OK Ebook Syakur 2007

International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences
2013 Available online at www.irjabs.com

ISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 7 (9): 565-575
Science Explorer Publications
The Effectiveness of Self-Directed-Learning Method

in Teaching Speaking Skill to Iranian EFL Learners
Mohammad Kiani Harchegani1, Reza Biria2, Mohammad Ali Nadi3
1. Department of English, Khorasgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
Corresponding authors email: Mdkyani@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT:It is generally agreed today that, the mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for
many schools and second language learners so how best to approach and develop this skill has long
been the focus of methodological debates. Since Iranian EFL learners highlight speaking as the most
demanding skill to develop, this study is conducted to determine the effectiveness of SDL in teaching
speaking to Iranian EFL learners .In so doing the researcher has chosen his participants using selective
clustering approach, the participants of the study are 30 high school students, enrolling in a language
institute for conversation classes at pre-intermediate level. The learners are put into either control or
experimental group,15 students each. Then the control group is taught following the book Interchange
instructions and the experimental group has received SDL instructions. when the fifteen-session-planned
course is over all the participants are given a post-test by three different raters, the speaking module of
the IELTS exam, this is exactly the test they are given as the pre-test. Finally the results of pre and post
tests, when analyzed and compared, show that the experimental group outperformed the control group in
speaking skill development and this proves the effectiveness of SDL model in teaching speaking skill to
Iranian EFL learners.
Key words: Second language Speaking skill; Self-Directed-Learning Method; Student-Centered model,
Speaking module of IELTS test.
Abbreviations: EFL- English as a foreign language; SDL- self-directed-learning; SDLRS- self-directed-
learning-readiness-scale
INTRODUCTION
Speaking, its Importance, and Complexity

Speaking is an interactive process in constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving, and
processing information orally (florez: 1999). Gatenby(1972) argues that what is essential in learning a language is
that the language being studied should be, as far as possible, the sole medium of communication in
anygivenenvironment.
According to Hornby (1995) teaching means giving the instruction to (a person): give a person (knowledge
skill, etc). While speaking means to make use of words in an ordinary voice. So, teaching speaking is giving
instruction to a person in order to communicate. As Chaney 1998 points out speaking is "the process of building
and sharing meaning through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, in a variety of contexts".
Courses in listening and speaking skills have a prominent place in language programs around the world today.
Ever-growing needs for fluency in English around the world because of the role of English as the worlds
international language have given priority to finding more effective ways to teach English(Jack, 2008).
Zaremba and Zhang hypothesize that, of the four macro English skills, speaking seems to be the most important
skill required for communication (Zaremba, 2006). Students who study English as a foreign language usually have
limited opportunities to speak English outside the classroom (Zhang, 2009) and also limited exposure to English
speakers or members of the international community.
Richards 1990, believes that the mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for many schools and
second language learners; learners consequently often evaluate their success in language learning as well as the
effectiveness of their English course in the basis of how well they feel they have improved in their spoken language
proficiency.
The complexity of learning to speak in another language is reflected
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 7 (9), 565-575, 2013
in the range and type of sub skills that are entailed in L2 oral production. Learners must simultaneously attend to
content, morph syntax and lexis, discourse and information structuring, and the sound system and prosody, as well
as appropriate register and pragmalinguistic features(Tarone, 2005).
Teaching Speaking
Speaking has always been a major focus of language teaching, however both the nature of speaking skills
as well as approaches to teaching them have undergone a major shift in thinking in recent years.
The teaching of EFL speaking can be focused on either training the students to speak accurately (in
terms of, for example, pronunciation and grammatical structures) or encouraging them to speak fluently. The
former is considered to be form-based instruction while the latter is considered to be meaning-based instruction
(Murdibjono, 1998).
Each of these focuses of instruction has its own characteristics. Form-focused instruction aims to provide
learners with language forms (e.g., phrases, sentences, or dialogues) which can be practiced and memorized so
that these forms can be used whenever the learners need them. The activities, usually teacher-centered, include
repetition, memorizing a dialog, responding to drills and substitution drills which are essentially used to activate
phrases or sentences that learners have understood. Shrum and Glisan 2000 point out that this view of proficiency
was prevalent in the audiolingual, Situational Language Teaching and other drill-based or repetition- based
methodologies of the 1970s and 80s.In contrast, the emergence of communicative language teaching in the 1980s
led to changed views of syllabuses and methodology as well as the Threshold Level and more recently proposals
for task-based and text-based approaches to teaching, which are continuing to shape approaches to teaching
speaking skills today, meaning-focused instruction, usually student-centered, aims to make learners able to
communicate and the teacher, therefore, plays a role more as a facilitator than a teacher.
From that point on fluency became a goal for speaking courses and this could be developed through the
use of information gap and other tasks that required learners to attempt real communication despite limited
proficiency in English. In so doing they would develop communication strategies and engage in negotiation of
meaning, both of which were considered essential to the development of oral skills.
Recently, MacIntyre (2007) drew attention to the learner's decision to voluntarily speak the language when
the opportunity arises, even as basic language skills are being acquired. Nevertheless, despite the emphasis on
communication in modern language pedagogy and the well-accepted view that learners require practice in
speaking in order to learn ( MacIntyre, 2003), some language learners habitually choose to remain silent.
Cotter (2007) proposed a method in his work and said that there should be three stages in any language
classroom and they are:
Preparation: Allow the students to prepare for the tasks ahead with an effective warm-up. This gives
everyone in the class ample opportunity to get their English wheels turning. Presentation: Next present the topic for
discussion, target grammar, or any vocabulary selected for the lesson. Practice: After the presentation, ESL / EFL
students need to practice the new material. It's unfair to expect them to make use of the new language without
adequate practice. And Free Use: You should always work towards real use of the language.
SELF-DIRECTED-LEARNING METHOD(SDL)
Ellinger, 2004 proposes SDL has been identified as an approach to knowledge that relies on a person
being both responsible for and able to be self-directed in their own learning.Knowles, 1975, also, points out ;Self-
directed learning refers to an educational process in which learners have the primary responsibility for their own
educational experiences. It is considered a learning practice in which an individual takes the initiative in identifying
learning needs, preparing goals, determining resources, and evaluating outcomes.
In its broadest meaning, SDL describes a process by which individuals take the initiative without the
assistance of others in diagnosing their learning need, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material
resources for learning, choosing and implement appropriate learning strategies and evaluating outcomes,(Knowles,
1972).
According to Nelson & Conner (2008), teachers and administrators, along with parents and students, must
have an understanding of the following characteristics of becoming a self-directed learner: student motivation, goal
orientation, self-efficacy, and locus of control, self-regulation, and metacognition. These concepts provide a
framework for helping students to truly gain an understanding of themselves as learners and how they can improve
their self-awareness as a learner.
Motivation: Brown (2007) defines motivation as the anticipation of reward, whether internally or externally
administered; choices made about goals to pursue and the effort exerted in their completion. Williams and Burden
566
(1997) argue that motivation involves choice about actions or behaviors: decisions as to whether to do something,
how much effort to expand on it, the degree of perseverance, and so on.
Self-efficacy: Perceived self-efficacy is defined as people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated
levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1994). Self-efficacy
beliefs determine how people behave, think, feel, and motivate themselves. Self-efficacy, although somewhat
similar to self-esteem, differs in one main concept. Self-efficacy is a personal belief of competency, rather than
ones emotional reaction to an actual accomplishment (Nelson and Conner, 2008).
Self-regulation: Self-regulation refers to thoughts, feelings and actions that are planned and cyclically
adapted to the attainment of personal goals (Zimmerman, 2000).
Vohs and Baumeister (2011) define it as:the sense of purposive processes, the sense that self-corrective
adjustments are taking place as needed to stay on track for the purpose being served (whether this entails
overriding another impulse or simply reacting to perturbations from other sources), and the sense that the
corrective adjustments originate within the person.
Locus of control: Locus of control as noted by Miller, Fitch, and Marshall (2003) is "the tendency students
have to ascribe achievements and failures to either internal factors that they control (effort, ability, motivation) or
external factors that are beyond control (chance, luck, others' actions)"
Metacognition : Flavell (1979) describes metacognition as cognition about cognitive phenomena, or
thinking about thinking. Kuhn and Dean (2004) suggest that metacognition is: Awareness and management of
ones own thought. Finally, Martinez (2006) regards it as The monitoring and control of thought.
Goal orientation: As stated by Caraway, Tucker, Reinke, and Hall (2003), it is the individuals ability to
make plans and set goals, and works in combination with self-efficacy, to increase a students motivation.
Followings are some basic tenants of Self-Directed-leaning;
*As the term suggests, SDL views learners as responsible owners and managers of their own learning
process. SDL integrates self-management (management of the context, including the social setting, resources, and
actions) with self-monitoring (the process whereby the learners monitor, evaluate and regulate their cognitive
learning strategies) (Bolhuis, 1996; Garrison, 1997).
*SDL recognizes the significant role of motivation and volition in initiating and maintaining learners' efforts.
Motivation drives the decision to participate, and volition sustains the will to see a task through to the end so that
goals are achieved (Corno, 1992; Garrison, 1997).
*In SDL, control gradually shifts from teachers to learners. Learners exercise a great deal of independence
in setting learning goals and deciding what is worthwhile learning as well as how to approach the learning task
within a given framework (Lyman, 1997; Morrow, Sharkey, & Firestone, 1993).
*Teachers scaffold learning by making learning 'visible.' They model learning strategies and work with
students so that they develop the ability to use them on their own (Bolhuis, 1996; Corno, 1992; Leal, 1993).
*SDL is, ironically, highly collaborative. Learners collaborate with teachers and peers(Guthrie, Alao & Rinehart;
1997; Temple and Rodero, 1995).
SDL develops domain-specific knowledge as well as the ability to transfer conceptual knowledge to new
situations. It seeks to bridge the gap between school knowledge and real-world problems by considering how
people learn in real life (Bolhuis, 1996; Temple & Rodero, 1995).
Self-directed-learning readiness scale (SDLRS)

Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scaleis a self-report questionnaire with Likert-type items developed by
Guglielmino in 1977. It is designed to measure the complex of attitudes, skills, and characteristics that comprise an
individual's current level of readiness to manage his or her own learning.
The SDLRS is a method for evaluating an individuals perception of their skills and attitudes that are
associated with self-directedness in learning. The scale is structured around eight factors, attitudinal and
personality, that are linked to self-directedness. Other than learners perception of readiness for self-directed
learning, this instrument is used for researching the relationship between self-directed readiness and other
personological variables.
SDLRS includes 58-items with a 5-point scale for responses, ranging from almost always true to almost
never true. The test uses 41 positively phrased questions and 17 negatively phrased. Also, the instrument is
available in a number of different languages.
Since its initial development, Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale also known as the Learning
Preference Assessment, (LPA) has been used widely. The SDLRS has been used by more than 500 major
organizations around the world. The instrument has been translated into Spanish (Castilian, Columbian, and
Cuban), French, German, Italian, Korean, Malay, Chinese, Japanese, Finnish, Greek, Portuguese, Afrikaans,
567
Russian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Farsi, Dutch, Polish and Turkish. More than 70,000 adults and 5,000 children have
taken the SDLRS/LPA. It has been used in numerous research studies, including more than 90 doctoral
dissertations.
Measuring speaking skill

OMalley (1996:56) says that teachers need to use assessment tasks that are as authentic as possible in a
classroom setting. This means: (1) using authentic language in listening/speaking activities; (2) setting real-world
tasks, such as getting the gist of a message, listening selectively, describing, giving directions,and giving opinions;
and (3) giving students opportunities to use language in situations based on everyday life.
There are different views regarding the basic components of Speaking skill, all of which agree on the ones pointed
out by Syakur (2007:4), namely; comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and fluency.
Followings are the four criteria being tested in IELTS test, the speaking module:
Grammar
It is needed for students to arrange a correct sentence in conversation. It is in line with explanation
suggested by Heaton (1978: 5) that students ability to manipulate structure and to distinguish appropriate
grammatical form in appropriate one. The utility of grammar is also to learn the correct way to gain expertise in a
language in oral and written form.
Vocabulary
Vocabulary means the appropriate diction which is used in communication. Without having a sufficient
vocabulary, one cannot communicate effectively or express their ideas in both oral and written form. Having limited
vocabulary is also a barrier that precludes learners from learning a language. Language teachers, therefore should
process considerable knowledge on how to manage an interesting classroom so that the learners can gain a great
success in their vocabulary learning. Without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can
be conveyed.
Pronunciation
Pronunciation is the way for students to produce clearer language when they speak. It deals with the
phonological process that refers to the components of a grammar made up of the elements and principles that
determine how sounds vary and pattern in a language. There are two features of pronunciation; phonemes and
supra segmental features. A speaker who constantly mispronounces a range of phonemes can be extremely
difficult for a speaker from another language community to understand (Gerard, 2000:11).
Fluency
Fluency can be defined as the ability to speak fluently and accurately. Fluency in speaking is the aim of
many language learners. Signs of fluency include a reasonably fast speed of speaking and only a small number of
pauses and ums or ers. These signs indicate that the speaker does not have to spend a lot of time searching for
the language items needed to express the message (Brown. 1997: 4).
For the purpose of the present study, the following research questions were formulated:
1. Will the experimental group outperform the control group in fluency test after the treatment?
2. Will the experimental group outperform the control group in pronunciation test after the treatment?
3. Will the experimental group outperform the control group in lexical resources test after the treatment?
4. Will the experimental group outperform the control group in grammar test after the treatment?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this true-experimental study (with an experimental group and a control group applying pre and post
tests), an attempt is made to figure out the effectiveness of self-directed-learning method in teaching speaking skill
to Iranian EFL learners.
Participants
The present study is conducted in Omid language Institute in Shahrekord, Chaharmahal va Bakhtiari
province, Iran. A selective clustering method is applied to choose the participants of this study. The institute
provided six separate classes of Interchange one part one, the exact level needed for this experiment, who enrolled
for the spring semester. two of these classes concluding 15 students each, eight males and seven females per
568
class, were targeted for the aim of this study. All subjects are aged between 15 to 17, and enjoy the same level of
language proficiency,language skills, the institute had conducted placement tests and interviews to determine
each students level, they all live in Chaharmahal va Bakhtiari and have approximately the same cultural
backgrounds. Then they were assigned as either control or experimental group and were given the IELTS speaking
test. to eliminate any fake and false behavior from the students' side, they were not informed of being a part of the
study until the course is over and results are revealed.
Instruments and Their Reliability

To satisfy the needs of this study a number of conversation books were investigated, for the most part
have been taught by the researcher during the past years, finally, with experts' suggestions, the interchange series,
by Jack.C.Richards, were selected.the first four units of the red book, interchange one, fit the time and the aim of,
15 sessions conducted course. Another story-book series named ;'Can You Believe It? by Jann and Linda
Huizenga Oxford university press', Were also used as the supplementary materials along with the main book.
To gather the data in this study the International English Language Testing Service (IELTS), the speaking
module was used as both pre and post tests for two reasons: First; it is internationally valid, reliable and easy to
administer; and Second; because there were raters who could reliably and validly score students speaking skill,
since experienced teachers who specifically teach IELTS perpetration courses develop an ability to guess
students mark with an acceptable degree of precision. Each subject was rated by three different raters, prior to and
after the treatment sessions, for each of the four criteria being tested, the mean of the given scores was the score
calculated for any of the individuals.
IELTS Speaking is a one-to-one interaction between the candidate and an examiner, the three parts give
the candidate opportunities to use a range of different speaking skills and the participants are given score due to
IELTS rubrics.
Procedure
After the groups were defined the pre test was given to both groups and the results were recorded, then
the instructor followed SDL instructions in experimental class and started from the very beginning session to help
students develop lifelong learning strategies, set goals and sub-goals for each session and for the overall course.
The instructor provided students with different motivational activities and gave them chances to chooses which one
to do at any time, he encouraged them to have control over what they are learning and what goes on in the class,
asks them to self-monitor and self-evaluate and use their metacognition.
The whole course truly exhibited a practice on learning how to learn during which the vitality of language
practice out of the classroom was accentuated all along the way. As for the control group, the instructor followed
the Interchange teachers' manual and completed the course just like all other normal conversation classes. There
were lots of practice on the four skills along with activities and assignments.
After the course was over, both groups were given the post test, the results of which was compared with
pre test results and the therefore the results of the study were made clear.
Because the individuals were scored by three different raters a series of Pearson product moment
correlations were conducted to ensure the inter rater reliability of the given scores for each criteria and for the
overall speaking skill scores.An independent sample T-test is applied for comparing the results of pre and post
tests for each of the criteria and to answer each research question. Besides another T-test was conducted to
compare the overall developments of speaking skill of the participants in the study.
Data Analysis
After data was collected from the population, Data management and analysis was performed using SPSS
software. To compare and study the performance of control and experimental groups. the participants were given
pre and post tests, the results of which was the base of the collected data in this study.
As it was explained before an independent sample T-test is applied for the aim of each research question,
which was to compare the results of pre and post tests to figure out the practicality of each hypotheses, and for the
comparison of the components of speaking skill namely, fluency, grammar, lexical resources and pronunciation of
the subjects in both groups. There was also another T-test conducted to compare the overall developments of
speaking skill of the participants of the study. a series of Pearson product moment correlations were conducted to
ensure the inter rater reliability of the given scores by the raters.
569
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the experiment revealed the fact that the scores of the participants regarding the four criteria
being tested and also for the overall speaking skill prior to the treatment had no significant differences and there
existed a minimal mean difference between the scores which mean all the participants are almost at the same
level.
Table 1 shows the comparison of the mean differences between the two groups.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Comparing Pretest Overall Speaking Scores (POSS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Std. Error
Groups N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
POSS CG 15 4.7893 .35752 .09231
EG 15 4.7500 .42854 .11065
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the scores of the participants in the control and experimental
groups before the treatment sessions. As this table shows there were 15 participants in each group with a minimal
difference in the mean of these two groups (MG1= 4.78, MG2= 4.75).
Table 2 shows the results of the comparison between the overall speaking scores of the participants in
both groups.
Table 2. T-Test Results Comparing Pretest Overall Speaking Scores (POSS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
POSS Equal variances
assumed .630 .434 .273 28 .787 .03933 .14410 -.25584 .33450
Equal variances
not assumed .273 27.129 .787 .03933 .14410 -.25627 .33493
Table 2 shows the t-test results for overall speaking scores of the participants in control and experimental
groups before the treatment sessions. T-test was run to see if there has been any differences between the two
groups regarding their overall speaking skill before the study. According to this table t(28)= .27, p>0.01 which
cannot reject the null hypothesis and we can conclude that there are no significant difference between the control
and experimental group with regard to their fluency before the treatment sessions.
After the treatment sessions are completed the data were analyzed and compared, the following results
were drown out then;First: the experimental group outperformed the control group in fluency test after the course
which rejects the first null hypothesis of the study(RH 1)and proves that Self-directed-learning-method is highly
efficient in helping Iranian EFL learners develop better fluency in English.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Comparing Posttest Fluency Scores (PFS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Std. Error
PFS CG 15 5.5467 .65560 .16927
EG 15 6.4267 .51750 .13362
groups after the treatment sessions. As this table shows there were 15 participants in each group and there exists
significant difference in the mean of these two groups (MG1= 5.54, MG2= 6.42).
570
both groups.
Table4. T-Test Results Comparing Posttest Fluency Scores (PFS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Levene's Test for
95% Confidence
Interval of the
PFS Equal variances
assumed 3.799 .061 -4.081 28 .000 -.88000 .21566 -1.32175 -.43825
Equal variances
-4.081 26.567 .000 -.88000 .21566 -1.32283 -.43717
not assumed
Table 4 shows the t-test results for fluency scores of the participants in control and experimental groups
before the treatment sessions. T-test was run to see if there has been any differences between the two groups
regarding their overall speaking skill before the study. According to this table t(28)= -4.08, p<0.01 which can reject
the null hypothesis and we can conclude that there are significant difference between the control and experimental
group with regard to their fluency after the treatment sessions.
Second:the experimental group outperformed the control group in pronunciation test after the course which
rejects the second null hypothesis of the study(RH 2)and proves that Self-directed-learning-method is highly
efficient in helping Iranian EFL learners develop better pronunciation in English.
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Comparing Posttest Pronunciation Scores (PPS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Std. Error
PPS CG 15 4.8867 .61163 .15792
EG 15 5.8700 .66756 .17236
a significant difference in the mean of these two groups (MG1= 4.88, MG2= 5.87).
both groups.
Table 6. T-Test Results Comparing Posttest Pronunciation Scores (PPS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Levene's Test for
95% Confidence
Interval of the
PPS Equal variances
assumed .445 .510 -4.206 28 .000 -.98333 .23377 -1.46219 -.50447
Equal variances
-4.206 27.788 .000 -.98333 .23377 -1.46236 -.50431
not assumed
Table 2 shows the t-test results for pronunciation scores of the participants in control and experimental
groups after the treatment sessions. T-test was run to see if there has been any differences between the two
groups regarding their pronunciation skill after the study. According to this table t(28)= -4.20, p<0.01 which can
reject the null hypothesis and we can conclude that there are significant difference between the control and
experimental group with regard to their pronunciation after the treatment sessions.
Third: the experimental group outperformed the control group in lexical resources test after the course which
571
rejects the third null hypothesis of the study(RH 3) and proves that Self-directed-learning-method is highly efficient
in helping Iranian EFL learners develop better lexical resources in English.
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Comparing Posttest Diction Scores (PDS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Std. Error
PDS CG 15 5.6400 .71194 .18382
EG 15 6.0933 .59338 .15321
both groups.
Table 8. T-Test Results Comparing Posttest Diction Scores (PDS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Levene's Test for
95% Confidence
Interval of the
PDS Equal variances
.353 .557 -1.894 28 .069 -.45333 .23930 -.94351 .03685
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed -1.894 27.120 .069 -.45333 .23930 -.94423 .03756
Table 8 shows the t-test results for diction scores of the participants in control and experimental groups
after the treatment sessions. T-test was run to see if there has been any differences between the two groups
regarding their lexical resourcesafter the study. According to this table t(28)=-1.89, p<0.01 which can reject the null
hypothesis and we can conclude that there are significant difference between the control and experimental group
with regard to their lexical resources after the treatment sessions.
Fourth: the experimental group outperformed the control group in grammatical resources test after the course
which rejects the fourth null hypothesis of the study(RH 4)and proves that Self-directed-learning-method is highly
efficient in helping Iranian EFL learners develop better grammatical resources in English.
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Comparing Posttest Grammar Scores (PGS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Std. Error
PGS CG 15 5.9933 .57504 .14847
EG 15 6.2800 .54537 .14081
Table 10 shows the results of the comparison between the grammar scores of the participants in both
groups.
572
Table 10. T-Test Results Comparing Posttest Grammar Scores (PGS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Levene's Test for
95% Confidence
Interval of the
PGS Equal variances
.150 .701 -1.401 28 .172 -.28667 .20463 -.70583 .13250
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed -1.401 27.922 .172 -.28667 .20463 -.70588 .13255
Table 10 shows the t-test results for grammar scores of the participants in control and experimental groups
after the treatment sessions. T-test was run to see if there has been any differences between the two groups
regarding their grammar skill before the study. According to this table t(28)= -1.40, p<0.01 which can reject the null
hypothesis and we can conclude that there are significant difference between the control and experimental group
with regard to their grammar after the treatment sessions.
Finally the results of the final overall T-test which was a thorough comparison of the total speaking scores
of the participant prior to and after the treatment sessions made it crystal clear that the students in experimental
group simply outperformed the students in control group in overall speaking tests.
Table 11. Descriptive Statistics for Comparing Posttest Overall Speaking Scores (POSS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Std. Error
POSS CG 15 5.5533 .29244 .07551
EG 15 6.1580 .40466 .10448
Table 12. T-Test Results Comparing Posttest Overall Speaking Scores (POSS) of Control and Experimental Groups
Levene's Test for
95% Confidence
Interval of the
POSS Equal variances
assumed 1.501 .231 -4.691 28 .000 -.60467 .12891 -.86873 -.34061
Equal variances
not assumed -4.691 25.490 .000 -.60467 .12891 -.86990 -.33943
Table 12 shows the t-test results for overall speaking scores of the participants in control and experimental
groups after the treatment sessions. T-test was run to see if there has been any differences between the two
groups regarding their overall speaking skill after the study. According to this table t(28)= .-4.69, p<0.01 which can
reject the null hypothesis and we can conclude that there are significant difference between the control and
experimental group with regard to their overall speaking skill after the treatment sessions.
As shown in tables above and explained in previous section the results indicate that both control and
experimental groups were in the same level regarding the four criteria being tested and they had quite close
performances while comparing one to another, but there is a different story after the treatment, the participants of
experimental group exhibited much better performance in all the four speaking criteria in comparison to the
participants of the control group.
573
In order to have a clear cut view of the results of the study two overall calculations are done, one before
the treatment sessions and the other after the course was ended, in these sections overall speaking score of the
each participant, following IELTS rubrics, is calculated and mean differences are made clear then the overall T- test
are run to compare the speaking skill scores of the participants in control and experimental groups both prior to and
after the treatment. The overall speaking scores after the experiment proved that self-directed-learning method is
strongly effective in teaching speaking skill to Iranian EFL learners.
Needless to say that there is very little, if any, practical works in this area and this research sheds more lights on
new methods and approaches of EFL teaching and learning. Furthermore language experts and EFL instructors
can use the results of this study to flesh out their programs, syllabuses, activities and the way they conduct the
speakingcourses.
REFERENCES
Abdullah MH.2001. Self-directed learning (ERIC digest No. 169).

Andrea D.2004. Ellinger.The Concept of Self-Directed Learning and Its Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in
Developing Human Resources; 6; 158.
Benson P. 1996. Concepts of autonomy in language learning. In Pemberton, R., Li, E. S. L., Or W. W. F., Pierson, H. D. (eds.). Taking control:
Autonomy inLanguage Learning.Hong Kong: HKU Press: 27-34.
Benson P.2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Lonsdon: Longman.
Bolhuis S. 1996. Towards Active and Selfdirected Learning. Preparing for Lifelong Learning, with Reference to Dutch Secondary Education.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New York, NY, April 8-12, 1996).
Book Chapter: Burns, Anne; Joyce, Helen. "Speaking activities in the classroom" in Focus on Speaking , Burns, Anne; Joyce, Helen , 1997 , 81-
98.
Brockett RG, Hiemstra R .1991.Self-direction in Learning: Perspectives in Theory, Research, and Practice. Routledge, London, UK.
Brophy J.1986. October. On motivating students. (Occasional paper No. 101). East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Research on Teaching,
Michigan State University, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED276724).
Brown HD. 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching
and Research Press.
Brown HD.1994.Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents
Burns A , Joyce H.1997. Focus on speaking. Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research.
Bygate.1998, 2001. McCarthy, 1998;D'Ely & Mota, 2004.
Caraway K, Tucker CM, Reinke WM, Hall C. 2003. Self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors of school engagement in high
school students. Psychology in the Schools, 40(4), 417-427.
Chaney AL, Burk TL. 1998. Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K-8. Boston: Charnot AU. 1987. The learning strategies of ESL students.
In Wenden, A.& Rubin J. (eds.). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Cambridge: PrenticeHall.
Cohen AD. 2000. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Corno L.1992. Encouraging Students to Take Responsibility for Learning and Performance. Elementary School Journal; v93 n1 p69-83 Sep
1992. [EJ 453 441]
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. USA. Harvard.
Darling-Hammond L, Austin K, Cheung M, Martin D.2008. Thinking about thinking: Metacognition. Retrieved January 16th, 2008 from
<http://www.learner.org/resources/series172.html>.
Dickinson L.1987. Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.
Elsevier.2005.Knowles M. Self Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. Cambridge, NY: Pearson Learning Cambridge Adult
Education; 1975. Gardner D, Miller L. 2002. Establishing Self-Access: from Theory to Practice.Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press.
Garrison DR. Self-directed learning: toward a comprehensive model. Adult Educ Q. 1997;48(1):18.
Guglielmino & Associates. http://www.guglielmino734.com/. Accessed January 25, 2011.
Guglielmino LM.1977. Development of the Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale. Athens, GA: University of Georgia;
Guthrie JT, Solomon A, Rinehart JM.1997. Engagement in Reading for Young Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy; v40 n6 438-
46 Mar 1997. [EJ 547 197].
Holec H. 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Institute for Learning Styles Research. (2003). Institute for
Learning Styles Research.
Retrieved on January 8, 2007 from <http://www.learningstyles.org>. International Journal of Self-directed Learning, Volume 1, Number 1, Spring
2004. 1Self-Direction in Learning in the U.S.
Jack C, Richards M. 2008. Teaching Listening and Speaking From Theory to Practice. Cambridge University Press
Knowles M, Holton E, Swanson R. 1962.The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. 6th
ed. New York, NY: Knowles M. S. The adult education movement in the United States. NY: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Knowles MS.1975. Self-Directed Learning. A guide for learners and teachers, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge. 135 pages.
Leal DJ. 1993. The Power of Literary Peer-Group Discussions: How Children Collaboratively Negotiate Meaning. Reading Teacher; v47 n2
p114-20 Oct 1993.
Long HB. 1975b. Independent study in the education of Colonial adults. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 8, 54-65.
Long HB.1975a. Continuing education in colleges and societies. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 8, 38-53. McCarthy, 1998;
Fortkamp, 2000).
McDonald JB. 1967. Independent learning: The theme of the conference. In G. Gleason (Ed.). Theory and nature of independent learning: A
symposium.
574
Miller CA, Fitch T, Marshall JL. 2003. Locus of control and at-risk youth: A comparison of regular education high school students and
students in alternative schools. Education, 123(3), 548552.
Nelson S, Conner C. 2008. Developing self-directed learners. Retrieved January 15, 2008 <fromhttp://www.nwrel.org/planning/reports/self-
direct/self.pdf>.
Nunan D. 1988. The Learner-centered Curriculum: A Study in Second Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nyikos M, Oxford R. 1987. Strategies for foreign language learning and second language acquisition. Paper presented at the conference on
SLA and FLL, Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.
OMalley JM, Chamot AU. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce W.2003. Metacognition: Study strategies, monitoring, and motivation. Retrieved January 14, 2008,
Pintrich PR .2003. A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
Richards Jack C. 1990. The teacher as self-observer. In Jack C. Richards, The Language Teaching Matrix. New York: Cambridge University
Press (pp. 118- 143).
Ried B. 2008. Cognitive strategy instruction Self regulation. Retrieved January 20, 2008 <fromhttp://www.unl.edu/csi/self.shtml>.
Scharle A, Szabo A. 2000. Learner Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scranton, PA: International Textbook Co.
Shrum JL, Glisan EW. 2000.Teachers Handbook: Contextualized Language Instruction, (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle, 363 pp. plus website.
Sinclair B. 1996. Materials design for the promotion of learner autonomy: how explicit is control: Autonomy in Language Learning, Hong Kong:
HKU Press for SLA research, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 77-97.
Skehan. 1998. Bygate, 1998, 2001; Ejzemberg, 2000; Ellis, 2003;
Taylor John R. 1995.Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 327 pages.
Taylor S. 1999. Better learning through better thinking: Developing students metacognitive abilities. Journal of College Reading and Learning,
30(1), 34. Temple C, Rodero ML.1995. Active Learning in a Democratic Classroom: The "Pedagogical Invariants" of Celestin Freinet
(Reading around the World).Reading Teacher; v49 n2 p164-67 Oct 1995.
Temple C, Rodero ML.1995. Active Learning in a Democratic Classroom: The "Pedagogical Invariants" of Celestin Freinet (Reading around the
World). Reading Teacher; v49 n2 p164-67 Oct 1995. [EJ 515 907]
575

OK Ebook Syakur 2007

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

OK Ebook Syakur 2007

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences

2013 Available online at www.irjabs.com

The Effectiveness of Self-Directed-Learning Method

Corresponding authors email: Mdkyani@yahoo.com

Speaking, its Importance, and Complexity

Self-directed-learning readiness scale (SDLRS)

Measuring speaking skill

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Instruments and Their Reliability

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Abdullah MH.2001. Self-directed learning (ERIC digest No. 169).

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi