Volume 4, Issue 4 (December 2025)
IJER 2025, 4(4): 1-25 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Azizzadeh Asl S, Gharagozloo N, Hedayat N. (2025). The Impact of Neuro-Linguistic Programming on Functional Language Development among Iranian EFL Learners. IJER. 4(4), 1-25. doi:10.22034/ijer.4.4.13
URL: http://ijer.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-479-en.html
URL: http://ijer.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-479-en.html
1- Department of English Language, VaP.C., Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran
2- Department of English Language, VaP.C., Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran ,Neda.Gharaagozloo@iau.ac.ir
3- Department of English Language, VaP.C., Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran
2- Department of English Language, VaP.C., Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran ,
3- Department of English Language, VaP.C., Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran
Abstract: (1255 Views)
Objective: This study investigated the impact of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) on the functional language development of Iranian learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). It aimed to determine whether NLP-based instruction could enhance learners’ psychological engagement and linguistic competence compared to conventional teaching methods.
Methods: A quantitative, quasi-experimental design was employed. From a pool of 75 EFL learners enrolled in a conversation course at a TEFL research center in Tehran, Iran, 64 homogeneous participants (26 males and 38 females), aged 18–25, were selected based on their performance on the Quick Oxford Placement Test (QPT), confirming an intermediate proficiency level. Participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group (NLP-based instruction; n = 31) and a control group (traditional instruction; n = 33). The experimental group received NLP-based training through authentic film materials representing implicit instruction of language functions, while the control group received explicit, conventional instruction. Pretest and posttest measures of overall language function and its five components were analyzed using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA).
Results: Findings indicated that the NLP-based instruction significantly improved participants’ overall language function scores and all five subcomponents compared to the control group (p < .05). The results suggest that NLP can effectively enhance learners’ communicative competence and functional language use.
Conclusions: NLP-based approaches provide a valuable pedagogical tool for improving both psychological engagement and linguistic performance in EFL contexts. The findings highlight the potential of NLP to enrich language teaching practices and promote functional language development among EFL learners.
Methods: A quantitative, quasi-experimental design was employed. From a pool of 75 EFL learners enrolled in a conversation course at a TEFL research center in Tehran, Iran, 64 homogeneous participants (26 males and 38 females), aged 18–25, were selected based on their performance on the Quick Oxford Placement Test (QPT), confirming an intermediate proficiency level. Participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group (NLP-based instruction; n = 31) and a control group (traditional instruction; n = 33). The experimental group received NLP-based training through authentic film materials representing implicit instruction of language functions, while the control group received explicit, conventional instruction. Pretest and posttest measures of overall language function and its five components were analyzed using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA).
Results: Findings indicated that the NLP-based instruction significantly improved participants’ overall language function scores and all five subcomponents compared to the control group (p < .05). The results suggest that NLP can effectively enhance learners’ communicative competence and functional language use.
Conclusions: NLP-based approaches provide a valuable pedagogical tool for improving both psychological engagement and linguistic performance in EFL contexts. The findings highlight the potential of NLP to enrich language teaching practices and promote functional language development among EFL learners.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Educational Psychology
Received: 2025/06/6 | Accepted: 2025/08/18 | Published: 2025/12/1
Received: 2025/06/6 | Accepted: 2025/08/18 | Published: 2025/12/1
References
1. Abraham, J., & Therese, A. M. (2024). Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). Int J of Nursing & Care, 2(2), 1-5.
2. Ali, A. M. S., & Al-Muslimi, F. K. A. M. (2024). The effectiveness of neuro-linguistic programming techniques in reducing students' EFL oral disfluencies. TESOL and Technology Studies, 5(1), 42-60. [DOI:10.48185/tts.v5i1.1058]
3. Amiri, M. (2015). Developing a comprehensive academic multiple-choice discourse completion test of interlanguage pragmatics in Iranian context (Doctoral dissertation), Islamic Azad University, Science Research Branch, Tehran, Iran.
4. Amiri, M., & Birjandi, P. (2015). Reliability and content validity of a comprehensive discourse completion test of interlanguage pragmatics for academic situations. Sino-US English Teaching, 12(9), 654-659. [DOI:10.17265/1539-8072/2015.09.002]
5. Anderson, B. (1986). Using NLP to achieve change. Probation Journal, 33(1), 22-23. [DOI:10.1177/026455058603300107]
6. Bandler, R. & Grinder, J. (1979). Frogs into princes. Real People Press.
7. Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1976). The structure of magic: A book about language and therapy, Vol.2. Science and Behaviour Books. University of Michigan.
8. Bandler, R., Grinder, J., Drinnan, S., & Olinek, B. (2011). Small can be big: The impact of small coaching projects in health care system. The International Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 31, 8(3), 91-93.
9. Bergen, C. W. V., Soper, B., Rosenthal, G. T., & Wilkinson, L. V. (1997). Selected alternative training techniques in HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(4), 281-294. [DOI:10.1002/hrdq.3920080403]
10. Berthold, M. (2011). Reliability of quick placement tests: How much faith can we place on quick paper or internet-based placement tests. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 674-698.
11. Blackerby, D. A. (1996). Rediscover the joy of learning. Oklahoma City, OK: Success Skills.
12. Caballero1, D. R., & Rosado, N. (2018). Neuro-linguistic programming and regular verbs past tense pronunciation teaching. English Language Teaching, 11(11), 1-18. [DOI:10.5539/elt.v11n11p1]
13. Davoudi, M. & Chavosh, M. (2016). The Relationship between multiple intelligences and listening self-efficacy among Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 199-200. [DOI:10.5539/elt.v9n6p199]
14. Delbio, A., & Ilankumaran, M. (2018). Second language acquisition through neurolinguistic programming: A psychoanalytic approach. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(36), 624-629. [DOI:10.14419/ijet.v7i4.36.24212]
15. Derogongan, R., M., & Tamayao, G. (2015). Development of a sourcebook using neuro-linguistic programming technique in teaching English as a second language. Sino-US English Teaching, 12(12), 932-939. [DOI:10.17265/1539-8072/2015.12.005]
16. Field, A. (2024). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.
17. Fourie, M., & Schlebusch, G. (2022). Information processing ability and its implications for teaching and learning. International e-Journal of Educational Studies, 6(12), 110-123. [DOI:10.31458/iejes.1130846]
18. Frieden, J. (1981). Third world indebted industrialization: International finance and state capitalism in Mexico, Brazil, Algeria, and South Korea. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/S0020818300032525]
19. Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment. Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203449066]
20. Grinder, J. (Ed.). (2013). The origins of neuro linguistic programming. Crown House Publishing.
21. Grinder, M. (1991). The educational conveyor belt. Metamorphous Press.
22. Hatch, E. M., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Newbury House Publishers.
23. Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children's academic achievement pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 161-164. [DOI:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x]
24. Khalandi, C., & Zoghi, R. (2017). The effect of NLP (accelerated learning) on Iranian EFL learner's listening comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(11), 1139-1148. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0711.25 [DOI:10.17507/tpls.0711.25]
25. Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610. [DOI:10.1177/001316447003000308]
26. Kudliskis, V., & Burden, R. (2009). Applying "what works" in psychology to enhancing examination success in schools: The potential contribution of NLP. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(3), 170-177. [DOI:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.09.002]
27. Kulińska, A., & Socha, J. (2022). The implementation of aspects of NLP in teaching English. Forum Filologiczne Ateneum, 10(1), 201-213). [DOI:10.36575/2353-2912/1(10)2022.201]
28. Kyle, K., & Eguchi, M. (2024). Evaluating NLP models with written and spoken L2 samples. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 100120. [DOI:10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100120]
29. Lady, L. (2007). A brief history of NLP. [Online] Available at www.innerview.org/showArticle.php?id=270.
30. Lankton, S. R. (1979). Practical magic: The clinical applications of neuro-linguistic programming. Meta Publications.
31. Linder-Pelz, S., & Hall, L. M. (2007). The theoretical roots of NLP-based coaching. The Coaching Psychologist, 3(1), 12-17. [DOI:10.53841/bpstcp.2007.3.1.12]
32. Marashi, H., & Abedi, M. (2017). The impact of neuro-linguistic programming on EFL teachers' reflective teaching. English Language Teaching, 7(3), 22-28.
33. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. [DOI:10.1037/h0054346]
34. Matreyek, W. (1990). Communicating in English, examples and models. Functions. Prentice Hall.
35. McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2019). Touchstone Level 4 Full Contact (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
36. Merkviladze, M. (2023). Teachers' perspective on the applicability of neuro-linguistic programming to address EFL learners' speaking anxiety (Case of the Universities in Georgia). Journal of Education in Black Sea Region, 9(1), 106-124. [DOI:10.31578/jebs.v9i1.311]
37. Moharamkhani, A., Karimi, L., & Ahmadi, D. (2016). the impact of neuro linguistic programming (NLP) on EFL learners' vocabulary achievement. Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 21, 56-67.
38. Motallebzadeh, K., & Nematizadeh, S. (2011). Does gender play a role in the assessment of oral proficiency? English Language Teaching, 4(4), 165-172. [DOI:10.5539/elt.v4n4p165]
39. Nisar, S. (2024). The impact of NLP anchoring techniques on improving spontaneous speaking skills in ESL learners. Journal of Contemporary Trends in Linguistic and Literary Studies (JCTLLS), 1(2), 23-28. [DOI:10.71258/jctlls.v1i2.3785]
40. Nugent, P. (2008). Using NLP in the classroom. Fukuoka Women's College University Minutes, 18, 253-270.
41. O'Connor, J., & McDermott, I. (2013). Principles of NLP: What it is, how it works, and what it can do for you. Singing Dragon.
42. Pishghadam, R., Shayesteh, S., & Shapoori, M. (2011). Validation of an NLP scale and its relationship with teacher success in high schools. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 909-917. [DOI:10.4304/jltr.2.4.909-917]
43. Pourbahreini, F. (2015). The effect of neuro-linguistic programming technique on enhancing grammatical knowledge of Iranian EFL learners at intermediate level. English for Specific Purposes World, 14(16), 1-17.
44. Purnama, Y., Sobirov, B., Ino, L., Handayani, F., Al-Awawdeh, N., & Safitri, W. (2023). Neuro-Linguistic Programming as an instructional strategy to enhance foreign language teaching. Studies in Media and Communication, 11(5), 50-59. [DOI:10.11114/smc.v11i5.6035]
45. Revell, J., & Norman S. (1997). In your hands: NLP for ELT. Saffire Press.
46. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge University Press.
47. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511667305]
48. Rogers, C. (1971). Carl Rogers describes his way of facilitating encounter groups. American Journal of Nursing, 71(2), 275-279. [DOI:10.1097/00000446-197102000-00021]
49. Salehi, H., & Karimi, S. (2023). Impact of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) on EFL learners' writing achievement and critical thinking. Journal of Teaching English Language Studies (JTELS), 2(1), 85-103.
50. Siddiqui, Z. (2018). English language teaching through NLP: Techniques and methods. Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL), 6(2),181-184.
51. Targutay, M. (2010). The role of neuro-linguistic programming in English language teaching: NLP-trained language teaching practitioners' perceptions about NLP
52. Tarnopolsky, O. B. (2016). NLP, suggestology and stage-acting in teaching English as a second/foreign language. Innovative Solutions in Modern Science, 1(1), 1-11. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-02323-6_32-1]
53. Tosey, P. & Mathison, J. (2010). Neuro‐linguistic programming as an innovation in education and teaching. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 317-326. [DOI:10.1080/14703297.2010.498183]
54. Tosey, P., Mathison, J., & Michelli, D. (2005). Mapping transformative learning: The potential of neuro-linguistic programming. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(2), 140-167. [DOI:10.1177/1541344604270233]
55. Wake, L., & Leighton, M. (2014). A pilot study using neurolinguistic programming (NLP) in post-combat PTSD. Mental Health Review Journal, 19(1), 23-56. [DOI:10.1108/MHRJ-08-2014-0026]
56. Walter, J., & Bayat, A. (2003). Neuro-linguistic Programming: Verbal communication. British Medical Journal, 326, 7389, S83. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.326.7389.S83]
57. Wistner, B., Sakai, H., & Abe, M. (2009). An analysis of the Oxford Placement Test and the Michigan English Placement Test as L2 proficiency tests. Bulletin of the Faculty of Letters, Hosei University, 58, 33-44.
58. Witkowski, T. (2010). Thirty-five years of research on neuro-linguistic programming. NLP research data base. State of the art or pseudoscientific decoration? Polish Psychological Bulletin, 41(2), 58-66. [DOI:10.2478/v10059-010-0008-0]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International. |
