In this study of English Foreign Language Learners, the author explored the learning preferences of 14 students (ages 18-20) enrolled in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course. All students were provided with the same content, course materials, assignments and time for completing the assignments. They were all given the same pre and post-learning questionnaire, writing tasks and final exam. However, they completed these tasks either in a digital environment or in-class.
The study was conducted at South East European University in Macedonia where digital instruction is not well known or practiced. The results indicate that the best way for students to learn is by combining the two learning environments. By completing an assignment both ways, students discovered not only that some tasks are best done in a digital environment and others in class, but also they discovered their preferred way of learning.
- 2. Bloch, J. (2013). “Technology and ESP.” In Brian Paltridge, & Sue Starfield The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes, 429-447, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
- 3. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
- 4. Dashtestani, R., Stojkovic, N. (2015). The Use of Technology in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Instruction: A Literature Review, The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, Vol. 3, N. 3, Special issue, 435-456.
- 5. Dickinson, M., Eom, S., Kang, Y., Lee, C. H., & Sachs, R. (2008). A balancing act: how can intelligent computer-generated feedback be provided in learner-to-learner interactions? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21 (4), 369-382.
- 6. Kennedy, G.E, Judd, T.S, Churchward, A., Gray, K., Krause, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (1), 108-122.
- 7. Liu, E. Z. F., Ho, H. C., & Song, Y. J. (2011). Effects of an online rational emotive curriculum on primary school students’ tendencies for online and real-world aggression. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10 (3), 83-93.
- 8. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M. & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
- 9. Peridore, S. & Lines, C. (2011). An online educational framework for second language teaching. World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 2011, 365-368.
- 11. Ruane, Janet M. (2005). Essentials of Research Methods A Guide to Social Science Research, Blackwell Publishing, USA.
- 12. Schaber, P., Wilcox, K. J., Whiteside, A., Marsh, L., & Brooks, D. C. (2010). Designing learning environments to foster affective learning: Comparison of classroom to blended learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1-18.
- 13. Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research on K-12 online learning. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved May 2010 from: http://www.ncrel.org/tech/synthesis.
- 14. Somers, C, Owens, D, & Piliawsky, M. (2009). A Study of High School Dropout Prevention and At-Risk Ninth Graders’ Role Models and Motivations for School Completion. Education, 130 (2), 348-356.
- 15. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world, Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
- 16.Ware, P. & Hellmich, E. (2014). CALL in the K-12 Context: Language learning outcomes and opportunities. CALICO Journal, 31(2), 140-157.