qualitative coding

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research Volume 2, Issue 8, 2015, pp. 76-87 Available online at www.jallr.com ISSN: 2376-760X

* Correspondence: Seyyed Mehrdad Aslani, Email: [email protected] © 2015 Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research

Teaching Grammar to Iranian EFL Learners through

Blended Learning Using Multimedia Softwares

Seyyed Mehrdad Aslani *

MA, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran

Hossein Heidari Tabrizi

Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

This study was aimed at investigating the effects of blended learning and multimedia

softwares on Iranian EFL students' grammar learning. To do so, 87 Iranian EFL learners at

elementary level of language proficiency were assigned to three groups: the experimental,

control, and constant groups. A grammar test was given to the students in order to have

homogeneous experimental and control groups before the experiment. The experimental

group received instructions through multimedia softwares, the control group received

traditional instructions, and the constant group used worksheets prepared by their language

school. The data was collected through a grammar post-test, a questionnaire, and classroom

observations. The results showed a great level of disparity between the two groups of

learners regarding their acquisition of new grammar. In other words, multimedia softwares

had positive effect on the students' grammar learning.

Keywords: multimedia softwares, blended learning, teaching grammar, Iranian EFL learners

INTRODUCTION

There is a great interest in using computers and technology in EFL classes (Albirini,

2006; Bartsch & Cobern, 2003; Connor & Wong, 2004; Lee, 2000; Timucin, 2006). This

interest has not been confined in classrooms. curriculum designers have tried to include

computer and technology courses in educational curricula (Atai & Dashtestani, 2011;

Aydin, 2012; Karber, 2001; Madden, Ford, Miller, & Levy, 2005). It has been proved

through the numerous studies that have been done in this field that computers and

technology can facilitate teaching and help the students to learn another language

better (Cancannon, Flynn, & Campbell, 2005; Hermans, Tondeur, Van Braak, & Valke,

2008). Technology has positive effects on students’ motivation (Mahdizadeh, Biemans,

& Mulder, 2008), autonomy (Claudia, Steil, & Todesco, 2004), critical thinking (Lim, Teo,

Wong, Khine, Chai, & Divaharan, 2003).

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(8) 77

Grammar knowledge has been considered as one the most important factors like

vocabulary in academic achievement for second or foreign language learners (Bismonte,

Foley & Petty, 1994; Evans, 1978; Laufer, 1996; Pellow, 1995; Pouwells, 1992; Tozcui &

Coady, 2004; Watts & Bucknum, 1996). Learning grammar unfortunately is not an

enjoyable or easy task for students to handle and teachers are even bored with their

constant complains about the problems that they have in learning and applying what

they have learnt in their speech. Some of their statements are:

- “I cannot speak fluently due to my lack of grammar knowledge.”

- “I do lots of exercises and I review them constantly but I forget them soon.”

- “I really want to improve my grammar but I do not know how.”

By observing and considering the wide interest and the potential capacities of

technology, it is assumed that multimedia softwares and blended learning have positive

effects on students’ grammar learning; therefore, this study has been conducted to show

how multimedia softwares can facilitate grammar teaching and learning.

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Blended learning (BL), a combination of face-to-face teaching with computer technology

(online and offline activities/material), has been recommended by many researches.

Ability to match learning styles, individually tailored solutions, improving the learning

rate, optimizing development cost and time, optimizing business results (reduces travel

costs and learning objectives are obtained quicker), ease of revision, personal agency

(i.e. learner control and choice), and improving the teaching of large groups have been

listed as benefits of employing BL in EFL classes (Dewar &Whittington, 2004;

Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003; Singh & Reed, 2001). Sharma and Barret (2007) consider

convenience, cost, and the ability to work in your own time and at your own pace asthe

major reasons of employing BL in business that are also usable in EFL classes. Hockly’s

views (2011: 58) are not in line with what Sharma and Barret listed before. Hockly

categorizes three other reasons for employing BL in EFL classes.

-Flexibility: University students and adults prefer to match and fit their learning into

their busy lives.

-Ministry of Education: In some contexts teachers are advised to suggest BL options.

-Learners’ expectations: These days learners prefer to have more advanced classes that

are equipped with technology.

The research area here is concerned with comparing traditional instruction that is face-

to-face instruction without CALL and blended learning instruction that is face-to-face

instruction along with CALL.

These studies have been done by Adair-Hauck et al., Bagheri et al., 2012; Barr et al.,

2005; Chenoweth and Murday, 2003; Chenoweth et al., 2006; Echavez-Solano, 2003;

Teaching Grammar through Blended Learning Using Multimedia Softwares 78

Ghabanchi and Anbarestani, 2008; Green and Youngs, 2001; Seida and Saury, 2006;

and Shahrokni, 2009. These researchers came to different results. Some of them

stressed the major role of multimedia in the EFL classrooms and the others found

nothing important. The studies that are not concerned with comparing traditional and

blended learning are called as non-comparison studies. Here the comparison ones are

scrutinized.

Adair-Hauck et al. in 1999 used reading, grammar, and vocabulary CALL programs in

treatment group and his variables were listening, speaking, reading, writing skills, and

cultural knowledge. What they found demonstrated no significant differences between

the groups on speaking, listening, writing, and cultural knowledge. The students were

asked to see videos, do both grammar and vocabulary exercises in Dasher, and read

texts in French. What the results demonstrated was that the students both in treatment

group and control group performed equally on listening and speaking but students in

treatment group had a better performance on reading and writing.

Barr et al. (2005) employed Tell Me More software which is a four-skill software in

their studies. The experiment contained pronunciation drills and role plays with the

software, voice recordings, and surfing the internet. In this research the variables were

listening, speaking, and pronunciation. The experiments indicated that both groups had

achievements, but the group which was not exposed to technology had a greater

progress.

In a comparative study which was done by Chenoweth and Murday (2003) blended

learning group had synchronous chat program using course management system

WebCt. Their variables were grammatical knowledge, listening and reading

comprehension, and written and oral production. The students were asked to send text

chats and emails, and post on the bulletin board and do some exercises in hot potatoes.

The experiments results indicated better performance of experimental group on

writing, but there wasn’t any significance difference between the two groups on oral

production, listening and reading comprehension, and grammatical knowledge.

Echavez-Solano (2003) took language proficiency, listening and speaking skills as their

variables. They utilized course management system Mallard in blended learning group.

Doing asynchronous text chat and watching videos were primarily tasks of the students.

The results demonstrated no significance difference between the two groups.

In 2006 Chenoweth et al. did a similar research in comparing blended learning classes

and traditional ones. Like the previous study (Chenoweth & Murday, 2003) the

technology that utilized was WebCT. The students were supposed to send text chats, e-

mail messages, post on bulletin board, and also do exercises in hot potatoes. Their

variables in this research were the four skills along with vocabulary. The only difference

between this study and the previous one was that they took 21 classes as the control

and 13 classes as the blended learning classes instead of having only 2 classes. The

experiments results indicated no significance difference at any levels between the

groups, but it is worth mentioning some exceptions. For Example one control group had

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(8) 79

a better performance on vocabulary, two control groups performed better on listening

and reading comprehension, one blended group had a better performance on written

production measure and another one performed better on oral production measure.

In 2006 Seida and Saury examined the effect of hybrid course model versus traditional

classroom model on student grades. They also investigated the perceived effect of web-

based vocabulary and grammar drills on students’ abilities. This research revealed the

blended learning group had better grades.

In an Iranian context, Ghabanchi and Anbarestani (2008) tried to seek the possible

effect of CALL programs on acquiring language components and even to see whether

CALL programs have any effect on contextualized learning or not. The results of the

immediate test in this research indicated that the control group had a better

performance, but the results of the delayed test showed better performance of

experimental group. In a similar study which was done by Bagheri, Roohani, and Nejad

Ansari in 2012 they found that there was no significance difference in performance of

CALL users and non-CALL users.

METHOD

Participants

Students

In the first sample 3 students out 50 students did not take the test. The students were

male elementary EFL students of Shokouh Keyhan Language Institute which is located

in the north part of the city of Isfahan, Iran. Their textbook was Four Corners 1, part 2,

by Jack C. Richards in the summer term, 2014. They were 16-30 years old students and

their first language was Persian. In sum, 87 Iranian EFL learners at elementary level of

language proficiency were assigned to three groups: the experimental, control, and

constant groups.

Instructors

All the instructors of Shokouh Keyhan Language Institute who had previously passed

an EFL training course as a requirement of their employment, took part in the study.

The instructors here are all familiar with utilizing multimedia in their classes. Due to the

fact that this institute is a TTC based language school all the instructors go through the

same steps and they all use same materials and worksheets. Their worksheets are

enough complete to include even educational games, so it can be said that all the classes

have the same conditions. Instructors in Shokouh Keyhan language institute are mainly

BA and MA holders. The two selected instructors for this experiment are male MA

holders.

The class setting

All the classes are equipped with speakers, smart markers, computers, and data shows

in Shokouh Keyhan language school. It is worth mentioning that the two classes of both

Teaching Grammar through Blended Learning Using Multimedia Softwares 80

treatment and control group share the same conditions. Based on the prepared

worksheets the instructors choose the more appropriate software among several

softwares available on the computers.

Four Corners series by Jack C. Richards and David Bohlke are the course books for

elementary and intermediate levels in this language school. Four Corners Classware let

the students enjoy the class more and they rarely refer to their printed books in

classroom. The student’s book, class audio, and videos for each level are different

components of Four Corners Class ware. This class ware can be used a whiteboard, a

projector and a computer interactively.

All the classes will be observed randomly by the researcher through the cameras to

check what is going on in the classes. The aim of these observations is to evaluate the

teachers and to see and check the overall conditions of both treatment and control

group classes.

Materials

Selecting the multimedia softwares

For selecting the multimedia softwares, the researcher looked for the best two

softwares on grammar and gained information form more than 20 teachers who are

familiar with softwares. A software evaluation website (http://esl-software-

review.topinterviews.com) was also useful in providing some articles on learning

English and some reviews on ESL softwares. There are certain criteria that the website

evaluates softwares based on them. These criteria are as follow:

a. Features set: images, games, playback and record can be classified here.

b. Fundamentals: It includes basic components of English such as reading, writing,

vocabulary, comprehension, grammar, pronunciation and cultural aspects of speaking

countries.

c. Effectiveness: it deals with how different softwares can satisfy people with different

learning styles.

d. Ease of use: one of the most important features of a good software is its user-

friendliness. People who use these softwares should feel comfort with them without any

difficulties for their lack of knowledge in English or working with computer.

e. Ease of setup

f. Technical support: providing more help and information to support users by email,

phone, and FAQs pages.

Rosetta Stone

This software has been considered as one of the best softwares for learning English. It

includes 200 hours of instructional materials for presenting not only grammar but also

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(8) 81

vocabulary and pronunciation. This software includes variety of visuals and repetitions

to help the users.

Four Corners Multi-Rom

One of the most important features of four corners is its multi-rom. This multi-rom is

available on an extra CD which is on the course book. This multi-rom contains different

parts as vocabulary, conversations, reading, pronunciation and grammar. Every unit has

its own parts and these parts are related to the students’ book. Grammar parts

especially are in harmony with what they have in their books. Different exercises are

available such as filling the blank spaces and choosing the correct response. Through

these exercises students have the opportunity to engage more in an enjoyable setting

and learn the presenting materials better.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire “Technology in the Classroom” by Dudeney and Hockly translated

for the present study. Mackey and Gass (2012) believe that the best questionnaire is one

that is translated and presented in the respondents’ own mother tongue because the

data that is collected through this questionnaire is more precise and qualified.

In order to check the equivalence of the translated version and the original one the

researcher consulted some other bilingual reviewers and went through the

modifications. This 13 item questionnaire prepared to check the students’ attitudes

toward technology and multimedia softwares in EFL classes.

Pre-test

In order to check the homogeneity of both groups a grammar test before the experiment

was administrated. All the students had 10 minutes to complete the test. This test was

in two sections and it included 12 items. The first section had 7 multiple choice

questions and the second section contained 5 items in the form of a cloze test.

Post-test

At the end of the course in order to check the influence of treatment and placebo, a

grammar test which was a teacher-made test based on the presented materials was

administrated. Like the pre-test this test was also in two sections. The first section

contained 7 multiple-choice questions and the second one included 5 items in a cloze

test. To check the reliability of the test, Cronbach’s alpha was utilized. In statistics a

commonly accepted rule of thumb for explaining internal consistency using Cronbach’s

alpha is as follows.

The reliability of our grammar post-test was 0.74 (Cronbach’s alpha) which claimed that

the reliability of this test was good.

Teaching Grammar through Blended Learning Using Multimedia Softwares 82

Table 1. Internal consistency

Cronbach’s alpha Internal consistency Alpha ≥0.9 Excellent (High-Stakes testing) 0.7≤alpha≤0.9 Good (Low-Stakes testing) 0.6≤alpha≤0.7 Acceptable 0.5≤alpha≤0.6 Poor Alpha≤0.5 Unacceptable

Procedure

Before the experiment in order to check the equality of the groups a pre-test was

administrated. It took 1 intensive summer term for the experiment to be done. Classes

were daily classes and each session lasted one hundred minutes. 15 minutes of 5

sessions was devoted to the experiment. Software contents and new structures were

selected and analyzed carefully in relation to the course book. The selected new

structures were related to the title of student’s book, but they were not included in the

student’s book. When the grammatical structures were presented, new grammatical

structures were also introduced.

By using softwares the instructor in experimental group presented the new

grammatical structures, the instructor in control group only went through definitions

and examples. In order to see the effect of treatment and the difference between the two

groups a grammar post-test was administrated at the end of the experiment. Students’

attitudes toward the softwares were asked through questionnaire at the last session.

Treatment and placebo

Both the experiment and control group were introduced to the same grammatical

structures in this study; however the methods of clarification were different. Because

the instructors in this language school are supposed to follow the same worksheet, they

both teach the same materials every day. New grammatical structures were related to

the grammar parts in student’s book.

New grammatical structures were presented through softwares in experimental group

and through definitions and examples in control group at the same time. The instructor

in experimental group was enough aware the softwares to find the related materials as

quickly as possible. The instructors in both groups go through different steps for

reviewing the presented materials. In control group students were asked traditionally,

while in the experimental group they went through prepared exercises and games of the

softwares.

RESULTS

To answer the first research question, the researcher statistically analyzed the scores on

the post test. The descriptive statistics of participants’ performances are presented in

Table 2.

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(8) 83

Table 2. Group statistics on post-test score

Grammar Learning N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Traditional method Blended method

23 24

13.0000 16.1250

4.62945 2.89771

.96531

.59149

As it can be observed, students in the blended learning group (BL) had a better

performance on the post-test. The average mean score of BL group (16.12) was better

than the mean of control group (13.00). This information is illustrated in the Figure 1.

Figure 1. Graphical representation of Groups' performances on post-test

An independent-sample test was conducted to compare the grammar test scores for

traditional and blended methods (Table 3).

Table 3. Independent Samples Test on grammar posttest

Levene's Test for Equality

of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig t df Sig. Mean Diff. Std. Error

Diff. 95% Interval

Difference Lower Upper

Equal

variances assumed

2.514 .120 -2.787 45 .008 -3.12500 1.12140 -5.38362 -.86638

Equal variances

not assumed

-2.760 36.67 .009 -3.12500 1.13211 -5.41956 -.83044

As it can be observed from the tables above, there was a significant difference in scores

for traditional (M = 13.00, SD = 4.62) and blended (M = 16.12, SD = 2.89; t (47) = 2.76, p

=.009, two-tailed) methods. The P value was 0.009 (P < 0.05), based on which it can be

said that the groups’ performances were significantly different, therefore, the null

hypothesis was rejected.

Traditional Blended

Teaching Grammar through Blended Learning Using Multimedia Softwares 84

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The first research question tried to check the effectiveness of blended learning through

multimedia softwares on grammar learning of Iranian EFL learners. The results of

independent sample t-test showed that there was a significance difference between

learners’ performances in the experimental group and the control group. This indicated

that multimedia softwares had a positive effect on learners’ grammar learning. The

results of the first research question were in line with the findings of Matic, Lauc, and

Mekelic (2006) who believed in the effectiveness of multimedia softwares on a better

instruction to learners. It is good to say that the findings of this research were in

contrary with the idea that there is no significance difference between CALL-based and

non-CALL based methods of grammar instruction that was expressed by Roohani, Nejad

Ansari, and Bagheri (2012).

This study was aimed at investigating the effect of multimedia software instruction on

grammar learning of Iranian EFL learners. The results of this research supported the

fact that there is a positive relationship between student grammar learning and

technology use. These results have also indicated that using technology can lead to

students’ satisfaction. Moreover, applying technology in classes and learning through it

can enhance activity engagement. The results of this study have also shown that

student-centered classes and interactive education can be achieved through the

application of technology in EFL classes

IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

The findings of this study can have implications for curriculum designers,

administrators, and teachers. For Curriculum designers, integration of courses with

appropriate software application is important. Curriculum designers should also bear in

mind that the teachers should teach course contents along with CALL. In order to do so

teachers should be provided with a well-structured worksheet, which is prepared for

the available softwares to let the teacher use the appropriate softwares without taking

too much time.

Administrators should equip their classes with the available facilities for CALL

programs. They should also keep in mind that hardwares not softwares should always

be up-to-date, because in this field newer has not always been the better.

Administrators need to realize the importance of integrating CALL and multimedia

software in EFL classes. There are different softwares in the market; here the role of

administrators is to select the appropriate ones based on their course objectives and

goals. They can also make benefits of CALL experts. In order to improve teachers’

literacy in computer and multimedia, administrators can include some related

instructions to their teacher training courses and programs.

The most important role in the effectiveness of CALL programs belongs to the teachers,

because they are the link between these programs and learners. Therefore, passing a

training course in computer and multimedia should be a requirement for their

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(8) 85

employment. Teachers also should let their learners recognize the importance of CALL

in their learning process and make them aware of advantages of computer and

softwares in better understanding of the materials they study. In order to increase

learners’ autonomy, it is suggested that teachers in the first day of their classes teach

the students how to use these softwares at home.

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L., & Youngs, B. E. (1999). Evaluating the integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 296-306.

Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: the case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers & Education, 47(4), 373 398.

Atai, M. R., & Dashtestani, R. (2011). Iranian English for academic purposes (EAP) stakeholders’ attitudes toward toward using the internet (EAP) courses for civil engineering students: promises and challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2011.627872.

Bagheri, E., Roohani, A., & Nejad Ansari, D. (2012). Effect of CALL-based and non-CALL based methods of teaching on L2 learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 3 (4), 744-752.

Barr, D., Leakey, J., & Ranchoux, A.( 2005). Told like it is! An evaluation of an integrated oral development project. Language Learning and Technology, 9(3), 55-78.

Chenoweth, N. A., & Murday, K. (2003). Measuring student learning in an online French course. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 285-314.

Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid French and Spanish courses: An overview of language online. CALICO Journal, 24(1), 115-145.

Ghabanchi, Z. & Anbarestani, M. (2008). The effect of CALL program on expanding lexical

knowledge of EFL Iranian international learning. Journal of Reading Matrix, 8(2), 82- 95.

Green, A., & Youngs, B. E. (2001). Using the web in elementary French and German courses: Quantitative and qualitative study results. CALICO Journal, 19(1), 89-123.

Hermans, R., Tondeur, J. , Van Braak, J, and Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary School teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1499-1509.

Learn English Software Review.( 2013). Learn English Software Review 2013 | Best ESL Software. Top Ten REVIEWS. Retrieved August 2, 2013, from http://www. eslsoftware-review.toptenreviews.com.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. Oxford, England, Wiley-Blackwell publishing Ltd.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: University Press.

Mayer , R E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390-397.

Teaching Grammar through Blended Learning Using Multimedia Softwares 86

Mazdayasna, G., & Tahririan, M. H. (2008). Developing a profile of the ESP needs of Iranian students: The case of students of nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 277 289.

McNabb, M. L., Thurber, B. B., Dibuz, B., McDermott, P., & Lee, G. A. (1994). Literacy learning in networked classrooms: using the internet with middle level students. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Mike, D. (1996). Internet in the schools: a literacy perspective. Journal of Adolescent andAdult Literacy, 40(1), 1-13.

Mohagheghzadeh, G., & Abdolahi, M. (2002). Analysis of the attitudes of the Internet users of the university of medical sciences towards the Internet. Faslnameh Etela Rasani, 18(2,3), 1 10.

Nan, C. (2005). Analysis of how to promote big class grammar teaching with multimedia and its application. Journal of Anhui University of Technology: Social Sciences, 22(4), 94-96.

Oh, E., & French, R. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ perception of an introductory instructional technology course. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 253 267.

Orr, K. L., Golas, K. C., & Yao, K. (1998). Storyboard development for interactive multimedia training. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 18(3), 18-27.

Osguthorpe, RT & Graham, CR. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4(3), 227 233.

Park, C. N., & Son, J.-B. (2009). Implementing computer-assisted language learning in the EFL classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2), 80 101.

Pellow, R. A. (1995). Thermatic teaching of vocabulary and reading comprehension through description of TV movies. Reading Improvement 23 (3), 130-134.

Perez, J. M. (2000). Learner autonomy and ICT: a web-based course for psychology. Educational Media International, 37,257-261.

Phipps , R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education.

Pouwels, J. B. (1992). The effectiveness of vocabulary visual aids for auditory and visual foreign language students. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 391- 401.

Rakes, G. C., & Casey, H. B. (2000). An analysis of teacher concerns toward instructional technology. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/IJET/ v3n1/rakes/index.html.

Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers, graphics, & learning. Dubuque, Iowa: WCB Brown & Benchmark Publishers.

Robinett, B. W. (1978). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: Substance and technique. New York; McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Romano, M. T. (2003). Empowering teachers with technology. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Rother, C. ( 2014). Evaluating technology’s role in the classroom. THE Journal, 32(3), 43 -49.

Sharma, P. and Barret, B. (2007). Blended Learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Oxford: Macmillan Education.

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(8) 87

Shaughnessy, M.(2002). Educational software evaluation: a contextual approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, the United States.

Siribodhi,T.(1995). Effects of three interactive multimedia computer assisted languagelearning programs on the vocabulary acquisition of elementary level EFL students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Kansas.

Schmitz, T. (2000), July. Tools of innovation. Industry Week, 248, 57-66.

Scida, E. E., & Saury, E. R. (2006). Hybrid courses and their impact on student and classroom performance: A case study at the University of Virginia. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 517-531.

Shahrokni, S. A. (2009). Second language incidental language learning: The effect of online textual, pictorial, and textual pictorial glosses. TESL-EJ 13(3), 1-17.

Talebinezhad, M.R., & Abarghoui, M. A. (2013). The Iranian high school students’ attitudes toward CALL and the use of CALL for EFL receptive skills. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3 (2), 329-337.

Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach grammar. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional learning. Kogan Page. London: UK.

Thyberg, D. (2010). Multimedia English Language Learning Software. In eHow . Retrieved

August 20, 2013, from http://www.ehow.com/about_6170360_multimediaenglish language-learning-software.html.

Timucin, M.( 2006). Implementing CALL in the EFL context. ELT Journal, 60(3), 262 271.

Tolhurst, D. (1995). Hypertext, hypermedia, multimedia defined? Educational Technology.