Measuring Student Learning in an Online French Course

Authors

  • N. Ann Chenoweth The University of Texas—Pan American
  • Kimmaree Murday Carnegie Mellon University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v20i2.285-314

Keywords:

Online Courses, Computer-assisted Language Instruction, Assessment, Online Learning, Evaluation

Abstract

This paper reports the results of the assessment of Elementary French I Online, the first course to be offered under the Language Online project at Carnegie Mellon University. The purpose of the assessment was to determine if there were significant differences in achievement, satisfaction, and time spent on the course between the students in the online course and those in a conventional (offline) course. Multiple measures were taken of student background, including language and technology experience, and individual differences in learning styles. Students were compared on measures of grammatical knowledge, written production, oral production, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension; in addition, measures of satisfaction and time spent learning French were determined through course evaluations and interviews. The only statistically significant difference on the learning measures occurred in the written production task in which the online students outperformed the offline students; however, results should be carefully interpreted due to the sample size and use of intact classes. Student satisfaction was generally positive, but students in the online course voiced some frustrations. Students in the online course also reported spending less time studying French than did their counterparts in the conventional course.

Author Biographies

  • N. Ann Chenoweth, The University of Texas—Pan American

    N. Ann Chenoweth is currently Assistant Professor in the English Department at the University of Texas—Pan American. Her research interests include applications of technology in teaching and learning, second language discourse processing, and course assessment. Her most recent publications appear in Written Communication and Language Sciences.

  • Kimmaree Murday, Carnegie Mellon University

    Kimmaree Murday is a Ph.D. student in Second Language Acquisition at Carnegie Mellon University. In addition to working on the assessment of the Language Online project, she has also worked on production for both French and Spanish materials and has taught Spanish Online.

References

Beauvois, M. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology for improving speaking and writing. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 165-184). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Beauvois, M. (1998a). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 198-217.

Beauvois, M. (1998b). Write to speak: The effects of electronic communication on the oral achievement of fourth semester French students. In J. A. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education (pp. 93-115). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1983). Testing foreign language reading comprehension: The immediate recall protocol. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 16, 27-33.

Cahill, D., & Catanzaro, D. (1997). Teaching first-year Spanish on-line. CALICO Journal, 14 (2-4), 97-114.

Chang, K.-Y., & Smith, W. F. (1991). Cooperative learning and CALL/IVD in beginning Spanish: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 205-211.

Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (1986). Computer-assisted language learning as a predictor of success in acquiring English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 27-46.

Dunkel, P. (1991). The effectiveness research on computer-assisted instruction and computer-assisted language learning. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 5-38). New York: Newbury House.

Ehrman, M. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Evans, J. (1992). Testing the effectiveness of the computer in promoting communication. On-CALL, 7 (1), 23-28.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gray, R., & Stockwell, G. (1998). Using computer mediated communication for language and culture acquisition. ON-CALL, 12 (3), 2-9.

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2000). Students’ distress with a web-based distance education course. Information, Communication and Society, 3, 557-579. Also available online: www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/Wp/wp00-01B.html

Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association.

Johnson, D. (1991). Second language and content learning with computers: Research into the role of social factors. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 61-84). New York: Newbury House.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.

Kern, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai’i Symposium (pp. 105-119). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Kern, R. (1998). Technology, social interaction, and FL literacy. In J. A. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education (pp. 57-92). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.

Payne, J. S. & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7-32.

Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 1-22.

Soo, K., & Ngeow, Y. (1998). Effective English as a second language (ESL) instruction with interactive multimedia: The MCALL project. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7, 71-89.

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29, 491501.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2-3), 7-26.

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.

Werry, C. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of internet relay chat. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and crosscultural perspectives (pp. 47-63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Windschitl, M. (1998). The WWW and classroom research: What path should we take? Educational Researcher, 27, 28-33.

Yates, S. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Downloads

Published

2013-01-14

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Chenoweth, N., & Murday, K. (2013). Measuring Student Learning in an Online French Course. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 285-314. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v20i2.285-314

Most read articles by the same author(s)