i
Islamic Azad University
Science and Research Branch
Master of Arts (M. A.) Thesis in
Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)
The Relationship between Teaching Style of Iranian EFL Teachers and the Types
of Feedback They Provide
Advisor:
Dr. Parviz Maftoon
Reader:
Dr. Masood Yazdani Moghaddam
By:
Alireza Bijani
February 2011
iii
Islamic Azad University
Science and Research Branch
Faculty of Language and Literature
English Department
February 2011
WE HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THIS THESIS
BY
Alireza Bijani
ENTITLED
The Relationship between Teaching Style of Iranian EFL Teachers and the
Types of Feedback They Provide
BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FUILFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A
FOREIGN LANGUAGE (TEFL).
Dr. Parviz Maftoon Advisor ..….…………...…………
Associate Professor in TEFL at IAU-Science and Research Branch
Dr. Masood Yazdani Moghaddam Reader ..…….…...….…...………
Assistance Professor in TEFL at IAU-Science and Research Branch
Dr. Parviz Birjandi Referee ..…..…………….…..…….
Full Professor in TEFL, Dean of the Faculty, and Head of English Department
iv
Table of Contents
Title Page
List of Appendices ………………………………………………...……...viii
List of Tables …………………………………….…………...……….……ix
List of Figures …………………………………………….....……….….…xi
Acknowledgement ………………………………………….………….….xii
Abstract ………………………………………...…..………………….……1
CHAPTER I: Background and Purpose ……..................……………..….…2
Statement of the Problem …………………......................................……5
Research Questions ……………………………….…...……...…………5
Statement of the Hypothesis ……………...…………….…….………….6
Definition of the Key Terms ..….……………….……………………….6
Corrective Feedback …………………………...……..………...…….6
Teaching Style …………………………………….……....……….…7
Types of Feedback ………………………………………..….………7
Clarification Request …………………………………..…….…....7
Elicitation …………………………...….…………………………8
Explicit Correction ……………...……………...…………………8
Metalinguistic Feedback ……………...…………………………..9
Recast …....…………………….………………..………...…..…..9
Repetition ……………………………………………………..…10
Uptake ……………………………………………………………....10
v
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ……………………………10
Limitations ……………………………………………………….…10
Delimitations ………………………..……………………..…..……11
Significance of the Study ………..………………………….…….……12
CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature……………………..…….14
Different Definitions of Teaching Style ……...………….………..……15
Different Classifications of Teaching Style .…………………………...17
Brown’s (2001) Model ………………………………….……..……18
Bennett’s Formal and Informal Teaching Style Model ……………..19
Flander’s Classification of Teaching Style ….……………………...19
Mosston’s Spectrum of Teaching Style (MSTS) ………………...…20
Instruments Employed to Assess Teaching Style …………………...…23
Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (TSTI) …………………..…24
Perceptual Learning Style Preferences Questionnaire (PLSPQ) …....26
Teaching Style Inventory (TSI) …..………………………..…….….27
Development of Teaching Style Inventory …………………..….28
The Distribution of Teaching Style in Classrooms ……...………33
Different Types of Feedback ………………………………...…………35
Different Classifications of Types of Feedback …………………….36
Vigil and Oller’s (1976) Classification ………………...………..37
Richards and Lockhart’s (1996) Classification ………...……..…38
Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) Model ……………………...……..….40
vi
Loewen and Nabei’s (2007) Classification …………………..….42
Efficacy and Frequency of Different Types of Feedback …….…….43
Studies Which Focused on the Frequency of Feedback Types ….44
Studies that Focused on the Efficacy of Feedback Types ……….47
CHAPTER III: Method …………………………….………………….…..53
Participants ……………………………………………………..………54
Instrumentation ………………………………………...……….………54
Teaching Style Inventory (TSI) ……………………………..………55
Semi-Structured Interview …………………………….………...….56
Voice-Recording of the Classes …………………………………….58
Procedure …………………………………………..…………...………59
Coding Different Types of Feedback ……………………………….64
Coding Different Types of Learner Errors …………………….……65
Grammatical Errors ………………………………………….…..65
Lexical Errors ……………………………………………...…….66
Phonological Errors …………………...……………………...….66
Design …………………………………………………....……………..69
Data Analysis …………………………………….…………...………..70
CHAPTER IV: Data Analysis and Discussion ……………………………71
Analyzing Teacher Feedback Moves …………………………………..72
Analysis of Student and Teacher Turns ………………………………..75
vii
Analyzing Student Uptakes and Error Types …………………………..77
Student Uptakes ……………………………………………………..77
Student Error Types ……………………………………………..….83
Comparison of the Findings of This Study with Other Studies ………..87
Analyzing Data Obtained from Teaching Style Inventory ………….….92
Testing the Hypothesis ………………………...………….……………98
Findings of the Semi-Structured Interview ……………………...……102
CHAPTER V: Conclusion, Pedagogical Implications, and
Suggestions for Further Research ……………….……….108
Restatement of the Problem ……………………...…………..…….…108
Summary of Data Gathering Procedures ……………………...………110
Summary of the Findings and Conclusion …………………..…….….110
Pedagogical Implications ………………………………...………...…114
Suggestions for Further Research ….……………………………...….117
Final Remarks ………………………………………………….……..119
REFERENCES ………………………………………...………..………..121
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………132
viii
List of Appendices
Appendix Page
Appendix A: Five Teaching Styles in Teaching Style Inventory …….…..133
Appendix B: Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) Model of Corrective Feedback ...137
Appendix C: Teaching Style Inventory: Version 3.0 …………….......…..138
Appendix D: Semi-Structured Interview ………………………….….…..143
Appendix E: Instances of Student Turns with Error, Teacher Turns with
Feedback, and Student Turns With and Without Uptake in
the Study’s Database …………………...………………….146
ix
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1: Total Distribution of Corrective Feedback Types …………….….72
Table 2: Frequency and Percentage of Corrective Feedback Types
(Teachers 1-6) ……………………………………………...…….73
Table 3: Frequency and Percentage of Corrective Feedback Types
(Teachers 7-12) …………………………………………..………74
Table 4: Frequency and Percentage of Explicit and Implicit Types
of Corrective Feedback ……………………………………….….76
Table 5: Frequency and Percentage of Other-Repair and Self-Repair
Types of Corrective Feedback …………………………………....76
Table 6: Frequency of Total Student Turns, Student Turns with
Error, and Student Turns with Uptake ……………….......………78
Table 7: Frequency of Total Teacher Turns, Teacher Turns with
Feedback, and Student Turns with Uptake ……………………….79
Table 8: Uptake Following Teachers’ Corrective Feedbacks ……….…….80
Table 9: Frequency and Percentage of Uptake Following
Implicit, Explicit, Other-Repair, and Self-Repair Types of
Corrective Feedbacks ………………………………………….…82
Table 10: Frequency of Total Student Erroneous Turns Followed
by Feedback, and Frequency and Percentage of Errors which
Received Feedback, by Error Type ………………………...…….84
x
Table 11: Frequency of Total Student Erroneous Turns Followed
by Each Feedback Type and Frequency and Percentage of
Errors which Received Feedback, by Error Type ………………..85
Table 12: Items Associated with Each Teaching Style …………………....93
Table 13: Range of Low, Moderate, and High Scores for Each
Teaching Style Based of Test Norms ………………………...…..94
Table 14: Teaching Styles of Educators (Teachers 1-6) ………………..…95
Table 15: Teaching Styles of Educators (Teachers 7-12) …………………96
Table 16: Mean Teaching Style Scores of the 12 Teachers ……………….98
xi
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1: Affective and Cognitive Feedback ……………………..……….37
Figure 2: Options for Corrective Feedback ………………………….…….42
Figure 3: Coding Scheme Designed for the Current Study ……………..…62
Figure 4: Implicit and Explicit Feedback Types …………..………………64
Figure 5: Total Student Turns with Error, Student Turns Followed by
Feedback, and Feedback Moves Followed by Uptake ……….…81
1
Abstract
Both the study of the efficacy and frequency of different types of corrective
feedback and the investigation of different teaching styles of educators are of
a great prominence in studies of second and foreign language teaching.
Teaching style of educators is related to many factors, such as teachers’
thinking style, attitudes, behaviors, personalities, activities, and so on
(Heimlich & Norland, 2002). The present study was an attempt to
investigate the patterns of error treatment in intermediate teenage EFL
classrooms in Iran. In particular, the analysis focused, first, on the frequency
and distribution of different feedback types used by the teachers and how
they resulted in learner uptake and, second, on the relationship between the
educators’ teaching style and types of feedback they provided. Participants
of the study were 12 teachers from two branches of Simin Educational
Association who taught teenage learners at an intermediated level. Voice
recording of their classes totaled 25.4 hours out of which 16.7 hours of
teacher-student interaction were considered to be the study’s database which
was analyzed based on the study’s coding scheme. The analysis of the
database, teachers’ scores on Teaching Style Inventory, and findings of the
semi-structured interviews indicated that first, there was an overwhelming
tendency for teachers to use recasts in spite of its ineffectiveness at eliciting
uptakes from learners. Elicitation was also proved to be the feedback type
which led to the greatest amount of learner uptake. Second, it was made
clear that teachers with certain teaching styles were more prone to use
certain feedback types, indicating that a relationship between teaching styles
of the educators and their feedback provision habits does exist.
121
REFERENCES
Alexander, G., Roux, N. L., Hlalele, D., & Daries, G. (2010). Do educators
in the free state province of South Africa engage learners via
outcomes based teaching styles? Journal of Social Sciences, 24(1),
15-22.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.
Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, method, and technique. English
Language Teaching, 17(2), 63-67.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Abdi, H. (2010). Recast and its impact on second
language acquisition. International Journal of Language Studies, 4(4),
301-312.
Braidi, S. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-
speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1-42.
Brandi, M. M. (2006). The impact of individual teaching styles on student
academic achievement. Unpublished master’s thesis, Marietta
College, Marietta, Ohio, United States of America.
122
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to
language pedagogy (2nd
ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th
ed.).
San Francisco: Pearson Education.
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K.S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’
interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
28(2), 209-236.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective
treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46.
Chen, M. L. (2009). Influence of grade level on perceptual learning style
preferences and language learning strategies of Taiwanese English as
a foreign language learners. Learning and Individual Differences,
19(2), 304-308.
Cohen, J. H., & Amidon, E. J. (2004). Reward and punishment histories: A
way of predicting teaching style. The Journal of Educational
Research, 97(5), 269-280.
Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and teaching (3rd
ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
123
Dasari, P. (2006). The influence of matching teaching and learning styles on
the achievement in science of grade six learners. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, South
Africa.
Diaz, N. R. (2009). A Comparative study of native and non-native teachers’
scaffolding techniques in SLA at an early age. Estudios Ingleses de la
Universidad Complutense, 17(1), 57-73.
Douglas, D. (2001). Performance consistency in second language acquisition
and language testing research: A conceptual gap. Second Language
Research, 17(4), 442-456.
Ellis, N. (1995). Consciousness in second language acquisition: A review of
field studies and laboratory experiments. Language Awareness, 4(1),
123-146.
Ellis, R. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two
grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational
interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical
studies (pp. 339-360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
124
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in
communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 52(2), 281-318.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective
feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 28(1), 39-368.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4),
575-600.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Fujii, A., & Mackey, M. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner
interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. IRAL, 47(3), 267-301.
Grasha, A. F. (1972). Observations on relating teaching goals to student
response styles and classroom methods. American Psychologists,
27(2), 144-147.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing
learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. San
Bernadino: Alliance Publishers.
125
Guion, L. A. (2001). Conducting an in depth-interview. University of
Florida, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences. Retrieved August
18, 2010, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FY/FY39300.pdf
Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching styles: Where are we now?
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 63(1), 17-24.
Kulinna, P. H., & Cothran, D. J. (2003). Physical education teachers’ self-
reported use and perceptions of various teaching styles. Learning and
Instruction, 13(6), 597-609.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching
(2nd
ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lawrence, G. (1982). People types and tiger stripes: A practical guide to
learning styles (2nd
ed.). Gainesville: Center for Applications of
Psychological Type, Inc.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond
negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1),
37-63.
Lefrancois, G. R. (1991). Psychology for teaching (7th ed.). Belmont:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
126
Li, M. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-
analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-based
ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54(1), 153-188.
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective
feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational
interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical
studies (pp. 361-378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in
relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms.
Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom
discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51-81.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-
focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3),
399-432.
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic
interaction. Language Learning, 59 (2), 453-498.
127
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional
counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-
300.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:
Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology
and design. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mawhinney, T. S. (2003). Teaching style and beliefs. In R. Dunn & A.
Griggs (Eds.), Synthesis of Dunn & Dunn learning styles model
research: Who, what, when, & so what? (pp. 239-243). Kingston: St.
John’s University.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and
learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 27(1), 79-103.
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple
past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational
interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical
studies (pp. 323-338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
128
Morgan, K., Kingston, K., & Sproule, J. (2005). Effects of different teaching
styles on the teacher behaviors that influence motivational climate and
pupils’ motivation in physical education. European Physical
Education Review, 11(3), 257-285.
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom
interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language
learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43-63.
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child
ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519-533.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake
in adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles
in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 1-20.
Pollocks, S. B. (2009). The effects of teaching styles on male achievement in
single-sex and co-educational classrooms in selected school districts
in Georgia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Statesboro, Georgia,
United States of America.
129
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL
Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second
language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rogers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language
teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richlin, L. (2009). Blueprint for learning: Constructing college courses to
facilitate, assess, and document learning. Richmond: Stylus
Publishing, LLC.
Rosi-Le, L. (1989). Perceptual learning style preferences and their
relationship to language learning strategies in adult students of
English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, United States of America.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for
second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J.
Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language
learning and teaching (pp. 131-164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
130
Salvara, M. I., Jess, M., Abbott, A., & Bognar, J. (2006). A preliminary
study to investigate the influence of different teaching styles on
pupils’ goal orientations in physical education. European Physical
Education Review, 12(1), 51-59.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions
concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback:
USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
Smith, M. D. C., Todorovich, J. R., McCaughtry, N. A., & Lacon, S. A.
(2001). Urban teachers’ use of productive and reproductive teaching
styles within the confines of the national curriculum for physical
education. European Physical Education Review, 7(2), 178-188.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language
acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language
Teaching, 29, 1-15.
Vásquez , C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about
corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching
Research, 14(4), 421-443.
Vigil, N. A., & Oller, J. W. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model.
Language Learning, 26(2), 281-295.
131
Zhang, L. F. (2007). From career personality types to preferences for
teachers’ teaching styles: A new perspective on style match.
Personality and Individual Differences, 43(7), 1863-1874.
Zhang, L. F. (2009). From conceptions of effective teachers to styles of
teaching: Implications for higher education. Learning and Individual
Differences, 19(1), 113-118.
Zisow, M. A. (2000). Teaching style and technology. Tech Trends, 44(4),
36-38.
153
چکیده
مىزش مدرسان ایرانی و انىاع بازخىردهای ارائه شده تىسط انها در آرابطهء میان سبک
کالسهای آمىزش زبان انگلیسی
کارایی آهسع ای فزاای ااع باسخردا وچیي تحقیق در هرد ااع طبک هطالؼ
طبک تذریض . هذرطاى اس اویت سیادی در هطالؼات آهسع سباى اگلیظی بزخردار اطت
ای ا، رفتارا، ااع ػخصیت، فؼالیت هذرطاى ب ػاهل سیادی اس جول طبک تفکز، دیذگا
هضع هرد پژغ در پایاى اه حاضز، تحقیق در هرد الگای تصحیح .آا بظتگی دارد
آهسع سباى (intermediate)ای ططح هتطط ای سباى آهساى جاى در کالص خطا
تسیغ ااع باس خردا چگگی توزکش ایي تحقیق اال بز ری فزاای .باػذ اگلیظی هی
بیي طبک آهسع (uptake)هجز ػذى آا ب بزگیزی سباى آهساى ثایا بز ری رابط
هذرص ک اس د ١٢در ایي تحقیق . باػذ باسخردای ارائ ػذ تطط آا هیهذرطاى ااع
سباى طیویي اتخاب ػذ بدذ ب سباى آهساى جاى در ططح هتطط درص هی عع طظ ب ه
طاػت اس کالطای هذرطاى ضبط گزدیذ ک اس ایي هقذار، ٢٥،٤هجوػا . دادذ، ػزکت کزدذ
ایي هکالوات بیي هذرطاى سباى آهساى بد، ب ػاى باک اطالػاتطاػت ک ػوذتا ١۶،۷
تحلیل باک . گذاری تحقیق، تحلیل ػذ طپض باک اطالػات تطط هذل کذ. تحقیق در ظز گزفت ػذ
طبک تذریض ای هصاحب ؼاى داد ک اال ، یافت(TSI)اطالػات، وز هذرطاى در پزطؼاه
در سباى آهساى، هذرطاى توایل ( uptake)در فزا خاذى بزگیزی recastف ػلیزغن کارایی ضؼی
وچیي ثابت ػذ .ای آهسع سباى خد داػتذ سیادی بزای اطتفاد اس ایي ع باس خرد در کالص
یا تایج تحقیق ثا .در سباى آهساى ػذ( uptake)هجز ب بیؼتزیي تؼذاد بزگیزی elicitation ک
ا بیؼتز اس باس خرد ای تذریض هؼیي، اس بزخی اس هذرطاى با طبک داد ک بؼضی حاضز ؼاى
ای ارائ کذ ک رابط بیي طبک تذریض هذرطاى ااع باس خرد اطتفاد کزدذ ک ایي ثابت هی
. ػذ تطط آا جد دارد
علیرضا بیژنی
أ
دانشگـاه آزاد اســالمی
واحـــد علــــىم و تحقیقــــات
پایاى اه کارػاطی ارػذ رػت آهسع سباى اگلیظی
: هضع
هسع هذرطاى ایزای ااع باسخردای ارائ ػذ تطط اا در کالطایآهیاى طبک ءرابط
آهسع سباى اگلیظی
: اطتاد راوا
پزیش هفتى دکتز
: اطتاد هؼار
هظؼد یشدای هقذمدکتز
: گارذ
ػلیزضا بیژی
1389 -9013طال تحصیلی