On the Contribution of Iranian EFL Teachers' Sense of Plausibility to Language Teaching Pedagogy
International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 2, Issue 3-1, June 2014, Pages: 1-11
Received: Apr. 28, 2014; Accepted: May 12, 2014; Published: Jun. 14, 2014
Views 4275      Downloads 174
Authors
Fahime Farjami, Young Researchers and Elite Club, Ahar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahar, Iran
Hanieh Davatgari Asl, Department of English Language Teaching, Ahar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahar, Iran
Ali Rezaee Javidan, Department of English Language Teaching, Ahar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahar, Iran
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
The present study was conducted to investigate the impact of the teachers' sense of plausibility on their classroom practices. The participants were 42 male and female high school English teachers and some of their students. To fulfill the purpose of the study, a 60-item teacher's sense of plausibility questionnaire was administered to the teachers and a 29 item questionnaire was administered to their students to determine the effect of the teacher's sense of plausibility on the classroom performances. The analysis of data was done through Pearson Correlation and the parametric independent t-test analyses. The findings indicated that there is a close relationship between the teacher's sense of plausibility and his/her teaching performances. With respect to these findings, it could be concluded that the students whose teachers had a higher sense of plausibility had better language performances than those students whose teachers had a lower sense of plausibility which is worth considering.
Keywords
Sense of Plausibility, Self-Esteem, Teacher's Belief, Method, and Pedagogy
To cite this article
Fahime Farjami, Hanieh Davatgari Asl, Ali Rezaee Javidan, On the Contribution of Iranian EFL Teachers' Sense of Plausibility to Language Teaching Pedagogy, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Special Issue: Foreign Language Teaching and Learning (Models and Beliefs). Vol. 2, No. 3-1, 2014, pp. 1-11. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020301.11
References
[1]
Akbari, R.(2008) Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly. 42/2.
[2]
Alemi, M. & Daftarifard. P. (2010). Pedagogical Innovations in language teaching methodologies. Academy Publisher. 1, 6, 765-770.
[3]
Barg, S.(2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching. Lang. teach. 36, 81-109.
[4]
Benson. P. & Voller, P (1997). Autonomy and Independence in language learning. London; Longman.
[5]
Brown, H. D.(2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. A Pearson Education Company.
[6]
Candy, (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. California: Jossey.
[7]
Da Silva, C. P. (2004). Teachers and Learners: Investigating the language classroom. TESOL Quartly, 17, 3, 163-176.
[8]
Doff, A. (1990). Teach English. Cambridge University Press.
[9]
Garter, R. & Nunan, D. (2001). Teaching English to speakers other of Languages. Cambridge university press.
[10]
Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teacher's Classroom Behavior: Novice And Experienced ESL teacher's pedagogical knowledge. LTR, 161-182.
[11]
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New York: Teacher College.
[12]
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOLQuar-terly. 40, 1, 109-131.
[13]
Jia, Y, Eslami, Z, R. &Burlbaw, I. (2006). ESL teachers' perceptions and factors
[14]
Influencing their use of classroom- based reading assessment. Bilingual Re- Search Journal. 29(2), 459-482.
[15]
Kumaravadivelu, B.(1994). The Post method condition : (E)merging strategies for second/ foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarter-ly .28
[16]
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a post method Pedagogy. TE-SOL
[17]
Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560.
[18]
Kumaravadivelu, B, (2003). Ten Macro strategies for teaching language.
[19]
Yale university press.
[20]
Lewis, M. & Hill, J.( 1990). Practical techniques for language teaching.
[21]
Commercial color press, London.
[22]
Micheslo, w. & Harvey, A. S. (2000). Is teacher's work never done? Time-use and subjective outcomes. ICAAP. 1-8.
[23]
Nation, I.S.P & Macalister, J(2010). Language Curriculum Design. Rutledge: New York.
[24]
Nunan, D.(1993). Syllabus Design. Oxford University Press.
[25]
Nunan, D.(2000). Second Language Teaching and Learning. USA: Heinle & Heinle.
[26]
O'Malley, J.M and Cha-mot, A.U (1990). Learning strategy in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
[27]
Pallant, J.(2007). SPSS-Survival Manual . Open University Press.
[28]
Parajes, M.F(1998). Teachers' beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research 62(3), 307-332.
[29]
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, In-terested knowledge, and the Politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 23, 4, 589-613.
[30]
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method-why ? TESOL Quartly, 24, 2, 161-176.
[31]
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford University press.
[32]
Prabhu, N,S. (1992). The dynamics of the language lesson. TESOL
[33]
Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language Teaching. Cambridge university press.
[34]
Salmani, M. A. (2006). Language teaching: State of the art. The reading matrix, 6,2, 125-137.
[35]
Schmitt, N. (2002). Applied Linguistics. Arnold, New York
[36]
Spratt, M.(1999). How good are we at knowing what learners like? System, 27, 141-155.
[37]
Stern, H.H(1991). Fundamental concept of language teaching. Oxford University Press.
[38]
Thanasoulas, S. (2011). What is learner autonomy & how can it be fostered? In-ternet TESOL journal. 1-12.
[39]
Ur, P(1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
[40]
Wenden, A. L. (1985). Learner Strategies. TESOL Newsletter, 19, 1-17.
[41]
Williams, M. & Burden, R. L.(2000). Psychology For Language Learning. Cambridge University press.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186