Students' computer-based workshops in mandatory classes of English for students majoring in psychology and linguistics: A comparative experimental study
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Students’ computer-based workshops in mandatory
classes of English for students majoring in psychology
and linguistics: A comparative experimental study
Nataliia P. Volkova1, Oleg B. Tarnopolsky1, Olha V. Lebid1 and Kateryna V. Vlasenko2,3
1Alfred Nobel University, 18 Sicheslavska Naberezhna Str., Dnipro, 49000, Ukraine
2National University of “Kyiv Mohyla Academy”, 2 Hryhoriya Skovorody Str., Kyiv, 04655, Ukraine
3Technical University “Metinvest Polytechnic” LLC, 71A Sechenov Str., Mariupol, 87524, Ukraine
Abstract. This article addresses the issue of developing and using students’ workshops in English. In
the article, such workshops are defined as the fullest form of peer-teaching in which one or several
students (workshop organizers) guide their group-mates in performing extra-linguistic learning activities
conducted in the target language. The research describes workshops as one of the most efficient ways
of involuntary (subconscious) target language acquisition achieved through extra-linguistic practical
(experiential) activities performed by way of communication in the language to be learned. The article
reports the results of a comparative experimental study in which students of a non-linguistic major
(Psychology) and students majoring in English as a foreign language on which their career option
(Applied Linguistics) is based were practicing workshops in English in their mandatory classes on that
language. The results of the experimental study clearly demonstrate and prove that workshop practice
was quite successful in both cases not only in what concerns the involuntary (subconscious) development
of learners’ target language communication skills. No less evident was the development of some of
the students’ psychological qualities (emotional intelligence) important for their further studies and
professional careers.
Keywords: English as a foreign language, students’ workshops, English communication abilities,
emotional intelligence
1. Introduction
1.1. Problem statement and its topicality substantiation
In today’s globalized world English has become the global, or planetary, language of communi-
cation whose adequate command is an absolute requirement to be met by every citizen of the
" npvolkova@yahoo.com (N. P. Volkova); otarnopolsky@ukr.net (O. B. Tarnopolsky); swan_ov@ukr.net
(O. V. Lebid); vlasenkokv@ukr.net (K. V. Vlasenko)
~ https://duan.edu.ua/university-ukr/kafedry/15-pages/332-kafedra-pedahohiky-ta-psykholohii.html#volkova_n
(N. P. Volkova); https://duan.edu.ua/university-ukr/kafedry/15-pages/
336-kafedra-prykladnoi-linhvistyky-ta-metodyky-navchannia-inozemnykh-mov.html#tarnopolsky_o
(O. B. Tarnopolsky);
https://duan.edu.ua/university-ukr/kafedry/15-pages/332-kafedra-pedahohiky-ta-psykholohii.html#lebid_o
(O. V. Lebid); http://formathematics.com/uk/tyutori/vlasenko/ (K. V. Vlasenko)
� 0000-0003-1258-7251 (N. P. Volkova); 0000-0001-8507-0216 (O. B. Tarnopolsky); 0000-0001-6861-105X
(O. V. Lebid); 0000-0002-8920-5680 (K. V. Vlasenko)
© Copyright for this paper by its authors, published by Academy of Cognitive and Natural Sciences (ACNS).
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0
International (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
274
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
mailto:npvolkova@yahoo.com
mailto:otarnopolsky@ukr.net
mailto:swan_ov@ukr.net
mailto:vlasenkokv@ukr.net
https://duan.edu.ua/university-ukr/kafedry/15-pages/332-kafedra-pedahohiky-ta-psykholohii.html##volkova_n
https://duan.edu.ua/university-ukr/kafedry/15-pages/336-kafedra-prykladnoi-linhvistyky-ta-metodyky-navchannia-inozemnykh-mov.html##tarnopolsky_o
https://duan.edu.ua/university-ukr/kafedry/15-pages/336-kafedra-prykladnoi-linhvistyky-ta-metodyky-navchannia-inozemnykh-mov.html##tarnopolsky_o
https://duan.edu.ua/university-ukr/kafedry/15-pages/332-kafedra-pedahohiky-ta-psykholohii.html##lebid_o
http://formathematics.com/uk/tyutori/vlasenko/
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1258-7251
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8507-0216
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6861-105X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8920-5680
https://acnsci.org/journal
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
https://acnsci.org
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
society and whose lack of command is somewhat akin to illiteracy [10]. The most cutting-edge
developments in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching methods, designed to teach it
more successfully and faster in accordance with the world’s population’s needs, include several
most distinctive features.
The English language teaching/learning has become culture-oriented and culture-specific.
People who learn English acquire not only the necessary language-system dependent commu-
nication skills but also culture-specific skills. It makes communication in English culturally
adequate [3, 7].
That teaching/learning process has become autonomous [13], cooperative [18], and highly
interactive meaning that learners are not so much taught as acquire the language themselves in
their autonomous learning activities performed in cooperation with other students (pair and
small group learning). Such an interaction embraces not only the other students but also the
out-of-class environment where learners interact with the Internet sites in the target language
collecting and processing the information that they need for doing their creative learning tasks
([4], [11, pp. 148-150], [17]). The teachers in these conditions become facilitators [23]. They
promote students’ autonomous and cooperative work on their tasks, guiding their attempts to
solve learning issues, and overcome learning pitfalls.
EFL learning, especially at higher education institutions, is gradually being transformed
into experiential one [19, 20, 28]. Experiential learning in EFL is implemented by way of
modeling extra-linguistic activities in the classroom and organizing learners’ communication.
That communication is used as a means for achieving the goals of the extra-linguistic activities
being done. In this process of doing such activities and using the target language as a means of
achieving their goals the target language itself is acquired [19, 28]. Thanks to the introduction
of experiential learning, foreign language classes are becoming more and more constructivist.
It means that in the process of doing creative experiential learning activities students self-
construct their EFL language skills and communication skills, such acquisition being mostly
involuntary/subconscious because in target language communication the EFL skills serve as the
means for learners’ extra-linguistic performance [28].
EFL courses at higher education institutions have become content-based in their nature. Since
the principal aim of those courses is preparing students for using the target language in their
professional activities, the latest trend is to teach English through the content matter closely
related to learners’ majoring/professional disciplines – content-based instruction [2, 27]. The
greatest advantage of content-based instruction is its most prominent feature. It is in making
provisions for parallel acquisition of knowledge from certain non-linguistic disciplines together
with acquisition of the target language and the skills of communicating in it.
Computerization and informatization of higher school EFL courses greatly enhance the
learning outcomes [33, 34] making the learning process blended, i.e. organically blending in it
the traditional in-class learning activities with on-line activities [14, 26].
All these five cutting-edge trends and features of EFL teaching methodology can be observed
in their harmonious unity in one of the quite recent and innovative modalities of learning
embodied in students’ computer-based workshops in mandatory classes of English. The aim of
this article is to discuss and analyze this modality of learning and supply experimental data
proving its high efficiency and efficacy both for teaching English at universities and for students’
personal development (their emotional intelligence development).
275
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
1.2. Peer-teaching in classes of English: the essence of the method
Tarnopolsky [30] pioneered the introduction of peer-teaching into the English language teaching
practice of Ukrainian universities defined it as a specific way of instruction according to
which students in their English language classroom play the roles of teachers (under the
supervision of their regular teacher). In this role they organize and control the English language
learning activities of their class-mates, help them, and monitor their learning efforts, give them
explanations, correct their mistakes, and provide them with new information [30]. The author
believes that peer-teaching is the supreme form of the already mentioned cooperative learning
which most important function is to put learners in the conditions in which they help each other
to learn by sharing their knowledge and skills, i.e. teaching one another and learning from one
another. It is also quite clear that peer-teaching is a highly autonomous and interactive learning
activity of the peer-teachers and their peer-students. It is autonomous because the regular
teacher assumes only the supervising and facilitating functions. Its interactivity is provided
by both peer-teaching and peer-learning and active and intensive students’ intercourse among
themselves.
Peer-teaching is indubitably based on blended learning since to hold a peer-teaching session
on any topic (especially in the form of a workshop – see further), the peer-teacher is required
to prepare himself/herself by collecting a lot of information. It is the task of the regular teacher-
facilitator to supply the sources for finding such information, those sources compulsorily
being in English and being located on Internet sites. When peer-teachers get used to that
(and every student in every group is expected to play the role of a peer teacher as often as
possible), they start to search for such Internet sites in English themselves. Moreover, they
make their peer-students use those sites when doing some learning tasks, thus making the
peer-teaching/learning as a whole predominantly blended [1, 25]. It should be mentioned that
the computer/Internet constituent in peer-teaching is probably the central one for its success.
Peer-teaching sessions are doomed to fail without the peer-teachers’ search for the required
information on the Internet. Moreover, peer-teaching sessions (workshops) conducted online
are no less successful than those held in traditional classrooms. This enables us to speak about
computer-based peer-teaching.
Peer-teaching/learning cannot avoid being experiential because it ensures students’ practical
experience in activities beyond the scope of their ordinary and customary classroom language
learning. For peer-teachers their activities are extra-linguistic (teaching their group-mates)
using the target language communication as a tool for performing those activities. And in the
same way, when peer-teaching is initiated, the regular teacher always directs peer-teachers at
giving their peer-students only the tasks that are experiential by their very nature – such as
brainstorming, discussions, case studies, roleplaying, etc. [28, 30]. It means that, if we consider
peer-teaching as the method of teaching and learning (in the sense ascribed to this term by
Richards and Rodgers [22] – the design and procedure of learning activities), that method is
always constructivist. Both peer-teachers and peer-students self-construct their knowledge
and skills by way of using the language as the means for communication through which some
extra-linguistic content matter is taught (peer-teachers) and learned (peer-students).
Finally, at its conception peer-teaching in classes of English was designed as culture-oriented
and content-based [30]. Its primary purpose was to make students peer-teachers teach (in
276
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
English) their group-mates some culture-specific or professional content-specific information
found on Internet sites in English (computer-based peer teaching) while preparing for their
peer-teaching session. Such a session was designed as experiential, autonomous, interactive,
and cooperative learning activities. Its objective was to help students acquire through the
medium of the target language (English) and under the guidance of their peer-teachers some
new knowledge related either to their future profession (content-based instruction), or the
culture of English-speaking countries (culture-oriented language instruction), or both.
From everything said above it can be concluded that no other method does so organically
combine all the five cutting-edge trends (see the Introduction) in today’s methodology of
teaching English as a foreign language in mandatory courses of it at Ukrainian universities. But
there are different forms of peer-teaching already developed and discussed elsewhere [30]. In
this article, we are going to analyze, both theoretically and experimentally, only one of them –
students’ workshops that we consider as the most sophisticated, efficient, and the fullest form
of peer-teaching, embodying all its typical features and advantages.
2. Method
2.1. Students’ workshops as the fullest embodiment of peer-teaching
Even though the method of holding workshops has already long been well-known in academic
intercourse and even in courses of teaching a number of non-linguistic disciplines in tertiary
education, Tarnopolsky and Kabanova [29] pioneered the introduction of students’ workshops
into mandatory courses of English at Ukrainian universities.
In the Longman exam dictionary, academic or educational workshops are defined as “a
meeting at which people try to improve their skills by discussing their experiences and doing
practical exercises” [21, p. 1775].
Just such workshops are now more and more frequently held at academic conferences and are
often more popular and attract larger audiences than traditional conference talks. They have
also entered the field of education in the form of short but always intensive teaching/learning
programs that focus on skills in a particular field with 10–15 but not more than 20 people
taking part in those workshops. Workshops conducted by students have already appeared
at Ukrainian universities but they are not a frequent occurrence. Until quite recently, when
we have introduced workshops in classes of English, they have been held only in courses of
non-linguistic disciplines taught in students’ mother tongue.
We introduced workshops in classes of English for students majoring in English Philology (a
linguistic specialty) and those majoring in Psychology (a non-linguistic specialty) at the end of
2017. On a regular basis this method launched at the start of the 2018–2019 academic year. Such
workshops, conducted in the target language by students themselves and not by their teachers,
were defined as a specific form of learner’s peer-teaching experience in which one or several
students organize and guide some meaningful extra-linguistic activities of their group-mates,
whose activities being done in the target language (in this way, students’ workshops implicitly
become language-learning oriented) [29]. The developed requirements and the procedure of
conducting a workshop by students are as follows.
277
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
One workshop can be organized and conducted by one, two but not more than three students-
organizers who were either volunteers (a very frequent occurrence after the students “got a
taste” of conducting their own workshops). The students-organizers can also be appointed by
the regular teacher (mostly only at the beginning of introducing that type of learning activity).
The students are expected to conduct their workshops in a class of English a week after they
received the task (one week for preparation).
The topic of the workshop is selected by the student(s)-organizer(s) themselves and never
disclosed to their group-mates before the date of the workshop itself (the regular teacher can
know it to be able to recommend to organizers some Internet sites in English necessary for
preparation). There are only two requirements to the selected topic: a) it has to be content-
based, i.e. directly connected in content to the students’ major, or culture-specific, or both; b) it
absolutely has to be interesting and attractive to all the students in the group. The workshop,
where the students attending it, have not become interested, as has been shown by their
commenting on its outcomes (see further), does not receive a positive grade from the regular
teacher.
The workshop has to be most thoroughly prepared informationally by way of organizer(s)
working with numerous sites in English on the selected workshop topic so that they are able to
answer the most diverse questions from the audience on that topic. The list of the processed
sites is supposed to be shown to the teacher at the end of the workshop since the latter has
to make sure that they are numerous enough and all in English. That list is also supposed to
be given to the other students-participants at their request for their further references. This
feature makes all the workshops computer-based.
Every workshop is expected to last for about 40 minutes (half of the standard class period). The
workshop is obligatorily required to be accompanied by a PowerPoint multi-media presentation
(pictures, short texts emphasizing the main points of the topic, etc.) prepared by the student(s)-
organizer(s) for illustrating what is discussed and facilitating the comprehension and activities
of the workshop participants.
A workshop should start with an oral presentation (accompanied by a PowerPoint presenta-
tion) by the student(s)-organizer(s) lasting from 5 minutes (minimum) to 10 minutes (maximum),
in which the principal points of the topic are discussed and the task for the students-participants
is formulated. The next step is doing that task individually, in pairs, or in small groups by
students-participants under the supervision of student(s)-organizer(s) who circulate among the
participants, take part in their discussions, put additional questions, give help and prompts. The
final step is the whole-group discussion (again guided by the student(s)-organizer(s)) of the task
completion results with drawing conclusions concerning the entire topic. This discussion is
brought to a close with the general commentaries of the workshop organizer(s).
When the workshop is finished, at the request of the regular teacher, all the students-
participants comment on it sharing their impressions and evaluating (even grading) the work
of student(s)-organizer(s).
Finally, the regular teacher comments on the work done, evaluating and grading the work
of the student(s)-organizer(s), with fully taking into account the grades given by students-
participants, as well as the work of those participants themselves.
To better illustrate what is said, the examples of two workshops organized by our students
are given below.
278
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
One of them was held in the 2018/19 academic year in the second-year group of students
majoring in Philology with a specialization in Applied Linguistics. The topic was culture-specific.
It was the holidays in the USA (which are much less known to the students than the British
holidays) as compared to the holiday in Ukraine. During the workshop, the two organizers
started with giving an oral 10-minute presentation (accompanied by PowerPoint slides) on the
most popular holidays in the USA. Then they divided the participants into pairs, allocated to
every pair one of the American holidays just described, and gave them the task of discussing
in English and deciding which of the holidays in Ukraine was the closest one in its essence
to that American holiday. During the pair work, the students-organizers were circulating
among the participants, taking part in their discussions, putting additional questions, giving
help and prompts. After a 5-minute discussion, every pair was expected to deliver a 2-minute
oral presentation on their conclusions. After finishing all the presentations, a whole-group
discussion on the common features and differences of American and Ukrainian holidays was
held. That discussion finalized with the closing comments of the students-organizers. The
workshop evoked a lively interest and was highly appreciated both by the students-participants
and the teacher.
Another interesting and highly appreciated workshop also given as an example below was
the one held in the 2019/20 academic year by a second-year student majoring in Psychology.
The workshop was profession-oriented, i.e. content-based. The student-organizer chose as its
topic the psychological personality tests often published in popular magazines. The student
started the workshop by giving a 7-minute presentation on such tests providing illustrative
(PowerPoint) examples of them and suggested that the group-mates check whether such tests
could be trusted. For doing that, the organizer divided the workshop participants into pairs
giving each pair handouts with psychological personality tests collected by him from popular
online magazines in English. The students in every pair were asked to complete their tests
individually and then discuss the results coming to a conclusion whether they matched the
tested persons’ ideas of themselves and the ideas of them held by their partners in a pair. Again,
like in the preceding case, the organizer was circulating among pairs providing commentaries,
encouragement, help, and prompts. The pair discussion was followed by a whole-group one
for making general conclusions as to the trustworthiness of psychological tests in popular
magazines with final commentaries from the student-organizer.
From the above description and examples, it is absolutely clear that such workshops are:
a) a peer-teaching activity (workshop organizers teach something to their fellow-students
and organize their active learning of what is being taught); b) a content-based and/or culture-
oriented activity because its content matter is always related to the content of future profession,
or to cultural phenomena, or both; c) a computer-based activity because workshops themselves
can quite successfully (and even more successfully than in offline classrooms) be held online, as
has already been mentioned in this article and had been shown by our experience of organizing
students’ online workshops during the quarantine period in Ukraine [24] by way of using
Zoom cloud platforms service; d) an autonomous (full autonomy of workshop organizers and
autonomous work in workshops of the entire group of students with no interference from
the regular teacher), cooperative, and interactive activity (all the students have to actively
cooperate and interact for a workshop to be successful); e) an experiential activity (extra-
linguistic practical experience of students involved in the workshop, that experience obtained
279
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
through target language communication used as a tool for doing the activity) leading to learners
subconsciously self-constricting their knowledge and skills and making the entire learning
process constructivist.
All this manifests the full embodiment of all the typical peer-teaching features in students’
workshops, that is why they necessarily must be distinguished by all the advantages of such
teaching. Hypothetically, students’ workshops as described above possess a number of those
advantages that are listed below.
2.2. The hypothetical advantages of students’ workshops
Certainly, the first of such advantages is that the students have an opportunity for better and
faster development of their English communication skills. We believed it to be the consequence
of linguistic and non-linguistic tertiary students regularly (during not less than two academic
years) acting as peer-teachers organizing and holding workshops in English in mandatory
classes. Our hypothesis was that such an improvement (in comparison with the students of the
same majors who did not practice workshops in English) would embrace the development of the
three major English communication skills listed in table 1. These three skills whose intensified
formation can serve as a kind of criteria testifying to the development of the general English
communication ability are primarily related to English speaking but they also act (though to a
lesser degree) in reading (when searching for information required for organizing a workshop),
listening (when communicating in the process of holding a workshop), and writing (writing
notes for holding a workshop).
Table 1
English communication skills whose development was hypothesized to be improved and intensified due
to students practicing workshops in English.
Type of skills Criteria of skill development
Language skills
Using relatively (mostly) correct and normative English pronunciation, grammar
and vocabulary
Demonstrating the variety of grammar and vocabulary in communication
Demonstrating normative average rate/tempo of speaking
Interactive skills
Avoiding utterances that set barriers for communication
Adequately presenting information orally to other people
Maintaining logical coherence and cohesion in communication
Maintaining and using feedback in communicative interaction
Information skills
Being able to find information fast and competently (particularly on the Internet)
Being able to select properly (particularly on the Internet) the required volume
and kinds of data and information for doing creative learning tasks
Another development that as we believed could result from the use of students’ workshops in
classes of English was the rapid growth of learners’ emotional intelligence. The notion of emo-
tional intelligence emerged in the framework of Gardner’s [9] theory of multiple intelligences.
Kagan and Kagan [16] when discussing the essence of the emotional intelligence divided it into
two subtypes of intelligence: the interpersonal and intrapersonal ones.
280
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
The interpersonal intelligence manifests person’s abilities to a) solving conflicts successfully,
being empathic, tolerant, adequately expressing emotions non-verbally; b) befriending, i.e.
establish interpersonal contacts and maintain good relationships with other people, control
one’s emotions while in contact with other people, realize their motives, and express sympathy;
c) working in a team organizing its other members, collaborating with them, motivating them
and encouraging their successful cognitive activities with the help of positive emotions; d) being
sociable and communicative generating positive feelings in others, influencing them on the
emotional and subconscious level (charisma), enjoying communication with other people, like
them, and take care of them, being open to new experiences. The manifestations of these abilities
in behavior may be considered as the criteria for interpersonal intelligence development. Thus,
interpersonal intelligence ensures gaining command of a specific art of having positive attitudes
towards others and efficiently governing one’s own emotions that emerge when interacting
with them.
The intrapersonal intelligence provides for developing the abilities of: a) metacognition,
i.e. self-observation, realization of one’s own emotions and feeling, self-reflection, regulating
one’s own emotional state in accordance with the behavioral and moral norms, choosing an
appropriate form of behavior; b) self-evaluation, i.e. forming an adequate model of one’s
own “ego”, respecting the uniqueness of the others in the process of interpersonal interaction;
c) appropriate goal-setting, i.e. intuitive prognosticating of one’s own actions outcomes, self-
motivating, self-orientation, postponing the satisfaction of today’s needs and desires for the
sake of satisfying more significant remoter goals, realizing one’s spiritual needs and the internal
state; d) self-regulation, i.e. regulating one’s own emotions, using the model of one’s own “ego”
for effective life functioning (setting priorities), manifesting in one’s external behavior one’s
own independence of the immediate moment of existence where emotional reacting is taking
place, the analysis of one’s own motivation. The external manifestations of the above-listed
properties of intrapersonal intelligence may be regarded as the criteria of the development of
that intelligence in a particular person.
From the above description, the importance of the communication and intellectual features
that students can acquire when practicing workshops in the target language in their course of
English is quite clear. However, the fact that personal/intellectual development gets formed
thanks to the use of students’ workshops conducted in the target language needs to be proven
experimentally. Obtaining the relevant proofs was the purpose of our experimental study.
3. Results
3.1. Materials, method, and procedure of the experimental study
The study was conducted during two academic years beginning from September 2018 and until
May 2020. It was organized at Alfred Nobel University in Dnipro, Ukraine. The students of two
majors were involved: would-be psychologists (group PS-18 of 23 students, the 1st year of study
in 2018/19 academic year and the 2nd year of study in 2019/20 academic year) and would-be
philologists-applied linguists specializing in English (group FLpl-18 of 21 students, the 1st year
of study in 2018/19 academic year and the 2nd year of study in 2019/20 academic year).
For mandatory classes of English, both groups were divided into two subgroups from 10 to
281
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
12 students in each of them. The group of would-be psychologists for the purposes of our study
was randomly divided into one experimental group (EPS) of 11 students and one control group
(CPS) of 12 students. Similarly, the group of would-be applied linguists for the purposes of
the study was also randomly divided into one experimental group (EAL) of 10 students and
one control group (CAL) of 11 students. The comparisons were to be made not between the
students of different majors but between the students from the experimental and control group
only in the same category of learners. Would-be philologists most certainly started in the
experimental study with a substantially higher level of English than would-be psychologists
and were supposed to finish it with a considerably higher level of it.
In the EAL and CAL groups 80-minute classes of English were held three times a week using
absolutely identical teaching/learning materials and content, methods, procedures, and forms of
teaching and learning (except the addition of workshops in the EAL group). The same approach
was followed for the EPS and CPS groups where 80-minute classes of English were held two
times a week – everything in the teaching/learning process was identical for both groups, except
regular students’ workshops in the EPS group. Even the teacher in all the experimental and
control groups was the same.
We also did our best to equalize the students in the experimental and control groups. All the
students were in the 18-19 years of age category, with approximately two thirds of females and
one third of males in every group. Equalization was also achieved in what concerns the learners’
initial – at the beginning of the English course – target language mastery (see the figures in the
next section of the article). All the non-linguistic and linguistic students entering the first year
of study at Alfred Nobel University in their first classes of English there take standard tests of
their target language command. Such tests include a standard test of grammar and vocabulary,
and also short tests of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. As the materials for the tests
some abridged testing materials from Cambridge Preliminary English Examination (PET) [12]
are used. PET is designed for ascertaining whether the examinees have reached the B1 level of
English command according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
[6], i.e. the pre-intermediate level. Just this level of English is expected of Ukrainian school
leavers when entering higher education institutions of that country. In our practice, if the first
year students really demonstrate B1 level of English, they are considered to be at the high initial
level for studying the language further. If the initial level is somewhat lower: higher than A1
[6] but not quite reaching B1, students are considered to be on the average (or sufficient) initial
level, while if the initial level is lower than A1, it is believed to be low. When distributing the
students who were taking part in our experimental study into groups, care was taken that the
experimental and control groups included approximately equal numbers of students with high,
average/sufficient, and low initial levels of their English mastery.
Thanks to this, the results of experimentally introducing the workshop method in the ex-
perimental groups in what concerns the development of learners’ English communication
skills could be justifiably compared to the results of such development in control groups where
computer-based workshops were not conducted.
It should also be noted that at the beginning of their first year of university studies all our
students from both the experimental and control groups were interviewed by professional
psychologists (from the Department of Innovative Technologies in Pedagogy, Psychology and
Social Work, Alfred Nobel University) who were determining the initial levels of their emotional
282
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
intelligence development. It was done for equalizing in this specific aspect as well the distribution
of students (with the high, average/sufficient, and low levels of development of that intelligence)
into the experimental and control groups – see the figures in the next section of the article.
To determine what levels of communicative development and the development of emotional
intelligence were achieved by our students from the experimental and control groups by the end
of the two-year-long experimental study, the following two methods of evaluating/assessing
those levels (at the end of the study as compared to its beginning) were used:
• The first method is called the method of independent experts or judges when assessment
(and grading) is done not by the teacher who has been teaching the students but by some
other teachers who have never worked with them. What is more, at least two independent
experts or judges do the assessment (and grading) absolutely independently of each other
[31, p. 90]. This method was absolutely indispensable for our study because students’
English communication skills development was assessed mostly through their speaking
in English, and speaking skills can be assessed only subjectively by human assessors
and not objectively by using objective tests. The same concerns assessing the level of
development of learners’ emotional intelligence. Assessment by independent experts,
and not only by one but by several of them, allows to considerably decrease the level
of subjectivity in both cases to a minimum ensuring much more accurate results of the
experimental study [5, 31].
• The second method was the method of independent experts’ assessment of learners’
skills and personal features development. The experts used a number of pre-set criteria
given to them before they started assessing. Those criteria outline the set of qualitative
parameters that every assessor/independent expert is expected to take into account, so
that they do their assessments on the basis of such criteria/parameters only [5, 8, 15, 32].
Moreover, a definite scale of points is supposed to be ascribed to every criterion, so that
assessors/independent experts are not free in their grading either [5, 15]. Criteria and the
scale of points attached to them give assessors/independent experts clear-cut guidelines
as to the assessment and grading procedure [31, p. 90].
In the case of our study, the criteria given to independent experts for assessing the level of
formation of learners’ English communication skills were the nine criteria manifesting how
well their English language skills, interactive skills, and information skills were developed. All
those nine criteria (e.g., using relatively (mostly) correct and normative English pronunciation,
grammar and vocabulary; maintaining logical coherence and cohesion in communication; being
able to select properly (particularly on the Internet) the required volume and kinds of data and
information for doing creative learning tasks and 6 others) are listed above in table 1. The criteria
for assessing the formation of students’ emotional intelligence were those eight characterizing
the development of people’s interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences, also discussed above.
Every assessor/independent expert was requested to take into account the external manifesta-
tions by every student of the eight separate emotional intelligence abilities which were reflected
in those criteria. We were especially interested in the criteria of metacognition, ability of team
work, sociability and communicative ability, as well as the ability of adequate goal-setting,
since it is those four abilities that, theoretically, workshop activities are especially suitable
for developing intensively. On the basis of just those four criteria, experts were supposed to
283
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
provide a generalized assessment of a particular student’s emotional intelligence development
at the time of assessment. Each of the criteria for assessing both the development of learners’
English communication skills and their emotional intelligence could be graded by every expert
using the following scale: the low level of development (“low”) – from 1.9 to 1.0 points, the
average/sufficient level of development (“sufficient”) – from 2.4 to 2.0 points, the high level of
development (“high”) – from 3.0 to 2.5 points.
On the basis of the two above-discussed methods, the procedure of conducting the exper-
imental study was elaborated. Five independent experts were selected: three specializing in
Psychology and doing their teaching at the Department of Innovative Technologies in Peda-
gogy, Psychology and Social Work, Alfred Nobel University, and two teaching English at the
Department of Applied Linguistics and Methods of Teaching Foreign Languages of the same
university. The three professional psychologists were responsible for evaluating the level of
development of learners’ emotional intelligence. Both professional teachers of English were
engaged in evaluating the development of students’ English communication skills.
During the experimental study, the experts were requested to attend classes on English in
all the experimental and control groups every two months completing, as the result of their
observation, the current assessment data of students’ progress in their English communication
skills and emotional intelligence development. The same procedure was followed in the last
assessment session at the very end of the experimental study, and only the results of that last
assessment in comparison with the assessment results before the start of the experimental study
will be analysed below in the article giving the mean figures for every group.
3.2. The results of the study: their computation
In the study, the results of experts’ assessments of learners’ level of English communication
skills development were computed on the basis of the scale of points (3.0–2.5 for the high
level, 2.4–2.0 for the sufficient level, and 1.9–1.0 for the low level) and using the formula of the
arithmetic mean indicators.
If the sum of points given by the two independent experts-teachers of English evaluating
one student’s communication skills development equalled 6.0–5.0 that student was considered
as having the high level of that development, 4.8–4 points meant the sufficient level, and
3.8–2 points – the low level. Then, the mean figures for the entire body of students in every
experimental or control group were calculated, and, on that basis, the percentage of students
in that group having high, sufficient, and low levels of communicative skills development was
computed. Just those percentage figures are given in table 2 below. It should also be noted that
the statistical significance of the difference in the figures in every two comparable experimental
and control groups (EPS and CPS, on the one hand, and EAL and CAL, on the other hand) was
also computed using the Pearson criterion for the number of degrees of freedom: 𝑣 = 2.
𝜒2𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 =
{︃
5.991, 𝑝 ≤ 0.05
9.21, 𝑝 ≤ 0.01
The results of this computation are given in the last lines of every separate section in table 2
and in figure 1.
284
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Table 2
The results of the study (pre-experimental and post-experimental): the dynamics of students’ English
communication skills indicators development.
The level of skills
development (in
percentage of the
number of students
in a group)
Group
12 students in CPS and 11 in EPS 11 students in CAL and 10 in EAL
The stage of the study
Pre-experimental Post-experimental Pre-experimental Post-experimental
CPS EPS CPS EPS CAL EAL CAL EAL
Language skills
High 8.3% 9.1% 16.7% 54.5% 18.2% 20% 18.2% 50%
Sufficient 33.3% 36.4% 41.7% 36.4% 36.4% 40% 54.5% 40%
Low 58.4% 54.5% 41.6% 9.1% 45.4% 40% 27.3% 10%
𝜒2𝑒𝑚𝑝 0.308 41.262 0.596 25.076
Interactive skills
High 16.7% 8.3% 25% 54.5% 18.2% 20% 36.4% 60%
Sufficient 33.3% 41.7% 41.7% 36.4% 45.5% 50% 36.4% 40%
Low 50% 50% 33.3% 9.1% 36.3% 30% 27.2% 0%
𝜒2𝑒𝑚𝑝 3.762 25.118 0.894 33.148
Information skills
High 8.3% 9.1% 16.7% 45.5% 9.1% 20% 27.3% 60%
Sufficient 41.7% 36.4% 50% 45.5% 45.5% 30% 45.5% 30%
Low 50% 54.5% 33.3% 9% 45.4% 50% 27.2% 10%
𝜒2𝑒𝑚𝑝 0.59 27.508
7.486
(for 𝑝 ≤ 0.05) 23.382
The first conclusion that can be drawn from the data in table 2 is the relative mathematical
insignificance in the differences of pre-experimental results in CPS and EPS, on the one hand,
and CAL and EAL, on the other hand. It shows that before the experimental study the students
in the control and experimental groups were effectively equalized in what concerns their
English communication skills development. On the contrary, after the experimental study, these
differences became statistically significant. It means that the only variable in the study: the use
or non-use of students’ workshops in English did make a substantial and pronounced impact
and effect on their English communication skills development.
According to the data in table 2, it can also be concluded that during the two years of the
experimental study, there were some positive changes and shifts in the control groups. However,
in those groups, the dynamics of approaching the high level of students’ English communicative
skills development was not very well pronounced. In the CPS (would-be psychologists) group the
number of students who reached the high level of language skills development during the two
years increased by only +8.4%, those who reached the high level of interactive skills command
increased by +8.3%, while the increase to the high level of information skills development
embraced +8.3% of students. Some positive changes were also observed in the number of
students who were at a low level. In the CPS group by the end of the study there were –16.8%
285
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Figure 1: Graphic representation of the results of the study (pre-experimental and post-experimental):
the dynamics of students’ English communication skills indicators development.
less of them in what concerns the level of language skills development, –16.2% less in the low
level of interactive skills development, –16.2 less in the low level of development of information
skills. The compatible, not very high, skills development improvement figures were obtained in
the control group of would-be applied linguists (CAL). For instance, the decrease in the number
of CAL group students who were at the low level of communicative skills commands reached
only –18.1% in what concerns the development of their language skills, –9.1% in interactive
skills, and –18.2% in information skills development.
Unlike that, the positive changes in both experimental groups were quite considerable. The
number of students who reached the high levels of communicative skills development increased
in EPS group (would-be psychologists) by +45.4% in their language skills development, by
+46.2% (interactive skills), and by +36.4% (information skills). The relative indicators in EAL
286
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
group (would-be applied linguists) were +30.0%, +40.0%, and +40.0%. The figures for the same
skills in what concerns the decrease in the number of students of the low level category were
for the EPS group: –45.4%, –40.9%, –45.5%; for the EAL group they were –30.0%, –30.0%, –40.0%.
Therefore, it can be considered as proof that the workshop method effectively contributed to
developing such of our learners’ English communicative abilities as using relatively (mostly)
correct and normative English pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary; demonstrating the
variety of grammar and vocabulary in communication; demonstrating normative average
rate/tempo of speaking; avoiding utterances that set barriers for communication; adequately
presenting information orally to other people; maintaining logical coherence and cohesion in
communication; maintaining and using feedback in communicative interaction; being able to
find information fast and competently (particularly on the Internet), and being able to select
properly (particularly on the Internet) the required volume and kinds of data and information
for doing creative learning tasks.
The pre-experimental and post-experimental results of evaluating the development of stu-
dents’ emotional intelligence, computed in the same way as when computing the pre-experimental
and post-experimental data concerning the learners’ English communication skills development,
are summarized in table 3 and figure 2 below.
The data in the table convincingly prove that the differences in the emotional intelligence
development of the students in the comparable experimental and control groups were mathe-
matically/statistically insignificant at the beginning of the study but became so at its end (see
the 𝜒2𝑒𝑚𝑝 indicators in table 3).
The figure 2 testify to the fact that experimental group students’ workshop activities, their
work in small groups, and doing group tasks contributed to developing their abilities to or-
ganize the activities of other people and motivating them with the help of positive emotions.
Workshops teach them to plan joint activities, to collaborate, and foresee the results of future
activities. As a result, the need to observe one’s own emotions and feelings appears with the
aim of regulating them, taking into account the uniqueness of other people in the process of
interpersonal interaction. The abilities of regulating one’s own emotional states in different
kinds of communication became more manifested in experimental groups’ students. It is shown
by their increasing indicators of metacognition development followed by a sharp drop in the
number of students from those groups who, at the beginning of the study, were considered as
belonging to the low level of such development: –45.5% in EPS group and –50% in EAL group.
The indicators of experimental group students’ teamwork abilities, as well as those of their
sociable and communicative abilities and goal-setting abilities, have also grown substantially.
For instance, in what concerns the teamwork abilities, in EPS group they have grown from 9.1%
to 54.5% (+36.4 increase), and the low level of development dropped from 63.6% to 0% (–63.3).
In EAL group the relevant figures were: from 10% to 70% (increase +60%) and from 63.6% to
0% (drop –63.6). The same can be said about all the other indicators for experimental groups
students, while in the control groups those changes were not so much noticeable.
Therefore, it can be safely asserted that our experimental study has fully proven a very bene-
ficial impact and effect of using the workshop method in classes of English on the development
of tertiary students’ (of both non-linguistic and linguistic majors) English communication skills
and their emotional intelligence features.
287
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Table 3
The results of the study (pre-experimental and post-experimental): the dynamics of students’ emotional
intelligence indicators development.
The level of skills
development (in
percentage of the
number of students
in a group)
Group
12 students in CPS and 11 in EPS 11 students in CAL and 10 in EAL
The stage of the study
Pre-experimental Post-experimental Pre-experimental Post-experimental
CPS EPS CPS EPS CAL EAL CAL EAL
Metacognition
High 0% 9.1% 16.7% 45.5% 9.1% 10% 27.3% 60%
Sufficient 25% 27.3% 33.3% 36.4% 27.3% 40% 54.5% 40%
Low 75% 63.6% 50% 18.1% 63.6% 50% 18.2% 0%
𝜒2𝑒𝑚𝑝 1.598 28.416 4.066 19.056
Ability of team work
High 8.3% 9.1% 25% 45.5% 9.1% 10% 18.2% 70%
Sufficient 25% 27.3% 33.3% 54.5% 27.3% 30% 54.5% 30%
Low 66.7% 63.6% 41.7% 0% 63.6% 60% 27.3% 0%
𝜒2𝑒𝑚𝑝 0.21 37.972 0.274 48.826
Sociability and communicative ability
High 16.7% 0% 33.3% 45.5% 9.1% 10% 36.4% 60%
Sufficient 33.3% 36.4% 41.7% 45.5% 27.3% 40% 45.5% 40%
Low 50% 63.6% 25% 9% 63.6% 50% 18.1% 0%
𝜒2𝑒𝑚𝑝
7.128
(for 𝑝 ≤ 0.05) 9.584 4.066 11.568
Ability of adequate goal-setting
High 8.3% 9.1% 16.7% 54.5% 9.1% 20% 27.3% 60%
Sufficient 41.7% 45.5% 50% 36.4% 54.5% 40% 54.5% 30%
Low 50.3% 45.4% 33.3% 9.1% 36.4% 40% 18.2% 10%
𝜒2𝑒𝑚𝑝 0.454 36.02
6.476
(for 𝑝 ≤ 0.05) 21.736
4. Discussion and conclusion
This article above was discussing the use of students’ computer-based workshops in English
conducted by learners themselves in their mandatory classes on that language at the university.
The workshops were defined as a supreme form of peer-teaching in which one or several students
(workshop organizers) guide their group-mates in performing extra-linguistic learning activities
conducted in the target language. The workshops are computer-based because organizing them
requires extensive Internet searches by students-organizers and, as our experience shows, can
be held both offline and online. The efficiency of conducting such workshops was researched
in a two-year-long experimental study. It was postulated at the beginning of that study that
if the students enter the university with their level of English higher than A1, workshops in
288
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Figure 2: Graphic representations of the results of the study (pre-experimental and post-experimental):
the dynamics of students’ emotional intelligence indicators development.
English could be conducted from the very first year at university and they could be organized
both by the learners who major in linguistics and by those of non-linguistic majors. This is why
289
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
the students of Psychology and of English Philology (Applied Linguistics) were involved in the
experimental study. From the beginning of their first year until the end of their second year at
university they were regularly practicing workshops in English in their mandatory classes on
that discipline.
The experimental study fully and convincingly proved that computer-based workshops in
English greatly and efficiently contributed to the development of students’ (of both linguistic
and non-linguistic major) English communication abilities, such as: using correct and norma-
tive English pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary; demonstrating the variety of grammar
and vocabulary in communication; demonstrating normative average rate/tempo of speaking;
avoiding utterances that set barriers for communication; adequately presenting information
orally to other people; maintaining logical coherence and cohesion in communication; maintain-
ing and using feedback in communicative interaction; being able to find information fast and
competently (particularly on the Internet), and being able to select properly (particularly on the
Internet) the required volume and kinds of data and information for doing creative learning tasks.
Those workshops also effectively help in developing students’ emotional intelligence, especially
such abilities as metacognition, the abilities of teamwork, of being sociable and communicative,
as well as the abilities of adequate goal-setting. Therefore, the general conclusion is: students’
workshops in English held during their classes on that language at university can be considered
as a highly effective means of enhancing learners’ command of the target language and of
developing their personality. Such a workshop should find much broader application in English
teaching practice at Ukrainian tertiary schools and developing practical ways and means of
spreading and improving that application can be considered as the prospects of further studies.
References
[1] Barrett, B. and Sharma, P., 2003. The Internet and Business English, English language
teaching. Oxford: Summertown Publ.
[2] Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A. and Wesche, M.B., 1989. Content-Based Second Language
Instruction. New York: Newbury House.
[3] Byram, M., 2020. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence: Revisited.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Available from: https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=
S6MJEAAAQBAJ.
[4] Chorna, O.V., Hamaniuk, V.A. and Uchitel, A.D., 2019. Use of YouTube on lessons of practical
course of German language as the first and second language at the pedagogical university.
CTE Workshop Proceedings, 6, p.294–307. Available from: https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.392.
[5] Cohen, A.D., 1994. Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom. 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
[6] Council of Europe, 2020. Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Stras-
bourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/
common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/
16809ea0d4.
290
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=S6MJEAAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=S6MJEAAAQBAJ
https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.392
https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4
https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4
https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
[7] Damen, L., 1987. Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension in the Language Classroom. Reading:
Addison Wesley.
[8] Frendo, E., 2005. How to Teach Business English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education
Limited. Available from: https://vulms.vu.edu.pk/Courses/ENG516/Downloads/kupdf.net_
how-to-teach-business-english-evan-frendo.pdf .
[9] Gardner, H., 2017. Taking a multiple intelligences (MI) perspective. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 40, p.e203. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16001631.
[10] Graddol, D., 2006. English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of ‘English as a
Foreign Language’. London: British Council. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/
6938568/.
[11] Harmer, J., 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 4th ed. Harlow, Essex: Pearson
Education Limited. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/25472823/.
[12] Hashemi, L. and Thomas, B., 2012. Objective PET: Workbook with answers. 4th ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/9328164/.
[13] Holec, H., 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
[14] Holiver, N., Kurbatova, T. and Bondar, I., 2020. Blended learning for sustainable education:
Moodle-based English for Specific Purposes teaching at Kryvyi Rih National University.
E3S Web of Conferences, 166, p.10006. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/
202016610006.
[15] Ingram, D.E., 1985. Assessing Proficiency: An Overview on Some Aspects of Testing.
In: K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann, eds. Modelling and Assessing Second Language
Acquisition. San Diego: College-Hill Press, pp.215–276.
[16] Kagan, S. and Kagan, M., 2004. Multiple Intelligences: The Complete MI Book. San Clemente,
CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
[17] Kazhan, Y.M., Hamaniuk, V.A., Amelina, S.M., Tarasenko, R.O. and Tolmachev, S.T., 2020.
The use of mobile applications and Web 2.0 interactive tools for students’ German-language
lexical competence improvement. CTE Workshop Proceedings, 7, p.392–415. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.376.
[18] Kessler, C., ed., 1992. Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
[19] Kohonen, V., Jaatinen, R., Kaikkonen, P. and Lehtovaara, J., 2014. Experiential Learning in
Foreign Language Education. New York: Routledge.
[20] Kolb, D.A., 2015. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Devel-
opment. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701029.
[21] Longman Exam Dictionary, 2006. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
[22] Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S., 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching,
Cambridge Language Teaching Library. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Available from: https://www.academia.edu/32381844/.
[23] Rogers, C. and Freiberg, H.J., 1994. Freedom to Learn. 3rd ed. New York: Merrill. Available
from: https://archive.org/details/freedomtolearn0000roge.
[24] Semerikov, S., Chukharev, S., Sakhno, S., Striuk, A., Osadchyi, V., Solovieva, V., Vakaliuk, T.,
Nechypurenko, P., Bondarenko, O. and Danylchuk, H., 2020. Our sustainable coronavirus
future. E3S Web of Conferences, 166, p.00001. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1051/
291
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
https://vulms.vu.edu.pk/Courses/ENG516/Downloads/kupdf.net_how-to-teach-business-english-evan-frendo.pdf
https://vulms.vu.edu.pk/Courses/ENG516/Downloads/kupdf.net_how-to-teach-business-english-evan-frendo.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16001631
https://www.academia.edu/6938568/
https://www.academia.edu/6938568/
https://www.academia.edu/25472823/
https://www.academia.edu/9328164/
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016610006
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016610006
https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.376
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701029
https://www.academia.edu/32381844/
https://archive.org/details/freedomtolearn0000roge
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016600001
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016600001
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2021, Iss. 2, pp. 274-292 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
e3sconf/202016600001.
[25] Sharma, P., 2003. Integrating the World Wide Web into language Courses. BESIG Business
Issues, (3), pp.5–6. Available from: https://besig.iatefl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/
2003-issue-3-pdf.pdf .
[26] Sharma, P. and Barrett, B., 2007. Blended Learning: Using Technology in and Beyond the
Language Classroom, Macmillan books for teachers. Oxford: Macmillan.
[27] Stoller, F.L., 2008. Content-Based Instruction. In: N.H. Hornberger, ed. Encyclopedia
of Language and Education. Boston, MA: Springer US, pp.1163–1174. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_89.
[28] Tarnopolsky, O., 2012. Constructivist Blended Learning Approach to Teaching English for
Specific Purposes, Versita Discipline: Language, Literature. London: Versita. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.2478/9788376560014.
[29] Tarnopolsky, O. and Kabanova, M., 2019. Students workshops: one of the most challenging
experiential learning tasks in courses of English as a foreign language at tertiary schools.
Visnyk KNLU. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", (30), pp.17–25. Available from: https:
//doi.org/10.32589/2412-9283.30.2019.177432.
[30] Tarnopolsky, O.B., 2017. Peer-teaching as a new type of interpersonal relationships in the
language course for university students majoring in English. In: V.V. Pavlov, ed. Problems
of interpersonal relations in conditions of modern requirements to quality of education and
the level of professional skills of experts. Peer-reviewed materials digest (collective monograph)
published following the results of the CLII International Research and Practice Conference and
III stage of the Championship in Psychology and Educational sciences (London, September 21
– September 26, 2017). London: IASHE, pp.17–19. Available from: http://web.archive.org/
web/20201231224108if_/https://www.files.gisap.eu/sites/files/digest/152.indd_site.pdf .
[31] Underhill, N., 1987. Testing Spoken Language: A handbook of oral testing techniques,
Cambridge Handbooks for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[32] Vlasenko, K., Chumak, O., Sitak, I., Kalashnykova, T. and Achkan, V. CLIL Method
to Increase Students’ Motivation in Studying Mathematics at Higher Technical School.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(2), pp.362–370. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080205.
[33] Warschauer, M., 2002. A Developmental Perspective on Technology in Language Education.
TESOL Quarterly, 36(3), pp.453–475. Available from: https://education.uci.edu/uploads/7/
2/7/6/72769947/developmental1.pdf .
[34] Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H. and Meloni, C., 2000. Internet for English Teaching. Alexandria,
VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
292
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016600001
https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.55
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016600001
https://besig.iatefl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2003-issue-3-pdf.pdf
https://besig.iatefl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2003-issue-3-pdf.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_89
https://doi.org/10.2478/9788376560014
https://doi.org/10.32589/2412-9283.30.2019.177432
https://doi.org/10.32589/2412-9283.30.2019.177432
http://web.archive.org/web/20201231224108if_/https://www.files.gisap.eu/sites/files/digest/152.indd_site.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20201231224108if_/https://www.files.gisap.eu/sites/files/digest/152.indd_site.pdf
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080205
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080205
https://education.uci.edu/uploads/7/2/7/6/72769947/developmental1.pdf
https://education.uci.edu/uploads/7/2/7/6/72769947/developmental1.pdf
1 Introduction
1.1 Problem statement and its topicality substantiation
1.2 Peer-teaching in classes of English: the essence of the method
2 Method
2.1 Students’ workshops as the fullest embodiment of peer-teaching
2.2 The hypothetical advantages of students’ workshops
3 Results
3.1 Materials, method, and procedure of the experimental study
3.2 The results of the study: their computation
4 Discussion and conclusion