|
IATEFL Poland A Journal for Teachers of English ISSN 1642-1027 Vol. 7, Issue 1 (February 2007) |
|
|
IATEFL Poland A Journal for Teachers of English ISSN 1642-1027 Vol. 7, Issue 1 (February 2007) |
|
|
Software Review |
||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
THE EFFECT
OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING ON TURKISH LEARNERS’ ACHIEVEMENT ON THE
TOEFL EXAM by Ferit
KILIÇKAYA Middle
East Technical University Ankara,
Turkey kilickay @
metu.edu.tr Abstract This study aimed to explore the effect of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on the undergraduate students’ achievement on the TOEFL exam. The study was designed as quasi-experimental research. The participants in the study were 34 sophomore students in the Department of Foreign Language Education in Middle East Technical University. The experimental group was taught using computer-assisted instruction in a language laboratory whilst the other class was taught using a traditional method of instruction in a traditional classroom setting. The training lasted for 8 weeks and the same instructor met the groups three hours each week. During the first week a pre-test was given to both groups. Then, a post-test was given at the end of the study. The experimental group participants were also interviewed in regard to CALL. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the control and experimental group in overall scores and in the structure section. However, statistically significant differences were found in the reading and listening sections. The interviews showed that the participants in the experimental group valued CALL. It was suggested by the participants that computer-assisted language learning should be incorporated into the regular classes, rather than scheduling them separately. Introduction Language
teaching is rather a difficult and complicated process that requires careful
and diligent work. Educators in the field of language teaching always try hard
to find ways to make language learning enjoyable and attractive for the
learners. Different activities, games, and interesting stories helped language
teachers to achieve this aim through many years and they still do. However, at
the beginning of 1980s, technology came into use in the language classrooms
with films, television, and language labs having video tapes and audio
cassettes. Also, some computer-assisted language (CALL) software applications
were introduced in the form of drill-and-practice (Cunningham, 1998). As
technology developed, new programs came into use to create a more interactive
and interesting environment for language learners and teachers than what was
previously available in the traditional language classrooms. Many researchers,
in search of the best way to acquire a foreign/second language, now use CALL in
language classrooms to find out its effects on language learning. The
enrichment of language teaching and learning process through CALL can be
achieved through empirical research including learners’ attitudes and opinions.
Therefore, one of the aims of this study is to give language learners an
opportunity to reflect on whether CALL has a helpful role in learners’ success
on the TOEFL exam. These reflections may provide insights for both language
teachers and learners studying English. Background
of the study Research
efforts which are relative to CALL have focused on five broad areas, including
efficacy, students’ and teachers’ attitudes, and advantages and limitations of
CALL in the classroom. In the existing literature, there are quite a few studies
regarding the use of CALL and its implications for the language researchers and
teachers. Studies on
efficacy of CALL Most
studies have based their findings on case, qualitative and research-based
studies while discussing the efficacy of CALL. One of the studies discussing
the use of CALL is Pawling’s study, which was conducted in 1999. In her study,
she aimed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a CD-ROM as a tool
for research-based language learning and focused on two case studies. She carried
out her study with eleven sixth grade children learning English vocabulary
through an application called Directions 2000 (a multimedia dictionary) and
found that learners assimilated vocabulary through playing the modal sentences
as many times as required. According to Pawling: CD-ROM
is potentially a liberating instrument for teachers and learners alike in that
it has the special facility of incorporating practice in all four language
skills mentioned above in a multimedia package using video, text, photograph
and sound. There is much evidence; not least teachers’ own experience, to
suggest that computer-based learning is very motivating for children (p. 164). In
another study conducted by Gillespie and McKee (1999), learners from
undergraduate and graduate studies were exposed to CALL software. The findings
of this study showed that CALL enhanced student performance and skills
considerably in their studies with undergraduate and graduate learners. Lambacher
(1999) used software designed for pronunciation training in teaching English to
forty primary school Japanese learners, which resulted in the improved
perception and production of English consonants which they were able to review
as many times as they wished, getting immediate feedback. Kulik and Kulik
(1991) surveyed more than 500 studies which compared learners who received
computer-assisted instruction with the learners who received traditional
instruction. They found that learners tend to learn more and in less time with
computer-assisted learning. Dunkel (1987) stated that “Many of the researches
conducting literature reviews and meta-analyses in the 1960s and 70s were
forced to conclude that there was no discernible cause-and-effect relationship
between pupil learning” (p. 252). He also added that the results were
questionable in terms of the other fields such as social sciences since these
studies were mostly related to mathematics. Nagata’s
study in 1996 included participants from two first-semester Japanese classes at
the University of San Francisco. Twenty-six students participated in the study.
These results show that given the same grammar notes and exercises, ongoing
intelligent computer feedback is more effective than simple workbook answer
sheets for developing learner’s grammatical skill in producing Japanese
particles and sentences. Nutta’s study in 1998 consisted of 53 students
enrolled in an intensive academic ESL institute at a major university in
Florida. It compared the method of grammar instruction, teacher-directed or
computer-based. The results showed that computer-based students scored
significantly higher on open-ended tests than the teacher-directed students. No
significant differences were found between the computer-based and
teacher-directed students’ scores on multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank
tests. In
the study of Hauck, McLain, & Youngs (1999), thirty-three French II
students were the participants. Findings indicated that the students in the
CALL group performed equally well as the control group in listening and speaking
and better on reading and writing. Murray (1999) studied the effect of
interactive video program. Participants (twenty-three French second-language
learners) were mostly students from the Faculty of Arts of a large Canadian
university. The study benefited from personal language learning histories,
journals, video observation, interviews, and pre/post language proficiency
tests. Murray (1999) stressed the importance of being a member of a community
and engaging in activities by saying that: We learn a language by becoming
members of a community of practice. Being a member of a community means getting to know people, engaging in
activities, and having a physical space as well as an identity within that community (p. 192). Russel
(1999) compared the paper and the computer versions of reading tests. He found
out that paper versus computer administration did not significantly affect the
test taker’s performance. Dewhurst, Macleod and Norris (2000) compared the
difference between the computer-assisted instruction and traditional
instruction. The results revealed that sixty-two students of undergraduate
Physiotherapy studying on Human Physiology did equally well. Similarly, Garcia
and Arias (2000) compared the performance of sixty students of Land Surveying
at the Extremadura University in Spain. They found out that students made use
of the references provided by the computer more extensively than they did of
the printed references. Also, the results showed that students’ motivation to
access computer-supported information was higher than accessing similar
information in print-oriented references. Yang
(2001), in his study of fifty-five participants, second-year students in an
applied linguistics program, discussed that students benefited from maximizing
the language and learning link in computer-mediated environments, particularly
web-based instruction. Sawaki (2001) listed the studies carried out on
computer-based and paper-based reading. The studies done by Heppner, Anderson,
Farstrup, and Weiderman (1985) (as cited in Sawaki) showed that students
outperform in the paper-based version of the reading tests, whereas some
studies showed that they are equal (Fish & Feldmann, 1987; McGoldrick,
Martin, Bergering and Symons, 1992; McKnight, Richardson & Dillon, 1990; Zulk,
1986; as cited in Sawaki, 2001). In Ying’s
study (2002), the participants were thirty-two junior students majoring in
Foreign Trade English at the school of Foreign Languages of Suzhou University.
The results indicated that network-assisted environments provided learners with
autonomous training and learning. On the other hand, Allum (2002) stated that
“…CALL does indeed deliver as effectively as conventional means in a range of
language learning tasks” (p. 147). Clark (1985c) (as cited in Allum, 2002)
proposed that when methodology is kept consistent, there is no difference in
results between computer-based instruction and teacher-led instruction.
Muir-Herzig (2004) studied the technology use of teachers from a Northwest Ohio
high school. Results of the study indicated that teachers’ technology use,
students’ technology use, overall technology use had no significant positive
effect on the grades and attendance of at-risk students. Also, the results
supported that technology use was low among the teachers in the sample. Students’ attitudes
towards CALL Several
studies have reported students’ attitudes towards CALL. These studies regarding
the learners’ attitudes towards CALL lead to promising findings for the use of
CALL in language classrooms (Finkbeiner, 2001; Ayres, 2002; Allum, 2002; Mitra,
1997; Dewhurst, et al., 2000; Stricker and Rock 2004; Shaw and Marlow, 1999;
Holmes, 1998; Debski, 2000). Finkbeiner
(2001) administered a questionnaire to 100 undergraduate EFL learners and
collected data from 82 learners to learn about the learners’ attitude and
interest in CALL and cooperative learning. His results showed that ESL (English
as a Second Language) undergraduate learners had positive attitudes towards
CALL and suggested that a successful implementation of CALL required it to be
put into everyday study life. In a similar study conducted by Ayres (2002), 157
non-native undergraduates from certificate and diploma courses at the school of
English and Applied Linguistics were studied in a CALL environment to gather
some empirical data to assess how much learners valued the use of CALL in their
course. It was found that university learners appreciated and valued learning
through CALL. Also in another study carried by Mitra (1997), learners’
attitudes towards computers were discovered to be very important since it would
affect the learners’ view of CALL. Allum (2002) argued that students had
positive feelings about CALL and suggested that CALL should be mixed with the
regular classes. Similarly, Dewhurst et al. (2000) discussed that students
became more positive after they had experienced using CALL. Ayres
(2002) had participants of 157 non-native speaker undergraduates who were
enrolled in various certificate and diploma courses at the School of English
and Applied Linguistics. The results indicated that learners favoured
classroom-based teaching over using a computer. They did not see it as a
worthwhile replacement for classroom-based learning but, it had high face
validity with learners. Stricker and Rock (2004) studied the attitudes of the
test takers who took the computer-based TOEFL in the spring and summer of 1999;
a total of 689 test takers. Results revealed that positive attitudes towards
computer-based testing but negative towards admission tests. Shaw and Marlow
(1999) stated that in their study, the participants of 99 sports science and
nutrition undergraduates were uncomfortable with computers, were unhappy about the
lack of personal contact and preferred to learn in a more traditional way.
Holmes (1998) studied the influence of CALL in 100 Japanese first-year
students’ language classroom. Agreement as regards the benefits of CALL in
language education was stated, but the students’ real reason was to communicate
internationally. Debski
(2000) discussed project-oriented CALL innovation at the University of
Melbourne, based on the principles of socio-collaborative language learning
with computers. Language teachers and students participated in his study. The
results indicated that the participants appreciated learning situations which
were not available in traditional classes. Teachers
and CALL Most of
the studies focusing on teachers and CALL discussed the training and the
attitudes of teachers towards CALL. (Egbert, Paulis, & Nakamichi, 2002;
Warschauer, 2002; Ridgway & Passey, 1991; Jones, 2002). Egbert, Paulis,
& Nakamichi (2002) had participants of twenty English as a second language
and foreign language teachers in their sample. They used surveys and follow-up
interviews on technology use in class. They concluded that lack of time,
support and resources prohibited the use of CALL by the teachers. Warschauer
(2002) discussed the training of instructors in Egypt about the use and
applications of CALL. An interesting anecdote was given in his discussion of
CALL. He said that an Egyptian university lecturer expressed his view as: “we
have the hardware, we have the software, but we lack the humanware”, which is
really the same case in Turkey. Ridgway
and Passey (1991) stressed out the importance of training teachers and
exploiting the use of computers more than as a word processor in the classroom.
Similarly, Jones (2002) argued that teachers need to become informed users of
technology and stressed the importance of technology training. Advantages
of CALL Chavez
(1990) determined that technology together with meaningful tasks and
interactional purposes promoted a positive second language learning
environment, stressing the importance of learner autonomy (as cited in Liu,
Moore, Graham and Lee, 2003). Similarly, an analysis by Ying (2002) indicated
that network-assisted environments provide learners with autonomous training
and learning. These studies contributed to learner autonomy, which means that
learners can learn according to their own pace and review what they have
learned easily. This is the most widely benefit of CALL in educational
settings. According to Ikeda (1999),
drill-type CALL materials are suitable for repetitive practice, which enables
students to learn concepts and key elements in a subject area. Brown
(1997) listed the advantages of CALL as giving immediate feedback, allowing
students to work at their own pace, and causing less frustration among
students. Winter (2002) stressed the
importance of flexible learning, learning anywhere, anytime, anyhow, and
anything you want, which is very true for the web-based instruction and CALL.
Learners are given an opportunity to study and review the materials as many
times they want without limited time. According
to Garcia and Arias (2000), using CALL in a classroom has the following
advantages: Increased motivation of the students, individualization of learning
process, immediate feedback, non-linear access to the information, and the
introduction of new exercise types in the classroom. Stokes (1997) stated that
students can get detailed feedback and hints which led the students to think,
and added that: The
computer is tireless and non-judgmental. Students can play with the language
and deliberately get things wrong and nobody will know. (This is especially
important in those places where the concept of ‘face’ means that students worry
unduly about making mistakes) (p. 20). Considering
the suggestions made by the authors discussed, the following list can be
outlined to indicate the advantages of CALL in the classroom: • Learner autonomy • Repetitive practice • Immediate and
detailed feedback to learners as regards their progress, mistakes etc.) • Flexible learning (anytime, anywhere, anything learners want) • Non-linear learning • Increased motivation • Less frustration • New types of exercises Limitations
of CALL Blyth
(1999) and Bradley and Lomicka (2000) examined college learners’ perceptions
and experiences with technology in a computer-assisted language learning
environment. Through learners’ written feedback, Blyth concluded that
successful implementation of new pedagogical approaches in software design and
learning activities requires careful considerations. (as cited in Liu, Moore,
Graham and Lee, 2003). According
to Chapelle (1997), a CALL activity should offer the opportunity for
comprehensible output. He also added that activities must require the learner
to produce linguistic output, not just “mouse clicks”. Ross and Schulz (1999)
investigated the differences in learning styles among participants, who
received LL. Seventy University of Calgary undergraduate students participated
in the study. Results showed that CALL as an instructional tool may not be
suitable for all learners, with such differences as cognitive learning styles.
Some learners may have difficulty adapting to certain forms of
computer-mediated learning. Brown (1997) listed the disadvantages of CALL as
computer equipment (not always available or in working order), screen capacity
(reading passages), students’ familiarity and negative attitudes towards
computers and computer anxiety. Alatis
(1983) stated that technology can be destructive if it fails to function in
response to the humanistic objective of the educational classrooms. According
to Jones and Fortescue (1991), computers are seen as quizmasters and CALL
implies the substitution of computer for teachers. Kenning and Kenning (1984)
found reading from a screen rather than from a printed text tiring and
considered it as a limitation of CALL. Bax (2003) discussed the implementation
of CALL in different schools and teachers. He analyzed two case studies
involving different university teachers and concluded that teachers should be
trained and provided with pedagogical support. This leads to the fact that
technology cannot solve a problem alone. Implementation of CALL requires close
attention, critically selected software, and teachers’ and learners’ positive
attitudes. Using CALL requires a lot of time and money for all the necessary
arrangements. Considering
the suggestions made by the researchers discussed, the following list can be
designed to indicate the disadvantages of CALL in the classroom: • High cost of equipment and software • Low capacity of the equipments • Lack of CALL software of high
quality • Lack of trained teachers • Computer anxiety among students and
teachers • Not suitable for all learners
(different learning styles) Purpose This study
aimed to answer the following questions as regards the effect of
computer-assisted language learning on the learners’ TOEFL scores. The main
problems of this study are stated as follows: 1. Which instruction method is more effective
as measured by the learners’ pre and post test results on the TOEFL: CALL or
traditional instruction? 1.1. Is there a statistically significant
difference in regard to the gain scores on the structure section of TOEFL
between the learners instructed by CALL and the learners instructed by
traditional instruction? 1.2. Is there a statistically significant
difference in regard to the gain scores on the reading section of TOEFL between
the learners instructed by CALL and the learners instructed by traditional
instruction? 1.3.
Is there a statistically significant difference in regard to the gain scores on
the listening section of TOEFL between the learners instructed by CALL and the
learners instructed by traditional instruction? 2. What
are the learners’ perceptions as regards the use of CALL? Methodology The study
was designed as a quasi-experimental study since it did not include the use of
random assignment. It focused on using computer-assisted language learning and
traditional instruction to prepare the participants for the TOEFL exam. One
class was taught using computer-assisted instruction in a language laboratory
(the teacher was in the class just to make sure that participants were working
with the computers and to help if anything went wrong with the computers),
while the other class was taught using a traditional method of instruction in a
traditional classroom setting. The training lasted for 8 weeks and the same
instructor met the two groups three hours every week. Participants The
participants in the study were 34 sophomore students in the Department of
Foreign Language Education in Middle East Technical University. The students
were assigned to the three sections of the school experience course
alphabetically at the beginning of the semester by the department. Participants
were chosen from the third section, which were available for the study
(convenience sampling). They were aged between 18 and 20 and they were mostly
graduates of Anatolian Teacher Trainees’ High School where a year of English
preparation program was required. Of the participants, twenty-nine were females
and five were males. The participants were randomly assigned to the experimental
and control groups using a table of random numbers. Experimental and control
groups consisted of 17 participants each (three males and fourteen females and
two males and fifteen females respectively) since the language laboratory for
experimental group accommodated that number. Data collection instruments Pre- and
post-tests were used in the study. The questions were taken from the book, TOEFL Test Preparation Kit Workbook (TOEFL
test materials selected from TOEFL Test
Preparation Kit Workbook, Educational Testing Service, 1995, reprinted with
the permission of Educational Testing Service, the copyright owner.) The same
test consisting of 140 items in a multiple choice format was used as the
pre-test and post-test. Scores for both the pre and post test were defined
looking at the number of correct items. A correct answer was rated 1 and an
incorrect answer 0. A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect data
to answer the second research question. The participants in the experimental
group were interviewed one by one with regard to their opinions about CALL. The
interview took place in the office of the researcher without a time limit, but
took approximately, 7-10 minutes. The interviews with the learners were tape
recorded and the researcher took notes. The participants were interviewed in
English. Variables in the study Computer
assisted language learning, as defined for this study, was provided in a
language laboratory where learners worked alone on a computer using the
provided programs and learnt at their own pace. The instructor did not
participate in the learning process, but he made sure that learners were
working alone on their computers. Traditional instruction was given in lecture
format and as information going from the instructor to the learners.
Participants had to follow the instructor’s schedule and they could not learn
at their own pace. All the materials used in the groups were identical. Data collection procedures With the
consent of the participants, the study was conducted after the regular classes
in the department are over (after 4 p.m.). On the first day of classes, an
informed consent form was presented (see Appendix A), which was adapted from
the sample consent forms given in How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education by Jack R. Fraenkel and Norman E. Wallen (2003). After
participants signed the form, the instructor administered the pre-test (paper
version) to the control and experimental groups in the same class. Then, both
groups received instruction through different media for eight weeks and three
hours each week by the same instructor. During the eight weeks, for
classroom practice, English Grammar in Use and Cambridge Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary were used. The CD versions of these materials were
used by the learners instructed by CALL. In addition, Powerpreb: Preparation
for the TOEFL Test Software by ETS was used by the participants. For
participants instructed by traditional instruction, practice tests on this CD
were converted to paper tests. The participants in the experimental group
worked alone on a computer and learned at their own pace. They studied any
section as much as they liked. The instructor did not participate in the
teaching/learning process, but he made sure that that the participants were working alone on their
computers. The participants in the control group met the instructor
three hours each week during eight weeks. The same materials (printed and paper
versions of the practice tests) were used according to the schedule set by the
instructor. Participants studied structure, reading and listening (one hour was
devoted to each) during three hours. On the last day of classes, the instructor
administered the same test as post test. The scores obtained by pre-test and
post test were statistically analyzed. In addition, after two days following
the post-test the participants in the experimental group were interviewed one
by one as regards their opinions about CALL (see Appendix B). The interview
took place in the office of the researcher without a time limit, but took
approximately, 7-10 minutes. The interviews with the learners were tape
recorded and the researcher took notes. The participants were interviewed in
English. Data analysis An
independent samples t-test appeared to be an appropriate tool for data analysis
in this study since there were two groups who were evaluated twice through pre
and post tests. The interview data were subjected to content analysis. Results
and Discussion Research
question 1 Is there a statistically significant difference in regard to
the total gain scores on the structure, reading, and the listening sections of
TOEFL between learners instructed by CALL and the learners instructed by
traditional instruction? The
reported difference between the control and experiment groups’ gain scores was
not statistically significant, t (26, 545) =1.445, p=.160, r=0.27. Results of
the t-test analysis indicate that the researcher must fail to reject the null
hypothesis, which stated that there is no statistically significant difference
between the scores obtained by the control and experimental groups (see Table
1). Research question 1.1 Is there a statistically significant difference in regard to
the gain scores on the structure section of
TOEFL between learners instructed by CALL and the learners instructed by
traditional instruction? The reported difference between
the control and experiment groups’ gain scores on the structure section of TOEFL was not statistically significant, t (32)
= -.755, p= 456, r=110.14. Results of the t-test analysis indicate that the researcher must
fail to reject the null hypothesis, which stated that there is no statistically
significant difference between the scores
obtained by the control and experimental groups in the structure section (see Table
2). Research question 1.2 Is
there a statistically significant difference in regard to the gain scores on
the reading section of TOEFL between learners instructed by CALL and the
learners instructed by traditional instruction? The reported difference between
the control and experiment groups’ gain scores on the reading
section of TOEFL was statistically significant, t (20, 228) = 4.002, p=
0.001, r=0.67. Results of the t-test analysis indicate
that the researcher must reject the null hypothesis, which stated that there is
no statistically significant difference between the scores obtained by
the control and experimental groups in the reading section. The effect size indicated that the difference in the
scores obtained by the participants in the control and experimental group represented a large and therefore
substantive effect (see Table 3). Research
question 1.3 Is
there a statistically significant difference in regard to the gain scores on
the listening section of TOEFL between
learners instructed by CALL and the learners instructed by traditional
instruction? The reported difference between the control and
experiment groups’ gain scores on the listening section of TOEFL was
statistically significant, t (32) = -2.228, p = .032, r =
0.37. Results of the t-test analysis indicate that the researcher must reject
the null hypothesis, which stated that there is no statistically significant
difference between the scores obtained by the control and experimental groups
in the listening section. The effect size indicated that the difference in the
scores obtained by the participants in the control and experimental group
represented a moderate and therefore substantive effect (see Table 4). Research
Question 2 What are the learners’ perceptions as regards the use of
CALL for TOEFL preparation? After two days following the post-test the participants in
the experimental group (17 participants) were interviewed one by one as regards
their opinions about CALL (see Appendix B). The interview took place in the
office of the researcher without a time limit, but took approximately, 7-10
minutes. The interviews with the learners were tape recorded and the researcher
took notes. The participants were interviewed in English. ■
studying anything as much as they could ■ spending
more time on the sections they are having difficulty in getting
immediate feedback ■ reviewing
the material they are studying as much as they liked. However, 3 of the participants (18%) mentioned the necessity
of having a teacher in the classroom. They claimed that the interaction that
the computer provided was artificial and they were sometimes bored with the
same feedback style (like “this is wrong, please try again” etc.) Another
commented on the fact that he could not get answers to specific questions and
that was the beyond the capacity of the computers. Twelve learners (71%) thought that listening skill was the most
suitable one to practise having CALL in a classroom as regards the question “Which
language skill would you like to practice using a CALL approach? Why? Why not?”
They explained that computers could be helpful since they enable learners
spend more time on whatever they want to study. Also, they added that in
traditional classrooms generally listening skill was ignored or given little
importance or they just listened to a passage or a dialogue for one or two
minutes, but with the help of computers, a learner could practise as much as
s/he could. Some participants (n = 5, 29%) claimed that CALL was more
appropriate to practise structure of the target language that they were
learning. All of the participants also put forward that reading skill and
reading activities were not appropriate for CALL. They said that they hated
reading on screen and ignored reading activities/questions most of the time.
Several reasons were provided for doing this: •
not possible to take notes, underlie the important
points •
not seeing a reading passage as a whole •
bored with scrolling up and down •
not being used to reading passages/texts on screens To discover the participants’ opinions on classes
which used CALL they were asked, “Would you like to have more classes
presented using a CALL approach? Why? / Why not?” The majority of the
participants (n =13, 77%) said that they would like to have CALL classes
provided that they were incorporated into their regular classes, especially
where listening skills are practiced. Four learners (23%) put forward that they
did not want to have classes using a CALL approach since they were not friendly
to use. In response to the question, “What were your feelings towards CALL
before/after having a class presented using a CALL approach?”, 41 % of the
participants (n = 7) said that they had negative feelings while 47% of the
participants (n = 8) claimed that they had neither negative or positive
feelings before having a class using a CALL approach. Oppositely, 12% of the
learners (n = 2) said that they had positive feelings. Five participants (29%)
said that they had still negative feelings towards CALL after being exposed to
it. However, twelve participants (71%) explained that they had positive
feelings (see Table 5 for the visual representation of the findings of the
interviews with the participants). Conclusion Based on the results of the study, it is suggested that
CALL be integrated into the traditional
classrooms where the instructor is also available for further assistance and questions and teachers help students practise reading
passages or articles on a computer and
some activities should be provided in order that students become familiar with reading and accessing to reading materials online. It is
also suggested that CALL is a great help in learning/teaching situations where
repetitive practice is required. However,
a word of caution is due here. It must be taken into consideration that these results may have been influenced by a number of
extraneous factors. The participants in the study were not selected randomly, and a convenience sample was
used. Therefore, the study should be repeated with a number of similar
samples to decrease the likelihood that the
results obtained were a one-time occurrence. The study continued for eight weeks. This duration could be extended to
one semester in a year and also be incorporated into one of the courses in the
department. This would relieve the pressure of time and the other responsibilities
of the participants. Moreover, speaking and writing
skills were ignored and were not taken into consideration in the study because of
the lack of software, lack of time and workload of the participants in their
department. Indeed, speaking and writing skills could have been included in the
study since they are accounted in the TOEFL test. Implications
for teaching According
to the results of the study, the following implications for teaching are
presented: 1.
Before introducing CALL into the classroom, learners
should be provided with the necessary skills required to use the computers
properly and comfortably. This will ensure
that learners will be freed from computer anxiety and negative attitudes
towards computers. 2.
CALL should be integrated into the traditional
classrooms where the instructor is also available for further assistance and
questions so that students are not deprived of human contact. 3.
Learner autonomy can be maximized through computers
since ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ learners are given the opportunity to study and review
the materials according to their own pace. 4.
Although reading a text on a
computer screen is distracting and tiring and all of the
participants put forward that reading skill and reading activities were not
appropriate for CALL, teachers should help students practise reading passages
or articles on a computer and some activities should be provided in order that
students become familiar with reading and accessing to reading materials
online. 5.
Listening skill can be
maximized through computer activities since learners are given
chance to repeat as many times as they want and according to their own pace,
which is very difficult in a traditional language classroom. In traditional
classrooms listening skill is generally ignored or given little importance or
learners are let listen to a passage or a dialogue for just one or two minutes.
Self-access centers should be set up so
that students may enjoy improving their listening skill through
computers. 6.
CALL can assist the structure (grammar) lessons of
the language classroom since it enables learners to get immediate feedback,
which is the basic feature of CALL in almost all situations. 7. CALL can be of great help in learning/teaching
situations where repetitive practice is required. Implications for further research Further
studies involving the use of CALL are recommended since technology brings new
applications and methods into language teaching and learning. In this study,
instruction provided to both groups was not integrated into regular classes,
but offered as an extra activity out of regular class time. Further studies can
determine the effect of CALL which is incorporated into regular classes and the
students’ learning style. Additional recommendation for further study is to focus
on speaking and writing skills which were ignored in this study. Furthermore,
the relationship between learners’ learning style and CALL can be investigated. References Alatis, J. E. (1983). The application of instructional technology to
language learning. CALICO Journal, 1
(1), 9-14. Allum, P. (2002). CALL and the
classroom: the case for comparative
research. ReCALL, 14 (1), 146-166. Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15
(3), 241-249. Bax, S. (2003). CALL-past, present and future. System, 31 (1), 13-28. Brown, J. D. (1997). Computers in language testing: Present research and
some future directions. Language Learning
& Technology, 1 (1), 44-59. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary.
(2003). (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research
paradigms? Language Learning &
Technology, 1 (1), 19-43. Cunningham, D. (1998). 25 years of technology in language teaching: A
personal experience. Babel: Journal of
the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers’ Associations, 33
(1), 4-7, 35. Debski, R. (2000). Exploring the re-creation of a CALL innovation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13
(4-5), 307-332. Dewhurst, D. G., Macleod, H. A., & Norris, T. A. M. (2000).
Independent student learning aided by computers: An acceptable alternative to
lectures? Computers & Education,
35, 223-241. Dunkel, P. A. (1987).
Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and computer-assisted language learning
(CALL): Past dilemmas and future prospects for audible CALL. The Modern Language Journal, 71 (3),
250-260. Egbert, J., Paulis, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y.
(2002). The
impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for
rethinking technology in teacher education. Language
Learning & Technology, 6 (3), 108-126. English Grammar in Use. [Computer software].
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finkbeiner, C. (2001). One and all in CALL? Learner-moderator-researcher.
Computer Assisted Language Learning,
14 (3-4), 339-361. Fraenkel, J. R, & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York:
McGraw-Hill. Garcia, M R & Arias, F. V. (2000). A comparative study in motivation
and learning through print-oriented and computer-oriented tests. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13
(4-5), 457-465. Gillespie, J., & McKee, J.
(1999). Does it fit and does it make any difference? Integrating CALL
into curriculum. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 12 (5), 441-455. Hauck, B. A., McLain, L. W., & Youngs, B. E. (1999). Evaluating the
integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17 (2), 269-306. Holmes, B. (1998). Initial
perceptions of CALL by Japanese university learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11 (4), 379-409. Ikeda, N. (1999). Language learning strategies with sound-hints in
computer-based drill. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 15, 312-322. Jones, B. G. (2002). Emerging technologies: Technology for prospective
language teachers. Language Learning
& Technology, 6 (3), 10-14. Jones, C, & Fortescue,
S. (1991). Using Computers in the Language Classroom. Singapore: Longman
Singapore Publishers. Kenning, M. J., & Kenning, M-M. (1984). Introduction to Computer Assisted Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kulik, C. L., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of
computer-assisted instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75-94. Lambacher, S. (1999). A CALL tool for improving second language
acquisition of English consonants by
Japanese learners. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 12 (2), 137-156. Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S.
(2003). A
look at the research on computer-based technology use in second language
learning: A review of the literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (3), 250- 273. Mitra, A. (1997). Toward evaluating computer aided instruction:
Attitudes, demographics, content. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 20 (4), 379-391. Muir-Herzig, R. G (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42, 111-131. Murray, G L. (1999). Exploring learners’ CALL experiences: A reflection
on method. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 12 (3), 179-195. Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language
acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14 (1),
53-74. Nutta, J. (1998). Is computer-based grammar instruction as effective as
teacher-directed grammar instruction for teaching L2 structures? CALICO Journal, 16 (1), 49-62. Pawling, E. (1999). Modern languages and CD-ROM based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology,
30 (2), 163-175. PowerPreb: Preparation for the TOEFL test. (2000). [Computer software]. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Ross, J., & Schulz, R. (1999). Can computer-aided instruction
accommodate all learners equally? British
Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (1), 5-24. Ridgway, J., & Passey, D. (1991). A constructivist approach to
educational computing. Australian
Educational Computing, 6 (2), 4-9. Sawaki, Y. (2001). Comparability of conventional and computerized tests
of reading in a second language. Language
Learning & Technology, 5 (2), 387-59. Shaw, G., & Marlow, N. (1999). The role of student learning styles,
gender, attitudes and perceptions on
information and communication technology assisted learning. Computers & Education, 33, 223-234. Stokes, A. (1997). Making a success of CALL. English Teaching Professional, 4, 20- 21. Stricker, L. J., Wilder, G. Z., & Rock, D. A.
(2004). Attitudes
about the computer-based test of English as a foreign language. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 37-54. TOEFL test preparation
kit workbook. (1995). Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Warschauer, M. (2002). A
developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (3), 453-475. Winter, R. (2002). Flexible learning. Australian Educational Computing, 17 (2), 26-30. Yang, S. C. (2001). Integrating computer-mediated tools into the
language curriculum. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 17, 85-93. Ying, F. (2002). Promoting learner autonomy through CALL projects in
China’s EFL context. Teaching English
with Technology, 2 (5). APPENDIX A Dear student, This is to request your
participation in a research study to explore teaching methods to language
learning. Your participation in this study is voluntary, and
you may withdraw at any time. You are requested to sign and return the informed
consent form before the study begins. The information you provide will be kept
confidential. Only the researcher will see the completed forms. Your name will
not be used in any reports of this study. One benefit from participating in the
study is that you will contribute to the improvement of future language
learning courses. There are no risks, but participating will require some of
your time. The tests will be coded with a number that will correspond to
numbers on your examination form. Please sign and keep a copy of this form as
an explanation of the study. If you have any questions, please contact the
researcher at the following address: 2103628 APPENDIX B Interview Format for the
Learners Interview on
Computer-Assisted Language Learning 1.
Did you feel comfortable working with CALL? Why? /Why not? 2.
Was CALL more motivating to you than traditional classroom instruction?
Why?/Why not? 3.
Which language skills would you like to like to practise using a CALL
approach? Why?/Why not? 4.
Would you like to have more classes presented using a CALL approach?
Why?/Why not? 5.
What were your feelings towards CALL before/after having CALL? 6.
Do you have any additional suggestions or comments? | ||||||||||||
|
Last Updated: February 20, 2007 |
