Computer-enhanced grammar teaching: using computer technology to teach first years

1
Computer-enhanced grammar teaching using
computer technology to teach first years

• David Barr
• University of Ulster

2
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, 199937).
• An explosion in packages that teach grammar
• BUT Engel Myles (199610) 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

3
Background (2)
4
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.

5
Results of Diagnostics Tests
6
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)

7
Student Performance
8
Performance on each question
9
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

10
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?

11
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.

12
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

13
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, 199619)
• 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)

14
Maximising the potential future developments

• Use of data from this year group to inform
  planning of next years grammar classes
• Creation of a database to enable tutor to track
  student performance quickly

15
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

16
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.utpjournal
  s.com/jour.ihtml?lpproduct/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

17
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) 4962
• 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.

18
For more information

• Please visit the Centre for Excellence in
  Multimedia Language Learning website at
• http//www.arts.ulster.ac.uk/lanlit/cetl