Told Like It Is! An Evaluation of an Integrated Oral Development Pilot Project David Barr, Jonathan Leakey, and Alexandre Ranchoux (2005) Presented by A-Fabulous!

Background  CALL (computer-assisted language learning)  Most CALL-based learning has focused on non-oral activities  “Technology and oral language development have been rare bedfellows and for one obvious reason: The technology for oral development has posed the greatest challenge to both hardware and software developers” (p. 2).  TOLD (Technology and Oral Language Development) Project  At the University of Ulster  Focused on communication with technology

Research Questions  Does computer technology significantly help students in oral language development?  What factors may affect this?  What are staff and student reactions for using technology for oral language development?

Their Hypothesis  “A CALL environment makes NO difference to learning gains in oral language development” (p. 4).

Their Methods  One hour per week over a semester  Four conversation groups of 5-11 students  Two groups are the treatment group  Used Tell Me More hardware  Taught in a multimedia classroom  Two groups are the comparison group  Taught in a traditional way  Data was collected through:  Questionnaires, surveys, journals and pre- and posttests

Findings  Both groups made progress in oral communication  The Non-Tech group made more progress  Pre-Tests were lower though, and they have the same post-test score…  They reject their hypothesis, however “because the comparison group also made significant progress the improvements cannot be attributed to technology” (p. 12).

Findings that were surprising or not…  Most results favored the comparison group :O  Fluency and content improved more in the comparison group :\  Meaningful communication  The treatment group did not improve more in grammar :O  Both groups improved in personal questions, pronunciation, and accent :\

Students’ Thoughts on the Use of Technology  One thought that the headphones were difficult to use BUT another thought that they were helpful  Only one student mentioned problems with technology affecting learning  Some students found the technology to be motivating  7 out of 15 students described the group discussion and the debates as the best part of class

Tutors’ Thoughts on the Use of Technology  It did not always fit the goals of the class  It created a barrier  They had more reservations about the use of technology

Conclusions  Cannot say definitively that technology hindered performance  Need a larger sample (and not always an inexperienced one)  Need a longer term study  This study does not account for the lost instruction time on explaining how to use the technology  Need a new hypothesis  The CALL environment improves certain aspects of oral language development  The CALL environment hinders certain aspects of oral language development

Appendix C: Benefits of each model  Monitoring  Pronunciation  Responding spontaneously in a conversation  Responding to visual or aural input  Taking an active part in a group discussion  Giving a presentation

Autumn’s thoughts…  Initially disappointed by the article…  Thought it was going to be about chatting and how writing skills do transfer to speaking skills  While the non-tech group improved more, it started at a lower level…  What about a ‘both’ group?  What about incorporating more meaningful online communication (they do suggest this for future studies)  Underestimates the motivational factor