Introduction
Teachers have a critical role in learners’
achievement, and their characteristics can
influence students’ performance (Lasley,
Siedentop & Yinger, 2006; Rockoff, 2004;
Sanders, Wright, & Horn, 1997). Freeman
and Richards (1996) claim that “teachers are
pivotal in the enterprise of teaching and
learning” (p. 1). In a similar vein, Griffiths
(2007) states that “teacher practices and
perceptions are critically important since
they have the potential to influence the
effectiveness of the teaching/learning
process” (p. 91).
In order to understand teachers, we need to
consider the professional, cultural, political,
and individual identities which are assigned
to them (Varghese, Morgan, Johnston &
Johnson, 2005). Teachers’ reflectivity is a
variable which can be considered as a way
of dealing with the problems in the language
classrooms, such as students’ inefficiency in
learning English. Since reflective teachers
examine their own values and beliefs about
teaching and learning, they are more
responsible for their actions in the classroom
(Korthagen, 1993). Moreover, Pennington
(1992) asserted that a reflective orientation
improves classroom processes and
outcomes. Consequently, teachers’
reflection is one of the factors which might
have a positive effect on students’
achievement. Classroom management is
another factor which might have a critical
role in students’ success. In fact, “effective
teaching and learning cannot take place in a
poorly managed classroom” (Marzano, &
Pickering, 2003, p.1). Finally, teachers’
perception of language learning strategies
which deals with the problems related to the
teaching practice, is another important factor
towards students’ success in learning
English.
In recent years, a great number of studies
have been conducted on learning strategies
and their positive effect on language
learning (Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths,
2003; Olivares-Cuhat, 2002). Previous
studies (e.g. Ardasheva & Tretter, 2012;
Griffiths, 2007; Sen & Sen, 2012) reported a
high accordance between the most
frequently used language learning strategies
by the students and those reported by the
teachers as highly important. Therefore,
teachers’ perceptions seem to affect
students’ use of language learning strategies.
Based on the above mentioned ideas, three
teachers’ variables, i. e. teachers' reflection,
classroom management orientations, and
perceptions of language learning strategies
are examined in the present study in order to
identify their potential effects on students’
success or failure in learning a foreign
language.
Review of related literature
Reflective teaching
During the 1980s, reflective teaching,
reflection and critical thinking became
popular concepts in teaching and teacher
education (Farrell, 1999). Digging deep into
the literature indicated that the history of
reflection goes back to the works of Greek
philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato and
Socrates. The idea of reflective teaching,
around which this study was based, started
from John Dewey’s (1933) book ‘How We
Think’. He established the notion of
professional development through reflection
by making a distinction between ‘routinized’
and ‘reflective’ teaching (Pollard, 2002).
Schön (1983) was another significant
scholar in developing the theory and practice
of reflective teaching in the twentieth
century. Schön (1987) talked about
reflective teaching and described two major
processes of reflection: reflection-in-action
and reflection-on-action. Farrell (1998)
explained the term ‘reflection-in-action’ as
thinking about what we are doing, while
‘reflection-on-action’ is concerned with
thinking back on what we have done to find
out how our knowing-in-action may have
contributed to an unexpected action. Farrell
(2007) further claimed that reflective
teachers regularly collect information about
their classroom happenings and then analyze
and evaluate this information and compare it
to their underlying assumptions and beliefs
so that they can make changes and
improvements in their teaching.
In recent years, teachers have been
encouraged to be reflective and think about
their experiences and their actions in their
classes. Different researchers list different
characteristics for a reflective teacher. For
example, Dewey (1933) stated that a
reflective teacher is open-minded,
responsible, and whole-hearted.
Kumaravadivelu (2002) believed that
reflective teachers use ‘classroom-oriented
action research’ and ‘problem-solving
activities’ in order to enhance their learners’
learning. Zeichner and Liston (1996, p. 6)
believed that a reflective teacher:
• examines, frames, and attempts to solve
the dilemmas of classroom practice;
• is aware of and questions the
assumptions and values he or she brings
to teaching;
• is attentive to the institutional and
cultural contexts in which he or she
teaches;
• takes part in curriculum development
and is involved in school change efforts;
• takes responsibility for his or her own
professional development.
Classroom management
Classroom management is one of the most
challenging aspects of teaching for new and
sometimes experienced teachers. New
teachers fear students will not respect them,
and for experienced teachers establishing
management is a primary goal in the first
few weeks of the year (Good & Brophy,
2008). Researchers describe classroom
management as a complex issue in which
many external and internal factors are
interwoven. For example, Martin, Yin, and
Baldwin (1998) believed that classroom
management is a broad umbrella term which
describes the teacher’s efforts to oversee
classroom activities, such as learning, social
interaction, and student behaviour.
Classroom management problem is one of
the central causes of burnout and job
dissatisfaction for most of teachers.
According to Landau (2009), the status of
classroom management has been looked
down because classroom management is not
included in most of teacher preparation
courses. Advice to teachers about classroom
management was based on untested theory
of “what works best for me” and little was
supported by solid evidence (Good &
Brophy, 2008). Most teachers have their
own approach of classroom management
acquired through their teaching experience
or their own school years as learners
(Coetzee, Niekerk & Wydeman, 2008).
Teachers should find the approach that best
fits into their context, learners, and style of
teaching. A framework offered by Evertson
and Weinstein (2006) has been one of the
most frequently used frameworks in
classroom management studies. Evertson
and Weinstein organized classroom
management strategies into six distinct
approaches, namely: external control of
behaviour, internal control, classroom
ecology, discourse, curriculum, and
interpersonal relationships.
Perceptions of language learning strategies
Over the last few decades, there has been
growing interest in studying the needs of the
individual learners. Language teaching
researchers moved their focus from various
teaching methodologies to the language
learner. Aside from learning aptitude,
gender, culture, age, and other demographic
variables, language learners differ in
learning styles, learning strategies, and
affective variables (Ehrman, Leaver, &
Oxford, 2003). Areas of research on
language learning strategies could be
classified into three categories: studying
good language learners, studying the
definitions and lists of language learning
strategies, and studying various factors that
affect learners’ language learning strategy
choices (Wenden & Rubin, 1987).
Oxford (1990) stated that learning strategies
are important in second language learning
and teaching for two main reasons. First, we
gain insights into the metacognitive,
cognitive, and social-affective processes
involved in language learning by examining
the strategies used by successful second
language learners. Second, less successful
language learners can be taught new
strategies and become better language
learners.
Oxford (2003) specified three conditions for
the usefulness of language learning
strategies. She stated that the strategy should
(a) relate well to the L2 task at hand, (b) fit
the particular student’s learning style
preferences to one degree or another, and (c)
the student should employ the strategy
effectively and link it with other relevant
strategies. She claimed that the strategies
that achieve these conditions “make learning
easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more
transferable to new situations” (Oxford,
1990, p. 8).
Since language teachers are often considered
as experts by their students, their beliefs
“could have a strong influence on the
students’ own beliefs” (Horwitz, 1988 p.
291). Similarly, Bedir (2010) believed that
teacher belief about LLS is one of the
important factors which impacts the
effectiveness of learning strategies
instruction.
Previous research findings
Since the above mentioned issues have been
appealing to many scholars, several
researchers have focused on the
investigation and evaluation of these
concepts. Taghilou (2007) tried to explore
the relationship between "reflective teaching
practices" and "learning outcomes" of the
Iranian EFL students. In this study, he used
two homogeneous groups of pre-university
students. Using the same materials and
similar pedagogical conditions, two different
teaching practices on reflection was taught
to the participants. One of the teachers was a
strong supporter of the reflective pedagogy,
and the other was a disbeliever in its use and
effect on students' learning potential. The
results of this study showed that the
students’ mean score was significantly lower
(p<0.05) in the disbeliever teacher category
(control group) in contrast to the mean score
of students in the believer teacher category
(experimental group). In addition, in the
experimental group, the students were more
satisfied. He believed that the results of his
study demonstrated the potential
contribution of reflection and reflective
teaching to the ease and effectiveness of
learning on the part of the Iranian EFL
students.
Another study on reflective teaching was
conducted by Sim (2005) who invited a
group of seventeen ESL learners enrolled in
an intensive English course in Singapore to
reflect on their English language learning
experience. The instrument of this study was
a summative diary administered towards the
end of the course on how the students
approached their learning. The analysis of
the entries was carried out with reference to
the learners’ motivation, beliefs, attitudes,
strategies and affective factors. Sim reported
that the students’ motivation was mainly
instrumental and they had certain clear
beliefs about language learning. They
evaluated their progress though not
regularly. He proposed that affective factors
had a strong impact on their English
learning experience. He went on to say that
two important factors that surfaced were the
importance of social support and the
emphasis on effort.
Hosseini Fatemi, Elahi Shirvan and Rezvani
(2011) explored the effect of EFL teacher’s
reflection on their learners’ writing
achievement. Participants of their study
included 100 EFL teachers teaching in
Mashhad language institutes and their 1000
EFL learners. They used the Reflective
teaching instrument designed by Akbari and
Behzadpour (2007). Also, they calculated
the EFL learners’ Grade Point Averages
(GPAs) of their writing scores. An
unstructured interview with 10 teachers of
each group of highly reflective and low
reflective teachers was also done. The
results of the statistical analysis revealed
that teachers’ reflection significantly affects
EFL learners’ writing achievement. Learners
with highly reflective teachers had higher
writing achievement scores than those with
low reflective teachers.
Regarding classroom management, Rahimi
and Hosseini (2012) investigated Iranian
EFL teachers’ classroom discipline
strategies from their students’ perspective.
They asked 1497 students to answer the
classroom discipline strategy questionnaire
that assessed their perceptions about
teachers’ classroom management
disciplines. The results of this study showed
that Iranian EFL teachers appeared to use
recognition/rewarding strategies more often
to discipline their classes, while using
aggression and punishment were the least
common classroom discipline strategies.
Female teachers used punishment,
discussion, and aggression strategies more in
contrast to male teachers.
In another study, Martin and Shoho (2000)
investigated the relationship between
teachers' age and perceptions of classroom
management style. Data were collected from
a total of 388 participants via the (ABCC)
Inventory and a demographic questionnaire.
They found a significant correlation between
subjects' age and the people management
sub-scale. They stated that as teachers
increase in age, their beliefs and attitudes
toward this dimension of classroom
management become more controlling.
In order to explore Iranian EFL teachers’
classroom management orientations and its
relationship with teaching styles, Rahimi
and Asadollahi (2012) asked three hundred
EFL teachers to fill in the (ABCC) inventory
and Teaching Activities Preference
questionnaire. They found that most Iranian
EFL teachers were interventionist with
respect to their classroom management
approaches. They concluded that teachers
who were more interventionist in their
classroom management used more teaching
activities than those with interactionalist
classroom management orientation.
Griffiths (2007) investigated the point of
intersection of teachers’ and learners’
perceptions of language learning strategies.
An original questionnaire in a classroom
situation based on student input was
developed and used. The study examined
reported frequency of strategy use by
international students and teachers’
perceptions regarding the importance of
strategy use. The results showed that
students’ and teachers’ perceptions did not
perfectly match. However, there was a high
level of accordance between strategies
which students reported as the most
frequently used strategies and those which
teachers reported as highly important.
Ardasheva and Tretter (2012) explored
perceptions and use of language learning
strategies among ESL teachers and English-learning students. The subjects of their study
were 1,057 students and 54 teachers. The
results of the study showed that (a) the level
of strategy effectiveness awareness among
teachers working at all educational levels
was high; (b) teacher and student strategy
ratings differed qualitatively, with most of
the teacher scores being above the high-level
benchmark and most of the students’ scores
within the medium-level benchmark; and (c)
none of the correlations between teacher and
student strategy ratings were statistically
significant.
The aforementioned studies demonstrated
the importance of teachers’ reflectivity,
classroom management orientations, and
perceptions of language learning strategies
in the language learning and teaching
process. However, to the best of the
researchers’ current knowledge, none of the
above studies have so far brought these
variables together to investigate their
relationship with, and their contributions to
Iranian EFL learners’ L2 achievement.
Thus, it is potentially worth shedding light
on the contribution of each of these
variables to students’ L2 achievement;
considering the fact that teachers’
reflectivity, classroom management
orientations, and perceptions of language
learning strategies might lead to students’
higher performance and help L2 teachers to
take better actions.
Research questions
The present study was conducted to
investigate the relationship among three
important teacher variables and students’ L2
achievement. To achieve the goals of this
study, the following research questions were
posed:
1. Is there any significant relationship
between teachers’ degree of
reflectivity and students’ L2
achievement?
2. Is there any significant relationship
between teachers’ classroom
management orientations and
students’ L2 achievement?
3. Is there any significant relationship
between teachers’ perceptions of
language learning strategies and
students’ L2 achievement?
4. Is there any significant difference
among Iranian EFL teachers’
classroom management orientations,
perceptions of LLSs, and reflectivity
with respect to their gender?
5. Among teachers’ reflectivity,
classroom management orientations
and perceptions of language learning
strategies which one is the best
predictor of students’ achievement?
Methodology
Participants
One hundred and five Iranian EFL teachers
(50 males and 55 females) from Shiraz and
Hamadan participated in this study. They
were all high school teachers of third grade
classes. The reason for selecting this level
was due to the fact that the third-grade
English language final exam is prepared by
Iran Ministry of Education (Assessment and
Evaluation Center), and is held throughout
the country each year. Thus, it can be used
as a sign of students’ overall achievement in
English. All of the teachers had degrees in
TEFL, English literature or English
Translation except for one who had studied
Arabic literature. They were selected based
on convenience sampling procedure and
their age ranged from 25 to 53
(mean=39.52). Moreover, the scores
obtained by the third-grade students (N=
2673) in their final English exam were
collected from the schools registrars’ office
and were considered as the indication of the
students’ L2 achievement.
Instruments
Reflective teaching questionnaire
The reflective teaching questionnaire was
developed and validated by Akbari,
Behzadpour and Dadvand (2010) and
contains 29 items with five-point Likert
scale responses ranging from 1 (never), to 5
(always).
Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control
Inventory (ABCC Inventory)
The ABCC Inventory was developed and
validated by Martin, Yin, and Baldwin
(1998) to measure teachers’ orientations
towards classroom management. The ABCC
Inventory has 26 items with three broad
dimensions that address components of
classroom management: instructional
management (14 items), people management
(8 items), and behavior management (4
items).
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL) –ELL Teacher Form
This questionnaire was originally developed
by Oxford (1990) to assess students’
perceptions of language learning strategies.
It was modified and validated by Ardasheva
and Tretter (2013) to assess teachers’
perceptions of language learning strategies.
This questionnaire is based on Oxford’s
classification of strategies and contains five
categories: Memory (7 items), Cognitive (5
items), Compensation (5 items),
Metacognitive (4 items), Affective strategies
(3 items) and Social (4 items). Reliability of
this questionnaire was assessed using
Cronbach's Alpha (α = .912).
English Language Achievement Test
The final exam of third grade high school
students is prepared by language testing
experts of the Ministry of Education
(Assessment and Evaluation Center) and
administered under the supervision of
Central Offices of Education across the
nation. According to Farhady and Sajadi
Hezaveh (2010, p. 12), this exam is a high
stakes test and has high level of reliability
and validity. The Central Office of
Educational Measurement and Evaluation
takes all necessary measures to ensure test
security, similar administration across the
country, and fair scoring of the test papers.
Procedure
The data collection in this study was carried
out in two phases. First, the questionnaires
were given to 127 teachers who had
accepted to take part in the study. They were
allowed to take the questionnaires home, fill
them out and give them back to the
researchers one week later. However, only
105 teachers returned the questionnaires.
Then, the final English exam scores of the
students were collected from the registrars’
offices of the high schools as an index of
their English achievement score.
Results and discussion
Testing the correlation between teachers’
variables and students’ L2 achievement
To answer this research question, three
Pearson Product Moment correlations were
used, the results of which are summarized in
Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 summarized the descriptive
statistics for the teachers’ variables, i. e.
teachers’ reflection, classroom
management, perceptions of LLSs and also
students’ L2 achievement.
Question 1: As indicated in Table 2, a
significant positive correlation was found
between teachers’ reflection and students’
L2 achievement, r (103) =.69, pN=105. According to Cohen (1988), the
effect size of 0.47 is medium. A possible
explanation for this significant relationship
could best be justified by Waltermire’s
(1999) opinion regarding the fact that
reflective practice pivots around student
learning and a commitment to helping
students succeed. Reflective teachers
examine the consequences of their actions in
the classrooms and try to find suitable
solutions to the problems that occur during
the educational year (Farrell, 2007). These
reflections would result in their students’
higher satisfaction of classrooms and the
teachers. As Dewey (1933) puts it,
reflection is thought to be a purposeful
attempt to resolve complex classroom
dilemmas into educative experiences
leading to further student and teacher
growth and learning.
A review of the previous literature indicated
that teacher’s reflection is one of the most
important factors influencing students’
achievement (Akbari, 2007; Goldhaber,
2002; Pacheco, 2005; Sanders, 2000). The
result of the present study, in this regard, is
in line with what has been echoed in the
previous literature. As Kumaravadivelu
(2002), Korthagen (1993) and Pennington
(1992) noted, reflective teaching has a
significant effect on students’ learning. In a
similar vein, Hosseini Fatemi, Elahi Shirvan
and Rezvani (2011) stated that highly
reflective teachers believed that they were
responsible to take control of their teaching
and tried harder than those with lower
levels of reflection. This finding also
supports previous research on teachers’
reflection in Iranian settings (e.g. Akbari &
Karimi Allvar, 2010; Hosseini Fatemi,
Elahi Shirvan & Rezvani, 2011; Taghilou,
2007). However, this finding is contrary to
Braun and Crumpler (2004) and Griffiths’s
(2000) study which indicated that engaging
teachers in reflective teaching will not
necessarily lead to higher student
achievement or better learning outcomes.
Question 2: The second research question
was concerned with the possible correlation
between teachers’ attitudes toward
classroom management and their student
achievement. As shown in Table 2, a
significant negative relationship was found
between teachers’ attitudes toward
classroom management and their students
achievement, r (103) = -.31, pThis indicated that the higher the level of
control exerted by the teachers in the
classroom, the lower the students’ L2
achievement. This finding might have been
due to the fact that from elementary levels,
Iranian students are not involved in
classroom management. Therefore, they
might not accept this style of classroom
management at higher levels. Therefore,
from the beginning levels, teachers should
involve students in issues related to
classroom management, such as classroom
behavior, interruptions and transitions,
group work and independent work, and the
use of materials and equipments. The
findings of the study, in this regard, are in
contrast with the results of a great number of
studies which reported a significant
relationship between classroom management
and students’ achievement (Djigic &
Stojiljkovic, 2011; Edwards, Green & Lyons
2002; Griffiths, 2002; Milner, 2002; Poulou,
2007). Djigic and Stojiljkovic (2011)
investigating the correlation between
teachers’ management styles and students’
achievement, found that students’
achievement was at its highest when
teachers practiced interactionist style, and at
its lowest when the teachers were
interventionists. The previous findings
indicated that teachers who use effective
management strategies tend to reduce
custodial control and increase students’
autonomy (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990).
Further, teachers’ classroom management
practices can influence students’ behavior
and direct it in a constructivist manner,
which in turn, would set the stage for
instruction and increased learning (Marzano
& Pickering, 2003). Rahimi and Asadollahi
(2012) stated that Iranian students are
obedient and dependent on authority figures
in the class, and conform to the rules. They
further stated that this is the product of
traditional book-centred approach and
teacher-centred methodology in the Iranian
EFL curriculum.
Question 3: Another correlation was also
run to answer the third research question. As
presented in Table 5.1, a moderate positive
relationship was found between teachers’
perceptions of LLSs and their students’
achievement, r (103) = .36, pwhich implied that by increasing the
teachers’ awareness of LLSs, their students’
achievement was also raised.
To make the language learning process
successful, L2 teachers need to focus on the
needs of the individual learners and provide
them with appropriate strategy training. LLS
researchers believe that teachers’
perceptions of LLSs are among the most
significant factors that may directly impact
the learning experiences and achievements
of the students (Ian & Oxford, 2003;
Oxford, 1990; Oxford, Ehrman, & Lavine,
1991; Riazi & Rahimi, 2003). Teachers’
awareness of LLS is likely to encourage
explicit LLS instruction, which in turn,
increase students’ strategy knowledge and
use and may ultimately lead to higher
achievement and performance (Oxford,
1990; Chamot, 2007). The findings of this
study implied that teachers who are aware of
their students’ LLSs are more likely to
adapt appropriate teaching methods
compatible with their students’ way of
learning, help their students develop an
awareness of learning strategies, and enable
them to use a wider range of appropriate
strategies.
The findings of the present study
corroborate theoretical postulates about the
effect of LLSs on learners’ achievement,
and the role of teachers’ perceptions in their
students’ beliefs. This finding is in
agreement with Kern’s (1995) study which
showed that teachers' beliefs were effective
on students' beliefs about language
learning. Review of the previous research
indicates that teachers are the principal
components of any pedagogical program.
Consequently, their perceptions and beliefs
have considerable influence on their
instructional practices and classroom
behavior as well as their students'
achievement (Eslami & Fatahi, 2008).
Testing the relationship between teachers’
variables and gender
Question 4: An independent-samples t-test
was run to determine the possible
significant differences between male and
female teachers regarding their degree of
reflection (Tables 3 and 4).
As indicated in Table 4, no statistically
significant difference was found between
male and female teachers regarding their
degree of reflection, t (82.22) =.86, p =.
38>.05. The results are in line with the
recent studies in Iranian context in which no
significant difference was found between the
two genders with regard to teachers’
reflectivity (Aghaei & Jadidi, 2013; Bagheri
& Abdolrahimzadeh, 2015; Khany &
Ghoreyshi, 2014; Mousapour & Beiranvand,
2013). This result is in contradiction to
Ansarin, Farrokhi, and Rahmani’s (2015)
study in which female teachers were found
to be more reflective than male teachers.
In the same way, the result of teachers’
classroom management orientations
questionnaire and their gender were
compared to determine the existence of any
significant difference between male and
female teachers. The results are shown in
Tables 5 and 6.
As illustrated in Table 6, no statistically
significant difference was found between
male and female teachers on levels of
classroom management orientations t (103)
= .15, p= .87>.05. The result of this study, in
this regard, is in line with Martin’s study
(1997) who found no significant difference
between male and female teachers’
classroom management orientations. The
results are in contrast to the studies by
Sridhar and Javan (2011), and Martin and
Yin (1997) who found that male teachers
selected interventionist style more than other
styles. Moreover, regarding the approaches
to instruction, male teachers preferred more
controlling instruction in a number of
studies (Chen, 2000; Lam, Tse, Lam, & Loh,
2010; Martin & Baldwin, 1996). However,
in another study, Martin, Yin, and Baldwin
(1998) found no gender differences related
to any of the classroom management
orientations.
An independent-samples t-test was also run
to determine the existence of any significant
difference between male and female
teachers regarding their Perceptions of
Language Learning Strategies. The results
are shown in Tables 7 and 8.
As shown in Table 8, a statistically
significant difference was found between
male and female teachers’ perceptions of
LLSs (t (66.84) = 2.90, p= .00<.05).
Previous studies on the relationship between
gender and strategy use have come to mixed
conclusions. Some studies discovered
significant gender differences in strategy use
(Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Green & Oxford,
1995; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) while others
failed to discover any evidence of differing
language learning strategy use between the
genders (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990;
Vandergrift, 1997). The results of the
present research are in line with Wharton’s
(2000) study which indicated that males
used more LLSs than females. However,
Gu’s (2002) study suggested that female
learners generally make better use of the
learner strategies, particularly those helping
enlarging vocabulary size, compared with
their male counterparts.
Multiple regressions between the
independent variables of the study and
students’ achievement
Question 5: In order to determine which
one of the teachers’ variables were the best
predictor of students’ L2 achievement, a
multiple regression analysis was run. The
results are shown in Tables 9, 10, and 11.
The Standardized Beta Coefficients is a measure
of how strongly each predictor variable influences
the dependent variable. The Beta is measured in
units of standard deviation. As shown in Table 11,
teachers’ reflection beta value is .68 which
indicates that a change of one standard deviation
in teachers’ reflection will result in change of .68
standard deviations in students’ achievement.
Thus, the higher the beta value the greater the
impact of teachers’ variable on students’ L2
achievement. As can be seen in Table 11, the
results showed that teachers’ reflection is the
strongest predictor of the students’ L2
achievement compared with the other variables.
Tolerance and VIF give the same information. In
this table, since Tolerance value is high (> 1-R
2)
,
there is no problem with multicollinearity.
Unlike classroom management orientations and
perceptions of LLSs, teachers’ reflection made a
significantly unique contribution to predicting the
students’ achievement. This finding supports the
aforementioned result obtained from Pearson
correlation between reflection and L2
achievement, and serves to highlight the principal
role that teachers’ reflection might play in
predicting Iranian EFL students’ achievement
(Akbari, 2007; Goldhaber, 2002; Sanders, 2000).
As mentioned above, reflective teachers collect
information about their classrooms, examine
and evaluate it, and consider the consequences
of their actions, which in turn lead to higher
student achievement (Bainer & Cantrell, 1991).
his finding corroborates the idea of Akbari and
Karimi Allvar (2010) who suggested that
“reflection is a passionate desire on the part of
teachers to transform problematic classroom
situations into opportunities for students to learn
and grow” (p. 13). Thus, reflective teachers
attempt to increase students’ learning and
provide effective classroom situations.
Conclusion and implications
The aim of the present study was to
investigate the contributions of three teacher
variables (i.e., reflective teaching, classroom
management orientations, and perceptions of
LLSs) to students’ L2 achievement. The
study further aimed at identifying gender
differences in each of the three teacher
variables. The results led to the conclusion
that teachers’ reflection and perceptions of
LLSs had a significant positive correlation
with students’ achievement, suggesting that
developing teachers’ awareness of reflective
teaching and LLSs are deemed necessary in
enhancing students’ L2 achievement.
However, classroom management
orientations were found to have a negative
relationship with students’ achievement.
That is to say, the higher the level of control
exerted by the teachers in the classroom, the
lower the students’ L2 achievement. From
among three teacher variables, teachers’
reflection was found to be the best
predicator of students’ achievement which
reinforced the significant role of reflective
practice in EFL classes. Another conclusion
derived from the findings of the study
proved that gender differences did not have
any effects on teachers’ reflection and
classroom management; while, a significant
difference was found between the male and
female teachers with regards to their
perception of LLSs. Since the results of this
study indicated a significant relationship
between teachers’ perceptions of LLSs and
students’ L2 achievement, it seems
reasonable to recommend that during pre-service and in-service teacher education
programs, teachers become aware of the
importance of LLSs and get familiar with
the ways through which such strategies can
be taught. Moreover, since the results
indicated reflection as the best predicator of
students’ achievement, it is deemed essential
for EFL/ESL teachers to enhance their
awareness of reflection and apply reflective
practice in their classes to improve the
quality of their teaching. Also, teacher
trainers should make teachers familiar with
efficient classroom management skills in
order to create a safe learning environment
that ultimately results in students’
achievement and success.
Limitations of the study
Although efforts have been made to
guarantee reliability and ensure validity in
the present study, some limitations exist.
First, the data were collected using self-report questionnaires; therefore, there might
be some discrepancies between the teachers’
actual practices in their classes and their
answers to the questionnaires. Next, the
sample was extracted from two cities, Shiraz
and Hamadan, and it might not yield a true
picture of the effect of EFL teachers’
variables on students’ achievement in Iran.
Thereby, the results cannot be generalized to
all EFL teachers. Finally, the students’ score
on their final English exam was selected as
an index of their English achievement.
Despite all the necessary measures taken by
the Central Office of Educational
Measurement to ensure test security, similar
administration across the country, and fair
scoring of the test papers; still some
unsystematic variations might exist which
are out of the researchers’ control.
