Is Computer-Based Grammar Instruction as Effective as Teacher- Directed Grammar Instruction for Teaching L2 Structures?

Joyce Nutta
University of South Florida

Abstract:
The study described here compared postsecondary English as a Second Language (ESL) students acquisition of selected English structures based on the method of instructioncomputer-based instruction versus teacherdirected instruction.1 The results showed that for all levels of English proficiency, the computer-based students scored significantly higher on openended tests covering the structures in question than the teacher-directed students. No significant differences were found between the computerbased and teacher-directed students scores on multiple choice or fill-inthe- blank tests. The results indicate that computer-based instruction can be an effective method of teaching L2 grammar.

INTRODUCTION

As the use of computers in language teaching increases, it is essential to establish research-based indications of the appropriate roles of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in curriculum and instruction. One of the most important questions focuses on whether technology should attempt to emulate the characteristics of a communicative classroom, engaging students in real and meaningful communication, or provide the types of tutorials and drills that tend to be de-emphasized in current teaching practice. Numerous Second Language Acquisition researchers asserted that the computer should be used to replicate what they believe ought to occur in the classroom. Many proponents of CALL have advocated the development of communicative computer programs that provide opportunities for meaningful communication (Garrett, 1991; Underwood, 1993; Quinn, 1990; Lavine, 1992). Although some educators have decried the use of computers as electronic workbooks for drilland- practice exercises (Chun & Brandl, 1992; Underwood, 1993), others have advocated their use for tutorials and drills to free up more classroom time for real communication (Gilby, 1996; Hoffman, 1996). The teaching context often determines the role of CALL. In an English as a Second Language (ESL) environment, communicative CALL programs often supplement and augment classroom activities by providing games for practice or word processing applications for compositions. In some English as a Foreign Language (EFL) programs, computer programs may complement or completely supplant classroom instruction by providing instruction in a subject or skill not taught in the classroom (Soo & Ngeow, 1996). In the latter case, computers and other technologies are relied upon to provide a model of native speech that the instructors, many of whom are nonnative speakers of English, cannot offer. During the past decade, numerous studies have examined different approaches to teaching grammar (Doughty, 1991; Ellis,1985, 1993; Fotos, 1993; Green & Hecht, 1992; Tomasello & Herron, 1988). These studies have shown that many effective means of teaching L2 grammar are available— from teacher-directed Constructivist tutorials (Adair-Hauck & Donato, 1994), to cooperative group work (Fotos, 1994) and individual study with textbooks (Scott & Randall, 1992). Because these studies indicate that various effective ways to learn grammar exist, teachers have an ever increasing array of options with which to meet the needs of students. The use of computers to teach grammar has not received the same amount of attention as communicative CALL, but computer-based grammar instruction offers many potential benefits. Although it is currently impossible for the computer to engage learners in authentic two-way communication, it is, in fact, possible for CALL to provide rich input in the form of integrated multimedia programs and to provide explicit grammar explanations that can be viewed and reviewed at the learner's own pace. In a metaanalysis of research on the use of multimedia to teach a variety of subjects, Ragan, Boyce, Redwine, Savenye, and McMichael (1993) found that, in general, multimedia instruction reduces learning time by 30% compared to traditional instruction. They further demonstrated that features of multimedia instruction such as learner interactivity and learner control over programs produce improved outcomes in achievement. The use of computer-based grammar instruction would also support more individualized instruction in programs that have open-entry/open-exit enrollment such as adult and vocational education courses. Students would not enter the class in the middle of a linear instructional sequence based on a grammatical syllabus. Instead, the syllabus could be based on themes of interest and relevance to students, and individual students could follow a grammatical syllabus in computer-based instruction outside the classroom.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

This study examined whether computer-based grammar instruction is as effective as teacher-directed grammar instruction for postsecondary students at multiple levels of proficiency in an intensive ESL program. Two experiments were conducted at different levels of English language proficiency, one at the first and second level of instruction and the other at the third and fourth level. The primary research question posed in the study was whether there was a difference in the acquisition of a specific grammar point for students taught in a teacher-directed class versus those taught in computer-based instruction.

Method

The first experiment compared the performance of level-one and level-two students in a computer-based group versus those in a teacher-directed group. The second experiment compared the performance of level-three and level-four students in a computer-based group versus those in a teacher-directed group. The purpose of conducting the two experiments was to examine the acquisition of discrete structures at different levels of proficiency in order to increase the generalizability of the results.

Sample

The population of the study consisted of 53 students (24 females and 29 males) enrolled in an intensive academic ESL institute at a major university in Florida. The ESL institute offers four levels of instruction and uses the Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT) to place in-coming students. Ten students were enrolled in level one, 9 in level two, 20 in level three (in two sections), and 14 in level four. Students were matched for native language (Japanese, Thai, Korean, Arabic, Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese) and pretest scores on the structures in question and then randomly assigned to computer-based or teacher-directed sections. Although the groups were not matched for gender, the breakdown was fairly even, each group differing in gender makeup by no more than two students.

Independent Variable

The independent variable was the method of grammar instruction, either teacher-directed or computer-based. Because the participants in each experiment consisted of two levels of English proficiency (first and second levels combined, third and fourth levels combined), grammar points were introduced at the lower level of the combined groups and then reviewed and expanded at the higher level. This cycle held true for the teacher-directed as well as computer-based groups. The treatment consisted of one hour of instruction per day for seven days. Because studies have indicated that certain grammar points are more easily acquired than others (Green & Hecht, 1992; Scott & Randall, 1992; Krashen, 1981), this study examined the acquisition of verb tenses, which included elements of aspect, one of the more difficult forms for ESL students to master (Green & Hecht, 1992).

Teacher-Directed Group

Students in the teacher-directed groups were taught by five different teachers of varying degrees of experience. Classes were held in rooms without computer equipment or other instructional technology. Class size ranged from four to seven students. Students at all levels used the Focus on Grammar (1994) textbook series and engaged in a variety of types of activities emphasizing interactive, meaningful, and creative expression.

Computer-Based Groups

Students in the computer-based groups received computer-based instruction outside the classroom. The students who participated in Experiment One used ELLIS Middle Mastery (1996), and the students who participated in Experiment Two used ELLIS Senior Mastery (1996). ELLIS was selected because of its multimedia delivery (audio and video, recording capability, etc.), its modeling of natural and contextualized language, its interactivity, and its clear grammar explanations and practice activities. Although ELLIS lacks a mechanism for sophisticated learner feedback (see Nagata & Swisher, 1995), its exercises do provide simple corrections. Because the ELLIS program is organized around communicative needs rather than grammatical structures, students followed a sequential checklist developed by the researcher to direct their navigation through the program. (See the sample navigational guide in Appendix A.)

Dependent Variables

In Experiment One, the grammar structure of interest was the past tense, and in Experiment Two, the conditional tense. The dependent variables were students' achievement scores on three separate criterion-referenced tests over the selected structures. The tests on the past tense included items covering the simple past in regular and irregular forms, the past continuous, and the present perfect (regular form). The tests on the conditional tense included items covering the factual, unreal, and unlikely conditional. The three tests consisted of (1) a discrete-point multiple-choice test, (2) a fill-in-the-blank test, and (3) an open-ended test. The researcher, together with the ESL institute's curriculum specialist and the grammar teachers, decided which grammar points were appropriate to teach and assess. The researcher then developed test instruments based on the content of the instruction in the teacher-directed and computer-based groups.

Data Collection and Analysis

The pretests were administered three days prior to the beginning of the treatment, the immediate posttests were administered on the last day of the treatment, and the delayed posttests were administered two weeks after the posttests. After having been trained, the classroom teachers administered the pretests and delayed posttests to all students and the immediate posttests to the students in the teacher-directed groups. The researcher administered the immediate posttests to the students in the computer- based group. The researcher scored all the tests blindly with no knowledge of students' identity or group status. After the researcher scored the tests, a certified ESL teacher reviewed students' answers. For all potentially problematic answers and scores, the researcher and the teacher reached consensus on the basis of the scoring sheet. (See sample questions and scoring criteria in Appendix B.) For the pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests in Experiment One, the calculation of internal consistency was .90 for the fill-in-the- blank test, .58 for the multiple choice test, and .63 for the open-ended test. For the pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests in Experiment Two, the calculation of internal consistency was .67 for the fill-in- the-blank test, .40 for the multiple choice test, and .43 for the open-ended test. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the data. Because of the small sample size, the alpha level was set at .10 for tests of significance.

Results

As in most comparative CALL studies, it was difficult to distinguish which features of the computer-based instruction led to the outcomes found in the study and whether these factors were inherent to computer-based instruction or simply an instructional strategy that could have been employed with a variety of media under different circumstances (see Williams & Brown, 1991). Nonetheless, the results showed that computer-based grammar instruction is at least as effective as, and in some cases more effective than, teacher-directed grammar instruction. Interviews and Questionnaires Insights into students' experience with computer-based instruction emerged from the student interviews and questionnaires. By and large, students were satisfied with the computer-based instruction and expressed a desire to spend more time per day using it. Students indicated that the features of computer-based instruction that were most useful were the computer's capacity that allowed them to review the tutorial as many times as they wished, to proceed at their own learning pace, to record their voices and compare them against the model, and to get immediate feedback on the exercises. The Asian students especially appreciated not being “singled out” to speak in class, while some of the Latin students indicated that they would have preferred more human interaction.

Discussion

Although the sample size of this study was too small to draw definitive conclusions, the study does present evidence of meaningful differences in the computer-based and teacher-directed groups' achievement scores on the open-ended tests. If open-ended tests measure students' ability to use grammatical structures creatively, it would seem that some elements of computer-based study support the development of this skill more effectively than traditional classroom instruction. Surprisingly, the scores of the students in the computer-based groups rose on the open-ended delayed posttests. This result contrasts with those of other studies of classroom grammar instruction in which students' production of grammatical structures was accurate on immediate posttests but fell on the delayed posttests. Perhaps the interim period between the immediate posttest and the delayed posttest described here allowed the students in the computer-based group time to apply the structure in question in real communicative situations, providing them with an additional opportunity to negotiate meaning and monitor their own output. This finding may indicate, as Ellis (1993) has suggested, that the use of computer-based grammar instruction can complement individualized structural syllabi in communicative classrooms and more effectively enable students to use the newly acquired structures to negotiate meaning. The potential of the computer laboratory to go beyond providing simple practice and reinforcement of grammar points taught in the classroom is only beginning to be explored. Research should be conducted with different populations (e.g., elementary and secondary students) and different types of courses (e.g., Vocational ESL and English for Specific Purposes). Moreover, additional research is needed to ascertain which features of computer-based grammar programs promote the acquisition of L2 structures (e.g., degree of learner control, feedback strategies, etc.). As the body of knowledge on the application of computer-based grammar instruction increases, so will the flexibility and number of options available to teachers and students.