CEP 822 Article Critique

7/29/2019 CEP 822 Article Critique

1/10


2/10

Torlakovic and Deugo (2004). Such studies indicated the effectiveness of computer-basedgrammar instruction for L2 learners and in some situations, computer based grammar instructionwas more effective and beneficial that teacher-based grammar instruction.

Since the study was based on measuring the effectiveness of teaching methods and approaches,

the researches discussed specifically two teaching approaches: rule-oriented and structure-guessing. Grammar is usually introduced to ESL learners using either approach. The authorsdefined these terms to help the readers understand the procedure and aim of the study. Deductiveinstruction or rule-oriented is a process in which learners are taught the rules first and are givenspecific information about the language at the beginning of a language class before engagingstudents in language practice. On the other hand, inductive method or structure -guessing is aprocess that involves exposing the learner to samples of language from which students will beable to identify patterns and reach generalizations. The researches emphasized the fact the bothmethods are beneficial in L2 grammar teaching and learning. The authors pointed out that as faras the literature is concerned, there are only two studies (Doughty, 1991 and Robinson, 1996)that investigated the effectiveness of both approaches -deductive and inductive- in L2 grammar

teaching and learning. Not only this, but few studies compared the effectiveness of deductiveapproaches in traditional teaching and computer-based teaching. Therefore, according to theauthors, the aim of this research is to fill up the gap in this area in the field of L2 grammarinstruction, in particular in Saudi Arabia.

The study did not cite clear review of the literature in a detailed and coherent way. The threestudies that were cited by Nagata, Nuta, and Torlakovic and Deugo about the positive effecttechnology in teaching L2 grammar were not discussed in details and were not related to eachother to allow the reader understand the purpose and the conclusions such studies reached. Inaddition, this article did not mention any further studies that showed contradictory results in thearea of computer-based grammar instruction for L2 learners, though there are some importantones in this area. Moreover, the authors referred briefly to Doughty s study (1991) andRobinson s study (1996) that compared the effectiveness of two deductive teaching approaches-rule-oriented and structure-guessing. The researchers did not provide any summary of the articlesto help the readers understand the effectiveness of each approach in learning L2 grammar.

Some definitions should have been mentioned; especially that terms such as computer assistedlanguage (CALL) and computer assisted instruction (CAI) recurred several times in the article.On the other hand, the researchers defined the terms deductive and inductive approaches.

Problem

The problem statement was not clearly-if not at all- stated in this article. The problem was notvisible to the average reader, and it required several readings to establish why the researchersfelt this study needed to be done. In my view, it was limited to the researchers capabilities andresources. Neither the need for the study nor the hypothesis/ hypotheses is clearly stated in thepresent study.


3/10

Objectives and research questions

The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of computer-based grammarinstruction and traditional-based grammar instruction as well as the two teaching approachesrule-oriented and structure-guessing in both contexts for freshmen English majors in the English

Department at King Saud University instruction.

The researchers clarified the two terms as follows: rules-oriented grammar instruction meansintroducing the rules to L2 students first and providing illustrative examples. Structure-guessingapproach means introducing illustrative examples first that help learners reach the rulesthemselves after giving them time to think about the examples and help them reachgeneralizations.

The researchers identified five specific research questions: 1- Are there any significantdifferences between the groups due to method of instruction (computer and traditional)?2- Are there any significant differences between eh groups of learners due to teaching approach

(structure-guessing grammar instruction versus initial rule-oriented grammar instruction)?3- Are there any significant differences between the individual verb tenses due to method of instruction (computerized and traditional teaching), and teaching approach (structure-guessingand rule-oriented)?4- Do computer-based structure guessing and rule-oriented instructional treatments have aneffect on acquisition of verb tenses as measured by the post-test?5- Do teacher driven structure guessing and rule oriented instructional treatments have an effecton acquisition of verb tenses as measured by the post-test?

The purp ose of the study was clearly and concisely stated and agreed with the title. The authorsobjectives were answerable. The researchers wanted to test the hypothesis whether computerbased grammar instruction is as effective as teacher driven grammar instruction.

Procedures and Methodology

Setting and subjects

The study was carried out at King Saud University during the fall semester of 2005-2006.According to the researchers, the classes were conducted in the media lab. The subjects of thestudy were 128 male freshmen students enrolled in remedial grammar classes. The study focusedon the following grammar topics: simple present tense, simple past, simple future, presentperfect, and present continuous. The subjects were divided into four groups and were taught bythe same teacher forming two experiments based on the teaching method:Group 1: Computer-based structure -guessing instruction (28 students)Group 2: Computer-based rule-oriented instruction (33 students)Group 3: Teacher-driven structure- guessing instruction (30 students)Group 4: Teacher-driven rule-oriented instruction (28 students)


4/10

The aim of having four groups is to compare the effectiveness of teacher and computer basedinstruction with regard to rule-oriented and structure guessing approach.

The authors did not mention whether the sample was random or nonrandom. While this was agood sample size, the problem lied with the distribution of the sample. A larger sample with

regard to all groups would have aided in the data analysis.

It is worth mentioning that the authors did not describe in details the socioeconomic backgroundof the subjects to help the readers to construct a clear picture of the whole setting. In suchstudies, it is necessary to mention the mean age of the subjects and their educational background.In addition, nothing was mentioned about their level of English and whey they were enrolled ingrammar remedial classes.

Furthermore, the structure of the program and the remedial grammar classes were not explained.On the whole, the description of the subjects and the setting is very limited and vague. Suchdeficiency did not help the readers to constr uct a clear view of the whole process. Whats more,

the researchers mentioned that the four groups were taught by the same teacher, but they did notidentify who that teacher was: was he one of the authors or a different teacher? Besides, nothingwas mentioned about the background of the teacher in terms age, experiences, qualifications, andgender.

Likewise, the researchers did not mention the process by which they choose the students foreach group and what needed to be done to overcome the uneven number of the subjects and howsuch thing would not affect the results of the study. To add, the researchers did not point out thefact whether the subjects were aware that they participated in the study or not.

Instructional software, material and tests

To implement this study, the authors developed two types of instruments: a software programand pre-post tests. An instructional program to teach five English verb tenses: simple present,simple past, present perfect, present continuous, and simple future has been developed. Theauthors used PowerPoint presentation software for the instructional program for its feasibility,availability, and ease of use. The researches added animation and graphics to make the programinteractive to a certain extent and interesting. Links to relevant websites related to the topicsstudents study were added to the program. Net-support school program was used to send andreceive assignments and feedback on assignments.

The material was developed in two versions: computer-based and teacher driven. In eachversion, the material was presented using the two deductive approaches: rule-oriented andstructure- guessing. Both versions were identical but one was presented in a paper form for theteacher-driven classes and computerized form for the computer-based instruction. Both versionswere identical in terms of verbs, sentences, dialogues. The only difference was the type of feedback students received.

A test was designed by the researchers and was used as a pretest and a post test. The aim of thepre- test was to measure the subjects knowledge with regard to the required verb tenses. In


5/10

addition, the pre-test was used to find out any significant differences between the groups beforethe instruction. The same test was used as a post-test to measure the effectiveness of computerbased and teacher driven instruction.

The test consisted of of ten multiple choice questions with four choices for each item. One is the

model answer and other three distracters. All the tenses were mixed. The pre-test was given twoday prior the beginning of the study and the post test was given after four weeks at the end of thestudy. At the end of the study, all groups received the same test, but the teacher-driven groupsreceived paper-based test and the computer-based group received computerized test.

To ensure test validity, the researches gave the test to three experts in remedial grammarinstruction to review the test in terms of clarity of instructions, relevance of questions to thecontent that was studies, and suitability of distracters. The recommendations of the experts weretaken into consideration and implemented. Not only this, the test was piloted as midterm examfor two semesters for a number of sections to ensure its validity. Cronbachs Alpha - measuringinstrument- was used to determine the acceptability of the test.

The authors explanation of the instructional instruments, participants, and methods lacked depthand brought up several questions with regard to the reliability and validity of the softwareprogram, instructional material, and tests. In terms software program and material, the content of the program as well as the printed material were not validated by other experts or a validatingcommittee to ensure the suitability of the content to objectives of the study. In addition, theauthors did not mention the source they referred to for developing their instructional material.Furthermore, there was no mention of the weekly hours students have to spend in class or in thelab for their grammar course. Though, the authors claimed that the computer based group and theteacher driven group received identical information, they did not justify how web-links that wereincluded computer-based instruction were compensated in the teacher-based instruction. It seemsthat by including such links, the two groups did not receive the claimed similar instructionalmaterial and this ha s risked the validity of the instructional instruments.

As for the test (pre-post tests), though the authors mentioned that it was validated by a group of experts to ensure its relevance to the course contents, clarity of instructions, and suitability of distracters, the authors over looked mentioning the time frame students had to take answer thequestions, the marking scheme (blind grading or not), the proctoring procedure, and the marker(the researchers or someone else). Such information is necessary to identify the validity andreliability of the tests and the software program. Furthermore, the researchers mentioned that thepost test included ten multiple choice questions with four distracters to measure the studen tsmastery level of taught verb tenses. Readers might questions the reliability of such a short textand that it could not used as an indicative of the students competence level in grammar.

Though the authors provided sample of screen shots of the program that was used for computer-based instruction, they disregarded any information with regard to the role of the teacher duringthe lessons. As readers, we could not identify the role of the teacher in the teacher-driveninstruction and the method for error correction. Besides, the authors did not clarify the type of computer based instruction and how it was conducted, for example, did the teacher monitor thestudents during the lab sessions and answered their questions or such classes were totally self-


6/10

study. Moreover, it was clear in the article where the teacher driven classes were conducted- inthe lab or regular classroom. Such information is essential to ensure the validity of settings.Needless to say, the researchers ignored mentioning their role in the study; in other words, whotaught these classes and what are the teachers or teacher qualifications and experience? Anotherpoint that is worth mentioning is the fact that the authors did not define or explain what is meant

by Cronbachs Alpha and th e reason for using this measuring instrument to validate the pre-posttest.

Finally, the authors did not mention in this section that focusing only on male students wouldlimit the results of the study and another study needed to be carried out with female students tobe able to draw generalized results. One last point, the study was relatively short as was pointedout later. The researchers mentioned that it took only four weeks during the fall semester in2005-2006. A longer study would give more reliable data and allow drawing more generalconclusions.

Statistical analysis

The authors discussed the statistical techniques they used in the study. The independent variableswere computer-based versus teacher-driven instruction and rule-oriented versus structure-guessing instruction. The dependent variable was the scores of the post test. The researchers usedmultiple statistical measures such as means, standard deviation, ANOVA, and MultipleComparison to find whether there were significant differences between group s scores of thepost-test. Analysis of the pre-test showed that there were no significant differences between thegroups and thus any differences in the post test could be attributed to the method of instruction.

The methods and instruments used to analyze the data were generally explained, but no detaileddiscussion of the statistical techniques was given in this particular section of the article.

Results

There was a need to find if there was any significant difference between the pre-post test resultsof groups in method (computer-based versus teacher-oriented), and approach (structure-guessingand rule-oriented). One-way ANOVA analysis of variables was used for pre-test scores; theresults revealed that there was no significant difference among the four groups. The researchersconcluded that any difference on the post-test could be related to grammar instruction and notdue to prior knowledge. Furthermore, the researchers revealed that there were significantdifferences between the mean scores of the four groups on the pre-post tests. They concludedthat such difference could be related to the instruction the students received whether teacher-driven, computer-based, rule-oriented, or structure-guessing.

The five research questions that were proposed by the researchers were answered. The firstquestion Are there any significant difference between the groups of learners due to method of instruction (computer-based versus teacher-driven instruction) ? was answered and the resultsrevealed that there was a statistically significant difference at (p.05) between the mean scores of the computer-based instruction and teacher-driven instruction on the post test. The difference


7/10

was in favor of computer-based instruction and the researchers concluded that computer-basedinstruction could be more effective in teaching English verb tenses.

To answer the second question posed in this study, a comparison between the two groups(structure-guessing approach and rule-oriented approach) was made to find whether there are any

significant differences between them. The results of the t-test (T=6022, p.


8/10

students to control the pace of learning and make choices in what and how to learn. Use of technology can improve the critical thinking skills. Furthermore, technology provides studentswith natural and authentic context in which they can practice the language.

Results pertaining to the teaching approaches, the results of the study were in the line of

Doughtys (1991) that asserted the effectiveness of structure-guessing approach in teachinggrammar. The results of the present were in favor of the structure-guessing approach over rule-oriented approach in teaching verb tenses except for the present perfect tense.

The researchers explained the reason why students scored low on the present perfect tense whentaught by structure-guessing approach. They attributed this to two main reasons: first, thecomplexity of the structure and that it involves different overlapping using that makes it hard forthe language learner to conceptualize them. Second, there is no present perfect tense in Arabic.The researchers also attributed the low performance of students with regard to simple futurewhen taught by rule-oriented to the fact that this tense has difference uses in English which arenot found in Arabic.

For this section, the authors did not provide a brief review of the purpose of the research and theresearch problem that urged them to carry out such study. There was no summary given toprovide continuation of thought and create coherence to the article. The conclusion was based onthe findings; yet, it did not logically discuss some of the findings and relate them to literature,especially those attributed to the low performance of students with regard to the present perfecttense and simple future.

It is worth mentioning that the findings of the current study come in the line with the theoreticaland practical studies surveyed in the article in which the studies that provided evidence for theeffectiveness of using technology in learning ESL grammar. Nevertheless, the authors did notmention other studies that showed contradictory results, and this could be a weak point in theresearch. In addition, the authors attributed the low performance on present perfect tense to theabove two mentioned reasons, yet, this conclusion was not supported by literature. The authorsrelied in the fact that they are Arabs and provided an explanation that has to be supported byliterature.

Furthermore, the authors provided a vague explanation to the fact that students scored low onfuture tense when taught by the rule-oriented approach. This brings up several questions: first, if this tense was used differently in Arabic and that made it hard to conceptualize, how studentwere able to score better in the structure-guessing than rule-oriented. Moreover, their explanationwas not supported by literature. Furthermore, no clear examples from Arabic were provided toenable readers to see the differences.

Limitations and Recommendations

The authors identified several limitations that needed to be taken into considerations. Theypointed out the results of the study cannot be generalized because of the limited number of participates, the short period of the study- four weeks, and it excluded female students duecultural and administrative factors that were uncontrollable. In addition, administering a post test


9/10

and a mid-term post test at a later stage would allow the researchers to draw more reliableresults. Recommendations were limited to a call for further research to investigate the similaritiesand differences between the learners native language and English on the acquisition of verbtenses using structure-guessing and rule-oriented approaches in computerized and traditionsteaching contexts.

List of references

The format used in listing the references was consistent and all references given were cited in thearticle. The authors cited a variety of articles. They referred to old and recent journals, andgraduate studies in their research. In contrast, the researchers did not rely on books in their essayas they referred to one book only.

Overall critique

To conclude, this study focused on identifying the effect of computer-based instruction inlearning English tenses versus traditional teacher-based instruction. Two teaching approaches(structure-guessing and rule-oriented approaches) were investigated in relation to the abovementioned theories. The results of the study came in general consistent with the literature thatreported the positive effect of using technology in learning English verb tenses. The authorssuccessfully showed the relationship between teaching methods and approaches and acquiringspecific verb tenses.

The article was laid out in easy to read format. Yet, it could be difficult for ordinary readers toidentify the type of relationships the authors wanted to establish and identify. The researchersfailed to explain the relationship of technology in learning ESL grammar with the approach of instruction. The method of instruction was touched on briefly supported by brief review of literatures. Whereas, the instructional approaches (structure-guessing versus rule-oriented) werebriefly mentioned and were not supported by enough literature.

The authors cited some relevant references in the literature review section and the discussionsection pertaining to the effectiveness of computer-based instruction in teaching ESL grammar.The literature review was limited to some extend and was not well summarized nor coherentlydiscussed to how the existing relationships between the two teaching methods (computer-basedand teacher-driven) and the two approaches (rule-oriented and structure-guessing).

It is necessary to point out that are several issues that the researches overlooked and werereported earlier in the review. I will touch on them briefly since they have been alreadymentioned. It was obvious that the researches did not define some of the important terms. Suchdefinitions would have been helpful in following the article.

The problem of the research was not clearly stated though it could be implied as the reader readsthrough the article. In addition, there was no clear hypothesis stated in the article, though readerscan identify the relationships the authors want to establish. The authors did not provide clearexplanation of the history of the subjects (age, background, education level, majors, and level of


10/10

English, contact hours of instruction in English per week). The method of instruction was notclearly stated as well as the role of the teacher in this study. In addition, the researchers did notmention the source they used for the material they developed. Moreover, giving a test of tenMultiple choice questions was not a clear indicator of the students mastery of the requiredgrammatical points.

The results and findings were stated well organized and reported. Nevertheless, the researchersdid not refer literature to explain some of the findings, in particular, the low mean scores of acquiring present prefect. They were satisfied by claiming that it is not found in Arabic and thus,it was hard to conceptualize by Arab students. The conclusion was in general logically stated, butit needed further support from the literature to ascertain its value.

The researchers relied on the fact that they both are Arabs and explained why it was hard forstudents to acquire English present perfect and simple future. A comparison between thesestructures with the Arabic structure supported by enough literature would have been moreinformative and valuable. On the whole, there was a definite need for further review of literature

to develop and support the study. The article did get a little complicated in reporting the datadue to the type of research questions posed in the study and the complicated-to some extent-statistical procedures. Overall, though there are quite significant drawbacks in the article, thisstudy has shed light on the benefits of using computers in learning English grammar. It also hasattempted to bridge the gap between theoretical and practices sides of using CALL in teachinggrammar in Saudi Arabia. Finally, this study may encourage other researchers to conduct furtherstudies on the same topic, which would enrich relevant literature.

References

AbuSeileek, A., & Rababah, G. (2007). The effect of computer -based grammar instruction onthe acquisition of verb tenses in an EFL context. The JALT CALL Journal , (3), 59-80. RetrievedFebruary, 6, 2011 from http://jaltcall.org/journal/articles/3_1&2_AbuSeileek2.pdf

CEP 822 Article Critique

Documents

Transcript of CEP 822 Article Critique