student use of call software and its effect on learners alan bessette bessette@poole.ac.jp poole...

Student Use of CALL Software and its Effect on Learners

Alan Bessette

Bessette@poole.ac.jp

Poole Gakuin University

GloCALL - 2007

Learning Activities

Authentic communication with other learners or native speakers through CMC activities

Authentic tasks such as web searches, web quests and simulation games

Perhaps most common: language practice

CALL for language practice Provides learner with immediate

feedback Provides learners with autonomy

over their learning

Benefits to learners

Opportunity to notice is necessary for the conversion of input to intake. Schmidt (1994)

Control can increase motivation and help facilitate language learning.

Research Questions

Preliminary Research Question:Does learner performance improve?

Main research questions:1. Is there a correlation between learner

improvement and how often learners repeated exercises?

2. Do learners assign importance to the software features that give them control over their learning?

Methods - Participants

Two sets of students 1st year

48 students 3 classes

2nd year 52 students 3 classes

Methods - Classes

Longman English Interactive (LEI) 1st year: LEI 1 Modules B3 to C5 2nd year: LEI 2 Modules B3 to C5

Classes met twice a week for 90 minutes Once in computer lab Use LEI for about 60 minutes

Methods - LEI

Main features Four level four skill software

program Three modules with 5 units each Listening with video support (2),

grammar, vocabulary, speaking, pronunciation, and reading activities

Unit quizzes and module tests

Methods – LEI

Features that support learning Glossary, grammar reference and

video grammar coach Immediate feedback: Software

indicates correct answers and students can redo activities.

Students control number of times they watch and listen to listening activities.

Methods - Instruments

Pre- and post-tests Module C test LEI reflection questionnaires End-of-study questionnaire

Pre- and Post-tests

Given in Oct 2005 and February 2006, respectively

Equivalency not validated statistically, but similar in every way

Post-test is 30% of students final grade.

Module C test

Overlap in what was covered Given at the end of the semester Module test is 10% of final grade.

LEI Reflection Questionnaires Adapted from Jamieson, Chapelle

and Priess (2005) Given four times; about once every

other week

LEI Reflection Questionnaires Students were asked to

Indicate level and which module they did

Rate how difficult an activity was Indicate how many times they

repeated an activity Indicate how many mistakes they

made

LEI Reflection Questionnaires Main purpose

Measure how the number of mistakes correlates with the number of times activities were repeated

Measure correlation between number of times activities were repeated and test performance.

End-of-study Questionnaire

Usability and appropriateness of level

Effectiveness of and level of interest for each activity

Benefits of using LEI How LEI helped students improve

Results

Study began with robust numbers 48 in 1st year classes 52 in 2nd year classes

Due to absences for the pre- or post-tests and incomplete LEI reflection questionnaire data 19 in 1st year classes 26 in 2nd year classes

Test Results

Pre- Post- Module C

1st year Mean

(n = 19)64.9 76.8 79.1

2nd year Mean

(n = 26)61.1 68.7 77.9

Test Results: Paired t-test

Improvement between pre- and post-tests

1st year: Significant improvement Post-test was 11.9 points higher t(18) = -4.752 and p < 0.0002

2nd year: Significant improvement Post-test was 7.6 points higher t(25) = -4.058 and p < 0.0004

Test Results

Post-test and Module C correlation 1st year: positive, but not strong

r(14) = 0.331 and p<0.254 2nd year: positive, but not strong

r(14) = 0.331 and p<0.254

1st Year LEI Reflection Questionnaires

(n = 19) Difficulty Times listened # of mistakes Times attempted

1st listening 2.6 2.1 1.7 2.0

Grammar 3.7 1.8 1.9

Vocabulary 2.9 1.7 1.7

Reading 3.4 1.7 1.9

2nd listening 2.8 2.1 1.8 1.9

2nd Year LEI Reflection Questionnaires

(n = 26) Difficulty Times listened # of mistakes Times attempted

1st listening 2.6 2.9 3.5 2.3

Grammar 3.6 2.7 2.4

Vocabulary 3.0 2.4 2.3

Reading 3.5 2.7 2.5

2nd listening 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.5

Reflection Questionnaire Results Grammar and reading activities

easier than listening activities Vocabulary in between

Not much variation in average number of mistakes and average number of times repeated Slightly more time spent on

listening

1st year correlation results

Post- Module C Repeats Mistakes

Post- 1.00

Module C 0.73 1.00

Repeats -0.42 -0.40 1.00

Mistakes -0.62 -0.46 0.90 1.00

2nd year correlation results

Post- Module C Repeats Mistakes

Post- 1.00

Module C 0.33 1.00

Repeats -0.40 -0.56 1.00

Mistakes -0.44 -0.22 0.97 1.00

Correlation Summary

Post-test and Module C 1st year: strong positive correlation 0.73 2nd year: positive correlation 0.33

Number of mistakes and repeats 1st year: strong positive correlation 0.90 2nd year: strong positive correlation 0.97

Correlation Summary

Hypothesized correlations between post-test scores and repeats

Negative and weak 1st year: -0.42 2nd year: -0.40

End-of-study Questionnaire

Benefits of using LEI Understand grammar: 24 (13, 11) Improved listening: 35 (19, 16) Improved speaking: 20 (10, 10) Increased vocabulary: 20 (12, 8) Made English fun: 25 (17, 8)

Improved listening: 85%

End-of-study Questionnaire

How LEI helped students improve Listen many times: 33 (17, 16) Repeat exercises: 28 (18, 10) Study at own pace: 29 (17, 12) Get correct answers: 12 (9, 3) Grammar explanations: 13 (7, 6) Increased motivation: 13 (9, 4) At own level: 13 (9, 4) Interesting: 19 (14, 5) Lots of practice: 18 (10, 8) Video clips: 24 (13, 11)

End-of-study Questionnaire

Results positive Being able to control how they use

LEI seems to be very important for students Being able to listen many times Being able to repeat exercises Being able to study at their own

pace

Preliminary Research Question

Does learner performance improve? Pre- and post-test scores showed

improvement for both 1st year and 2nd year students 1st year improvement was greater LEI 2 is probably more difficult

Cannot conclude that LEI is responsible for improvement Too many other factors

1st Research Question

Is there a correlation between learner improvement and how often learners repeated exercises?

No correlations between post-test and number of times activities were repeated

Strong correlation between number of mistakes and repetition of activities

Students are using software as expected.

2nd Research Question

Do learners assign importance to the software features that give them control over their learning?

End-of-study questionnaire results strongly support this hypothesis. Being able to listen many times: 87% Being able to repeat exercises: 74% Being able to study at their own pace:

76%

Conclusions

Major problem was the small sample sizes Difficult to control for absences

and incomplete data Need a more accurate method of

obtaining student use of software Software to record student

behavior expensive, but better than student reports.

Selected References

Jamieson, Joan, Carol A. Chapelle and Sherry Preiss. 2005. “CALL Evaluation by Developers, a Teacher, and Students.” CALICO Journal Volume 23 (1): 93-138.

Schmidt, Richard. 1994. “Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics.” AILA Review. 11: 11-26

Taguchi, Nobuko and Keiko Schneider. 2004 “Longman English Interactive.” CALICO Journal. 6. p. 23.

LEI website http://www.pearsonlongman.com/ae/multimedia/pdf/LEI1AE_scope_seq

.pdf http://www.pearsonlongman.com/ae/multimedia/pdf/LEI2AE_scope_seq

.pdf