EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Computer-enhanced grammar teaching: using computer

technology to teach first years

David Barr

University of Ulster

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Background• The transition between school and university can be

difficult: students often require a period of readjustment and training to encourage them to become more active, constructivist learners (Fry and Ketteridge, 1999:37).

• An explosion in packages that teach grammar – BUT Engel & Myles (1996:10) point towards the decline in the

standards of grammar among students entering higher education.

• Studies looking at the use of computer-based grammar packages often compare the use of a computer-based approach to a traditional teacher-directed approach to determine whether one is better than the other. (Nutta: 1998)

• Student attitudes towards learning grammar

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Background (2)Please rate how enjoyable you feel the study of

grammar is in language study: % (N=20)

1520

40

10 10

05

1015202530354045

Ver

yen

joya

ble

Enj

oyab

le

Ave

rage

Bel

owav

erag

een

joym

ent

Uni

nter

estin

g

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Project stages

• The completion of computerised diagnostic tests to identify strengths and weaknesses in the area of grammar early in semester.

• To change the environment in which grammar classes take place by moving teaching from seminar/lecture rooms to multimedia learning laboratories.

• Encouraging students to use CALL exercises online outside class in an effort to strengthen key grammar concepts.

• Repeating the computerised diagnostic tests at the end of semester.

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Results of Diagnostics Tests

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Class Format

• Classes took place in multimedia learning labs.

• Divided into two parts:– Theoretical explanations– Opportunity for practice, using CALL software,

including CETL Materials developed Hot Potatoes

• Support notes uploaded to VLE (WebCT)

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Student Performance

Individual Performance in Tests 1 and 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Student 6

Sc

ore

as

%

Pre-test

Post-test

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Performance on each question

Student Cohort Performance on each question (N=28)

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Question Number

% o

f st

ud

ents

an

swer

ing

qu

esti

on

co

rrec

tly

Test 1

Test 2

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Quantitative findings• Generally, students performed better in

the second test, although there was some degree of variability depending on the question BUT:– General improvement would be expected as

these areas of grammar studied in class between tests 1 and 2

– Short test period (one semester)– Performance did not improve in every

question

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Reaction of students

• Initially, some concerns about how students would react to the technology:– Students not enthused by grammar

classes – Would technology help? Danger of

psychological resistance?

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Reaction of students (2)

• BUT Feedback positive at end of semester– 70% of respondents felt technology made positive

contribution to learning grammar– Students wanted more exercises, especially those

available online

• Motivational Value. Students appreciate why they studied the areas they did as the diagnostics test revealed their weaknesses.

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Reaction of students (3)

• “I think that Hot Potatoes was an excellent way to learn main grammar points”

• “I think Hot Potatoes is a really good way of practicing grammar points”

• “I liked it, was clear and helpful and easy to use and interesting”

• “…like the way you have to keep working before you are given a clue or answer”

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Evaluation: Why positive?• Importance of looking at student reaction to use of technology in

LL : The value of the technology is not necessarily measured on its technological excellence or astounding quality (Thornbury et al, 1996:19)

• Technology not too drastic a culture shock

– Students use technology when they feel it makes a difference. Rapid feedback/practice

– Technology not taking them to too far outside their comfort zone– Technology as a means of supporting NOT replacing the teacher– Use of a multi-faceted approach. Retains interest.

• Affective benefits of technology (Stepp Greenay, 2002 and Beauvois, 1998)

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Maximising the potential – future developments

• Use of data from this year group to inform planning of next year’s grammar classes

• Creation of a database to enable tutor to track student performance quickly

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

Conclusion

• Quantitatively, it is very difficult to say with any conviction whether the technology made any significant difference to student performance

• BUT The technology motivated the students– Students need their comfort zone– Students still need teacher to have a central role

in grammar, especially in Year 1

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

References• Beauvois, M (1998). ‘Conversations in Slow Motion: Computer-

mediated Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom’ In Canadian Modern Language Review 54 (2) Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 20 January 2006: http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=product/cmlr/542/542-Beauvois.html

• Engel, D and Myles, F (1996). ‘Grammar Teaching: The Major Concerns.’ In D Engel and F Myles (eds.) Teaching Grammar: Perspective in Higher Education London: Association for French Language Studies and Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, 9 – 19

• Fry, H, Ketteridge, S and Marshal, S (1999). ‘Understanding Student Learning’. In H Fry, S Ketteridge and S Marshall (Eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, London, Kogan Page, 21 – 40

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

References (2)

• Nutta, J (1998). ‘Is computer-based grammar instruction as effective as teacher-directed grammar instruction for teaching L2 structures?’ In CALICO, 16(1): 49–62

• Stepp-Greany, J (2002). ‘Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium.’ Language Learning and Technology, 6 (1): 165 – 180

• Thornbury H., Elder M., Crowe D., Bennett P. & Belton V. (1996). ‘Suggestions for successful integration.’ In Active Learning, 4, 18-23.

EUROCALL 2006 - Granada, Spain

For more information…

Please visit the Centre for Excellence in Multimedia Language Learning website at:http://www.arts.ulster.ac.uk/lanlit/cetl