Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Learning preferences of students attending and not attending language institutes

Journal Name:

  • Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
In the context of language classroom, learners are by and large the consumers whose beliefs, attitudes, motivation, and preferences play the most important role in the learning path. Therefore, with respect to learners’ differences and the unique situations each learning context requires, this study attempted to investigate the differences, if any, between English language learning preferences of students studying in language institutes in addition to their language programs that schools have set up with those who mainly study English via school curriculum. To this end, 180 high school students within the age range of 15-17 took part in this study; 90 students studying in language institutes in addition to attending language programs and 90 who attended only the mainstream school program. The researchers employed a 53-item Likert scale questionnaire to survey learning preferences of the participants. The results of the t-test analyses indicated that there was not any significant difference between the learning preferences of the two groups in general; however, there were differences regarding different classifications of items namely, grouping, vocabulary learning, learning grammar, error correction, media, and learning activities. The findings are hoped to pave the way for learners and teachers to ameliorate language programs.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-learning-preferences-students-attending-and-not-attending-language-institutes.pdf
  • 7
1
12
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Attar, T. (2010). Is younger really the better? Unpublished masters’ thesis, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
Bagherian Azhiri, M. H. (2012). The effect of multiple intelligence-based reading tasks on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
Baleghizadeh, S. (2010). Focus on form in an EFL communicative classroom. Novitas-RoYAL (Research on Youth and Language. Vol 4 (1), 119-128.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles (2nd ed.). NY: Longman
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). NY: Longman Pearson Education, Inc.
Chalak, A. & Kassaian, Z. (2010). Motivation and attitudes of Iranian undergraduate EFL students towards learning English. GEMA OnlineTM Journal of Language Studies. Vol 10(2), 37-56.
Chastain, k. (1988). Second-language skills (3rd ed.). NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovish, Inc.
Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of instructed second language acquisition. Centre for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved July 16, 2008 from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/In
Felder, R. M. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign Language Annals. Vol 28(1), 21-31.
Foroozandeh, E. (2011). History of high school English course books in Iran. FLT. Vol 26 (1), 56-69.
Ghorbani, M. R. (2009). ELT in Iranian high schools in Iran, Malaysia and Japan: Reflections on how tests influence use of prescribed textbooks. Reflections on English Language Teaching. Vol 8 (2), 131-139.
Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English language teaching, language in action. NY: Roultledge.
Jones, S. (1998). Learning styles and learning strategies: Towards learner independence. Forum for Modern Language Studies. Vol xxxa (2), 114-118.
Moiinvaziri, M. (2008). Motivational orientation in English language learning: A study of Iranian undergraduate students. Global practices of language teaching. Proceedings of International Online Language Conference (IOLC). Universal publishers. Boca Raton, Florida, US, 126-135.
Negahdar, Sh. (2011). EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Practices on Code-switching. Unpublished master’s thesis, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
O’Mally, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. US: Cambridge University Press.
2013, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(7), 1-12.
2013, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 2(7), 1-12.
12
Razmjoo, S. A. & Riazi, M. (2006a). Do high schools or private institutes practice communicative language teaching ? A case study of Shiraz teachers in high schools and institutes. The Reading Matrix. Vol 6 (3), 340-361.
Razmjoo, S. A. & Riazi, M. (2006b). Is communicative language teaching practical in the expanding circle? A case study of teachers of Shiraz high schools and institutes. Journal of Language and Learning. Vol 4, 144-171.
Reid, J.M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly. Vol 21(1), 87-110.
Richards, J. C. (2002). 30 years of TEFL/TESL: A personal reflection. RELC Journal. Vol 33, 1-35.
Sedaghatgoftar,N. (2010). Language learning preferences, gender, and proficiency level: Do teachers teach what learners want? Unpublished masters’ thesis, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
Spratt, M. (1999). How good are we at knowing what learners like? System. Vol 27, 141-155.
Spratt, M. (2001). The value of finding out what classroom activities students like. RELC Journal. Vol 32(2), 80-101.
Vaezi, Z. (2008). Language learning motivation among Iranian undergraduate students. World Applied Sciences Journal. Vol 5(1), 54-61.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com