ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY
CENTRAL TEHRAN BRANCH
GRADUATE SCHOOL
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (TEFL)
THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG EFL TEACHERS’ TEACHING STYLES, NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING, AND AUTONOMY
ADVISOR:
DR. ABDOLLAH BARADARAN
by:
EHSAN HOSSEINZADEH
Winter 2014
In the Name of God
the Beneficent,
the Merciful
To:
My Family, who gifted me endless love, encouragement, inspiration and support.
ABSTRACT
The present study was an attempt to investigate the potential relationship among three variables, namely English Language Teachers’ Teaching Styles(TS), Neuro-Linguistic Programming(NLP), and Autonomy (Au). To this end, at the onset of the study, a group of 200 experienced English language teachers at various language schools in Tehran, inter alia Asre Zaban Language Academy, with at least two years of teaching experience were given three questionnaires relevant to the variables of the study, among which 162 instruments were returned. After being verified, 129 questionnaires, which had been thoroughly completed, were selected. In order to seek the relationship between the variables, non-parametric Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney tests as well as Spearman rho were employed; as a result of which a significant relationship was detected between TS and AU and NLP and TS; however, in terms of the third null hypothesis, NLP was found to be significantly related only to General autonomy. In addition, regression analysis was performed to see whether or not the degree of prediction between the five teaching styles and NLP as predictor variables was different towards teachers’ autonomy as predicted variable; to this end, preparatory analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity. Consequently, teachers’ teaching styles turned out to be the superior variable in predicting teachers’ autonomy.
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the invaluable assistance and encouragement of particular individuals who in one way or another extended their unwavering support to prepare the ground for the completion of this research.
First, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to my knowledgeable and eminent advisor professor, Dr. Abdollah Baradaran, from whom I received much indispensible assistance and inspiration over different stages of this study. I expressly appreciate his words of encouragement, insightful remarks and scrupulous attention as well as his being at my complete disposal from the inception to the completion of my Master’s.
I owe a very special note of gratitude to Dr. Sholeh Kolahi, my M.A professor and referee, for her support, and expert guidance. Her being permanently available, on demand, throughout my course of Masters, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is truly unforgetTable.
I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Ahmad Mohseni, my vastly experienced and articulate referee for his incisive and constructive remarks, whose presence in my defense session, indubitably, is a rare and signal honour for me and any student.
I am indebted to many others, particularly my dear professors during my Master’s, (in alphabetic order), namely Dr. Khabiri, Dr. Mall Amiri, Dr. Marashi, Dr. Nosratinia, and Dr. Shangarffam from whom I learnt a great deal.
Last but foremost; I would like to offer my warmest and most special thanks to my family: my father, mother and caring brother, Amir. Words are incapable of expressing how obliged I am to my beloved mother and father for all of the sacrifices they have made on my behalf. Their prayer was what sustained me thus far. It would not have been possible to be at the present stage without their support and unconditional love. Without a shadow of a doubt, they are the greatest gifts of my life.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page …….. ……………………………………………………………………I
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………….. ……………………..V
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………VII
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………..XI
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………..XIV
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE……………………………..….1
1.1Introduction………………………………………………………………….2
1.2.Statement of the Problem………………………………………….…..…….4
1.3.Statement of the Research Questions…………..…………………….………..5
1.4.Statement of the Research Hypotheses………………………………………6
1.5.Definition of Key Terms…………………………..…………..…………….7
1.5.1. Teachers’ teaching Styles:………………………………………….……………..7
1.5.2.Autonomy:……………………………………………………………………8
1.5.3. Neuro-Linguistic Programming:……………..……………………………….9
1.6.Significance of the Study…………………………………………..……….10
1.7.Limitations, Delimitations ……………………………………………….…11
1.7.1. Limitations……………………………………………………………….….11
1.7.2. Delimitations…….…………………………………………………………12
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE…………………..13
2.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………14
2.2.Teachers’ Teaching Styles………………………………………………….15
2.2.1. Definition & Influencing Factors…………………………………..………15
2.2.2.Learners’ side: learning styles, strategies, prefer..ences and nee…….……..17
2.2.3. Performance and Context…………………………………………….…….20
2.2.4. Teaching Approaches and Methodologies………………………………….21
2.3.Neuro-Linguistic Programming………………..…………………….…….24
2.3.1.History………………………………………………………………………25
2.3.2. Definition…………….………………………………………….………….26
2.3.3. NLP Fundamentals, Products & Essence……………………………..……29
2.4.Autonomy…………………………………………………………………..31
2.4.1. Definition ………………………………………………………..………..31
2.4.2.Learners’ Autonomy vs. Teachers’ Autonomy………………………….…34
2.4.3.Autonomy in Language Learning Setting…………..………………..…….38
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY…………..…………………………….…….41
3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………..….42
3.2. Participants……………………………………………………….…………42
3.3. Instrumentation…………..…………………………………………………43
3.3.1.Grasha Teaching Style Inventory Questionnaire …………………………..44
3.3.2.Neuro-Linguistic Programming Questionnaire …………………………….45
3.3.3. Teacher Autonomy Survey…………………………………………………48
3.4. Procedure…..…………………………………………………………………49
3.5. Design……………………………………………………………………….50
3.6. Statistical Analyses…………………………………………………………51
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………52
4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………53
4.2.The Results of the Study…………………………………………….……..54
4.2.1. Reliability of the Instruments…………………………………………..…..54
4.2.1.1.Reliability of Teachers’ Autonomy Scale……….…………………….54
4.2.1.2.Reliability of Grasha Teaching Style Inventory….…………………55
4.2.1.3.Reliability of NLP Scale…………………………………………….56
4.2.2.Testing the First Null Hypothesis:…………….………………………..….56
4.2.2.1. Frequency Statistics of Different Teaching Styles……………………….57
4.2.2.2. Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………..58
4.2.2.3. Tests of Normality…………………………..………………………… 72
4.2.2.4. Final Results 75
4.2.3.Testing the Second Null Hypothesis……………………………………….78
4.2.3.1. Frequency Statistics of Different Teaching Styles.…… …………….….78
4.2.3.2. Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………..80
4.2.3.3. Tests of Normality……………………………………………………….86
4.2.3.4. Final Results………………………………………………………………87
4.2.4.. Testing the Third Null Hypothesis…………………………………………………..90
4.2.4.1. Assumption of Linearity………………..…………………………………90
4.2.4.2.Assumption of Normality……..……………………………………………..92
4.2.4.3. Final Results 92
4.2.4.Testing the Fourth Null Hypothesis..………………………………………93
4.2.4.1. Assumption of Multicollinearity…………………………………………94
4.2.4.2. Assumption of Normality…………………………………………………97
4.2.4.3. Assumption of Homoscedasticity………………………………..………99
4.3. Discussion……………………………………………………………………110
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS…….113
5.1.Introduction……………..…………………………………………………114
5.2. Procedure and Summary of the Findings…………….…………………..114
5.3.Conclusion………………………………………………………………..116
5.4. Pedagogical Implications…………………..……………………………..117
5.4.1.Implications for EFL Teachers……………………………………………117
5.4.2.Implications for EFL Learners……………………………..……………..118
5.4.3. Implications for Language School Managers……………………………..119
5.4.4.Implications for Syllabus Designers………………………………………120
5.5.Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………………121
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..122
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………131
Teaching Autonomy Scale (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005)……………………………….132
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Reza Pishghadam, 2011)……………………..135
Teaching Style Inventory: Version 3.0 (Grasha, 1994)………………………….136
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Distribution of Questions with Relevant Teaching Styles 45
Table 3.2 Distribution of Questions with Relevant Autonomy Types 49
Table 3.3 The Categories of the Variables 50
Table 4.1 Reliability of Each Factor of NLP Questionnaire .56
Table 4.2 Expert Frequency Statistics ……………………………………. 57
Table 4.3 Formal Authority Frequency Statistics 57
Table 4.4 Personal Model Frequency Statistics 57
Table 4.5 Facilitator Frequency Statistics 57
Table 4.6 Delegator Frequency Statistics 58
Table 4.7 General, Curriculum and Total Autonomy Descriptives 58
Table 4.8 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Expert Teaching Style 60
Table 4.9 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Formal Authority Teaching Stylee 62
Table 4.10 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Personal Model Teaching Style 65
Table 4.11 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Facilitator Teaching Style 67
Table 4.12 Autonomy Descriptives for Different Levels of Delegator Teaching Style 70
Table 4.13 Tests of Normality Regarding Expert 73
Table 4.14 Tests of Normality Regarding Formal Authority 73
Table 4.15Tests of Normality Regarding Personal Model 74
Table 4.16 Tests of Normality Regarding Facilitator 74
Table 4.17 Tests of Normality Regarding Delegator 74
Table 4.18 Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Expert 75
Table 4.19 Comparing Autonomy acrossCategories of Formal Authority 76
Table 4.20 Comparing Autonomy acrossCategories of Personal Model 76
Table 4.21 Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Facilitator 77
Table 4.22 Comparing Autonomy across Categories of Delegator 77
Table 4.23 Expert Frequency Statistics 78
Table 4.24 Formal Authority Frequency Statistics 78
Table 4.25 Personal Model Frequency Statistics 78
Table 4.26 Facilitator Frequency Statistics 78
Table 4.27 Delegator Frequency Statistics 79
Table 4.28 NLP Descriptive Statistics 80
Table 4.29 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Expert Teaching Style 80
Table 4.30 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Formal Authority Teaching Style 82
Table 4.31 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Personal Model Teaching Style 83
Table 4.32 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Facilitator Teaching Style 84
Table 4.33 NLP Descriptives for Different Levels of Delegator Teaching Style 85
Table 4.34 Tests of Normality Regarding Expert Style 86
Table 4.35 Tests of Normality Regarding Formal Authority Style 86
Table 4.36 Tests of Normality Regarding Personal Model Style 87
Table 4.37 Tests of Normality Regarding Facilitator Style 87
Table 4.38 Tests of Normality Regarding Delegator Style 87
Table 4.39 Comparing NLP across Categories of Expert 88
Table 4.40 Comparing NLP across Categories of Formal Authority 88
Table 4.41 Comparing NLP across Categories of Personal Model 88
Table 4.42 Comparing NLP across Categories of Facilitator 89
Table 4.43 Comparing NLP across Categories of Delegator 89
Table 4.44 Tests of Normality 92
Table 4.45 Correlations among Curriculum, General and Total Autonomy and NLP 93
Table 4.46 General Autonomy Correlations 94
Table 4.47 Curriculum Autonomy Correlations 95
Table 4.48 Total Autonomy Correlations 96
Table 4.49 Descriptive Statistics of General Autonomy, Styles and NLP 101
Table 4.50 Descriptive Statistics of Curriculum Autonomy, Styles and NLP 102
Table 4.51 Descriptive Statistics of Total Autonomy, Styles and NLP 102
Table 4.52 Variables Entered/Removed 102
Table 4.53 Variables Entered/Removed 103
Table 4.54 Variables Entered/Removed 103
Table 4.55 Model Summary (General Autonomy) 104
Table 4.56 Model Summary (Total Autonomy) 104
Table 4.57 Model Summary (Curriculum Autonomy) 104
Table 4.58 ANOVA (General Autonomy) 105
Table 4.59 ANOVA (Curriculum Autonomy) 105
Table 4.60 ANOVA (Total Autonomy) 105
Table 4.61 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: General Autonomy) 107
Table 4.62 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy) 108
Table 4.63 Coefficientsa (Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy) 110
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 General Autonomy Scatter Plot 90
Figure 4.2 Curriculum Autonomy Scatter Plot 90
Figure 4.3 Total Autonomy Scatter Plot 90
Figure 4.4 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals
Dependent Variable: General Autonomy 98
Figure 4.5 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals
Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy 98
Figure 4.6 The Normal Probability Plot of the Regression Standardized Residuals
Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy 99
Figure 4.7 Scatter plot of the Standardized Residuals Dependent Variable: General Autonomy 100
Figure 4.8 Scatter plot of the Standardized Residuals Dependent Variable: Total Autonomy 100
Figure 4.9 Scatter Plot of the Standardized Residuals Dependent Variable: Curriculum Autonomy 101
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE
1.1. Introduction
With the spread of globalization, language learning and teaching, as many other skills, are gaining more and more prominence every day. This phenomenon, language learning and teaching, has two sides: teacher and learner who influence the process in different ways. Menken (2000) believes that half of all teachers may anticipate educating an English language learner during their career. Along the same lines, according to Vieira and Gaspar (2013), with regard to impact on education effectiveness, teachers arise as a significant factor, accounting for about 30% of the variance on pupils’ achievement. Students have different learning styles and familiarity with learning style differences will help instructors; so teachers apply different teaching styles that suit their setting and their students’ needs. To overcome mismatches between learning styles of learners and the teaching styles of the instructors, teachers should tailor their approach to meet student learning needs meaning that they can combine teaching styles for different types of content and diversity of student needs. According to Purkey & Novak (1984, p. 13), “Good teaching is the process of inviting students to see themselves as able, valuable, and self-directing and of encouraging them to act in accordance with these self-perceptions”.
According to Brown (2000) and Mitchell &Myles (2004), different
theories in language learning have been studied through a variety of perspectives, many of which have shown that understanding significant elements in multiple and diverse perspectives, not in a single factor, is very critical. One of the approaches to communication, learning and personal development that has received much popularity is Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP); it appears to be utilized to a large extent in education today; whereas academic world is still silent regarding this subject (Tosey P, Mathinson J, 2010). NLP approach to learning and teaching emphasizes internal or mental factors as contrasted with environmental or external factors as many traditional behaviorists, Carey et al, diagnosed that there has been a growing and developing education literature referring to both adults and children right from the time of the publication of the earliest popular books on NLP and teaching and learning (Harper,1982; Dilts, 1983a; Jacobson, 1983). According to Hardingham (1998), NLP has been seen as one of the resources to enhance effectiveness of language instruction. In addition, NLP claims to be efficacious in achieving excellence of performance, ameliorating classroom communication, raising self-esteem, optimizing students’ motivation and attitudes, facilitating personal growth in students and even alter their attitude to life (Thornbury, 2001, p.394). Moreover, Helm (1989) argues that “Teachers use a variety of instructional techniques, but again not know how to comprehend what is thought” (p1). In most of the instructional institutions, there are several issues when teaching is considered. Multiple intellectuals involved in the field of educational reform assert that empowering teachers is where we can commence solving the schools’ problems (Melenyzer, 1990; Short, 1994). Along the same line, allowing teachers more freedom in the instructional environment could be one of the major factors resulting in the empowerment of instructors since they are permitted to use their experience and insights in making decisions and solving the problems. Pearson and Moomaw (2006) stated that:
if teachers are to be empowered and regarded as professionals, then like other professionals, they must have the freedom to prescribe the best treatment for their students as doctors or lawyers do for their clients. This freedom is teacher autonomy. (p.44).
On the other hand, according to Masouleh and Jooneghani (2011), the term autonomy has sparked considerable controversy, inasmuch as linguists and educationalists have failed to reach a consensus as to what autonomy really is. In fact, autonomy in language learning is a desirable goal for philosophical, pedagogical, and practical reasons. Street (1988), believes teacher autonomy is “the independence teachers maintain in exercising discretion within their classrooms to make instructional decisions”. (p. 4).
This study is to focus on the important educational factors that can prove how teachers’ teaching styles, autonomy and NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming)‏ can be related to each other.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
The results of recent studies indicated teachers benefit from developing an understanding of how they and others learn as well as the effect this has on their teaching, Evans & Waring (2006). Teaching and learning language is a complex and multifaceted process. On the one hand, the emphasis should be placed on developing language skills; in order to have an effective instruction, teachers should take into account the individual differences concerning learning (styles and needs) and choose appropriate teaching styles to increase the chances of their achievement in their career.
Guild (2001) believes that educators must abandon singular mentality and realize the essential necessity of endeavoring to develop a true understanding of learning differences and striving to provide instruction that is intentionally diverse. According to Caine & Caine (1991), understanding the functions of the brain and incorporating this in designing learning experiences can significantly improve the effectiveness of student learning. Therefore, teachers, through the use of NLP techniques and laying the emphasis on internal and mental factors, can significantly influence their process of teaching and choosing various instructional practices. Moreover, teaching methods and styles in all teachers and instructors stem from a specific philosophy of education, although they may not be aware of what that philosophy is. In this regard, what is obvious is that teachers’ teaching style reflects on what they value in education, and what methods they believe are effective. Laut (1999) states that one approach (which at different times changes depending on the needs of students) usually dominates a teacher’s actions.
A growing interest in new methods arise the problem of matching students’ needs with new teaching styles of the teachers. How the teaching styles, teachers’ autonomy and NLP are related to each other and the ways in which they interact together is the main issue of this work.

1.3. Statement of the Research Questions
The purpose of the present study was to answer the following questions:
1. Is there any significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ teaching style and their autonomy?
2. Is there any significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ teaching style and their NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming)‏?
3. Is there any significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ autonomy and their NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming)‏?
Considering existence of a significant relationship among the three variables, the following research question was posed:
Q4: Is there any significant difference between Iranian EFL teachers’ teaching styles and their NLP in predicting autonomy?
1.4. Statement of the Research Hypotheses
Null Hypotheses:
1. There is no significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ teaching styles and their autonomy.
2. There is no significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ teaching styles and their NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming)‏.
3. There is no significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ autonomy and their NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming).
4. There is no significant difference between Iranian EFL teachers’ teaching styles and their NLP in predicting autonomy?
1.5. Definition of Key Terms:
1.5.1. Teachers’ Teaching Styles:
Teaching styles are considered as “manners or modes of acting or performing defined by guiding and directing instructional processes as well as patterns of needs, beliefs, and behaviors displayed in the classroom”. (Grasha, 2002, p.38).
In this study, teachers’ teaching style is operationally defined by the scores that participants obtained through their answers to a Teachers’ teaching styles questionnaires named Grasha’s Teaching Style Inventory (1994) version 3.0, including 40 items. It asked teachers to complete the scale about themselves and their teaching preferences. The sentences that start the questionnaire are: “Try to answer as honestly and as objectively as you can.” and “Resist the temptation to respond as you believe you should or ought to think or behave, or in terms of what you believe is the expected or proper thing to do.”
1.5.2. Autonomy:
Autonomy is “having a sense of one’s own identity and an ability to act independently and to exert some control over one’s environment, including a sense of task mastery, internal locus of control, and self-efficacy” (Benard, 1995, p. 1).
In addition, teacher autonomy is defined as “the independence teachers maintain in exercising discretion within their classrooms to make instructional decisions” (Street, 1988, p. 4).
In this research, teachers’ autonomy is operationally defined by the scores that candidates obtained through their answers to a Pearson and Moomaw’s Teacher Autonomy Survey (2005), is comprised of 18 questions originally designed so as to elicit the extent to which teachers perceive they have autonomy in the following areas: (1) instructional planning and sequencing, (2) personal on-the-job decision making, (3) selection of activities and materials, and (4) classroom standards of conduct.

1.5.3. NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming)
It is both a technology for communication and personal development, and (as it claimed to be originally) a methodology or modeling process (Cameron-Bandler et al 1985; Dilts 1998a; Jacobson, 1994, p.7).
NLP is operationally defined as the scores that participants obtained through their answers to a Neuro-Linguistic Programming Questionnaire (NLPQ) which was designed and introduced by Reza Pishghadam (2011). It includes 38 sentences and has eight categories according to eight factors: Flexibility, Anchoring, Elicitation, Modeling, Individual Differences, Leading, Establishing Rapport and Emotional and Cognitive Boosters.

1.6. Significance of the study
Even though researches regarding autonomy and language instructors have been carried out before, little, if any have focused on the Iranian language teachers concerning autonomy and NLP. This research is to gain insight on these issues towards the language instructors and their teaching styles. What makes this study different from all other researches in the field of teachers’ autonomy is the simultaneous focus of the researcher on autonomy and NLP issues as mind-directed titles and teaching styles as the manifestation of these subjects. In fact, the teaching style could be regarded as the application of what each teacher thinks about teaching, herself/himself and students.
This paper is to examine the relationship among Teachers’ Teaching Styles, Autonomy and NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming). In recent years, the necessity for integration of new instruction methods into teaching approaches has become obvious. Moving from traditional methods of education to modern ones, countries like Iran find themselves trapped between these two extremes. On the one hand, ministry of education advocates conservative policies in all fields of its administration On the other hand, with the arrival of mass media, the satellite, and internet, the public is also exposed to new and modern methods of thinking, teaching and learning. This discrepancy can be clearly noticed in the English lesson curriculum designed by the ministry of education and the English courses offered by private language schools outside school time, Salahshour (2012).

1.7. Limitations and Delimitations
1.7.1. Limitations
The present study sustained the following limitations which are expected to be removed in the future studies.
1. First, the participants were selected according to available sampling. The study should be replicated using procedures that allow a higher degree of randomization and ultimately more generalizability.
2. Second, all the partakers of this study were Iranian; therefore, the results cannot be generalized to teachers of other nationalities.
1.7.2. Delimitations
To expand the degree of control on the scope of the study, the researcher put the following delimitation.
1. In order for the results of this study to be more reliable, teachers with 2 years or more of experience were selected. And to prepare the ground for doing so, researcher made every effort to work with schools whose one of the criteria for employing EFL teachers was a minimum experience of 2 years.
2. This study was curbed to the population of language school teachers, not school teachers, since what teachers do in language schools is quite different from what they do in public schools where language is a marginal subject and most of the Iranian EFL learners rely on language schools rather than public schools for learning the language.
3.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Introduction
The purpose of this literature review is to examine various approaches to teaching styles, looking at the teachers’ autonomy and explain their relationship with NLP. In addition, this literature review explores each item separately in an effort to meet researcher’s goals more effectively. Finally, this literature review intends to provide an investigation of prior and current research concerning the influence of each variable on others.

Achieving the goals of the literature review, the researcher gathered information from various sources, including scholarly journal articles, books, and pertinent organizational websites. From sources reviewed, the researcher also examined the reference lists for citations identifying further sources that might be relevant to the current review.

Keyword searches facilitated the finding of articles pertaining to the following terms: teachers’ teaching styles, autonomy, and NLP. The researcher chose these terms in an attempt to target the search to those publications that were most relevant to the research question explored in this study, namely the relationship between teachers’ teaching style, autonomy, and NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming).‏
Researcher has scrutinized definitions and influencing factors, learners’ side: learning styles, strategies, preferences and needs, performance and context, and teaching approaches and methodologies concerning English teaching styles. Second, taking into account Neuro-Linguistic Programming, researcher investigated the history, definition and fundamentals, products and essence. Finally, regarding autonomy, definition, learners’ autonomy vs. teachers’ autonomy and autonomy in language learning setting were surveyed.

2.2. Teachers’ Teaching Styles
2.2.1. Definition & Influencing Factors
There are various definitions which different researchers provided to define teaching style. According to Grasha (1996) teaching styles represent the pattern of needs, beliefs and behavior shown by teachers in the classroom. One teaching style involves a complex mix of beliefs, attitudes, strategies, techniques, motivation, personality and control, in accordance with Wright (1987). Gregorc (1989) also thinks that the teachers’ teaching styles are their personal behaviors and the media that they have been using are for transferring data and information to students.
Grasha (1996) defines the teaching styles as the pattern of belief, knowledge, performance and behavior of teachers when they are teaching. He divided the teaching styles into five dimensions which are the expert style, formal authority style, personal model style, delegator style and facilitator style. Peacock (2001), on the other hand asserted that the teaching style is the way a person teaches by nature, habitual, inclination or even a custom that is used to convey information and skills in the classroom.
On Stein and Miller (1980) grouped teaching styles into two types: expressive teaching styles (the emotional relationship created by the teacher to the student or the class as a whole) and instrumental teaching style (the way teachers carry out the task to assist students, planning the lesson, setting up the classroom standard and ensure that students achieve the standards set). Moreover, Kramlinger and Huberty (1990) also classified the teaching style from the perspective of humanism (personal experience), behaviorism (shapes the desired behavior through rewarding) and Cognitivism (resembles the traditional academic approach and aims to present the information logically).
Chapman, et al.,( 2001) acknowledged the role of gender, seniority and time in influencing their teaching. Furthermore, according to Peacock (2001), teaching styles used by teachers are very much depending on the teacher’s ethnicity. He also found out that teaching style is also influenced by the purpose and design of courses, norms of learning institutions and research results. Using the Myers Briggs Inventory and based on personality theories, Sturt (2000) analyzed the teaching style and categorized teaching styles to sixteen categories.
2.2.2. Learners’ side: learning styles, strategies, preferences and needs
Tudor (1996) provided proof for the fact that teaching style which parallels with the learning styles of students will be able to improve learning, attitudes, behavior and motivation. Oxford (1989) defines Learning strategies as behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable.
An abundance of information exists concerning teachers’ teaching style and their implications for learning and teaching, much of which are confusing to follow: Williamson & Watson (2007) claim that if educators are to make substantial progress toward the goal of developing lifelong learners, meeting the needs of students is essential. So it is of great importance for teachers to choose the best teaching style for different situations and different students. Pashler et al.( 2009), on the other hand, asserted that rather than differentiate instruction based on individual student’s modality strengths, educators should consider the best modality for presenting various subject matters and specific types of information.
Felder & Henriques (1995) showed the fact that the mismatch between teaching strategies and learning styles has a negative impact on academic achievement and course attendance. On the contrary, Rogers (2009) have come to the conclusion that congruence between teaching strategies and learning styles enhances students’ academic achievement .
According to Noble (2004) report, there is an increase in teacher’s willingness to incorporate learning styles research in their instructional practices when provided a tool for practical application. Furthermore, sometimes learning style theories can help teachers when these theories provide a framework from which to knowledgably develop a variety of instructional methodologies to utilize in their teaching (Hall & Moseley, 2005).
In this regard, there are so many arguements about the role of teaching and learning styles in learning/ teaching languages and the extent to which they are powerful. Many researchers agree that the varied conceptualizations of student learning preferences led to the review and development of numerous teaching styles including teacher-centered, experiential, and differentiated instruction, as well as various instructional model approaches and the incorporation of brain-based techniques (Caine, & Caine, 1991; Denig,



قیمت: تومان

دسته بندی : پایان نامه

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید