Is Computer-Based Grammar Instruction as Effective as Teacher- Directed Grammar Instruction for Teaching L2 Structures?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v16i1.49-62Keywords:
Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), Grammar Instruction, Focus on Form, Structural Syllabus, English as a Second Language (ESL), Computer-Based InstructionAbstract
The study described here compared postsecondary English as a Second Language (ESL) students' acquisition of selected English structures based on the method of instruction -- computer-based instruction versus teacherdirected instruction.1 The results showed that for all levels of English proficiency, the computer-based students scored significantly higher on openended tests covering the structures in question than the teacher-directed students. No significant differences were found between the computerbased and teacher-directed students' scores on multiple choice or fill-inthe- blank tests. The results indicate that computer-based instruction can be an effective method of teaching L2 grammar.
References
Chun, D. M., & Brandl, K. K. (1992). Beyond form-based drill and practice: Meaning-enhanced CALL on the Macintosh. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 255-267.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
ELLIS [Computer software]. (1996). Salt Lake City, UT: CALI.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91-113.
Focus on Grammar: Longman Grammar Series. (1994). New York: Addison Wesley.
Fotos, S. S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407.
Fotos, S. S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
Gilby, W. (1996). Irrwege des Zweitsprachenerwerbs: Gehort auch das Computerlabor dazu? [False directions in second language acquisition: Does the computer laboratory also count as one?]. Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 29, 87-91.
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 75, 74-101.
Green, P. & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13, 168-84.
Hoffman, S. (1996). Computers and instructional design in foreign language/ESL instruction. TESOL Journal, 5 (2), 24-29.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. New York: Cambridge.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language learning and second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kulik, J. & Kulik, C. (1987). Review of recent research literature on computerbased instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 222-30.
Lavine, R. Z. (1992). Rediscovering the audio language laboratory: Learning through communicative tasks. Hispania, 75, 1360-1367.
McEnery, T., Baker, J. P., & Wilson, A. (1995). A statistical analysis of corpus based computer versus traditional human teaching methods of part of speech analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8, 259-274.
McNeil, B. J. & Nelson, K. R. (1991). Metaanalysis of interactive video instruction: A 10 year review of achievement effects. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18 (1), 1-6.
Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14, 53-75.
Nagata, N. & Swisher, M. V. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 337-347.
Niemiec, R. & Walberg, H. (1987). Comparative effects of computer-assisted instruction: A synthesis of reviews. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 19-37.
Quinn, R. A. (1990). Our progress in integrating modern methods and computercontrolled learning for successful language study. Hispania, 73, 297-311.
Rachal, J. R. (1995). Adult reading achievement comparing computer-assisted and traditional approaches: A comprehensive review of the experimental literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 239-258.
Ragan, T., Boyce, M., Redwine, D., Savenye, W. C., & McMichael, J. (1993, January). Is multimedia worth it?: A review of the effectiveness of individualized multimedia instruction. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Convention, New Orleans, LA.
Scott, V. M. & Randall, S. A. (1992). Can students apply grammar rules after reading textbook explanations? Foreign Language Annals, 25, 357-367.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 11, 159-168.
Soo, K. S. & Ngeow, Y. H. (1996). The English teacher vs. the multimedia computer: The UNIMAS experience. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237-246.
Underwood, J. H. (1993, August/September). The lab of the future: Using technology to teach foreign language. American Association of Community Colleges Journal, 33-39.
Williams, C. & Brown, S. (1991). A review of the research issues in the use of computer-related technologies for instruction: An agenda for research. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 17, 26-46.