The effectiveness of online language learning from the perspective of the Iranian university students
Keywords:
online language learning strategies, satisfaction, language achievement, effectiveness
Abstract
Learning language online can be considered as an emergency for the Pandemic but the effectiveness of it has turned into a debated issue. It is believed that online education will provide unique advantages in the learning process (Appana, 2008, Shopova, 2014). This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of online English language learning among Iranian university students from learners’ perspective. It seems that for this issue, especially in Iran, minimal attention have been paid in the literature of the field. The participants included 210 university students completing a compulsory online English listening-speaking course for two semesters. Based on the students view, the participants were divided into two groups: satisfied online language students and unsatisfied online language students. Participants rated their use of online language learning strategies and their perceptions of affection in online learning. The main instrument was questionnaire. The results revealed that online language learning strategies (cognitive and management) were employed by satisfied online language students more significantly when compared to what unsatisfied online language students did. Regarding the affection and satisfaction in online learning, there was a significant difference in terms of perceptions. The use of management strategies in online learning had significant correlations with satisfaction among online English learners. The unsatisfied students were generally among those who complained that the administrators were uncooperative.
References
1. Alizadeh, I. (2012). Challenges of employing e-learning for teaching language: A case of teaching English in Iran. E-Learning and Digital Media, 9(4), 426–438. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
2. Appana, S. (2008) ; Dolence & Norris, 1995; Katz, 1999; Shopova (2016) Is Online Learning Suitable for All English Language ... – ERIC files. ed. [Google Scholar]
3. Appana, S. (2008).A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the student, the instructor and the tenured faculty. International Journal on E- learning, 7(1), 5-22.
4. Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: The case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528–540. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
5. Bagheri, M. S., Yamini, M., & Riazi, A. (2009). Motivational and learning strategies of Iranian EFL learners exposed to an e-learning program. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 1(1), 1–35. [Google Scholar]
6. Balagafshe, S. K., Vahdany, F., & Arjmandi, M. (2014). The evaluation of language methodology and its efficiency on speaking skill at Iran language institute (ILI). Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 4(3), 155–163. [Google Scholar]]
7. Birjandi, P., & Nosratinia, M. (2009). The qualitative program evaluation of the postgraduate English translation major in Iran. The Journal of Modern Thoughts in Education, 4(4), 37–58. [Google Scholar]
8. Davies, A. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
9. Ebadi, S. (2016). Mediation and reciprocity in online l2 dynamic assessment. CALL-EJ, 17(2), 16–40. [Google Scholar]
10. Ellis, R. (2005). The study of second language acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Education Press. [Google Scholar]
11. Foroozandeh, E., Riazi, A. M., & Sadighi, F. (2008). Evaluation of TEFL program at Master’s level in Iran. TELL Journal, 2(6), 71–100. [Google Scholar]
12. Gerami, M. H., & Baighlou, M. G. S. (2011). Language learning strategies used successful and unsuccessful Iranian EFL students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1567–1576. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.399 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
13. Hanssen, T.-E., . S., & Solvoll, G. (2015). The importance of university facilities for student satisfaction at a Norwegian University. Facilities, 33(13–14), 744–759. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
14. Harasim, L., Calvert, T., & Groeneboer, C. (1997). Virtual-U: A webbased system to support collaborative learning. Khan, 62, 149-158.
15. Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 109–131. doi:10.2307/40264513 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
16. Huang, S. C., & Tsai, R. R. (2003). A comparison between high and low English proficiency learners’ beliefs. East Lansing, MI: The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University. [Google Scholar]
17. Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authentik. [Google Scholar]
18. Marandi, S. S., & Seyyedrezaie, M. S. (2017). The multi-course comparison of the effectiveness of two EFL writing environments: Google drive versus face-to-face on Iranian ELF learners’ writing performance and writing apprehension. CALL-EJ, 18(1), 9–21. [Google Scholar]
19. Moghaddam, M. Y., & Elahi, R. N. (2013). The effect of instructing speaking strategies used by successful EFL learners on unsuccessful learners’ speaking improvement in Iran. Journal of Language and Translation, 3(3), 33–44. [Google Scholar]
20. Mohammadi, H., & Alizadeh, K. (2014). An investigation of reliability and validity of strategy inventory for language learning among Iranian university students. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(2), 53–63. doi:10.5430/ijelt.v1n2p53 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
21. Norris, J. M. (2016). Language program evaluation. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 169–189. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
22. Nunan, D. (1989). Hidden agenda: The role of the learner in program implementation. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 176–187)). New York: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
23. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston Massachusetts: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
24. Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 359–366). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Press. [Google Scholar]
25. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Oxford: GALA. [Google Scholar]
26. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Los Angeles: Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
27. Pishghadam, R. (2008). The relationship among Iranian EFL learners’ language learning strategy use, gender, and their most-frequently-used learning strategies. The Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 208(51), 23–51. [Google Scholar]
28. Rahimi, M. (1996). The study of English Language Instruction at the Secondary Schools of the Isfahan Province (Unpublished Master of Arts (MA) thesis). Shiraz University, Shiraz. [Google Scholar]
29. Rashidi, N. (1995). Teaching and learning English in guidance and high school in Kordestan: Problems and suggested solutions (Master of Arts (MA) thesis). Shiraz University, Shiraz. [Google Scholar]
30. Razmjoo, S. A., & Riazi, A. M. (2006). On the teaching methodology of Shiraz EFL institutes. Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities of Shiraz University, 23(1), 58–70. [Google Scholar]
31. Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42(2), 147–180. doi:10.1017/S0261444808005612 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
32. Rose, H. (2012). Language learning strategy research: Where do we go from here? Studies in Self Access Learning, 3(2), 137–148. [Google Scholar]
33. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51. doi:10.2307/3586011 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
34. Sadeghi, K., & Richards, J. C. (2015). Teaching spoken English in Iran’s private language schools: Issues and options. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(2), 210-234. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
35. Sedighi, F., & Nazari, S. (2007). The Impact of consciousness raising and teaching methodology factors on the use of learning strategies by male EFL learners. Journal of the Faculty of Letters (Kerman), 21(18), 19–36. [Google Scholar]
36. Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
37. Tsai, M. J. (2009). The model of strategic e-learning: Understanding and evaluating student e-learning from metacognitive perspectives. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 34-48.
38. Vovides, Y., Sanchez-Alonso, S., Mitropoulou, V., & Nickmans, G.(2007). The use of e-learning course management systems to support learning strategies and to improve self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 2(1), 64-74.
2. Appana, S. (2008) ; Dolence & Norris, 1995; Katz, 1999; Shopova (2016) Is Online Learning Suitable for All English Language ... – ERIC files. ed. [Google Scholar]
3. Appana, S. (2008).A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the student, the instructor and the tenured faculty. International Journal on E- learning, 7(1), 5-22.
4. Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: The case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528–540. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
5. Bagheri, M. S., Yamini, M., & Riazi, A. (2009). Motivational and learning strategies of Iranian EFL learners exposed to an e-learning program. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 1(1), 1–35. [Google Scholar]
6. Balagafshe, S. K., Vahdany, F., & Arjmandi, M. (2014). The evaluation of language methodology and its efficiency on speaking skill at Iran language institute (ILI). Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 4(3), 155–163. [Google Scholar]]
7. Birjandi, P., & Nosratinia, M. (2009). The qualitative program evaluation of the postgraduate English translation major in Iran. The Journal of Modern Thoughts in Education, 4(4), 37–58. [Google Scholar]
8. Davies, A. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
9. Ebadi, S. (2016). Mediation and reciprocity in online l2 dynamic assessment. CALL-EJ, 17(2), 16–40. [Google Scholar]
10. Ellis, R. (2005). The study of second language acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Education Press. [Google Scholar]
11. Foroozandeh, E., Riazi, A. M., & Sadighi, F. (2008). Evaluation of TEFL program at Master’s level in Iran. TELL Journal, 2(6), 71–100. [Google Scholar]
12. Gerami, M. H., & Baighlou, M. G. S. (2011). Language learning strategies used successful and unsuccessful Iranian EFL students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1567–1576. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.399 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
13. Hanssen, T.-E., . S., & Solvoll, G. (2015). The importance of university facilities for student satisfaction at a Norwegian University. Facilities, 33(13–14), 744–759. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
14. Harasim, L., Calvert, T., & Groeneboer, C. (1997). Virtual-U: A webbased system to support collaborative learning. Khan, 62, 149-158.
15. Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 109–131. doi:10.2307/40264513 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
16. Huang, S. C., & Tsai, R. R. (2003). A comparison between high and low English proficiency learners’ beliefs. East Lansing, MI: The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University. [Google Scholar]
17. Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authentik. [Google Scholar]
18. Marandi, S. S., & Seyyedrezaie, M. S. (2017). The multi-course comparison of the effectiveness of two EFL writing environments: Google drive versus face-to-face on Iranian ELF learners’ writing performance and writing apprehension. CALL-EJ, 18(1), 9–21. [Google Scholar]
19. Moghaddam, M. Y., & Elahi, R. N. (2013). The effect of instructing speaking strategies used by successful EFL learners on unsuccessful learners’ speaking improvement in Iran. Journal of Language and Translation, 3(3), 33–44. [Google Scholar]
20. Mohammadi, H., & Alizadeh, K. (2014). An investigation of reliability and validity of strategy inventory for language learning among Iranian university students. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(2), 53–63. doi:10.5430/ijelt.v1n2p53 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
21. Norris, J. M. (2016). Language program evaluation. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 169–189. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
22. Nunan, D. (1989). Hidden agenda: The role of the learner in program implementation. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 176–187)). New York: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
23. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston Massachusetts: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
24. Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 359–366). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Press. [Google Scholar]
25. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Oxford: GALA. [Google Scholar]
26. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Los Angeles: Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
27. Pishghadam, R. (2008). The relationship among Iranian EFL learners’ language learning strategy use, gender, and their most-frequently-used learning strategies. The Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 208(51), 23–51. [Google Scholar]
28. Rahimi, M. (1996). The study of English Language Instruction at the Secondary Schools of the Isfahan Province (Unpublished Master of Arts (MA) thesis). Shiraz University, Shiraz. [Google Scholar]
29. Rashidi, N. (1995). Teaching and learning English in guidance and high school in Kordestan: Problems and suggested solutions (Master of Arts (MA) thesis). Shiraz University, Shiraz. [Google Scholar]
30. Razmjoo, S. A., & Riazi, A. M. (2006). On the teaching methodology of Shiraz EFL institutes. Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities of Shiraz University, 23(1), 58–70. [Google Scholar]
31. Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42(2), 147–180. doi:10.1017/S0261444808005612 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
32. Rose, H. (2012). Language learning strategy research: Where do we go from here? Studies in Self Access Learning, 3(2), 137–148. [Google Scholar]
33. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51. doi:10.2307/3586011 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
34. Sadeghi, K., & Richards, J. C. (2015). Teaching spoken English in Iran’s private language schools: Issues and options. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(2), 210-234. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
35. Sedighi, F., & Nazari, S. (2007). The Impact of consciousness raising and teaching methodology factors on the use of learning strategies by male EFL learners. Journal of the Faculty of Letters (Kerman), 21(18), 19–36. [Google Scholar]
36. Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
37. Tsai, M. J. (2009). The model of strategic e-learning: Understanding and evaluating student e-learning from metacognitive perspectives. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 34-48.
38. Vovides, Y., Sanchez-Alonso, S., Mitropoulou, V., & Nickmans, G.(2007). The use of e-learning course management systems to support learning strategies and to improve self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 2(1), 64-74.
Published
2021-05-25
How to Cite
Razmjou, G. (2021). The effectiveness of online language learning from the perspective of the Iranian university students. International Journal of Pedagogical Advances in Technology-Mediated Education, 2(2), 39 - 45. Retrieved from http://patme-journal.iatels.com/index.php/patme/article/view/effectiveness-of-online-language-learning
Section
Articles
