Can PowerPoint Presentations Effectively Replace Textbooks and Blackboards for Teaching Grammar? Do Students Find Them an Effective Learning Tool?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v24i3.631-656Keywords:
PowerPoint, Grammar, Explicit Instruction, Textbook, Traditional BlackboardAbstract
The use of PowerPoint presentations for explicit instruction of grammatical structures is increasingly encouraged at the university level. Some teachers are still reluctant to use this technology because they are not convinced that more benefits can be derived from their use than from the conventional use of textbook and blackboard. On the other hand, students who have grown up with the technology welcome this change and feel that they are learning better this way than by conventional means. This study represents an attempt at comparing these two teaching tools. Four intact classes participated in the study. The grammatical form selected was the agreement and placement of modifying adjectives. Results show that there are no significant differences from pre- to posttest on written production exercises or on essay writing and, therefore, that PowerPoint presentations are as effective as the use of a textbook plus blackboard. However, students' answers to the questionnaire indicate their preference for the PowerPoint presentations as a more effective learning tool than the textbook. Explanations are given, followed by suggestions for further research.
References
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259-302). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 7-25). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burston, J. (1996). CALL at the crossroads: Myths, realities, promises and challenges. ARAL, 19 (2), 27-36.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-47.
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning and Technology, 1 (1), 19-43. Retrieved March 2, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/chapelle
Carr, T. H., & Curran, T. (1994). Cognitive factors in learning about structured sequences. Applications to syntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16 (2), 205-230.
Day, E. M., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French Immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41 (1), 25-58.
De Fontenay, H., & Legoux, M.-N. (1999). Du Bout de la langue au bout des doigts (4th ed.). Scarborough, ON, Canada: Thomson Nelson.
De Graaff, R. (1997). The experanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (2), 249–276.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-64). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Delmonte, R. (2003). Linguistic knowledge and reasoning for error diagnosis and feedback generation. CALICO Journal, 20 (3), 513-532.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13 (4), 431-470.
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, (pp. 256-311). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 91-113.
Ervin, G. L. (1993). Can technology fulfill its promise? IALL Journal, 26 (2), 7-16.
Gac-Artigas, P., & Gac-Artigas, G. (2000). Sans Détour. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Garrett, N. (1991).Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 75 (1), 74 -101.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Granger, S. (2003). Error-tagged learner corpora and CALL: A promising synergy. CALICO Journal, 20 (3), 465-480.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10 (2), 331-459.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Heift, T. (2002). Learner control and error correction in ICALL: Browsers, peekers, and adamants. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 295-313.
Heift, T. (2003). Multiple learner errors and meaningful feedback: A challenge for ICALL systems. CALICO Journal, 20 (3), 533-548.
Hymes, D. (1974). Linguistics, language, and communication. Communication, 1 (1), 37-53.
Jourdenais, R., Mitsuhiko, O., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing?: A think aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp.183-216). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Jourdenais, R. (1998). The effects of textual enhancement on the acquisition of the Spanish preterit and imperfect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children. The St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’ comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8 (2), 151-182.
Leow, R. (2001a). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2 input? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84 (3), 496-509.
Leow, R. (2001b). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51 (1), 113-155.
Leow, R. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13 (2), 1-16.
L’Haire, S., & Vandeventer Faltin, A. (2003). Error diagnosis in the freetext project. CALICO Journal, 20 (3), 481-495.
Lightbrown, P. (1991). What have we here? Some observations on the influence of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign language pedagogy research: A commerative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 197-212). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbrown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-197). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research on computerbased 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.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, C. Kramsch, & R. Ginsburg (Eds.), Foreign language research in a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51 (1), 157-213.
Reuer, V. (2003). Error recognition and feedback with lexical functional grammar. CALICO Journal, 20 (3), 497-512.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45 (2), 283-331.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (1), 27-68.
Robinson, P. (1997a). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (2), 223-247.
Robinson, P. (1997b). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47 (1), 45-99.
Salaberry, M. R. (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 14 (1), 5-34.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7 (1), 118-132.
Shook, D. J. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5 (1), 57-93.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output and its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1989). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6 (1), 68-83.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50 (2) , 158-164.
Terrell, T., Baycroft, B., & Perrone, C. (1987). The subjunctive in Spanish interlanguage: Accuracy and comprehensibility. In T. Dvorak, J. Lee, & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 33-51). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Thompson, C., & Hirsch, B. (1998). Ensuite (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16 (2), 183-203.
Tschichold, C. (2003). Lexically driven error detection and correction. CALICO Journal, 20 (3), 549-559.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81 (4), 470-481.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31 (1), 57-71.
Zhao, Y. (1996). Language learning on the world wide web: Toward a framework of network-based CALL. CALICO Journal, 14 (1), 37-51.
