پایان نامه با موضوع learning، 148، Correlation

دانلود پایان نامه ارشد

ig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000

N
148
148
148
148
148
148
Kinesthetic
Pearson Correlation
.562**
.627**
.542**
.778**
.753**
.882**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000

N
148
148
148
148
148
148
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Based on the results displayed in Table 4.5, it can be concluded that there are significant relationships between the components of the two questionnaires.
The three highest correlations are between:
A: Affective strategy and visual style (r = .85, P .05).
B: Affective strategy and auditory style (r = .81, P .05).
C: Metacognitive strategy and visual style (r = .80, P .05).
The three lowest correlations are between:
A: Compensation strategy and tactile style (r = .51, P .05).
B: Memory strategy and tactile style (r = .53, P .05).
C: Compensation strategy and kinesthetic style (r = .54, P .05).
Thus, the second null hypothesis -There is no significant relationship between using different types of language learning strategies and learning style preferences by EFL learners, is rejected. All of the r-values enjoy large effect sizes.

4.3.3 Testing the Third Null Hypothesis

The third Null Hypothesis states that:
H03: There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies and their creativity.
Table 4.6 displays the results of the Pearson correlations to probe any significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies and their creativity.

Table 4.6: Pearson Correlations of EFL Learners’ Language learning Strategies and Creativity

Creativity
Memory
Pearson Correlation
.551**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
Cognitive
Pearson Correlation
.578**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
Compensation
Pearson Correlation
.531**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
Metacognitive
Pearson Correlation
.744**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
Affective
Pearson Correlation
.728**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
Social
Pearson Correlation
.894**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Based on these results it can be concluded that creativity shows significant correlations with:
A: Memory Strategy (r (146) = .55, P .05, it represents a large effect size);
B: Cognitive Strategy (r (146) = .57, P .05, it represents a large effect size);
C: Compensation Strategy (r (146) = .53, P .05, it represents a large effect size);
D: Metacognitive Strategy (r (146) = .74, P .05, it represents a large effect size);
E: Affective Strategy (r (146) = .72, P .05, it represents a large effect size); &
F: Social Strategy (r (146) = .89, P .05, it represents a large effect size).
So, it can be said that creativity is correlated positively and significantly with all different types of language learning strategies. Thus the third null hypothesis as there is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ creativity and use of language learning strategies is rejected at 0.01 level.
Also, Figure 4.6 displays the linearity of relationships between EFL learners’ creativity and use of language learning strategies.

Figure 4.6: Linearity Assumption of EFL Learners’ Language learning Strategies and Creativity

4.3.4 Testing the Fourth Null Hypothesis

The fourth null hypothesis states that:
H04: There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ learning style preferences and their creativity.
The Pearson correlation was run to probe any significant relationships between EFL learners’ learning style preferences and their creativity. Table 4.7 displays the results of the Pearson correlation.

Table 4.7: Pearson Correlations of EFL Learners’ Learning Style Preferences and Creativity

Creativity
Group
Pearson Correlation
.805**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
Individual
Pearson Correlation
.682**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
Visual
Pearson Correlation
.763**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
Auditory
Pearson Correlation
.842**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
Tactile
Pearson Correlation
.781**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
Kinesthetic
Pearson Correlation
.965**

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000

N
148
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Based on these results it can be concluded that creativity shows significant correlation with:
A: Group Learning Style (r (146) = .80, P .05, it represents a large effect size);
B: Individual Learning Style (r (146) = .68, P .05, it represents a large effect size);
C: Visual Learning Style (r (146) = .76, P .05, it represents a large effect size);
D: Auditory Learning Style (r (146) = .84, P .05, it represents a large effect size);
E: Tactile Learning Style (r (146) = .87, P .05, it represents a large effect size); &
F: Kinesthetic Learning Style (r (146) = .96, P .05, it represents a large effect size).
Creativity is correlated positively and significantly with all subcategories of learning style preferences. Thus the fourth null hypothesis as there is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ creativity and learning style preferences is rejected at 0.01 level.
Also, Figure 4.7 displays the linearity of relationships between EFL learners’ learning style preferences and creativity:

Figure 4.7: Linearity Assumption of EFL Learners’ Learning Style Preferences and Creativity

4.3.5 Testing the Fifth Null Hypothesis

The fifth null hypothesis states that:

H05: There is no significant difference among EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies and learning style preferences in predicting creativity.
A multiple regression analysis was run to predict EFL learners’ creativity by using the 12 subcomponents of the language learning strategies and learning style preferences. The regression model converged in five steps (Table 4.8).
The kinesthetic learning style was entered into the model on the first step and predicted 93.1 percent of scores on creativity (R = .965, R2 = .931).
The social learning strategy increased the predictive power to 93.9 percent (R = .974, R2 = .939).
On the third step the cognitive learning strategy entered the model increasing the percentage of prediction to 94.9 (R = .974, R2 = .9491).
The metacognitive strategy (R = .975, R2 = .951) and auditory learning style (R = .977, R2 = .954) increased the predictive power to 95.1 and 95.4 percent respectively.

Table 4.8: Model Summary; Regression Analysis Predicting Creativity by Using Subcomponents of Learning Style Preferences and Language Learning Strategies
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.965a
.931
.930
3.622
2
.969b
.939
.938
3.411
3
.974c
.949
.948
3.120
4
.975d
.951
.950
3.060
5
.977e
.954
.952
3.002
a. Predictors (Constant): Kinesthetic
b. Predictors (Constant): Kinesthetic, Social
c. Predictors (Constant): Kinesthetic, Social, Cognitive
d. Predictors (Constant): Kinesthetic, Social, Cognitive, Metacognitive
e. Predictors (Constant): Kinesthetic, Social, Cognitive, Metacognitive, Auditory
f. Dependent Variable: Creativity

As it was discussed above, among the five predictors entered the model, three of them belong to language learning strategies; social, cognitive and metacognitive; and two to learning style preferences; kinesthetic and auditory.
As displayed in Table 4.8 Kinesthetic learning style was the best predictor of creativity (r = 0.96, r2 = 93). That is to say kinesthetic learning style predicts 93 percent of creativity, while social, cognitive, and metacognitive learning strategies and auditory learning style add only 2 percent to the r-squared.
As reported in Table 4.8 in model 5, R came out to be 0.977 and R square came out to be 0.954. This means that the model 5 explains 95.4 percent of the variance in creativity.
The results of the ANOVA test of significance of the regression model [F (5, 142) = 584.02, P .05, ω2 = .952 it represents a large effect size] (Table 4.9) indicated that the regression model was statistically significant. Thus the fifth null hypothesis as there is no significant difference among EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies, and learning style preferences, in predicting creativity is rejected.

Table 4.9: ANOVA Test of Significance of Regression Model Predicting Creativity by Using Subcomponents of Learning Style Preferences and Language Learning Strategies
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.

Regression
26318.739
5
5263.748
584.028
.000f

Residual
1279.822
142
9.013

Total
27598.561
147

a. Dependent Variable: Creativity
b. Predictors (Constant): Kinesthetic
c. Predictors (Constant): Kinesthetic, Social
d. Predictors (Constant): Kinesthetic, Social, Cognitive
e. Predictors (Constant): Kinesthetic, Social, Cognitive, Metacognitive
f. Predictors (Constant): Kinesthetic, Social, Cognitive, Metacognitive, Auditory

As displayed through Figure 4.8 the assumption of homoscedasticity is not met. The spread of dots seems to be narrow on one end and wide on the other end and they also show a fall-and-rise pattern.

Figure 4.8: Scatter Plot Predicting Creativity by Using Subcomponents of Learning Style Preferences and Language Learning Strategies

4.3.6 Testing the Sixth Null Hypothesis

The sixth null hypothesis states that:
H 06: EFL learners’ learning style preferences do not predict their use of language learning strategies.
A regression analysis was run to predict total learning strategy by using the subcomponents of learning style. As displayed in

پایان نامه
Previous Entries پایان نامه با موضوع 148، learning، Statistic Next Entries پایان نامه با موضوع learning، not، Regression