‘The Effect of Computer Assisted Instruction on Iranian High School Students’ Writing’ by Fatemeh Alipanahi

Abstract

Currently, computer assisted language learning (CALL) is widely accepted to be a tool which can be used to facilitate the language learning process. This study aimed to investigate the effect of computer-assisted language learning on Iranian high school student writing achievement. The sample of the study consisted of sixty students distributed randomly on experimental and control groups before instruction, both groups were pre-tested. Both studied the same writing textbook for 12 weeks. In addition, the experimental group was exposed to the software. At the end of the treatment, both groups were post-tested. The findings of the study indicated that using computer-assisted English language instruction alongside the traditional method has a positive effect on the experimental group students’ achievement. 

Keywords: CALL, writing achievement, EFL learner

Introduction

In the last decades, the use of computers has developed rapidly throughout the world. For educational purposes, computers play a crucial role where they function as ‘an added tool or resource, as a model or a real-world phenomenon or system, and as a training environment to prepare users for real-world tasks and experiences’ (Pennington 1995: 11).

Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is an approach to teaching and learning foreign language where the computer and computer-based resources such as the Internet are used to present, reinforce and assess material to be learned. It usually includes a substantial interactive element. This technology in the classroom is widely believed to help teachers promote a constructive class environment and it is viewed by many researchers to have an influential effect on the teaching and learning process (Muir-Herzig, 2004). Newby et al. (2000) argued that when the computer-based learning environment is implemented in classrooms, there is a need for the modification of educational goals.

The combination of text, audio and video “make multimedia an excellent format for learning materials and have led to the birth of an industry in computer-assisted language learning (CALL)” (Ayres, 2002, p. 256). CALL is a language learning and teaching approach in which the computer is used as a tool for presentation, assisting students, and evaluating material, and has an interactional element. As cited in Davies (2002), Levy (1997) emphasized that CALL is more extensively defined as the search for computer applications in language teaching and learning. Since the 1980s, CALL software applications have tended to shift the locus of control from the computer to the learner. Later generations of CALL viewed the computer as a tool controlled by the learner rather than an expert controlled environment for the learner (Kern & Warschauer, 2000).

Computer-based instruction has been challenging traditional teaching and learning processes. Jones (2001) expresses the importance of computer technologies in foreign language learning. Language teachers and administrators realize the aptness toward CALL. Furthermore, from educators’ perspectives, with a variety of computer-based activities, computers can help facilitate needs and challenge students’ learning practices (Warschauer and Healey, 1998). However, many findings concluded that letting the students use computers in the classroom without any concrete activities that relate to language learning and without any understanding of the conditions of using computers in the classroom may hinder the total utilization of them (Bromley, 1998; Gunderson and Anderson, 1999; Hartschuh, 1999; Muir-Herzig, 2004).

Ellis (2003) claimed that traditional language teaching in classrooms can be monotonous, boring, and even frustrating, and students can lose interest and motivation in learning. CALL programmers can provide students with ways to learn English through computer games, music, animated graphics, and problem-solving techniques which can make drills more interesting. Brown (2002) maintained that now, teacher-centered instruction shifts its place to learner-centered instruction.

Some studies have suggested that the use of writing software applications in students’ texts may be positively correlated with the text quality or L2 proficiency (Ferris, 1994; Grant & Ginther, 2000; Jarvis, Grant, Bikowskia, &Ferris, 2003). Pennington and Brock (1990) noticed that when ESL students used a text analyzer alone without teacher feedback, the results were that writers tended to accept the analyzer’s suggestions, even when those alternatives were inappropriate. Studies conducted by Brock (1990a, 1990b) suggested that L2 writing errors are more idiosyncratic and harder to classify than L1 errors.

Using computers in writing classes would allow learners to progress at their own pace and make choices in what and how to learn. A computer provides immediate feedback from both the teacher and computer. Moreover a computer allows learners to know whether their words or structure are correct or not, and if not, provide the correct answer. Consequently, learners can have error-free and cohesive sentences.

The present study is going to answer the following question:

Does computer- assisted EFL instruction have a positive influence on the writing achievement of high school students?

Review of Literature

Second language (L2) writing has always been a difficult area for second language learners and a hot topic for second language researchers. The emergence of the field of L2 writing is a relatively recent phenomenon. Fletcher and Atkinson (1972) carried out one of the earliest studies and found  that the performance of most students who received computer-assisted instruction was better than the performance of those who did not. Cook (1985) found that the students who received computer-assisted writing showed better performance in writing than those who did not.

Pennington (1993), Sullivan and Pratt (1996), Braine (1997) and Liou (1997) found that the writing skills of EFL students who used word-processing, a computer-mediated networked environment, and web-based materials improved significantly.

CALL research has been ongoing for decades investigating CALL use in different contexts and with different languages worldwide. Its potential for language and teaching in the field of foreign languages has been discussed and documented by many researches (Crosby, 1997; Peterson, 1998; Vrtacnik et al., 2000). Charischak (2000) stated that for long time, basic drill and practice software programs dominated the market in CALL. Supporting this claim, Robert (2002) pointed out that the,use of computers to assist learners in their language studies has increased phenomenally over the past decade. Cushoin and Dominique (2002) described how recent technological developments have provided the possibility of overcoming technical problems in conjunction with the Java programming language and Unicode character numbering system. Schwienhorst (2002) discussed Call CALL and focused in on the benefits of virtual reality environments, particularly foreign language contexts.

Surprisingly, in some EFL classroom settings, traditional classroom instruction, in which hand-written essays and face-to-face discussions were used, proved to be more effective than instruction using technology. For example, Izzo (1996) found that hand-written essays were significantly longer and more organized than technical essays produced by college students learning English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in Japan using computer workstations, because the instructor spent time teaching about workstation use instead of the writing process and the students could not see what the final paper looked like. Also, in Hong Kong, Roskams (1998) reported that skilled writers cooperating in a network writing laboratory found it ineffective in improving their writing ability.

In addition, several researchers have emphasized the use of computer programs to enhance learner autonomy in second language learning, particularly in the field of ESL/EFL writing (Milton, 1997; Williams, 2005). According to Williams (2005), if the use of the computer software is carefully modeled, it can offer students both assistance and autonomy in the writing process.

AbuSeileek (2004) investigated the effect of a computer -based program on Jordanian secondary grade students’ writing ability in English. He found significant differences between the mean scores on the writing task of the experimental group who received instruction via computer, and the control group who received instruction via the traditional method. Al-Menei (2008) studied the effect of computer-assisted writing on Saudi students’ writing skill in English. The findings of the study showed that computer-assisted writing has a significant effect on EFL Saudi students’ writing ability in two areas: paragraph writing and correcting grammar.

New technology offers the writers an excellent package of tools with which to prepare, organize and present documents. Computers can help writers in editing and setting layout and checking words such as spell checking and thesaurus. Sharples (1999) asserts “ the computer as a tool for writing is just beginning to move out of its period of imitation”.Word-processors give writers the freedom to experiment with a text without making a mess. It means that one can make either major or minor changes in the text without retyping or rewriting the entire text (Brookes andGrundy, 2000).

Methodology

Participants

Participants in this study consisted of 60 EFL female students who were chosen randomly through a stratified random sampling method. The students belonged to a school where the author taught. The subjects were randomly assigned to two groups ( 30 students in the control group and 30 students in experimental group). The average of the students’ age was 18. Both groups were equal in almost every aspect such as age, level of proficiency, number of students, class size, books and the teacher. The control group was exposed to traditional in-class writing instruction that depended on the textbook only, whereas the experimental group was exposed to a combination of traditional and computer-assisted writing instruction.

The students were at prewriting level. The school had a computer lab with multimedia capability, a videoconferencing unit and a computer engineer. Computing is taught to all students as a subject. Students study computer application and learn different computer skills regularly. They spent one class period weekly at the computer lab using numerous software applications and productivity tools such as interactive multimedia CD-ROM s. Second, the majority of students had their own computers at home. Therefore, the subjects experience with computers is sufficient enough to enable them to use CALL successfully.

Instruction

The experimental and control groups were exposed to the same traditional in-class

writing instruction. Both groups were taught by the researcher. Students in both groups studied College writing by Zemach and Rumisek (2003) . The aim of the book is to develop the students’  ability to write a cohesive paragraph that has a topic sentence and supporting details with minimal grammatical, spelling, punctuation and indentation errors. The book consists of 12 chapters. Each chapter has a theme and is divided into the following parts: Exploring ideas, building vocabulary, organizing ideas, developing cohesion and style, some grammatical points, writing the first draft, editing practice, writing the second draft and journal writing. In each chapter, tasks and skills are practiced one step at a time, before the students put them all together in their paragraph.

Each chapter was completed over a week (two hours), and the book was covered over 12 weeks. Each week, students in both groups completed all of the skills, exercises and writing tasks in the chapter and wrote one-paragraph essay. Students were always  required to do the exercises and at least write part of their paragraph in class and rewrite their paragraphs when necessary.

Students in both groups were encouraged to write and not to worry about spelling, grammatical, punctuation or capitalization mistakes. While doing the exercises and writing the paragraphs, I monitored students work and provided individual help. The students received communicative feedback focusing on meaning and only errors related to rules or skills under study were highlighted. Also the students were given commands on the unity and organization  of sentences. Self-editing and peer-editing were encouraged. Altogether, the learners of both the control and experimental groups received feedback from their teachers on the 12 papers which they submitted to their instructors during 12 sessions. Words of encouragement were always given. The slightest improvement was noted and commended.

Treatment

In addition to the traditional writing instruction, the experimental group attended

computer- assisted classes that were exposed to “WordPerfect, Office 2003, and Professional”. The software provided students with feedback about their mistake/errors such as spelling, capitalization, subject-verb agreement, adjective-noun agreement, etc. That is, the most important criterion for choosing a program for our CALL class.

The main feature of “WordPerfect” was that it provided feedback while students were typing their written composition. The errors were underlined in red and the learners could correct them every time they want. So, the learner was provided with a feedback when she repeated the error.

Software gave  alternative correct form of mistakes and the  leaner could make use of the suggestions or just ignore them. The software also contained an Oxford Learners Dictionary  that could be used both while and after typing the text. There was no linear order for employing these parts by the learner and they were all available to her whenever needed.

The first and the last composition written by the participants were regarded as a pretest and posttest. That is, the learner of both groups was first required to write a free composition during the first session. The last composition, the topic of which was again assigned by me, was treated as a posttest. The second part of posttest was a questionnaires to evaluate scales to determine attitude toward CALL, perceived utility of using CALL , perceived knowledge gain of FEL before and after the use of CALL ,and intention to use CALL in future.

Two questionnaires were used as supplementary data elicitation instruments of the study. The first questionnaire designed for the control group had sixteen items on the five point Likert Scale. The second questionnaire which was designed for the experimental group had twenty eight items and like the first one was prepared on the five point Likert Scale. The format of the questionnaires was adapted from Harwood and Giles (1993).

Each questionnaire consisted of three parts .The first part of both questionnaires was devoted to questions about characteristics of each learner including students’ writing background and the factors which might influence one’s language proficiency such as teaching experience, being around and the learner’s mother tongue. It also included items which were intended to elicit demographic information of the subjects such as age, sex, etc. The two remaining parts of each questionnaire contained items which were supposed to elicit information about some other categories. The categories for control group questionnaire included items on self-assessment and teacher- feedback assessment. The questionnaire items for experimental group could be categorized as self –assessment and computer – feedback assessment. These items were arranged in two parts. According to the type of answer they demanded. The second part of the control group’s questionnaire included five items on a five items on a five point Likert Scale ranging from “agree” to “disagree”. The third part of the same questionnaire was devoted to eleven items again on a five point Likert Scale ranging from always (high frequency of occurrence) to never (no occurrence).The advantage of using such questionnaires is that they are less consuming than some other data elicitation techniques such as interviews.

Procedure

First, students were divided randomly into experimental and control groups.

Both groups pre-tested by requiring the students to write a paragraph. After that expectations and instruction of the study were told to both groups, the book was introduced to both experimental and control groups. And also every individual in experimental group receives CALL CD, with a set of instruction to use.

Both groups of learners attended the traditional writing classes once a week, and every session they were supposed to write a paragraph based on the guidelines provided by me. I gave feedback to the students on their paragraphs and encouraged them to revise the paragraph according to feedback. Meanwhile the experimental group became familiar with the use of software program with developing short paragraphs and receives feedback from the software.

In addition, I did not leave the learners alone, and helped them when they had problem with program. At last in last session, the learners of both groups were required to write an essay as a post-test. The students were not allowed to use dictionary during the final exam session. Before writing an essay, each student presented by a questionnaire, in which the type of questionnaire depends on whether the student belonged to experimental or control groups.

The pretest and post-test essays of both groups were holistically graded based on a general impression of content, organization, cohesion, word choice, language use and mechanics. All essays were read once and a quality rating of high, above average, average, below average and low was given to each paper. Essays were then read for a second time and each was assigned a grade. I graded the essays blindly. The students wrote their ID numbers instead of their names. It was not possible to have another instructor grade the essays instead of me, as she would not know what writing skills and grammar points were emphasized and practiced throughout the course. An independent samples t- test was used to measure the gain scores of both groups on the pretest and then on the posttest. A One-Way Analysis of Covariance (ANCONA) was used to measure the gain scores of the subjects in order to eliminate any possible differences between the two groups on the pretest. Table 3 shows the results.

Result

This study investigates the effect of computer-assisted instruction of Iranian EFL high school students on their writing achievement. The study compares using the computer-assisted language learning alongside the traditional method. The hypothesis of research was that computer- assisted EFL instruction has a  positive influence on writing achievement of high school students. This hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance.

All pretest and post-test raw scores were converted into percentages. The mean, standard deviation, t value and significance were computed for the pretest and posttest scores of both groups and analyzed via the statistical SPSS program. To find out whether there was a significant difference in ability between the experimental and control groups prior to instruction, a t-test was run using the pretest scores.

In Table 1, the difference between the achievement of both groups on the pretest is not statistically significant at a= 0.05. Thus, since there is no statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups on the pretest,

the two groups were assumed equivalent ( the mean of control and experimental groups in pre-test are  respectively, 66.94 and 67.83 ). Another independent-samples t-test was conducted to determine whether or not there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups’ achievement on the posttest.

Table 2,shows that there is a statistically significant difference at a =0.05 between the achievement of the experimental group and that of the control group on the posttest in favor of the experimental group ( the mean of control and experimental groups in post-test are respectively, 67.99 and 80.11 ) . This indicates that using computer in English language instruction to the high school students has a positive effect on students’ achievement.

Table 1-Results of the t test of the means of the achievement of the two groups on the pretest.

Group	N	Mean	Standard Deviation	T	Sig
Pretest
Control Group	30	66.94	14.11	-0.158	0.851
Experimental Group	30	67.83	12.03

Table 2-Results of the t test of the means of the achievement of the two groups on the posttest.

Group	N	Mean	Standard Deviation	T	Sig
Pretest
Control Group	30	67.99	14.01	-2.168	0.051
Experimental Group	30	80.11	10.23

Table 3-Results of the test of between-subjects effects.

Source	Sum of Squares	df	Means of Squares	F	Sig
Pretest	7834.11	1	7834.111	267.558	0.000
Group	408.907	1	408.907	13.965	0.000
Error	3367.204	115	29.280
Corrected total	16987.167	118

The result of independent t-test analyses implies that feedback provided by computer had a significant effect on the final writing achievement level of the high school students. In other words, using “WordPerfect” via computers made a great difference on the level of writing skills of the learners of these two groups at the end of the course of instruction.

The results of the paired t-test reported show a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the experimental group, suggesting that student achievement in the experimental group significantly improved as a result of using a combination of computer-assisted  writing instruction and traditional  class writing instruction. But, the difference between the pretest and post-test mean scores of the control group was found, suggesting that achievement in the control group improved little.

However, it is worth mentioning that further pair-wise comparison of the means of the experimental and control groups reveals that subjects in the experimental group attained higher scores than students in the control group. This higher mean score might imply that computers were more effective word processor, also “Word Perfect” made immediate feedback via underlying the error and providing correct alternatives and explanations.  The participants of experimental groups had an access to extra facilities such as grammar and spelling checkers and dictionary. Experimental group studied in a relaxed atmosphere, which was motivating and helped them to use problem-solving strategies.

This study confirmed the results of the previous studies about computer-assisted writing and that computer was an effective tool for teaching language skills.

Conclusion

The relevant schematic knowledge allows the learners to make efficient use of their top-down processing in helping their bottom-up processing in the handling of various language tasks.(Alptekin, 1993). Accordingly, the current study concludes that EFL students make better use of what they know about the world when they read an authentic text accompanied with the closest title of the passage.

Pedagogical Implication:

Implication for textbooks compilers

Having considered the schematic underlying EFL materials, the compilers can provide sufficient language and content clues to have reader or listener to process and necessary world knowledge needed for underlying EFL texts.

Implication for EFL teachers:

It is the teacher that who compliments the compiler’s role to compensate in writing for the range of differences among potential readers/listeners of the given text. He can elaborate and manipulate orally or written texts, particularly the points have been hidden from the compiler’s view.

Implication for EFL students:

EFL students should have the opportunity e to activate schema and make prediction on the content of the passage prior to understanding the assignment. They should aware of how idea in a text is related to the topic of it.

Implication for the further research:

Several variables such as sex, time, aptitude, motivation, setting, misleading title, and education background of the learners may influence of the finding of the present study. Moreover, the way that the text have been written and presented the nature of the text and the types of the title may affect the results.

Discussion

Experimental students’ responses to the post-treatment questionnaire indicated that use of technology had a positive effect on their attitude towards the writing process. It enhanced their self-esteem, motivation and sense of achievement and improvement. Celce-Murcia (1991) attributes the difference to the nature of the interaction between the learners has with computer brings about amore learner-centered approach. The analyses of the results of the experimental and control groups revealed that using computers had a major effect on the final writing achievement level of students and their writing level at the end of the program improved significantly.

The results of the independent sample t-test illustrated that those in the experimental group were more accurate in their compositions; Because of  immediate feedback which “WordPerfect” provided for the learners typed their previously written compositions. While working with computers and receiving such feedback the students became more aware of the mistakes they committed and in this way they were in a better position to remove them. Moreover, the software provided them with correct forms and alternatives as well as explanations. This is mentioned by James and Garrett (1995) that computers can be used as instruments for heightening the users ’ explicit of language. Moreover, using computers for writing may be more fun than writing with pen and pencil as it is claimed by Sergeant (2001) and if students enjoy while writing it probably affects their learning positively. Lewis (1998) conducted a study with learning disabled students in grades 4-12 who used word processing tools (spelling and grammar aids). She found that word processing had the most impact upon the writing accuracy of learning disabled students. Spell checks were found to be effective editing tools but grammar checks were not. Spell checks had a more positive effect on students’ writing quality and accuracy than synthesized speech. The positive attitude towards writing in EFL provided low ability students in the present study with new opportunities to practice writing outside the classroom in a favorable innovative context.

References

[1] Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes toward the use of CALL, Computer Assisted language

learning, 15(3): 2, 1-249.

[2] Braine, G. (2001). A study of English as a foreign language (EFL) writers on a local-area      network (LAN) and in traditional classes. Computers and Composition, 18, 275-292.

[3] Brock, M. N. (1990a). Can the computer tutor? An analysis of a disk-based text analyzer.    System, 18, 351-359.

[4] Brock, M. N. (1990b). Customizing a computerized text analyzer for ESL writers: Cost versus gain. CALICO Journal, 8 (2), 51- 60.

[5] Brookes, A. and Grundy, P. (2000). Beginning to write: writing activities for elementary and intermediate learner .United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

[6] Brown, H. (2002). Strategies for success: A practical Guide to Learning English. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.

[7] Celle-Murcia, M. (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. New York:

Newbury House.

[8] Charischak, I. (2000). A look at technology’s role in professional development of  mathematics teachers at the middle school level. School Science and Mathematics, 100(7), 3354.

[9] Cushion, S., and Dominique, H.(2002).Applying new technology developments to Call for Arab. Computer Assisted Language Learning.15(5),501-508.

[10] Conrad, K. B. (1996). CALL-non English L2 instruction. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 16,158-181.

[11] Cook, J., 1985. Effects of computer-assisted instruction upon seventh grade students’        growth         in writing performance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Nebraska State University,    Nebraska, USA.

[12] Crossby , M. (1997). Guest editorial: CALL in L1. Computer Assisted Language Learning,                  10 (4), 110-309.

[13] Cushion, S., and Dominique, H.(2002).Applying new technology developments to Call for Arab. Computer Assisted Language Learning.15(5),501-508.

[14] Davies, G. (2002). CALL( Computer Assisted Language learning)[Online]. Http://

www.lang.Itsn.ac.uk./resources/goodpractice.aspx?resourceid=61 (1 March 2005).

[15] Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press

[16] Fang,Y.(2010). Perceptions of the Computer-Assisted Writing Program among EFL College Learners. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (3), 246–256.

[17] Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2       writing differences. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 9, 123-145.

[18] Izzo, J. (1996). An analysis of computer workstation and handwriting use by ESP

students. ERIC No. ED394295.

[19] Jones, J. F. (2001). CALL and the responsibilities of teachers and administrators. ELT       Journal, vol.55/4, October20001, 360-367.

[20] Jun, Z. (2008). A Comprehensive Review of Studies on Second Language Writing.

HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol. 12.

[21] Jung, U. O. (2002). An international bibliography of computer –assisted language learning : Fifth installment . system , 30(3),349-398.

[22] Khamkhien, A. (2012). Computer Assisted Language Learning and English Language Teaching     in Thailand: Overview. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 3 (1)

[23] Lewis, R. (1998). Enhancing the writing skills of students with learning disabilities

through technology: An investigation of the effects of text entry tools, editing tools, and       speech synthesis. Final Report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432117.

[24] Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and Conceptualisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[25] Liou, H. (1997). The impact of WWW texts on EFL learning. Computer Assisted

Language Learning, 10, 5, 455-478.

[26] Al-Menei, Ahmed, 2008. An investigation of the effect of computerassistedwriting instruction on        EFL Saudi learners’ ability. Unpublished Master Thesis, King Saud University, Riyadh, KSA.

[27] Milton, J. (1997). Providing computerized self-access opportunities for the development of    writing skills. In P. Benson, & P.Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 237-263), London: Longman.

[28] Noriko, N. (2002). BANZI: An application of natural language processing to web-based

language learning . CALICO journal , 19(30), 583-599.

[29] Pennington, M. (1993). Exploring the potential of word processing for non-native writers. Computers and the Humanities, 27, 3, 149-163.

[30] Peterson, M. (1998). Guest editorial. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 114(4), 347-348.

[31] Robert, A. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL.

[32] Schwienhorst, K. (2002). Why virtual, why environments? Implementing virtual reality

concepts in computer assisted language.Simulation&Gaming,33(2),196-209.

[33] Sergeant, S. (2001). CALL innovation in the EFL curriculum. In D.R.Hall and A. Hewings (2001). Innovation in English teaching .London: Routledge.

[34] Sharples, M. (1999) .How we write: writing as creative design. London: Rouledge.

[35] Warschauer, M. ve Healey, D. (1998). Computers and Language Learning: An overview.Language Teaching, 31:57 -71.

[36] Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom    research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10 (2), 1-24.

[37] Williams, J. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms, Boston: McGraw-Hill.

[38] Wood, J. (2001). Can software support children ‘s vocabulary development? Language

Learning and Technology, Vol. (1), January 2001, 166-201.

About the Author

Fatemeh Alipanahi is an experienced language teacher. Fatemeh has got her MA from Bloomington Indiana University and PhD from Allameh Tabatabaee University Tehran Iran. Fatemeh has taught English for 30 years in Zanjan University. Retiring from there, Fatemeh has been employed as Full time assistant professor at Islamic Azad University of Zanjan. Fatemeh has published 3 books and some articles in different journals and attended many conferences worldwide.