student use of call software and its effect on learners alan bessette [email protected] poole...
TRANSCRIPT
Student Use of CALL Software and its Effect on Learners
Alan Bessette
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