Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 3289–3309 | Cite as

Investigating medical students’ readiness for technology-mediated autonomous learning situations in ESP programs

  • Iman AlizadehEmail author
  • Farideh Ebrahimi
Article
  • 78 Downloads

Abstract

The use of technology and learner autonomy are two key issues in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) programs. This study aimed to investigate Iranian medical students’ readiness to do ESP tasks based on five situations and discover their reasons for choosing each of the situations. Two of the situations (1 and 2) embodied a conventional autonomous learning process, two (3 and 4) represented a technology-mediated autonomous learning process, and one (5) was based on a self-study method. Data were collected by means of a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The results showed that the students’ choices of the situations in order of priority were situation 2, situation 3, situation 1, situation 5, and situation 4. The themes emerging from the content analysis of the students’ reasons for choosing each of the situations were: Situation 1: concentration, individuality gains, professor, group work problems, and learning gains; Situation 2: professor, information exchange, learning gains, personal contact gains, motivation, confidence, discipline, and Internet problems; Situation 3: professor, information exchange, learning gains, time management, accessibility, face-to-face contact demerits, and discipline; Situation 4: stress free, time and language problems; and Situation 5: concentration, individuality gains, time, and university problems. The study concludes that the majority of the students have a low level of readiness for technology-mediated autonomous learning situations. It suggests that the students’ autonomy be promoted through raising their awareness about, motivation for and confidence in using technology for educational purposes and creating incentives for ESP teachers to foster technology-mediated autonomous learning.

Keywords

Technology Autonomy ESP E-learning Medical students 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all professors and students at Guilan University of Medical Sciences who contributed to the completion of this research project. They specially thank the Deputy for Research and Technology of the university.

References

  1. Ahmadi, R. (2012). Iranian ESP learners’ perceptions of autonomy in language learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(1), 28–34.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajideh, P. (2009). Autonomous learning and metacognitive strategies essentials in ESP class. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 162–168.Google Scholar
  3. Amiri, M. (2000). A study on the English language programs at B.A. level at Tehran universities. Master’s thesis, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.Google Scholar
  4. Anaraki, N. L., & Babalhavaeji, F. (2013). Investigating the awareness and ability of medical students in using electronic resources of the integrated digital library portal of Iran: A comparative study. The Electronic Library, 31(1), 70–83.Google Scholar
  5. Arnَ-Macià, E. (2012). The role of Technology in Teaching Languages for specific purposes courses. The Modern Language Journal, 96(Focus Issue), 89–104.Google Scholar
  6. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Berge, Z. (1998). Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary institutions: Can policy changes fix it? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  8. Bruce, B. (1993). Innovation and social change. In B. Bruce, J. K. Peyton, & T. Batson (Eds.), Network-based classrooms: Promises and realities (pp. 9–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bulter-Pascoe, M. E. (2009). English for specific purposes (ESP), innovation, and technology. English education and ESP, 1–15.Google Scholar
  10. Candy, P. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. California: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Chan, V. (2010). Readiness for learner autonomy: What do our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 505–518.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120078045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 195–205.Google Scholar
  13. Cotterall, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing language courses. ELT Journal, 54(2), 109–117.Google Scholar
  14. DeJonckheere, M., & Vaughn, L. M. (2019). Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: A balance of relationship and rigour. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7, e000057.  https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Dornyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2009). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Dukić, D. (2013). Online databases as research support and the role of librarians in their promotion: The case of Croatia. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 37(1–2), 56–65.Google Scholar
  18. Eslami, R. Z. (2010). Teachers’ voice vs. students’ voice: A needs analysis approach to English for academic purposes (EAP) in Iran academic purposes (EAP) in Iran. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
  19. Felix, U. (2005). E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: The need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(1), 85–100.Google Scholar
  20. Ghoreishi, M., Nadi, M. A., Manshee, G., & Saeedian, N. A. (2017). Thematic analysis of the conceptual framework of E-learning in higher education. Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci, 8(1), e11498.Google Scholar
  21. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112.Google Scholar
  22. Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Hashemi, M., & Azizinezhad, M. (2011). Computer assisted language learning freedom or submission to machines? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 832–835.Google Scholar
  24. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  25. Horváthová, B. (2011). Development of competences of the autonomous student in professional language teaching through e-learning. XLinguae.eu: A Trimestral European. Scientific Language Review, 3(1), 27–33.Google Scholar
  26. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1–15.Google Scholar
  27. Jafari, S., Ketabi, S., & Tavakoli, M. (2017). Advanced and intermediate EFL learners’ perceptions and practices of autonomous learning. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 70–90.Google Scholar
  28. Jiménez-Crespo, M. Á. (2014). Building from the ground up: On the necessity of using translation competence models in planning and evaluating translation and interpreting programs. Cuadernos de ALDEEU, 25, 37–67.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, B. R., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kern, N. (2013). Technology-integrated English for specific purposes lessons: Real-life language, tasks, and tools for professionals. In G. Motteram (Ed.), Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching (pp. 87–116). London: The British Council.Google Scholar
  31. Khoramshahi, E. (2015). A needs analysis study on the curriculum of simultaneous interpretation major in applied-scientific comprehensive university. Master’s thesis. Islamic Azad University, Saveh-Science and Research Branch. Saveh, Iran.Google Scholar
  32. Kirtman, L. (2009). Online versus in-class courses: An examination of differences in learning outcomes. Issues in teacher education, 18(2), 103–116.Google Scholar
  33. Koch, T. (1995). Interpretive approaches in nursing research: The influence of Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 827–836.Google Scholar
  34. Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(Supplements 1), 769–782.Google Scholar
  35. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy. 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.Google Scholar
  37. Little, D. (1996). Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In R. Pemberton, S. L. Edward, W. W. F. Or, & H. D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 203–219). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Littlewood, W. (1996). “Autonomy”: An anatomy and a framework. System., 2(4), 427–435.Google Scholar
  39. Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in east Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71–94.Google Scholar
  40. Locke, L. (1989). Qualitative research as a form of scientific inquiry in sport and physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  41. Luzَn-Marco, M. J., & Gonzàlez-Pueyo, M. I. (2006). Using the internet to promote autonomous learning in ESP. In E. Arnَ, A. Soler, & C. Rueda (Eds.), Information Technology in Languages for specific purposes: Issues and prospects (pp. 177–190). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Malekan, F., & Hajimohammadi, R. (2017). The relationship between Iranian ESP learners’ translation ability and resilience in Reading comprehension. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 5(2), 47–52.Google Scholar
  43. Manda, P. A (2005). Electronic resource usage in academic and research institutions in Tanzania. Information Development, 21, (4): 269–282.Google Scholar
  44. Moore, M. (2007). Handbook of distance education. London: Taylor & Frances.Google Scholar
  45. Navidinia, H., Zare Bidaki, M., & Hekmati, N. (2016). Incorporating E-learning in teaching English language to medical students: Exploring its potential contributions. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI), 30(1), 1195–1201.Google Scholar
  46. Oxford, R. L. (2008). Hero with a thousand faces: Learner autonomy, learning strategies and learning tactics in independent language learning. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Language learning strategies in independent settings (pp. 41–63). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  47. Reinders, H. (2010). Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework of independent language learning skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 40–55.Google Scholar
  48. Saffarzadeh, T. (1981). An introduction to the English books published by SAMT. Tehran: SAMT Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Scharle, A., & Szabo, A. (2000). Learner autonomy: A guide to developing learner responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Schmenk, B. (2005). Globalizing learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 107–118.Google Scholar
  51. Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(Suppl 2), 107–131.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245–266.Google Scholar
  53. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wenden, A. (1995). Learner training in context: A knowledge-based approach. System, 3, 83–194.Google Scholar
  55. White, C. (1995). Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning: Research findings. System, 23(2), 207–221.Google Scholar
  56. Zabed, A. S. M. (2013). Use of electronic resources by the faculty members in diverse public universities in Bangladesh. The Electronic Library, 31(3), 290–312.Google Scholar
  57. Zehry, K., Halder, N., & Theodosiou, L. (2011). E-learning in medical education in the United Kingdom. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 3163–3167.Google Scholar
  58. Zhong, Y. (2008). A study of Autonomy English Learning on the Internet. English Language Teaching, 1(2), 147–150.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Nursing & Midwifery and Paramedical SciencesGuilan University of Medical SciencesRashtIran
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringBabol Noshirvani University of TechnologyBabolIran

Personalised recommendations