(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

Epigraph. II

Dedication. III

Acknowledgments. IV

Table of Contents. V

List of Tables. VIII

List of Graphs. IX

Abstract X

CHAPTER I: Background and Purpose.. 1

1.1. Introduction. 2

1.2. Significance of the Study. 7

1.3. Statement of the Problem.. 11

1.4. Research Questions 14

1.5. Definition of the Key Terms 15

1.6. Limitations and Delimitations 16

CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature.. 18

2.1. Introduction. 19

2.2. Translation. 21

2.3. Culture. 25

2.4. Language and Culture. 29

2.5. Translation and Culture. 33

2.6. Translation Problems 36

2.6.1. Linguistics Differences. 37

2.6.2. Social Differences. 41

2.6.3. Cultural Differences. 42

2.7. Presuppositions 47

(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

Epigraph. II

Dedication. III

Acknowledgments. IV

Table of Contents. V

List of Tables. VIII

List of Graphs. IX

Abstract X

CHAPTER I: Background and Purpose.. 1

1.1. Introduction. 2

1.2. Significance of the Study. 7

1.3. Statement of the Problem.. 11

1.4. Research Questions 14

1.5. Definition of the Key Terms 15

1.6. Limitations and Delimitations 16

CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature.. 18

2.1. Introduction. 19

2.2. Translation. 21

2.3. Culture. 25

2.4. Language and Culture. 29

2.5. Translation and Culture. 33

2.6. Translation Problems 36

2.6.1. Linguistics Differences. 37

2.6.2. Social Differences. 41

2.6.3. Cultural Differences. 42

2.7. Presuppositions 47

2.7.1. Philosophical Presupposition. 48

2.7.2. Semantic Presupposition. 48

2.7.3. Pragmatic Presupposition. 49

2.7.4. Cultural Presupposition. 50

2.8. Cultural Presuppositions 50

2.9. Different Classifications of Cultural Presuppositions 52

2.9.1. Newmark’s Classification. 53

2.9.2. Thriveni’s Classification. 58

2.9.3. Pavlovic’s Classification. 60

2.10. Translation Strategies 63

2.11. Translation Strategies for Cultural Presuppositions 66

2.11.1. House’s Strategies. 67

2.11.2. Newmark’s Strategies. 68

2.11.3. Baker’s Strategies. 72

2.11.4. Hervey and Higgins’ Strategies. 74

2.11.5. Aixela’s Strategies. 77

2.11.6. Vinay and Darblenet’s Strategies. 81

2.11.7. Wiersema’s Strategies. 82

2.12. Concluding Points 83

Chapter III: Methodology.. 84

3.1. Introduction. 85

3.2. Corpus 86

3.3. Theoretical Framework. 88

3.4. Design. 97

3.5. Procedure. 97

3.6. Data Collection. 98

3.7. Data Analysis 98

Chapter IV: Results and Discussions. 100

4.1. Introduction. 101

4.2. Description of the Data. 101

4.2.1. Cultural Presuppositions. 102

4.2.1.1. Ecology. 102

4.2.1.2. Material Culture (Artifacts) 102

4.2.1.3. Social Culture. 104

4.2.1.4. Organizations, Customs, Ideas. 105

4.2.1.5. Gestures and Habits. 107

4.2.2. Translation Strategies. 108

4.2.2.1. Transference. 108

4.2.2.2. Naturalization. 109

4.2.2.3. Cultural Equivalent 110

4.2.2.4. Functional Equivalent 110

4.2.2.5. Descriptive Equivalent 111

4.2.2.6. Synonymy. 112

4.2.2.7. Through-translation. 113

4.2.2.8. Shifts or Transposition. 114

4.2.2.9. Reduction and Expansion. 115

4.2.2.10. Couplets, Triplets, and Quadruplets. 116

4.2.2.11. Notes, Additions, and Glosses. 117

4.3. Analysis of the Data. 121

Chapter V: Conclusion, Implications, and Suggestions for Further Research.. 126

5.1. Introduction. 127

5.2. Conclusion. 128

5.3. Pedagogical Implications 130

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research. 132

References 134

Appendixes 139

 

List of Tables

Table 1: Food. 18

Table 2: Clothes. 18

Table 3: Housing. 18

Table 4: Transport 18

Table 5: Work. 18

Table 6: Leisure. 18

Table 7: Political and Administrative. 18

Table 8: Religious. 18

Table 9: Artistic. 18

Table 10: Historical Terms. 18

Table 11: Gestures and Habits. 18

Table 12: Transference. 18

Table 13: Naturalization. 18

Table 14: Cultural Equivalent 18

Table 15: Functional Equivalent 18

Table 16: Descriptive Equivalent 18

Table 17: Synonymy. 18

Table 18: Through-translation. 18

Table 19: Shifts. 18

Table 20: Reduction. 18

Table 21: Couplets. 18

Table 22: Triplets. 18

Table 23: Additions. 18

Table 24: Notes. 18

Table 25: Overall frequencies of cultural presuppositions. 18

Table 26: Overall frequencies of translation strategies. 18

Table 27: All cultural presuppositions separately for each short story. 18

Table 28: All cultural presuppositions and their translation strategies. 18

 

List of Graphs

Graph 1: Percentages of Cultural Presuppositions. 18

Graph 2: Percentages of Translation Strategies. 18

 

Abstract

Translation as a way to transfer the meaning is a kind of activity that involves not only two languages, but also two cultures. Like any other field of study, translation deals with all the aspects of human life such as social, industrial, and cultural. In other words it is not enough for translators to have a good command of both the source and target languages; they have to be completely aware of both the source and target cultures. Each culture creates certain messages, connotations, and denotations. Therefore it is likely that many concepts occur in one language and culture but not in the other. In other words, one of the major problems facing translators is how to find equivalents for implicit ideas, opinions, and presuppositions, which have their bases in their underlying cultures. Facing with unshared elements of culture, namely cultural presuppositions, between the source and target language, translators have a variety of options to treat the cultural aspects of the ST and finding the most appropriate strategy to convey these aspects in the TT. The present study will focus on different translation strategies which the Persian translators of James Joyce’s “Dubliners” (2001) have applied to deal with translation problems rooted in cultural presuppositions. The process of classification of cultural presuppositions and the translation strategies for dealing with them is based on Newmark’s (1988) translation categorizations.

 

CHAPTER I

Background and Purpose

1.1 Introduction

Translating as an activity is almost as old as mankind, but the history of translation as a discipline dates back to no more than two decades ago (Schaffner & Kelly-Holms, 1995). In this short period of systematic investigation of this discipline, the nature of such studies has undergone a drastic change. Traditionally there has been a dividing line between the language and the extra linguistic reality. Although there have been different definitions of translation but most of them emphasized the linguistic aspects of the translation process. For instance, Catford’s (1974) definition of translation is as follows: “translation is the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in another language.” (P.20). As it can be seen here what is significant is the equivalent textual material. Next, Newmark (1981) defines translation in this way: “Translation is a craft, consisting of two languages, in the attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in another language” (P.7).

Defining translation seems simple at first glance and there are many definitions of this kind. However, translation is not strictly limited to language, rather, language and culture are deeply intertwined and it is the translation which bridges the gap between different languages and hence, cultures. Here it is clear that these definitions by famous theoreticians exclude the factor of culture in translation. As Snell-Hornby (1988) claims, translation must be regarded something more than merely transcending the linguistic elements from one language to another. It has recently come to be understood as a cultural system and it was to be treated with delicate observing the cultural aspects. Gradually some theorists confirm this fact that translation is an activity which involves a kind of verbal, but never strictly verbal communication. Miremadi (1991), for instance, has stated: “it is a two-way process: from one culture to the others and form other cultures into one’s culture. In other words, there is a give and take process” (P.11). Toury (1978) also believes that “Translation is a kind of activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural traditions” (P.200). The reason for such a drastic change in the point of view toward the translation studies is that the contemporary approach sees language as the integral part of culture. Language is an expression of culture and individuality of its speakers; so cultural meanings are intricately woven into the texture of the language.

Newmark (1988) defines culture as: “the way of life and its manifestation that is peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression” (P.93). Culture is a complex collection of experiences which condition daily life; it includes history, social structure, religious, traditional customs and every day usage. Translating as an activity and translation as the result of this activity are inseparable from the concept of culture.

Regarding this definition, it is clear that there are many words and expressions that differ from one culture to another; for instance, way of living varies from one society to another according to the beliefs of the people, the situation in which they live, the technological advances, etc. So, every culture has its own characteristics. The people of a special society know the characteristics of their culture while the people of other communities are not able to understand it. Histories of different societies and cultures are characterized by events and processes that shape their cultural cognition. It is possible that different events and processes have similar effects on language use and it is also possible that similar processes and events have different impacts on the structure of a language and how it is used by its speakers. Speakers of

 

2.7.1. Philosophical Presupposition. 48

2.7.2. Semantic Presupposition. 48

2.7.3. Pragmatic Presupposition. 49

2.7.4. Cultural Presupposition. 50

2.8. Cultural Presuppositions 50

2.9. Different Classifications of Cultural Presuppositions 52

2.9.1. Newmark’s Classification. 53

2.9.2. Thriveni’s Classification. 58

2.9.3. Pavlovic’s Classification. 60

2.10. Translation Strategies 63

2.11. Translation Strategies for Cultural Presuppositions 66

2.11.1. House’s Strategies. 67

2.11.2. Newmark’s Strategies. 68

2.11.3. Baker’s Strategies. 72

2.11.4. Hervey and Higgins’ Strategies. 74

2.11.5. Aixela’s Strategies. 77

2.11.6. Vinay and Darblenet’s Strategies. 81

2.11.7. Wiersema’s Strategies. 82

2.12. Concluding Points 83

Chapter III: Methodology.. 84

3.1. Introduction. 85

3.2. Corpus 86

3.3. Theoretical Framework. 88

3.4. Design. 97

3.5. Procedure. 97

3.6. Data Collection. 98

3.7. Data Analysis 98

Chapter IV: Results and Discussions. 100

این مطلب را هم بخوانید :

4.1. Introduction. 101

4.2. Description of the Data. 101

4.2.1. Cultural Presuppositions. 102

4.2.1.1. Ecology. 102

4.2.1.2. Material Culture (Artifacts) 102

4.2.1.3. Social Culture. 104

4.2.1.4. Organizations, Customs, Ideas. 105

4.2.1.5. Gestures and Habits. 107

4.2.2. Translation Strategies. 108

4.2.2.1. Transference. 108

4.2.2.2. Naturalization. 109

4.2.2.3. Cultural Equivalent 110

4.2.2.4. Functional Equivalent 110

4.2.2.5. Descriptive Equivalent 111

4.2.2.6. Synonymy. 112

4.2.2.7. Through-translation. 113

4.2.2.8. Shifts or Transposition. 114

4.2.2.9. Reduction and Expansion. 115

4.2.2.10. Couplets, Triplets, and Quadruplets. 116

4.2.2.11. Notes, Additions, and Glosses. 117

4.3. Analysis of the Data. 121

Chapter V: Conclusion, Implications, and Suggestions for Further Research.. 126

5.1. Introduction. 127

5.2. Conclusion. 128

5.3. Pedagogical Implications 130

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research. 132

References 134

Appendixes 139

 

List of Tables

Table 1: Food. 18

Table 2: Clothes. 18

Table 3: Housing. 18

Table 4: Transport 18

Table 5: Work. 18

Table 6: Leisure. 18

Table 7: Political and Administrative. 18

Table 8: Religious. 18

Table 9: Artistic. 18

Table 10: Historical Terms. 18

Table 11: Gestures and Habits. 18

Table 12: Transference. 18

Table 13: Naturalization. 18

Table 14: Cultural Equivalent 18

Table 15: Functional Equivalent 18

Table 16: Descriptive Equivalent 18

Table 17: Synonymy. 18

Table 18: Through-translation. 18

Table 19: Shifts. 18

Table 20: Reduction. 18

Table 21: Couplets. 18

Table 22: Triplets. 18

Table 23: Additions. 18

Table 24: Notes. 18

Table 25: Overall frequencies of cultural presuppositions. 18

Table 26: Overall frequencies of translation strategies. 18

Table 27: All cultural presuppositions separately for each short story. 18

Table 28: All cultural presuppositions and their translation strategies. 18

 

List of Graphs

Graph 1: Percentages of Cultural Presuppositions. 18

Graph 2: Percentages of Translation Strategies. 18

 

Abstract

Translation as a way to transfer the meaning is a kind of activity that involves not only two languages, but also two cultures. Like any other field of study, translation deals with all the aspects of human life such as social, industrial, and cultural. In other words it is not enough for translators to have a good command of both the source and target languages; they have to be completely aware of both the source and target cultures. Each culture creates certain messages, connotations, and denotations. Therefore it is likely that many concepts occur in one language and culture but not in the other. In other words, one of the major problems facing translators is how to find equivalents for implicit ideas, opinions, and presuppositions, which have their bases in their underlying cultures. Facing with unshared elements of culture, namely cultural presuppositions, between the source and target language, translators have a variety of options to treat the cultural aspects of the ST and finding the most appropriate strategy to convey these aspects in the TT. The present study will focus on different translation strategies which the Persian translators of James Joyce’s “Dubliners” (2001) have applied to deal with translation problems rooted in cultural presuppositions. The process of classification of cultural presuppositions and the translation strategies for dealing with them is based on Newmark’s (1988) translation categorizations.

 

CHAPTER I

Background and Purpose

1.1 Introduction

Translating as an activity is almost as old as mankind, but the history of translation as a discipline dates back to no more than two decades ago (Schaffner & Kelly-Holms, 1995). In this short period of systematic investigation of this discipline, the nature of such studies has undergone a drastic change. Traditionally there has been a dividing line between the language and the extra linguistic reality. Although there have been different definitions of translation but most of them emphasized the linguistic aspects of the translation process. For instance, Catford’s (1974) definition of translation is as follows: “translation is the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in another language.” (P.20). As it can be seen here what is significant is the equivalent textual material. Next, Newmark (1981) defines translation in this way: “Translation is a craft, consisting of two languages, in the attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in another language” (P.7).

Defining translation seems simple at first glance and there are many definitions of this kind. However, translation is not strictly limited to language, rather, language and culture are deeply intertwined and it is the translation which bridges the gap between different languages and hence, cultures. Here it is clear that these definitions by famous theoreticians exclude the factor of culture in translation. As Snell-Hornby (1988) claims, translation must be regarded something more than merely transcending the linguistic elements from one language to another. It has recently come to be understood as a cultural system and it was to be treated with delicate observing the cultural aspects. Gradually some theorists confirm this fact that translation is an activity which involves a kind of verbal, but never strictly verbal communication. Miremadi (1991), for instance, has stated: “it is a two-way process: from one culture to the others and form other cultures into one’s culture. In other words, there is a give and take process” (P.11). Toury (1978) also believes that “Translation is a kind of activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural traditions” (P.200). The reason for such a drastic change in the point of view toward the translation studies is that the contemporary approach sees language as the integral part of culture. Language is an expression of culture and individuality of its speakers; so cultural meanings are intricately woven into the texture of the language.

Newmark (1988) defines culture as: “the way of life and its manifestation that is peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression” (P.93). Culture is a complex collection of experiences which condition daily life; it includes history, social structure, religious, traditional customs and every day usage. Translating as an activity and translation as the result of this activity are inseparable from the concept of culture.

Regarding this definition, it is clear that there are many words and expressions that differ from one culture to another; for instance, way of living varies from one society to another according to the beliefs of the people, the situation in which they live, the technological advances, etc. So, every culture has its own characteristics. The people of a special society know the characteristics of their culture while the people of other communities are not able to understand it. Histories of different societies and cultures are characterized by events and processes that shape their cultural cognition. It is possible that different events and processes have similar effects on language use and it is also possible that similar processes and events have different impacts on the structure of a language and how it is used by its speakers. Speakers of

learning as a combination of classroom techniques could promote the second language speech act knowledge of the learners. Findings of the present study could be employed by second language teachers, materials developers, and ELT practitioners to help the EFL learners move towards cooperative learning.

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: Background and purpose……………………………………………………………………………… 1

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

1.2 Statement of problem…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

1.3 Statement of Research………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………… 11

1.5 Definition of the Key Terms……………………………………………………………………………………… 11

1.6 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12

1.7 Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………………………………. 13

CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature………………………………………………………………. 15

2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

2.2. Speech Acts……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

2.3. Core Assumptions and Statements…………………………………………………………………………….. 18

2.4. Scope and Application…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19

2.5. The Performatives……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20

2.5.1. Explicit and Implicit Performatives…………………………………………………………………………. 22

2.6. Felicity Conditions………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

2.7. The Locutionary, Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Acts………………………………………………. 28

2.7.1. Locutionary Acts………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

2.7.2. Illocutionary Acts…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31

2.7.3. Perlocutionary Acts………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33

2.8. Cooperative Learning………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34

2.8.1. Social Interdependence Perspective………………………………………………………………………… 37

learning as a combination of classroom techniques could promote the second language speech act knowledge of the learners. Findings of the present study could be employed by second language teachers, materials developers, and ELT practitioners to help the EFL learners move towards cooperative learning.

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: Background and purpose……………………………………………………………………………… 1

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

1.2 Statement of problem…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

1.3 Statement of Research………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………… 11

1.5 Definition of the Key Terms……………………………………………………………………………………… 11

1.6 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12

1.7 Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………………………………. 13

CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature………………………………………………………………. 15

2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

2.2. Speech Acts……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

2.3. Core Assumptions and Statements…………………………………………………………………………….. 18

2.4. Scope and Application…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19

2.5. The Performatives……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20

2.5.1. Explicit and Implicit Performatives…………………………………………………………………………. 22

2.6. Felicity Conditions………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

2.7. The Locutionary, Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Acts………………………………………………. 28

2.7.1. Locutionary Acts………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

2.7.2. Illocutionary Acts…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31

2.7.3. Perlocutionary Acts………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33

2.8. Cooperative Learning………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34

2.8.1. Social Interdependence Perspective………………………………………………………………………… 37

2.8.2. Cognitive Development Perspectives………………………………………………………………………. 38

2.8.3. Behavioral Social Perspectives……………………………………………………………………………….. 38

2.8.3.1. Positive Interdependence……………………………………………………………………………………. 39

2.8.3.2. Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility…………………………………………………. 40

2.8.3.3. Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction……………………………………………………………………… 41

2.8.3.4. Teamwork Skills………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42

2.8.3.5. Group Processing ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42

2.8.4. Structuring Cooperative Learning…………………………………………………………………………… 45

2.8.5. Interactions in Groups…………………………………………………………………………………………… 47

2.8.6. Students Perceptions of Cooperative Learning…………………………………………………………. 50

2.9. Competitive Learning………………………………………………………………………………………………. 52

CHAPTER III: Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………. 57

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

3.2. Participants…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

3.3. Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 59

3.3.1 Preliminary English Test (PET)……………………………………………………………………………….. 59

3.3.2 Discourse Completion Test……………………………………………………………………………………… 60

3.3.2.1 Reliability and validity of the instrument……………………………………………………………….. 63

3.4. Materials………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63

3.5. Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63

3.5.1. Pretest ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63

3.5.2. Treatment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 64

3.5.3. Posttest……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 66

3.6. Design……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 67

3.7. Statistical Analyses………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67

CHAPTER IV: Results and Discussions………………………………………………………………………….. 68

4.1 Pilot study of Preliminary English Test (PET)……………………………………………………………… 69

4.2. Subject-Selection Statistics………………………………………………………………………………………. 70

4.3 Pilot study of MCDCT …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 70

4.4. Proficiency Test (PET)…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 71

4.5. Pretest of Speech acts………………………………………………………………………………………………. 73

4.6 Post test of speech acts……………………………………………………………………………………………… 73

4.7 Testing Assumptions………………………………………………………………………………………………… 74

4.8. Empirical Validity…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 76

 

 

 

4.9. Reliability Indices……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 77

4.10 Reliability of the Writing Tasks in the PET test………………………………………………………….. 77

4.11. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 79

CHAPTER V: Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………… 83

5.1 Restatement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………………………. 84

5.2 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 86

5.3 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………………………………………………… 87

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………………………………………………. 88

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 91

APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 105

APPENDIXI B…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 128

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of PET pilot study…………………………………………………………….. 89

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of subject selection……………………………………………………………. 70

Table 4.3 descriptive statistics of pilot study of MCDCT pre/post test ………………………………… 70

Table 4.4 Descriptive statistics of PET by groups………………………………………………………………. 71

Table 4.5 Independent samples t-test of PET scores…………………………………………………………… 72

Table 4.6 Descriptive statistics of speech acts posttest by groups………………………………………… 73

Table 4.7 normality tests…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 74

Table 4.8 Independent samples t-test of Posttest scores……………………………………………………… 75

Table 4.9 Pearson Correlation PET with Pretest and Posttest of Speech Acts……………………….. 76

Table 4.10 K-R21 Reliability…………………………………………………………………………………………… 77

Table 4.11Inter-Rater Reliability of the Writing Pretest …………………………………………………….. 78

Table 4.12 Intra-Rater Reliability of the Writing Pretest…………………………………………………….. 78

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Introduction

It is generally recognized that the goal of language teaching is to develop learner’s ability to communicate appropriately in a given target language and culture. This means that it is not enough for teaching practices to exclusively focus on the features of the target language linguistic system. Otherwise, inappropriate use of language can lead to pragmatic failure and those speakers who do not use pragmatically appropriate language run the risk of appearing uncooperative at very least or more seriously, rude or uncultured (Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgam, & Reynols, 1991).

Pragmatic ability in a second or foreign language is part of a nonnative speaker’s (NNS) communicative competence and therefore has to be located in a model of communicative ability (Savignon, 1991). In Bachman’s model (1990, p. 87ff), ‘language competence’ is subdivided into two components, ‘organizational competence’ and ‘pragmatic competence’. Organizational competence comprises knowledge of linguistic units and the rules of joining them together at the levels of sentence (‘grammatical competence’) and discourse (‘textual competence’). Pragmatic competence subdivides into ‘illocutionary competence’ and ‘sociolinguistic competence’. ‘Illocutionary competence’ can be glossed as ‘knowledge of communicative action and how to carry it out’. The term ‘communicative action’ is often more accurate than the more familiar term ‘speech act’ because communicative action is neutral between the spoken and written mode, and the term acknowledges the fact that communicative action can also be implemented by silence or non-verbally. ‘Sociolinguistic competence’ comprises the ability to use language appropriately according to context. It thus includes the ability to select communicative acts and appropriate strategies to implement them depending on the current status of the ‘conversational contract’ (Fraser, 1990).

Obviously, in EFL settings, one of the most dominant reasons is the learners’ transfer of speech act strategies from their native language (Ellis, 1994).

In recent years, with the unremitting development of Speech Act Theory, it has gradually emerged as an important topic and has been considered as a basic theory in pragmatics. A speech act as an action performed by means of language is an important element of communicative competence and the Speech Act Theory not only conveys the linguistic rules people share to create the acts, but also leads language learners to use this language tactfully or appropriately. It is believed that to learn a language is indeed to learn how to communicate in that language. However, evidence shows that many learners of English fail to achieve the tactful or appropriate use of English in their daily communication with native speakers. Thereby, researchers suggest that applying Speech Act Theory in language teaching has become increasingly imperative (Green, 2010).

One of instructional techniques the language teachers can use to increase learner’s achievement of speech acts is cooperative learning (Wright, 2010). Cooperative learning is an instructional technique that enables students to work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Ellis, 2008). Now cooperative learning is applied in almost all school content areas and increasingly, in college and university contexts all over the world and is claimed to be an effective teaching method in foreign/second language education by many scholars (Kessler, 1992, as cited in Brown, 2007).

Ochs and Schieffelin (2011) argue that a central tenet of second language development research is that learners’ participation in communicative practices are promoted but not totally determined by course books, teachers, or even the built environment. A very crucial factor to consider in the process of second language development, especially when it comes to the effective communication, is the presence of socially and culturally informed persons, peers, and the like. Within a cooperative atmosphere and based on the perspective which mainly stresses cooperation, not competition, learning will be promoted. This, of course could find enough supports in the constructivism literature (Jaramillo, 1996; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Mitchell & Myles, 2004; Van Lier, 2004; Vygotsky, 1986; Young, 1993), and is technically named scaffolding.

“Within the body of cooperative learning, scaffolding plays a crucial role. Particularly in the early stages of learning, an instructor might invite student participation in the task at hand.  “This practice engages the student in learning and provides her/ him with ownership of the learning experience” (Hogan and Pressley, 1997, p. 76). “For example, a teacher might write the decimal point on the chalkboard and then ask a student to identify the next step in converting a fraction to a decimal.  The student might be invited to participate verbally or she might be asked to come to the chalkboard and contribute her ideas or strategies in writing.  Rather than asking a student for direct participation, an instructor might scaffold learning by asking students to contribute clues or ideas” (Hogan and Pressley, 1997, p. 91).

According to Van Lire (2004), there are many benefits of cooperative learning, and it should have its place in the classroom for several reasons. Humans are social beings that learn extremely well through interaction. While using methods of cooperative learning, students will develop a sense of community and commitment. This method of learning also supports positive peer teaching and learning which is beneficial as well.

Cooperative learning can also be focused on from the perspective of motivation: Motivational perspectives on cooperative learning focus primarily on the reward or goal structures under which students operate (Slavin, 1995). From this perspective, cooperative incentive structures create a situation in which the only way group members can attain their own personal goals is if the group is successful. Therefore, to meet their personal goals, group members must both help their group-mates to do whatever helps the group to succeed and, perhaps even more importantly, to encourage their group-mates to exert maximum efforts. In other words, rewarding groups based on group performance (or the sum of individual performances) creates an interpersonal reward structure, in which group members will give or withhold social reinforces (e.g., praise, encouragement) in response to group-mates’ task-related efforts (Slavin,1983).

Cooperative learning can create a situational perspective for the second language learners named “the social cohesion perspective” (Cohen, 1994), which is an emphasis on teambuilding activities in preparation for cooperative learning and processing or group self-evaluation during and after group activities.

It is generally asserted that cooperative learning is a highly appropriate option for all students because it emphasizes active interaction among individuals of diverse abilities and background (Yule, 1996) and demonstrates more positive student outcomes in academic achievement, social behavior and effective development.

One of instructional techniques language teachers can use to increase learner’s achievement of speech acts is competitive learning, and according to Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2000), competitive learning is that kind of learning in which the students have got to work against each other for the purpose on achieving a good grade. So one student should achieve the goal and another one is bound to fail. Thus the competitive learning can be interpersonal of inter-group. Competitive learning is of great value if the students want to view the material they have learned.

Competitive learning exists when one student goal is achieved but all other students fail to reach that goal (Johnson & Johnson, 1991).

 

2.8.2. Cognitive Development Perspectives………………………………………………………………………. 38

2.8.3. Behavioral Social Perspectives……………………………………………………………………………….. 38

2.8.3.1. Positive Interdependence……………………………………………………………………………………. 39

2.8.3.2. Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility…………………………………………………. 40

2.8.3.3. Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction……………………………………………………………………… 41

2.8.3.4. Teamwork Skills………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42

2.8.3.5. Group Processing ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42

2.8.4. Structuring Cooperative Learning…………………………………………………………………………… 45

2.8.5. Interactions in Groups…………………………………………………………………………………………… 47

2.8.6. Students Perceptions of Cooperative Learning…………………………………………………………. 50

2.9. Competitive Learning………………………………………………………………………………………………. 52

CHAPTER III: Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………. 57

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

3.2. Participants…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

3.3. Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 59

3.3.1 Preliminary English Test (PET)……………………………………………………………………………….. 59

3.3.2 Discourse Completion Test……………………………………………………………………………………… 60

3.3.2.1 Reliability and validity of the instrument……………………………………………………………….. 63

3.4. Materials………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63

3.5. Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63

3.5.1. Pretest ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63

3.5.2. Treatment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 64

3.5.3. Posttest……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 66

3.6. Design……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 67

3.7. Statistical Analyses………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67

CHAPTER IV: Results and Discussions………………………………………………………………………….. 68

4.1 Pilot study of Preliminary English Test (PET)……………………………………………………………… 69

4.2. Subject-Selection Statistics………………………………………………………………………………………. 70

این مطلب را هم بخوانید :

4.3 Pilot study of MCDCT …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 70

4.4. Proficiency Test (PET)…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 71

4.5. Pretest of Speech acts………………………………………………………………………………………………. 73

4.6 Post test of speech acts……………………………………………………………………………………………… 73

4.7 Testing Assumptions………………………………………………………………………………………………… 74

4.8. Empirical Validity…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 76

 

 

 

4.9. Reliability Indices……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 77

4.10 Reliability of the Writing Tasks in the PET test………………………………………………………….. 77

4.11. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 79

CHAPTER V: Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………… 83

5.1 Restatement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………………………. 84

5.2 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 86

5.3 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………………………………………………… 87

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………………………………………………. 88

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 91

APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 105

APPENDIXI B…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 128

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of PET pilot study…………………………………………………………….. 89

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of subject selection……………………………………………………………. 70

Table 4.3 descriptive statistics of pilot study of MCDCT pre/post test ………………………………… 70

Table 4.4 Descriptive statistics of PET by groups………………………………………………………………. 71

Table 4.5 Independent samples t-test of PET scores…………………………………………………………… 72

Table 4.6 Descriptive statistics of speech acts posttest by groups………………………………………… 73

Table 4.7 normality tests…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 74

Table 4.8 Independent samples t-test of Posttest scores……………………………………………………… 75

Table 4.9 Pearson Correlation PET with Pretest and Posttest of Speech Acts……………………….. 76

Table 4.10 K-R21 Reliability…………………………………………………………………………………………… 77

Table 4.11Inter-Rater Reliability of the Writing Pretest …………………………………………………….. 78

Table 4.12 Intra-Rater Reliability of the Writing Pretest…………………………………………………….. 78

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Introduction

It is generally recognized that the goal of language teaching is to develop learner’s ability to communicate appropriately in a given target language and culture. This means that it is not enough for teaching practices to exclusively focus on the features of the target language linguistic system. Otherwise, inappropriate use of language can lead to pragmatic failure and those speakers who do not use pragmatically appropriate language run the risk of appearing uncooperative at very least or more seriously, rude or uncultured (Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgam, & Reynols, 1991).

Pragmatic ability in a second or foreign language is part of a nonnative speaker’s (NNS) communicative competence and therefore has to be located in a model of communicative ability (Savignon, 1991). In Bachman’s model (1990, p. 87ff), ‘language competence’ is subdivided into two components, ‘organizational competence’ and ‘pragmatic competence’. Organizational competence comprises knowledge of linguistic units and the rules of joining them together at the levels of sentence (‘grammatical competence’) and discourse (‘textual competence’). Pragmatic competence subdivides into ‘illocutionary competence’ and ‘sociolinguistic competence’. ‘Illocutionary competence’ can be glossed as ‘knowledge of communicative action and how to carry it out’. The term ‘communicative action’ is often more accurate than the more familiar term ‘speech act’ because communicative action is neutral between the spoken and written mode, and the term acknowledges the fact that communicative action can also be implemented by silence or non-verbally. ‘Sociolinguistic competence’ comprises the ability to use language appropriately according to context. It thus includes the ability to select communicative acts and appropriate strategies to implement them depending on the current status of the ‘conversational contract’ (Fraser, 1990).

Obviously, in EFL settings, one of the most dominant reasons is the learners’ transfer of speech act strategies from their native language (Ellis, 1994).

In recent years, with the unremitting development of Speech Act Theory, it has gradually emerged as an important topic and has been considered as a basic theory in pragmatics. A speech act as an action performed by means of language is an important element of communicative competence and the Speech Act Theory not only conveys the linguistic rules people share to create the acts, but also leads language learners to use this language tactfully or appropriately. It is believed that to learn a language is indeed to learn how to communicate in that language. However, evidence shows that many learners of English fail to achieve the tactful or appropriate use of English in their daily communication with native speakers. Thereby, researchers suggest that applying Speech Act Theory in language teaching has become increasingly imperative (Green, 2010).

One of instructional techniques the language teachers can use to increase learner’s achievement of speech acts is cooperative learning (Wright, 2010). Cooperative learning is an instructional technique that enables students to work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Ellis, 2008). Now cooperative learning is applied in almost all school content areas and increasingly, in college and university contexts all over the world and is claimed to be an effective teaching method in foreign/second language education by many scholars (Kessler, 1992, as cited in Brown, 2007).

Ochs and Schieffelin (2011) argue that a central tenet of second language development research is that learners’ participation in communicative practices are promoted but not totally determined by course books, teachers, or even the built environment. A very crucial factor to consider in the process of second language development, especially when it comes to the effective communication, is the presence of socially and culturally informed persons, peers, and the like. Within a cooperative atmosphere and based on the perspective which mainly stresses cooperation, not competition, learning will be promoted. This, of course could find enough supports in the constructivism literature (Jaramillo, 1996; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Mitchell & Myles, 2004; Van Lier, 2004; Vygotsky, 1986; Young, 1993), and is technically named scaffolding.

“Within the body of cooperative learning, scaffolding plays a crucial role. Particularly in the early stages of learning, an instructor might invite student participation in the task at hand.  “This practice engages the student in learning and provides her/ him with ownership of the learning experience” (Hogan and Pressley, 1997, p. 76). “For example, a teacher might write the decimal point on the chalkboard and then ask a student to identify the next step in converting a fraction to a decimal.  The student might be invited to participate verbally or she might be asked to come to the chalkboard and contribute her ideas or strategies in writing.  Rather than asking a student for direct participation, an instructor might scaffold learning by asking students to contribute clues or ideas” (Hogan and Pressley, 1997, p. 91).

According to Van Lire (2004), there are many benefits of cooperative learning, and it should have its place in the classroom for several reasons. Humans are social beings that learn extremely well through interaction. While using methods of cooperative learning, students will develop a sense of community and commitment. This method of learning also supports positive peer teaching and learning which is beneficial as well.

Cooperative learning can also be focused on from the perspective of motivation: Motivational perspectives on cooperative learning focus primarily on the reward or goal structures under which students operate (Slavin, 1995). From this perspective, cooperative incentive structures create a situation in which the only way group members can attain their own personal goals is if the group is successful. Therefore, to meet their personal goals, group members must both help their group-mates to do whatever helps the group to succeed and, perhaps even more importantly, to encourage their group-mates to exert maximum efforts. In other words, rewarding groups based on group performance (or the sum of individual performances) creates an interpersonal reward structure, in which group members will give or withhold social reinforces (e.g., praise, encouragement) in response to group-mates’ task-related efforts (Slavin,1983).

Cooperative learning can create a situational perspective for the second language learners named “the social cohesion perspective” (Cohen, 1994), which is an emphasis on teambuilding activities in preparation for cooperative learning and processing or group self-evaluation during and after group activities.

It is generally asserted that cooperative learning is a highly appropriate option for all students because it emphasizes active interaction among individuals of diverse abilities and background (Yule, 1996) and demonstrates more positive student outcomes in academic achievement, social behavior and effective development.

One of instructional techniques language teachers can use to increase learner’s achievement of speech acts is competitive learning, and according to Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2000), competitive learning is that kind of learning in which the students have got to work against each other for the purpose on achieving a good grade. So one student should achieve the goal and another one is bound to fail. Thus the competitive learning can be interpersonal of inter-group. Competitive learning is of great value if the students want to view the material they have learned.

Competitive learning exists when one student goal is achieved but all other students fail to reach that goal (Johnson & Johnson, 1991).

This study was an attempt to investigate the comparative effect of storytelling and role playing on EFL learners’ motivation. To fulfill the purpose of this study, 60 female learners with the age range of 13 to 18 years old were selected among a total number of 90 learners studying at Arian Institute in Gorgan through their performance on a piloted PET for homogenizing them prior to the study. Four classes with 15 participants in each were randomly assigned to two experimental groups with two different treatments. Both experimental groups attended 20 sessions with the same material, and the Gardner’s attitude and motivation test battery (AMTB) was administered as the pretest and posttest of the study. The mean scores of the two groups on this posttest were computed through an independent samples t-test in order to test the hypothesis raised in the study. The results demonstrated that learners benefited significantly from role playing and storytelling instructions.

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                                                                                5

1.3. Statement of the Research Question                                                                6

1.4. Statement of the Research Hypothesis                                                            6

1.5. Definition of Key Terms                                                                                  6

1.6. Significance of the Study                                                                                 8

1.7. Limitations and Delimitation                                                                           9

1.7.1. Limitations                                                                                              9        1.7.2. Delimitation                                                                                                   10

 

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE                      11

2.1. Introduction                                                                                                   12

2.2. History of Storytelling                                                                                   15

2.2.1. Storytelling in the English Language Classroom                                  16

2.2.2. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and

Storytelling                                                                                            17

This study was an attempt to investigate the comparative effect of storytelling and role playing on EFL learners’ motivation. To fulfill the purpose of this study, 60 female learners with the age range of 13 to 18 years old were selected among a total number of 90 learners studying at Arian Institute in Gorgan through their performance on a piloted PET for homogenizing them prior to the study. Four classes with 15 participants in each were randomly assigned to two experimental groups with two different treatments. Both experimental groups attended 20 sessions with the same material, and the Gardner’s attitude and motivation test battery (AMTB) was administered as the pretest and posttest of the study. The mean scores of the two groups on this posttest were computed through an independent samples t-test in order to test the hypothesis raised in the study. The results demonstrated that learners benefited significantly from role playing and storytelling instructions.

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                                                                                5

1.3. Statement of the Research Question                                                                6

1.4. Statement of the Research Hypothesis                                                            6

1.5. Definition of Key Terms                                                                                  6

1.6. Significance of the Study                                                                                 8

1.7. Limitations and Delimitation                                                                           9

1.7.1. Limitations                                                                                              9        1.7.2. Delimitation                                                                                                   10

 

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE                      11

2.1. Introduction                                                                                                   12

2.2. History of Storytelling                                                                                   15

2.2.1. Storytelling in the English Language Classroom                                  16

2.2.2. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and

Storytelling                                                                                            17

2.2.3. Storytelling and Task-based Language Teaching                                  19

 

 

2.2.4. The National Curriculum, Communicative Language                          20

Teaching (CLT) and Storytelling

2.2.5. Learner Autonomy and Storytelling                                                      21

2.2.6. Multiple Intelligences (MI) and Storytelling                                        22

2.2.7. Rationale for Storytelling                                                                      24

2.2.8. Studies on Storytelling                                                                          24

2.3. Role playing                                                                                             26

2.3.1. Role playing and Task-based Language Teaching                                26

(TBLT)

2.3.2. Advantages of Role playing                                                                  27

2.3.3 Disadvantages of Role playing                                                               31

2.3.4. Rationale for Using Role playing                                                          32

2.4 Motivation                                                                                                 34

2.4.1. Types of Motivation                                                                          37

2.4.1.1 Instrumental and Integrative Motivation                                                     37

2.4.1.2 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation                                                   38

2.5.Theories and Constructs Reflecting Motivational Beliefs                                 39

and Attitudes

2.5.1 Attribution Theory                                                                                 39

2.5.2 Self- efficacy                                                                                           41

2.5.3 Mastery Experience                                                                                41

2.5.4Social Modeling                                                                                       41

2.5.5.Social Persuasion                                                                                    42

2.5.6.Psychological Response                                                                                42

2.5.7.Self – worth Theory                                                                                43

2.5.8.Goal Theories                                                                                         43

2.5.9. Self – Determination Theory (SDT)                                                      44

 

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY                                                                    46       

3.1. Introduction                                                                                                       47

3.2. Participants                                                                                                       47

3.3. Instrumentations and Materials                                                                       48

3.3.1.    Tests                                                                                                              48

3.3.1.1. The Preliminary English Test (PET)                                                    48

3.3.1.2. Attitude and Motivation Test Battery a                                                      50

Pretest and a Posttest

3.3.2. Materials                                                                                                        51

3.3.2.1.                                          Main Course Book for Both Groups

3.3.2.2. Flashcards and Posters for Both Groups                                                    51

3.4. Procedure                                                                                                          51

3.5. Design                                                                                                              54

3.6. Statistical Analyses                                                                                          55

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                                                56       

4.1. Introduction                                                                                                      57

4.2. Participant Selection                                                                                        57

4.2.1 PET Pilot Study                                                                                              58

4.2.1.1 PET Administration for Homogenizing                                                      59

the Participants

4.2.2. Inferential Statics                                                                                           67

4.2.2.1. Post-Test Results                                                                               71

4.2.2.2. Post-Test Descriptive Statistics                                                                  71

4.3. Testing the Null Hypotheses                                                                            74

4.4. Discussion                                                                                                       75

 

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL                                    82

IMPLICATIONS                                                                                     

5.1. Introduction                                                                                                   83

5.2. Summary of the Findings                                                                              83

5.3. Pedagogical Implications                                                                               85

5.3.1. Implication for EFL Teachers                                                                    85

5.3.2. Implication for EFL Syllabus Designers                                                    86

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research                                                                  87

 

REFERENCES                                                                                                      89

 

APPENDICES                                                                                                       97

Appendix A: Preliminary English Test (PET)                                                        98

Appendix B: Appendix B: Writing Rating Scale                                                  120

Appendix C: Attitude and Motivation Test Battery                                              122

by Gardner, 1985 (AMTB)

Appendix D: Sample Lesson                                                                                 126

 

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

 

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Pilot Administration                       58

Table 4.2 Reliability Estimates of the PET before and after Removing             59

Malfunctioning Items

Table 4.3 Reliability of the PET in First Homogenization                                  60

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the Two Ratings of PET Writing                 60

Section (First Homogenization)

Table 4.5 Correlation between the Two Ratings of the PET                               61

Writing Tasks (First Homogenization)

Table 4.6: Descriptive Statistics of Total PET (First Homogenization)             62

Table 4.7 Reliability of the PET (Second Homogenization)                               62

Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics of the Two Ratings of PET Writing                 63

Section (First Second Homogenization)

Table 4.9 Correlation between the Two Ratings of the PET Writing                 64

Tasks (Second Homogenization)

Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics of Total PET (Second Homogenization)        64

Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics of the Total PET Scores of the Two               65

Experimental Groups

Table 4.12: Independent Samples Test on the Total PET at the Onset               66

Table 4.13: T-test for both experimental groups                                                     67

Table 4.14: Paired Samples Test for the experimental group 1                          68

Table 4.15: Paired Samples Test for the experimental group 2                          69

Table 4.16: Independent Samples Test Experimental 1                                    70

and Experimental 2 (Pretest)

Table 4.17: Descriptive Statistics of the motivation Post-test                           72

Table 4.18: Independent Samples Test Experimental 1                                    74

and Experimental 2(Posttest)

Figure 4.1: Scatter Plot of Descriptive Statistics of the motivation Post-test

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

 

 

1.1 Introduction

Scholars in the field of teaching and learning English as a foreign or second language have long been concerned with finding ways to increase the learners’ motivation and removing the barriers they bring with themselves into the educational environment. Incorporating different instructions and techniques into the classroom adds variety as well as opportunities for a lot of language production. Some believe that these techniques can be used as integral part of the class. Using storytelling and role playing in EFL classes have gained special attention in recent years. If the teacher believes that the activity will work and the necessary support is provided, it can be very successful. However, if the teacher is not convinced about the validity of using role-play, the activity “will fall flat on its face just as you expected it to” (Ladousse, 1987, p.7). A widely spread and one of the best communicative activities as well as cooperative learning is a role play which trains the students in the classroom to cope with unpredictable real-life situations in an English speaking environment.  Ladousse (1987) points out the special reasons for using role play in the lessons. It puts students in situations in which they are required to use and develop language necessary in social relationships and helps them to build up their social skills. Using role play is useful especially while teaching shy students who have difficulty participating in conversations about themselves. Through this activity they are put into various roles and no longer feel that their own personality is implicated. Role play is an essential communicative technique which develops fluency, promotes interaction in the classroom and increases motivation.

Nowadays, with the development of communication technology, the necessity of learning English as one of the most important languages of the world became more apparent. Therefore, the need for learning communicative skills increases. On important issue in teaching – learning settings is psychological ones like stress, anxiety, and motivation. The present study deals with the effect of two applicable instructions of teaching on motivation. It is important that educators recognize the impact of the tasks on their students and ensuring that they are considering learners academic and emotional needs.

However, storytelling has a strong effect on learners’ perception and comprehension. Baker and Greene (1977) assert “storytelling increases the listeners’ awareness-sense of wonder, of mystery, of reverence for life” (p.17).

Louise Phillips (2000), in her research about storytelling mentioned the importance and effect of storytelling: There is enough research that has found valuable learning potential in storytelling experiences for children. This research indicates that storytelling  “(a)enhances children’s imagination” (Raines and Isbell, 1994;pp. 264-265); “(b) supports and improves children’s social lives” (Britsch, 1992; p. 80); “© develops their cognitive skills such as ‘deferred imitation’, speculation and knowledge”(Britsch, 1992; p.23; Nicolopoulou, Scales and Weintramb, 1994; p. 103; Mallan, 1991;p. 12); “(d) contributes significantly to all aspects of language development” (Cooper, Collins and Saxby, 1992; Mallan, 1991); and “(e) is an effective bridge to early literacy” (Bruner, 1986; Rosen, 1988 as cited in Miller and Mehler, 1994).

The power and value of reading to children is indisputable (Trealease, 1985; Hall, 1992; Snow, 1992 as cited in Tallant, 1992). In addition to great pleasure, it offers for children both story structure and makes them ready to become independent reader (Tallant, 1992).

It should be noted that role playing activities help the students to experience the “real-world” situations (Oberle, 2004, p 199). Van Ments (1983)

 

2.2.3. Storytelling and Task-based Language Teaching                                  19

 

 

2.2.4. The National Curriculum, Communicative Language                          20

Teaching (CLT) and Storytelling

2.2.5. Learner Autonomy and Storytelling                                                      21

2.2.6. Multiple Intelligences (MI) and Storytelling                                        22

2.2.7. Rationale for Storytelling                                                                      24

2.2.8. Studies on Storytelling                                                                          24

2.3. Role playing                                                                                             26

2.3.1. Role playing and Task-based Language Teaching                                26

(TBLT)

2.3.2. Advantages of Role playing                                                                  27

2.3.3 Disadvantages of Role playing                                                               31

2.3.4. Rationale for Using Role playing                                                          32

2.4 Motivation                                                                                                 34

2.4.1. Types of Motivation                                                                          37

2.4.1.1 Instrumental and Integrative Motivation                                                     37

2.4.1.2 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation                                                   38

2.5.Theories and Constructs Reflecting Motivational Beliefs                                 39

and Attitudes

2.5.1 Attribution Theory                                                                                 39

2.5.2 Self- efficacy                                                                                           41

2.5.3 Mastery Experience                                                                                41

2.5.4Social Modeling                                                                                       41

2.5.5.Social Persuasion                                                                                    42

2.5.6.Psychological Response                                                                                42

2.5.7.Self – worth Theory                                                                                43

این مطلب را هم بخوانید :

2.5.8.Goal Theories                                                                                         43

2.5.9. Self – Determination Theory (SDT)                                                      44

 

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY                                                                    46       

3.1. Introduction                                                                                                       47

3.2. Participants                                                                                                       47

3.3. Instrumentations and Materials                                                                       48

3.3.1.    Tests                                                                                                              48

3.3.1.1. The Preliminary English Test (PET)                                                    48

3.3.1.2. Attitude and Motivation Test Battery a                                                      50

Pretest and a Posttest

3.3.2. Materials                                                                                                        51

3.3.2.1.                                          Main Course Book for Both Groups

3.3.2.2. Flashcards and Posters for Both Groups                                                    51

3.4. Procedure                                                                                                          51

3.5. Design                                                                                                              54

3.6. Statistical Analyses                                                                                          55

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                                                56       

4.1. Introduction                                                                                                      57

4.2. Participant Selection                                                                                        57

4.2.1 PET Pilot Study                                                                                              58

4.2.1.1 PET Administration for Homogenizing                                                      59

the Participants

4.2.2. Inferential Statics                                                                                           67

4.2.2.1. Post-Test Results                                                                               71

4.2.2.2. Post-Test Descriptive Statistics                                                                  71

4.3. Testing the Null Hypotheses                                                                            74

4.4. Discussion                                                                                                       75

 

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL                                    82

IMPLICATIONS                                                                                     

5.1. Introduction                                                                                                   83

5.2. Summary of the Findings                                                                              83

5.3. Pedagogical Implications                                                                               85

5.3.1. Implication for EFL Teachers                                                                    85

5.3.2. Implication for EFL Syllabus Designers                                                    86

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research                                                                  87

 

REFERENCES                                                                                                      89

 

APPENDICES                                                                                                       97

Appendix A: Preliminary English Test (PET)                                                        98

Appendix B: Appendix B: Writing Rating Scale                                                  120

Appendix C: Attitude and Motivation Test Battery                                              122

by Gardner, 1985 (AMTB)

Appendix D: Sample Lesson                                                                                 126

 

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

 

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of the PET Pilot Administration                       58

Table 4.2 Reliability Estimates of the PET before and after Removing             59

Malfunctioning Items

Table 4.3 Reliability of the PET in First Homogenization                                  60

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics of the Two Ratings of PET Writing                 60

Section (First Homogenization)

Table 4.5 Correlation between the Two Ratings of the PET                               61

Writing Tasks (First Homogenization)

Table 4.6: Descriptive Statistics of Total PET (First Homogenization)             62

Table 4.7 Reliability of the PET (Second Homogenization)                               62

Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics of the Two Ratings of PET Writing                 63

Section (First Second Homogenization)

Table 4.9 Correlation between the Two Ratings of the PET Writing                 64

Tasks (Second Homogenization)

Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics of Total PET (Second Homogenization)        64

Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics of the Total PET Scores of the Two               65

Experimental Groups

Table 4.12: Independent Samples Test on the Total PET at the Onset               66

Table 4.13: T-test for both experimental groups                                                     67

Table 4.14: Paired Samples Test for the experimental group 1                          68

Table 4.15: Paired Samples Test for the experimental group 2                          69

Table 4.16: Independent Samples Test Experimental 1                                    70

and Experimental 2 (Pretest)

Table 4.17: Descriptive Statistics of the motivation Post-test                           72

Table 4.18: Independent Samples Test Experimental 1                                    74

and Experimental 2(Posttest)

Figure 4.1: Scatter Plot of Descriptive Statistics of the motivation Post-test

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

 

 

1.1 Introduction

Scholars in the field of teaching and learning English as a foreign or second language have long been concerned with finding ways to increase the learners’ motivation and removing the barriers they bring with themselves into the educational environment. Incorporating different instructions and techniques into the classroom adds variety as well as opportunities for a lot of language production. Some believe that these techniques can be used as integral part of the class. Using storytelling and role playing in EFL classes have gained special attention in recent years. If the teacher believes that the activity will work and the necessary support is provided, it can be very successful. However, if the teacher is not convinced about the validity of using role-play, the activity “will fall flat on its face just as you expected it to” (Ladousse, 1987, p.7). A widely spread and one of the best communicative activities as well as cooperative learning is a role play which trains the students in the classroom to cope with unpredictable real-life situations in an English speaking environment.  Ladousse (1987) points out the special reasons for using role play in the lessons. It puts students in situations in which they are required to use and develop language necessary in social relationships and helps them to build up their social skills. Using role play is useful especially while teaching shy students who have difficulty participating in conversations about themselves. Through this activity they are put into various roles and no longer feel that their own personality is implicated. Role play is an essential communicative technique which develops fluency, promotes interaction in the classroom and increases motivation.

Nowadays, with the development of communication technology, the necessity of learning English as one of the most important languages of the world became more apparent. Therefore, the need for learning communicative skills increases. On important issue in teaching – learning settings is psychological ones like stress, anxiety, and motivation. The present study deals with the effect of two applicable instructions of teaching on motivation. It is important that educators recognize the impact of the tasks on their students and ensuring that they are considering learners academic and emotional needs.

However, storytelling has a strong effect on learners’ perception and comprehension. Baker and Greene (1977) assert “storytelling increases the listeners’ awareness-sense of wonder, of mystery, of reverence for life” (p.17).

Louise Phillips (2000), in her research about storytelling mentioned the importance and effect of storytelling: There is enough research that has found valuable learning potential in storytelling experiences for children. This research indicates that storytelling  “(a)enhances children’s imagination” (Raines and Isbell, 1994;pp. 264-265); “(b) supports and improves children’s social lives” (Britsch, 1992; p. 80); “© develops their cognitive skills such as ‘deferred imitation’, speculation and knowledge”(Britsch, 1992; p.23; Nicolopoulou, Scales and Weintramb, 1994; p. 103; Mallan, 1991;p. 12); “(d) contributes significantly to all aspects of language development” (Cooper, Collins and Saxby, 1992; Mallan, 1991); and “(e) is an effective bridge to early literacy” (Bruner, 1986; Rosen, 1988 as cited in Miller and Mehler, 1994).

The power and value of reading to children is indisputable (Trealease, 1985; Hall, 1992; Snow, 1992 as cited in Tallant, 1992). In addition to great pleasure, it offers for children both story structure and makes them ready to become independent reader (Tallant, 1992).

It should be noted that role playing activities help the students to experience the “real-world” situations (Oberle, 2004, p 199). Van Ments (1983)

is one of these teams that has started its activity since 2001 and has approved more than 600 of astronomy equivalents for academy fields. In this study, 29 questionnaires including 32terms were given to M.S and PhD degree astronomy technical translators. In order to get the more acceptability of the equivalents, the APLL needs to coin and select the acceptable equivalents coincide with the arrival of new concepts before the entrance of foreign terms. Table of Contents 1 CHAPTER I 1 1.1 Introduction. 1 1.2 Research Question. 2 1.3 Definition of Key Terms. 2 1.4 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study. 3 1.5 Significance of the Study. 3 2 CHAPTER Π.. 5 2.1 Introduction. 5 2.2 Equivalence. 5 2.2.1 Definitions of Equivalence. 7 2.2.2 The Equivalence Controversy. 8 2.2.3 Acceptability of Equivalence. Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3 Terminological Activities of the APLL. 10 2.3.1 The objectives of the APLL. 13 2.4 Conclusion. 14 3 CHAPTER ΠI 15 3.1 Introduction. 15 3.2 Corpora of the Study. 15 3.3 Procedure. 17 3.4 Data Analyses. 17 4 CHAPTER IV.. 18 4.1 Introduction. 18 4.2 Data Analyses and Research Findings. 18 5 CHAPTER V.. 27 5.1 Introduction. 27 5.2 Conclusions. 27 5.3 Pedagogical Implications. 28 5.4 Suggestions for further Research. 29 6 Reference. 31 List of Tables Page Table 4.1. The English and Persian polysemous of the research terminology 56 Table 4.2. The potential productivity of the APLL equivalents 59 Table 4.3. The more acceptable APLLES. 61 Table 4.4. The equivalents with the five 62 Table 4.5. Frequency and percentage of the total agreement and disagreement of the APLLE 66 Table 4.6. The frequency and percentage of the agreement and disagreement of the APLLEs 67 Table 4.7. Mean of high acceptable equivalents among astronomy technical translators 68 Table 4.8. Mean of low acceptable equivalents among astronomy technical translators 69 List of Figures Figure ‎4‑1 The frequency of the agreement and disagreement of the APLLEs among participants 25 Figure ‎4‑2: The total mean of the high acceptable APLLEs among the participants. 26 Figure ‎4‑3:The total mean of the low acceptable APLLES among the participants. 26 Abbreviations APLL Academy of Persian language and Literature APLLE Academy of Persian Language and Literature Equivalent is one of these teams that has started its activity since 2001 and has approved more than 600 of astronomy equivalents for academy fields. In this study, 29 questionnaires including 32terms were given to M.S and PhD degree astronomy technical translators. In order to get the more acceptability of the equivalents, the APLL needs to coin and select the acceptable equivalents coincide with the arrival of new concepts before the entrance of foreign terms. Table of Contents 1 CHAPTER I 1 1.1 Introduction. 1 1.2 Research Question. 2 1.3 Definition of Key Terms. 2 1.4 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study. 3 1.5 Significance of the Study. 3 2 CHAPTER Π.. 5 2.1 Introduction. 5 2.2 Equivalence. 5 2.2.1 Definitions of Equivalence. 7 2.2.2 The Equivalence Controversy. 8 2.2.3 Acceptability of Equivalence. Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3 Terminological Activities of the APLL. 10 2.3.1 The objectives of the APLL. 13 2.4 Conclusion. 14 3 CHAPTER ΠI 15 3.1 Introduction. 15 3.2 Corpora of the Study. 15 3.3 Procedure. 17 3.4 Data Analyses. 17 4 CHAPTER IV.. 18 4.1 Introduction. 18 4.2 Data Analyses and Research Findings. 18 5 CHAPTER V.. 27 5.1 Introduction. 27 5.2 Conclusions. 27 5.3 Pedagogical Implications. 28 5.4 Suggestions for further Research. 29 6 Reference. 31 List of Tables Page Table 4.1. The English and Persian polysemous of the research terminology 56 Table 4.2. The potential productivity of the APLL equivalents 59 Table 4.3. The more acceptable APLLES. 61 Table 4.4. The equivalents with the five 62 Table 4.5. Frequency and percentage of the total agreement and disagreement of the APLLE 66 Table 4.6. The frequency and percentage of the agreement and disagreement of the APLLEs 67 Table 4.7. Mean of high acceptable equivalents among astronomy technical translators 68 Table 4.8. Mean of low acceptable equivalents among astronomy technical translators 69 List of Figures Figure ‎4‑1 The frequency of the agreement and disagreement of the APLLEs among participants 25 Figure ‎4‑2: The total mean of the high acceptable APLLEs among the participants. 26 Figure ‎4‑3:The total mean of the low acceptable APLLES among the participants. 26 Abbreviations APLL Academy of Persian language and Literature این مطلب را هم بخوانید : این مطلب را هم بخوانید : APLLE Academy of Persian Language and Literature Equivalent

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

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

Table 4.7 Independent Samples T-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

 

 

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

این مطلب را هم بخوانید :

 

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

Table 4.7 Independent Samples T-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