Strides in Development of Medical Education

Document Type : Original Article


Department of Foreign Languages, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran


Background: Learning a language has become more highlighted for medical students because it works as an approach for expressing and exchanging thoughts and feelings.
Objectives: The present study was conducted to investigate the preferences of English as an international language among Iranian medical students.
Methods: This cross-sectional survey was carried out on three different cohorts of language learners from Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences. Four hundred students aged 18 to 46 were selected using the convenience sampling method. Exclusion of the upper-intermediate ones yielded 372 intermediate participants. The English Language Preferences Questionnaire was used to identify the factors on English language learning preferences. Frequency, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient were used to analyze the data using SPSS.
Results: Speaking (42.8%) was the most preferred skill. Among participants, 83.1% preferred an English class of different activities, such as group work and projects. Also, 26.5% of students preferred to repeat what they heard, and 4.2% chose to copy from the board. Media and watching movies received a high percentage (81.2%). In addition, 47.8% of the participants preferred an immediate reflection on their errors in front of everyone, 56.5% showed interest in using both the native and English. Moreover, there was a statistically positive relationship between learning activities and task preferences among the participants (r =.39, p<.01).
Conclusion: Educational scholars and syllabus designers should focus on incorporating learners' preferences into academic settings to revolutionize the traditional curriculums. These findings have substantial implications for the design of academic English courses for medical students.


  1. Mahmoodi H, Haddad Narafshan M. Identity types and learners’ attitudes in language learning: Voices from students of medical sciences. Res Dev Med Educ. 2020; 9(1):17. doi: 10.34172/rdme.2020.017
  2. Dunn RS, Griggs SA. Learning styles and the nursing profession. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 1998.
  3. Slavin RE. Educational psychology: Theory and practice. 7th New York; A Pearson Education Company: 2000.
  4. Hutchinson T, Waters A. English for specific purposes. Cambridge university press; 1987.
  5. Strevens P. A British View. Proceedings of the Conference on Functional Englishers; 1978 Aug 10-12; Carbondale, Illinois, USA.
  6. Nunan D. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge university press; 1989. 211.
  7. Wesely PM. Learner attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in language learning. Foreign Language Annals. 2012; 45(s1):s98-117. doi: 10.111/j.1944-9720.2012.01181.x.
  8. Morrison B. The role of the self-access centre in the tertiary language learning process. System. 2008; 36(2):123-40. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.10.004
  9. Murray G. Autonomy in the Time of Complexity: Lessons from Beyond the Classroom. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal. 2017; 8(2): 116-34. doi:10.37237/080205
  10. Falout J, Murphey T, Elwood J, Hood M. Learner voices: Reflections on secondary education. Proceedings of the Conference JALT. 2008 Nov 20-23; Tokyo, Japan.
  11. Sullivan SA, Hollen L, Wren Y, Thompson AD, Lewis G, Zammit S. A longitudinal investigation of childhood communication ability and adolescent psychotic experiences in a community sample. Schizophrenia research. 2016; 173(1-2): 54-61. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2016.03.005. [PMID: 26972475] [PMCID: PMC4847740]
  12. Kang HD, Son JB, Lee SW. Perceptions of and preferences for English language teaching among pre-service teachers of EFL. English Language Teaching. 2006; 18(4): 25-49.
  13. .Lau K, Gardner D. Disciplinary variations in learning styles and preferences: Implications for the provision of academic English. System. 2019; 80: 257-68. doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.12.010
  14. Drake SM, Burns RC. Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development(ASCD); 2004.181p.
  15. Fogarty R, Stoehr J. Integrating Curriculum with Multiple Intelligence. Palatine: Skylight. 1995.
  16. MacMath S, Wallace J, Chi X. Problem-based learning in mathematics: A tool for developing students’ conceptual knowledge. [Cited 2009 Nov 13]. Available from:
  17. Paterson L. The survival of the democratic intellect: academic values in Scotland and England. Higher Education Quarterly. 2003; 57(1): 67-93. doi:10.1111/1468-2273.00235
  18. Pring R. Curriculum integration. Journal of Philosophy of Education. 1971;5(2):170-200. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.1971.tb00455.x
  19. Bada E, Okan Z. Students' Language Learning Preferences. TESL-EJ. 2000; 4(3).
  20. Al Hummaira S. I Learn What I Need: An Analysis of Students’ Needs in Learning English. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. 2019; 326: 462-8. doi:10.2991/iccie-18.2019.81
  21. Khan SA, Arif MH, Yousuf MI. A Study of Relationship between Learning Preferences and Academic Achievement. Bulletin of Education and Research. 2019; 41(1): 17-32.
  22. Fatemi AH, Asghari A. Attribution theory, personality traits, and gender differences among EFL learners. International Journal of Education. 2012; 4(2): 181-201. doi:10.5296/ije.v4i2.1455
  23. Khmakhien A. Demystifying Thai EFL learners’ perceptual learning style preferences. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. 2012; 18(1): 61-74.
  24. Obralic N, Akbarov A. Students Preference on Perceptual Learning Style. Acta Didactica Napocensia. 2012; 5(3): 31-42.
  25. Reid JM. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers; 1995. 264.
  26. Longman P. Longman Exams Dictionary. UK: British Library Cataloging Publishers; 2006.
  27. Gardner RC. Attitude/Motivation Test Battery: International AMTB Research Project. Canada: The University of Western Ontario; 2004.
  28. Chalak A, Kassaian Z. Motivation and attitudes of Iranian undergraduate EFL students towards learning English. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies. 2010; 10(2): 37-56.
  29. McGarry A. (dissertation). How does the use of explicit ‘talk for learning teaching’improve students’ collaboration, understanding and independence in English lessons?.  Oxford, United Kingdom: University of Oxford; 2016.
  30. Mercer N, Littleton K. Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge; 2007. doi:10.4324/9780203946657
  31. Merriam SB. Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New directions for adult and continuing education. 2001; 2001(89): 3-14. doi:10.1002/ace.3
  32. Matsuda A. Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language. Multilingual Matters; 2012. 264.
  33. Becher T, Trowler P. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Second ed. McGraw-Hill Education; 2001.
  34. Quinn MM. Learning Styles of Undergraduate Students and Its Influence on the Preference of Lecture Delivery Method in a Large Enrollment Undergraduate Gross Anatomy Course.  Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University; 2015. 157.