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