Title

Self-Assessment of Teacher-Fronted and Student-

Centered Classroom Activities among Iranian Elementary
and Intermediate Learners of English as a Foreign
Language

Author

A’zam Shams (M.A.)

Payam-e-Noor University of Gachsaran, Gachsaran, Iran

Bio Data
A’zam Shams teaches ESP courses at Payam-e-Noor University of
Gachsaran, Gachsaran, Iran. Her research interests include teacher
education, material development, and teaching methodology.

Abstract

With the shift in language teaching toward a more learner-

centered approach, learners' opinions should be necessarily
observed in the choice of any teaching and learning activity.
In order to get some useful information from the learners to
improve the teaching/learning situation, a small-scale study
was conducted. 66 Iranian female learners (36 elementary and
30 intermediate) from Farzanegan English Language Institute
in Gachsaran participated in this study. The learners
experienced four types of classroom activities; teacher-
fronted grammar (TFG), teacher-fronted fluency (TFF),
student-centered grammar (SCG), and student-centered fluency
(SCF) activities, during two months and then they were asked
to evaluate them via a 4-item questionnaire in terms of

1
 relaxation, learning, enjoyment, and confidence, by rating
on 5-point scales and writing reasons for their ratings. The
results showed that there were some significant differences
among the different levels of students. The results of this
research can be used by those involved in the field of
language teaching.
Key words: Self-assessment, Learner-centered approach,
Teacher-fronted activities, Student-centered activities
1. Introduction
Involving learners in the assessment of teaching and learning
activities is not a new topic for TEFL educators. It has
triggered a number of studies on learners' judgments and
attitudes towards classroom activities. Nunan (1989, cited in
Noora, 2008) reports two Australian studies that show learners
favor traditional learning activities over more communicative
activity types. Some students want more opportunities to
participate in free conversation, expressing their wish towards a
more communicatively oriented approach. On the other hand, there
are those who would prefer more emphasis on grammar teaching. In
a study of learners’ views about teacher-fronted activities and
student-centered activities, Garrett and Shortall (1994) examined
the views of 103 Brazilian EFL students at beginner, elementary
and intermediate level on teacher-fronted activities (whole-class
work) and student-centered tasks (group and pair work activities)
and found that intermediates make great benefits from group work
and pair work over whole-class activities. They felt that teacher
-fronted activities are monotonous, while group work and pair
work provide more opportunities for them to use English.
Beginner and elementary learners favored teacher-fronted
activities more than group work and pair work activities. Their
negative comments on the student-centered work focused on their

2
use of mother tongue in pair work and also the domination of
higher group members on the group activities. Barkhuisen's (1998)
study was a larger-scale which surveyed perceptions of around 600
students in a high school in South Africa about the enjoyment and
usefulness of 15 classroom activities and again reported
learners' resistance to participating in communicative-type
activities and their preference for more ‘traditional’ classroom
work (p.95). In an attempt to investigate the issue of learners'
preferences of the methodology of learning a foreign language,
Kavaliauskiene (2003) found from his research that more than half
of the learners favor communicative approach to perfecting their
language skills by working in pairs/small groups, taking part in
projects and practicing English by talking to their peers. In a
recent study of Vietnamese learners by Tomlinson & Dat (2004),
69.7% of the student respondents said that they enjoyed group
work but claimed that some factors like linguistic limitations,
performance anxiety, and classroom atmosphere that doesn't
stimulate discussion inhibited them from taking active roles in
class and student-centered activities (pp. 208- 211). Storch
(2007) conducted a study to investigate the merits of pair work
by comparing pair and individual work on an editing task and
found that students sometimes seem reluctant to work in pairs,
particularly on grammar-focused tasks. The results suggested that
although pair work on a grammar-focused task may not lead to
greater accuracy in completing the task, pair work provides
learners with opportunities to use the second language for a
range of functions, and in turn for language learning.

However, upon review of the literature found in this area, it

becomes clear that although a number of studies have been
conducted internationally on the learners' judgments of different

3
classroom activities; similar research is relatively new and
undeveloped in Iran. Therefore, the goal of this research is to
examine learners' judgments of what they gain from different
types of classroom activities in order to help teachers, in
general, and Iranian EFL teachers, in particular, to be more
effective in their career. With regard to the above mentioned
issues the following research question was addressed in this
study:
How do Iranian elementary and intermediate EFL learners judge
their experience of teacher-fronted activities compared to
student-centered activities?
2. Methodology
2.1 Participants
Sixty-six Iranian EFL learners and four language teachers from
Farzanegan Language Institute in Gachsaran participated in this
study. For the sake of convenience and accessibility, all of
subjects were females. They were all native speakers of Persian
and their age range was 14 to 30, with a mean of 22.
2.2 Instruments
Three instruments were used to gather the relevant data for this
study:
a. Proficiency test: to be sure that the learners were placed
into right level of proficiency, elementary and intermediate, a
chosen revised version standard NELSON test (1976) consisting of
60 multiple choice and cloze test type questions was administered.
It lasted 90 minutes and was to test the learners’ knowledge of
vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension.
b. Classroom activities: Classroom activities were devised in
conjunction with the researcher and the other four teachers whose
classes participated in the study. The activities were as follow:
(a) teacher-fronted grammar activities, (b) teacher-fronted

4
fluency activities (c) student-centered grammar activities (d)
student-centered fluency activities.
c. Self-assessment questionnaire: The self-assessment
questionnaire was generated from the review of related literature
to fit the purpose of the study. In order to test its internal
consistency reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was obtained. Results
showed an alpha coefficient of .71, indicating an acceptable
degree of internal consistency for the instrument. Since the
questionnaire was the most important source of information for
the research, for the sake of ease of understanding and accuracy
of data, it was translated in clear explicit Persian and invited
responses in Persian so that the learners understood all the
items in the questionnaire correctly. (An English translation of
the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A). In order to obtain
both quantitative and qualitative data, the questionnaire was
divided into two parts: the closed question section and the open-
ended question section.
The closed question section: After doing each task, the learners
were asked to evaluate them by rating them in terms of relaxation,
learning value, enjoyment, and confidence on a 5-point semantic
differential scale, with 5 indicating a favorable judgment (e.g.,
very helpful for learning) whereas 1 indicated an unfavorable
evaluation.
The open-ended question section: This part aimed to identify
learners’ reasons for their choices. Then, each closed question
followed by an open-ended item asking learners to say why they
responded on the scale.
2.3 Design and Procedure
The study was conducted at Farzanegan Language Institute in
Gachsaran and lasted 2 months. Four language teachers and 66
language learners (36 elementaries and 30 intermediates) involved

5
in this study. Four mentioned classroom activities (TFG, TFF, SCG,
and SCF) were designed for the students to experience and then
evaluate in a questionnaire according to their own judgments. To
avoid novelty effects, all the activities were familiar to the
students. The teachers were asked to integrate the activities
into the normal day-to-day lessons of the learners during their
regular class hour. Then, to make sure that the learners in each
class were assigned the right level, a 60-item proficiency test,
NELSON test (1976) was administered in 90 minutes. The
reliability coefficient of the proficiency test was obtained by
Kuder-Richardson formula (KR-21) and the obtained reliability of
the test was .79. After scoring, the researcher ensured that the
learners were placed into the right level, elementary and
intermediate levels. Then, both Elementary and intermediate
learners were randomly and equally divided into two sections. So,
there were two elementary sections with 18 students in each
section, and two intermediate classes with 15 learners in per
section. One section of elementary learners and one section of
intermediate learners were named teacher-fronted (TF) sections,
whereas student-centered (SC) sections were assigned to the two
other sections. TF sections received TF classroom activities, and
SC sections carried out SC tasks. The sections were been
administered tasks appropriate to their levels. During the first
month of the treatment, students in TF classes had TFG, whereas
SC classes carried out SCG tasks. For the second month TF classes
experienced TFF activities, While SC classes performed on SCF
tasks. At the end of each month, all participants were given
questionnaires and were asked to rank it on the questionnaire
based on their judgments on a 5-point scale, with 5meaning a
favorable judgment, whereas 1 indicated an unfavorable evaluation.

6
3. Results
3.1 Scales Data
Tables 1 and 2 display the frequencies and percentages of
participants' ratings on each scale for each type of activity by
learner level on all the four item questions of the
questionnaires (make me feel relaxed, are helpful for learning,
are a lot of fun, produce confidence).
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics (Elementary Learners)
Question Scale TFG Task TFF Task SCG Task SCF Task

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

1 __ __ __ __ __ __
2 5 __ __ __ __
1 3 27.8 1 2 11.1 __
4 3 5.6 5 __
5 16.7 __ 27.8 1
3 __ 11 61.1 5.6
16.7 11 8
7 61.1 44.4
38.9 6 9
33.3 50.0
1 __ 2 1 5
2 __ 11.1 5.6 27.8
2 3 5 2 1 1
4 27.8 11.1 5.6 5.6
5 3 __ 1 __
16.7 __ 5.6 __
3 4 5 6
16.7 22.2 27.8 33.3
7 10 10 6
38.9 55.6 55.6 33.3
1 __ __ __ 2
2 __ __ __ 11.1
3 3 2 __ 1 2
4 11.1 __ 5.6 11.1
5 3 3 4 1
16.7 16.7 22.2 5.6
6 8 3 8
33.3 44.4 16.7 44.4
7 7 10 5
38.9 38.9 55.6 27.8
1 __ __ __ __
2 __ __ __ __
4 3 2 2 2 4
4 11.1 11.1 11.1 22.2
5 __ __ 1 1
__ __ 5.6 5.6

7
 5 9 8 7
27.8 50.0 44.4 38.9
11 7 7 6
61.1 38.9 38.9 33.3

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics (Intermediate Learners)

Question Scale TFG Task TFF Task SCG Task SCF Task
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Frequency
Percent Percent
1 __ __ __ __ __ __
2 2 1 __ __
1 3 13.3 6.7 2 2
4 1 2 13.3 13.3
5 6.7 13.3 1 __
5 7 6.7 __
33.3 46.7 10 6
7 5 66.7 40.0
46.7 33.3 2 7
13.3 46.7
1 __ __ 1 __ 3
2 1 6.7 6.7 __ 20.0
2 3 __ __ 3 1 __
4 6 40.0 20.0 6.7 __
5 8 53.3 __ __ 1 2
5 6.7 13.3
33.3 13 5
6 86.7 33.3
40.0 __ 5
__ 33.3
1 2 13.3 __ __ __ 1
2 3 20.0 3 __ 6.7
3 3 3 20.0 20.0 1 2
4 3 20.0 2 6.7 13.3
5 4 26.7 13.3 5 5
7 33.3 33.3
46.7 6 3
3 40.0 20.0
20.0 3 4
20.0 26.7
1 __ __ 1 __ 1
2 2 13.3 6.7 __ 6.7
4 3 3 20.0 __ 2 __
4 8 53.3 __ 13.3 __
5 2 13.3 1 4 2
6.7 26.7 13.3
8 9 7
53.3 60.0 46.7
5 __ 5
33.3 __ 33.3

8
In order to answer the research question 1, a Mann-Whitney test
was run. Table 3 illustrates the results.
Table 3 Mann-Whitney Test Results for Learners' Opinions on Grammar-Focused
and Fluency-Focused Activities

Q/ Level M R TF Group M R SC Group U Sig (2-

Activity tailed)

1 / G 21.81 15.19 102.500 0.052

Elementary (N1 & N2=18)

Intermediate (N1 & N2=15) 11.50 19.50 52.500 0.007

2 / G Elementary (N1 & N2 =18) 21.44 15.56 109.000 0.069

Intermediate (N1 & N2=15) 12.93 18.07 74.000 0.079

3 / G Elementary (N1 & N2 =18) 17.44 19.56 143.500 0.522

Intermediate (N1 & N2=15) 12.90 18.10 73.500 0.092

4 / G Elementary (N1 & N2 =18) 19.69 17.31 140.500 0.457

Intermediate (N1 & N2=15) 15.70 15.30 109.500 0.895

1 / F Elementary (N1 & N2 =18) 21.08 15.92 115.500 0.128

Intermediate (N1 & N2=15) 11.90 19.10 58.500 0.017

2 / F Elementary (N1 & N2 =18) 21.47 15.53 108.500 0.072

Intermediate (N1 & N2=15) 13.30 17.70 79.500 0.134

3 / F Elementary (N1 & N2 =18) 18.89 18.11 155.000 0.811

Intermediate (N1 & N2=15) 12.50 18.50 67.500 0.051

4 / F Elementary (N1 & N2 =18) 22.00 15.00 99.000 0.025

Intermediate (N1 & N2=15) 12.73 18.27 71.000 0.065

(Q= item question; G = grammar-focused activities; F = fluency-focused

activities; N1= number of learners in TF group; N2= number of
learners in SC group; α = .05)

As Table below presents, elementary learners in TF group

9
gave higher scores than the learners in SC group for all item
questions and activities, except for item question 3 of grammar-
focused activities. But, these differences were statistically
significant just in two areas: On item question 1 about grammar-
focused activities the elementary learners' views in TF group
were significantly different from the opinions of those in SC
group, U (18) = 102.500, p = 0.052. Also, on item question 4
about fluency-focused activities the elementary learners' views
in TF group differed significantly from the judgments of those in
SC group, U (18) = 99.000, p = 0.025. In addition, according to
the table, the p value for item question 2 about grammar-focused
activities is 0.069 which is very close to 0.05, and there is the
possibility of being significant. Since the power of parametric
tests is more than the power of non-parametric tests, the
parametric equivalent of Mann-Whitney Test, independent sample t-
test, was used to see whether this value is significant or not.
The results of the independent sample t-test shows that the
difference between the elementary learners' assessments of item
question 2 about grammar-focused activities in TF and SC groups
was significantly different, t (34) = 2.327, p = .042< 0.05.

As can be observed in Table 3, intermediate learners in SC

group gave higher scores than the learners in TF group for all
item questions and activities, except for item question 4 of
grammar-focused activities. But, these differences were
statistically significant just in three following areas: Firstly,
intermediate learners' judgments of grammar-focused activities on
item question 1 in SC group were different from the views of the
learners in SC group significantly, U (15) = 52.500, p = 0.007.
Secondly, in SC group intermediate learners' opinions about
fluency-focused activities on item question 1 differed from the

10
learners' views in TF group significantly, U (15) = 58.500, p =
0.051. Thirdly, the judgments of intermediate learners in SC
group about fluency-focused activities on item question 3
differed from the views of learners in TF group significantly, U
(15) = 67.500, p = 0.017. Moreover, based on the table, the p
value for item question 4 about fluency-focused activities is
0.065 which is very close to 0.05, and there is the possibility
of being significant. To test verify this, an independent sample
t-test, was applied to find if this value is significant or not.
The results of the independent sample t-test shows that the
difference between the intermediate learners' assessments of item
question 4 about fluency-focused activities in SC and TF groups
was not significantly different, t (28) = 1.950, p = .061 > 0.05.

3.2 Open-Ended Data

We now look at the open-ended data for discovering the learners'
reasons for the ratings they gave. We include here qualitative
data relating only to those quantitative comparisons which
revealed significant differences.
a. Grammar-Focused Activities:
As Table 4 reported, the learners found significant differences
in the grammar activity type in three areas: Elementary learners
saw TFG activities more relaxing and helpful for learning than
SCG work. And intermediate learners perceived SCG tasks more
relaxing than TFG activities.
Elementary learners:
On item question 1 (make me feel comfortable), elementary
learners rated TFG activities higher than SCG activities. Then,
for elementary learners teacher-fronted activities are more
relaxing than student-centered tasks. In keeping with the
quantitative data, their comments on the comfort level of TFG

11
tasks were 55.6% positive, 27.8% negative, and 16.7% neutral.
Their positive comments on the comfort level of TFG activities
focused on: class atmosphere (All the students are active and in
such environments I become eager to participate in the task),
opportunities for practice and participation (There are many
opportunities for me to practice the rules through the drills),
and teacher's presence, feedback, and support (I learn better
when I work with the teacher. She helps me if I need her).

Although they completely avoided giving negative comments on

the comfort level of SCG activities, other comments seem to point
to the notion of 'it depends': (I think it depends on how much my
partner is proficient and active).
On item question 2 (are helpful for learning), elementary
learners scored TFG tasks higher than SCG activities. So, for
elementary learners teacher-fronted activities are better for
learning than student-centered tasks. Their comments on the
leaning value of TFG tasks were 55.6% positive, 27.8% negative,
and 16.7% neutral.
The learners who rated TFG tasks high on 'helpful for learning'
focused their positive comments on: improvement of listening,
pronunciation, and grammar (Listening to the teacher, I learn
correct English), and better remembrance of the grammatical
points (The rules are fixed in my memory through repetition).

Their negative comments on the learning value of SCG

activities were about: lack of teacher's error correction (These
tasks don't help me learn correct English because the teacher
can't know if we are doing the tasks correctly or not), and
feeling of doubt (We have a lot of doubts and it causes us to
waste plenty of time just on discussion. So, we have less time to

12
practice.)
Intermediate learners:
On item question 1 (make me feel comfortable), intermediate
learners rated SCG activities higher than TFG activities. Then,
for intermediate learners student-centered activities are more
relaxing than teacher-fronted tasks. Their comments on the
comfort level of SCG tasks were 80% positive, 13.3% negative, and
6.7% neutral.
The comments of the learners who favored the comfort level of SCG
tasks were mainly focused on: partner's support and help (If I
didn't understand the point, I ask my partner immediately), lack
of stress and fear (Working with a peer, I don't feel fear of
making mistake), deeper and better understanding (I understand
the point better when I receive my partner's explanation), being
of the same age, rank, and level (Two persons of the same age
always feel comfortable to work with each other), and information
sharing (I benefited from the information sharing with my
partner).

The comments from the learners feeling less comfort from TFG
tasks mentioned: fear and shame of teacher (I feel tense when I
have to work with the teacher. I do not like to be corrected by
the teacher in front of other students).
b. Fluency-Focused Activities:
Turning back to the results of Table 4, we see that learners
differentiated fluency-focused work from grammar- focused
activities in three cases. Elementary learners received more
confidence from TFF activities than SCF work. While for
intermediate learners, SCF tasks produced more confidence than
TFF activities. Also, intermediates found SCF work more fun than
TFF tasks.

13
Elementary learners:
On item question 4 (produce confidence), elementary learners
rated TFF activities higher than SCF activities. Then, for
elementary learners teacher-fronted activities produce more
confidence than student-centered tasks. Their comments on the
sense of confidence from TFF tasks were 88.9% positive and 11.1%
negative.
Learners reporting more confidence for TFF tasks focused on:
teacher's support, help, and feedback (Getting help and support
from the teacher constantly, makes me able to do the activity
well which gives me the sense of confidence), lack of the feeling
of fear and stress (It produces confidence in me since I can ask
the teacher what I want without any stress), learning new words
(I feel as I learn more new words my English is improved and this
gives me a sense of confidence).

Those who rated SCF low in 'produce confidence' focused on:

lack of teacher's explanation and feedback (There is nobody to
correct our mistakes, so I do not feel confident),
and use of L1 (Sometimes we are really unable to communicate in
English. Then, we resort to Persian)
Intermediate learners:
On item question 1 (make me feel comfortable), intermediate
learners scored SCF activities higher than TFF activities. Thus,
for intermediate learners student-centered activities are more
relaxing than teacher-fronted tasks. Their comments on the
comfort level of SCF tasks were 86.7% positive and 13.3% negative
Their favorable comments on the comfort level of SCF activities
were about: partner's help (I don't face a lot of troubles and
problems to do the task. My partner helps me), lack of the
feeling of stress, fear, and shame (Working with a classmate

14
eliminates the feeling of stress and makes me relaxed),
exchanging information (We exchange and share our information and
we learn many things in this way), and interaction and
cooperation (Interaction with partners creates a friendly and
warm climate that facilitates our learning and improves our
relationships).

Those learners who rated TFF tasks low on 'make me feel

comfortable' expressed one negative comment: (I'm not as fast
and proficient as the teacher. I prefer to work with some one of
my pace).
On item question 3 (are a lot of fun), intermediate learners
scored SCF tasks higher than TFF activities. So, for intermediate
learners student-centered activities are more fun than teacher-
fronted tasks. Their comments on the enjoyment from SCF tasks
were 46.7% positive, 20% negative, and 33.3% neutral.
Many of the comments from the learners seeing a lot of fun in SCF
tasks were focused on: interesting and fun environment (Although
I sometimes feel a little tense, it is an interesting class. We
laugh at our mistakes when the teacher is not around), group
spirit and interaction (I think it is fun. We sit near each other
and do the task with each other. We also talk in Persian about
things other than our assignments), and lack of feeling of
pressure, anxiety, and fatigue (The class is not monotonous. We
do not have to sit and feel bored. We are active).

The learners who recorded less fun for TFF activities

commented on: lack of stimulation
(These tasks are complicated and tiring for me).

4. Discussion and Conclusion

15
The results from the Mann-Whitney Test proposed that language
level is an important factor in finding and explaining learners'
preferences for TF or SC activities. Elementary learners made
three evaluative distinctions between TF and SC tasks. Similarly,
for intermediate learners there were three areas of significant
differences between TF and SC activities. Strikingly, all the
three differences that elementary learners reported show their
tendency towards the TF activities, while the three areas of
evaluative distinctions that intermediate learners made between
TF and SC tasks show their preferences for SC tasks over TF
activities. Elementaries regarded TFG tasks more relaxing, and
also more helpful for learning than SCG activities. In addition,
they claimed that TFF activities produce more confidence than SCF
tasks. For intermediates SCG tasks were more relaxing than TFG
activities. Moreover, they said that SCF activities are more
relaxing and fun than TFF tasks.

These results suggest that on the relaxation dimension,

elementary learners saw more benefits from TFG tasks, while
intermediate learners found SCG activities more relaxing. Where
elementary learners saw advantages like teacher's presence and
support or more drilling and repetition occurring from TFG tasks,
intermediate learners commented on the deeper and better
understanding they gained from SCG work. Also, elementary
learners perceived learning value from teacher-fronted grammar-
focused activities and not from student-centered tasks (neither
grammar-focused nor fluency-focused tasks). This result supports
the ideas from Tyacke & Mendelsohn (1986) and Gowers and Walters
(1983, cited in Garrett and Shortall, 2002, p. 44 ) that
learners of lower levels tend to be much more dependent on the
teacher. It also is consistent with the claims made by Naiman et

16
al. (1978) that learners commonly expect some aspects of language
learning to be frustrating and discouraging (as cited in Garrett
and Shortall, 2002, p. 44).

Turning to preferences for teacher involvement and fronting,

elementary learners showed a strong perception that teacher's
presence and support improves learning in grammar-focused
activities. They commented on the value of the teacher's modeling,
feedback, and error correction. They felt that the opportunities
that teacher provides for repetition and practice cause better
understanding of the rules (Teacher modeling and drilling helps
me learn better pronunciation and grammar rules). It is evident
that elementaries are aware of this fact that in the early stages
this is more difficult to learn and progress in the absence of
the teacher. They are seeing the importance of the teacher's
presence for their progress and they feel that without the
teacher it is too hard to learn.

But intermediates did not share this. For them, grammar

learning is not affected by the manner (TF or SC) in which they
may receive the activities. It can be assumed that there is
indeed a gradual preference emerging for less teacher
intervention, as the learners reach higher levels of
proficiency. Then, as Garrett and Shortall (2002, p. 45) believe,
intermediates have perhaps reached the point at which they see
themselves able to move away from totally teacher-fronted
activities and gain from less tightly controlled student-centered
work. They now need to escape the pressure, to laugh, and to feel
they can get things wrong. Perhaps it is the reason why they
differentiated the enjoyment and the comfort level dimensions
from SCF tasks. According to their comments, these kinds of

17
activities allow them a break from the teacher and also provide
for them some enjoyable language-focused recreation. Hence, there
are here some signs of a movement towards more communicative
independence. While for elementary learners fluency-focused
activities give them a sense of confidence just when they are
proposed to them by the teacher. Their comments yield that TFF
activities gave them significant advantages over SCF tasks (It
produces confidence in me since I can ask the teacher what I want
without any stress.)

References
Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of
ESL classroom
teaching/ learning activities in a South African context.
TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 85- 108.
Garrett, P., & Shortall, T. (1994). Preliminary data on the
effectiveness and enjoyability of different activity types in
foreign language teaching. Revista de Documentação de Estudos em
Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 10: 373–87, São Paulo: DELTA.
Garrett, P., & Shortall, T. (2002). Learners’ evaluations of
teacher-fronted and student-centred classroom activities.
Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 25-57.
Kavaliauskiene, G. (2003). English for specific purposes:
Learners’ preferences and attitudes. Journal of Language and
Learning, 1(1).
Noora, A. (2008). Iranian undergraduates non-English majors
language learning preferences.
GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 8 (2), 33-44.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a
text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11,
143-159.
18
Tomlinson, B., & Dat, B. (2004). The contribution of Vietnamese
learners of English to ELT methodology. Language Teaching
Research, 8(2), 199-222.

Appendix A:
19
English Translation of Persian-language questionnaire

TFG activities …………..

4 3 2 1
make me make me feel

feel 5 pressure and because………………

relaxed tense

are 4 3 2 1
are not very
helpful
5 helpful for because……………………
for
learning
learning

are a lot 5 4 3 2 1 are not much because………………

of fun fun

4 3 2 1

5
produce produce
because…….….
confidence depression

20