مقایسه نقش مدارس، آموزشگاه های خصوصی، و خود آموزی تکنولوژی محور در یادگیری زبان انگلیسی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشیار گروه زبان‌های خارجی، دانشکده علوم انسانی دانشگاه بجنورد، بجنورد، ایران

چکیده

امروزه بسیاری خانواده‌ها فرزندان خود را برای یادگیری بهتر زبان انگلیسی به ویژه برای تقویت مکالمه به آموزشگاه‌ها خصوصی می فرستند. علیرغم افزایش تقاضا برای شرکت در این کلاس‌ها، شواهد حاکی از این حقیقت است که این موسسات نیز موفقیت چندانی نداشته اند. پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی روشهای بهبود یادگیری زبان انگلیسی توسط نسل جدید انجام شده است. روش انجام این پژوهش از نوع روشهای تحقیق ترکیبی متوالی بوده که در آن نخست بخش کمی و سپس بخش کیفی به اجرا درآمده است. در بخش کمی، پرسشنامه محقق ساخته با پایایی 87/0 شامل 30 آیتم و دربخش کیفی، مصاحبه شامل چهار سوال در رابطه با نقش مدارس، آموزشگاه های خصوصی، و خود آموزی تکنولوژی محور در یادگیری زبان انگلیسی بود. با استفاده از دو روش پرسشنامه حضوری و مصاحبه تلفنی که نمونه آنها بترتیب به روش تمام شماری و تعمدی انتخاب شده بود، داده ها از دانشجویانی که در ترم اول سال تحصیلی 1396-1395 در 17 کلاس زبان عمومی در دانشگاه بجنورد ثبت نام نموده بودند گردآوری شد. در بخش کیفی، با 10 نفر از دانشجویانی که بیشترین زمان را در آموزشگاه های خصوصی صرف زبان آموزی کرده بودند مصاحبه عمیق نیمه هدایت شده انجام شد. نتیجه حاصل از تجزیه و تحلیل پرسشنامه ها با استفاده از تجزیه و تحلیل واریانس (آنوا) یک طرفه تکراری و نتیجه مصاحبه نشان داد که بیشترین میزان یادگیری به ترتیب در آموزشگاه های خصوصی، از طریق خود آموزی و نهایتا در مدسه اتفاق می افتد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparing the Role of Schools, Private Language Institutes, and Technology-oriented Self- study in EFL Learning

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohamadreza Ghorbani
چکیده [English]

Nowadays learning English is one of the challenges of Iranian families. Most of them send their children to private language institutes to improve their communication skill in English. Despite the high demand for these institutes, there is some evidence showing that they are not that much successful. Technology-based self-study is also increasingly used by the new generation. However, as pointed out by Ghorbani and Golparvar (2019), despite the importance of autonomous language learning by means of educational technology beyond the classroom, there is little evidence on the learners’ perspectives towards its application. This study aims at finding an effective way for improving the new generation language learning by comparing the role of schools, private language institutes, and technology-oriented self- study in EFL Learning.
 
Sequential mixed-methods design was used to gather quantitative and qualitative data respectively. A panel of experts helped the researcher to establish the content and face validity of the instruments. In the quantitative part, the reliability of the 30-item researcher-made questionnaire was .87. In the qualitative part, the interview included four questions related to English learning in schools, private language institutes, and through technology-oriented self-study. Both the questionnaire and the interview were in Persian so that students can easily understand the content.
 
Data were gathered through questionnaire distribution in 17 three-unit general English classes for freshmen students and phone interview using whole population sampling and purposive sampling respectively at the University of Bojnord (UB) in the first quarter of 2017. All the students in the faculties of engineering, humanities, art, and sciences, who had enrolled in General English classes, participated in this study.
 
After gaining General English professors’ permission, students were asked to indicate their perspectives on learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL) at school, in private language institutes, and through technology-oriented self-study on the questionnaires. Based on the analysis of the students’ response on the questionnaires, 10 students who had spent longer times in private institutes were identified for the qualitative phase in which semi-structure interview was used to interview the informants.
 
The Statistical package for Social Sciences (SPSS 22) was used to analyze and describe the data. Repeated measure Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the participants’ view on the three different learning conditions in the quantitative phase. The three research questions, which were formulated to compare the role of schools, private language institutes, and technology-oriented self- study in EFL learning based on undergraduate freshmen students’ perspectives are as follows:

Is there any difference between EFL learning in schools and private language institutes based on undergraduate freshmen students’ perspectives at the UB?
Is there any difference between EFL learning in schools and through technology-oriented self- study based on undergraduate freshmen students’ perspectives at the UB?
Is there any difference between EFL learning in private language institutes and through technology-oriented self- study based on undergraduate freshmen students’ perspectives at the UB?

 
To gain in-depth information regarding students’ perspectives in the qualitative phase, the following questions were formulated:

To what extent were schools helpful in your EFL learning? Elaborate on it.
To what extent were private language institutes helpful in your EFL learning? Elaborate on it.
To what extent was technology-oriented self- study helpful in your EFL learning? Elaborate on it.
Which of the above-mentioned conditions (schools, private language institutes, and technology-oriented self- study) were more helpful? Why?

 
The descriptive statistics and inferential statistics regarding the three different conditions are delineated in the following tables:
 
Table 1
Descriptive statistics learning in three conditions (schools, private language institutes, and technology-oriented self- study)
 
Conditions             N            Mean            SD         Skewness      Kurtosis





School (1)             106           30.95            9.02            .083              -.261
Institutes (2)         106           45.22            9.44            -.754             1.057
Self-study (3)       106           38.14             9.98            -.205             .167





 
Table 2
Wilks’ Lambda for three conditions (schools, private language institutes, and technology-oriented self- study)
 
Statistic         F              hypothesis df         error df         P              Eta





.501             51.692                  2                       104            .000          .499





 
Based on Table 2, the value for Wilks’ Lambda is .501, with a probability value of .000 (which really means p<.0005). The p value is less than .05; therefore, it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference in students’ scores (perspectives) across the three different conditions. Since the Eta value obtained in this study is .499, based on the guidelines proposed by Cohen (1988, pp. 284–7) (.01=small, .06=moderate, .14=large effect), this result suggests a very large effect size.
 
Table 3
Summary of one-way ANOVA for three conditions (schools, private language institutes, and technology-oriented self- study)
 
Source                  N      df           SS                    MS                  F             P           PES





Between group   106     1    4617779.635    4617779.635     3968.792    0.000       0.974
Within group      106     1   10797.967         10797.967         93.450        0.000        0.471





**P < 0.05
 
A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare scores on the students' perspectives in condition 1 (learning English at schools), condition 2 (learning English in private language institutes), and condition 3 (learning English through self-study). There was a significant difference among the three conditions. Wilks’ Lambda = .51.692, F (2, 104) = 51.692, p < .001, multivariate partial eta squared = .499. That is, the best learning was in private institutes, technology-oriented self-study, and schools respectively.
 
 
Table 4
Bonferroni post hoc test for three conditions (schools, private language institutes, and technology-oriented self- study)
Group (I)      Group (J)                Mean Difference (I-J)            Std. Error           Sig.  





School             Self-study                *-7.189                                   1.204              0.000
School             Institute                   *-14.274                                  1.477              0.000
Self-study        School                     *7.189                                     1.204              0.000
Self-study        Institute                   *-7.085                                    0.854              0.000              
Institute           School                     *14.274                                    1.477              0.000
Institute           Self-study                *7.085                                      0.854              0.000





**P < 0.05
 
Based on Bonferroni post hoc test, the most English learning happens in private language institutes, through technology-oriented self-study, and in schools respectively.
 
The interview results were in line with these findings. The interviewees explained the reasons for such findings in detail. All of the interviewees believed that English learning in private language institutes is faster because their textbooks are more attractive, conversational, and practical in real life. Most of them preferred self-study to school learning due to the attractiveness of digital devices and educational software. Learning English at school was the last priority of the interviewees because they thought that the focus in school teaching is on grammar and vocabulary while listening and speaking is neglected.
 
These findings have many theoretical and practical implications. The ministry of education has invested a lot in foreign language education but students are not satisfied with English teaching in schools. This implies that foreign language policy makers, language assessment authorities, EFL textbook developers, and English teachers need to make some amendments in their traditional methods and activities so that students are motivated to learn English at schools. It is hoped that the findings of this study and other similar studies lead to finding effective methods for improving the EFL teaching and reducing the cost, time, and energy needed for EFL learning.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • schools
  • Private Language Institutes
  • echnology-oriented Self- study
  • learning
Abdan, A. (1991). An exploratory study of teaching English in the Saudi elementary public schools. System, 19, 153-266.

Afzalkhani, M., & Lawwaf, R. (2013). Recognizing the obstacles of utilizing teaching methods based on information technology regarding the perspectives of high school teachers in Semnan province. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 6(7), 942-949. (In Persian)

Ahmadi D. P. (2005). An appraisal of English-language teaching in Iran: Present state of art. Roshd EFL Journal, 84 (22), 31-37. (In Persian)

Balçıkanlı, C. (2010). Learner autonomy in language learning: Student teachers’ beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education35(1), 90-103.

Barkhoda, S., J., Brari, N., Rezaeizade, M, Khorasani, A., & Hajzeinolabedini, M. (2019). Investigating the compatibility degree of activities and teaching methods in e-learning courses based on learning theories. Journal of Research in Teaching, 5(4), 17-31. (In Persian)

Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomyin language learning (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.

Benson, P. (2007a). Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy. In T. E. Lamb and H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Benson, P. (Ed.). (2007b). Learner autonomy: Teacher and learner perspectives. Dublin: Authentik.

Bordbar, F. (2010). English teachers’ attitudes toward computer-assisted language learning. International Journal of Language Studies, 4(3), 27-54.

Borjian, M. (2013). English in post-revolutionary Iran. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Chan, V. (2001). Readiness for learner autonomy: what do our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 505-518.

Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cotterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. ELT Journal49(3), 219-227.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (4th Ed.). New York: Pearson.

Dashtestani, R. (2012). Barriers to the implementation of CALL in EFL courses: Iranian EFL teachers’ attitudes and perspectives. JALT CALL Journal, 8(2), 55-70.

Dashtestani, R. (2013). EFL Teachers’ Knowledge of the Use and Development of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) Materials. Teaching English with Technology, 14(2), 3-27.

Davari, H. (2013). English language teaching and linguistic imperialism. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.

Deci, E., Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., & Ryan, R. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), pp. 325-346.

Farhady, H., Jafarpoor, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing language skills: From theory to practice. Tehran: SAMT Publications.

Ghorbani, M. R., Arshad A. S., Sahandri, M., and Nooreen, N. (2008). All that glitters is not gold: Curriculum alignment and improving students' test scores. International (Iranian) Journal of Language Studies, 2, (1), 19-40.

Ghorbani, M. R. (2012). Washback effect of the university entrance examination: Iranian case. Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing (LAP).

Ghorbani, M. R., & Golparvar, S. E. (2019). Modeling the relationship between socioeconomic status, self-initiated, technology-enhanced language learning, and language outcome. Computer Assisted Language Learning. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1585374

Ghorbani, M. R., & Neissari, M. (2015). Washback effect of the Iranian concours on senior high school students' EFL learning activities. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 5(1), 1-28.

Hagenauer, G., & Hascher, T. (2010). Learning enjoyment in early adolescence. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(6), pp. 495-516.

Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Hong, K.H. (2010). CALL teacher education as an impetus for L2 teachers in integrating technology. ReCALL, 22(1), pp. 53-69.

Hosseini, S. M. H. (2007). ELT in higher education in Iran and India – A critical view. Language in India, 7, 1-11. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://www.languageinindia.com/dec2007/eltinindiaandiran.pdf

Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of EFL Materials Taught at Iranian Public High Schools. The Asian EFL Journal, 9 (2), 130-150.

Kalantari, R., & Gholami, J. (2011). Investigating the EFL education inefficiency and comparing public and private schools in Iran. Language and Translation Studies, 24(3), 51-81. (In Persian)

Kalantari, R., & Gholami, J. (2013). Identifying and prioritizing EFL problems in Iranian schools. Journal of Educational Innovations, 46, 97-122. (In Persian)

Kamyab, S. (2008). The university entrance exam crisis in Iran. International Higher Education, number 51. Retrieved October 9, 2008 from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number51/p22_Kamyab.htm

Kuntz, P.S. (1997). Language Institutes in Sana'a, Yemen. ED404885.

Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In P. Benson and P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 192-203). London: Longman.

Ostovar Namaghi, S. A. (2006). Forces steering Iranian language teachers’ work: A grounded theory. The Reading Matrix, 6(2), 90-105.

Razmjoo, A., & Riazi, A. (2006). On the teaching methodology of Shiraz EFL institutes. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities of Shiraz University, 23(1), 58-70.

Razmjoo, A. (2007). High schools or private institutes textbooks? Which fulfill communicative language teaching principles in the Iranian context? Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 1-16.

Revere, L., & Kovach, J. (2011). Online technologies for engaged learning: A meaningful synthesis for educators. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), pp. 113-124.

Riazi, A. (2005). The four language stages in the history of Iran. In Lin, A and Martin, P (eds), Decolonization, Globalisation: Language-in-education Policy and Practice. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.

Schofield, P. J., & Gitsaki. (1996). What is the advantage of private school instruction? The example of English vocabulary learning in Greece. System, 24 (1), 117- 127.

Smith, R. C. (2008). Learner autonomy (Key concepts in ELT).  ELT Journal62(4), 395-397.

Soleimani, B., Aliaskari, M., Ataran, M., & Hoseinikhah, A. (2020). School at home: the neglected chain in Iranian educational system. Journal of Research in Teaching, 6(4), 189-208. (In Persian)