SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Novitas-Royal / 2009 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

Understanding Tolerance of Ambiguity of EFL Learners in Reading Classes at Tertiary Level

İsmail Hakkı ERTEN
Ece TOPKAYA ZEHİR
Pages
29–44
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Suggestions for further research and classroom practice are offered in the light of the findings and current literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to explore tolerance of ambiguity (AT) of a group of tertiary level Turkish EFL learners at a state university in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To do this, 188 preparation year students were administered a Second Language Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale with some demographic questions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Suggestions for further research and classroom practice are offered in the light of the findings and current literature.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study aimed to explore tolerance of ambiguity (AT) of a group of tertiary level Turkish EFL learners at a state university in Turkey. To do this, 188 preparation year students were administered a Second Language Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale with some demographic questions. Statistical analysis indicated students on average have lower tolerance for ambiguity in the process of learning, with female students reporting less tolerance than male students. Students‟ AT, their self-perceived success, and strategy training they received correlated significantly. Suggestions for further research and classroom practice are offered in the light of the findings and current literature.

Özet

Bu çalışma İngilizce öğrenmekte olan bir grup Türk üniversite öğrencisinin belirsizlik hoşgörüsünü araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Bu doğrultuda, 188 hazırlık sınıfı öğrencisine demografik soruları da içeren İkinci Yabancı Dil Belirsizlik Hoşgörüsü ölçeği uygulanmıştır. İstatistik analiz, öğrencilerin öğrenme sürecinde genel olarak düşük düzeyde belirsizlik hoşgörüsüne sahip olduklarını göstermektedir. Kız öğrencilerin erkek öğrencilerden daha az hoşgörülü oldukları tespit edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin belirsizlik hoşgörüleri ile yabancı dilde yazılan materyalleri okumaya ilişkin başarı algıları ve kendilerine verilen strateji bilgilendirmeleri arasında manidar ilişkiler belirlenmiştir. Bulgular ve güncel alan yazın ışığında sınıf içi uygulamalara ve bu konuda yapılabilecek araştırmalara ilişkin öneriler sunulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERTEN, İ. H., ZEHİR, E. T. (2009). Understanding Tolerance of Ambiguity of EFL Learners in Reading Classes at Tertiary Level. Novitas-Royal, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 29–44. https://ajindex.com/articles/291022

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2 reading. System, 34, 494-508.
  3. Atkinson, R. C. (1985). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist, 30, 821-28.
  4. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29-50.
  5. Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 461-481.
  6. Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553-573.
  7. Chamot, A.U. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.
  8. Chapelle, C. (1983). The relationship between ambiguity tolerance and success in acquiring English as a second language in adult learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois. Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36 (1), 27-45.
  9. Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Questionnaires in second language research: construction, administration, and processing. London: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. London: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74 (3), 311-327.
  11. Ehrman, M. E. (1993). Ego boundaries revisited: toward a model of personality and learning. In Alatis J.E. (ed.). Strategic interaction and language acquisition: theory, practice, and research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Ehrman, M. E. (1994). Weakest and strongest learners in intensive language training: a study of extremes. In Klee C. A. (ed.). Faces in a crowd: the individual learner in multisection courses. Boston: MA, Heinle & Heinle. Ehrman, M. (1999). Ego boundries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. In Arnold, J. (ed.). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. El-Koumy, A. S. A. (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, March 21-23, 2000,
  13. Ain Shams University, Egypt (ED 445534). Ellis,