How should we teach grammar? or should we teach grammar at all?
Computer-enhanced grammar teaching: using computer technology to teach first years
description
Transcript of Computer-enhanced grammar teaching: using computer technology to teach first years
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