Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T21:23:43.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2013

Maja Grgurović ,
Carol A. Chapelle  and
Mack C. Shelley
Maja Grgurović
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1710 University Hall, 601 S. Morgan St., Chicago, IL, 60607, USA (email: [email protected])
Carol A. Chapelle
Affiliation:
Department of English, Iowa State University, 339 Ross Hall, Ames, IA 50011, USA (email: [email protected])
Mack C. Shelley
Affiliation:
Departments of Statistics and Political Science, Iowa State University, 1413 Snedecor, 539 Ross Hall, Ames, IA 50011, USA (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the aim of summarizing years of research comparing pedagogies for second/foreign language teaching supported with computer technology and pedagogy not-supported by computer technology, a meta-analysis was conducted of empirical research investigating language outcomes. Thirty-seven studies yielding 52 effect sizes were included, following a search of literature from 1970 to 2006 and screening of studies based on stated criteria. The differences in research designs required subdivision of studies, but overall results favored the technology-supported pedagogy, with a small, but positive and statistically significant effect size. Second/foreign language instruction supported by computer technology was found to be at least as effective as instruction without technology, and in studies using rigorous research designs the CALL groups outperformed the non-CALL groups. The analyses of instructional conditions, characteristics of participants, and conditions of the research design did not provide reliable results because of the small number of effect sizes representing each group. The meta-analysis results provide an empirically-based response to the questions of whether or not technology-supported pedagogies enhance language learning, and the process of conducting the meta-analysis pointed to areas in research methodology that would benefit from attention in future research.

Keywords

research methodsmeta-analysissecondary researchresearch synthesissecond/foreign language learningcomputer-assisted language learning.
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 165 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, L. B. (2008) Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21: 199–226.Google Scholar
Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L. Youngs, B. E. (2000) Evaluating the integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17(2): 296–306.Google Scholar
Al-Jarf, R. S. (2002) Effect of online learning on struggling ESL college writers. National Educational Computing Conference, San Antonio, Texas: National Educational Computing Conference Proceedings, 23.Google Scholar
Aust, R., Kelley, M. J. Roby, W. (1993) The use of hyper-reference and conventional dictionaries. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(4): 63–73.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. A. (2004) L2 glossing: To CALL or not to CALL. Hispania, 87(3): 541–552.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2001) Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2003) English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2007) Challenges in evaluation of innovation: Observations from technology research. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1): 30–45.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E. Murday, K. (2006) Student learning in hybrid French and Spanish courses: An overview of language online. CALICO Journal, 24(1): 115–145.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. (1998) Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, M. J. (2003) Is SLA Interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1): 47–81.Google Scholar
Dunkel, P. (1991) The effectiveness research on computer-assisted instruction and computer-assisted language learning. In: Dunkel, P. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice. New York: Newbury House, 5–36.Google Scholar
Echavez-Solano, N. (2003) A comparison of student outcomes and attitudes in technology-enhanced vs. traditional second-semester Spanish language courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2005a) What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? ReCALL, 17(2): 269–288.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2005b) Analyzing Recent CALL Effectiveness Research – Towards a Common Agenda. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(1–2): 1–32.Google Scholar
Jeon, E. H. Kaya, T. (2006) Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In: Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins, 165–211.Google Scholar
Kulik, J. A. (2003) Effects of using instructional technology in colleges and universities: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington: SRI International.Google Scholar
Kulik, J. A. Kulik, C. L. C. (1987) Review of recent literature on computer-based instruction. Contemporary Education Review, 12: 222–230.Google Scholar
Kulik, J. A. Kulik, C. L. C. (1991) Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1–2): 75–94.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2): 309–365.Google Scholar
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L. Lee, S. (2002) A look at the research in computer-based technology use in second language learning: A review of literature from 1990–2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3): 250–273.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. Wilson, D. B. (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Nagata, N. (1996) Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14(1): 53–75.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and a quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50: 417–528.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. Ortega, L. (2006) Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Odenthal, J. M. (1992) The effect of a computer-based writing program on the attitudes and performance of students acquiring English as a Second Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, San Diego State University, Claremont, California.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L. Plonsky, L. (2010) Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30: 85–110.Google Scholar
Payne, J. S. Whitney, P. J. (2002) Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1): 7–32.Google Scholar
Pederson, K. M. (1987) Research on CALL. In: Smith, W. F. (ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 99–132.Google Scholar
Rawdon, T., Sharp, R. L., Shelley, M. Thomas, J. R. (2012) Meta-analysis of the placebo effect in nutritional supplement studies of muscular performance. Kinesiology Review, 1(2): 137–148.Google Scholar
Shelley, M., Rawdon, T., Sharp, R., Thomas, J., Schalinske, K. (2007) Meta-analysis in the human sciences: Are placebo effects real? In: American Statistical Association, 2006 proceedings of the American Statistical Association, section on survey research methods [CD-ROM]. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. M. (2006) The effects of CALL versus traditional L1 glosses on L2 reading comprehension. CALICO Journal, 23: 309–318.Google Scholar
Tozcy, A. Coady, J. (2004) Successful learning of frequent vocabulary through CALL also benefits reading comprehension and speed. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(5): 473–495.Google Scholar
Troia, G. A. (2004) Migrant students with limited English proficiency: Can Fast ForWord Language make a difference in their language skills and academic achievement? Remedial and Special Education, 25(6): 353–366.Google Scholar
US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (2009) Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC. www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (2003) Recent developments in technology and language learning: a literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1): 7–27.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Grgurović et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Tables and Appendices

Download Grgurović et al. supplementary material(File)
File 153.2 KB