)
+ (
!"# "#
$ %&' & ()*&
"&# + ,- .*&# & ESP
) " 2
&
13 4 5 6378 9 : 798
; 32< 637 &
2 3
#2=>3 4
>
:ل
! : 24 / 3 / 94 ( ) : 9 / 8 / 94
' +/
%'
! +, - . / 0 1 2 30 ! 4 / 1 1 ! 2 : 5/ +
( ! / 26 ( ! + 78 8 /
5 2 9 , 0 2 )
1 ( . 4 > ? @ 7 ! 26 A B2 ! C D 5 0 E.1 6 +, 2 F G2 +D 2 >
E.1 6 1 ! ) H 0 I 2 + 52 ! 5 >
2 .
" 1 "
9 , 0 2 .51 26 ( ! +1 H 0 + I2 ! J52 + :
+. ! 7 !
! 1 !
K L / M!
) (ESP 61
+. ! E
33
1 ! +. ! E
O P.
. Q0 ! R + +. ! / ( ! +1 +1 +
.51 9 , 0 2 - I0
. H 0 S IB0 > !
+. ! 58
1! 7 ! QB0
.
: 2 26 1 + ! 26 S9R 2 6 T ! +1 /
2 6 4 + 9 .U V 7 5.
. .
+
B.2 ! .51 ( ! .U 7 0
! + + 9 . 9 , 0 2 (
5 . 58 W2 +. !
QB0
7 H 0
.
3 *
: 2 ( ! + .51 ( ! + 0 B.2 V 7 > ! 532 V E0 , @
+, 1 2 >
( ! > 0 H 2 .51 ( ! + 7 ! H 2 ( ! > 2 1 > 2 X 0 0 + 2 9 , 0 ( !
2 .
' ( 34&
7 : 3: 9=
&
7 : 3
"
&
7 : 3
@ 87
& 7 % &
ESP
' VY QB0 4P ! -U2 Z@ 92 + 78 2 ( 26
? 1 ! D 2 [ /
) 2 .(
5 0 !
\ + C D
A B2 - 26 / ( 26 1! 2 !
K L / )
( ESP
! ! 5 > 0 6 ! MY,
/
\ 1!
\ [
\ U
\ 52
\
\
\ . 1
\ M
+ J
Gonzalaz (2009) 2 ( ! +
2 /
MY, / ) (ESP
! . 2 ( ! >
0
> . ! 7/ ) ^ 9G G
1 - ( 26 ! M 5 ! , V I IB0
2 - ( 26 .,
! .1
3 -
! ! M 5 ! , 1 !
Downloaded from zums.ac.ir at 10:57 IRDT on Monday May 8th 2017
6 V ! .[ 4 + 52 1 U2 /
.
2 ( ! > > 5_7/
.B2 2 ? I. ! 0
7H 7`2 1!
) 3 .(
IIB2 `, 30 ! >
2 V 2 B2 +, MY,
30 > 5_7/ 1! /
MY, !
+, 5. / 0Y 2 + 78 /
! 1! 2 7
5. / +8 2 U 6
) 5 - 4 .(
2 9 , 0 2 ( ! + W@ ! 0
VY 2 > 26 S [ ).
6 ( . 0 I IB0
( 26 +5 2 ! +, K L /
) (ESP
( 26 ( ! / +, 1 I I@ > > 92
H 2 ! 9 , 0 2
.
2 V I IB0 > + 78 + 0
Coll(2004)
, ! ) 7 ( .
? @ ! +, ! I IB0 > R ! c1 H 0 ! + S IB0
( ! +
[ I 2 2
. !
+ .51 Y2 , ! R + MY, d + 2 1Y, ! 5.[
2 ( !
U .
( ! +, 6 > 92 S IB0 e .
( ! 2 ( 26
.51 ( 26 + 9 0 H 2
1 .
! ! V 3D G2 5, 0 + I2 +G
( ! /
f .P2 G2 > `, 2 1
AI V 3D
ZB ! 2 ( ! +1 ( ! S IB0 > !
M g ! 2 !
! g .
+, ! >
> ! 532 V E0
( ! / ! 8 9 , 0 .51
) 7 - 5 (
5ED P2 I >
) 9 - 8 (.
! g 1! ! 2 +3D G2 > ! +, ! +1 +.
W2
E.1 ( !
/ .51
\ 2
\ 9 , 0
2 . ! R + 6! +, 1 ! .51
! 1 M! 2 !! !
! MY, d h 90!
1 ) 13 (.
2 ( ! + ! .51 ( ! LY[
U50 +
! 8 M! 2 > 7 I. 2 h 90!
/ 2 2 i BD > +
8 -/
! U 5. / 2 C D 5 0
) 6 (
. 6! +, 1 ! 9 , 0 ( ! + U !
2 E.1 2 .51 ( ! X , 0 )
14 .(
L / + I2 +3D G2 >
( ! +1 2 .51
2 2 7/ ! R + 9 , 0 .
7 ! J52 > 7/ +
0 d V 2 ? R ! ( ! +1 +1!
! g + I2 ! 2 .
( ! +1 Y
H 0 58 +. !
! QB0
! g +3D G2 ! 2 7 .
+3D G2 L / S9R
F G2 / + j .
1 . 7 ! 532 H 0 .51 ( ! + ( 26
+. !
! 1 ! .
2 . 7 ! 532 H 0 2 ( ! + ( 26
+. !
! 1 ! .
3 . 7 ! 532 H 0 9 , 0 ( ! + ( 26
+. !
! 1 ! .
4 . ! +. ! / 7 > ! 532 V E0
! 8 9 , 0 2 .51 26 +1 .
5 . +. !
! ! 532 H 0 QB0
! 7
.
6 .
7 ! ! 532 H 0 58
! .
1 "
"
QB0 ? 1! +3D G2 >
93 - 92
!
0 d V 2 + .
2 + ! J5
+ I2 ( ! +1 H 0
9 , 0 2 .51
+. ! 7 !
! 1 !
K L / M!
) (ESP
. !
/ 2 6 ! 0 +.1 [ +. !
TOEFL
+,
Downloaded from zums.ac.ir at 10:57 IRDT on Monday May 8th 2017
2 6 4 5 + )
Pretest
( E.1 S IB0 > !
55, , .
55, , 30
94 E
W2 61
+. ! E
33 E
+. ! 1 !
. >
94 E 62
! E
.[
32
2 W 0 ! E
.
2 6 4 ! T )
Pretest
( +. ! /
2 , ! R + V E.2 ( ! +1 +1 + Q0 Y
- I0 26 .
> >
30 + ! E
.51 ( ! 32
2 ( ! + ! E 32
5. 8 9 , 0 ( ! + ! E .
! +2 M 1 .51 ( ! +
1!
M! , 2 ! l@ MY, !
! MY, ! M! 2 A1 0 +R 2 2 +
.
!
! , 2 ( ! +
2 +. ) U 6 ! .[ ! +, ! 9 2!
1 O + 2 / 2 / ! 5. 0 O ., V .B2 + 0 c2 , S R +38 2 [ 1! /
55, 1 .
! T 9 , 0 ( ! +
+ + 5
V 2 7 , ! l@ M! MY, ! + 8 5
+ 8
5.1 2 + ! 0 2 g 5.[ + 0 c2 , S R .
\ /
\ . !
\ +
\ 1 !
\ ! +,
/
\
\ 2
\ 9 , 0 5m R
1 ! 0 ? R ! +, U 8 0 + 8
IT
! 1 !
B , , + 1 .1
V .B2 , Wn @ oYR 0 c2 , S R 1!
.
!
+.E/
2 6 ! 2 0 -/
2 6
Pretest
2 6 5 B0
Posttest
, , .
B.2 0 U. !
\ 0
\ 2 +,
\ 0p 1 W 1! O .,
6 + V 7 M 1 0 +. /
+1 26 1 2 6
0 ( !
qP 2 .
O ., d W2 .51 ( ! + ( 26! E.1 ! + n
Cover to Cover
+ 9 8 O .,
U2
Communication in English Functions Attitude
through Idioms
.
0 c2 , S R AI 2 ( ! + ( 26 ! > 72 .
W + O ., +1 / V .B2 ( ! > !
+. ) 1 ! .
O ., .2 0 n V! n + /
! Q0 +
0 2 d7, + 2 > +,
2 ! V 7 , r Bn sE 0 .
V tD XD G2 .U u!
X1 5.2 r j 0 7/ + n O ., M ! W 2 tD
! g ! .[ ! 7 g > 5_7/
/
1 ! +78 0 1! + n O ., .2 +. ) 4 7 + .
4P Y ! ^ /
2 ( ! W2 +, 8 +`@ 92 + P
1! V j 2 +G ! ! 0p 1 .
> !
2 7 g
! v1 Vp 1 + 5. 0
55, ZB -/ U 6 ! 2 .
O n +BEn ! > 5_7/
1 + P
Announcement
+, 8
2 9[ 8 / ! ! ,
. 4P > [6
! l@ + h 2 1 O .
> 4P >
w [ ! 2 0 2 M! 2 + ! 8 V .B2 U 6 E.1 2 V 2 > 5_7/ 1 + oYR 1!
5, Wn @ .
/ VY U 0 9 , 0 ( ! + ( 26 ! 52 U 2 .51 ( ! .
2 V 7 ( ! > 0 H 2 + .1 ! J52 + ! 2 6 +1 R 26 +1 / !
Downloaded from zums.ac.ir at 10:57 IRDT on Monday May 8th 2017
) 2 6 4
Pretest
2 6 T
Posttest
B.2
0 + I2 ( .
+. ! H 0 Tc1 QB0
! 2 +1 / ! 7 58
! g ! .
! +nY[ ! R + 26 1 + e .
1 W x ? 8 ! 7
. W B0 ! J52 + ( ! / D 6
/
Paired Samples Test ANOVA
و
Post- hoc
1 / E.1 .
+1 / ! 7 > ! 7 7 : 3
2 ! /
. +1 / ! 7 > S9R
2 6 T !
Posttest)
2 6 4 + 9 .U V 7 (
)
Pretest
+. (
.
Online = "
Blended = @ 87
Traditional = 9=
%4 1 : 7 : 3 # 7: 7 ; 3 4 7 %
8
\\
?
\\
\
>
X\ 0 \0 +\
7
\\
V
\ /
\
1
\\
+
\
\\
\
\\
!
! 1
\\\\
2 6 +
\\\
Posttest ,
Pretest B.2
\
\ \ 0
\\
\\
/
\ -
2 + I2 5,
.
C 2D 1 :
>3
; " E , 7%4 )
Pretest (
; " H )
Posttest (
9 7 ; 3 4 * 7 : 3
9= !
, .
; " I * D
I J4
I J4 K 7-4 K 7-4 T
" D )
(df = LM
57379 / - 63520
/ 2 48934
/ 0
173 / 1 - 28
25 / 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Online Blended Traditional
PreTest PostTest Final
Downloaded from zums.ac.ir at 10:57 IRDT on Monday May 8th 2017
7/
2 / 2 p ? 8 ! +, + > V E0
2 6 V 7 /
Pretest Posttest
( ! !
7 ! 532 .51 ).
25 / 0 . (P=
8 0
\ . + +
\ 1 + e
\\
26
\ 8
\ ? 2 V E0
V 7
! 2 ( ! +
! 532 )
57 / 0
P= .(
9 , 0 ( ! ! > ( ! 26 1 + e . 5 2 8 V 7 > ! 532 V E0 ) .
11 / 0 (p =
C 2D 2 :
>3
; " E , 7%4
) Pretest
( ; " H
) Posttest
( 9 7 ; 3 4
" ! * 7 : 3
, .
; " I * D
I J4 K 7-4
I J4 K 7-4
T " D
) (df = LM
41307 / - 84572 / 3 71413
/ 0 578 / 0 - 28
57 / 0
C 2D 3 :
>3
; " E , 7%4 )
Pretest
( ; " H )
Posttest
( 9 7 ; 3 4
@ 87 ! * 7 : 3
, .
; " I * D
I J4 K 7-4 K 7-4 I J4 T
" D )
(df = LM
64185 / 0 - 95 011 / 2 38720
/ 0 658
/ 1 - 26
11 / 0
# 7:
7 : 3
( Pretest); " E , 7%4 >3 : 4 C 2D
= LM F , *7 I J4 (df) " D , *7 O % , 7 P Q@=
0/471 0/ 761 5/337 2 10/674 # 7: I *
7/014 82 575/ 115 # 7: ;
84 585/788 8 Q%D
+ e . ? 8 26 1 4
2 > V E0 /
2 6 4 V 7 (Pretest)
> ! 532 +1 4 i BD +1 / +, 1 532 >
7 +5 2 5 > 9`2 V 2 >
Downloaded from zums.ac.ir at 10:57 IRDT on Monday May 8th 2017
2 O @ + 6
. 7/
R
\ 8 ! +, !
\ ? 5 2
\ /
2 6 T V 7 2 )
Posttest (
-/ + d +1 ! 532 V E0 > V E0 8 -y
.
) 24 / 0 (P=
C 2D 5 :
>3 ; " H , 7%4 )
Posttest (
# 7:
7 : 3
= LM F , *7 I J4 (df) " D , *7 O % , 7 P Q@=
0/242 1/ 443 11/848 2 23/696 ) 7: I *
8/211 91 747/237 ) 7: ;
93 770/934 8 Q%D
C 2D 6 :
>3
; 3 4 7 % *
7 ; 3 ; -9 !
! 532 rG1 G[! 32 L B > 2 LY.[ / /
0/28
0/01
/ 0 47674
0/48462
-0/73187
-1/4233
9 , 0
.51
2
0/28
0/33
/ 0 47674
0/48462
73187 / 0
69148 / 0 -
2
.51
9 , 0
0/01
0/33
0/48462
0/48462
4233 / 1
0 / 69148
2
9 , 0
.51
? 8 26 1 + e . 6
+, 1 X G2 > > 92
0 B.2 ! .51 ( ! + 2 ( ! + + 9 .U 7
+. 9 , 0 .
V 7 > V E0
( ! + .51 ( ! + 2 ! 532 2 )
01 / 0 P= (.
56
e . S IB0 Wn @ 2 > > 92
+,
+1 / 2 6 T !
)
Posttest
( .U V 7
2 6 4 + 9 )
Pretest
( +.
.
!
V 7 > 2 .51 20
/ 12 + 2 6 4 !
78 / 12 ! 1 1! 2 6 T !
Downloaded from zums.ac.ir at 10:57 IRDT on Monday May 8th 2017
X 0 0 + V 7 > 2 9 , 0 2 67
/ 11 +
09 / 12 54 / 12 + 18 / 13 1 1!
. 5m / V E0 >
/
/ +, +, 2 > > 92 > D 9 ! 532 ( ! +1 / +1
U .
V 7 V E0
> ! 2 6 T 2 6 4 9 ! 532 +1
2 26 1 + e . LY[
! 7
4
B.2 ! V 7 V E0 2 6 T 2 6 > 0 ! 532 2 .51
) 05 / 0 p<
(
7 .51
5. .U .
+, 1 > ? 2 >
( ! +
( ! > 0 H 2 .51 X 0 0 + 2 9 , 0 ( !
7 ! H 2 ( ! > 2 1 > 2 5 9 2 . e . 8! [ IIB2 5m V 3D G2 )
16 15 ( +,
+, , @ n + Y9g + 9 0 H 2 ( ! .51 2 ( ! +
2 9 , 0 +,
+3D G2 e . c7/ Y2 , j @
! I G2 .
30 26 1 + e . R
( ! 2 ( ! 6 ! +, 9g + 2 V 3D G2 e . 32 ( ! > 0 H 2 9 , 0 )
18 17 (
! V t2 .
+. ! H 0 +G ! ! 58 QB0
H 2 592 +. z / 7 ! Wn @ W2 >
. W2 > +, 1 2 J +
+. ! 7U2 4I
H 0 V 9H
>
W2 7 . 2
V 3D G2 .
1 .
3 *
e . E.1 +, S IB0 > Wn @
( ! + .51 ! 8 2 ( ! +1 > ! ( ! > 0 H 2
2 +3D G2 >
> D + , 1! 2 + +. !
U5 /
( 26 ( ! .51 ( ! + ( 26 ! 5, ! 0 2 > .U 5 . 0 9 U 9 , 0 2 > 0 H 2
5 ! ( ! ! AI S IB0 > +, m
+. ! !
K L / M! ! 1 !
1 + 6 Wn @ e . )D /
M ! / +. !
- 730 W g .
+ M ! @ R > 5_7/
2 ( !
2 9 , 0 9 U S IB0 > e . 5 0
.
+. '
.B2 32 K
/
+, 1 !
7 ! ! 2 S IB0 > 8 ! I0 U
0
! - ! .
References
1- Hislop GH. Does teaching online take more time? 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference; October 10 – 12; Reno (2001).
2- Algamdi SJ. Comparative analysis of face-to- face and online course offerings. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning.2004;4:29-40.
3- González- Pueyo I. Language arts and disciplines. Peter Lang AG ,International Academic Publishers; Switzerland.2009.229pp 4- Moraddikhazaei Z, MoinZadeh A, Ketabi S.
Willingness to communicate in Iranian EFL learners: The effect of class size. English Language Teaching. 2012; 5:181.
5- Inanloo Khajloo A. Problems in teaching and learning English for students. International
Downloaded from zums.ac.ir at 10:57 IRDT on Monday May 8th 2017
Journal of Engineering Research and Development. 2013; 7:56-8.
6- Freemab VS. Focus: Online education and technology introduction. . Journal of the American Society for Medical Technology. 2010;
23:51-2.
7- Coll J. Teacher and learner autonomy in electronic foreign language classroom. UNTELE Conference; 17-20 March; France (2004) .
8- Russell TL. No significant difference phenomenon (NSDP). Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 1999; 2:52-8
9- Johnson M. Introductory biology online:
Assessing outcomes of two student populations.
Journal of College Science Teaching. 2002;5:
307-12.
10- Carey MJ. Effective student outcomes: A comparison of online and face-to-face delivery
modes. 2001. Available from:
http://www.ed.psu.edu/ascde/deos/deosnews/deos archives.asp
11- Maki RH, Maki W S, Patterson M, Whittaker PD. Evaluation of a web-based introductory psychology course: learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture courses. behavior research methods. Instruments, & Computers.2000;32:230- 9
12- Thomas PY. Effect of computer-based instruction on performance in physics:
[Dissertation] .University of Botswana; 2001.
13- Johnson D R J, Learning together and alone.
3ed. Allyn & Bacon: United States,(1991).
14- Rovai A P, Jordan HM. Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2004;5: 62-71
15- Ponzurick T, France K, Logar C. Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance education. Journal of Marketing Education. ( 2000): 180-5
16- Terry N, Owens J, Macy A. Student performance in the virtual versus traditional classroom.Journal of the Academy of Business Education. 2001;2(1):1-4
17- Reasons G, Slavkin V. Questioning the hybrid model:Student outcomes in different course formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning.
2005; 9:83-94.
18- Nagel D. Meta-Analysis: Is blended learning most effective? Available from:
http://thejournal.com/Articles/2009/07/01/Meta- Analysis-Is-Blended-Learning-Most-
Effective.aspx?Page=1 .(2009) .
Downloaded from zums.ac.ir at 10:57 IRDT on Monday May 8th 2017
Comparing the Effectiveness of Online, Traditional and Blended Modes of Instruction in an ESP Course forMedical and Pharmacy Students
Soheili O1, KarimkhanloueiG2, Ahadian M3
Zanjan Azad University,Zanjan,Iran
Dept. of English Language ,Medical School, Medical School, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences,Zanjan,Iran pharmacy School, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences,Zanjan,Iran
Corresponding Author :KarimkhanloueiG ,Dept. of English Language, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences,Zanjan, Iran
Email:[email protected]
Received: 14 Jun 2015 Accepted: 31 Oct 2015
Background and Objective: The rapid emergence of technology in education contexts may lead many ESP teachers to integrate the new technology into their classroom. This study aimed to investigate the effects of online learning, traditional learning and blended learning on university students' achievement in an ESP course, taking field of study and gender into account as well.
Materials and Methods: The subjects of this study included 94 male and female, (62 female and 32 male), undergraduate Iranian students from Zanjan University of Medical Sciences in two fields of study: pharmacy and medicine. 61 of the subjects were students of medicine and 33 were pharmacy students in the age range of 18 - 21. Pretest and posttest were used to compare population mean scores for the learning gain before and after the course delivery in each group. To determine if there is a difference in students' achievement using the three modes of delivery, students' final exam scores were compared.
Results: The study results indicated that in traditional group, students scored higher than the online and blended groups. This difference between traditional and online group was significant. Also findings showed that students' field of study and gender did not have any significant effect on their achievement.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that traditional learning was the most effective mode in students' achievement, blended learning was the second effective mode and online learning was the least effective one.
Keywords: Traditional learning, Online learning, Blended learning, ESP, Achievement
Downloaded from zums.ac.ir at 10:57 IRDT on Monday May 8th 2017
