impulsive

This study examined the effects of cooperative learning techniques (CLT) on vocabulary achievement of reflective/impulsive Iranian EFL Learners. From among 130 students at Fajr institute in Dehdasht, Kohkiloyeh and Boyer Ahmad Province, Iran, 90 participants were selected based on their performance on the Oxford Placement Test (OPT). The participants were then divided into two experimental groups (comprising reflective learners and impulsive learners) and one control group labeled as conventional instruction (CI) group. The instrument used to divide the participants into reflective and impulsive groups was the Eysenck’s (1990) Impulsivity Questionnaire. The experimental groups were taught with the student team achievement division (STAD) technique, while the control group was taught through the traditional method for ten weeks. To measure the vocabulary knowledge of the learners in different groups at the beginning and at the end of the experiment, a pretest and a posttest, each consisting of 40 items on new English words based on their book were used. Independent-Samples and paired-samples t tests were used to determine whether there were significant inter- and intra-group differences. The statistical analysis of the results showed that the experimental groups (reflective and impulsive) performed better on vocabulary achievement posttest than the control group (CI), and also it was revealed that reflective learners performed better on vocabulary achievement than impulsive learners. In sum, cooperative learning enhanced learners’ vocabulary performance, especially the reflective ones.

This study investigated the effect of two different types of offline planning, namely cooperative and individual, on the oral proficiency of impulsive and reflective EFL learners. Accordingly, 114 intermediate learners studying at a private language school in Tehran were chosen nonrandomly through their performance on a Preliminary English Test (PET). The participants also filled out the Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1991) Impulsiveness Questionnaire (EIQ) through which they were categorized into two subgroups within each offline planning setting consisting of impulsive and reflective learners. All in all, there were four subgroups: 28 impulsive and 28 reflective learners undergoing the cooperative offline planning treatment, and 32 impulsive and 26 reflective learners experiencing the individual offline planning treatment. Following the 14-session treatment, the mean scores of all four groups on the speaking posttest were computed and a two-way ANOVA was run to test all the four hypotheses raised in the study. The results revealed that the effect of offline planning to a great degree depends on the cognitive learning style of the learners: while impulsive learners benefit more from cooperative offline planning, reflective ones prefer to perform the task individually.