Content uploaded by Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mostafa Morady Moghaddam on Nov 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mostafa Morady Moghaddam on Nov 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
I.J.Modern Education and Computer Science, 2013, 1, 36-41
Published Online January 2013 in MECS (http://www.mecs-press.org/)
DOI: 10.5815/ijmecs.2013.01.05
Copyright © 2013 MECS I.J. Modern Education and Computer Science, 2013, 1, 36-41
The Effect of Weekly Quizzes on Students‘ Final
Achievement Score
Valeh Gholami
University of Tabriz, Iran
vale.gholami@yahoo.com
Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
Young Researchers Club, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
mostafa_morady@yahoo.com
Abstract— The present study aimed at investigating the
effect of weekly quizzes on Iranian high school students‘
performance on final achievement tests. This effect,
which is technically referred to as washback, is defined
as the effect of testing on learning and teaching. Most
scholars have attempted to provide guidelines in order to
achieve positive washback. While some suggest
frequent quizzes as a means of positive washback,
others oppose the idea. The proponents claim that
frequent quizzes stimulate practice and review, give the
students more opportunities for feedback and have a
positive influence on students‘ study time. The
opponents, on the other hand, believe that too frequent
testing might inhibit of larger units of instructional
material and frustrate anxious students, and thus, hinder
learning. This study explored whether students taking
weekly quizzes performed better in the final
achievement tests. 70 students studying in grade two of
high school were selected and divided into two groups.
One group received weekly quizzes and the other group
took only midterm exam. The results indicated that the
group with weekly quizzes performed better than the
group without quizzes.
Index Terms— Quiz, Washback, Students‘ performance,
Formative assessment, Achievement test
I. INTRODUCTION
Interest in how to improve students learning is not
new. It is generally assumed that quizzes are useful tools
to enhance learning and consolidate what has been
taught. Brown (2004) conceives of them as ―the
information that washes back to students in the form of
useful diagnoses of strengths and weaknesses‖ (p. 29).
This influence of the test on the classroom can be either
beneficial or harmful.
In one of the few published studies of frequent
quizzing, Geist and Soehren (1997) reported on a study
of dental students. They concluded that frequent
quizzing had a beneficial and significant influence on
student performance. They further found that the
positive effects on performance increased as the number
of quizzes increased. Thus they concluded that quizzes
do matter for academic performance and teaching had
an influential autonomous effect on learning.
Quizzes can be beneficial in a number of ways. First,
they supply motivation for students to attend classes
(Zarei, 2008). In a study, wilder (2001) examined the
effect of random quizzes on student attendance in an
undergraduate course on the psychology of learning.
The results indicated that student attendance increased
by 10 percent when the quizzes were in place.
Frequent quizzes help students to retain the material
for longer period of time or make them ready for high-
stakes exams (Johnsom & Kiviniemi, 2009). In addition,
many studies have shown that frequent testing increases
student‘s classroom attendance (Chump, Bauer, & Alex,
2003; Jones, 1984; Wilder, Flood, & Stromsnes, 2001).
The difference between instructed and naturalistic
learning should be taken into consideration too. As it is
mentioned by Pica (1983), in every second language
context a distinction is to be made between instructed
and naturalistic learning. Instructed learning can be
defined in various forms based on setting, motive, and
process (Ellis, 2005). In terms of motive and process,
the distinction is not clear-cut. But for the setting,
instructed learning takes place in classrooms and
naturalistic learning takes place in real environment
where the language is used to communicate and not just
for metalinguistic analysis. Task-Based instruction was
an attempt to provide learners with naturalistic way of
learning in which communicating and achieving one‘s
goals through manipulating the language took outmost
importance. White (1988), distinguished between two
types of curriculum: Type A Curriculum and Type B
Curriculum. In the former, there is a graded list of items
that should be learned one by one in a structural syllabus
but in the later learners are provided with tasks to use
their language experientially. The tasks have a strong
motivational power since they make the language
learning process meaningful. Hence, the skills are
integrated in order to accomplish a task. Therefore, as
Widdowson (1988) mentioned it, the skill getting
process turns to a skill using one.
Ellis (2005, pp. 720-721) pinpointed the underlying
elements of task-base instruction approach as:
The Effect of Weekly Quizzes on Students‘ Final Achievement Score 37
Copyright © 2013 MECS I.J. Modern Education and Computer Science, 2013, 1, 36-41
Meaning is primary
There is some communication problem to solve
There is some relationship to real-world activities
Task completion has some priority
Assessment of the task is in terms of outcome
Prabhu (1987) was one of the pioneers who advocated
the use of tasks as a substitute to preselectoin of
linguistic elements and mentioned that learning process
should take place in a holistic way. The main
implication of his study was to deemphasize the
metalinguistic approach toward learning a language in
which the main focus is on talking about the language
instead of using the language in communicative
activities. Prabhu proposed a procedural syllabus paved
the way to develop a syllabus based on using task as a
motive to change the traditional stereotype of learning a
language—which was a structural syllabus. The motto
changed to this one: communicate in order to learn—
which was traditionally: first learn then communicate.
The Prabhu model of task-based instruction was a
radical one. He believed that in order for successful
language learning to take place one should learn the
language implicitly without conscious attention to form.
Another seminal work which paved the way for many
studies in task-based approach is related to Long (1985).
Both Prabhu and Long were interested in task-based
teaching; however, their approach was different. For
Prabhu, the main concern was learning a language
implicitly but Long emphasized on a theory of language
which is integrated with some sort of attention to from
or what he calls ‗focus on form‘. Long further
distinguished between two types of tasks: target and
pedagogic. As Long put it, need analysis is the starting
point in every task-based syllabus.
Therefore, the investigators hypothesized that
students with weekly quizzes not only perform better on
tests but also learn more. This study attempted to answer
that whether administering weekly quizzes results in
better performance on final achievement tests.
II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
The term frequent testing has been subject to many
different interpretations and definitions. Some define
frequent testing as a kind of examination which is
carried out weekly (Keys, 1934), others as a kind of
assessment which is performed on a daily basis (Dineen,
Taylor, & Stephens, 1989), while other researchers
define it on a monthly basis (Kling, Miller, & Reardon,
2005).
The relevant literature on frequent quizzing has
witnessed a substantial amount of controversy. On the
one hand, the proponents of quizzes believe that quizzes
have undeniable advantages; frequent quizzes help
students to retain the material for longer periods of time
or make them ready for high-stakes exams (Johnson &
Kiviniemi, 2009). Taking into consideration the kinds of
nation-wide and high-stakes tests, students are required
to take frequent testing in order to be prepared for much
important exams (Johnson & Kiviniemi, 2009). In
addition, many studies have shown that frequent testing
increases students‘ classroom attendance (Clump, Bauer,
& Alex, 2003; Jones, 1984; Wilder et al., 2001).
Frequent testing is also beneficial because through
giving students frequent quizzes, schools can gain
valuable information about how they are doing.
Moreover, frequent testing can provide the school,
teachers, parents, and students with useful feedback on
student performance in the class (Bangert-Drowns et al.,
1986; Standlee & Popham, 1960).
One of the other important advantages of frequent
testing is that it creates extrinsic motivation for the
students; since students want to obtain good grades in
the course, they try hard and spend a lot of time
preparing for the quizzes (Dustin, 1971). There is
another view that getting good grades on quizzes
motivates students. This has a circular effect in that
students prepare more for the quizzes since the test itself
is a good source of motivation (Zarei, 2008).
Another reason why frequent testing is beneficial to
students‘ learning is that frequent testing covers small
amounts of materials. Therefore, they are processed
more deeply and meticulously (Standlee & Popham,
1960). Moreover, Selakovich (1962) believes that
frequent testing even results in more classroom
discussion of the content or material covered in the same
class.
As far as stress and anxiety are concerned, Dustin
(1971) believes that stress is reduced through frequent
testing. Teachers can also make sure that students are
doing the required readings and assignments in the class
through frequent testing (Connor-Greene, 2000;
Weinstein & Wu, 2009).
On the other hand, there are also a number of issues
raised against frequent testing. Administering and
scoring tests are really time-consuming and it may take
the class time away from efficient instruction. Frequent
testing might also become tedious for students and
decrease students‘ interest in the materials and learning
in general. Marshall (2007) thinks that too much testing
does not lead to fruitful and lifelong learning because
teachers put their focus only on the tests and teach to the
test, providing their students only with the amount of
information they need to do well on the tests. Because
teachers teach to the test and students read to the test,
learning does not last for a long time.
Many studies have been done regarding the effect of
frequent testing on the students‘ learning and
achievement. The earliest study, to the researchers‘ best
knowledge, was conducted by Turney (1931) in an
educational psychology course. The participants of the
study were classified into two groups based on their
performance on the pretest. The experimental group
received weekly quizzes and the control group received
just one mid-term. It was found that frequency of testing
was a source of motivation and resulted in higher
performance.
38 The Effect of Weekly Quizzes on Students‘ Final Achievement Score
Copyright © 2013 MECS I.J. Modern Education and Computer Science, 2013, 1, 36-41
The next study in chronological order was done by
Keys (1934). The students in Keys‘ research were
divided into two groups in which the frequency of testing
differed in a way that the experimental group was tested
on a weekly basis, while the control group was given
tests once a month. The instructor, the content of the
course, and the assignments were the same. The
experimental group outperformed the control group,
suggesting that frequent testing leads to efficient learning.
Martin and Srikameswaran (1974) investigated the
effects of frequent testing upon long-term retention of
content in a Chemistry class. The study included two
groups, experimental and control, and all things
including the materials, assignments, teaching
methodology, and final exams were exactly the same.
The only difference between the groups came with the
experimental group taking tests every week. The
students in the experimental group outperformed the
ones in the control group since they were motivated to
do some extra work due to frequent quizzes.
In another study, Fulkerson and Martin (1981) found
that frequent testing through short, objective tests
resulted in better performance than the longer ones
given less frequently to the students. The experimental
group in this study was given eight tests; each consisting
of 25 questions, while the students in the comparison
group received four tests each consisting of 50 questions.
Everything in the classroom including the materials and
assignments were identical in both groups. The findings
were in line with those of Keys (1934) and Dustin
(1971). Another study was carried out by Dineen, Taylor,
and Stephens (1989) to see the effect of daily frequent
testing versus weekly testing on students‘ performance.
The study was carried out in an academic setting where
the participants ranged from freshmen to senior students.
Although the results of the study revealed that there was
no significant difference between the two groups as far
as the two methods of evaluation were concerned, the
study found that ―frequent testing was more effective for
the weaker students than the stronger students‖ (Dineen
et al., 1989, p. 200).
All the studies reviewed so far have been carried out
on a relatively small scale including no more than a few
hundred students. There was a very large scale study
done by Khalaf and Hanna (1992), in which nearly 2000
biology students participated. The participants were
divided into two groups, experimental and control. The
students in the experimental group were given tests
every two weeks, while the members of the control
group received a test on a monthly basis. Two tests were
developed by the researchers to examine the effect of
frequent testing on student learning and retention. The
first test was given exactly at the end of the semester,
and the second one was given three months later. The
results of the analysis revealed that frequent testing had
a beneficial effect on students‘ achievement and
retention of information.
Geist and Soehren (1997) carried out a study with
dental students dividing them into two groups of weekly
and no quiz. They found that frequent quizzing had a
positive effect on students‘ performance in a way that
students‘ achievement got better when the frequency of
the tests increased.
As to the effect of frequent testing on students‘
retention of information, a study was conducted by
Roediger and Karpicke (2006). The participants of the
study consisted of undergraduate university students.
The results of the study showed that those students who
were tested frequently during the course remembered
information better than those who were not given tests
frequently.
Another study was conducted in a context similar to
that of this study in Iran by Zarei (2008). This study
intended to examine the effect of frequent testing on
Iranian English students‘ performance and classroom
attendance. The results revealed that the more frequently
students were exposed to quizzes, the better their
performance appeared to be. Moreover, the results
showed that the administration of frequent quizzes had a
positive correlation with classroom attendance.
Marcell (2008) carried out a study on online frequent
testing. In his study, he compared a group of learners
who took quizzes online on the basis of daily readings
with the one who was not given any quizzes, whether
traditional or online. The results of the study revealed
that students tested online came to the class with more
preparation and raised more questions and made more
comments in the class.
A meta-analysis was conducted by Basol and
Johanson (2009) on the effect of different testing
frequencies on student learning and exam performance.
To this end, the authors made use of 78 studies. The
studies were classified into three frequency types: high,
medium, and low frequency. The findings of the meta-
analysis revealed that although there were no
statistically significant differences among the three
groups, frequent testing was beneficial to student
learning and academic achievement.
III. METHOD
A. Participants
Participants of this experimental study were 70
students which were distributed to different classes. The
researchers were the instructors of the classes.
Participants were divided into two groups, one serving
as experimental group that received weekly quizzes and
the other as control group that did not receive weekly
quizzes. Since it was not possible to randomly assign
subjects to groups, intact classes were used but a semi-
random procedure was used to determine which group
will be the control and which will be the experimental.
The Effect of Weekly Quizzes on Students‘ Final Achievement Score 39
Copyright © 2013 MECS I.J. Modern Education and Computer Science, 2013, 1, 36-41
B. Instruments
The instruments used in this study included 10
teacher-made tests and a final achievement test
containing, spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and reading
comprehension subparts.
C. Procedure
The experimental group took weekly quizzes for the
whole semester and the control group did not take any
tests during the course except mid-term exams. The
study employed an experimental design. To investigate
the effect of quizzes on the final performance, a t-test
was used.
IV. RESULTS
The research question sought to investigate the effect
of weekly quizzes on students‘ final achievement. T-test
procedure was used to investigate the results of students‘
performance on achievement tests. Descriptive and test
statistics are summarized in Table I.
TABLE I.DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE T-TEST
Group
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
quiz
35
18.3857
1.48565
.25112
no quiz
35
17.3429
1.41822
.23972
As it can be seen in Table I, the statistical analysis
resulted in a t-value of 3.004 which was significant
at .05. This means that quiz group students performed
better than no quiz group students. Also, F value which
is shown in Table II is more than .05, indicating that two
groups were homogeneous.
TABLE II.T-TEST RESULTS
Levene‘s Test for Equality
of Variances
T-Test for Equality of Means
F
Sig
t
df
Sig (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Equal variances assumed
.001
.982
3.004
68
.004
1.04286
Equal variances not assumed
3.004
67.85
.004
1.04286
V. DISCUSSION
The present study showed that the performance of the
weekly quiz group was significantly better than that of
the control group. Along the same line, Geist and
Soehren (1997) and Ballard and Johnson (2004) found
evidence in favor of weekly quizzes compared with no
quiz indicating that weekly quizzes enhance students‘
performance. The finding of the present study is also
consistent with studies such as Martin and
Srikameswaran (1974), Graham (1999) and Kamuche
(2005), who confirmed that students who received
weekly quizzes outscored students who received no quiz
during the course.
Surprisingly enough, in contrast with the
aforementioned findings, Haberyan (2003), in his study,
found that there was no significant difference between
the weekly quiz group and no-quiz control group
students‘ performance in the class.
There are several reasons why more frequent testing
when compared with infrequent testing has a more
influential impact on students‘ learning. One of the
reasons behind the success of weekly quizzes may be
attributed to class attendance; weekly quizzes make
students come to class consistently. As previous studies
have shown, there is a positive relationship between
frequent testing and students‘ attendance in the
classroom (Wilder et al., 2001; Zarei, 2008) which
consequently results in a positive effect on overall
course grades (Wilder et al., 2001; Clump et al., 2003)
since it provides more opportunities for learning in the
classroom.
As frequent testing motivates students to do extra
work in the class (Martin & Srikameswaran, 1974), it
makes the long-term retention of the materials possible.
The short nature of frequent quizzes facilitates and
reinforces the learning of materials in a systematic way,
because everything is being tested and then stored in
small chunks systematically (Fulkerson & Martin, 1981).
Furthermore, frequent testing makes students come to
class with preparation (Dustin, 1971; Standlee &
Popham, 1960). Through frequent testing, small
amounts of materials are tested. Therefore, these
materials are processed more deeply and meticulously
and lend themselves to more efficient learning (Standlee
& Popham, 1960). Furthermore, frequent testing
produces a lot of small discussions between the teacher
and students, which again helps learners retain the
material for a longer period of time (Selakovich, 1962;
Farhady, Jafarpur, & Birjandi, 1994). Fitch, Drucker,
and Norton (1951) also found that students who were
tested on a weekly basis were engaged in more
discussions and interaction in the class.
As frequent quizzes expose students to the materials
covered in the class more regularly, there is the
probability that students become more familiar with the
instructional expectations of the teacher and the
methodology. In other words, they become more test-
wise and detect the kinds of questions to be included in
the final exam (Farhady et al., 1994).
40 The Effect of Weekly Quizzes on Students‘ Final Achievement Score
Copyright © 2013 MECS I.J. Modern Education and Computer Science, 2013, 1, 36-41
Still another reason for the better performance of the
weekly quiz group might be that quizzes create a lot of
extrinsic motivation for the students since students want
to obtain good grades in the course; therefore, they try
hard and spend a lot of time preparing for the quizzes
(Dustin, 1971; Standlee & Popham, 1960). Although,
motivation and interest are the incentives for learning,
Zarei (2008) argues that ―motivation is not always the
cause of good grades; it may well be the result of them.
Quizzes increase course grades by supplying motivation,
and motivate students to study by improving their
grades‖ (pp. 5-6). In addition, when students take tests
regularly, they become accustomed to the tests, and this
reduces their sense of test anxiety. Therefore, when
taking the final examination, they experience lower
levels of debilitative test anxiety compared with those
who take tests less frequently. The lower levels of
debilitative test anxiety may, in turn, boost the learners‘
test performance.
The findings of the present study may have
implications for teachers, learners, and curriculum
designers. The findings suggest that frequent testing
should be treated more fairly in the field and be looked
upon as a valuable source for all stakeholders in English
language education including policy makers, teachers,
students, and parents. Another theoretical promise of
this study is that both this study and the current
literature on frequent testing suggest that students highly
welcome frequent quizzes because of different reasons
they harbor; therefore, it is time to call for a renewal of
the role of frequent testing in the field.
REFERENCES
[1] Ballard, C. L. & Johnson, M. F. (2004). Basic Math
Skills and Performance in an Introductory
Economics Class. Journal of Economic Education,
35(1), 3-24.
[2] Basol, G. & Johnson, G. (2009). Effectiveness of
frequent testing over achievement: A meta-analysis
study. International Journal of Human Sciences,
6(2), 99-120.
[3] Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C.
(1991). Effects of frequent classroomtesting.
Journal of Educational Research, 85(2), 89-99.
[4] Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment:
Principles and classroom Practices. US. Longman.
[5] Clump, M. A., Bauer, H., & Alex, W. (2003). To
attend or not to attend : Is that a good question?
The Internet TESOL Journal, 8(12), Retrieved
March 12, 2010, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi
[6] Connor-Greene, P. A. (2000). Assessing and
Promoting Student Learning Between Teaching
and Testing. Teaching of Psychology, 27(2), 84-88.
[7] Dineen, P., Taylor, J., & Stephens, L. (1989). The
effect of testing frequency upon the achievement of
high school mathematics course. School Science and
Mathematics, 89(3), 197-200.
[8] Dustin, D. S. (1971). Some effects of exam frequency.
The Psychological Record, 21(3), 409-414.
[9] Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and
task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language teaching and
learning (713-728). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[10] Farhady, H., Jafarpur, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994).
Testing language skills: From theory to practice.
Tehran: SAMT Publication.
[11] Fitch, M. L., Drucker, A. J., & Norton, J. R. (1951).
Frequent testing as a motivating factor in large
lecture classes. The Journal of Educational
Psychology, 42(1), 1-20.
[12] Fulkerson, F. F. & Martin, G. (1981). Effects of
exam frequency on student performance,
evaluations of instructor, and test anxiety. Teaching
of Psychology, 8(2), 90-93.
[13] Geist, J. R. & Soehren, S. E. (1997). The Effect of
Frequent Quizzes on Short- and Long-Term
Academic Performance. Journal of Dental
Education, 61(4), 339-345.
[14] Haberyan, K. A. (2003). Do Weekly Quizzes
Improve Student Performance on General Biology
Exams? American Biology Teacher, 65(2), 110-114.
[15] Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[16] Johnson, B. C. Kiviniemi, M. T. (2009). The effect
of online chapter Quizzes on Exam performance in
an undergraduate Social psychology course. Teach
Psychology, 36(1), 33-37.
[17] Jones, C. H. (1984). Interaction of absences and
grades in a college course. Journal of Psychology,
116, 133-136.
[18] Kamuche, F. U. (2005). Do weekly quizzes
improve student performance? Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 9(3), 188-193.
[19] Kamuche, F. U. (2007). The effect of unannounced
quizzes on students‘ performance: Further
Evidence. College Teaching Methods & Styles
Journal, 3(2), 21-25.
[20] Keys, N. (1934). The influence on learning and
retention of weekly as opposed to monthly tests.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 25, 427–436.
[21] Khalaf, A. S. S. & Hanna, G. S. (1992). The impact
of classroom testing frequency on high school
students‘ achievement. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 17(1), 71-77.
[22] Kling, N., Miller, C., & Reardon, J. (2005). The
impact of testing frequency on student performance
The Effect of Weekly Quizzes on Students‘ Final Achievement Score 41
Copyright © 2013 MECS I.J. Modern Education and Computer Science, 2013, 1, 36-41
in a marketing course. Journal of Education for
Business, 81(2), 67-72.
[23] Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction is second
language acquisition: Task-based language
teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.),
Modelling and assessing second language
acquisition (pp. 377-393). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
[24] Marcell, M. (2008). Effectiveness of regular on-
line quizzing in increasing class participation and
prepration. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 1-9.
[25] Marshall, B. (2007). A crisis for efficacy?
Education Review, 20(1), 29-35.
[26] Martin, R. R. & Srikameswaran, K. (1974).
Correlation between frequent testing and student
performance. Journal of Chemical Education,
51(7), 485-486.
[27] Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a
second language under different conditions of
exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465-497.
[28] Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[29] Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-
enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves
long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3),
249-255.
[30] Selakovich, D. (1962). An experiment attempting
to determine the effectiveness of frequent testing as
an aid to learning in beginning college courses in
American government. The Journal of Educational
Research, 55(4), 178-180.
[31] Standlee, L. S. & Popham, W. J. (1960). Quizzes‘
contribution to learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 51(6), 322-325.
[32] Turney, A. H. (1931). The effect of frequent short
objective tests upon the achievement of college
students in educational psychology. School and
Society, 33, 760-762.
[33] Weinstein, S. E. & Wu, S. W. (2009). Readiness
Assessment Tests versus Frequent Quizzes:
Student Preferences. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 21(2),
181-186.
[34] White, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
[35] Widdowson, H. (1998). Skills, abilities, and
contexts of reality. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 18, 323-333.
[36] Wilder, D. A., Flood, W. A., & Stromsnes, W.
(2001). The use of random extra credit quizzes to
increase student attendance. Journal of
Instructional Psychology. Retrieved March 7, 2010,
From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi
[37] Zarei, A. A. (2008). On the Learnability of three
categories of Idioms by Iranian EFL learners.
Journal of Humanities of the University of Kerman,
2(2), 82-100.
Valeh Gholami is currently a PhD candidate of TEFL
studying at University of Tabriz, Iran.
Mostafa Morady Moghaddam is currently a PhD
candidate of TEFL at the department of English
language and literature, University of Tabriz, Iran.
