1

EFL: Computer-Assisted Reading Instruction

University of Sydney

Kang-Mi Lim

Abstract

This study examined the impact of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on

Korean TAFE college students in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) reading

classroom in terms of their perceptions of learning effectiveness, tutor, classroom interest

and difficulty. This study compared CALL and traditional reading classes over one

semester. A group of 74 first year English majors students were divided evenly into 2

classes. Both groups were taught by the same teacher and covered the same topics in their

weekly two-hour reading lesson. A written survey was also administered at the end of the

semester. Group interviews supplemented the data obtained from the surveys. The

questionnaires were analyzed by a principle component factor analysis, a repeated-

measure ANOVA and a discriminant analysis whereas the interview with teacher and

students were analyzed by a content analysis. Most students in the CALL class showed

positive responses. Students in CALL-based English class perceived their learning

environment offered ample opportunities for collaboration and mutual support, as well as

for exposure to, and interaction with, a variety of interesting, enjoyable and useful

materials and tasks.

INTORODUCTION

In recent years, there has been much research about various aspects of teaching and learning a

second language. One of the most significant recent developments impacting on teachers and

learners in language education programs is educational technology, in particular the use of the

computer in the language classroom (Warschauer, 2000; Chapelle, 2000; Levy, 2000). With the

government of South Korea promoting globalization since 1997, both information technology and

English language education have developed rapidly (Kim, 2000). Information technology and

communicative competence in English have become central to the move towards globalization,

and the number of English learners and teachers using computers has increased significantly in

recent years (Kwak, 2001).

One of the areas of most rapid expansion in English language education in Korea is Computer

Assisted Language Learning (CALL). The range of possibilities in CALL has become wider than

ever before, with the technology related to computers and networks developing at a tremendous

pace. The use of CALL in English teaching and learning is now very diverse, including the use of

2

multimedia-based CD ROMs, E-mail and the Internet, as well as more traditional word

processing and instructional software.

Research in the field of computer-assisted language learning has certainly developed in the last 20

years (Warschauer, 1996, 2000; Chapelle, 1998, 2000; Levy, 2000, 1997; Chapelle, &

Hegelheimer, 2000; Kern, 1995; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Dunkel, 1991). However, there appears

to have been few studies of the issues, problems, and potential solutions relating to the impact of

computers on English language teaching and learning within a Korean context, particularly in a

reading classroom.

The primary aim of this study is to investigate how CALL can be effectively integrated into

learning of English reading in a Korean context, and to consider some of the advantages,

disadvantages and problems arising from the use of CALL in learning English.

The secondary aim is to examine the similarities and differences between the traditional English

class and the CALL based English class in the Korean context through the reading class in terms

of classroom effectiveness, interest, tutor and classroom difficulty. The implications of these

similarities and differences will be investigated in order to assess the impact of computers at the

college level English as Foreign Language (EFL) classes in Korea. The research questions are as

follows:

1 To what extent is CALL-based learning (dis)-similar to traditional English learning in the English

reading class of Korean College context?

2 In what ways do these differences impact on Korean EFL students learning of English?

METHOD

Research Design

This study compared the CALL and traditional reading class over one semester in terms of

perception of learning environment. The two classes were taught by the same teacher. Both

classes had a two-hour reading lesson per week covering the same topic. The same textbooks

were used for the first session. However, during the second session, one class learnt English

reading using the computer, while the other class learnt English reading continuing to use the

same text that was used in the first session.

3

The same instruments were used for the two classes, which enabled comparison of the CALL and

traditional reading class. The written survey was administered at the end of the semester. In

addition, group interviews with students from the two different classes, and with the teacher, were

conducted to supplement the data obtained from the surveys.

Students

The subjects for this study were 74 first year English majors from one college of technology in

Korea. They were allocated randomly to two classes of 37 students, where one was the CALL

based English reading class and the other was a traditional English reading class.

All of students both in the traditional English classroom and CALL based English classroom were

in their 20’s, and their mean age was 21.5 years in the traditional class and 21.0 years in the

CALL based class. According to sources from the school, all students were high school graduates.

In addition, the female students outnumber male students both in the traditional English class and

the CALL based English class.

There are no significant differences between the traditional English class and CALL based

English class in terms of their age (t= 0.835, p= 0.408 ), gender [Class (2) by Sex (2) contingency

table Chi 2

= 0.939)] and their education background, and this indicates that the two groups are

very similar. Therefore, it was concluded that comparisons could be made between the traditional

English class and CALL based English class.

RESULT

All data collected were systematically entered into a computer for quantitative and qualitative

analyses. Quantitative data were arranged into spreadsheets, and later analysed using the

Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS), version 11.5.

Recorded interviews were transcribed. Qualitative data, including focus-group interview

transcripts and open-ended items included in the surveys, were subjected to content analysis, in

order to identify emerging themes and trends.

The questionnaire

There were four factors extracted from the Survey by a principle component factor analysis and a

repeated measures ANOVA were used to examine statically factor score differences between the

two methods of instruction (classes). Consequently, the two methods of instruction (Classes) were

4

compared in terms of the factor scores and then a discriminant analysis detected three items

which best differentiated the two classes.

Description of Extracted Factors: Quantitative data extracted from the Survey were submitted to

an exploratory principle component factor analysis with varimax rotation, in order to identify

relationships among items and, therefore, the subscales or factors which could be taken as

summary measures of the items. Negative items were reverse scored (e.g, item 19), so that a

positive factor score reflected a positive perception. The four extracted factors, which each

included items that loaded more than 0.550, measured learners’ perceptions of:

Course effectiveness (items16, 3, 6, 15): This subscale reported learners’ evaluations of their

understanding of the academic subject, as well as availability of informative feedback and the

effectiveness of materials;

16 I have learned a lot in this course (.809)

3 You get feedback in tutorials which helps you learn (.724)

6 The material is useful. (.720)

15 I have gained a good understanding of the language system (.694)

Tutor (items 13, 12, 14, 7): This subscale collected learners’ evaluations of their tutor’s

contributions and comments, as well as on the tutor’s attitudes to their teaching.

13 The tutor knows the subject matter well (.885)

12 The tutor stresses important points (.774)

14 The tutor communicates his/her enthusiasm for the subject (.747)

7 The tutor is professional in attitude (.672)

Course interest (items 1, 10, 19, 18): This subscale included presenting materials in an interesting

way, as well as learners’ disposition towards recommending the course to fellow students.

10 The tutor presents material in an interesting way (.898)

1 The tutorials are well organised (.651)

19 I would recommended this language course to fellow students. (.607)

18 I found the language course interesting (.568)

Course difficulty (item 17): this item was considered separately, since it did not appear to be

related to any other included in the survey. Learners were asked to state whether they had

perceived the course to be more difficult than other subjects for their course.

17 The subjects was more difficult than others I have taken for the course. (.965)

5

Of the 19 items included in the survey, 6 items were discarded because these items spread out to

three or even four factors or their factor loading was low (eg 0.025 or 0.034), which was less than

0.550.

Table 1 Excluded Items

Items

2 You can discuss difficulties with the tutor

5 The textbook is clear and interesting.

9 The tutor is willing to help students

8 The tutor welcomes student feedback on the classes

11 The tutor structures the material well.

4 The volume of work to be covered is appropriate

A repeated- measure ANOVA: The factor scores were calculated by the regression method, for

which the factor loading was adjusted to take account of the initial correlation between variables.

In doing so, differences in units of measurement and variable variances were stabilized (Field,

2003).

An ANOVA compared the responses of the two classes on the four factors, in a 2 (Between

Classes) X 4 (Within Factors) design. Because of the exploratory nature of these comparisons the

Alpha level was set at 0.10 for significance. This analysis showed that the differences between

the more positive responses of the CALL based English class and the traditional English class

reached significance (F (1,58) = 3.689, P= 0.06). Although both the test of the interaction

between instruction type and the factor differences and the test of the differences between the

factors, did not approach significance (F (3,174) =0.698, p = 0.56 and F (3,174) =0.08, p = 0.99),

the two classes appeared to differ more on some factors than on others.

Table 2 Tests of within factors and between classes

Source Type III Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F p

Between:

Class 3.407 1 3.407 3.689 0.06

error 53.571 58 0.924

Within:

Factors 0.023 3 0.008 0.008 0.999

Factors X Class 1.939 3 0.646 0.698 0.555

error 162.190 174 0.926

Given that these were exploratory comparisons and the difference between the two classes

appeared to be greater on some factors than on others, each factor was looked at separately.

6

As can be seen in Figure 1 while students in the CALL based English class expressed more

positive responses on their reading class than students in the traditional class in terms of the four

factors: classroom effectiveness; tutor; classroom interest; and course difficulty, the biggest

difference was on the factor ‘Interest’.

Figure 1 Classroom evaluation

The factor “Interest” was consisted of four items including such statement as “presenting

materials in an interesting way, as well as learners’ disposition towards recommending the course

to fellow students, well-organization and interest of the class” (see Table 3).

Table 3 Factor “interest” Subscales – Traditional class v. CALL based class

Sub scale

Traditional Class

M SD

CALL based Class

M SD

1 The tutorials are well organized 3.05 0.98 3.48 0.87

10 The tutor presents material in an interesting

way

2.78 1.15 3.15 0.93

18 I found the language course interesting 3.00 1.06 3.54 0.90

19 I would recommended this language course

to fellow students

3.00 1.01 3.45 1.00

As can be seen Table 3, the students in the CALL based English class indicated much higher on

these statements than the students in the traditional English class in terms of the four items. The

“ interest” is the most frequently discussed in literature pertaining to affective variables and the

impact of computer assisted language learning.

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Classroom

Effectiveness

tutor Interest Classroom

difficulty

Factor

Fa

cto

r S

co

re

Traditional Class

CALL based class

7

Discriminant analysis: Discriminant analysis was applied for Survey in order to determine which

of independent variables account the most for the differences between the two classes. The

dependent variable was the traditional class and the CALL based class and the independent

variables were the 19 items of Survey.

The group centroid was -.813 for the traditional English class while that of the CALL based

English class was .813 (see Table 4)

Table 4 Functions at Group Centroids

Class Function

1

Traditional class -.813

CALL based class .813

Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions evaluated at group means

A classification analysis was also done in which subjects were grouped to see what percentage

were correctly classified. While 76.7 % (23) of traditional English classroom students were

correctly classified, 83 % of CALL based English students were correctly classified. The total

percentage of students correctly classified by the function was 80% (see Table 5).

Table 5 Classification Results

Class Predicted Group

Membership

Total

1.00 2.00

Original Count Traditional class 23 7 30

CALL based class 5 25 30

% Traditional class 76.7 23.3 100.0

CALL based class 16.7 83.3 100.0

a 80.0% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Three significant classification items were found (see Table 6). The first item was dominated by

the teacher’s attitudes (item 8), the second item was classroom interest (item 18) and the third

item was to recommend the language course to other students.

Table 6 Structure Matrix

Items Function

B8 The tutor welcomes student feedback on the classes .488

B18 I found the language course interesting .435

B19 I would recommended this language course to fellow students. .312

Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical

discriminant functions. Variables ordered by absolute size of correlation within function.

In looking at group means (see Table 7), the CALL based classes scored higher on those three

8

items than the traditional class in terms of tutor, classroom interest and the recommendation to

their fellow student. That is, the computer-assisted instruction has resulted in significantly more

positive perceptions of feedback, greater interest and a stronger recommendation to other students.

Table 7 Group Statistics

Class N Mean Std. Deviation

B8 Traditional Class 34 3.44 1.09

CALL based Class 33 4.24 .90

B18 Traditional Class 33 3.00 1.06

CALL based Class 33 3.55 0.90

B19 Traditional Class 34 3.00 1.02

CALL based Class 33 3.45 1.00

Namely, the effective teaching styles and the classroom interest characterized the CALL based

English class.

Results: Qualitative Data and Analysis

Data that have been analyzed qualitatively are presented in the following sections. The interview

with the teacher of the CALL based class, focus group interviews with four students from each

class and comments from the Survey are reproduced and discussed.

The teacher’s attitude: Despite positive responses by students using computers in the classroom,

the teacher had a negative attitude towards teaching computer based English. She was used to

teacher centered language teaching and was not comfortable in the CALL class. She considered

that she could control students in the traditional classroom, and she was also unfamiliar with the

technology in the CALL classroom, and this frustrated and stressed her.

“It’s always technology related issues. And these technological problems usually bring

trouble to students and myself.”

To adapt the CALL based language teaching teacher was aware that she would need to integrate

the use of technologies in nearly all of her classroom activities. She found it difficult to control

activities such as involvement in multimedia projects.

“I would prefer the traditional English class because it is easy for me to manage the

traditional English class (control the students). I often feel as if student’s not learning

anything. I feel like teaching anything. It seems that the students in CALL based English

class played around the Internet than the students in the traditional English class”

New technologies may be forcing a total rethink of the roles of teachers throughout the field of

language instruction. In CALL classes the role of the teacher as a knowledge transmitter was

9

minimized compared with the traditional classroom (Johnson and Brine, 2000; Stepp-Greany,

2002; Sullivan and Pratt, 1996). Therefore, the teacher may have to work out new ways to

maintain control and direction in a CALL based class.

Learners’ perceptions of the learning environment: Students in the CALL based class indicated

that their learning environment was more positive than those in the traditional class. Students’

attitudes appeared to have been influenced by a number of factors, principally related to their

perceptions of a positive classroom atmosphere. Particularly appreciated were the opportunities

for interaction and collaboration with other students offered in the classroom, as well as intrinsic

features of web-enhanced materials and tasks, perceived as facilitative of learning

The overall results indicated that students in the CALL based class enjoyed their learning more

than students in the traditional class. In particular, students used to study English reading with

textbooks at secondary school. Therefore, they enjoyed learning English with computers at their

first year college as shown from the interviews with members of the CALL based class.G

“ We interact and know each other well, and the use of computer makes the class more

enjoyable”

“ We didn’t use the computer in the English classroom at the secondary school so it was

the first experience to learn English through the computer, which was fun for me to work

in the class”

“ I enjoy the CALL class because studying English reading with computer makes more

fun rather than reading with textbooks”

The students in the CALL based class indicated that a friendly and supportive classroom

atmosphere was among the most positive aspects of their experience in this study, as illustrated

by the following comments.

“Our group is nice and easy to interact with so I can ask whatever I don’t know. Even I

get a technical support from my classmates as well”

“I surf the Internet for the web sits and gets information’ and the other find the

vocabulary with the computer so our group intend to be creating collaboratively.

However, first session usually, during the lecturing, I don’t have a responsibility so if I

don’t feel like to studying, I can play around”

However, students in the traditional class reported that they also prefer the group work (second

session) rather than lecturing (first session). However, these students indicated that there is no

significant difference from the secondary school as shown the below.

“We have got more group at the class but it was not big different from the secondary

school. Still, we translate the sentence and find the vocabulary”

10

DISCUSSION

Students in the CALL based English class expressed more positive responses than those in the

traditional class to their learning environment. In the present study, students in the CALL based

English class reflected on the numerous benefits they experienced by participating in the use of

technology in language learning. They reported that the introduction of technology enhanced

opportunities for exposure to, and interaction with a variety of learning materials, which were

considered interesting and enjoyable. There were four factors extracted from the Survey, which

describe the classroom environments

Firstly, the significant difference between the two classes in the Survey was classroom interest.

The students in the CALL based English class showed significantly higher interest in their

learning in the class than the students in the traditional English class. In other words, students in

CALL based English class showed that the materials were presented in an interesting way and the

class was well organized. These aspects of the class were considered interesting and worth

recommending to their fellow students.

Indeed, in the focus group interview the CALL based English class reported that on–line

activities were especially useful, as well as enjoyable, due to their use of media, which provided

variety, interactivity and facilitated memorization and retention, as shown in the following quotes.

“We interacted and knew each other well, and the use of computers made the class more

enjoyable”

“Visual association (e.g. pictures, etc) often helps the memory and makes it more

enjoyable”

These findings are similar to findings of other studies relating to CALL or technology-enhanced

language learning. In general, classroom interest is one of the main benefits of the CALL based

class. The use of computers in language teaching appears to increase interaction with a variety of

interesting, enjoyable and useful materials and tasks, which sustains and enhances the students’

interest (Ayres, 2002; Muenier, 1999; Adair-Hauck, Laurel, Willingham-McLain and Youngs,

1999; Warschauer, 1996; Strambi, 2001; Echavez-Solano, 2003, Holmes, 1998).

However, it is important to note the novelty of working with the new medium, which has also

been shown in previous studies (Strambi, 2001; Fox, 1988). As Warchauer (1996) explains,

participants in the CALL based class often observe that they experience enthusiasm during the

initial time period but later lose interest in the class. Indeed, in the present study, students

11

expressed interest and explained this in terms of not having experienced CALL based classes at

secondary school, as shown in the following quote:

“We didn’t use the computer in the English classroom at the secondary school so it was

the first experience to learn English through the computer, which was fun for me to work

in the class”

Therefore, the impact of computers on learning English as a foreign language in the Korean

College context needs to be observed over a longer time period.

In contrast, the present study reports that students’ responses in the CALL based English class are

not significantly different to those in the traditional English class in terms of classroom

effectiveness. There were four items relating to classroom effectiveness: learners’ evaluations of

their understanding of the academic subject, as well as availability of informative feedback, and

the effectiveness of materials and the course. Students in both the CALL based and traditional

English classes were accustomed to teacher centred teaching styles rather than student centred

teaching styles, which involve interaction with other students as well as the teacher. Their

traditional concept of effective language learning is that perfection is sought through a

painstaking understanding of each language item rather than by interacting with other students

and teachers or by gaining knowledge of the culture (Hird, 1995; Lim, 2000). Therefore, their

traditional concept of effective learning may impact on the effectiveness of their learning

environment.

Furthermore, it has been observed that students’ role needs to change to utilize computers

effectively in the CALL based class (Warschauer, 1996; Holmes, 1998, Kern, 1995). Learners

come to view the computer as a medium through with they must negotiate meaning through

interaction, interpretation, and collaboration rather than as providing finite, authoritative

information for carrying out a stipulated language task. However, it may take time to adjust their

learning behavior and expectations of the EFLclassroom to fit in with a changed methodological

and procedural paradigm.

Next, students in the CALL based English class believed that the electronic medium had

facilitated communication with the tutor, resulting in assistance and support being easily available.

In fact, participants perceived their tutor to communicate enthusiastically with students and to be

more available for assistance. A comparison between the two classes suggests the possibility of a

positive impact of the Web-enhanced environment in terms of this factor.

12

Lastly, computer technology facilitated learners’ perceptions of language learning as a

manageable task. In the study, students in the CALL based English class sustained and enhanced

perceptions of themselves as efficacious language learners. Students in the CALL based English

class perceived the task of learning the target language as relatively easy. The scores they

returned in relation to measures of perceived course difficulty were in fact extremely low,

particularly when compared with those provided by the traditional English class.

Discriminant Analysis from the Survey: Three significant functions were extracted from the

discriminant analysis of the Survey, which differentiate the traditional English class and the

CALL based English class. The first item was dominated by the teacher’s attitudes (B8 The tutor

welcomes student feedback on the classes), the second item was classroom interest (B18 I found

the language course interesting) and the third item was to recommend the language course to

other students (B19 I would recommended this language course to fellow students). These three

items are discussed in the following section.

Firstly, more students in the CALL based English class indicated that their tutor welcomed their

feedback on the class than did students in the traditional English class. However, the teacher in

the study was teaching a CALL based English class for the first time. This may have meant she

required more student feedback than if she was more experienced with this style of teaching.

Secondly, item 18 (I found the language course interesting) and 19 (I would recommend this

language course to fellow students) describes the interest of students in the classroom. In other

words, the interest in the classroom environment was reported to differentiate the traditional

English class and the CALL based English class, which is consistent with the result of the

comparison of factor scores. Therefore, an important difference between the two classes is that

classroom interest is stronger when instruction is CALL based.

CONCLUSION

Student in the CALL based English class reported positively on their learning compared those in

the traditional English class in terms of classroom effectiveness, tutor, and classroom interest and

classroom difficulty. In particular, students in CALL based English class showed higher interest

in their learning compared those in the traditional English class. Appreciated were the

opportunities for interaction and collaboration with other students offered in the classroom, as

13

well as intrinsic features of web-enhanced materials and tasks, perceived as facilitative of

learning.

However, it may not be sufficient to examine the effects of different instruction in the language

classroom for one semester. Instead, studies might require longer periods of time. Collect data

over an extended period of time has also been recognized as a means of managing the risks of

novelty effects, which may have been present in the study. In addition, further studies should

investigate the long-time effects computing technology, focusing on students’ willingness and

ability to learn.

Reference

Adair-Hauck. B, Willinghan-McLain.L &Youngs, B E. (1999). Evaluating the integration of

technology and second language learning, CALICO Journal, 17(2), 269-305.

Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL, Computer assisted language

learning, 15(3), 241-249.

Johnson, E.M. & Brine J.W. (2000). Design and Development of CALL courses in Japan,

CALICO Journal, 18 (2), 251-267.

Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lesson to be learned from research on instructed SLA,

Language Learning Technology, .2(1), 22-34.

Chapelle, C. (2000) Computer Application in Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge

University Press.

Chapelle, C. & Hegelheimer, V. (2000). Methodological issues in research on learner-computer

interactions in CALL. Language learning & technology, 4(1), 41-59.

Dunkel, P. (1991) Computer-assisted language learning and testing: research issues and practice,

Newbury House

Echavez-Solano, N. (2003). A comparison of student outcomes and attitudes in technology-

enhanced vs. traditional second–semester Spanish language course. Unpublished doctoral thesis,

The University of Minnesota.

Fox, M. (1988). A report of studies of motivation teaching and small group interaction with

special reference to computers and to the teaching and learning of arithmetic. Milton Keynes,

U.K.: The Open University, Institute of Education Technology

Hird, B. (1995). EAP: Teaching Chinese learners to be impolite. EA journal, 13(2), 50-62.

Holmes, B. (1998), Initial Perceptions of CALL by Japanese University Students, Computer

Assisted Language Learning, 11(4), 397-409.

14

Kern, T (1996) Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to explore personal

historical in two cultures. In Warschauer, M. (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language

learning: Proceeding of the Hawai’i symposium (pp105-199). Honoluou: University of Hawaii’,

second language Teaching & Curriculum Centre.

Kim, Samuel, S (2000). Korea’s globalization, Cambridge University Press.

Kwak, B. (2001). Leading the future: policy directions and tasks of education Korea (Seoul,

Korea Educational development institute).

Levy, M.(1997). Computer–Assisted Language Learning: Context and conceptualization,

Clarendo, Oxford.

Levy (2000). Scope, goals and methods in CALL research: Questions of coherence and autonomy,

CALL, 12(2), 170-195.

Lim, K. (2000). The attitudes of Korean students to learning English in Australia. Unpublished

master thesis, The University of Melbourne.

Meunier, L.E. (1999). Personality and motivational factors in computer-mediated foreign

language communication. In Muyskens, J. New ways of learning and teaching: focus on

technology and foreign language education (145-197). Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Students’ perceptions on language learning in a technological

environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 165-

180.

Strambi, A.(2001). The interaction of web-based interaction and collaboration on the language

learner. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Sydney.

Sullivan, N. & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environment: a

computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom, System, 29(4), 491-501.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication.

In Telecollaboration in foreign language learning, Second language Teaching & Curriculum

Centre.

Warschauer, M. (2000). The change global economy and the future of English teaching, TESOL

Quarterly, 34(3), 511-535.