Imam Khomeini International University

Faculty of Humanities

Department of English language

Subject:

The Effects of Self-esteem and Critical Thinking on Iranian EFL Learners’ Language Learning Strategies Use

By:

Soghra Karami Zarandi

A proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for MA degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)

Fall, 2013

1

Introduction

The important role that learners can play in the process of language learning has been frequently confirmed in the area of second and foreign language learning. Research has also gone across drastic changes from teacher-oriented methods towards learners and learning-centered techniques to show that it has been in line with these fundamental movements during the past decade (Lee, 2003). So, when learners receive more attention during language learning process, they employ strategies and techniques to learn the language better and to overcome its obstacles. From among these techniques, language learning strategies have received particular attention since the late 1970s (Oxford, 1990).

Undoubtedly, learning strategies can have crucial effects on second and foreign language learning. Also there are a range of different factors including anxiety, proficiency level, attitude, motivation, aptitude, amount of exposure, etc., which affect the choice of language learning strategies (Guilloteax & Dornyei, 2008; Ortega, 2003; Vandergrift, 2005; Zarei & Elekaei, 2013).

According to Brown (2000) the acquisition of a new language includes a set of variables that may be stemmed from neurological, psychological, cognitive and affective variables. Also, Krashen (1981) states that there are a range of psychological variables, which may either facilitate or inhibit the language learners' efforts in English language learning. From another point of view, Bernat, Carter and Hall (2009) declare that learners’ affective contributions to language learning have been on the spotlight for over three decades, both for shedding light on the learning process and also the impact they have on the learning outcomes.

Among those psychological variables or individual differences, self-esteem is one factor which has long been the subject of research among educators, psychologists, and sociologists and also has been investigated for many years in the field of language learning. Self-esteem is always a significant variable in the level of accomplishment of all students (Reasoner, 1992). According to Brown (2000) students with high global self-esteem most likely believe themselves to be significant and worthy individuals as well as capable of learning another language.

Besides psychological variables like self-esteem, thinking styles of students also have a crucial impact on language learning. One of the important thinking abilities that should be acquired by the learners is critical thinking. Over the last 20 years, a number of educators and psychologists (e.g., Schafersman, 1991) have highlighted the inclusion of critical thinking skills in curriculum; since the major purpose of education is believed to teach learners how to think critically in order to be effective and competent citizens in the real world. (Ido & Jones, 1991)

2

Atkinson (1997) asserts that critical thinking has been mostly used for first language education in the United States, but today its role in second and foreign language learning and teaching is of great significance, too.

Accordingly, the present study will investigate the effects of self-esteem and critical thinking on the choice of L2 learners’ language learning strategies.

Definition of the key terms

Global or Trait self-esteem

Brown (2000) defines global self-esteem as "relatively stable in a mature adult, and is resistant to change except by active and extended therapy. It is general or prevailing assessment one makes of one’s own worth over time and across a number of situations."(p.145). For the purpose of the present study, global self-esteem is operationally defined and measured as the participants' performance on an especially designed questionnaire.

State self-esteem

Many researchers use the term state self-esteem to refer to the emotions which relate to the feelings of self-worth (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). The essential difference is that global self-esteem persists while feelings of self-worth are temporary (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). In this study, state self-esteem is operationally defined and measured as the participants' performance on an especially designed questionnaire.

Critical thinking

Dewey (1933) the father of modern critical thinking, defines critical thinking as: “active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 9). Like self-esteem, critical thinking will be measured using an especially designed test.

Language learning strategies

Chamot (2004) defines learning strategies as “the conscious thoughts and actions that learners take in order to achieve a learning goal"(p. 14). In the present study, language learning strategies will be measured through an especially designed strategies questionnaire.

According to Oxford (1990), language learning strategies fall in two main categories. Direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies include cognitive, memory, compensation and indirect strategies contain metacognitive, affective and social strategies.

3

Oxford and Crookall (1989) define strategies as follows:

Cognitive strategies: They define cognitive strategies as “skills that involve manipulation or transformion the language in some direct way.” (p.1)

Memory strategies: memory strategies are defined as “techniques specifically tailored to help the learner store new information in memory and retrieve it later.” (p.1)

Compensation strategies: are “behaviors used to compensate for missing knowledge of some kind.” (p.1)

Metacognitive strategies: metacognitive strategies are “behaviors used for centering, arranging, planning and evaluating one's learning.” (p.1)

Affective strategies: affective strategies include “techniques like self-reinforcement and positive self-talk which help learners gain better control over emotions, attitudes and motivations related to language learning.” (p.1)

Social strategies: social strategies refer to “actions involving other people in the language learning process.” (p.1)

Statement of the problem

There have been a number of studies dealing with the effect of affective variables such as motivation, attitude, autonomy, anxiety, etc. on the choice of language learning strategies. (Guilloteax & Dornyei, 2008; Ortega, 2003; Vandergrift, 2005; Zarei & Elekaie, 2013). But the effects of self-esteem and critical thinking ability as crucial factors in language learning and especially choosing language learning strategies have been partially examined. Also, on the part of critical thinking, schools and curriculums, especially in East Asia, are blamed for focusing excessively on memorizing for exams or stuffing knowledge into students without developing the cognitive abilities to critically evaluate arguments (Zhang, 1999). As a result, studies on the effects of self-esteem and critical thinking in the field of language learning are highly needed in order to develop the performance of language learners in pedagogical contexts. In this regard, the present study attempts to study the effects of self-esteem and critical thinking on the choice of language learning strategies, and hopes to fill the existing gap in the field of language learning studies.

Significance of the study

4

Oxford and Ehrman (1992) believe that in order to offer efficient instructions, teachers should learn to identify and comprehend significant individual differences among their students. This is especially important to speed up second and foreign language learning. So, it is obvious that self-esteem is a very significant factor in language learning because no successful cognitive or affective activity can be carried out without some degree of it. Students perform well when they have high global self-esteem, or they may have a high global self-esteem because they perform well. Furthermore, identifying the effect of critical thinking on language learning can provide instructors and authorities with useful information, so they can apply appropriate methods, based on student's individual differences, in order to develop critical thinking in the students. From another perspective, the better understanding of language learning strategies for English teachers can help students to learn more successfully and develop their learning autonomy.

Accordingly, the present study will attempt to help teachers and learners to have a better understanding of self-esteem, critical thinking and language learning strategies in an educational context.

Research questions

The purpose of the present study is to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of memory strategies?

RQ2: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of cognitive strategies?

RQ3: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of compensation strategies?

RQ4: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of meta-cognitive strategies?

RQ5: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of affective strategies?

RQ6: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of social strategies?

RQ7: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of memory strategies?

5

RQ8: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of cognitive strategies?

RQ9: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of compensation strategies?

RQ10: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of meta-cognitive strategies?

RQ11: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of affective strategies?

RQ12: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of social strategies?

RQ13: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of memory strategies?

RQ14: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of cognitive strategies?

RQ15: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of compensation strategies?

RQ16: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of meta-cognitive strategies?

RQ17: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of affective strategies?

RQ18: Are there any significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of social strategies?

Research hypotheses

Based on the above research questions, the following null hypotheses are formulated:

H1: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of memory strategies.

H2: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of cognitive strategies.

6

H3: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of compensation strategies.

H4: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of meta-cognitive strategies.

H5: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of affective strategies.

H6: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of global self-esteem on the choice of social strategies.

H7: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of memory strategies.

H8: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of cognitive strategies.

H9: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of compensation strategies.

H10: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of meta-cognitive strategies.

H11: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of affective strategies.

H12: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of state self-esteem on the choice of social strategies.

H13: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of memory strategies.

H14: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of cognitive strategies.

H15: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of compensation strategies.

H16: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of meta-cognitive strategies.

H17: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of affective strategies.

7

H18: There are no significant differences among the effects of different levels of critical thinking on the choice of social strategies.

Limitations and delimitations of the study

There will be a number of limitations in this study. One of the most important ones will be finding homogenous students at the same level of language proficiency. The participants will be homogenized in terms of their language proficiency based on their obtained score on the proficiency test. Other elements affecting their proficiency level will not be considered here. In addition, the effect of other variables like sex, cultural and social factors, which may influence the findings, will not be considered in this study.

Furthermore, for manageability reasons, the participants will be selected from among senior B.A. and M.A. students majoring in TEFL and translation. Therefore, generalizing the results to other learners must be treated with care. Also, the participants of the present study will include both female and male learners; but gender will not be included as a variable.

Literature review

Language learning strategies

Over the last twenty years, there has been a burgeoning amount of research into language learning strategies, in an attempt to discover which of the language learning strategies that students use are the most effective for the particular type of language learning involved.

Many researchers and experts have defined language learning strategies from different points of view. According to Wenden (1987a), language learning strategies can be defined from the aspect of language learning behaviors, such as learning and regulating the meaning of a second or foreign language, cognitive theory, such as learners’ strategic knowledge of language learning, and the affective view, such as learners’ motivation, attitude, etc.

Furthermore, Chamot (1987) studied the use of learning strategies by ESL learners in the US. Based on his research, language learning strategies are divided into three main categories, metacognitive, cognitive, and socio -affective which refer to learners’ planning their learning, thinking about the learning process, monitoring their own comprehension or production, and evaluating the outcomes of their own learning. From a theoretical perspective, Rigney (1978) defines language learning strategies as behaviors, steps, or techniques that language learners

8

apply to facilitate language learning. From another point of view, the definition of Oxford (1990) includes two main classifications: direct strategies and indirect strategies. Direct strategies are specific ways that involve use of language, sub-divided into memory, cognitive and compensation strategies. Indirect strategies do not directly involve using the language, but they support language learning also included cognitive, emotional, and social aspects of language learning strategies.

Studies regarding variables affecting language learning strategies

Many factors influence students using language learning strategies: age, sex, attitude, motivation, aptitude, anxiety, task requirements, learning styles, individual differences, cultural differences, beliefs about language learning, and language proficiency (Abraham & Vann, 1987, 1990; Bialystok, 1979; Chamot & Kupper 1989; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Oxford, 1989; Oxford & Nyikos 1989; Radwan, 2011; Sheorey, 1999; Yang, 2007; Zarei & Elekaie, 2013).

In a study, Bialystok (1979) studied the role of language learning strategies in second language proficiency and concluded that using language learning strategies had positive effects on language learners’ accomplishment.

Furthermore, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) discovered the relationship between language learners’ proficiency and their use of strategy as well. They used Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) to investigate 1200 students of university who studied five different foreign languages, and found that different background affected use of language learning strategies. Moreover, students’ self-rating of proficiency levels was closely connected to their use of language learning strategies; for instance, students who considered themselves to be proficient in speaking, listening or reading were more interested in employing language learning strategies.

In a case study by Abraham and Vann (1987, 1990), they carried out research into two successful and unsuccessful language learners. The results revealed that successful and unsuccessful learners often employed the same strategies. However, the difference is that successful learners used strategies more appropriate in different situations than unsuccessful learners, and used a larger range of strategies in language learning more regularly and appropriately.

Ehrman and Oxford (1995) found that only cognitive strategies had a significant relationship with language proficiency in the SILL category. Other strategies, (memory, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies) had no significant relationship with proficiency. On the other hand, only cognitive strategies significantly influenced ESL/EFL learners’ proficiency results.

In a study, Sheorey (1999) examined language learning strategy use among Indian college students who studying English in the environment of an indigenized variety of English. The findings revealed that meta-cognitive strategies were used most frequently. It was reported

9

that the cultural background and the educational patterns influenced some of the strategies which Indian students used. Moreover, results showed the effect of sex variable and indicated that female learners used strategies more frequently than male learners.

In another study, Su (2005) studied the language learning strategies employed by Taiwanese technological and vocational college students, their self-perceived English proficiency and their interrelationship. He demonstrated that students used social strategies the most. In addition, Su concluded that memory strategies were the least used strategies among other strategies. Also, students with high English proficiency level used language learning strategies more frequently than students with a low proficiency level.

Moreover, Yang (2007) explored the effects of ethnicity and proficiency on the choice of language learning strategies. He found that although both language proficiency and ethnicity affected the students' use of language learning strategies, students used memory strategies the least and compensation strategies the most without relation to ethnic background.

Additionally, Radwan (2011) investigated the effect of gender and English proficiency on the use of language learning strategies. Meta-cognitive strategies and memory strategies were found to be used the most and the least, respectively. Furthermore, students with high proficiency level used cognitive, meta-cognitive and affective strategies more than students with low proficiency level.

Furthermore, Zarei and Elekaei (2013) in a study examined the effect of motivation on the choice of language learning strategies. Their findings indicated that the level of motivation significantly influenced students' choice of memory, compensation, and affective strategies, but had no significant effect on the choice of cognitive strategies, meta-cognitive and social strategies. Also in another study (2013) they investigated the effect of attitude on the L2 learners’ choice of compensation and metacognitive strategies. They concluded that the level of attitude had a statistically significant effect on the choice of students’ compensation strategies; whereas the effect of attitude on the choice of students’ meta-cognitive strategies was not significant.

Besides these crucial factors, self-esteem is also one of the important affective factors which has remarkable impacts on the language learning and the choice of language learning strategies of L2 learners.

Self-esteem

Global self-esteem is the overall evaluation of worthiness made by the individual which is directly related to the experiences and interactions with his / her environment, interactions with others, and self-perceptions (Coopersmith, 1967). It is the evaluative feelings of the individual’s personal worth which expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval, and indicates

10

the extent to which an individual believes him or herself to be capable, significant, successful, and worthy (Rogers, 1980).Rubio (2007) defines self-esteem as a psychological and social fact in which a person evaluates own self as well as his/her competence based on some values that originates from different emotional conditions in different circumstances. Many researchers use the term state self-esteem to refer to the emotions which relate to the feelings of self-worth. (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). The essential difference is that global self-esteem persists while feelings of self-worth are temporary (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991).

The presence or absence of self-esteem has many outcomes in our daily lives. In this regard, Powell (2005) believes that self-esteem helps us to overcome difficult and stressful events in our lives. Similarly, Harris (2009) emphasized on the undesirable consequences of the absence of self-esteem and explained it in view of self-protection. He argued that the loss of self-esteem can result in feelings of distress.

Besides the effective role of self-esteem in our daily lives, the significance of self-esteem in language learning has also been examined and highlighted. Many studies have reported that self-esteem is positively correlated with academic performance and achievement. Heyde (1977) explored the relationships between the three levels of self-esteem and students’ oral performance in second language. She found that all three levels of self-esteem correlated positively with oral performance. The highest correlation occurred between task self-esteem and oral language performance. Therefore, she concurred with Brown (2000) in that oral language performance has a strong bearing upon global self-esteem.

In a study, Cohen and Norst (1989) investigated the effects of fear, dependence and loss of self-esteem as affective barriers in second language learning among adults. The findings revealed that language learning and self worth were closely related and that any damage to one of the elements will also damage the other. They also emphasized that loss of self-esteem is an affective barrier in second language learning among adults.

In another study, Hayati and Ostadian (2008) investigated the relationship between self-esteem and the listening comprehension of sixty intermediate EFL students. The data obtained from the students’ listening comprehension scores and self-esteem questionnaire revealed that the students' self-esteem considerably affected their listening comprehension scores. They concluded that a positive relationship exists between self-esteem and listening comprehension of English language learners.

Koosha, Ketabi, and Kassaian (2011) studied the effect of self-esteem on the verbal proficiency of a group of intermediate language learners. The findings showed that the level of learners’ self-esteem has a significant effect on the learners speaking ability. The authors proposed that teachers pay more attention to their students’ level of self-esteem and try to

11

increase it through the language learning process, hence, increase the students’ English language proficiency.

In addition to the above mentioned studies, the importance of self-esteem in language learning is twofold since it is directly related to two more psychological variables, namely, motivation and anxiety. In this regard, Dörnyei (2009) asserted that learners’ self -esteem should be protected in order to motivate them to learn the language. Hence self-esteem can be considered as a vital element to help motivating students in their pursuit of learning the second language.

Furthermore, self-esteem is viewed as a prerequisite for developing learner autonomy in language learning. Legenhausen (2011) proposed that autonomous learners are able to create their own goals and will definitely achieve these goals as they are not passively dependent on their teachers to direct them.

In another study, Asadifard and Biria (2013) investigated the relationship between language learning strategies and global self-esteem among college-level EFL learners. The findings of the study revealed that language learning strategies correlate significantly with global self-esteem. Among language learning strategies categories, cognitive strategies and compensation strategies indicated the highest correlation with the learners’ self-esteem. However, affective strategies were the least correlated category with self-esteem. Furthermore, it was indicated that gender is not a determinant factor for being a high or low strategy user, and does not affect self-esteem.

Besides self-esteem as a significant psychological variable, critical thinking is another factor which influences the quality of language learning and also the choice of L2 learners of language learning strategies.

Critical thinking

Critical thinking approach to learning has been applied 2000 years ago for the first time by Socrates who was interested in carefully questioning peoples’ claims, seeking evidence and analyzing concepts to understand what to believe. (Wright, 2002)

The term “critical thinking” and how to define it has received much discussion and debate in recent years. So, many definitions of critical thinking exist. Passmore (1967) defines critical thinking as a process that is reflective and imaginative. Similarly, Norris and Ennis (1989) define CT as “reasonable and reflective thinking that is focused upon deciding what to believe and do” (p.3). In another short definition by Paul (1990), he defines CT as “the art of thinking about your thinking” (p. 32). Jacobs, Ott, Sullivan, Ulrich, and Short (1997) define CT as ‘‘the repeated examination of problems, questions, issues, and situations by comparing,

12

simplifying, and synthesizing information in an analytical, deliberative, evaluative, decisive way’’ (p. 20). Also, Halpern (1999) believes that “When we think critically, we are evaluating the outcomes of our thought processes—how good a decision is or how well a problem is solved” (p. 70).

Facione and Facione (1994) contend that interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, and explanation make up the interactive process of critical thinking. They state that engaging students and allowing them to apply these skills (interpretive skills, analytical skills, etc.) actually aid students in developing their critical thinking abilities. So it seems there is a need to engender the critical thinking ability in educational system. Philosophers of education maintain that CT is the fundamental goal of learning and particularly central to higher education (Paul, 1987). Pennycook (1994) asserts that a shift has occurred from viewing learning primarily as rote training to conceptualizing learning as a constantly evolving process of discovering, questioning, and reformulating hypotheses. CT skills have also increasingly gained attention in research related to student achievement and attitudes and a huge body of educational research has reported the importance of promoting higher-order thinking skills and the positive influence of CT on learners’ achievement in EFL contexts (Davidson & Dunham, 1997)

Several investigations have been conducted into critical thinking effects on the different aspects of foreign language learning. Aleger (1993), in his study on the effects of thinking skills on students' reading comprehension, found that all students experienced significant gains in reading comprehension and no statistical differences were found to exist between experimental and control groups. Halpern (2003) conducted a research on critical thinking between students from U. S. and Japan. He concluded that the best American students scored lower than the worst Japanese students in mathematical problem solving. The same results were also replicated by Neubert and Binko (1992). In their study on critical thinking, they found that only 17% of the students can find, summarize, and explain information.

Myers and Dyer (2006) investigated the effect of students’ learning style on critical thinking skill. They found that students with deeply embedded abstract sequential learning style preferences showed significantly higher critical thinking scores. However, no differences in critical thinking ability existed between students of other learning styles.

Lun, Fischer, and Word (2010) investigated the cultural differences in critical thinking between Asian and European students. The results revealed that European students performed better on two objective measures of critical thinking skills than Asian students.

Magno (2010) investigated the role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. In order to determine the effect of metacognition on critical thinking, the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used. The Pearson Product Moment correlation procedure revealed that the factors of metacognition are significantly related to the factors of critical thinking.

Kamali and Fahim (2011) investigated the relationship between critical thinking ability, resilience, and reading comprehension of texts containing unknown vocabulary items. Results showed that (a) the levels of critical thinking had a significant effect on the scores of the

13

participants on the resilience scale, (b) the levels of critical thinking had significant effect on the participants’ comprehension of texts with unfamiliar vocabulary items, and (c) the levels of resilience had significant effect on the participants’ comprehension of texts with unfamiliar vocabulary items.

Nikoopour, Farsani, and Nasiri (2011) in a study investigated the relationship between critical thinking and language learning strategies among Iranian EFL learners. The results revealed a statistically significant relationship between specific direct and indirect language learning strategies such as cognitive, metacognitive, and social with critical thinking, while memory, compensation, and affective strategies appeared to have no relationship with critical thinking.

Accordingly, the present study attempts to study the effects of self-esteem and critical thinking ability on the choice of language learning strategies of L2 learners.

MethodologyThis section specifies and describes the participants of the study, the instruments for data collection, applied procedures and data analysis.

ParticipantsIn the present study, a sample of 150 male and female Iranian B.A. and M.A. students

majoring in Teaching English and English Translation at Qazvin State and Islamic Azad Universities will be selected. A Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP) will be administered in order to select a homogenized group of learners.

Instruments

To collect data for the present study and answer the research questions, the following instruments will be utilized:

1) Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP): In order to homogenize the participants, the Michigan test of English language proficiency will be administered. MTELP is one of the popular tests for measuring ESL or EFL learners' level of language proficiency. The 100–item multiple-choice test has three parts, containing 40 grammar items, 40 vocabulary items, and reading passages followed by 20 comprehension questions.

2) Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) with 50 strategy items on a 5-point Likert scale from 'Never' to 'Always'.

14

3) Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSES) with 10 items on a 4-point Likert scale from ‘Strongly Agree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’ will be given to the participants for the purpose of measuring global self-esteem.

4) Heatherton and Polivy’s State Self-esteem Scale with 20 items on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘Not at all’ to ‘Extremely’ will be given to the participants to measure their self-esteem at a given point in time.

5) California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) Form B: A Persian version of the California Critical Thinking Skill Tests (CCTST), Form B will be used to determine participants’ critical thinking ability. This test contains 34 multiple choice items; it is considered as a standard test and has been used in most studies in the fields of Education and Psychology extensively. The Form B of the test has been designed to measure individuals’ critical thinking skills at university level.

Data collection procedure

To achieve the purpose of the study, the following procedure will be followed. At the first stage, the participants will be selected from among the senior B.A. and M.A. students majoring in Teaching English and English Translation in Qazvin state and Azad universities. Next, the Michigan Test of English Language will be given to the participants in order to homogenize the participants and make sure that there are no significant differences among the participants in terms of their proficiency level. The participants whose scores are between one standard deviation above and below the mean will be selected. They will have 45 minutes to complete this test. Also, Oxford's Strategy Inventory for Language Learning will be given to the participants. The allotted time for completing this questionnaire will be 15 minutes. During the completing the questionnaire, if the participants have questions, the researcher will answer them. In the second stage, three questionnaires of Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, Heatherton and Polivy’s State Self-esteem Scale and California Critical Thinking Skills Test will be given to the same participants. They will have 30 minutes to complete the three questionnaires.

Data analysis

Having administered the tests and gathered the data, the researcher will employ one-way ANOVA procedures to analyze the obtained data and to answer each of the research questions.

15

Reference

Abraham, R. G. & Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study. In Wenden and Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Aleger A. (1993). The Direct Teaching of Thinking Skills for Improvement of Reading Comprehension Skills, Published Dissertation, Drake University, Singapore.

Asadifard A. & Biria R. (2013). Affect and strategy use: The relationship between EFL learners’ self-esteem and language learning strategies. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1685-1690.Atkinson D. (1997). A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 71(89).

Bernat E., Carter N. & Hall D. (2009). Beliefs about language learning: Exploring links to personality traits. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 4,115-148.

Bialystok, E. (1979). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 65, 24-35.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th Ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson.

Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In Wenden and Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Chamot, A. U. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annual, 22, 13-24.

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.

16

Cohen Y. & Norst MJ. (1989). Fear, dependence and loss of self-esteem: Affective barriers in second language learning among adults. RELC Journal, 20(2), 61-77.Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Davidson, B. & Dunham, R. (1997). Assessing EFL student progress in critical thinking with the Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test. JALT Journal, 19(1), 43-57.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process.

Dörnyei Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognitive plus: correlations of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89.

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1994). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test: Test manual. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Guilloteaux, M. J. & Dornyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of Motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 55-77.

Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 69–74.

Halpern, D.F. (2003). Thought and Knowledge, an Introduction to Critical Thinking, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.

Hayati, A. M & Ostadian M. (2008). The relationship between self-esteem and listening comprehension of EFL students. Published Research, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran.

Heatherton, T. F. & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895-910.

Heyde, A. (1977). The relationship between self-esteem and the oral production of a second language. In Brown HD, Yorio C, Crymes R, editors. On TESOL '77: Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice, 226-240.

Ido, L. & Jones, B. F. (1991). Educational Value and Cognitive Instruction: Implication for Reform. New Jersey: The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Jacobs, P. M., Ott, B., Sullivan, B., Ulrich, Y., & Short, L. (1997). An approach to defining and operationalizing critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Education, 36(10), 19–22.

17

Kamali, Z., & Fahim, M. (2011). The relationship critical thinking ability of Iranian EFL learners and their resilience level facing unfamiliar vocabulary items in reading. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 104-111.

Koosha, B., Ketabi, S., Kassaian, Z. (2011). The Effects of Self-esteem, Age and Gender on the Speaking Skills of Intermediate University EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2011, 1(10), 1328-1337.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon Press.

Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal social monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530.

Lee, K. (2003). The relationship of school year, sex and proficiency on the use of learning strategies in learning English. Asian EFL Journal, 5(4), 1-36.

Legenhausen, L. (2011). The Place of Grammar in an Autonomous Classroom: Issues and research results. In Gardner D, editor. Fostering Autonomy in Language Learning,27-38.

Lun, V. M., Fischer, R. & Ward, C. (2010). Exploring cultural differences in critical thinking: Is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learning and Individual differences, 20, 604-616.

Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition Learning, 5(2), 137-156.

Myers, B. E. & Dyer, J. E. (2006). The influence of student learning style on critical thinking skill. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47 (1), 43-52.

Neubert, G.A. & Binko, J.B. (1992). Inductive reasoning in the secondary classroom, Washington D.C., NBA Professional Library.

Nikoopour, J., Amini Farsani, M. & Nasiri, M. (2011). On the relationship between critical thinking and language learning strategies among Iranian EFL learners, Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3).

Noddlings, N. (2006). Critical lessons. What our schools might teach but do not.

18

Norris, S. & Ennis, R. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Thinking Press & Software.

Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied linguistics, 24(4), 492-518.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.

Oxford,R. & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 404-419.

Oxford, R. L. & Ehrman, M. (1992). Second language research on individual differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 188-205.

Oxford, R. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choices of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.

Passmore, J. (1967). On teaching to be critical. In R. Peters (Ed.), The concept of education, pp. 192–211. New York, NY: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Paul, R. (1987). Dialogical thinking and critical thought essential to the acquisition of rational knowledge and passions. In: Baron, J., Sternberg, R. (Eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills, pp. 127-148. New York, NY: Freeman.

Paul, R. (1990). Critical thinking. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Longman, London.

Powell, J. (2005). Self-Esteem, It's Your Health. Austrelia: Franklin Watts.

Radwan, A. A. (2011). Effects of L2 proficiency and gender on choice of language learning strategies by university students majoring in English. Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 114-162.

Reasoner, R. W. (Ed.). (1992). Summary of self-esteem research supporting the significance of self-esteem. Sacramento,CA: The National Council for Self-Esteem.

Rigney, J. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In O’Neil, H. F. Jr. (Ed.) Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way of being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

19

Rubio, F. (2007). Self-esteem and foreign language learning. UK, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Schafersman, R. (1991). An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from http://www. Freeinquiry.com/critical-thinking.html

Sheorey, R. (1999). An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety of English. System, 27, 173-190.

Su, M. H. M. (2005). A study of EFL technological and vocational college students' language learning strategies and their self-perceived English proficiency. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(1), 44-56.

Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivations, orientations, meta-cognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 70-89.

Wenden, A. L. (1987a). Conceptual background and utility. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning, 3-13. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wright, I. (2002). Is That right? Critical Thinking and the Social World of the Young Learner. Toronto: Pippin Publishing Corporation.

Yang, M. N. (2007). Language learning strategies for junior college students in Taiwan: Investigating Ethnicity and proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 35-57.

Zarei, A. A. & Elekaei, A. (2013). The effect of motivation on the choice of Language Learning Strategies. International SAMANM Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 1(1), 2308-2372 Zarei, A. A. & Elekaei, A. (2013). The effect of attitude on L2 learners’ choice of compensation & meta-cognitive Strategies. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(1), 186.

Zhang, L. E. (1999). A comparison of U.S. and Chinese university students’ cognitive development: The cross culture applicability of Perry’s theory. Journal of Psychology, 133, 425–439.

20

21