A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TEACHING METHODS IN ESP COURSES

Authors

  • Esmail Zare-Behtash Associate Professor of English Literature, Chabahar Maritime University, Iran
  • Omid Khatin Zadeh PhD student of TEFL, Chabahar Maritime University, Iran
  • Hassan Banaruee PhD student of TEFL, Chabahar Maritime University, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v0i0.789

Keywords:

ESP courses, English only policy, bilingual teaching

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of two different methods of teaching in ESP courses. To achieve this objective, two groups of students of Economics were selected for the study. Each group consisted of 20 participants. Their level of proficiency in English and subject matter was tested by a sample of Michigan TOEFL test and a pre-test. The two groups were at the same level of proficiency in both general English and English for Students of Economics before receiving treatment. The first group attended a two-month ESP course whose medium of instruction was a combination of English and Persian. The second group attended a two-month ESP course whose medium of instruction was solely English. After this period of treatment, the two groups were tested by a post-test. The results showed that the second group was more successful in the post-test. These results suggest that those learners who are proficient in English and subject matter benefit more from courses that are taught solely in English. Finally, it was concluded that level of knowledge in English and subject matter, nature of the subject (theoretical or applied), and the skills that are the focus of the course are the main characteristics that must be taken into account in the process of planning for ESP courses.  

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

References

Afzal, S. (2013). Using of the first language in English classroom as a way of scaffolding for both the students and teachers to learn and teach English. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4 (7), 1846-1854.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57 (3), 402-423.

Davila, S. L. (2005). Tips and Techniques for the English Only Classroom. http://www.saradavila.com/english/english.doc

Davoudi-Mobarakeh, S., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Barati, H. (2014). Observation and feedback of content specialists versus general English teachers: suggestions to make optimal English for specific purpose courses. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 13

Dujmovic, M. (2007). The use of Croatian in the EFL classroom. Metodicki Obzori 2 (1), 91-100. Retrieved on June 12, 2016 from: http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/19437

Ghanbari, B., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2012). ESP practitioner professionalization through apprenticeship of practice: the case of two Iranian ESP practitioners. English Language Teaching, 5, 112-122.

Jafari, S. M., & Shokrpour, N. (2013). The role of L1 in ESP classrooms: A triangulated approach. International Journal of English and Education, 2(3), 90-104.

Jamshidi, A., & Navehebrahim, M. (2013). Learners use of code switching in the English as a foreign language classroom. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(1), 186-190.

Khati, A. (2011). When and why of mother tongue use in English classrooms. Journal of NELTA, 16 (1-2), 42-51.

Khresheh, A. (2012). Exploring when and why to use Arabic in the Saudi Arabian EFL classroom: Viewing L1 use as eclectic technique. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 78-88.

Khoshsima, H., & Khosravani, M. (2014). ESP textbooks criteria: A case study of Iranian Universities. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature. 2347-3134 (Online)

Khoshsima, H., Saed, A., & Ghassemi, P. (2014). The application of ESP principles on course design: the case of English for students of Management and Fisheries. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World. 2289--‐2737(online)

Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher Use of Code-switching in the Second Language Classroom: Exploring "Optimal" Use. In: Turnbull, M., Dailey-O’Cain, J. (Eds.), First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, Bristol, 35-49.

Maleki, A. (2006). ESP teaching: a matter of controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mart, C. T. (2013).The facilitating role of L1 in ESL classes. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(1), 9-14. Retrieved from www.hrmars.com/journals

Mattioli, G. (2004). On native language intrusions and making do with words: Linguistically homogeneous classrooms and native language use, English Teaching Forum, 42 (4), 20-25.

McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English only”. System, 39, 251-263.

Nation, I. S. P. (2005). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J, 581-595.

Rivers, D. J. (2011a). Politics without pedagogy: questioning linguistic exclusion. ELT Journal, 65 (2), 103-113.

Rivers, D. J. (2011b). Strategies and struggles in the ELT classroom: language policy, learner autonomy and innovative practice. Language Awareness, 20 (1), 31-43.

Spahiu, I. (2013).Using native language in ESL classroom. IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 1(2), 243-248. Retrieved from www.eltsjournal.org

Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum, 40 (1), 36-43.

Downloads

Published

2017-06-05

Issue

Vol 2, No 3 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).