I

Islamic Azad University

Science and Research Branch

College of Foreign Languages and Literature

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign Language

The Relationship between Gender and Learner Types and Oral

Performance of Iranian EFL Students

Adviser:

Dr. Khalil Motallebzadeh

Reader:

Dr. Parviz Birjandi

By:

Shaahin Nematizadeh

Tehran, Iran

January, 2011

III

Table of Contents

List of tables……………………………………………………………...IX

List of Figures…………………………………………………………….X

Acknowledgement…………………………………………….……...…XII

Abstract……………………………………………………...…………......1

CHAPTER I: Backgroun and Purpose………………………………… 3

Purpose of the Study……………………………………………… 7

Statement of the Problem………………………………………… 8

Significance of the Study………………………………………… 10

Research Questions ………………………………………………11

Null Hypotheses……………………………………………...……12

Definition of the Key Terms…………………………………...…12

Limitation and Delimitations of the Study………………………15

CHAPTER II: Review of the Literature…………………………….…16

Concept of Oral Assessment……………………..…………….…18

Types and Formats of Oral Production Tests……………..…… 18

Face-to-Face Oral Inteview …………………………….....……..20

Paired Oral Interviews ………………………………………...…21

Group Oral Tests…………………………………..……………...26

Designing Oral Assessment Task……..………………………….27

Challenges to Oral Assessment……..…………………………….29

IV

Stages of Oral Assessment…………………………………..……32

Threats to Oral Tests Validity…………………………..…….… 32

Views on Scoring Language Oral Ability………………………..35

Analytic Approach…………………………………..…………….36

Advantages of Analytic Approach…………………………….…37

Disadvantages of Analytic Approach…………………………….38

Test of Spoken English…………………………………..………..39

TOEFL Academic Speaking Test (TAST) ……………………...40

Cambridge Certicficate in English Language Speaking Skill….40

International English Language Testing System (IELTS) …….41

Holistic Approach…………………………………..……….….…41

Advantages of Holistic Appraoch……………………………..…42

Disadvantages of Holistic Approach………………………..……43

The American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages

Speaking Scale (ACTFL) ………………… ……………..……..44

Factors Influencing Oral Performance in Oral Tests………..…45

Interaction Between Topic and Gender in Oral Interviews……45

Acquaintanceship Effect…………………………………..……...45

Gender Effect…………………………………..…………….…... 46

Interviewer and Interview Techniques Variation…………..…..46

Gender…………………………………..………………………... 47

Gender vs. Sex…………………………………..…………………47

Gender Differences in Personality and Society………………….48

Gender Differences and Learner Types………………………....52

Gender Differences in Teaching…………………………………56

V

Gender Differences in Cognitive Ability………………………...57

Gender Differences in Use of Strategy….……………………….58

Gender Differences in Speech…………….…………………..….60

Genders’ Performance in School Subjects other than

Language……………………………….…….…………………... 61

Gender Differences in Mathemathics.……….…………………..63

Gender Differences in Science……………….………………... ...64

Gender, Language, and Assessment………………………..……65

CHAPTER III: METHOD…………………………………….….……..75

Participants…………………………..…………………...….……76

Design………………………..…………………………….………77

Instrumentation…………………………………..……….………77

The Oxford Placement Test…………..…………………………..78

Calculating the Reliability of The Oxford Placement Test. ……78

Oral Placement Interviews……………….………………...…….78

IELTS-format Oral Interviews………………...…………...……75

Joy Reid’s Learning Styles Questionnaire.....…………………...79

Piloting the Questionnaire…………...…………………….….….80

IELTS Speaking Assessment Descriptors …………..…….….…80

Training Raters. ……………..………...…………………...….…80

Procedure…………………………..…………………………...…81

VI

CHAPTER IV: Data Analysis and Interpretaion……………………...83

Homogenizing the Participants ……………………..………..…84

Reliability of the Oxford Placement Test. ……..……………..…87

Age of the Participants……………………..……………………..88

Participants’ Learner Types……………………..…………….....89

First Rating of Recordings……………………..………………....91

Second Rating of Recordings……………………..……………....92

Inter-rater Reliability ……………………..……………………...93

Testing the Hypotheses……………………..…………………..…93

Learner types, Gender, and Oral Performance ……………..….96

Learner Types and Gender ……………………..………………..96

Learner Types and Oral Performance………………...…..…….97

CHAPTER V: Findings and Results …………............……………….98

Restatement of the Problem……………………..……..……...…99

Conclusions ……………………………………………..…….…100

Pedagogical Implications……………………..…………....……102

Suggestions for Further Research……………………..……… 104

VII

References……………………..………………………………….…… 106

Appendices

Appendix A: Oxford Placement Test

Appendix B: Sample Oral Placement Test Questions (IELTS

task 1)

Appendix C: IELTS Interview Materials (Task 2 & 3)

Appendix D: Perceptual Learning Style Preference

Questionnaire

Appendix E: IELTS Speaking Assessment Descriptors

VIII

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics of 429 Participants of Oxford Placement

Test……………………..…………………………………………………85

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of 198 Selected Participants after Oxford

Placement Test……………………..…………………………….…...…...85

Table 4.3 Frequency Table of Oxford Placement Test Scores after

Homogeneity……………………..………………………………………..86

Table 4.4 Expected Value Table for Calculating the Reliability of the

Oxford Test ……………………..……………………………………..….87

Table 4.5 Frequency of the Numbers of each Sex………………………...88

Table 4.6 Ages of the Participants……………………..………………….89

Table 4.7 Frequency Table of Participants‟ Learner Types………………90

Table 4.8 Descriptive Information of the First Rating ……………….…...91

Table 4.9 Frequency Table of the First Ratings……………………..…….91

Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics of the Second Ratings……………….…92

Table 4.11 Frequency Table of the Second Ratings……………….…...…92

Table 4.12 Cohen‟s Kappa for Inter-rater Reliability………………….….93

Table 4.13 Group Statistics Oral Scores……………………..…………...94

Table 4.14 T- test for Gender and Oral Performance ………..………...…94

Table 4.15 Chi Square Test for Gender and Learner types…………...….96

Table 4.16 ANOVA for Learner Types and Oral Performance…………..97

IX

List of Figures

Figure 4. 1. Histogram of the Final Number of Participants after IELTS

Task 1 Oral Placement Test……………………………………………....87

Figure 4.2. Genders‟ Performance on the Oral Test……….………….…95

1

Abstract

Gender has been a controversial issue which affects the language

learning process. McNamara (1996) has proposed that there are some

variables affecting second language performance one of which is sex.

Males and females also differ from one another in their learning styles

and have indicated variety of preferences in the ways they take in

information. This learning channel is named learner type or sometimes

referred to as “learning style” in the literature (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 140).

The present study is an attempt to explore the possible interaction among

the variables of gender, learner types, and oral performance of Iranian

EFL intermediate students. For this purpose, 429 adult students in six

different institutions in Mashhad and Kerman participated in the study.

After the Oxford placement test and an IELTS-format oral placement

test, 160 of them were selected and interviewed. Then, the relationship

between gender and learner types was examined using Joy Reid‟s

questionnaire through a Chi Square. After the statistical analysis,

kinesthetic learner type was found to be the most favorite, while no

relationship was found between gender and learning style. Through a T-

test, it was found out that females did better in oral performance,

however, the difference was not that significant. Furthermore, a one-way

ANOVA examined the interaction between learner type and oral

2

performance of Iranian EFL students and concluded that there is no

interaction between these two variables. This study has implications for

both language assessment and teaching.

107

REFERENCES

Amodeo, G. (2000). Scoring oral communicative competence in second

language classrooms.Unpublished master‟d thesis. Queen‟s

University, Ontario, Canada.

Amjadian, M. (2004). The relationship between the acquaintanceship

with the interviewer, the interviewee’s sex and Iranian EFL

performance in oral interviewas a test technique. Unpublished

master‟s thesis. Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing.

Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baker, D. (1984). Language testing: A critical survey and practical

guide. London: Edward Arnold.

Bayrak, B. K. & Altun, S. (2009). Is there any difference between

learning styles of student science teachers in relation to both their

grade and gender? System,1, 765-770.

Brown, A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of

speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20 (1), 1-25.

108

Brown, A. (2005). Book review: Testing second language speaking.

Language Testing,22 (2), 235-241.

Brown, D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New

York: Pearson Education.

Brown, D. (2004). Language assessment, principles and classroom

practices. New York: Pearson Education.

Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (2001). The Cambridge guide to

teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills. Florida:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cheng, L. & Rogers, T. & Hu, H. (2004). ESL=EFL instructors‟

classroom Assessment practices: purposes, methods, and

procedures. Language Testing, 21 (3), 360-389.

Chung Pan, Y & Ching Pan, Y (2011). Conducting speaking tests for

learners of English as a foreign language. The International

Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 6 (2), 83 -

100.

109

Coombe, C. & Folse, K. & Hubley, N (2007). A Practical guide to

assessing English language learners. Michigan: The University of

Michigan Press.

Csapo, N. & Hayen, R. (2006). The role of learning syles in the

teaching/learning process. Issues in Information Systems, 7(1),

129-133.

Cyril, J. W. (1990). Communicative language testing. Hertfordshire:

Prentice Hall.

Davies, B. (2004). The gender gap in modern languages: a

comparison of attitude and performance in Year 7 and Year 10.

Language Learning Journal, 21, 53-58.

Davis, G. A. (2006). Learning style and personality type preferences of

community development extension educators. Journal of

Agricultureal Education 47(1), 90 - 99.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual

differences in second language acquisition. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eckert, P., & McConnel-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

110

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Foot, M. C. (1999). Relaxing in pairs. ELT Journal, 53(1), 36 - 41.

Fulcher, G & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment.

New York: Routledge.

Gass, S.M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition. New

York: Routledge.

Ghaffari, T. (2006). The impact of four styles of vocabulary presentation

on vocabularyLearning of Iranian EFL learners. Unpublished

master‟s thesis. Islamic Azad University, Science and Research

Branch, Tehran, Iran.

Guarino, C. M., & Santibanez, L., Daley, A. D. (2006). Teacher

recruitment and retention:A Review of the Recent Empirical

Literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173-208.

Hatch, E & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics.CA:

Newbury House.

Haynes, J. (2007). Getting started with English language learners.

Virgiana: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

111

Heaton, J. B. (1988). Writing English language tests. New York:

Longman.

Hill, A. O. (1986). Mother tongue, father time: a decade of linguistic

revolt: Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Houroumtcho, D. (2004). The effects of gender, major, and a new

socioeconomic context on the motivational orientations of

Chadian university EFL students . Dissertation Abstract

International, 66(1). (UMI No. 3160564).

Huba, M. E. & Freed, J. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college

campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Retrieved

from: http://tep.uoregon.edu/workshops/teachertraining/

learnercentered/assessing/definition.html.

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hur, C. (2004). Gender equity and equality on Korean student scientific:

a life history narrative study. Dissertation Abstract International,

65(12). (UMI No. 3156079).

Ildikó, C. (2001). Is testing speaking in pairs disadvantageous for

students? A quantitative study of partner effects on oral test

scores. novELTy, 9 (1), 1 - 17.

112

Ireson, J. (2008). Learners, learning and educational activities. New

York: Routledge.

Kormos. J. (1999). Simulating conversations in oral proficiency

assessment: a conversation analysis of role plays and non-scripted

interviews in language exams. Language Testing, 16 (2), 163-188.

Lahey, B. B. (2001). Psychology: An introduction. New York: McGraw-

Hill Education.

Lammers, W. J., & Murphy, J.J. (2002). A profile of teaching techniques

used in the university classroom: A descriptive profile of a US

public university. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(1), 54 -

67.

Lawrence, J., & Ashford, K., & Dent, P. (2006). Gender differences in

coping Strategies of undergraduate students and their impact on

self-esteem and attainment. Active Learning in Higher Education,

7(3), 273 - 281.

Lumley, T., & O‟Sullivan, B. (2005). The effect of test-taker gender,

audience and topic on task performance in tape-mediated

assessment of speaking. Language Testing, 22(4), 415-437.

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

113

Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in testing. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Markham, P. (1988). Gender and perceived expertness of the speaker as

factors in ESL listening recall. Tesol Quarterly, 22, 397- 405.

McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance.

Harlow: Longman.

McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Mori, S., & Gobel, P. (2006). Motivation and gender in the Japanese

EFL classroom. System, 34, 194-210.

Motallebzadeh, K. (1993). On the relationship between DP/IN tests of

Language proficiency and learners’ sex. Unpublished master‟s

thesis. Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran.

Nakatsuhara, F. (2008). Inter-interviewer variation in oral interview

tests. ELT Journal, 62 (3), 266 - 275.

Norton, J. (2005). The paired format in Cambridge speaking tests. ELT

Journal, 59 (4), 287 - 297.

O‟Connell, S. (2006). Focus on IELTS foundation. Essex: Pearson

Education.

114

O‟Loughlin, K. (2002). The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing.

Language Testing, 19(2), 169-92.

Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational psychology: developing learners.

New Hampshire: Allyn & Bacon.

Orr, M. (2002). The FCE Speaking test: using rater reports to help

interpret test scores. System,30, 143-154.

O‟Sullivan, B. (2002). Exploring gender and oral proficiency interview

performance. System, 28, 373-386.

O‟Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency

test pair-task performance. Language Testing. 19 (3) 277-295.

Pae, P. (2004). DIF for examinees with different academic backgrounds.

Language Testing, 21(1), 53-72.

Pae, T. (2004). Gender effect on reading comprehension with Korean

EFL learners. System, 32, 265-281.

Powney, J. (1996). Gender and attainment; A review. The Scottish

council for research in education: Glasgow.

Robson, J. & Francis, B. & Read, B. (2004). Gender, student confidence

and communicative styles at university: the views of lecturers in

history and psychology. Studies in Higher Education, 29(1), 7-23.

115

Reid, J. M., (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students.

Tesol Quarterly, 21(1), 87 - 110.

Sawaki, Y., (2007). Construct validation of analytic rating scales in a

Speaking assessment: Reporting a score profile and a composite.

Language Testing, 24(3), 355 - 290.

Shehadeh, A. (1999). Gender differences and equal opportunities in the

ESL classroom. ELT Journal Volume, 53(4), 256-261.

Styslinger, M. E. (2008). Gendered performance during peer revision.

Literacy Research and Instruction 47, 211 - 228.

Tanaka, L. (2009). Communicative stances in Japanese interviews:

Gender differences informal interactions. Language &

Communication, 29, 366 - 382.

Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Pearson Education: New

York.

Underhill, N. (1987). Testing spoken language: A handbook of oral

testing techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Moere, A. (2006). Validity evidence in a university group oral test.

Language Testing. 23 (4), 411- 440.

116

Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1997). The psychology of language

teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wintergerst, A.C. & DeCapua, A. & Ann Verna, M. (2003).

Conceptualizing learning style modalities for ESL/EFL students.

System 31, 85-106.

Xi, X. (2007). Evaluating analytic scoring for the TOEFL Academic

Speaking Test for operational use. Language Testing. 24 (2), 251-

286.

142

چکیدٌ

بیه جىسیت ي اوًاع زبان آمًز ي کىص ضفاَی زبان آمًزان ایراویرابطٍ -

ي کىص ( سبکُای یادگیری)اوًاع زبان آمًز ایه پريشٌ پیدا کردن رابطٍ احتمالی بیه متغییرَای جىسیت، از اوجامَدف

مىظًر چُار صدي بیست ي وٍ زبان آمًز از بدیه .بًدٌ است (Intermediate)سطًح میاوی ضفاَی زبان آمًزان ایراوی

از دي آزمًن َمگًن سازی کتبی ي پس . ودداوطگاٌ در مطُد ي کرمان در ایت تحقیق ضرکت کرد پىج آمًزضگاٌ زبان ي یک

ضرکت کىىدگان در یک آزمًن ضفاَی بٍ سبک سپس . بٍ یکصديضصت وفر کاَص یافتکىىدگان تعداد ضرکتضفاَی،

اً ضرکت کردود ي کىص ضفاَی آوان تًسط دي ارزیاب مجرب ومرٌ دَی ضد ي وُایت (IELTS)آزمًن بیه المللی آیلتس

وُایت سبک یادگیری آوان تًسط پرسطىامٍ جًی ریددر . میاوگیه ایه دي ومرٌ بٍ عىًان ومرٌ وُایی آوان ثبت ضد

(Joy Reid) یک آزمًن تًسط . مًرد بررسی قرار گرفتT-test بررسی ضد ي بر رابطٍ بیه جىسیت ي کىص ضفاَی

بیه سبک یادگیری رابطٍ . قابل مالحظٍ وبًدبٍ مردان بُتر گسارش ضد، گرچٍ ایت تفايت اساس وتایج، عملکرد زوان وسبت

ایه بررسی ضد ي وتایج بدست آمدٌ وطاوگر عدم رابطٍ بیه One-way ANOVA ي کىص ضفاَی تًسط یک آزمًن

مًرد بررسی قرار گرفت Chi Squareیادگیری تًسط یک آزمًن رابطٍ بیه جىسیت ي سبک َمچىیه . دي متغییر بًد

تحقیق وتایج معىاداری در حیطٍ َای آمًزش زبان ایه . ن رابطٍ ای ویس بیه ایه دي متغییر یافت وطدکٍ در وتیجٍ آ

. اوگلیسی ي َمچىیه آزمًن سازی دارد

وعمتی زادٌضاَیه -

144

وطگاٌ آزاد اسالمی دا

ت ياحد علًم ي تحقیقا

(.M.A)پایاوامٍ کارضىاسی ارضد رضتٍ آمًزش زبان اوگلیسی

: مًضًع

رابطٍ بیه جىسیت ي اوًاع زبان آمًز ي کىص ضفاَی زبان آمًزان ایراوی

: استاد راَىما

دکتر خلیل مطلب زادٌ

: استاد مطاير

دکتر پريیس بیرجىدی

: وگارودٌ

ضاَیه وعمتی زادٌ

سال تحصیلی

-