Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY SCIENCE AND RESEARCH BRANCH
M.A. THESIS
ON
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS'
TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY AND GUESSING MEANING OF
UNKNOWN WORDS
ADVISOR
Dr. MANSSOR FAHIM
READER
Dr. MASOUD YAZDANI MOGHADAM
BY
SOHEILA MOALLEMI SHARABIANI
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR M. A. DEGREE IN TEFL
FEBRUARY 2011
7
Table of Contents
Title page .................................................................................................... II
Acknowledgements .................................................................................... V
Table of contents .......................................................................................VI
List of tables ...............................................................................................XI
List of figures .......................................................................................... XII
List of appendices ................................................................................... XIII
Abstract ........................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER I: Background and purpose ....................................... 2
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 3
1.2 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................... 4
1.3 Research Questions ............................................................................... 4
1.4 Statement of the Hypotheses .................................................................. 5
1.5 Definition of the Key Terms .................................................................. 6
1.6 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ............................................ 8
1.7 Significance of the Study ...................................................................... 9
CHAPTER II: Review of the Related Literature ........................ 10
2.1 Guessing Word Meaning from Context Strategy ................................ 11
8
2.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 11
2.1.2 The Importance of Vocabulary Knowledge in Reading
Comprehension ......................................................................................... 13
2.1.3 Learning Strategies ........................................................................... 17
2.1.4 Reading and Reading Strategies ....................................................... 18
2.1.5 Reactions of Students When Encountering with Unknown Words .. 20
2.1.6 Guessing Vocabulary Meaning Strategy .......................................... 23
2.1.7 Comparison of Dictionary Use and Guessing Strategy .................... 26
2.1.8 Factors Which Influence Guessing Strategy ..................................... 27
2.1.9 Knowledge Sources .......................................................................... 28
2.1.10 The Role of Context and Contextual Clues .................................... 29
2.1.11 Vocabulary Acquisition and Inferring Meaning from Context
Strategy .................................................................................................... 34
2.1.12 Advantages of Lexical Inferencing in Context ............................... 38
2.1.13 Should Teachers Encourage Guessing Strategy? ............................ 39
2.1.14 Steps to Guessing Meaning from Context and Model of Guessing 42
2.1.15 Guessing Strategy and Some Empirical Findings ........................... 47
2.2 Tolerance of Ambiguity ...................................................................... 51
2.2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 51
9
2.2.2 Tolerance of Ambiguity ................................................................... 52
2.2.3 Tolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Style ................................ 56
2.2.4 Ambiguity Stimuli or 'Ambiguous Situations' .................................. 57
2.2.5 Tolerance of Ambiguity Levels ........................................................ 58
2.2.6 Advantages / Disadvantages of Tolerance/Intolerance of Ambiguity 59
2.2.7 Tolerance of Ambiguity Degrees and its Optimal Level .................. 60
2.2.8 Tolerance of Ambiguity and Second Language Learning ................ 62
2.2.9 Suggestions for Teachers and Instructors ......................................... 69
2.2.10 Measuring Tolerance of Ambiguity ................................................ 70
CHAPTER III: Method .............................................................. 71
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 72
3.2 Participants .......................................................................................... 72
3.3 Instrumentation .................................................................................... 73
3.3.1 Language Proficiency Test ............................................................... 73
3.3.2 Tolerance of Ambiguity Questionnaire ............................................. 74
3.3.2.1 The Correction Procedure of Tolerance of Ambiguity Questionnaire 75
3.3.3 Pre-test: Vocabulary Checklist ......................................................... 76
3.3.4. Post-test: Final Test ......................................................................... 77
10
3.3.4.1 Final Test Item Validation ............................................................. 78
3.4 Data Analyses of Instruments .............................................................. 79
3.4.1 Reliability of Translated and Extended Version Tolerance of
Ambiguity ................................................................................................ 79
3.4.2 Reliability of the First Reading ........................................................ 81
3.4.3 Reliability of the Second Reading .................................................... 82
3.5 Procedure ............................................................................................. 84
3.6 Design .................................................................................................. 85
CHAPTER IV: Data Analysis and Discussion ........................... 87
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 88
4.2 Descriptive Data .................................................................................. 90
4.2.1 Descriptive Data of Language Proficiency Test ............................... 90
4.2.2 Descriptive Data of Tolerance Ambiguity Questionnaire ................. 92
4.2.3 Descriptive Data of the First Reading .............................................. 95
4.2.4 Descriptive Data of the Second Reading .......................................... 95
4.2.5 Descriptive Data of Average of Both Readings ................................ 96
4.3 Testing the Hypotheses ....................................................................... 98
4.3.1 Testing the First Hypothesis ............................................................. 99
11
4.3.2 Testing the Second Hypothesis ...................................................... 100
4.3.3 Testing the Third Hypothesis ......................................................... 101
4.3.4 Testing the Fourth Hypothesis ........................................................ 102
CHAPTER V: Summery and Pedagogical Implications ........... 109
5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 110
5.2 Restatement of the Problem................................................................ 110
5.3 Research Questions and the Relevant Null Hypotheses ..................... 111
5.4 Procedures and Summery of Findings ............................................... 113
5.5 Pedagogical Implications ................................................................... 115
5.6 Suggestions for Further Research ...................................................... 117
REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 120
APPENDICES ......................................................................................... 139
Persian Abstract………………………………………………………….185
12
List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of the Selected Passages ...................................... 78
Table 2. Reliability Analysis of Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale ................ 80
Table 3. Reliability Analysis of First Reading .......................................... 81
Table 4. Reliability Analysis of Second Reading ...................................... 83
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Michigan Language Proficiency Test ... 91
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Tolerance of Ambiguity Questionnaire 93
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of First Reading ........................................ 95
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics of Second Reading .................................... 96
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics of Both Readings ...................................... 97
Table 10. Correlation between Tolerance of Ambiguity and the Guessing
Word Meaning .......................................................................................... 99
Table 11. Correlation between high level of Tolerance of Ambiguity and the
Guessing Word Meaning ......................................................................... 100
Table 12. Correlation between intermediate level of Tolerance of Ambiguity
and the Guessing Word Meaning ............................................................ 101
Table 13. Correlation between low level of Tolerance of Ambiguity and the
Guessing Word Meaning ......................................................................... 103
13
List of Figures
Figure 1. Graph Showing the Score Distribution of Language Proficiency Test
................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 2. Graph showing the score Distribution of Tolerance of Ambiguity 94
Figure 3. Graph Showing the Score Distribution of Both Readings .......... 98
Figure 4. Scattergram Showing the Correlation between Tolerance of
Ambiguity and Guessing Ability ............................................................. 104
Figure 5. Scattergram Showing the Correlation between high level of
Tolerance of Ambiguity and Guessing Ability ........................................ 105
Figure 6. Scattergram Showing the Correlation between intermediate level of
Tolerance of Ambiguity and Guessing Ability ........................................ 106
Figure 7. Scattergram Showing the Correlation between low level of
Tolerance of Ambiguity and Guessing Ability ........................................ 107
14
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Michigan Proficiency Test ................................................. 140
Appendix B. Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale ........................................... 148
Appendix C: Vocabulary Checklist ......................................................... 152
Appendix D: Selected Vocabulary Checklist .......................................... 159
Appendix E: Readings and Multiple Choice Questions .......................... 163
15
Abstract
The problem under investigation was the relationship between Iranian EFL
learners' tolerance of ambiguity and their ability to guess the meaning of
unknown words from context. One hundred and sixty intermediate students
studying English at Simin Language Learning Institute were selected in this
research. First of all, the researcher used a Michigan Proficiency Test in order
to make sure that the subjects were all homogeneous in terms of their
language proficiency. Also, the subjects were given tolerance of ambiguity
questionnaire. Then homogeneous participants were chosen and were given a
pre-test which contained 200 words to see whether they were familiar with the
words or not. Afterwards, the researcher practiced guessing strategies with
students by giving them four reading passages during four sessions and asking
them to guess the meaning of the new words in each text. In the post-test, the
students took a test which contained two passages with underlined unknown
words which were selected from those words which were unfamiliar for all
participants in the pre-test, and the participants were asked to guess the
meaning of those unknown words. The researcher used Pearson Product
Moment correlation for the objectives of this study. The results of this
analyses showed that the major hypothesis as well as minor hypotheses were
rejected. So it can be said that the levels of tolerance of ambiguity have a
relationship with the participants' guessability.
134
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T.
Guthrie (Eds.), Comprehension and Teaching: Research Review (pp. 71-
117). Newyork, Del.: International Reading Association.
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1983). Reading comprehension and the
assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In B. Hutson (Eds.),
Advances in Reading/Language Research (pp.231-256). Greenwich, CT:
J. A. I. Press.
Asadi, A. (2004). Guessing word meaning with regard to word class
differences and field dependence/independence cognitive styles.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran.
Bagherpour, N. (2007). The relationship between creativity and guessing
word meaning of Iranian EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus, Tehran, Iran.
135
Bensoussan, M., & Laufer, B. (1984). Lexical guessing in context in EFL
reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 7 (1), 15-32.
Brown, H. D. (1972). Cognitive pruning and second language acquisition.
The Modern Language Journal, 56 (4), 218-227.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching.
New York: Longman.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable.
Journal of Personality, 30, 29-50.
Cain, K., Lemmon, K., & Oakhill, L. (2004). Individual differences in the
inference of word meaning from context: The influence of reading
comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96, 671-681.
136
Carine, D., Kameenui, E. J., & Coyle, G. (1984). Utilization of contextual
information in determining the meaning of unfamiliar words. Reading
Research Quarterly, 19 (2), 188-204.
Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field
independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second
language. Language Learning, 36 (1), 27-45.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second-language skills. Harcourt Brace
Javanovich: United States.
Chern, C-L. (1993). Chinese students word solving strategies in reading in
English. In Huckin, T., Haynes, M., & Coady, J. (1993) eds. Second
Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning. Ablex Publishing
Corporation, Nor-wood, New Jersey: pp67-85.
137
Coady, J. (1993). Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: Putting it in
context. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J.Coady (Eds.), Second language
reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 217-228). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dacey, J. S. (1989). Fundamentals of creative thinking. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Davis, F.B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research
Quarterly, 3, 499-545.
Dycus, D. (1997). Guessing word meaning from context: Should we
encourage it? Retrieved April 27, 2009, from http: www2.
Aasa.ac.jp/~dcdycus/LACp7/guessing.htm.
138
Edalati, S. (2002). The effect of contextual clues awareness on the guessing
process of the students at the intermediate level of language proficiency.
Unpublished M. A. thesis,Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran
Branch,Tehran, Iran.
Ehrman, M. (1993). Ego boundaries revisited: Toward a model of personality
and learning. In J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Strategic interaction and language
acquisition: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 330-362). Washington,
DC: Georgetow University Press.
Ehrman, M.E. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second
language learning. In Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 68-
86). Boston: Longman.
139
El-Koumy, A. S. (2000). Differences in FL reading comprehension among
high-, middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance students. Paper presented at
the National Symposium on English Language Teaching in Egypt: Ain
Shams University.
Ely, C. M. (1989). Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language
learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 437-445.
Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In Reid
(Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87-95). Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Farhady, H., Jafarpoor, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing language skills,
from theory to practice. Tehran, SAMT Publication.
Farhady, H. (1995). Research methods in applied linguistics. Tehran: Payame
Noor University Press.
140
Frantzen, D. (2003). Factors affecting how second language Spanish students
deriving meaning from context. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 168–
199.
Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1948). Tolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and
perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18, 108-143.
Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of
the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology,
14(3), 179-199.
Grace, C. (1997). Personality type, tolerance of ambiguity, and vocabulary
retention in CALL. CALICO Journal, 15, 19-46.
Gu, P.Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task,
context and strategies. TESL-EJ, 7(2), 1-25.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and
language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46, 643-679.
141
Haastrup, K. (1987). Using thinking aloud and retrospection to uncover
learners’ lexical inferencing procedures. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.),
Introspection in second language research (pp. 197-212). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Haastrup, K. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures or talking about words.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied
linguistics. Rowely, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Hirsh, D., &Nation, I.S. P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read
unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8 (2),
689-696.
142
Hulstijn, J. H. (1993). When so foreign-language readers look up the meaning
of unfamiliar words? Modern Language Journal, 77, 139-147.
Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary
learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal
glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern
Language Journal, 80 (3), 327-338.
Hunt, A. (1996). Constraints on inferring word meaning from context.
Journal of Inquiry and Research, 63, 239-249.
Hwang, K., & Nation, I. S. P. (1995). Where would general service
vocabulary stop and special purposes vocabulary begin? System, 23 (1),
35-41.
İstifçi, I. (2009). Lexical Inferencing Strategies of Turkish EFL Learners.
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 5 (1), 97-109.
143
Kazamia, V. (1998). How tolerant are Greek EFL learners of foreign
language ambiguities? Department of Linguistic and Phonetics.
University of Leeds.
Kelly, P. (1990). Guessing: No substitute for systematic learning of lexis.
System, 18 (2), 199-207.
Khajeh, A. (2002). Relationship between tolerance of ambiguity, gender,
level of proficiency and use of second language learning strategies.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University,Tehran, Iran.
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different
verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 285-299.
Larson-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to Second
Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.
144
Laufer, B. (1990). Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: Some teaching
implications. Foreign Language Annals, 23 (2), 147-155.
Laufer, B. (1991). Some properties of the foreign language learner’s lexicon
as evidenced by lexical confusions. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 29 (4), 317-330.
Laufer, B. (1992). Reading in a foreign language: How does L2 lexical
knowledge interact with the reader’s general academic ability? Journal of
Research in Reading, 15 (2), 95-103.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you
do not know, words you think you know and words you can not guess. In
Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary
Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Li, X. (1988). Effects of contextual cues on inferring and remembering
meanings of new words. Applied Linguistics, 9 (4), 402-413.
145
Matsuoka, W., & Hirsh, D. (2010). Vocabulary learning through reading:
Does an ELT course book provide good opportunities? Reading in a
Foreign Language, 22 (1), 56-70.
McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: Anew measure of an individual
tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
53, 183-189.
Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects
of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational
Research, 53, 253-279.
Mirhassani, A., & Farhady, H. (Eds.). (2001). Reading through interaction.
Book two. Tehran: Zabankadeh Publications.
Mirzaie, Z. (2008). The relationship between critical thinking and lexical
inferencing of Iranian EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Campus, Tehran, Iran.
146
Mondria, J., & Wit-de Boer, M. (1991). The effects of contextual richness on
the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied
Linguistics, 12, 249-267.
Na, L., & Nation, I.S.P. (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in
context. RELC Journal, 16, 33-42.
Nagy, W. (1997). On the role of context in first- and second- language
vocabulary learning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), vocabulary:
description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nagy, W., & Herman, P.A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary
knowledge: implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G.
McKeown & M.E.Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition
(pp. 19-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
147
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good second
language learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depths of vocabulary knowledge
and L2 learners' lexical inferencing strategy use and success. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 61(1), 107-134.
Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge
and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Modern
Language Journal, 90, 387-401.
Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A review of the
research, RELC Journal, 13 (1), 14-36.
Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York:
Newbury House.
148
Nation, I.S.P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth, and use. In R. Schreuder & B.
Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 115-134). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Nation, P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 96-111).
London: Longman.
Nattinger, J. (1988). Some current trends in vocabulary teaching. In R. Carter
& M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching. Harlow:
Longman.
Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 39, 607-619.
Oxford, R. (1989). The use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of
studies with implications for strategy training. System, 12 (2), 235-247.
149
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. (1992/1993). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Updated
and ESL suggestions. Tesol Journal, 2 (2), 18-22.
Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and
ESL suggestions. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.),
Methodology in language teaching an anthology of current practice (pp.
124-132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities
and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J.
Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A
rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
150
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2
vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of lexical inferencing.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 195-218.
Peng, L. H. (1990). Ambiguity and ESL students: A pilot experiment.
IRAL, 28 (3), 248-256.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL
QUARTERLY, 21 (1), 87-103.
Reid, J. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle
& Heinle.
Riazi, A., & Babaei, N. (2008). Iranian EFL female students' lexical
inferencing and its relationship to their L2 proficiency and reading
skill. The Reading Matrix, 8 (1), 186-195.
151
Richards, J. C., Platt, H., & Platt, J. (Eds.). (1992). Longman dictionary of
language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Longman
Group UK Limited.
Sharifi, R. (2006). Differences between monolingual, successive and
simultaneous bilingual learners in language learning strategies and
tolerance of ambiguity. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tarbiat Modarres
University,Tehran, Iran.
Shefelbine, J. (1990). Student factors related to variability in learning word
meanings in context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 71.
Soria, J. (2001). A study of Ilokano learners’ lexical inferencing procedures
through think-aloud. Second Language Studies, 19(2), 77-112.
Sternberg, R.J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. G.
McKeown, & M.E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition
(Pp.89- 105). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
152
Ying, Y. SH. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through a context-based
approach. Language Teaching Forum, 39 (1), 20-33.
Zaid, M. A. (2009). A comparison of inferencing and meaning-guessing of
new lexicon in context versus non-context vocabulary presentation. The
Reading Matrix, 9 (1), 56-66.
Zhihong, Y. (2000). Learning words. English Teaching Forum, 38 (3).
Retrieved January 13, 2011, from
http://exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/2000/00-38-
3.html
199
چكيده
با حدس معنايتحمل ابهام زبان آموزان ايراني توانرابطه بين هدف از اين تحقيق بررسي
در حال مطالعه كهزبان آموز 160بدين منظور در اين تحقيق ابتدا به . بوده است كلمات ناآشنا
تا بودند يك آزمون تست زبان ميشيگان داده شد انگليسي در مؤسسه يادگيري زبان سيمين زبان
توان همچنين اين شركت كنندگان پرسشنامه .شودافراد مشابهي براي ادامه اين تحقيق انتخاب
سپس به افراد منتخب يك آزمون لغات ارائه . تحمل ابهام را به منظور تعيين سطح انجام دادند
ن متن انگليسي به زبا 4در مرحله بعد .گرديد تا نا آشنا بودن كلمات براي محقق محرز گرديد
آموزان ارائه گرديد و از آنها خواسته شد تا معناي كلمات نا آشنا را حدس بزنند و بدينوسيله
در مرحله نهايي دو متن كه شامل تعدادي . محقق آنها را با استراتژي هاي حدس زدن آشنا كرد
كلمات نا آشنا براي زبان آموزان بود ارائه گرديد و از زبان اموزان خواسته شد كه معناي
.كلمات را حدس بزنند
پس از تصحيح آزمون ها رابطه بين توان تحمل ابهام فراگيران با عملكرد آنها در حدس معناي
-نظريه به همراهصلي نتايج اين تحليل نشان داد كه نظريه ا. كلمات نا آشنا در متن بررسي گرديد
زبان آموزان و توانايي آنها بين توان تحمل ابهام بنابراين مي توان گفت كه . فرعي رد شدندهاي
. در حدس معناي كلمات ناآشنا ي انگليسي رابطه معنا داري وجود دارد
201
زاد ا���� �� دا�
وا�� ���م و ������ت
).M. A(ارش� رش&� ��زش ز$�ن ا����#� "�ی�ن ���� ��رش����
��*�ع
$/ر�� را$3� $�2 ��ان ��+1 ا$0�م ز$�ن ��زان ای/ا�� $� ��س �-��, ��+�ت
ا�&�د راه�+�
د�&/ ���7ر 5�06
ا�&�د � �ور د�&/ �#-�د ی8دا�� ���م
���ر�� ���0 �-�+� ش/$����
��ل �����7
١٣٨٩-١٣٩٠