language aptitude, physical handicap); on the contrary, individuals who fail because of internally uncontrollable causes (e.g., low ability) commonly experience shame, or embarrassment (Graham and Weiner, 1996).
Richards and Schmidt (2002) maintains that
“although there may be a self – serving bias that leads to ascribing success to internal factors and failures to external ones , it is generally believes that learners who attribute both success and failure to internal factors such as effort are most likely to maintain their motivation at a high level” (p.38) .
• Stability relates to the relative endurance of a cause over time (Graham and Weiner, 1996). For instance, ability is considered stable, while situational effort, skills are regarded as unstable. Success attributed to ability is assumed to lead to expectancies of success in future attempts. Conversely, failure attributed to low ability is likely to lead to expectancies of failure in subsequent achievement situations. (Graham and Weiner, 1996).
2.5.2 Self- efficacy
Self- efficacy is defined as the individuals’ perception that they can successfully complete a task, activity or series of tasks (Bandura, 1977). According to Bundura, self- efficacy is “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute thecourses of action required to manage prospective situations” (1995, p. 2). In other words, self-efficacy is a person’s belief in his or her ability to succeed in a particular situation. Bandura (1994) described these beliefs as determinants of how people think, behave, and feel. Self – efficacy was introduced by Bandura (1977) as part of his social cognitive theory of motivation. Bandura (1994) gives four major sources of self-efficacy:
2.5.3 Mastery Experience
Bandura (1994) stated that “the most effective way of developing a strong sense of efficacy is through mastery experiences” (p.2). Bandura (1994) also explained that performing a task or activity successfully strengthens our sense of self-efficacy. However, failing to adequately concern with a task or activity can weaken our self-efficacy.
2.5.4 Social Modeling
The second way of developing and strengthening self-efficacy is through social models (Bandura, 1994). He also maintains that witnessing other people successfully completing a task is another important source of self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1994), “seeing people similar to oneself succeed by sustained effort raises observers’ beliefs that they too possess the capabilities master comparable activities to succeed” ( p.3).
2.5.5 Social Persuasion
Social persuasion is another way of strengthening people’s beliefs that they have what it takes to succeed. Bandura (1994) also asserted that people could be persuaded to believe that they have the skills and capabilities to succeed. For example, consider a time when someone said something positive and encouraging that helped you achieve a goal.
2.5.6 Psychological Response
Psychological response is a fourth way of strengthening people’s beliefs in self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). He also believes that our own responses and emotional reactions to situations also play an important role in self-efficacy. Moods, emotional states, physical reactions, and stress levels can affect how a person feels about their personal abilities in a particular situation. A person who becomes extremely nervous before speaking in public may develop a weak sense of self-efficacy in these situations. However, Bandura (1994) also adds “it is not the sheer intensity of emotional and physical reactions that is important but rather how they are perceived and interpreted” (p.3).
2.5.7 Self – worth Theory
Self-worth theory was developed by Covington (Bempechat, 1999). Self- worth theory is associated with the work of Covington (e.g., Covington, 1992, Cited in Covington, 2000). According to Stipek (2002a), self-worth theory refers to an individual’s positive value instead of the competent they appear to others in progress and achievement situations. Therefore, self-worth theory closely related the concepts of self-esteem and self-respect. Bempechat (1997) is one of the same opinion Covington combines ideas related to self-efficacy, attribution theory, and learned helplessness. According to Bempechat (1999), self-worth theory concentrates on the notion that individuals are motivated to do what it takes to improve their respect in various aspects of areas. He also discusses that “learners engage in objectively counterproductive activities such as setting goals that are far too high or too low , reducing effort , and procrastinating , in the often illusory hope that they will feel better about themselves if they refrain from putting forth their best effort and risking failure” (p.6).
2.5.8 Goal Theories
Goal theory refers to the theory that individuals are more motivated to perform an activity when they have clear, specific, and difficult except attainable goals than they are when they have no clear goals or goals that are too easy (Richards and Schmidt, 2002).
2.5.9 Self – Determination Theory (SDT)
Self – determination (SDT) was developed by Deci and Ryan and their colleagues (Wigfield, 2009). Deci and Ryan and their colleagues defined self- determination (SDT) as an organismic theory of development that has a particular focus on the role of motivation in development and learning ( e.g., Deci and Ryan , 1985 , 2002b; Ryan and Deci , 2000).
Ryan (2009) defined self- determination:
Self- determination (SDT) is a macro- theory of human motivation, personality development, and well – being .The theory focuses especially on volitional or self-determined behavior and the social and cultural conditions that promote it. SDT also postulates a set of basic and universal psychological needs, namely those for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, the fulfillment of which is considered necessary and essential to vital, healthy human functioning regardless of culture or stage of development (p.1).
According to Ryan (2009), self – determination theory is an organismic psychology. “Self- determination is one of a member of holistic psychological theories involving Jean Piaget and Carl Rogers, and it therefore assumes that individuals are active organisms with spontaneity and deeply evolved tendencies toward psychological development” (p.1). Ryan (2009) sates that self – determination (SDT) is active human nature that is obviously evident in the phenomenon of intrinsic motivation – the natural tendency reveal from birth to search for challenges, and opportunities to learn. It is also evident in the phenomenon of internalization, or the lifespan propensity of individuals to attempt to integrate the social activities and values that surrounded them.
In order to fulfill the purpose of this study, which was to investigate the existence of any significant difference between storytelling and role-playing on EFL learner’s motivation, the researcher made an attempt to apply an appropriate methodology, instrumentation and procedure. At the end, the design and data analyses were introduced. To begin with, the participants section details the population from which the sample of this study was selected. The number of the participants and the procedure by which they were selected are described in this section, too.
The participants of this study were EFL learners from Arian foreign languages institute in Gorgan with the range of 13 to 18 years old. There were 90 learners in intermediate level who were given PET as the homogenization test. Those participants whose scores fall between one standard deviation above and below the mean were selected and they were defined as intermediate EFL learners in this study. Then, the researcher divided them into two experimental groups randomly. E
ach group consisted of an equal number of 30 participants. Since language schools did not normally have 30 students in one class, the researcher had to split them into two more halves. As a result, the researcher had four classes, each two of which with two different treatments. There were two classes consisting of 15 females in experimental 1 (E1) and 2 classes with the same number in experimental 2 (E2). E1 was exposed to storytelling and E2 exposed to role playing, respectively. To avoid any source of difference, both groups were taught by the researcher herself. Also, for evaluating the writing and speaking part of the PET, there was another rater who helped the researcher as an inter-rater. Prior to the actual administration, the tests were piloted among 30 students with the same language proficiency level and almost the same characteristics of the 90 students who took the test later.
3.3. Instrumentation and Materials
To conduct this study, the researcher used the following test, questionnaire, and a course book which are described below one by one.
18.104.22.168The Preliminary English Test (PET)
In order to homogenize the participants, the researcher used PET (Appendix A). The sample of the test which was used in this study included three sections of reading (five parts), writing (three parts), and listening (four parts). The reading section of this language proficiency test had 35 items including five three-option multiple-choice items, five matching, 10 true/false, and 15 four-option multiple choice items. For the writing section, there were three parts including five sentence transformation items in the first part and in the other two parts, students were required to write one essay for each part; in other words, in the second part students were required to write a short communicative message about 35-45 words, and for the third part, they were required to write a longer piece of continuous writing about 100 words. The allotted time for the PET reading and writing parts was one hour and 30 minutes. In the listening section, students were required to answer 13 three-option multiple-choice items and six filling-the-gap items and six true/false items. The allotted time for the PET listening part was 30 minutes. It is necessary to mention that with the aim of saving time, the researcher used only reading, writing, and listening parts of the PET. To conduct the speaking part of the PET, a qualified examiner was required and since such qualified examiner was professionally not allowed to engage in any application of the PET and all Cambridge ESOL exams, for that matter, without the direct supervision of Cambridge, it was thus not possible for the researcher to run the speaking part of the test in its genuine manner. Moreover, the main focus of the study was reading comprehension, thus the speaking section was not administered in this study. Therefore, as a whole, this test had 65 closed-ended items and two open-ended writing tasks; each section valued 25 marks, adding up to 75 marks on the whole. Before the main administration, the test was piloted with 30 students at intermediate level with the same characteristics of the target sample. Item analysis and reliability estimates were carried out after the pilot administration and three items out of the 65 total items were found to be malfunctioning and were excluded. The allotted time for answering the remaining 62 items and the two tasks was two hours.
22.214.171.124Attitude and Motivation Test Battery as a Pretest and a Posttest
In order to collect data, Gardner’s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) was used as a pre-test and post-test in this study. The questionnaire was originally written in English and developed by Gardner (1985). This questionnaire prepared by Gardner’s (2004) to assess the participants’ degree of motivation. It included 50 items with seven choices including “Not related at all”, “strongly disagree”, “Moderately disagree”, “Slightly disagree”, “Slightly agree”, “Moderately agree, and “Strongly agree” were