با پیشرفت سریع فناوری و ظهور نسل جدیدی از بسته های نرم افزاری رایانه ای، بررسی بیشتر این مقوله در حوزه ی یادگیری و تدریس زبان انگلیسی منطقی به نظر می رسد. بدین منظور، پژوهش حاضر به ارزیابی دیدگاه زبان آموزان نسبت به برنامه ای خودخوان با بهره گرفتن از دو نرم افزار آموزش زبان به نام های رزتا استون (Rosetta Stone) و تل می مور (Tell Me More) پرداخت. شصت شرکت کننده در سطح مقدماتی زبان انگلیسی به طور تصادفی از یک دبیرستان غیر دولتی انتخاب شدند. سپس شرکت کنندگان به دو گروه تقسیم شدند و هر کدام با یکی از بسته های نرم افزاری که پیش تر ذکر شد به یادگیری زبان انگلیسی پرداختند. آنها طی یک دوره ی سه هفته ای از نرم افزارها استفاده کردند. پس از آن، از آنها خواسته شد تا پرسشنامه ای را که به صورت لیکرت تنظیم شده، در مورد تجربه یادگیری شان تکمیل نمایند. این پرسشنامه ی بیست و هفت آیتمی دیدگاه شرکت کنندگان را نسبت به این نوع برنامه ی خودخوان نشان می داد. اطلاعات جمع آوری شده بر اساس آمار توصیفی و استنباطی تحلیل شد. بر اساس آمار توصیفی، یافته ها نشان داد که دیدگاه شرکت کنندگان نسبت به هر کدام از گزینه ها متفاوت بوده با این حال برای اکثر گزینه ها از جمله تمایل زبان آموزان نسبت به یک برنامه ی خودخوان، دیدگاه شان نسبت به ویژگی گرافیک بسته ها ی نرم افزاری، سیستم تشخیص صدا، سهولت استفاده از نظر مهارت های پایه ای و غیره دیدگاه مثبتی نسبت به هر کدام از بسته های نرم افزاری داشتند. به علاوه، آزمون من ویتنی یو (Mann Whitney U ) نشان داد که از لحاظ آماری، تفاوت آماری معناداری بین زبان آموزان از نظر دیدگاه شان نسبت به بسته های نرم افزاری آموزش زبان وجود ندارد.
کلید واژه ها: یادگیری زبان به کمک کامپیوتر، دیدگاه زبان آموزان، بسته های نرم افزاری، انگلیسی به عنوان یک زبان بیگانه
Table of Content
Title Page
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.0: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
1.0.1: Software packages to be investigated in the present study………………………………….. 4
1.1: Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
1.2: Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
1.3: Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
1.3.1. Merits of the integration of technology in English language education………………. 8
1.3.2. Drawbacks of the integration of technology in English language education……….. 9
1.4: Research Questions……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
1.5: Research Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
1.6: Definitions of Key Terms…………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
1.7: Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
2.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
2.1. Autonomy and Self-study Programs…………………………………………………………………….. 11
2.2. Language Training Software Packages…………………………………………………………………. 12
2.3. Assessing Attitude, Belief, Perception and Motivation in CALL………………………….. 13
2.4. Online vs. Traditional Way of Language Learning………………………………………………. 23
2.5. Barriers to the Integration of CALL……………………………………………………………………… 25
2.6. Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
3.1. The Design of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
3.2. Participants………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
3.3. Materials and Instruments……………………………………………………………………………………. 28
3.3.1. Placement Test………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
3.3.2. Questionnaire……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29
3.3.3. Software Packages…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
3.4. Procedure…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31
3.5. Methods of Analyzing the Data……………………………………………………………………………. 32
3.6. Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
Chapter 4: Results
4.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
4.1. The Results of the Reliability Analyses of the OPT test and Attitude Questionnaire (Pilot Study)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
4.2. The Results of OPT Test for the Sampling Purpose………………………………………………. 36
4.3. Descriptive Statistics for the Items of the Attitude Questionnaire……………………….. 38
4.4. Inferential Statistics for the Attitude Questionnaire…………………………………………….. 57
4.5. Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 60
Chapter 5: Discussion
5.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 61
5.1. General Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………… 61
5.2. Implications of the Study…………………………………………………………………………………….. 68
5.3. Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………. 68
5.4. Suggestions for further Research…………………………………………………………………………. 69
5.5. Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 69
References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 70
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 80
List of Tables
Table Pages
Table 4.1: Reliability Statistics for the OPT test…………………………………………………………. 35
Table 4.2: Suggested Standards (Adopted From Barker, Pistrang, and Elliott, 1994…… 36
Table 4.3: Statistics For the OPT Test…………………………………………………………………………. 37
Table 4.4: Item Statistics for the for the Attitude Questionnaire…………………………………. 38
Table 4.5: Item 1: Learning A Language Using Computer Software Was An Interesting Experience…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
Table 4.6: Item 2: Language learning May be Important to My Goals, But I Do not Expect It to be Much Fun…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
Table 4.7: Item 3: It Is Easier to Learn A Language at Home without Classroom Pressure 42
Table 4.8: Item 4: I Worry a Lot About Making Mistakes in Classroom……………………… 43
Table 4.9: Item 5:I Think Working at Home; Using Rosetta StoneTell me more Is More of a Computer Game than a Serious Instruction…………………………………………………………………………………. 43
Table 4.10: Item 6: I have found that classroom attendance is not the only way to learn a language…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 44
Table 4.11: Item 7: I would like to learn English, provided I allocate flexible time per week 45
Table 4.12: Item 8: I Will Recommend Rosetta Stone/TELL ME MORE to My Friends. 45
Table 4.13: Item: 9 I would like to learn English through videos, photos, and graphics not just studying textbooks……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46
Table 4.14: Item 10: Learning with Computers Offers More Advantages over Traditional Methods of Language Education…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46
Table 4.15: Item 11: Computers Are Useful for Language Learning…………………………… 47
Table 4.16:Item 12: I Have No Difficulty in Operating the Basic Functions of Computers as far as Language-Learning Software Is Concerned………………………………………………………………… 47
Table 4.17: Item 13: Computers Have Proved to be Effective Learning Tools Worldwide 48
Table 4.18: Item 14: Students Prefer Learning from Teachers to Learning from Computers 49
Table 4.19: Item 15: I Think I Could Spend More Time Practicing Skills (Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing) Using Rosetta StoneTell me more…………………………………………………………. 49
Table 4.20: Item 16: I Prefer to Learn English through Rosetta StoneTell me more Because I Can Adjust My Own Speed of Learning…………………………………………………………………………….. 50
Table 4.21: Item 17: I Would Rather Take A Formal Course Than A Self-Study Program 51
Table 4.22: Item 18: Rosetta Stone/Tell me more Is So User-Friendly. It Is Quite Convenient for Me as an Ordinary Computer User……………………………………………………………………………………. 51
Table 4.23: Item 19: I Enjoyed the Lessons of Rosetta StoneTell Me More……………….. 52
Table 4.24: Item 20: I Think Speech Recognition System in Rosetta StoneTELL ME MORE Can Help You Sound Like a Native Speaker………………………………………………………………………………. 53
Table 4.25: Item 21: It Gradually Becomes Boring Working with Rosetta StoneTell me more 53
Table 4.26: Item 22: It Is Important to Practice Prefabricated Conversation but There Is Not Such a Thing in Rosetta StoneTell me more………………………………………………………………………….. 54
Table 4.27: Item 23: The Speech Recognition System In Rosetta StoneTell me more Is Very Complicated. I Cannot Adjust My Tone to That of the Native Speaker’s……………………. 54
Table 4.28: Item 24: It Is a Good Idea to Use Rosetta StoneTell me more but not as the Main Source of Education……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 55
Table 4.29: Item 25: Diverse and Colorful Photos Used in Rosetta StoneTell me more Have Enormous Appeal………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56
Table 4.30: Item 26: If I Cannot Pursue a Formal Course In English, Anyway I Prefer to Use Rosetta StoneTell me more…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 56
Table 4.31: Item 27: I Cannot Imagine How Exciting It Was to Practice at Home Using Rosetta StoneTell me more…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 57
Table 4.32: Ranks of group (A) and (B) for their Attitudes………………………………………… 58
Table 4.33: Mann Whitney U Test for EFL learners’ Attitudes towards the Packages…. 58
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 4.1 the Comparison between Groups (A) And (B) With Respect To Their Attitudes towards the Two Language Learning Packages (“Tell Me More” and “Rosetta Stone”)………………….. 58
Abstract
With the rapid advancement of technology and the outbreak of the new generation of computer software packages, it seems plausible to shed more light on this issue in the realm of English language learning and teaching. To this end, the present study aimed at scrutinizing the EFL learners’ attitude towards a self-study program using two language training software packages called Rosetta Stone and Tell Me More. Sixty elementary EFL participants were selected randomly from a non-state high school. Then they were divided into two groups each learning English through one of the previously-mentioned packages. They passed a self-study three-week using the two software packages. After that, they were required to fill up a Likert-type questionnaire based on their learning experience. The twenty-seven-item questionnaire elicited participants’ attitudes towards this sort of self-study program. The collected data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Based on the descriptive statistics, the findings revealed that the attitudes of the participants towards each item were different, although for most items such as learners’ preference towards a self-study program, their ideas about the software packages graphics, the speech recognition system, the ease of use in terms of individuals’ basic skills etc. they reflected positive views towards the use of each of the software packages. In addition, the result of Mann-Whitney U test showed that there was not a statistically significant difference between elementary EFL learners in terms of their attitudes towards the two language learning software packages.
Key Words: Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL), Learners’ Attitude, Software Packages, English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
Chapter One
Introduction
1.0. Introduction
With the beginning of the era of technology and a whole raft of new language training software packages, it seems quite sensible to take a closer look at some of these attempts to enhance the quality and effectiveness of language learning and teaching. This is quite a fact that the advent of computer and following it the Internet has made the process of language learning easier, more convenient and even more enjoyable. In other words, technology has revolutionized diverse aspects of human life and as such language learning and teaching is no exception. The inclination towards the use of computer and multimedia facilities in the past two decades in the language education has been reported in the works of some researchers such as Salaberry (2001). The form of technology that is taken into consideration in the current study is the language training software packages.
Figura and Jarvis (2007) defined CALL as learners’ learning language in any context with, through, and around computer technologies. Egbert (http://www.iatefl.org.pl/call/j_key24.htm) (n.d.) also stated that CALL is the catalyst for new kinds of teaching and learning that enables learners to achieve their goals faster. It can be said that one of the final goals of CALL is to develop thinking skills in learners out of class environment. Apparently, CALL materials seem to be more appealing and promising owing to their capacity to integrate text, picture, sound, and animation. However, what makes a widespread research in this area arduous appears to be the difficulty in locating the learners using CALL materials.
It can be estimated that the use of computers as an asset to language learning and teaching commenced in the 1960s. As technology is subject to changes almost all the time, the definition of Beatty (2003) of CALL (computer-assisted language learning) that “any process in which a learner uses a computer and, as a result, improves his or her language” (p. 7) truly fits its nature. The field of CALL emerged in three various stages during its protracted history, Structural or Behavioristic CALL (1970s-1980), Communicative CALL (1980s-1990), and Integrative CALL (from late 20th up to 21st century).
As the first stage, behavioristic CALL was adopted as the part of the general field of computer-assisted instruction. As its name indicates, it was inspired by the behavioristic psychology clarifying repetitive language drills so called drill-and-practice (or drill-and-kill). The role of the computer was seen as a mechanical tutor that provided the opportunity to work at individuals’ own speed without getting tired. At that time a tutorial system called PLATO could mesmerize attentions with a central computer and terminals and featured extensive drills, grammatical explanations, and translation tests at various intervals (Ahmad, Corbett, Rogers, & Sussex, 1985).
The second stage, communicative CALL, came into existence at the time when behavioristic CALL was being rebuffed at both theoretical and empirical levels. It also synchronized the outbreak of PCs (personal computers) which proved to be more capable as far as individual work was concerned. Advocates of communicative CALL believed that computer-based activities should emphasize using forms in lieu of the forms themselves, teaching grammar implicitly rather than explicitly, encouraging and having learners produce authentic instead of prefabricated language, and using the language predominantly (Jones & Fortescue, 1987). Communicative CALL was pertinent to the cognitive theories maintaining learning as a process of discovery, expression, and development. Text reconstruction programs with the aim of discovering the patterns of language and meaning through unscrambling words and texts in the form of individual or group works as well as the simulation programs with simulated discussion and conversation allowing students to work in pairs or groups were on full swing. The dominant focus of most advocates of communicative CALL was the students’ interaction with each other while working with the computer.
Although the second stage of CALL seemed a greater success in comparison with the first, it was open to criticism. Critics slammed communicative CALL stating that computer is still being used in an ad hoc and disconnected fashion as a result; it “finds itself making a greater contribution to marginal rather than central elements” of language learning process (Kenning & Kenning, 1990, p. 90). It paved the path to adaptation of communicative language teaching theory in both theory and practice. Cognitive view of communicative language learning was leaving its place to a more socio-cognitive perspective that emphasized more language use in authentic social contexts. Approaches like task-based and content-based used to integrate learners into authentic language situations and also different language skills. As a result, the third stage of technology and language learning called Integrative CALL emerged. As stated before, this stage sought to integrate language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and also technology to language learning process. Simply put, students are exposed to technological assets as a constant process rather than isolated exercises every now and then.
فرم در حال بارگذاری ...