student perceptions
This paper investigates the effectiveness of a CD-ROM
designed to integrate the teaching of language and literature in an advanced
German course at two Australian universities. The CD was built into the work of
three groups over a four-week period, and emphasis was given to student
perceptions of the approach using quantitative and qualitative measures of
data-gathering. Results showed a high level of interest in the approach, with
students reporting that they found the integration of language and literature
useful and interesting. A substantial number found it more effective than
conventional teaching in which language and literature are treated separately.
Of the components of the program, games were seen as most enjoyable but
structural exercises as most effective. Performance in the post-tests was
significantly better than in the pre-tests. While students generally enjoyed
working with the CD-ROM, most believed that this technology should not be used
as a stand-alone approach to teaching, appreciating the presence and feedback
of the teacher at all times.
If we compare sophisticated
multimedia applications with even the best pre-multimedia CALL programs, the
difference in presentation alone is stunning. CD-ROMs include colourful
graphics, moving pictures, interesting soundtracks and clever icons, behind
which learners can explore unforeseen scenarios, play games or carry out all
sorts of exercises. There is no question that learners prefer to interact with
these programs rather than the previous generation of software, even if the
latter may at times be of greater pedagogical value. The motivating effect that
has often been observed in CALL (Jones 1991) is now greater than ever, even
though there is virtually no research on how long-term this effect may be. We
need to be cautious, however, in what we choose for our students, and Jones
(1991:1) is right to assert that state-of-the-art software is not necessarily
more valuable than “minimalist home-made” programs. As far as he is concerned,
the important variable is the presence of the teacher in the production. Given
this, the soundest programs should be those that are state-of-the-art but
produced by a team of programmers and language educators in partnership
(MacWhinney 1995, Garrett 1995). And Phillips’ claim that “the days of the
gifted amateur programmer are numbered” (in Jones 1991:7) is only true in the
sense that authoring programs for CD-ROM programs have now become so
sophisticated that most teachers need help if they are to produce excellent
software. The latest software available for Web authoring, by contrast, offers
much easier solutions to the amateur (Felix 1998a).
Pedagogically sound multimedia
language programs on CD-ROM offer an attractive addition to already good teaching.
They can cater for different learning styles, abilities, strategies and
interests; they can provide a large amount of linked material on language,
literature and culture in the form of tutorials, games and contextualised
exercises; and they can do all this with one flexible resource that students
can access at any time and even take home if they have the appropriate
hardware. Not even the best teacher could hope to provide all that in the
regular classroom environment without collapsing under the burden of
coordinating technological resources and preparing suitably graded materials
for each class (Felix 1997). Integrating such a resource into a teaching
program, however, could add an exciting and useful dimension to the learning
and teaching environment. Exactly how useful such an exercise might be is the
subject of this paper.
The software
evaluated in this study was developed by the author with the help of
professional programmers in response to a genuine student need. The program, Theater Interaktiv, differs from
commercially available CD-ROMs for language teaching in several ways. It is
aimed at advanced language learners; it uses the target language (German)
exclusively; it brings together language and literature teaching when the
standard practice in Australian universities has been to teach them separately;
and it includes a large variety of comprehension and grammar exercises based on
Thomas Bernhard’s Heldenplatz
(Bilbilothek Suhrkamp), with scored feedback. The program is personalised in
that the teacher appears in video clips giving informative and amusing
tutorials dealing with the most difficult areas of grammar for advanced
students of German as a foreign language. Users can switch between games and
serious work, and the program includes extensive background material on the
author, the play and the historical context. More detailed information can be
found in Felix (1998b) and a selection of still images can be accessed at
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ufelix/ti/.
An important consideration in this study
was that the software was evaluated within the students’ regular teaching
program and environment. While this limited the research design and the
generalisablity of the findings, it was felt that information gathered
observationally in an authentic teaching environment would be more useful than
anything that might result from an artificially controlled experiment.
In any case, research into the efficacy of
computer assisted learning has produced very equivocal results (Dunkel 1991), and
it is easy to list problems attached to such research (Chapelle 1997).
Judgments in the area vary widely. At one end are positive reports from the
authors of several large meta-analyses as exemplified in "the computer did
its job quickly – on average in about two-thirds the time required by
conventional teaching methods" (Kulik et al 1980:538), and "the newer
technologies show promise to be able to provide feedback in multiple modes,
such as listening and reading" (Basena & Jamieson 1996:19), although they
did caution that "the results are difficult to interpret, and the designs
and measures do not lend themselves to reproduction or generalizability"
(p. 19). At the other end are dismissive (and in the quoted case
unsubstantiated) comments such as: "Study after study seems to confirm
that computer-based instruction reduces performance levels and that habitual
Internet use induces depression" (Noble 1998:2). Given this variation, it
is fairly clear that general conclusions about the effectiveness of CALL cannot
be formulated without qualifications nor relied upon uncritically. What is
more, the problem is going to intensify: as programs became more sophisticated,
variables to be investigated became more wide-ranging and conclusions on
meta-analyses more difficult.
The focus of the present study was on
students’ perceptions of the usefulness of the software. In particular, the
study was designed to elicit the following information.
· Students’ level of interest in
working with a multimedia package.
· Which aspects of the multimedia
program students found most effective and enjoyable.
· How effective the program was in
teaching difficult aspects of German grammar.
· Whether students found the
teaching of grammar in the context of a literary text useful.
· Whether the program is best used
in a classroom setting or as a stand-alone resource.
1. Method
Because of the difficulties associated
with controlling variables in a natural educational environment, this was not
an experimental investigation, but an observational study with the addition of
pre- and post-tests to measure improvement in certain aspects of grammar. While
the multimedia software was designed to teach a variety of language skills
(Felix 1998b), grammar was chosen as
the content for the pre- and post-tests. One reason for this is that understanding
of grammar items lends itself most easily to quantitative measurement. Less
narrowly, since the major emphasis of Theater
Interaktiv is the teaching of grammar in the context of literature, it
seemed sensible to test the usefulness of the approach.
Subjects consisted of three groups of
advanced students of German at two different universities.
Group 1 consisted of 19 subjects, 14
female and 5 male, ranging in age from 19 to 30. This group was generally very
familiar with computers, with all but one owning, or having ready access to, a
computer at their place of residence. Most were regular users, making use of
their computer for more than 2 hours a week, mainly for word processing, email and
accessing the Internet. Nine used the computer for a number of hours daily.
Group 2 consisted of eight teachers of
German who were doing a refresher/enrichment course. They were included in the
study to provide a different perspective from that of undergraduate students.
There were six females and two males, ranging in age from 26 to 49. This group
was not as familiar with computers, with one student not using a computer at
all, three using it for less than two hours per week, and the other four using
it for between 2 and 5 hours per week. The main uses were word-processing,
accessing the Internet and using educational software such as encyclopaedias,
dictionaries and tutorial type software.
Group 3 also consisted of third year
undergraduates, but at a different campus. The ten students were all female and
were generally younger with ages ranging from 19 to 28 with the exception of
one who was 63 (7 of the group were 21 years old or less). All but one owned,
or had ready access to, a computer. Most used the computer almost daily for
word-processing. Very few in the group used the computer for other purposes and
only two accessed the Internet.
The three groups were approximately
comparable in their level of competence in the target language. The same research
assistant collected the data in all the groups. Groups one and two were taught
by the same teacher at Monash University, while Group three was taught by a
different teacher at the University of Western Australia. Care was taken to
standardise as many elements as possible across all groups, including the
method of teaching.
Theater
Interaktiv was integrated into the curriculum of the
courses in which the three groups of students were enrolled. The text Heldenplatz, on which all the activities
in the CD-ROM were based, formed part of their regular third-year syllabus for
a four week period. Literature classes were given as usual by the regular
lecturer who dealt with the content and the meaning of the play in line with
students’ usual experience in literature classes in Australian universities.
What was different in this project was that the content of all eight language
classes during this period was also based on the play. Rather than teaching in
isolation aspects of grammar — the two subjunctives and adjective endings —
that Australian students of German find difficult, an attempt was made to teach
the material in context in a meaningful setting. Heldenplatz was chosen because it was particularly interesting,
highly controversial and especially suitable for teaching these aspects of
grammar.
Before teaching began, each group was
given a pre-test on the three areas of grammar to be taught. This test was not
returned to the students or ever discussed. Teaching consisted of four 50 minute
literature lectures and eight hours of grammar teaching delivered in four
two-hour sessions. Each of these sessions included a 30 to 45 minute period of
classroom instruction by a highly competent language teacher using
communicative methods. The rest of the session took place in the computer
laboratory where the students used the Theater
Interaktiv program in any way they wanted to. The teacher and the research
assistant were present at these sessions to answer any questions. All students
were encouraged to come to the computer laboratory as often as they wished in
their own time to use the program.
Several methods of
data collection were used.
1.
Pre- and post-test. Before teaching began, all
subjects were given a test on the three areas of grammar covered by the
program. At the completion of the period of instruction, the same test was
again administered as a post-test. The questions were a subset of those used as
exercises on the CD-ROM program. Since these included several hundred sentences,
the chances of students’ remembering them were low.
2.
Questionnaire. At the end of the period of
instruction, students were asked to complete a questionnaire (available by
email from the author). This was designed to find out how students reacted to
the program in general, as well as to specific aspects of the program.
3.
Observation. During the four computer sessions,
students were observed by the research assistant to determine their degree of
interest and engagement, their methods of working with the program and their
reactions to the various components that make up the program. A number of
subjects were videotaped while undergoing these interviews.
4.
Journals. Students were asked to record for each
session which parts of the program they worked with, how effective these were
as a learning aid, what was good or bad about the facilities they used, and any
general comments they wished to make.
2.
Results
Interest in Theater Interaktiv was very high. This was demonstrated in many
ways. Observation during computer laboratory sessions showed a high degree of
engagement by most students during all sessions. Exclamations of delight,
amusement and approval were heard several times:
Student A: This is hard, this part.
Student B: Yeah, but it’s fun.
(A dialogue then took place in
German between them to find information to help with the exercises)
Comments at the end of the questionnaire
were mostly very positive as the following representative sample shows:
· Overall a most helpful course
– has been a great help for my grammar – actually inspired me to learn some.
· Great fun. I looked forward to
coming to German classes and learnt a lot of grammar – loved to be able to test
myself.
· Overall,
TI has been fun and informative.
· I am
actually starting to look forward to grammar classes.
In the questionnaire,
subjects were asked to rate their interest in the program on a six point scale.
As can be seen in Table 1, interest was very high with almost 67% of students
giving it a rating of 5 or higher. There was a significant difference between
the three groups. Group 2 (the practising teachers) showed by far the most
interest with 100% of respondents rating it 5 or greater (one student failed to
give a response to this question) and 57% giving it a 6. This is in contrast
with the other two groups where the top rating was given by only 10 and 16
percent of the students in each group. The reason for this result might have
been that practising teachers are generally more interested in innovative
teaching materials and tend to spend more time on evaluating such materials
than students.
Table 1:
Interest in Theater Interaktiv
|
|
Group
1 n = 19 |
Group
2 n = 7 |
Group
3 n = 10 |
Whole
Group n
= 36 |
||||
|
Rating |
No |
% |
No |
% |
No |
% |
No |
% |
|
1 Very Boring |
1 |
5.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2.8 |
|
2 Boring |
1 |
5.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2.8 |
|
3 Rather Boring |
1 |
5.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2.8 |
|
4 Rather interesting |
4 |
21.1 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
50.0 |
9 |
25.0 |
|
5 Interesting |
9 |
47.4 |
3 |
42.9 |
4 |
40.0 |
16 |
44.4 |
|
6 Very Interesting |
3 |
15.8 |
4 |
57.1 |
1 |
10.0 |
8 |
22.2 |
Group
3’s responses to the questionnaire indicated the least interest. This confirmed
the impression gained during observation. This group showed very little
animation or curiosity generally. Unlike most students in the other groups,
these students did not explore the facilities available in the program. With
one exception, they remained completely focussed for the entire hour and a half
on the language exercises relating to the point of grammar that was the subject
of that day’s teaching. Interviews showed that the perception among most of
them was that the best way to learn grammar was to do lots of repetitive
exercises, and that playing language games was something to be done only after
the ‘real’ work was completed:
· Well, I think for me
personally, that I need to finish the whole 45 exercises before I’d go and play
a game,
· Well, I try to get down to the
exercises that we’re doing, like doing the subjunctive, doing the adjective
endings, because that’s.... I really need that help in grammar
· And because it’s a class and
we’re just trained into believing you’ve got to do the exercises, we can’t play
games even though they may be beneficial
A few students were, in
fact, very resistant, with the resistance being based on a belief that
computers should not be used to replace teachers. In terms of this program, this
resistance was irrational because it had been clearly explained at the
beginning of the study that Theater
Interaktiv was to be used to supplement classroom teaching, and that a
teacher would be present at all scheduled computer laboratory sessions to help
with any difficulties the students might encounter.
When asked to indicate
the three most enjoyable components of the program, exercises, games and videos
were clearly the most popular (Table 2). Although exercises were included in
the top three by 83.7% of students and games by 78.3%, games were a clear
favourite with 40.5% of students ranking them as the most enjoyable component
as opposed to videos and exercises which were each ranked first by less than
30% of students.
Table 2: Enjoyment
|
How enjoyable |
Percentage of students who rated
components as most enjoyable. |
||||
|
|
Video |
Games |
Exercises |
Tutorials |
Culture |
|
Most |
29.7 |
40.5 |
24.3 |
10.8 |
16.2 |
|
2nd |
18.9 |
16.2 |
45.9 |
37.8 |
24.3 |
|
3rd. |
29.7 |
21.6 |
13.5 |
10.8 |
27.0 |
|
TOTAL |
78.3 |
78.3 |
83.7 |
59.4 |
67.5 |
One student in a
videotaped interview explained the popularity of games in the following way:
It’s
the same problem as exercises in a book where you’ve got 70 different things
that you have to write out again and again and again. It’s like that repetition
thing, but you never do it because it’s boring. But if it’s on a computer, and
it’s a game, then it’s fun and you do it and you learn from it because you’re
repeating it over and over again.
Games also featured in
comments on the questionnaire – for example:
·
The
games are fun, not that easy, but enjoyable.
·
Variety
and fun of games is good – makes it enjoyable.
·
The
games give an opportunity to break away from the “classroom exercises”.
The students' perception
of what was effective was interesting. They did not equate enjoyment with
effectiveness. In fact, it was rare for a student to rate a component that they
considered very enjoyable as being equally effective. Table 3 shows a
comparison of the components of the program that students rated as most
effective and as most enjoyable. One striking fact is that while 40.5% of
students rated games as the most enjoyable component, only 18.9% rated them as
the most effective. And while only 24.3% of students rated exercises as the
most enjoyable, 48.6% rated them as the most effective. It is also worth noting
that the exercises were the only component of the program that was rated in the
top three by almost 100% of the students. The reason for this could be that
they suspected that it was the grammar component of the course that was going
to be tested, and so perceived this component as the most important one. In
addition, as stated previously, the common perception among most of the
students was that the best way to learn grammar was to do lots of repetitive
exercises.
Table 3: Enjoyment and effectiveness
|
Enjoyable/effective |
Percentage of students who rated
components as most effective (left) and most enjoyable (right) |
|||||||||
|
Effective |
Video |
Games |
Exercises |
Tutorials |
Culture |
|||||
|
Most |
16.2 |
29.7 |
18.9 |
40.5 |
48.6 |
24.3 |
21.6 |
10.8 |
16.2 |
16.2 |
|
2nd |
32.4 |
18.9 |
37.8 |
16.2 |
13.5 |
45.9 |
35.1 |
37.8 |
37.8 |
24.3 |
|
3rd. |
18.9 |
29.7 |
8.1 |
21.6 |
35.1 |
13.5 |
18.9 |
10.8 |
16.2 |
27.0 |
|
TOTAL |
67.5 |
78.3 |
64.8 |
78.3 |
97.2 |
83.7 |
75.6 |
59.4 |
70.2 |
67.5 |
Pre- and post-test results. A more quantitative measure of
effectiveness was students' performance on the post-test as compared to their
performance on the pre-test. Students were tested on adjective endings,
subjunctive I and subjunctive II. The number of errors made during each test
were counted and a t-test for paired samples was carried out on the results of
the pre- and post-test. As can be seen from Table 4, improvement in all areas
was highly significant. In the absence of a control group, these results cannot
be generalised to any extent, but they do suggest that students participating
in this study were not in any way disadvantaged in the acquisition of relevant
grammar, despite having less formal instruction than usual. The teachers
involved in the study, both highly experienced at this level, felt that the
performance on the post-test was much higher than normally expected for third
year cohorts. This appears to suggest that teaching language structures
implicitly through the context of literature may indeed be a useful strategy.
This view is confirmed by the students’ comments (see examples following Table
5 below).
|
Test Type |
Pre-test Mean & Std Dev |
Post-test Mean & Std Dev |
Pre-post effect t-value |
p |
|
Adjectives (n=37) |
8.67 (2.84) |
4.54
(2.60) |
9.18 |
0.002 |
|
Subjunctive
I (n=37) |
5.81 (2.27) |
3.02 (1.88) |
7.44 |
0.011 |
|
Subjunctive
II (n=37) |
8.57 (4.87) |
2.95
(3.06) |
7.27 |
0.025 |
|
Total
all tests (n=37) |
23.05 (8.21) |
10.51 (5.79) |
10.92 |
0.000 |
Pearson correlations
were calculated to determine if a student's percentage improvement on the
tests was influenced by their interest in Theater
Interaktiv generally, their interest in the exercises, or the number of
exercises completed. No correlation could be established for any of these.
A key aspect of Theater Interaktiv was the
contextualisation of language exercises in a controversial theatre text. Students
were asked to indicate whether they found this approach more or less effective
than conventional teaching. Well over 60% of students found the contextualised
method more effective for learning both grammar and literature (Table 5).
|
How Effective |
Percentage of
students rating this approach as more or less effective than conventional
teaching for grammar items, punctuation, vocabulary and meaning. |
||||
|
|
Subjunctive |
Adjectives |
Punctuation |
Vocabulary |
Meaning |
|
Much less effective |
5.4 |
5.4 |
5.7 |
5.7 |
5.9 |
|
Somewhat less effective |
2.7 |
5.4 |
11.4 |
2.9 |
2.9 |
|
Less effective |
10.8 |
13.5 |
20.0 |
11.4 |
20.6 |
|
More effective |
32.4 |
29.7 |
34.3 |
34.3 |
29.4 |
|
Somewhat more effective |
43.2 |
43.2 |
22.9 |
28.6 |
26.5 |
|
Much more effective |
5.4 |
2.7 |
5.7 |
17.1 |
14.7 |
Some
positive comments on this were also made in the questionnaire.
· A very good idea to study
grammar of texts studied in Lit – makes both subjects worthwhile.
· The collection of exercises
drawn from the play is an excellent idea. I much prefer this approach to a set
of exercises based on a set of unrelated sentences.
· The idea of basing a program
on a literary work is excellent
· Using literature to teach
grammar is a very helpful learning procedure.
·
I
never knew I could learn so much from one single play!
Theater Interaktiv was
designed to be used in conjunction with good classroom teaching and was not
really meant for stand-alone use. Students were asked to give their opinion on
the best way to use the program (a) completely stand-alone, (b) after brief
class instruction, or (c) without instruction but with the teacher on hand to
answer questions.
All but two students
agreed that the program should not be used stand-alone. 73.5% supported the
program designer’s view that the program should be used after brief class
instruction to complement normal teaching. Many commented on the fact that the
presence of a teacher during the computer sessions was valuable:
·
The
presence of an expert tutor with whom I can discuss problems is very much
appreciated. The exercises would be less valuable if such a person were not
present.
·
Need
tutor there for questions etc.
·
It
was good to have U[schi] and N[ina] answer my many questions!
3. Discussion
The multimedia package evaluated here was
put together by a team of programmers and language specialists and was
carefully designed to be an extensive, integrated resource with a large variety
of materials related to the play being taught. These included games to build
vocabulary and animated grammar tutorials, in addition to the text and
background material. The intention was to provide students with a wide range of
resources to access, and a correspondingly wide range of language exercises.
The focus of the evaluation was on the
students' perception of the usefulness of such a resource for the study of
advanced German within their regular learning environment.
What MacWhinney (1995) calls the 'smile
coefficient' was very high for this package. The students were overwhelmingly
positive in their responses, even though three found the approach boring and
were strongly resistant to it. The greatest enthusiasm was displayed by the
group of teachers, who were interested in its potential to contribute to their
teaching practice. Particularly gratifying for the designers of the package was
the clear statement that the basic approach of integrating grammar into the
study of a literary text was appreciated by the students.
Given the variety of exercises provided,
it was disappointing that the students, while using other parts of the package
and notably the games and the videos, concentrated most heavily on grammar and
the rather traditional language exercises.
We might wonder why this should have been
so. There is evidence that students focussed on those aspects of the package
that they saw as directed to a precise learning goal and as having well-defined
outcomes. They may also have focussed on what they believed was likely to be
tested. They were not, in fact, informed that there would be a post-test, nor
that it would take the form of grammar questions, but the example of the
pre-test was there to suggest that this was the critical area for evaluation.
This raises a question about the chosen
methods of evaluation. One consideration in selecting the grammar exercises as
the content of the pre- and post-test was that improvement in this area is
easily measurable, but, ideally a package which offers a wide variety of
activities should provide a correspondingly wide form of testing, however
difficult this may be to achieve in all areas. It would have been interesting,
for example, to see how the students reacted to the word-based games – the
basic source of vocabulary enrichment in the package – if vocabulary had been
tested instead of grammar.
As the data show, the students did not
regard what they found most enjoyable as most effective, or vice versa. They are not necessarily the
best judges of this and further detailed tests need to be conducted to explore
the issue, but it is interesting that they thought the games most enjoyable and
the grammar exercises most effective. The data gathered from their observations
and journals suggest some possible explanations. Grammar tends to be the most
frequently tested part of traditional language courses anyway; students may
tend to regard the acquisition of grammar as one of the most difficult and
important elements in language learning; and the use of computers for drill and
practice exercises in the past may have given students the impression that this
is what computers are best at.
Even apart from the fact that grammar was
tested in the evaluation, therefore, there may be reasons to think that
students would anyway have spent a great deal of time on grammar exercises,
especially since they contained the most difficult aspects of advanced German
which cause problems to even third year students. The very positive result of
the post-test on the grammar exercises should be seen in this context. While it
is impossible to generalise conclusions from these results in the absence of a
control group, students' comments appear to suggest that the opportunity to
practise difficult grammar was greatly appreciated. Students particularly
enjoyed the instant feedback, the non-threatening environment and the
context-based exercises. “Bernhard’s sentences are so much more interesting
than the ones in our grammar books” was a frequent comment during the
observations.
An excellent aspect of the evaluation was
the variety of data collection techniques used, and this approach is highly recommended
for future research. Questionnaire, journal and test data complemented the
information collected during the observations. These latter, in particular,
yielded interesting information that would have been difficult to obtain
through questionnaires. They clearly confirmed the general enthusiasm for the
approach. They also highlighted differences of learning styles and preferences
among students, as exemplified in one who, without being antipathetic to the
approach, expressed a preference for paper-based over screen-based learning.
A number of students made the point that
they particularly appreciated the advanced level of the program and the fact
that all instructions and help screens were in German. 'It's nice to see that
the computer recognises that we already know a lot of German'. This was
particularly encouraging to the designers since there had been some worry about
the exclusive use of German in what was a pioneering and complex program. The
fact that no English was used may have contributed to the fact that interaction
between students was carried out largely in German, even on technical matters
relating to the computers.
The assumption of the designers was that
the software would be incorporated into classroom teaching, but its usefulness and
effectiveness in stand-alone mode, where it would replace teachers rather than
supplement them, needs to be tested. The students' preference for using the
software as part of a learning environment that includes the teacher may be
understandable simply in terms of the perceived ideal being preferred to any
alternative, however good such an alternative might prove in practice. After
all, during the observations, many commented on the fact that one of the
benefits of using a computer was the possibility of working at one's own pace
and in one's own time. It would be interesting to see whether an equivalent
evaluation with a comparable group of students working entirely alone with the
program would yield significantly different results. A study of Web-based
language learning currently being undertaken by the author may throw some light
on this question.
In
conclusion, this was a difficult evaluation to carry out and perhaps one that
was over-ambitious for the time available. A recommendation for further research
of this nature is either to concentrate on fewer variables to be investigated,
or to opt for a longer time frame.
Despite the limitations of the present
investigation, however, some tentative conclusions can be reported. The study
showed that students were generally enthusiastic about using this multimedia
program as a resource for advanced language learning. They particularly
appreciated the contextualised approach and the non-threatening nature of the
activities and environment. While they enjoyed the games best, they thought the
grammar exercises the most effective element of the program, devoting a large
part of their time to them and performing extremely well on the grammar tests
at the end of the four-week period. Students were almost unanimous in their
belief that the program should be used in conjunction with good classroom
teaching, and that the teacher should be available to answer questions and give
guidance during computer sessions.
______
Notes
My grateful thanks to Nina Dow for the
data collection and statistical analyses.
An earlier version of this paper was
published in the Australian journal ON-CALL
in 1997. This revised version is published with the journal’s permission.
References
Basena, D.; Jamieson, J. (1996) CALL Research in Second Language
Learning: 1990-1994. CAELL 7 (1/2) 14-22.
Chapelle, C. (1997) CALL in
the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning and Technology 1 (1), 19-43.
Dunkel, P. (1991) The effectiveness of research on computer-assisted
instruction and computer-assisted langauge learning. In: P. Dunkel Computer-Assisted Language Learning and
Testing. New York: Newbury House, 5-36.
Felix, U. (1997) In the future now? Towards meaningful interaction in
multimedia programs for language teaching. In F-J. Meissner Interaktiver Fremdsprachenunterricht, Wege
zu authentischer Kommunikation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 120-129.
Felix, U. (1998a) Virtual Language
Learning: Finding the Gems among the Pebbles. Melbourne: Language Australia
Ltd.
Felix, U. (1998b) Contextualising language learning with the help of
multimedia. In G. Kühn Computergestütztes
Deutschlernen von Ausländern für die Berufs- und Arbeitswel in der Reihe
“Sonderveröffentlichungen” des Bundesinstituts für Berufsbildung. Bielefeld
: W. Bertelsmann Verlag, 119-131.
Garrett, N. (1995) ICALL and second language acquisition. In V.M.
Holland; J.D. Kaplan; R. Sams (eds),
Intelligent language tutors: theory shaping technology. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 345-358.
Jones, F. R. (1991) Mickey-Mouse and state-of-the-art: program
sophistication and classroom methodology in communicative CALL. System, 19(1/2), 1-13.
Kulik, J. A.; Kulik C.C.;
Cohen P.A. (1980) Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A
metaanalysis of findings. Review of
Educational Research 50 (4), 525-544.
MacWhinney, B. (1995) Evaluating foreign language tutoring systems. In
V.M. Holland; J.D. Kaplan; R. Sams (eds),
Intelligent language tutors theory shaping technology. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 317-326.
Noble, D. (1998) Digital Diploma Mills Part III, The bloom is off the
rose. WWW document: http://communication.ucsd.edu.dl/ddm3.html
Biodata
Professor Dr. Uschi Felix is Director of
Information Technology Research and Development and a member of the German
department in the Faculty of Arts at Monash University in Melbourne. She has a
research background in applied linguistics, and during the last decade her work
has focussed on CALL in all its various aspects, concentrating on the
systematic integration into the curriculum of tested CALL applications from
stand-alone software to WWW sites. She has contributed to the development of
multi-media software and Websites in several languages. Her publications
include many articles on the use of technology in language teaching as well as
the book Virtual Language Learning:
Finding the Gems among the Pebbles.