Integrating CALL into Grammar Teaching
Wu
Ligao
The Institute of Online Education,
BFSU
Feng Lei
Beijing
Jiaotong University
Abstract Based on the review of recent literature
in CALL, we find that CALL has seldom been used in grammar teaching. We
therefore conducted a tentative experiment using a computer program to teach
grammar to high school students. This paper will describe this experiment and
show the role of CALL in helping grammar teaching. The research examines how
CALL is used in the instruction of one verb tense---the Present Perfect Tense
to our learners and how it facilitates learning. This study consists of three procedures:
(1) open observation (2) questionnaire survey on 240 subjects (3) tests focusing on 60 subjects. The
aim of the study is to demonstrate how CALL can be integrated into grammar
teaching in the communicative classroom and the effect of this combination
between CALL and classroom teaching.
In the experiment, a computer-assisted grammar program and a Grammar
Test have been used as the research instruments. In the meantime, four methods of data collection have been
involved: observation, questionnaire, retrospection and testing. The conclusion of this study shows that
CALL can be looked upon as an effective tool to help learners and teachers with
grammar. The limitations of the
research have also been analyzed in order to give insights for future studies
of the same kind.
Key
Words: CALL, Grammar, Communicative Language
Teaching, Present Perfect Tense
I. Introduction
In foreign language teaching, the teaching of
grammar has been widely debated with the development of linguistic theories and
language pedagogies. The primary
focus of the debate has recently shifted from whether the grammar of the target
language should be taught (Fotos & Ellis, 1991) to how it is taught. In recent years language teachers and researchers
are thus developing various ways to teach grammar. For example, Ellis
(1995) and Wen (2001) employ interpretative tasks in grammar teaching. They
“emphasizes helping learners to notice grammatical features in the input,
comprehend their meanings, and compare the forms present in the input with
those occurring in learner output” (Ellis, 1995). Another kind of grammar teaching is to put discourse
analysis into grammar teaching (Hughes & Mccarthy, 1998). Their research claims “there are very
good reasons for developing discourse grammars for L2 teaching and exemplify
the criteria for moving from sentence-based grammar to the discourse level”.
Using the computer to help grammar teaching was also started. CALL has
recently become an important issue to many language teachers all over the
world. It has moved from “a mere sideshow, a curiosity to holding a solid
position in modern language teaching” (Hubbard,1996, Warschauser
& Healey, 1998). When it moves into language classroom, it starts to play
an important role in the language teaching from different aspects and has been proved
to be an effective tool in the language classroom (Daiute,1985; Neu &
Scarcella,1991; Phinney, 1991; Chen, 1997; Fox, 1984). However, CALL in grammar
learning and teaching has a few reported cases (Huang, 1985; Chapelle 1990;
Uemuba, 2002) and its value is still in doubt.
CALL in grammar teaching has demonstrated some advantages.
It is believed that the computer provides active learning conditions for
students because in this computer-assisted learning mode students do not
passively follow the teacher. As a result, students have improved in grammar (Huang,
1985). In Japan, Uemura (2002)finds that CALL can help Japanese students with
their grammar. He provides interactive grammar exercises on CD-Rom for his
students that allow them to work independently at their own pace. The CD-Rom
exercises present actual scenes with real language context to motivate students
and to stimulate them through different modes of materials. For example, in the
traditional classroom students read written exercises, and only see with their
eyes. Now with CD-Rom exercises, they have sound to listen to, and visual
pictures and written language to see as well. These different modes of material
attract their attention as well as stimulate them through different senses.
This experiment has come up with the data showing that most students have improved
their attitudes to grammar learning and their grammar competence.
Chapelle (1990) in the United States has employed CALL in grammar teaching. She did “a discourse analysis of student-computer interaction enabled by viewing the student and the computer as two participants in a dialogue”. This research provides an in-depth insight of how computers can facilitate grammar learning. The truth is that the grammar exercises have been programmed with built-in intelligent feedback. When students do the exercises, they get sensible suggestions which improve their understanding of the grammar items.
As the advantages are obviously revealed in the reported
research cases, we are wondering if we can combine CALL with classroom teaching
to help our high school students. Since our teaching context is different, we
want to conduct a tentative experiment to test if grammar instruction by
computer is feasible and what the students’ perception will be about this
project.
2.1 Setting
Our situation is
that we were involved in a language training program last summer organized by
the Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press （FLTRP） for senior high students all over the
country. Many students have a high expectation of the program and last year several
hundred students were enrolled in the training. The length of the program was
three weeks and the purpose was to train the four skills in their English
studies.
At the beginning
of the program, we did a needs analysis survey in order to find what they
wanted. Most students did find that they had difficulties in grammar and
expected us to handle grammar teaching. However, the communicative nature of
the training program left us no time to teach grammar. Facing such a situation,
we resorted to computer-assisted language learning (CALL)—an approach which
many teachers around the world find useful. We hope to gain some empirical data
from the CALL experiment in order to give insights for future studies of the
same kind.
The sixty subjects selected for this study were all from the training program at the FLTRP last
summer. The reason for them to join the program
is that they have high motivation to learn English. These students are senior
high school students from seventeen different provinces[1].
Their English level can be labeled as pre-intermediate. They were involved in our research
project voluntarily.
2.3
Purpose of the study
The purpose of the study is to investigate whether integrating CALL
into grammar learning would improve second language teaching and learning in
communicative language classroom.
The three research questions addressed are:
1. Does CALL help grammar learning for high school students?
2. How does CALL help classroom teaching?
3. Are the learners involved satisfied with this style of teaching
and learning?
2.4 Research Instruments of the Study
In this study, we have chosen two instruments. One is a
computer-assisted learning software and the other is a grammar test. The
grammar program is Enhancement of English Grammar[2]. The reason for selecting this software is
that it meets two criteria. The first
is that it explains all the basic items of the present perfect tense. Secondly it is also in line with the
principles of the present perfect in Quirk, et al.’s grammar book items
(see Quirk, et al. 1972).
After explanations of the grammar rules in the program, students
can choose to do exercises to reinforce what they have learned. All the exercises have built-in
feedback to judge if they do it right or wrong and if they do it wrong they may
get a computer feedback to tell them why they are wrong. The students can also set a fixed time
to do every exercise so that the pace is comfortable for them. At the same
time, there are game-type exercises for students to practice for fun.
The test paper is adapted from the senior high school entrance
examination and from the Cambridge Grammar books for pre-intermediate learners. There are six kinds of items. Before
the paper was presented to the subjects, two experienced American teachers
examined it. All the items are
believed to be grammatically correct.
2.5 Methodology
and Process of the Study
Four methods of data collection are used: observation,
questionnaire, retrospection, and testing. The reason that we use different
methods is to assure the validity of the data. If we obtain data from various channels
and those data show similar results, it could mean the data we collect are
reliable. Three procedures are involved in this experiment: (1) open observation (2) questionnaire
survey on 240 subjects (3) tests focusing on 60 subjects.
During the open observation in our classroom, we find that students
have a strong desire to practice English and they do enjoy using English in
class. But they are afraid of making mistakes. The reason is that they are not
confident about their grammar. They even openly talk to us about this weak
point. This makes us thinking about teaching grammar.
3.2 The data from the questionnaire
The data from the two hundred and forty-one (241)
questionnaires handed in by the English learners from 21 provinces gives the
following information:
Sixty-seven (67) subjects admitted learning grammar was
their most difficult task while learning English. Forty-two (42) subjects concerned about verb tenses, which
they regarded as the most difficult part of grammar. For themselves, they tried various methods to solve their
problem. The detailed information
is provided in the following table (see Table One).
Table One Different methods of dealing with
grammar difficulties
|
Methods Chosen |
M1 |
M2 |
M3 |
M4 |
M5 |
M6 |
M7 |
|
|
Number of Subjects |
3 |
53 |
18 |
119 |
59 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
Proportion |
1.24% |
22.00% |
7.46% |
45.00% |
24.77% |
0.00% |
2.9% |
|
|
Methods Chosen |
M8 |
M9 |
M10 |
M11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Subjects |
1 |
10 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Proportion |
0.00 |
4.02% |
1.24% |
1.24% |
|
|
|
|
(M= Method M1=
go to internet ( include using CALL software) M2= look up material
M3= recite model sentences
M4= ask teachers and classmates
M5= do exercises M6=
guess M7= ignore M8= go to training classes M9= use them more M10= ask tutors M11= memorize answers to the grammar
questions)
When asked about their attitudes about
CALL, students showed four kinds of feelings. The distribution can be found in the following table (see
Table Two):
Table Two Distribution of
attitudes towards using computer-assisted language learning
|
Kinds of Instances |
K1 |
K2 |
K3 |
K4 |
|
Number of Subjects |
117 |
26 |
5 |
93 |
|
Proportion |
44.40% |
10.79% |
2.07% |
38.17% |
(K= kind
K1= they like to use it; K2=
they do not want to use it; K3=
they have used it; K4= those who
have never used a computer.)
Before we started our experiment, we did a pre-experiment to find about
students’ grammar proficiency. We gave a grammar test. All together one hundred
fifteen (115) subjects took the test. We had them finish one test paper on the
present perfect tense. The scores of the test did not
show very good results. The average score was 34.67 out of 100, the lowest was
12 and the highest was 52.
From the trial test, we got the
impression that although students had learned present perfect tense before, they
did not show good competence in it. This may also be true to other grammar
items as well. Since our training program was short, we would cover some
important items. And for our experiment, we focus on the present perfect tense.
3.4 The experiment
After
the pre-experiment, we began to do a real experiment. This true experiment had
been done in two steps: the first one was to get the scores of the sixty (60)
subjects’ scores of three tests.
The second step was to get the data from retrospections and interviews
from the sixty subjects.
All together sixty (60) subjects have
taken part in the study. On the
first day, all of them took a grammar test and got a score. Then they studied our computer program
for one week about present perfect tense.
Then, they did the grammar test again without any teacher’s instruction
about the grammar item. One week
later, they also took this grammar test to see how much they retained what they
had learned over the computer. All
these three tests were the same, but every time, students got different scores.
After the investigation, all the scores were analyzed using SPSS 6.0. This enabled us to generate a comparison
among the test results of the three tests.
The result shows that the mean scores of the three tests
are separately 34.9833, 40.5833 and 41.4000. At the same time, it also provides
the comparison among the three tests: between the first and the second test,
p=.000, the value t=7.97; between
the second and the third test, p=0.126, the value t=1.55; between the first and
the third test, p= .000, the value t=7.81.
3.5 Retrospections and interviews
After the second test, the researcher conducted an
interview with all sixty (60) subjects. All of them were asked to recall their feelings and their thinking
about the grammar software, the testing. This was the first time that most of them had been involved
in this kind of study. They were
quite frank and showed their true feelings.
Altogether 59 students expressed a positive view about this
computer-assisted grammar program and 1 student obviously held a negative
opinion. When they talked about their feelings in detail, they said they liked
this new approach of learning grammar and they were impressed with the picture,
animation and sound imbedded in the program. As for learning opportunities,
they enjoyed this active learning chance. They set their learning pace and they
chose their learning path.
As for the negative side, they explained that computer
program was not as flexible as human beings and not as personal. For example,
if they studied the program for the second time, it was the same and did not
change at all. The other thing was that the teacher may have explanations
related to students while the computer program was unable to do that.
3.6 Discussion and Implications
The data in the study shows the
role of CALL in grammar learning. As the study has shown the comparison between
the first and the second test, p= .000<0.05, it means that with the help of
the computer program, students have achieved a significant difference. The
value t=7.97>1.684 shows that this result is not unusual and the mean score
on the second test is higher than that on the first one. This can indicate that
most of the students have improved individually.
Comparing the second and the
third test, p=0.126>0.05, we find that these two test results have no
significant difference. This suggests that after learning of grammar by means
of the computer the learners can retain their knowledge fairly well.
By focusing on learning outcomes
of this study we believe that CALL can provide some implications as follows:
1. Computers can relieve the teachers from class instruction when
teaching grammar items.
2. Computer-assisted
grammar learning can help the learner acquire grammar items efficiently and
happily.
3. Because some
learners have poor computer skills, the teacher needs to support them in order
to produce a good result.
3.7 Limitations of This
Study
This is a tentative research on computer-assisted
grammar teaching in a special context. The scale of this experiment is also
small, therefore, we cannot assure that our sample of students can represent
their counterparts in other parts of China.
In conclusion, CALL has much to
offer to grammar teaching. It provides a new approach for learning, enjoyed by
most students. As for classroom teaching, when the teacher employs CALL, it may
save class time for them. However,
application of CALL needs technical support to make the teacher and the
students happy.
Chapelle, C. 1990. The discourse of computer-assisted language learning: towards a context for descriptive research. TESOL 24: 199-225
Daiute,C. 1985, Writing and computers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Ellis, R. 1995. Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL 29: 87-105
Fotos, S. and Ellis, R. 1991. Communicating about grammar: a task-based approach. TESOL 25: 605-628
Fox, J. D. 1984. Computer-assisted vocabulary learning. ELT Journal 38: 27-33
Hughes, R. and Mccarthy, M. 1998 From sentence to discourse: discourse grammar and English
language teaching. TESOL 32: 263-287
Hubbard, P. 1996.
Elements of CALL Methodology: Development, Evaluation, and
Implementation. in Pennington MC (ed.) The Power of the CALL. Athelstan
Huang, J. 1990. A video-computer aided English course. in ELT in China 1985: papers presented at the international symposium on teaching English in the Chinese context Beijing: FLTRP
Neu,J. & Scarcella, R. 1991. Word processing in the ESL classroom: a survey of student attitudes. In P. Dunkel (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing, 169-187. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Phinney, M. 1991. Computer-assisted writing and writing apprehension in ESL students. In P. Dunkel (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing, 169-187. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Quirk,R., G