs: Conceptual Background 62
2.4.4. Definitions 65
2.4.4.1. Psycholinguistic Definition 65
2.4.4.2. Interactional Definition 66
2.4.4.3. Miscellaneous Definitions 68
2.4.5. CSs and Proposed Taxonomies 72
2.4.6. Factors Associated with the Use of CSs 79
2.4.6.1. Proficiency Level 80
2.4.6.2. Type of Content and Task 82
2.4.6.3. Gender 83
2.4.6.4. Frequency of Speaking Real-Life English 83
2.4.6.5. Motivation to Speak English 84
2.4.7. Research on CSs 85
CHAPTER III: METHOD 89
3.1. Introduction 91
3.2. Participants 91
3.3. Instrumentations and Materials 93
3.3.1. Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) 93
3.3.2. Honey’s Critical Thinking Questionnaire 95
3.3.3. Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI) 96
3.4. Procedure 97
3.5. Design 98
3.6. Statistical Analyses 99
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 100
4.1. Introduction 101
4.2. Descriptive Statistics 103
4.2.1. Honey’s Critical Thinking Questionnaire 104
4.2.2. Oral Communication Strategy Inventory 106
4.2.2.1. OCSI Listening Section 106
4.2.2.2. OCSI Speaking Section 108
4.2.2.3. OCSI Total Scores 110
4.3. Testing the Null Hypotheses 111
4.3.1. Testing Null Hypotheses 1-4 111
4.3.2. Testing Null Hypotheses 5-7 116
4.3.2.1. Null Hypothesis 5 117
4.3.2.2. Null Hypothesis 6 120
4.3.2.3. Null Hypothesis 7 122
4.3.3. Testing Null Hypotheses 8-10 124
4.3.3.1. Null Hypothesis 8 125
4.3.3.2. Null Hypothesis 9 126
4.3.3.3. Null Hypothesis 10 128
4.3.4. Testing Null Hypotheses 11-13 130
4.3.4.1. Null Hypothesis 11 131
4.3.4.2. Null Hypothesis 12 133
4.3.4.3. Null Hypothesis 13 136
4.3.5. Testing Null Hypotheses 14-16 139
4.4. Discussion 139
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 143
5.1. Introduction 144
5.2. Restatement of the Problem 144
5.3. Pedagogical Implications 147
5.3.1. Implication for EFL Teachers 148
5.3.2. Implication for EFL Syllabus Designers 151
5.4. Suggestions for Further Research 154
REFERENCES 158
APPENDICES 184
Appendix A: GEFT 185
Appendix B: Oral Communication Strategies 202
Appendix C: Critical Thinking Questionnare 205
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The relational transition of cognitive processes 44
Table 2.1 Differences between FD and FI individuals 52
Figure 2.2 CS following traditional conceptualization 76
Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Participants on the Honey Critical Thinking Questionnaire 103
Figure 4.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the FD Participants on the CT Questionnaire 104
Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Participants on the Honey Critical Thinking Questionnaire 104
Figure 4.2. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the FI Participants on the CT Questionnaire 104
Table 4.2. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Participants on the OCSI Listening 105
Figure 4.3. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the FD Participants on the OCSI Listening Section 106
Figure 4.4. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the FI Participants on the OCSI Listening Section 106
Table 4.3. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Participants on the OCSI Speaking Section 107
Figure 4.5. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the FD Participants on the OCSI Speaking 108
Figure 4.6. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the FI Participants on the OCSI Speaking Section 108
Table 4.4. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Participants on the OCSI 109
Figure 4.7. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the FD Participants on the OCSI 110
Figure 4.8. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the FI Participants on the OCSI 110
Table 4.5. Normality Checks of the Scores Obtained on the CT and the OCSI and Its Listening and Speaking Subsections 112
Table 4.6. Regression Output: Residuals Statistics 112
Figure 4.9. Scatterplot of the CT and the OCSI and Its Listening and Speaking Subsections Scores Obtained by Both Groups 113
Table 4.7. Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices 113
Table 4.8. Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances 114
Table 4.9. Multivariate Tests 114
Table 4.10. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 115
Table 4.11. Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Participants on the CT and OCSI 117
Figure 4.10. Scatterplot of FD Learners’ on the CT and OCSI 118
Figure 4.11 Plot of Studentized Residuals for the OCSI 118
Table 4.12. Correlation of FD Learners’ Scores on the CT and OCSI 119
Table 4.13. Correlation Report 119
Figure 4.12. Scatterplot of FD Learners’ on the CT and the Listening Section of OCSI 120
Figure 4.13 Plot of Studentized Residuals for FD Learners’ OCSI Listening Section 121
Table 4.14 Correlation of FD Learners’ Scores on the CT and OCSI Listening Section 121
Table 4.15. Correlation Report 122
Figure 4.14. Scatterplot of FD Learners’ on the CT and the Speaking Section of OCSI 122
Figure 4.15. Plot of Studentized Residuals for FD Learners’ OCSI Speaking Section 123
Table 4.16. Correlation of FD Learners’ Scores on the CT and OCSI Speaking Section 124
Table 4.17. Correlation Report 124
Figure 4.16. Scatterplot of FI Learners’ on the CT and CSs 125
Figure 4.17. Plot of Studentized Residuals for FI Learners’ OCSI 125
Table 4.18. Correlation of FI Learners’ Scores on the CT and OCSI 126
Figure 4.18. Scatterplot of FI Learners’ on the CT and the Listening Section of OCSI 127
Figure 4.19. Plot of Studentized Residuals for FL Learners’ OCSI Listening Section 127
Table 4.19 Correlation of FI Learners’ Scores on the CT and OCSI Listening Section 128
Figure 4.20. Scatterplot of FI Learners’ on the CT and the Speaking Section of OCSI 129
Figure 4.21. Plot of Studentized Residuals for FI Learners’ OCSI Speaking Section 129
Table 4.20. Correlation of FI Learners’ Scores on the CT and OCSI Speaking Section 130
Table 4.21. Coefficientsa 131
Table 4.22 Model summary – R and R Square 131
Table 4.23 Regression Output: ANOVA Table 132
Table 4.24 Regression Output: Coefficients 132
Table 4.25 Regression Output: Residuals Statistics 133
Table 4.26. Coefficientsa 134
Table 4.27 Model summary – R and R Square 134
Table 4.28 Regression Output: ANOVA Table 135
Table 4.29 Regression Output: Coefficients 135
Table 4.30 Regression Output: Residuals Statistics 136
Table 4.31. Coefficients 137
Table 4.32. Model summary – R and R Square 137
Table 4.33. Regression Output: ANOVA Table 137
Table 4.34. Regression Output: Coefficients 138
Table 4.35. Regression Output: Residuals Statistics 138
چکیده
پژوهش حاضر تلاشی بود برای بررسی تفاوت میان تفکر نقادانه و استفاده از استراتژی های ارتباط شفاهی دو گروه از زبان آموزان وابسته به زمینه و مستقل از زمینه به همراه بررسی رابطه احتمالی بین تفکر نقادانه و استراتژی های ارتباط شفاهی این دو گروه. برای این منظور، 160 زبان آموز مرد و زن از میان 190 نفر بر اساس عملکردشان در آزمونهای آزمون گروهی اشکال نهفته، پرسشنامه استراتژی های ارتباط شفاهی و نیز پرسشنامه تفکر انتقادی انتخاب و به دو گروه 80 نفره با عنوان گروه وابسته به زمینه و مستقل از زمینه انتخاب شدند و نیز 30 نفر باقیمانده به دلیل دارا بودن گرایش بینابینی از ادامه مطالعه کنار گذاشته شدند. به منظور ارزیابی 16 فرضیه این تحقیق از آزمون همبستگی پیرسون و آزمون مستقل تی استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد این دو گروه از زبان آموزان به طرز معناداری در انتخاب استراتژی های ارتباط شفاهی متفاوت عمل میکنند ولی در تفکر نقادانه این دو گروه تفاوت معناداری مشاهده نشد. افزون بر این، رابطه ی معناداری میان این دو گروه در تفکر نقادانه و بکارگیری استراتژی های ارتباط شفاهی مشاهده شد اما تحلیل رگرسیون ارتباط معنی داری را مشخص نکرد.
