The Comparison of Language Learning Strategies and Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Students Taking Web-based and Face-to-face Instruction

Abstract

Abstract-This study investigated language learning strategies used by EFL web-based learners and face-toface learners. It also examined the difference between pre-test and post-test reading comprehension scores of EFL students who were exposed to web-based and face-to-face instruction. The participants of the study were 200 Iranian EFL university students. They were randomly assigned into two groups, 100 students in one group taking web-based instruction and 100 students in the other group taking face-to-face instruction. The students took a 50-item translated version of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning and a test of reading comprehension. This scale and the reading comprehension test were given as the pre-test and post-test to all students. During the treatment, summarization-strategy training was used to promote the learning process. The result of an independent samples t-tests revealed that there was no significant difference between the two groups of learners regarding their preferences for language learning strategies. Moreover, the result of a paired samples t-test indicated that there was significant difference between pre-test and post-test reading comprehension scores of EFL students who were exposed to face-to-face instruction. However, there was no significant difference between pre-test and post-test reading comprehension scores of EFL students who were exposed to web-based instruction.

Online university education is the new normal: but is face-to-face better?

“…However, the authors did find average scores for learning anxiety were significantly lower in the F2F instruction group. Ghonsooly and Seyyedrezaie (2014) found that there were no significant differences between the two groups of learners regarding preferences for language learning strategies and reading comprehension. The study measured the outcome of 200 language students with a 50-item translated version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning and a test of reading comprehension.…”

“…In total, 11 studies, which used standard student performance metrics(e.g. test mark, final grade) found that there were no significant differences between F2F and OL modes (Cavanaugh and Jacquemin, 2015;Driscoll et al, 2012;Ghonsooly and Seyyedrezaie, 2014;Herman and Banister, 2007;Horspool and Yang, 2010;Johnson et al,2000;Pilbeam and Barrus, 2010;Rosell-Aguilar, 2006;Sussman and Dutter, 2010;Woolsey, 2013;Yen et al, 2018). Cavanaugh and Jacquemin (2015) examined a teaching database with information from 140,444 students enrolled across 6,012 university courses and taught by over 100 faculty members between 2010 and 2013. Notable findings were that students with higher GPAs perform even better in online courses or alternatively, struggling students perform worse when taking courses in an online format compared to a F2F format.…”

“…Nine studies used outcome measures, which assessed learning processes, mode-related adaptation,and a range of subjective appraisals of performance or engagement (Driscoll et al, 2012;Ghonsooly and Seyyedrezaie, 2014;Groves et al, 2014;Horspool et al, 2010;Johnson et al, 2000;Kurt and Gürcan, 2010;Rosell-Aguilar, 2006;Woolsey, 2013;Yen et al, 2018). Kurt and Gürcan (2010) and Ghonsooly and Seyyedrezaie (2014) found that there were no significant differences in student learning strategies between F2F and OL. Kurt and Gürcan (2010) investigated the relationship of undergraduate students' success with learning strategies and computer anxiety.…”

Psychological capital development effectiveness of face-to-face, online, and Micro-learning interventions

“…More recent studies have also concluded that there is no significant difference between online and face-to-face instruction for learning languages (Ghonsooly & Seyyedrezaie, 2014 ), evidence-based medicine (Davis et al, 2008 ) fall prevention practices (Maloney et al, 2012 ), and evaluation methodologies (Francescato et al, 2006 ).…”