Senin, 16 Juni 2014

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF JOURNAL



A CRITICAL REVIEW OF JOURNAL

Title of Article            :  Is Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
efficient for grammar learning? An experimental study in
  French as a second language

Written by                   : Florence Chenu
                                      Frederique Gayraud
                                      Bruno Martinie
                                      Wu Tong
 (Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage, CNRS &
 Universite 2 Lyon

Published on               : The JALT CALL Journal, 2007, Vol. 3, No. 3 pp. 85-93
                                      Copyright JALT CALL SIG (ISSN 1832-4215)

Reviewed by               : Dadan Jauhara, S.Pd.

Introduction
            According to Hatch and Farhady (1982:1), research is a systematic approach to finding answers to questions. As every field of knowledge has problems to be scientifically identified, research becomes a very crucial thing to conduct. In conducting research, researchers have to begin their research by asking questions and by using a systematic approach in their investigation, and end with answers to the questions. In conducting research, all researchers need certain methodology which helps them to figure out and identify problem which later will come to the conclusion and suggestion.
            According to Sugiyono (2006: 1), research should conform to the characteristics of scientific knowledge; rational, empirical, and systematic. Rational means that the characteristic underlying a logical way of doing a research. Meanwhile, empirical demands a research to be observable in nature. Systematic deals with the research process with certain logical procedure.
            There are two main types of research, quantitative and qualitative research. The quantitative research is different from the qualitative one in the way of processing the data. Quantitative research construct statistical extrapolation in attempt to explain what is observed. In other words, it involves an analysis of numerical data by making use of certain formulas.
            In constructing research designs, Hatch and Farhady (1982: 19) propose four main classes of research design, they are: pre-experimental, experimental, quasi-experimental, and ex post facto designs. This critical review only focuses on experimental design which is used in the research.

Content of Article
As the title implies, this research focuses on the implementing of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) for grammar learning in French. This research aims to investigate whether CALL has an advantage on the learning of France relative clause by intermediate non-native learners. This research focuses either on the achievement of linguistics skills such as speaking, listening, writing and reading or on motivation. This nine pages article comprises four subheadings. They are Introduction, Method, Result, and Discussion.
An abstract is written directly after the title before the introduction. It covers burning issue of the efficiency of CALL, the objective of the research, research method, findings, conclusion and recommendation (researchers’ claim).
 The introduction covers background of the study supported by several theories. It can be inferred that the writers also includes literature review in the introduction section to support the topic, it is enriched by theoretical foundation, related to previous research findings. There is no subheading dealing with the literature review.  The study is set to investigate the efficient of CALL for grammar learning. They add several previous related studies to empower their research. A previous research, for instance, concerns with computer based vs teachers directed instruction on the acquisition of English as a second language. Of course, the findings correlate to the research topic that computer based instruction can be an effective method of teaching L2 grammar. Furthermore, they did not only mention the optimistic of CALL impact but also the pessimistic of CALL impact in language learning; for instance, the research which is conducted in China by Liou, Wang and Hung-Yeh (1992). According to the them this lack of significant difference can be accounted for by flaws in the experimental design; for instance the small number of subject, absence of random, assignment to control or treatment groups, small number of observation, no specification of the amount of time spent on the task. Other factors are likely affect the efficiency of the teaching method, thus above explanation mentioned contradictory findings. The present study aims at investigating whether CALL has an objective learning advantage on the acquisition of French relative clauses by non-native learners.
The research methodology comes next. It describes the participants and procedure. As written in the text, this research uses an experimental design. True experimental designs have three characteristic: 1) a control group, is present, 2) the Ss are randomly selected and assigned to the groups, and 3) a pre test is administered to capture the initial differences between groups (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 22).
This research involved twenty-six participants which is consist of  14 native speakers of Chinese, 4 of Japanese, 2 of Korean, 2 of Russian, 1 of Spanish (Columbia), 1 of Hindi, and 1 of Azeri were randomly distributed across a control and experimental group. Both groups attended French classes at Lyon 2 University.
The first procedures, both groups were given the pre-test for their mastery of French relative clause. The next phases, the control group attended a 3 hour traditional class, they were taught the syntax of French relative clauses. The teaching included both grammatical explanations and practical exercises. In parallel, the same content was taught to the experimental group in a 3 hour self training session during which used a CALL system specifically designed for purpose of the study. The system does not provide intelligent feedback after the participant in the experimental group typing the answer.
After describing the research methodology, the researcher presents the result of the study. For the pre-test, the difference between the two groups is not significant (t (24) = 0.346, n.s). Similarly, the scores do not significantly differ between the two groups for the pos-test (t (24) = 0.497, n.s). For the control group, the difference between pre and pos-test is significant (t(12) = 2.656 :=.02), as well as for the experimental group (t(12) = 2.970 ; p = 0.11). According to the table 1and 2 revealed that low-level participant tended to make more progress in the experimental condition. By contrast in the control group, high level participant gained more points than low level participants, even if the difference does not reach statistical significance. Having calculating the t-test for control and experimental groups, the researchers gave explanation about their finding on students’ attitude toward the implementation of CALL in learning relative clauses, which the data were gained from the questionnaire. Only control group filled the questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of three main questions. First question aimed at evaluating the participant involvement. Another set of questions aimed at assessing the perception of the level of difficulty of the lessons and exercise. The last of set questions concerned the preference regarding teaching methods.
In the section of discussion, the researchers take conclusion that CALL has proved to be slightly more beneficial than traditional instruction for the learning of relative clauses. From their study contrary to what could be expected from the literature, there is no correlation between positive attitude and successful outcomes was observed. Their study shows that efficiency research should take into consideration factors such as the level of proficiency of learners and the modality of presentation.

Critical Review
            To begin with, the writers wrote an abstract as a summary of the content of the article. It is in line with Keegan (2007) statements that abstract is a summary of the important points found in a research report. It should succinctly summarize the aim, background, design, sample, measures, results and statistical conclusion of the study. Abstract is written in the past tense, and avoid personal references.
The abstract in the study explains some important aspects of the research such as burning issue, the objectives of the study, participants (sample), research method and design, procedure of the research, data collection, analysis, and research findings (results). The abstract is written in past form, except for the general facts. It describes all about the research briefly and clearly without personal references. It is suitable with the definition of abstract set forth by Keegan.
In introduction part they proposed some previous research which has conducted by several researchers. The study has been back grounded by some finding about the implementation of CALL in language learning. They proposed both optimistic (positive impact) and less optimistic (negative impact) in implementing of CALL. They explained that the insignificance of difference in learning effectiveness between technology based and conventional delivery media. They taught that the lack of significant difference can be accounted for by flaws in the experimental design such as: small number of subject, absence of random assignment to control or treatment groups, small number of observation, no specification of the amount of time spent on the task. Other factors are caused by the efficiency of teaching method. They did not mention separately between the back ground and the review of the literature. In this case, the readers assume that the background of the study is embedded with review of the literature. This review is to some extent, adequate to support the topic and variables involved in the research.
The researchers tried to investigate whether CALL has an objective learning advantage on the acquisition of French relative clauses by intermediate non native learners, taking into consideration the level of proficiency of the learners, and the impact of the medium (spoken + written vs. written only). At the last part of the introduction, the researchers predict (hypothesis) that less proficient learners will improve more using CALL system resting on written presentation only.
The readers might not have an argument questioning why the researcher chose this topic. The writers try to put their ideas and theories ranging from the general to the specific ones. It eases the readers to catch the point of the study.
The hypothesis used was a positive, directional hypothesis (H1). They predict that less proficient learners will improve more using CALL system resting on written presentation only. It is specified because the data collected is a result of certain intervention by the researcher. Therefore, it used an experimental design. In other words, the researchers tried to analyze the impact of medium (spoken + written vs. written only) on the efficient for grammar learning. In specific, the use of directional hypothesis appears to find support for the hypothesis we must reject the null hypothesis (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 87).
As stated previously, the next subheading of this article is the research methodology. An experimental design was used to conduct the research. To check whether the use of the design is appropriate to the nature of the research, let’s take a look at the following characteristics experimental design:
  1. A control group is present
  2. The Ss are randomly selected and assigned to the groups
  3. A pretest administered to capture the initial differences between the groups.
These three characteristics allow us to avoid almost all the problems associated with internal and external validity. Here are the two most common experimental designs:
Post-test only control group
There are two groups – an experimental group receives special treatment while control group does not. In this design, initial differences between the groups are controlled by the random selection and random assignment of the Ss.
G1 (random) X T1
G2 (random)    T2
Pre-test post-test control group
This design is the same as the previous one except that a pre-test is administered before the treatment.
G1 (random) T1 X T2
G1 (random) T1    T2
G = group       
T = test           
X = experiment (treatment)    (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 22)
            In this research, there were a control group and experimental group. The control group attended a 3 hour traditional class, during which learner taught the syntax of French relative clause. The explanations were given both in the written and spoken modalities. In parallel, the same content was taught to the experimental groups in 3 hour self assessment training session. The participants used a CALL which is designed for the purpose of the study. The content was exactly the same as in the control condition, but was delivered in the written modality. In this respect, the first characteristic is achieved.
            As to the second characteristic, this research used random sampling to determine the participants. Twenty six participants ranging in age from 18 to 42 years old were randomly distributed across a control and experimental group. Both groups attended French classes at Lyon 2 University. There is no significant difference between the two groups because they had been studying French for 19 month in average. The independent variable, i.e. using of CALL in grammar learning, makes a distinction between the two groups of students. Unlike the independent variable in experimental studies, it is manipulated by doing the treatment using the CALL in learning grammar. It means the second characteristics are also achieved.
As to the third characteristic, the researchers conducted pre-test toward control and experimental groups. In a pre-test, both groups were tested for their mastery of French relative clauses. It is conducted to know the starting point of the research from the both groups. For the pre-test, the difference between the two groups is not significant. It means the third characteristics are also achieved.
            To get the data needed, a relative clause test was administered to both groups to asses their level of improvement. In addition, the experimental group had to fill out a questionnaire about their attitude towards their CALL experience. It is due to the aim of the study that it was set out to test the formulated hypothesis by comparing the scores of two groups which later were statistically calculated using t-test formula. In this case, the findings are also presented statistically.
Having calculated the test of proficiency by using t-test, the researchers explain the findings of students’ attitude toward implementation of CALL in the classroom. The experimental group was asked to fill the questionnaire assessing their attitude toward grammar learning by using CALL. In this case the researchers explain the research finding by using percentage. Having interpreted questionnaire data, the researchers analyzed the correlation between the index of satisfaction and the index of difficulty and the scores obtained at the post-test.
In the last part, the conclusions present what they had predicted before have been accepted after they conducted the research. It means that H1 positive directional hypothesis was accepted. Of course, it is non-numerical in nature. It is in harmony with Keegan’s statement (2007) clarifying that the conclusion section is a brief non-numerical statement on the findings. A pedagogical implication is also underlined to emphasis the significance of research findings. In addition, the researcher also sets forth his optimism that implementation of CALL proved to be slightly more beneficial than traditional instruction for the learning of French relative clauses. Other finding from this research explains that their study show that efficiency research should take into consideration factors such as the level of proficiency of learners and the modality of presentation.
            In the meanwhile, the researchers used the t-test formula to compare means of the two control and experimental groups. They used match t-test because they want to compare the two means obtained from two independent groups of subjects. It is in line with the characteristic of match t-test states by Hatch and Farhady (1982: 114-115) that the researchers may give their students a pre-test and post-test and hope to be able to compare the two means. When they have paired data, they will need to use t-test which is appropriate for sets of paired data.
After they conduct the pre-test, they divided the group into low level participants and high level participants. It is determined by the scores they got.
Having reading the journal comprehensively, the reader found some difficulties in interpreting the statistical calculation and determination of the participants (samples) from the population. For the first case, it is happened because the researchers did not calculate systematically and comprehensively. The reader does not know how the researchers gain that score. So the reader can not analyze the computation whether it is right or wrong. The researchers did not determine the level of significant value whether it is 0.05 or 0.01 and the reader does know the degree of freedom value (df), for instance at the table 1. Mean scores (and SD) in pre- and post-test for the control and experimental groups and table 2, Mean difference between pre and post test (and SD) in the control and experimental groups according to the level of proficiency. It is hard to be understood by the reader who does not really master in the statistical calculation and interpretation. In determining the participants the researchers used the random sampling, but unfortunately they did not mention what kind of random sampling they have used.
            Contrary, when the reader read the findings of students’ attitude in implementing of CALL, it is more clear and easy to be understood. The researchers explain the findings briefly and comprehensively using percentage, so the readers understand it easily.
            In writing mechanical, the researchers did not write the sub heading abstract, introduction, and conclusion. Although they did not write them explicitly the reader understands that those parts are abstract, introduction, and conclusion. In introduction part the researcher include the review of the literature, and in discussion part, it is include of discussion of the research, conclusion and suggestions.
            Overall, this article deserves our appreciation, regardless of the weaknesses of an experimental design (e.g. lack of randomization, and computation). It can encourage teachers’ and students enthusiasm in the practice of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in teaching grammar, especially for the EFL or ESL class.


           
References

Hatch, E. and Farhady, H.. (1982). Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. USA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Keegan, G. (2007). Glossary: Report Writing. <http://www.gerardkeegan.co.uk/resource/research7.htm>

Sugiyono. (2006). Metode Penelitian Administrasi. Bandung: Alfabeta








Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar