A Mixed Methods Study Examining Iranian EFL Reflective Teachers Self-Repair Strategies in Terms of Level of Education and Experience [پايان نامه لاتين]
Melika Rajabi
| Record Identifier: | 16891 |
| Title: | A Mixed Methods Study Examining Iranian EFL Reflective Teachers Self-Repair Strategies in Terms of Level of Education and Experience |
| Personal Name: | Melika Rajabi |
| Studied Course: | Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) |
| Supervisor: | Dr. Masoomeh Estaji |
| Advisor: | Dr. Mohammad Reza Hashemi |
| College: | Humanities |
| Univercity: | Khatam |
| Degree: | Master |
| Studied Year: | 2016 |
| Abstract: | Reflectivity is one of the main factors in teachers’ professional development, and teacher education. Reflective teachers need to have the knowledge of repair and self-repair which are an important components of teacher talk and have a significant influence on the successful communication between teachers and students, and hence affects the classroom teaching efficiency (Jian-ying, 2015). Unlike teacher reflectivity, self-repair strategies employed by the teachers have been disregarded in EFL research studies. Therefore, the purpose of this sequential mixed-methods study was to examine self-repair strategies of Iranian EFL reflective teachers considering their level of experience, and education. To this end, through convenience sampling, 33 Iranian EFL teachers who had been teaching at intermediate and advanced levels were selected from various institutions in Tehran. Data for the quantitative phase was collected from the reflectivity questionnaire developed by Akbari, Behzadpour, and Dadvand (2010). As for the qualitative phase of the study, 70 hours of English instruction and classroom interactions of 33 reflective teachers, who were selected through purposive sampling, were recorded, transcribed, and coded by the researcher based on Fox and Jasperson’s (1995) self-repair strategies, who presented 7 types of self-repair strategies, to explore the most frequent self-repair strategies employed by reflective teachers. The quantitative analyses were carried out by employing a oneway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which indicated that there is a significant difference in terms of the total repair strategy use between the reflectivity groups, and Kruskal Wallis, which revealed that there is a statistically significant difference between high and low reflective teachers in terms of the repair strategies types “h, j, k, and l” which are ‘Replacement of a lexical word and the repetition of the correct sentence’, ‘Replacement of a lexical item, clause or phrase by another lexical item, clause or phrase’, ‘Repetition and addition of a lexical item, phrase or clause then discarding the error’, and ‘Repetition and the addition of a lexical item, phrase or clause then replacement of error with correct elements’ respectively. However, the results of factorial ANOVA, through which the interaction of factors could be tested, revealed that the instructors’ level of experience and level of education does not make any significant difference in the use of self-repair strategies among EFL high, mid, and low reflective instructors. The results of the qualitative analyses were calculated through frequency count and descriptive statistics which indicated that the most frequent self-repair strategies of high, mid, and low iii reflective teachers employed was strategy “A” or ‘repetition of a lexical item’. The findings of the study offer some implications and recommendations for further research which are presented at the end of the study. |
| شماره ثبت | نسخه | جلد | بخش | مرجع | شماره بازیابی | در دست امانت | تاریخ بازگشت | ملاحظات | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21260 | 1 | ||||||||
| 21261 | 2 |
جهت ثبت نظر با حساب کاربری تان وارد شوید