The thrust of the current study was to investigate the relationship among EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies (SILL), learning style preferences (PLSP), and creativity (CR). To this end, a group of 148 male and female learners, between the ages of 19 and 32, majoring in English Translation and English Literature at Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran were randomly selected and were given three questionnaires: the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire by Oxford (1990), the Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP) questionnaire by Reid (1984), and a questionnaire of creativity (ACT) by O’Neil, Abedi, and Spielberger (1992). The relationship among language learning strategies, learning style preferences, and creativity was investigated using Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. The results of this study indicated that there were significant and positive correlations between EFL learners’ learning strategies and learning style preferences (r = 0.83, p < 0.05), learning strategies and creativity (r=0.73, p < 0.05), and learning style preferences and creativity (r = 0.88, p < 0.05). Also, there were significant and positive correlations among different language learning strategies and learning style preferences, different language learning strategies and creativity, and different learning style preferences and creativity. Running multiple regression showed that social strategy predicted 79.9 percent of scores on creativity, cognitive strategy increased the predictive power to 82.1 percent, affective strategy added up the percentage of prediction to 82.6 percent, and finally the metacognitive strategy leveled the prediction to 93.2 percent. Also, results of multiple regression for learning styles showed Kinesthetic learning style is the only variable entering the model to predict 93.1 percent of scores on creativity. It can be concluded that the obtained results may help EFL teachers and educators to bear in mind the benefits of developing their learners’ learning strategies and learning style preferences when dealing with promoting creativity in learners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION.. IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. IV

ABSTRACT.. v.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..VI

LISTS OF TABLES. IX

LISTS OF FIGURES. XI

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS. XII

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE. 1

1.1Introduction. 2

1.2 Statement of the Problem… 7

1.3 Statement of the Research Questions. 8

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypotheses. 10

1.5 Definition of Key Terms. 11

1.5.1 Language Learning Strategies. 11

1.5.2 Learning Style preferences. 12

1.5.3 Creativity. 12

1.6 Significance of the Study. 13

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION.. IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. IV

ABSTRACT.. v.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..VI

LISTS OF TABLES. IX

LISTS OF FIGURES. XI

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS. XII

CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE. 1

1.1Introduction. 2

1.2 Statement of the Problem… 7

1.3 Statement of the Research Questions. 8

1.4 Statement of the Research Hypotheses. 10

1.5 Definition of Key Terms. 11

1.5.1 Language Learning Strategies. 11

1.5.2 Learning Style preferences. 12

1.5.3 Creativity. 12

1.6 Significance of the Study. 13

1.7 Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions. 16

1.7.1 Limitations. 16

1.7.2 Delimitations. 18

1.7.3 Assumptions. 19

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE.. 20

2.1 Introduction. 21

2.2 Language Learning Strategies. 21

2.2.1 Definitions of Language Learning Strategies. 22

2.2.2 Background of Research on Language Learning Strategies. 25

2.2.3 Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies. 26

2.2.4 Method to Investigate Learning Strategies. 35

2.2.5 Researches on Learning Strategies. 38

2.3 Language Learning Style. 43

2.3.1 What is Learning Style?. 43

2.3.2 Development of Learning Style. 45

2.3.3 Background of Research on Learning Styles. 54

2.3.4 Fundamentals of Learning Styles. 55

2.3.5 Definitions of Learning Styles. 56

2.3.6 Researches on Learning Styles. 60

2.3.7 Differences between Language Learning Styles and Strategies. 65

2.4 Creativity. 66

2.4.1 The History of Creativity. 66

2.4.2 The Background of Creativity. 68

2.4.3 Attributes of Creativity. 70

2.4.4 Barriers to Creativity. 72

2.4.5 Promoting Creativity. 73

2.4.6 Important Cognitive Processes Involved in Creativity. 75

2.4.7 Researches on Creativity. 77

CHAPTER III: METHOD.. 80

3.1 Introduction. 81

3.2 Participants. 81

3.3 Instrumentation. 82

3.3.1 Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) 82

3.3.2 The Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP) 86

3.3.3 Creativity Questionnaire (ACT) 89

3.4 Procedure. 93

3.5 Design. 95

3.6 Statistical Analyses. 95

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 97

4.1 Introduction. 98

4.2 Results of the Study. 100

4.2.1 Testing Assumptions. 100

4.3 Testing the Null Hypotheses. 108

4.3.1 Testing the First Null Hypothesis. 108

4.3.2 Testing the Second Null Hypothesis. 112

4.3.3 Testing the Third Null Hypothesis. 115

4.3.4 Testing the Fourth Null Hypothesis. 119

4.3.5 Testing the Fifth Null Hypothesis. 123

4.3.6 Testing the Sixth Null Hypothesis. 127

4.3.7 Testing the Seventh Null Hypothesis. 132

4.3.8 Testing the Eighth Null Hypothesis. 136

4.4 Construct Validity. 139

4.5 Conclusion. 142

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS. 146

5.1 Introduction. 147

5.2 Procedure and Summary of the Findings. 147

5.3 Discussion. 153

5.4 Pedagogical Implications. 158

5.4.1 Implication for EFL Teachers. 158

5.4.2 Implication for EFL Learners. 160

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

5.5. Suggestions for Further Research. 162

REFERENCES. 164

APPENDICES. 184

LISTS OF TABLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LISTS OF FIGURES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS

L1: Native Language

L2: Foreign Language

ESL: English as a Second Language

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

CR: Creativity

PLSP: Perceptual Learning Style Preference

SILL: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

ACT: Abedi-Schumacher Creativity Test

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

1.1 Introduction

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

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

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

Dyer (1995) noted that each preferred learning style has a matching preferred method of instruction. When mismatches exist between learning styles of the learners in a class and the teaching style of the teacher, the students may become bored and inattentive in class, do poorly on tests, get discouraged about the courses, the curriculum, and themselves, and in some cases change to other curricula or drop out of school (Felder, 1996). Therefore, identifying these learning styles, which are stated by Cornett (1983) as the overall patterns that give general direction to learning behavior, might be a key element to raise instructors’ awareness of their weaknesses and strengths and impede negative feedbacks. Accordingly, Reid (1995) states that developing an understanding of learning environments and styles “will enable students to take control of their learning and to maximize their potential for learning” (p. 25).

Also, Brown (2007) believes that every individual approaches a problem or learns a set of facts from a unique perspective. In this view, the learner is considered as an active participant that the effects of teaching will be partly dependant on what s/he knows such as his/her prior knowledge, what s/he thinks about during learning and his/her active cognitive processes (Weinstein & Underwood, 1985). This has brought attention to language learning strategies which an individual learner applies during the learning process to facilitate second language learning (Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1991).

Learning strategies are “any set of operations, plans, or routines used by learners to facilitate the obtaining, retrieval, storage and use of information” (Macaro, 2006, p. 342).

Many scholars such as Eliss (1994); O’Malley and Chamot (1996); Oxford (1990); Rubin (1978); Stern (1992) have classified learning strategies into categories, but Oxford’s classification is popular (Eliss, 2008). Her taxonomy consists of direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies are specific procedures that learners can use to improve their language skills. Indirect strategies, on the other hand, include things such as evaluating one’s learning and cooperating with others (Elis, 2008). Furthermore, the frequency use of strategies and particular types of strategies vary among EFL learners. In this respect the influential effect of learning style should also be considered as suggested by Carson & Longhini, (2002); and Littlemore, (2001).

Researchers such as Ehrman (1989) and Oxford (1995) suggest that learning style has a significant influence on students’ choice of learning strategies, and that both styles and strategies affect learning outcomes. But in spite of the diversity of researches on learning styles and strategies, relatively no studies have addressed the relationship between these two variables and another very influential factor in foreign language learning process called creativity (CR).

Humans are all born with a potential for creativity and creativity can be nurtured “at all stages and in all fields of human endeavor” (Sarsani, 2005, p. 47). To this end, according to Agarwal (1992), developing CR at all levels in the education system is increasingly recognized as being critical in improving educational attainment and life skills, particularly in second or foreign language learning and teaching. “Discussion of creativity in relation to language teaching and learning has been extensive and continues to be a very major point of application of a wide range of theories of creativity” (Carter, 2004, p. 213). In fact, “Creativity is an inherent aspect of all pedagogical tasks” (Mishan, 2005, p. 83).

The field of creativity as it is known today has been developed basically thanks to the outstanding attempts made by Guilford and Torrance (Sternberg, 2009). In the modern world, creativity is fundamentally important in all aspects of life and since creativity is complex in nature different viewpoints have been put forward to explain the concept emphasizing different aspects of it (Sarsani, 2006).