Learning Performance Enhancement Using Computer-Assisted Language Learning by Collaborative Learning Groups
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Collaborative Learning
2.2. Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. TOEIC Listening, Reading, Speaking, and Writing Tests
3.2.2. In-Depth Student Interviews with Individuals and Groups
3.3. Experimental Design
3.4. The Three Steps Used to Arrange Learning Clusters for the Innovative Collaborative Learning Groups
- m = 1 for listening proficiency, 2 for speaking proficiency, 3 for reading proficiency, and 4 for writing proficiency.
- : the lth student in the mth normalization score in listening, speaking, reading, and writing scores.
- : the lth student in the mth initial score in listening, speaking, reading, and writing scores.
- : the maximal scores in the mth initial score in listening, speaking, reading, and writing scores.
3.5. Procedure
3.6. Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) Tools
3.6.1. Moodle (Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment)
3.6.2. Pearson Longman’s MyTopNotchLab Website
3.7. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Quantitative Results
4.2. Qualitative Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rendon, L. Realizing a transformed pedagogical dreamfield: Recasting agreements for teaching and learning. Spirit. High. Educ. 2005, 2, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, A. An action research of exploring the effect of story summarizing on English writing. Hsiuping J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2009, 13, 173–192. [Google Scholar]
- Michael, J. Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2006, 30, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moravec, M.; Williams, A.; Aguilar-Roca, N.; O’Dowd, D.K. Learn before lecture: A strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2010, 9, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chaplin, S. Assessment of the impact of case studies on student learning gains in an introductory biology course. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2009, 20, 72–79. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, C.; Gu, M. Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2011, 24, 317–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. J. Educ. Res. 2009, 38, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popov, V.; Noroozi, O.; Barrett, J.; Biemans, H.; Teasley, S.; Slof, B.; Mulder, M. Perceptions and experiences of, and outcomes for, university students in culturally diversified dyads in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 32, 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schunk, D.H. Learning Theories; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Steendam, E.; Rijlaarsdam, G.; Sercu, L.; Bergh, H. The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learn. Instr. 2010, 20, 316–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chenga, H.; Linb, N.C. Exploring students’ perceptions of self-access English learning. Proced. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 2676–2680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aminloo, M.S. The effect of collaborative writing on EFL learners writing ability at elementary level. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2013, 4, 801–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaith, G.M. Learners’ perceptions of their STAD cooperative experience. System 2001, 29, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaith, G.M. The relationship between cooperative learning, perception of social support, and academic achievement. System 2002, 30, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davoudi, A.H.M.; Mahinpo, B. Kagan cooperative learning Model: The Bridge to Foreign Language Learning in the Third Millennium. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2012, 12, 1134–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alijanian, E. The effect of student teams achievement division technique on English achievement of Iranian EFL learners. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2012, 2, 1971–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, T.; Chen, C.; Wu, Y.; Jong, B.; Hsia, Y.; Lin, T. Applying the genetic encoded conceptual graph to grouping learning. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 4103–4118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.H.; Li, Y.C.; Liao, H.C. Using a genetic algorithm to determine optimal complementary learning clusters for ESL in Taiwan. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 14832–14837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arikan, A.; Khezerlou, E. Prospective English language teachers’ views on computer and paper-based instruction materials in developing language components. Proced. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 2006–4009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levy, H. Computer-Assisted Language Learning; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Gamper, J.; Knapp, J. A review of intelligent CALL systems. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2002, 15, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Chen, Y. Technology-enhanced language learning: A case Study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2007, 23, 860–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, Y.; Sung, Y.; Chang, K. Let us read together: Development and evaluation of a computer-assisted reciprocal early English reading system. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 1188–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kessler, G.; Bikowski, D. Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2010, 23, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.F. Engaging students in an online situated language learning environment. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2011, 24, 182–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Monasour, N.S.; Al-Shorman, R.A. The effect of computer-assisted instruction on Saudi University students’ learning of English. J. King Saud Univ. Lang. Transl. 2012, 24, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blankenship, J.R. The use of computers in the composition—An aid or a hindrance to the learning process. Diss. Abstr. Int. 1999, 34, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, P.L.; Chen, C.J.; Chang, Y.J. Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzban, A. Improvement of reading comprehension through computer-assisted language learning in Iranian intermediate EFL students. Proced. Comput. Sci. 2011, 3, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barani, G. The relationship between computer assisted language learning (CALL) and listening skill of Iranian EFL learners. Proced. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 15, 4059–4063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, A.; Areal, N.; Silva, J. Students’ perceptions of Blackboard and Moodle in a Portuguese university. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2011, 42, 824–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Raman, A.; Don, Y. Preservice teachers’ acceptance of learning management software: An application of the UTAUT2 model. Int. Educ. Stud. 2013, 6, 1913–9039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Educational Testing Service. TOEIC Examinee Handbook; Educational Testing Service: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Woodford, P.E. An Introduction to TOEIC: The Initial Validity Study; Educational Testing Service: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Gilfert, S. A Review of TOEIC. Internet TESL 1996, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Stoynoff, S.J. Recent developments in language assessment and the case of four large-scale tests of ESOL ability. Lang. Teach. 2009, 42, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Educational Testing Service. TOEIC Examine Handbook Listening & Reading; Educational Testing Service: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- English Testing Service. TOEIC Examine Handbook Speaking & Writing; Educational Testing Service: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, L.; Manion, L. Research Method in Education; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.H. Moodle. Available online: 140.128.137.41/moodle (accessed on 12 February 2013).
- Saslow, J. Pearson Longman’s MyTopNotchLab. Available online: www.mytopnotchlab.com (accessed on 15 February 2013).
- Graham, S.; Perin, D. Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools—A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York; Alliance for Excellent Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Budianto, A. The Correlation Between Listening and Speaking Ability of the Fifth Semester Students of English Education Department of Muria Kudus University in the Academic Year 2010/2011. Bachelor’s Thesis, UPT Perpustakaan UMK, Kudus Jawa Tengah, Indonesia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Saslow, J.; Ascher, A. Top Notch 2; Pearson Longman: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Tseng, Y.C.; Liou, H.C. The effects of online conjunction materials on college EFL students’ writing. System 2006, 34, 270–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, T.J.F.; Chen, S.Y.; Macredie, R.D. The relationship between Web enjoyment and student perceptions and learning using a Web-based tutorial. Learn. Media Technol. 2005, 30, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.Y. iLED: Interactive learning experience design. J. Online Learn. Teach. 2007, 4, 358–370. [Google Scholar]
- Jalilifar, A. The effect of cooperative learning techniques on college students’ reading comprehension. System 2010, 38, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaith, G.M.; Yaghi, H.M. Effect of cooperative learning on the acquisition of second language rules and mechanics. System 1998, 26, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Test | Group | Wilk’s Λ = 0.886 F(12, 328.365) = 1.28, p-Value = 0.229 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | F(3, 127) (p-Value) | |||
Listening | TCLG | 225.42 | (45.09) | 1.59 (0.195) |
ICLG | 227.03 | (50.93) | ||
CALLTCLG | 237.44 | (56.82) | ||
CALLICLG | 249.68 | (52.51) | ||
Reading | TCLG | 189.59 | (52.33) | 2.02 (0.115) |
ICLG | 168.90 | (52.55) | ||
CALLTCLG | 199.84 | (49.97) | ||
CALLICLG | 185.18 | (48.62) | ||
Speaking | TCLG | 43.53 | (19.18) | 0.65 (0.582) |
ICLG | 47.84 | (18.04) | ||
CALLTCLG | 48.66 | (18.87) | ||
CALLICLG | 49.65 | (21.21) | ||
Writing | TCLG | 34.18 | (17.65) | 0.82 (0.485) |
ICLG | 37.55 | (12.36) | ||
CALLTCLG | 37.75 | (9.70) | ||
CALLICLG | 39.27 | (13.97) |
Learning Technology Factor | Not Using CALL | Using CALL | |
---|---|---|---|
Collaborative Learning Factor | |||
Traditional Collaborative Learning Group | Control Group/TCLG | Experimental Group 2/CALLTCLG | |
Innovative collaborative Learning Group | Experimental Group 1/ICLG | Experimental Group 3/CALLICLG |
Test | Group | Mean (SD) | Collaborative Learning Factor | Learning Technology Factor | Interaction | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wilk’s Λ | ||||||
F(4, 124) | ||||||
(p-value) | ||||||
0.77 | 0.62 | 0.95 | ||||
9.042 | 18.762 | 1.60 | ||||
(<0.000 **) | (<0.000 **) | (0.179) | ||||
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects | ||||||
F(1, 127) | ||||||
(p-Value) | ||||||
Listening | TCLG | 240.41 | (35.82) | 7.99 (0.005 **) | 10.03 (0.002 **) | 3.27 (0.073) |
ICLG | 271.84 | (48.59) | ||||
CALLTCLG | 274.84 | (38.09) | ||||
CALLICLG | 281.18 | (35.71) | ||||
Reading | TCLG | 202.26 | (50.59) | 4.25 (0.041 *) | 4.19 (0.043 *) | 0.41 (0.522) |
ICLG | 214.90 | (56.11) | ||||
CALLTCLG | 215.63 | (44.71) | ||||
CALLICLG | 240.44 | (63.20) | ||||
Speaking | TCLG | 74.53 | (14.36) | 6.62 (0.011 *) | 18.49 (0.000 **) | 0.52 (0.474) |
ICLG | 78.81 | (15.20) | ||||
CALLTCLG | 83.66 | (15.59) | ||||
CALLICLG | 91.59 | (13.03) | ||||
Writing | TCLG | 58.35 | (18.94) | 18.72 (0.000 **) | 44.41 (0.000 **) | 2.61 (0.109) |
ICLG | 76.94 | (15.23) | ||||
CALLTCLG | 85.31 | (18.84) | ||||
CALLICLG | 93.35 | (20.86) |
Test | Group | Mean | (SD) | p-Value | Cohen’s d (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Listening | Non-CALL | 255.40 | (44.93) | 0.002 ** | 0.55 (0.19, 0.89) |
CALL | 278.11 | (36.74) | |||
Reading | Non-CALL | 208.29 | (53.25) | 0.042 * | 0.37 (0.01, 0.70) |
CALL | 228.41 | (56.01) | |||
Speaking | Non-CALL | 76.57 | (14.81) | <0.000 ** | 0.76 (0.38, 1.09) |
CALL | 87.74 | (14.77) | |||
Writing | Non-CALL | 67.22 | (19.53) | <0.000 ** | 1.12 (0.73, 1.46) |
CALL | 89.46 | (20.16) |
Test | Group | Mean (SD) | p-Value | Cohen’s d (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Listening | Traditional | 257.11 | (40.54) | 0.007 ** | 0.47 (0.12, 0.81) |
Innovative | 276.72 | (42.26) | |||
Reading | Traditional | 208.74 | (47.93) | 0.048 * | 0.36 (0.00, 0.69) |
Innovative | 228.26 | (60.83) | |||
Speaking | Traditional | 78.96 | (15.55) | 0.018 * | 0.42 (0.07, 0.76) |
Innovative | 85.49 | (15.40) | |||
Writing | Traditional | 71.42 | (23.15) | <0.000 ** | 0.65 (0.28, 0.99) |
Innovative | 85.52 | (20.03) |
Source | SS | df | MS | F | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Between-subjects | 282,401.39 | 130 | |||
Learning technology | 26,545.26 | 1 | 26,545.26 | 13.81 | <0.000 ** |
Collaborative learning | 10,841.08 | 1 | 10,841.08 | 5.64 | 0.019 * |
Learning technology * Collaborative learning | 856.47 | 1 | 856.47 | 0.45 | 0.506 |
Within-groups | 244,158.58 | 127 | 1922.51 | ||
Within-subjects | 366,230.51 | 131 | |||
Test | 66,274.39 | 1 | 66,274.39 | 28.82 | <0.000 ** |
Learning technology * test | 433.99 | 1 | 433.99 | 0.19 | 0.665 |
Collaborative learning * test | 2277.73 | 1 | 2277.73 | 0.99 | 0.322 |
Learning technology * collaborative learning * test | 5212.87 | 1 | 5212.87 | 2.27 | 0.135 |
Subject * test | 292,031.53 | 127 | 2299.46 |
Source | SS | df | MS | F | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Between-subjects | 356,040.89 | 130 | |||
Learning technology | 17,488.89 | 1 | 17,488.89 | 6.59 | 0.011 * |
Collaborative learning | 20.74 | 1 | 20.74 | 0.01 | 0.930 |
Learning technology * Collaborative learning | 1353.71 | 1 | 1353.71 | 0.51 | 0.477 |
Within-groups | 337,177.55 | 127 | 2654.94 | ||
Within-subjects | 455,557.49 | 131 | |||
Test | 68,649.16 | 1 | 68,649.16 | 23.94 | <0.000 ** |
Learning technology * test | 933.85 | 1 | 933.85 | 0.33 | 0.569 |
Collaborative learning * test | 21,697.63 | 1 | 21,697.63 | 7.57 | 0.007 ** |
Learning technology * collaborative learning * test | 155.09 | 1 | 155.09 | 0.05 | 0.816 |
Subject * test | 364,121.76 | 127 | 2867.10 |
Source | SS | df | MS | F | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Between-subjects | 47,192.87 | 130 | |||
Learning technology | 3564.91 | 1 | 3564.91 | 10.68 | 0.001 ** |
Collaborative learning | 1253.51 | 1 | 1253.51 | 3.76 | 0.055 |
Learning technology * Collaborative learning | 0.46 | 1 | 0.46 | 0.00 | 0.970 |
Within-groups | 42,373.99 | 127 | 333.65 | ||
Within-subjects | 112,990.01 | 131 | |||
Test | 79,364.89 | 1 | 79,364.89 | 312.20 | <0.000 ** |
Learning technology * test | 943.56 | 1 | 943.56 | 3.71 | 0.056 |
Collaborative learning * test | 198.37 | 1 | 198.37 | 0.78 | 0.379 |
Learning technology * collaborative learning * test | 198.76 | 1 | 198.76 | 0.78 | 0.378 |
Subject * test | 32,284.43 | 127 | 254.21 |
Source | SS | df | MS | F | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Between-subjects | 50,105.88 | 130 | |||
Learning technology | 10,221.38 | 1 | 10,221.38 | 36.85 | <0.000 ** |
Collaborative learning | 4032.05 | 1 | 4032.05 | 14.54 | <0.000 ** |
Learning technology * Collaborative learning | 628.39 | 1 | 628.39 | 2.27 | 0.135 |
Within-groups | 35,224.06 | 127 | 277.35 | ||
Within-subjects | 153,071.00 | 131 | |||
Test | 111,462.66 | 1 | 111,462.66 | 426.90 | <0.000 ** |
Learning technology * test | 6222.06 | 1 | 6222.06 | 23.83 | <0.000 ** |
Collaborative learning * test | 1918.54 | 1 | 1918.54 | 7,35 | 0.008 ** |
Learning technology * collaborative learning X test | 308.29 | 1 | 308.29 | 1.18 | 0.279 |
Subject * test | 33,159.45 | 127 | 261.10 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, Y.-h.; Liao, H.-C. Learning Performance Enhancement Using Computer-Assisted Language Learning by Collaborative Learning Groups. Symmetry 2017, 9, 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9080141
Wang Y-h, Liao H-C. Learning Performance Enhancement Using Computer-Assisted Language Learning by Collaborative Learning Groups. Symmetry. 2017; 9(8):141. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9080141
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Ya-huei, and Hung-Chang Liao. 2017. "Learning Performance Enhancement Using Computer-Assisted Language Learning by Collaborative Learning Groups" Symmetry 9, no. 8: 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9080141
APA StyleWang, Y.-h., & Liao, H.-C. (2017). Learning Performance Enhancement Using Computer-Assisted Language Learning by Collaborative Learning Groups. Symmetry, 9(8), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9080141