پایان نامه با موضوع learning، CR، [r

دانلود پایان نامه ارشد

riables load on both factors.

Table 4.19: Rotated Components Matrix

Component

1
2
Kinesthetic
.917
.319
Tactile
.916

Creativity
.899

Auditory
.875
.372
Visual
.758
.525
Social
.725
.550
Group
.710
.519
Individual
.644
.539
Memory
.308
.863
Compensation

.853
Cognitive
.376
.848
Affective
.612
.678
Metacognitive
.638
.651

4.5 Conclusion

In order to better understand the degree of correlation between “learning style preferences and language learning strategies”, ” learning style preferences and creativity”, “language learning strategies and creativity”, table 4.20 shows a summary of the findings.

Table 4.20: Summary of the Findings
Items
Degree of Correlation
Style and Strategy
83
Group Style and memory strategy
74
Group style and cognitive strategy
65
Group style and compensation strategy
67
Group style and metacognitive strategy
67
Group style and affective strategy
70
Group style and social strategy
74
Individual style and memory strategy
71
Individual style and cognitive
71
Individual style and compensation strategy
54
Individual style and metacognitive
68
Individual style and affective strategy
66
Individual style and social strategy
69
Visual style and memory strategy
69
Visual style and cognitive strategy
75
Visual style and compensation strategy
57
Visual style and metacognitive strategy
80
Visual style and affective strategy
85
Visual style and social strategy
74
Auditory style and memory strategy
58
Auditory style and cognitive strategy
61
Auditory style and compensation strategy
56
Auditory style and metacognitive strategy
80
Auditory style and affective strategy
81
Auditory style and social strategy
75
Tactile style and memory strategy
53
Tactile style and cognitive strategy
57
Tactile style and compensation strategy
51
Tactile style and metacognitive strategy
77
Tactile style and affective strategy
74
Tactile style and social strategy
78
Kinesthetic style and memory strategy
56
Kinesthetic style and cognitive strategy
63
Kinesthetic style and compensation strategy
54
Kinesthetic style and metacognitve strategy
78
Kinesthetic style and affective strategy
75
Kinesthetic style and social strategy
88
Strategy and CR
88
Memory strategy and CR
55
Cognitive strategy and CR
57
Compensation strategy and CR
53
Metacognitive strategy and CR
74
Affective strategy and CR
72
Social strategy and
CR
89
Style and CR
73
Group style and CR
80
Individual style and CR
68
Visual style and CR
76
Auditory style and CR
84
Tactile style and CR
87
Kinesthetic style and CR
96

According to Table 4.20, the value of correlation between kinesthetic style and creativity; social strategy and creativity are the highest. This means that, there is a significant relationship between kinesthetic style and creativity; social strategy and creativity compared with other variables. This means that creative learners mostly use kinesthetic style and social strategy respectively.
Table 4.20 also reveals that creativity and compensation strategy, creativity and memory strategy have the minimum relationships. This means creative learners use memory and compensation strategies less than other strategies.
Regarding to the subcomponents of learning styles and learning strategies it is observed that affective strategy and visual style, affective strategy and auditory style, and metacognitive strategy and visual style had highest correlations. Also, compensation strategy & tactile style, memory strategy & tactile style, and compensation strategy & kinesthetic style had the lowest correlations.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The present study was an attempt to investigate the relationship among EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies, learning style preferences, and creativity. Restating the formulated null hypotheses and a brief overview of the procedure, this chapter provides a summary of the findings, discussion, and provides pedagogical implications. Ultimately, the chapter concludes with some suggestions for further research.

5.2 Procedure and Summary of the Findings

In order to explore any probable relationships among the three variables of this research, the following eight null hypotheses were posed to be tested:
H 01: There is no significant relationship among EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies, learning style preferences, and creativity.
H02: There is no significant relationship between using different types of language learning strategies and learning style preferences by EFL learners.
H 03: There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies and their creativity.
H 04: There is no significant relationship between EFL learners’ learning style preferences and their creativity.
H05: There is no significant difference among EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies, and learning style preferences, in predicting creativity.
H 06: EFL learners’ learning style preferences do not predict their use of language learning strategies.
H 07: EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies does not predict their creativity.
H 08: EFL learners’ learning style preferences do not predict their creativity.

Considering the above-mentioned hypotheses, the following procedure was carried out in order to collect the required data. At the outset of the study, the three questionnaires of PLSP, SILL, and ACT were administered to 250 randomly selected male and female EFL learners. From among those who received the questionnaires, a number of 179 were returned to the researcher. Out of that number, 148 which were filled out completely were used for further analysis.
Then, the researcher checked the assumptions of linear correlation. All of these assumptions, that is, linear relation between each pair of variables, normality of the distribution of variables, and homoscedasticity were checked for the learning strategies and learning style preferences as the predictor variables and CR as the predicted variable. Subsequently, Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient, as a parametric technique, was employed to inspect the possible relationships between each pair of variables. Finally, regression analyses were carried out to examine the degree of predictability of learning style preferences and use of language learning strategies toward creativity of the learners. With respect to the outcomes of the statistical analyses, the subsequent results were obtained:
• The first null hypothesis (H01) was rejected. Consequently, it was concluded that significant relationship exists between EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies, learning style preferences, and creativity; the observed relationship was:
A: EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies and their learning style preferences [r (146) = .83, P < .05, it enjoys a large effect size];
B: EFL learners’ use of language learning strategies and their creativity [r (146) = .73, P < .05, it enjoys a large effect size]; &
C: EFL learners’ learning style preferences and their creativity [r (146) = .88, P < .05, it enjoys a large effect size].
• The second null hypothesis (H02) was rejected. Therefore, it was revealed that a significant relationship exists between using different language learning strategies and learning style preferences of EFL learners. All of the r-values enjoyed large effect sizes. The three highest correlations were 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 were:
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).
• The third null hypothesis (H03) was rejected. Hence, it was concluded that a significant relationship exists between EFL learners’ use of learning strategies and their creativity; the observed relationship was positive and creativity showed 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].
• The fourth null hypothesis (H04) was rejected. Hence, it was concluded that a significant relationship exists between EFL learners’ learning style preferences and their creativity; the observed relationship was positive and creativity showed significant correlations 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]; &

پایان نامه
Previous Entries پایان نامه با موضوع learning، not، Regression Next Entries دانلود پایان نامه ارشد درمورد Creativity، learning، Figure