Esmail Zare-Behtash, Omid Khatin Zadeh, Hassan Banaruee


The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of two different methods of teaching in ESP courses. To achieve this objective, two groups of students of Economics were selected for the study. Each group consisted of 20 participants. Their level of proficiency in English and subject matter was tested by a sample of Michigan TOEFL test and a pre-test. The two groups were at the same level of proficiency in both general English and English for Students of Economics before receiving treatment. The first group attended a two-month ESP course whose medium of instruction was a combination of English and Persian. The second group attended a two-month ESP course whose medium of instruction was solely English. After this period of treatment, the two groups were tested by a post-test. The results showed that the second group was more successful in the post-test. These results suggest that those learners who are proficient in English and subject matter benefit more from courses that are taught solely in English. Finally, it was concluded that level of knowledge in English and subject matter, nature of the subject (theoretical or applied), and the skills that are the focus of the course are the main characteristics that must be taken into account in the process of planning for ESP courses.  


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



ESP courses, English only policy, bilingual teaching


Afzal, S. (2013). Using of the first language in English classroom as a way of scaffolding for both the students and teachers to learn and teach English. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4 (7), 1846-1854.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57 (3), 402-423.

Davila, S. L. (2005). Tips and Techniques for the English Only Classroom. http://www.saradavila.com/english/english.doc

Davoudi-Mobarakeh, S., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Barati, H. (2014). Observation and feedback of content specialists versus general English teachers: suggestions to make optimal English for specific purpose courses. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 13

Dujmovic, M. (2007). The use of Croatian in the EFL classroom. Metodicki Obzori 2 (1), 91-100. Retrieved on June 12, 2016 from: http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/19437

Ghanbari, B., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2012). ESP practitioner professionalization through apprenticeship of practice: the case of two Iranian ESP practitioners. English Language Teaching, 5, 112-122.

Jafari, S. M., & Shokrpour, N. (2013). The role of L1 in ESP classrooms: A triangulated approach. International Journal of English and Education, 2(3), 90-104.

Jamshidi, A., & Navehebrahim, M. (2013). Learners use of code switching in the English as a foreign language classroom. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(1), 186-190.

Khati, A. (2011). When and why of mother tongue use in English classrooms. Journal of NELTA, 16 (1-2), 42-51.

Khresheh, A. (2012). Exploring when and why to use Arabic in the Saudi Arabian EFL classroom: Viewing L1 use as eclectic technique. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 78-88.

Khoshsima, H., & Khosravani, M. (2014). ESP textbooks criteria: A case study of Iranian Universities. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature. 2347-3134 (Online)

Khoshsima, H., Saed, A., & Ghassemi, P. (2014). The application of ESP principles on course design: the case of English for students of Management and Fisheries. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World. 2289--‐2737(online)

Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher Use of Code-switching in the Second Language Classroom: Exploring "Optimal" Use. In: Turnbull, M., Dailey-O’Cain, J. (Eds.), First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, Bristol, 35-49.

Maleki, A. (2006). ESP teaching: a matter of controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mart, C. T. (2013).The facilitating role of L1 in ESL classes. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(1), 9-14. Retrieved from www.hrmars.com/journals

Mattioli, G. (2004). On native language intrusions and making do with words: Linguistically homogeneous classrooms and native language use, English Teaching Forum, 42 (4), 20-25.

McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English only”. System, 39, 251-263.

Nation, I. S. P. (2005). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J, 581-595.

Rivers, D. J. (2011a). Politics without pedagogy: questioning linguistic exclusion. ELT Journal, 65 (2), 103-113.

Rivers, D. J. (2011b). Strategies and struggles in the ELT classroom: language policy, learner autonomy and innovative practice. Language Awareness, 20 (1), 31-43.

Spahiu, I. (2013).Using native language in ESL classroom. IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 1(2), 243-248. Retrieved from www.eltsjournal.org

Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum, 40 (1), 36-43.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v0i0.789


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © 2015 - 2022. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).