Teaching Reading through
Computer-Assisted Language Learning
Introduction
Reading
skills have immense importance in students’ success at school (Jarvis &
Pastuszka, 2008). In addition, students who have a strong foundation in reading
and receive encouragement at home can only excel in school (Yubune, Kanda,
& Tabuchi, 2007). Lamy and Klarskov (2011) suggest that reading is the most
important skill for children in secondary schools. Unfortunately, schools
provide the chance of improving reading skills to a very little extent (Bangs,
2011); however, a recent study on the use of technology in language education
found that this situation can be improved by using computers in secondary
schools (Bax, 2011).
Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL) in Language
Learning
Computer-assisted
Language Learning (CALL) involves applying computer hardware (Butler-Pascoe,
2011) and software (Busch, 2003) to a teaching-and learning environment (Chun,
2001). Several studies have shown that CALL has positive results on language
learning (Chun, 2006; Chun, & Plass, 1997; Chun, & Scott, 2004; Cobb,
& Stevens, 1996; Davies, 1997; Davies, 2011; Davies, Bangs, Frisby &
Walton, 2010, Davies & Hewer, 2011), especially on the learning of children
in secondary schools (Almekhlafi, 2006). CALL provides individualized
instruction (De Ridder, 2000), which matches with the student’s level of
interest (Dreyer, & Nel, 2003), understanding, and pace of learning
(Davies, 2007; Figura et al., 2007; Paul, 2009; Poznan, 2001).
Reading Skills Development in the Classroom
Reading
comprehension drills have traditionally been misused (Heift & Schulze 2007;
Hubbard, 2009; Hu, 2007) by both teachers and students. Teachers believe that
grammar, composition, and speaking and listening skills are key elements of
English instruction (Hui-Fang, 2005; Jacobs, & Gallo, 2002; Jarvis, &
Pastuszka, 2008). On the other hand, learners consider reading comprehension
tests time consuming (Jarvis, & Szymczyk, 2010), tiresome, and boring
(Jarvis et al., 2008).
In addition,
students find traditional methods of language learning non-interactive
(Kessler, 2007; Lamy & Klarskov, 2011; Lan, Sung, & Chang, 2006;
Leakey, 2011) and believe that the literature presented on computer is in
varied forms (McEnery & Wilson, 2011), new, and presented more
interestingly (Lie, & Chen, 2007). Computer language learning projects
engage the students (Thomas, 2008; Thorne, & Payne, 2005; Tseng, 2008;
Walker, Davies, & Hewer, 2011; Walz, 2001a) in a number of interesting and
interactive activities meant to enhance reading skills (Yubune, Kanda, &
Tabuchi, 2007).
Hypothesis
Teaching reading
through CALL environment is more effective on the three levels of reading
skills at secondary schools.
Sub-hypotheses:
1.
Teaching reading
through CALL is more effective at the literal level of reading skills.
2.
Teaching reading
through CALL is more effective at the inferential level of reading skills.
3.
Teaching reading
through CALL is more effective at the evaluative level of reading skills.
Methodology
An experimental
design was used in this study. Participants included two groups of ninth-grade
students, each comprised of 30 students. The experimental group (N=30) and the
control group (N=30) were taught through CALL and through a traditional
instructor-led class, respectively. Participants had no prior experience with
computers.
Participants
included ninth-grade males in the same age group (15-17 years of age) from the
same secondary school during the 2010-2011 academic year. Twenty-four lessons
on reading skills, with the help of the computers including images, sounds,
graphs and animation, were offered to the treatment group. The same lessons
(without images, sounds, graphs and animation) with simple texts were given to
the controlled group in a traditional instructor-led class.
Furthermore, the
lessons for the experimental group were especially designed by the researcher
to include colorful pictures, sounds, graphs and other animations in a
PowerPoint presentation. In contrast, lessons for the control group were
adopted from the textbooks that did not have pictures, sounds, graphs, or any
animation. It was ensured that the readability index of both texts remained
nearly the same. For this purpose, various text materials were used and an
average readability index was determined with the help of reading difficulty
experts. However, students enrolled in this course were assumed to be similar
to the public sector secondary schools’ students of district Khairpur.
Research Design
The dependent
variable in this study was the achievement scores of the control group and
treatment groups. The independent variable of this study was the presence or
absence of CALL instructional environment.
Data Collection
Data included 24
reading lessons, pre- and post-tests, and demographic questions. Lessons were
given to the experimental group using computers without the intervention of a
teacher. Moreover, the same and equal lesson plans (simple text only) were
administrated through the instructor-led way with the intervention of a
teacher. However, lessons for the experimental group included images, sounds,
graphs and animation, which were excluded from the lessons of controlled group.
In this regard, the readability index of the texts of both lesson plans was
found to be nearly the same.
The researcher
developed the pre-test and post-test with the required readability index set at
ninth-grade level. The specification of the test was that there were five
passages used in the pre- and post-tests, for which 16 items were used. Out of
the 16 items, eight items were on a literal level, five were on an inferential
level, and three were on an evaluative level. Participants also filled out
forms to provide data about their social status, use of computers at home,
access to computers in school and their medium of instruction.
Procedures
Participants were
informed of the purpose of this study. Those who submitted a consent form to
the head master office were randomly assigned and selected to participate in
either the control or the experimental groups. The pre-test was administered on
the three levels of reading skills to measure participants’ existing level of
reading skills. The control group then received their lessons without the use
of the computers that consisted of text only. The experimental group received
the equally challenging lesson plans with the help of computers, including the
images, sounds, graphs and animation. On completion of the tutorial, all
subjects took a brief post-test on the three levels of reading skills.
Data Analysis
Results from the
achievement scores were recorded as the difference of means, standard
deviation, and standard error means. Means of standard deviation and arithmetic
mean comparison tests were performed to evaluate the key differences in
accomplishments of experimental group and control group’ and also to determine
if significant differences existed in achievements of the two groups. The pre-
and post-tests were used for comparison of students’ achievements. Classroom
observation and interviews were also conducted to ensure reliability and
validity. Achievement scores of both groups were analyzed using computer
software. As positive results were assumed therefore, a one-tailed t-test was
used. The null hypothesis was that there is no significant difference between
the scores of the experimental group and the control group, whereas the
alternative hypothesis stated that there is statistical difference between the
post-test scores of both groups. Both groups were tested at the 0.05 level of
confidence. The t-score was 2.02.
Table 1. Mean Scores
Group
|
Pre-test
Mean |
Pre-test
S.D. |
Post-test
Mean |
Post-test
S.D. |
Gain
Score
Mean |
Experimental
(n=30) |
24.65
|
9.98
|
51.63
|
11.98
|
26.98
|
Control
(n=30) |
20.77
|
8.47
|
31.10
|
10.58
|
10.33
|
The df for this
study was 58 (df= n1+n2-2, 30+30-2 = 58). At the 0.05 confidence level, the
critical value of t =+1.664, and rejection rule for null hypotheses was that
the null hypothesis would be rejected if the calculated value was greater than
the critical value. The calculated value was greater than the critical value,
which meant that null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis
was accepted. Findings showed that both groups improved; however, the
experimental group improved more than 35% than the control group. Therefore, it
was concluded that the CALL environment was more efficient than the traditional
instructor-led classes in developing three levels of reading skills at
secondary level.
Table 2. Mean Gain Scores for Three Levels of Reading Skills
Reading
Levels
|
Pre-test
Mean |
Pre-test
S.D. |
Post-test
Mean |
Post-test
S.D. |
Gain
Score
Mean |
Gain
Score
S.D. |
|
Literal
Level
|
Experimental
(n=30) |
16.20
|
4.24
|
25.13
|
6.36
|
8.93
|
2.12
|
Control
(n=30) |
14.30
|
4.28
|
16.55
|
4.98
|
2.25
|
0.70
|
|
Inferential
Level
|
Experimental
(n=30) |
4.63
|
3.21
|
13.02
|
4.75
|
8.39
|
1.54
|
Control
(n=30) |
4.30
|
2.28
|
6.28
|
2.61
|
1.98
|
0.33
|
|
Evaluative
Level
|
Experimental
(n=30) |
3.82
|
4.03
|
14.20
|
2.68
|
10.38
|
-1.36
|
Control
(n=30) |
2.50
|
3.19
|
8.27
|
4.20
|
5.77
|
1.01
|
Table 3. t for Three Levels and Total Scores
Reading
Level
|
t-scores
|
|
Pre-test
|
Post-test
|
|
Literal
Level
|
1.58
|
5.26
|
Inferential
Level
|
0.36
|
6.62
|
Evaluative
Level
|
1.46
|
6.49
|
Total
scores
|
1.50
|
6.72
|
Discussion
CALL provided a
self-paced and motivating language-learning environment in which the students
worked with high level of interest at a faster pace. It was concluded that the
use of computers can promote the effectiveness of reading material in terms of
pronunciation, vocabulary, use of words in different contexts, and
comprehension. The computers assisted those students in solving queries and
improving self-confidence at the high pace of their learning, which in turn,
improved their motivation level and enhanced the quality and quantity of their
learning outcomes. However, the CALL approach assisted students more in developing
three levels of reading skills i.e., literal level, inferential level, and
evaluative level. CALL still demands more efforts on the part of the teachers,
especially in the selection and use of application software.
This study suggests
that CALL can develop students’ reading skills on three levels. Therefore, it
is recommended that English teachers at all levels in Pakistan adopt CALL for
teaching reading skills at three levels. However, applying CALL to the
Pakistani context presents particular difficulties due to the socio-cultural
and educational environment. There have been some ground-breaking uses of CALL,
specifically related to the English as a Second Language context, which could
be applied to schools in urban areas of Pakistan where the computers are
readily available.
Pedagogical Implications
CALL can be used to
teach reading skills. However, computers are not used for reading in most
instructional contexts in Pakistan and many teachers believe that effective
reading instruction should include memorization and the reproduction of
decontextualized words and sentences. Teacher resource centers should be
established for the professional development of language teachers at the
district level. The use of CALL software should be promoted in the teachers’
training programs without any discrimination between teachers of private or
public sectors.
Training should
also be provided to the teachers of all categories for the development of CALL
software programs through the recognized institutes, like as Microsoft. CALL
activities and materials should be included in the textbooks of all secondary
levels. To maximize the potential of computers in schools, funds and technical
support should be provided to the education sector.
Conclusion
CALL has showed
positive results in improving the reading skills of students at secondary
school. Using computers in reading instruction generated a lot of interest
among the students for reading comprehension. In addition, students enjoyed the
reading material with a variety of pictures and sounds. For this reason,
teachers need to prepare PowerPoint presentations to generate more interest in
learning among the students.
No comments:
Post a Comment