Computer Assisted Language Learning For Kuwaiti Pupils - Coursework Example

COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING FOR KUWAITI PUPILS This study investigated the effect of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on elementary-prep school students improvement in English as a foreign language (EFL). Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is a technique for using technology in the field of language learning. Kuwaiti fourth grade pupils were selected and divided into experimental and control groups. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Research studies (Reinking, 1988) indicate clearly that computer instruction is effective for a wide variety of reading skill and concept areas. The level of popularity of computer-based instruction in reading may vary, but few will dispute the fact that computers have won a permanent place in most classrooms. The most common concerns of educators now have to do with the effectiveness of computer-based education, and with the appropriateness of the many possible roles computers can play in language arts instruction. The emphasis should not be on using computers to increase reading and writing achievement, but rather on whether teachers use computers for meaningful reading and writing instruction, or are locked into computer-based drill and practice software. For example, Oxford (1993) presents a desiderata for Intelligent CALL by formulating nine key elements that are essential, if current thinking on language teaching and learning is to be heeded. Communicative competence must be the cornerstone of ICALL. ICALL must provide appropriate language assistance tailored to meet student needs. The ICALL must provide rich language input. The ICALL student model must be based in part on a variety of learning styles. ICALL material is most easily learned through associations, which are facilitated by interesting and relevant themes and meaningful language tasks. ICALL must involve interactions of many kinds, and these interactions need not be just student-tutor interactions u ICALL must provide useful, appropriate error correction suited to the students changing needs ICALL must involve all relevant language skills and must use each skill to support all other skills. ICALL must teach students to become increasingly self-directed LEARNING FRAMEWORK FOR CALL The tutor-tool framework is offered here as a mechanism for addressing a number of concerns in CALL, the most far-reaching being the belief that all CALL is of the tutorial type, characterized by one-to-one interactions where the computer evaluates the student input and then presents the new material accordingly. In my view, this assumption has obscured some very important issues, notably in the areas of methodology, learner training, integration and the curriculum, the roles of the teacher and the learner, and evaluation. The important thing is to have a basic understanding of the tutor and tool roles of the computer can help to clarify these issues, while at the same time usefully highlighting aspects of CALL that are too often overlooked. In general terms, such frameworks are helpful for a number of reasons. In suggesting the tutor-tool framework originally, Taylor argued that a simple scheme for classification was required to help practitioners intellectually grasp the diverse range of activities in educational computing (1980: 2). CALL is faced with similar problems. We have seen the diversity of CALL projects in the CALL Survey, and writers such as Chapelle emphasize that CALL is not one activity but many, often differing widely in function, character, and content ( 1994b). A framework is needed to help comprehend the many approaches being taken. Hubbard (1992: 42) with regard to the creation of a methodological framework for CALL, argues that a framework properly constructed has the benefits of providing: a metalanguage for discussion; a useful structure to conceptualize materials for development and research; and an integrated set of evaluation criteria for determining the fit of software with the teachers views, the learners needs, and the syllabus goals and constraints. Hubbards intention is not to suggest a paradigm or model to actively guide development in the field, but to suggest a non-dogmatic and flexible framework, based on existing frameworks, that can be used for discussion of materials development, evaluation, and implementation issues. Such a position is adopted here also, though the framework suggested is quite different from the one suggested by Hubbard. For materials to be developed in a coherent fashion, evaluation must take place. Dunkels comprehensive article evaluating CAI and CALL shows how complex and insufficient this process has been (Dunkel 1991b). For effective evaluation to occur the major types of CALL have to be delineated. Almelakhi’s study (2006) used a questionnaire with two open-ended items; one of which asked CALL users to list the advantages of using CALL to learn the language, while the other asked the participants to list the disadvantages of using CALL to learn the language. Mitterer et al. who say, we identify four types of knowledge which must be integrated in order to produce effective language learning environments: a theory of instructional design, a theory of language teaching, a theory of language learning, and knowledge of the applicability of technology ( 1990: 136). A theory of language learning would almost certainly derive from the field of second language acquisition. Knowledge of the applicability of technology and human-computer interaction as a valuable source. So rather than a specific theory of CALL so to speak, an integrated theoretical framework which combines theoretical perspectives drawn from a number of related disciplines may provide a solution. Simic emphasized that computer instruction in reading should focus on meaning and stress reading comprehension. In a sense, the learners should have opportunities to work with whole, meaningful texts. Programs that offer learners a chance to process large chunks of related text, rather than bits and pieces of unrelated language fragments, allow students to use and extend what they know about reading comprehension. Sumic also stressed that the learners should have opportunities to work with word-recognition programs that stress the use of word meanings in conjunction with phonics and structural analysis. Care must be taken to make sure that, when programs feature the study of individual words and phrases, they are offered within a contextual framework that helps them make sense to the learner. Assessment programs for teachers should also be provided in meaningful context. To add, Simic proposed that learners should have the opportunities to apply the skills being taught in some meaningful way. Programs that deny the learner an opportunity to make use of what is being "taught" are merely assessment tools and do little to further the learners growth. She also showed that learners should have the opportunity to work with computer materials that use content and language that are within the range of their conceptual development. Further, computer instruction in reading should foster active involvement and stimulate thinking. Some added factors include the provision that learners should have opportunities to monitor their own learning. Tasks that offer students opportunities to self-check and correct their own errors support the development of independent learners. Finally, the computer instruction in reading should support and extend students knowledge of text structures.Learners should have opportunities to encounter a wide variety of text structures upon which to apply and refine their comprehension skill. A smorgasbord of narrative and expository structures should be provided. Commercially prepared, teacher-authored, and student-authored materials should also be included. Reading instruction can take place through all kinds of computer-based materials, not merely those designated specifically for that purpose. Finally, computer instruction in reading should link reading and writing. Learners should have opportunities to create text with the computer for sharing and use by others. When students enter information into the computer for someone else to retrieve and use, they must compose with the reader in mind. This frequently involves making explicit use of what they know about what makes a text comprehensible. Revision and proofreading strategies clearly involve the combined application or reading and writing skills. Statement of the Problem There is a need to determine if Computer Assisted Language Learning will help Kuwaiti fourth graders to acquire English as a Foreign Language competency and proficiency. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The study addressed the following questions: 1. Is there a significant difference in students achievement in EFL between CALL users and nonusers due to treatment regardless of instructor? 2. Is there a significant difference in students achievement in EFL between participants due to instructor regardless of treatment? 3. Is there a significant difference in students achievement in EFL between participants due to the interaction effects on achievement? 4. Does CALL have any effect on students achievement in EFL based on their computer competency, years of computer experience, and number of hours using the computer daily? 5. Does the use of CALL affect the students perceived knowledge gain of EFL achievement? 6. Does the use of CALL affect students attitude toward, perceived utility, and intention to use it in the future? HYPOTHESES Ho1: There is no significant difference in students achievement in EFL between CALL users and nonusers due to treatment regardless of instructor? Ho2: There is no significant difference in students achievement in EFL between participants due to instructor regardless of treatment? The conceptual framework The broad conceptual framework proposed for CALL is the one originating from Taylor (1980), that of the tutor, tool, and tutee. The roles of tutor, tool, and tutee have been discussed in the CAI literature, and in relation to expert systems and artificial intelligence. In the domain of artificial intelligence and education, Lippert finds applications of expert systems within each of the tutor, tool, and tutee roles: intelligent tutoring systems fit the tutor role, aids to support decision-making correspond to the tool role, and knowledge engineering places the computer in the role of tutee (1989: 11). This framework has further advantages. The role of the computer is often referred to in the literature and in the CALL Survey for describing CALL conceptualizations and subsequent use. Roles are non-dogmatic, and can complement each other, and such a view of CALL appears appropriate at the present time where there are a number of theories and models of second-language acquisition, many not tested in the context of CALL. Furthermore, Taylors framework can be readily understood in relation to other taxonomies, such as Higginss magister and pedagogue, Wyatts instructor, collaborator, and facilitator and Phillipss games, expert systems, and prosthetic models, which can be accommodated within Taylors classification, though some elaboration and extension will be necessary (Higgins 1983). There is a need to be clear about what is meant by the computer tutor and the computer tool. The essence of Taylors original definition of the tutor is that the computer evaluates the learner, and then proceeds on this basis (1980: 3-4). Evaluation of the student by the computer is what sets the computer tutor apart from the tool. The tutor evaluates, the tool does not. For the tutor the computer is programmed to make decisions by evaluating the data that has been made available to it. Certain actions follow as a result. If learner input is the basis for the evaluation, the input may be judged right or wrong, or the evaluation of the input and the actions that follow may proceed with more subtlety. The computer tutor may make its judgment known to the student immediately through displaying feedback perhaps, or the result of an assessment may be withheld from the students view and utilized in other ways, by reordering or restructuring the order of presentation of the content. The designed objective of this pretest-posttest suggested experimental study is to examine the impact of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) compared to conventional instruction on fourth-grade Kuwaiti students’ achievement in vocabulary learning. The study also examines the effect of CALL on the achievement of students with high- and low-reading abilities, gender and demographic differences in experimental and control groups. The study would involve fourth-grade Kuwaiti students enrolled in two schools; one in a rural area and another one in an up-scale urban area covering both gender. Students in the experimental group will receive CALL. Students in the control group will receive vocabulary learning materials in a traditional classroom setting. Materials English as a foreign language (EFL) material was the focus of this study. The syllabus covered in the study is the same syllabus used by Kuwaiti elementary school for the EFL course. This material was available into two forms: (a) hard copy for the control group, and (b) CALL in the form of CD-ROM, EFL Skills Developer[TM], that included video and sound clips, pictures, and the feature of interactivity for the experimental group. EFL Skills Developer[TM] was developed, tested and validated to insure its high quality and appropriateness for the intended audience. Instruments Pretest. The pretest consisted of a test of English proficiency as a foreign language (EFL). It covered items that reflect overall understanding of the language such as grammar items, comprehension items, and vocabulary items, which are supposed to be covered in elementary-prep school curriculum with different degrees of depth. According to the EFL curriculum taught in Kuwait schools, students proficiency in these EFL skills are supposed to increase as they go to higher grades. Posttests. The first part of posttest was identical to the pretest as it had the same type of items, number, and structure. The aim of this part of the test was to measure the difference of participants knowledge and competency in EFL after the study was completed. CONCLUSION Computer tools offer support for humans in the completion of tasks. The tools can enable these tasks to be undertaken, or in a variety of ways they may enhance the process or the product. To be successful, teachers and learners need to be clear about the tasks that require completion, they need to understand the tools that provide the support, and they need to know how best to make effective use of these tools. The usefulness of the CALL in English Language Learning for the fourth grade students of Kuwait shows the mastery of the students, both in the mechanics of the operation of the tool and in understanding the effects of the tool on the learning task. Opportunities are boundless at this point in the development of CALL, although clearly some tools will prove more useful than others. WORKS CITED PAGE BOOKS Levy, Michael. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Strickland, Dorothy, et al. (1987). USING COMPUTERS IN THE TEACHING OF READING. New York: Teachers College Press. Taylor, R. P. (1980) (ed.), The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee, Teachers College, Columbia University. New York: Teachers College Press. JOURNAL ARTICLES Ghaleb, Abdurrahman Almehkhalafi. (2006). The Effect of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on United Arab Emirates English as a Foreign Language (EFL) School Students Achievement and Attitude. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. Volume 17, Issue 2. Balajthy, Ernest (1987). "What Does Research on Computer-Based Instruction Have to Say to the Reading Teacher?" READING RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION, 27 (1), 54-65. Dunkel, P. (1987a), Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) and Computer Assisted Language Learning(CALL): Past Dilemmas and Future Prospects for Audible CALL, The Modern Language Journal, 71250-60. Higgins, J. (1982), "The Grammarland Principle", Bulletin Pedagogique, 80-1/44-5: 49-53. Hubbard, P. ( 1988a), "An Integrated Framework for CALL Courseware Evaluation", CALICO Journal, 6/2: 51-74. Mitterer, J., Marini, Z., MacRae, D., and Joe, D. ( 1990), "Computer-Aided Language Learning: Hypermedia and Direct-Manipulation Interfaces", in Craven et al. ( 1990). Reinking, David (1988). "Computer-Mediated Text and Comprehension Differences: The Role of Reading Time, Reader Preference, and Estimation of Learning." READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY, 23 (4), 484-98. Online Sources Simic, Marjorie. Guidelines for Computer-Assisted Reading Instruction Accessed on June 5, 2007 at Read More