iPads and tables are taking over the classrooms in many school systems around the country (see links below). A lot of the media-hype stresses the idea of "paperless classrooms." This will obviously affect language learning due to classes demanding the use of technology over what would be called 'traditional' (paper-full) classrooms. View the links below to inform and guide your thoughts.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.html?_r=1
- http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/01/could_school_boards_move_to_ip.html#cmpid=v2mode_be_smoref_digg
This post will discuss both criticism and raves on CALL thru studies conducted by Ferit Kilickaya, and illicit possible ways to prevent these problem from cropping up in classrooms as they move to computer (tablet) environments.
In a paper by "The Effect of Computer-Assisted Language Learning on Learners' Achievement on The TOEFL Exam," Ferit Kilickaya, Ph.D studied two groups who were being taught the same material (English); one thru 'traditional' and the other thru CALL. This study extend from the start of the EFL course all the way up until they took the TOEFL exam -- again one group with paper, and the other using computers. She found the following after the exam: (this is not the order presented in her paper).
For the structure section of the TOEFL:
- No significant score differences for multiple choice sections tests.
For the reading section:
- Traditional (Control) outperformed CALL
- Possible Reasons:
- In class: students were distracted when reading due to it being on the screen. So they avoided reading, so this lowered the score. (this was mentioned in section 5.3.2, Implications for Teaching)
- Not possible to take notes, underline the important points.
- Not seeing a reading passages as a whole
- Bored with scrolling up and down
- Not being used to reading passages or text on the screen.
For the listening:
- CALL outperformed Control (traditional)
- Generally, students reported that in a traditional course, listening was ignored.
Overall the CALL group reported a generally good experience, stating that they "spen[t] more time on the sections they are having difficulty in" and enjoyed "getting immediate feedback." (Kilickaya 2005) (editing mine).
Since everyone knows what a 'traditional' class is, she did not include responses from her traditional students which would indicate how they felt about their experience in-order to contrast it with CALL. (They could not have contrasted with CALL as they potentially never took a CALL class.)
Question:
All of these criticism and critiques lead to the following questions: In light of the complaints regarding the reading portion, is it yet appropriate to be going to a completely "paperless" classroom? And what can be done to challenge the points made regarding the CALL group’s significant difference in score in the reading section?
Kilickaya, F. (2005). The Effect of Computer-Assisted Language Learning on Learners' Achievement on The TOEFL Exam.
