The Role of the Teacher in CAI in College EFL Writing Programs in Taiwan

Carmen Boulter

Chienkuo Technology University

 

Abstract

There is a common belief that the promotion of computer assisted instruction (CAI), e-learning, and multimedia in the classroom will render the teacher obsolete. While admittedly limited, research on the effectiveness electronic versus live teaching reveal that some favor face-to-face (F2F) teaching, others favor CAI, while a number of studies are reporting a ‘no-significant-difference’ phenomenon. Concurrently, there is a case for and against error correction in EFL writing classes. Two groups of EFL college students in Taiwan took the same interactive English writing class, one offered exclusively online and one taught F2F using interactive web-based instruction. To ensure students ‘noticed’ corrections, they were required to rewrite their essays incorporating teacher feedback and resubmit them. Implications for curriculum design are discussed.

 

 

While students may have individual preferences for self-paced learning or F2F instruction, it is hypothesized that interactivity with the instructor, whether online or face-to-face, that facilitates improvement in English writing. It is hypothesized that feedback is key to improvement in English writing for EFL students in Taiwan.  In this study, feedback is given in the form of error correction. Students in the study were divided into 4 groups: a control group, an essay only online group, an online program group, and an in-class instruction group. All students were given pretests and 14 weeks later, they were administered posttests. Students in the essay only online group and the online program group interacted exclusively online had no live contact with the instructor.  Students in the in-class instruction group were offered multimedia instruction in the classroom and received one-on-one F2F correction from the teacher. In both program groups, students were required to process the teacher’s corrections. By rewriting their own writing in a second draft incorporating the corrections, students brought the changes to consciousness and increased their awareness of proper syntax and grammar. It is hypothesized that the Online Program Group and the F2F Program Group will show similar levels of improvement and that practice and timely feedback are the keys to improvement in English writing.

 

The Case For and Against E-Learning

            While online learning clearly is not appropriate for all learners, it is carving out a legitimate place in education worldwide. Factors contributing to success or failure in CAI are complex. Studies directly comparing online learning and F2F instruction are admittedly limited.  The field of CAI lacks a comprehensive theoretical base. Access to e-learning programs for measurement is limited. Traditionalists favor classroom instruction. Misconceptions color perceptions of e-learning and CAI. Yet, as Flowers et al (2004) assert, “there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that classroom instruction is the optimum delivery method” (Flowers, Jordan, Algozzine, Spooner and Fisher, p. 57).

            While research in the 1980’s and 1990’s was affected by the lack of technological infrastructure in academic institutions, studies that compare online learning and traditional classroom instruction published in 2004 still reveal a wide range of findings (Junaidu and AlGhamdi 2004; Flowers, Jordan, Algozzine, Spooner and Fisher 2004; Dupin-Bryant 2004;  Muirhead 2004). Flowers et al (2004) point out that correspondence education is not new having made its debut in the late 19th century (p. 55). Nowadays, computers add a dimension to distance education, doing away with using postal services in favor of electronic communication.

It is the thesis of this paper that the various strategies for delivery of curriculum are not what make or break a program, but rather the level of interactivity between the instructor, the students, and the materials regardless of the modality. While using computers in instruction necessarily expose a myriad of new factors for consideration in assessing instruction, the fundamental principles of curriculum design lie at the core for student success. What computers do offer is multiple modalities for instruction which provide additional stimulation to students with various learning styles. They also offer the ultimate convenience allowing students to access instructional materials independent of time and place. For students in developing countries, rural communities, or with physical handicaps, online courses may provide the only means of education available.

Junaidu and AlGhamdi (2004) compared F2F teaching and online learning. While they found that the online students did better, they concluded that student performance was more a function of students’ ability that it was of the course modality (p.37). Traynor (2004) argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the impact of CAI on students with different learning styles. His thesis is that learner control results in a more positive attitude toward instruction and increased motivation. If a learner feels more competent and self-determining, learning generates more meaning and personal interest (p. 35). CAI allows students to access material at their own pace as well as offering auditory, visual, and kinesthetic cues appealing to the broad range of learning styles in any given group of students who cluster in a program.

Dupin-Bryant (2004) argues that well-designed distance education programs can help instructors shift from “teacher-centered” to more “learner-centered” teaching styles. Teacher-centered teaching is defined as formal, controlled, autocratic in which the instructor directs how, what, and when the students learn and is characteristic of traditional classroom settings. Alternatively, learner-centered learning is defined as responsive, collaborative, problem-centered, and democratic in which both the teacher and the student decide how, what, and when learning occurs and is facilitated by CAI and e-learning environments. For Dupin-Bryant (2004), keys to the effectiveness of this style were training in the use and application of technology, training in curriculum development and distance teaching methodology, consulting with technical support staff, and discussion with other distance education instructors (p. 5).

Thurmond and Wambach (2004) argue that interactivity is a key factors in learning. Learner-content, learner-learner, learner-teacher, as well as learner-interface are critical and the latter can only be achieved in CAI. Sufficient practice and timely feedback are crucial and they can be successfully achieved in both the classroom and in the context of online learning.

Muirhead (2004) outlined the learning needs of students highlighting communication and stated that online learning is not for all students. He argued that most students lack the self-monitoring skills required for online learning. Successful online learners exhibit good work ethics, the ability to think reflectively, and the ability to work collaboratively. Idea generation, intellectual convergence, and lateral thinking are values that contribute to success in online learning. On the other hand, seeking to provide the ‘right’ answer and viewing knowledge as a collection of information was not seen as contributing to the success of online learning (p. 65). Loosely stated, Western educational models tend to exemplify the former values, while Chinese models tend to value the latter. This may be the reason why oriental students are initially more reluctant to engage in e-learning and CAI. This is not insurmountable though it is a factor worthy of consideration when introducing online activities to students from a variety of cultural backgrounds.

An advantage of Distance Education is that students work on their own and in their own time. While it may be true that this is difficult for some students at first, it must be made clear that in an interactive program, the students are not isolated. Teacher feedback is direct and immediate even though it comes to them electronically. This learning context may initially be seen as lacking in essential human contact, but in the Information Age, most of us are becoming digitally oriented and we realize that online communication is, nonetheless, authentic contact. While traditional classrooms exemplify teacher-centered teaching, e-learning creates opportunities for learner-centered learning (Clark and Hermen 2001, p. 260).

 As Huang (2002) points out, “electronically mediated human communication provides high interactivity and immediate feedback for learners (p. 43).” This transcends time zones and world geography and has vast implications for the future of education. Despite initial resistance, all educators will eventually need to embrace this new instructional paradigm. Perhaps the term e-learning needs to evolve beyond the word “electronic.” Roffe (2002) suggests that more supportive descriptions of e-learning would do well to include “engagement, enhancement and execution” (p. 40).

It is clear that e-learning can provide a more flexible learning environment extending the range of influence of education and thus empowering the learner.  E-learning “is not meant to replace the classroom setting, but to enhance it, taking advantage of new content and delivery technologies to enable learning.” (Wild, Griggs, and Downing 2002, p. 374) Traditional classroom settings, particularly test-based educational methodologies, push students to be extrinsically motivated driven by marks. Intrinsic motivation, the pursuit of learning for its own sake, must be developed in all students. As Lumsden declares (1994), educational activities are engaged in for the enjoyment they provide, for the learning they permits, and for the feeling of accomplishment that they evoke.

 

The Case for and against Error Correction in L2 Writing Classes

Huang (2001) analyzed styles of feedback and discovered that teachers seldom provided positive feedback as to the strengths of compositions but, instead, tended toward criticism. Some teachers felt that positive feedback would thwart students’ effort. Huang (2001) concluded that teacher comments “had a profound effect on students’ attitudes and their response.” Colby (1986) emphasizes providing immediate feedback to students on their writing as a method of shifting students focus from “mechanical accuracy to the logical expansion of ideas.” According to Colby (1986), student motivation for writing is fostered when the material is highly individualized and students can follow their own interests. This shifts the focus from grammatical accuracy and allows for the development meaningful content.

Motivating students is the challenge of all educators. Learning theorists have emphasized that students need a reason for learning, a desire to attain the learning goal, a positive attitude toward learning, and perhaps most importantly, effortful behavior (Ngeow 1998). Truscott (1996, 1999) made a strong case against the value of error correction in student writing. He came to the shocking conclusion that “error correction had no place in writing courses and should be abandoned” (1996, p. 328). Truscott made strong statements arguing that not only was error correction ineffective, it was actually harmful to students causing stress and demotivating them. Furthermore, he asserted that it took too much student and teacher time with little benefit for the investment. Ferris (1999) offered a rebuttal emphasizing the importance of teacher feedback.  She stated that students can be trained to identify and correct patterns of errors. She criticized Truscott arguing that he overstated negative evidence against error correction while disregarding research results contrary to his thesis. Ferris pointed out that the subjects in Truscott’s studies were not comparable and that the teaching strategies and research paradigms varied widely across the studies.

Nevertheless, the debate for and against error correction continues. It is true that a sea of read marks from the teacher can be demoralizing to students. It is true that students often do not benefit from teacher corrections because they neither read the comments nor attend to the corrections systematically. While giving students written feedback on their writing can be labor-intensive for the instructor, it may prove to be a solid precursor to improvement in writing skills. This is a direct challenge to a commonly held belief that new trends towards online learning will make teachers obsolete. Quite the contrary, the program design of the Interactive English Writing Program, whether online or in the classroom, provides a strong role for the teacher which may be pivotal to the success of the program. Interactive feedback offering constructive criticism gives specific assistance to students in their quest to improve their writing skills. The individual attention can bolster student confidence and motivation.

It cannot be denied that correcting student writing is laborious and time-consuming. While it may be tempting to indulge Truscott and abandon error correction in writing programs, without a viable alternative, students are at the risk of being left without guidance. If the teacher does correct student writing, it must be done in a way that students benefit. The hypothesis of this study is that if students are required to rewrite a second draft of their essay incorporating the corrections that they will notice the changes and thereby benefit from the efforts of the teacher.

 

Methodology

            Forty-eight college students studying in the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at a college in Taiwan were given a pretest to measure free writing ability. Students were in the control group or one of 3 program groups. After 14 weeks, students were administered a posttest. The Control Group (CG) did nothing except attend regular classes. They were taught English writing but not by the instructor of the online program group or the classroom group.

Ten students were randomly selected to participate in Essay Only Online Group (EOOG). These students wrote essays, e-mailed them to the instructor, and received corrections within two days. They were required to rewrite the essays incorporating the corrections and resubmit them via e-mail. They received no instruction and had no access to the online program.

The Online Program Group (OPG) were given the pretest and then participated in the Interactive Online English Writing Program. A read-only version of the program is posted at http://cc.ctu.edu.tw/~writing. Six lessons targeted to error patterns in Taiwanese college EFL students provided instructional videos, written instruction, practice exercises with immediate online feedback, and interactive writing practice. Over 14 weeks, students were required to write a total of 1500–2000 words essays which were sent to the instructor via e-mail. These essays were corrected within 2 days and sent back to the student who was required to rewrite the essays incorporating their changes and resubmit them to the instructor via e-mail. Figure 1 shows a screenshot of the online program.

Figure 1. Screenshot of Online Writing Program

 

Students in the In Class Instruction Group (ICIG) were enrolled in English Writing classes in the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at a college in Taiwan. Over 14 weeks, students had the same cumulative requirement of 1500–2000 words and were expected to rewrite essays and resubmit them to the instructor. Students received one-on-one F2F error correction in class. Each in-class lesson was taught with the use of multimedia. The instructor gave an overview of the rules by briefly showing instructions projected on a screen with an LCD projector. Whenever possible, diagrams and icons were used for illustration in favor of lists of rules. These instructions were replicated on the website which was updated throughout the program. Focus on practice exercises was instigated and the class was shown sentences with blanks projected via LCD projector, then drop-down boxes offered possible answers. All exercises done in class were posted on the website with automatic answers available upon completion of each exercise. The students could thereby review and voluntarily practice at home if they were motivated to do so.

Results

            Words written and mistakes were counted for all groups in the pretest and the posttest. Percentages of written words per mistakes were tabulated. As can be observed in Table 1, 62% of students in the control group (CG) actually made a higher percentage of mistakes in the posttest. As can be seen in Table 2, 90% of students in the essay only online group (EOOG) who received online error correction and no instruction made fewer mistakes in the posttest. Table 3 shows that while 67% of students in the online program group (OPG) made fewer mistakes in the posttest, they wrote longer, more ambitious essays. Finally, Table 4 shows that all but 2 students in the in class instruction group (ICIG) reduced the percentage of errors that they made in the posttest.

            Ninety-seven percent of students in the 3 program groups wrote more words in the posttest. This would indicate that they are able to express themselves more. This is in contrast to students in the control group who either wrote fewer words or only slightly longer essays in the posttest. This would indicate little or no improvement in the control group.

 

 

 

CG

Pre # wds/x

Pre % x

Post # wds/x

Post % x

1

170/31

18.2%

126/16

12.6%

2

160/22

13%

193/27

*13.8%

3

110/17

15.5%

133/18

13.5%

4

110/15

13.6%

175/24

*13.7%

5

190/22

11.5%

97/14

*14.4%

6

90/16

17.8%

110/26

*23.6%

7

110/12

10.9%

142/11

7.7%

8

50/6

12%

68/8

11.8%

9

200/17

8.5%

88/15

*17%

10

110/15

13.6%

63/20

*31.7%

11

170/18

10.6%

146/23

*15.8%

12

110/14

12.7%

120/28

*23.3%

13

110/23

20.9%

80/12

15%

 

Table 1. Control Group Pretest and Posttest Scores

 

Figure 2. CG – Control Group % Mistakes Pre + Post

 

 

EOOG

Pre # wds/x

Pre % x

Post # wds/x

Post % x

1

97/12

12.4%

130/6

4.6%

2

154/25

16.2%

200/19

9.5%

3

200/25

12.5%

210/7

3.3%

4

110/12

11%

144/8

5.5%

5

50/6

12%

200/9

4.5%

6

190/8

4.2%

190/3

1.6%

7

100/8

8%

160/5

3.1%

8

180/26

14.4%

265/22

8.3%

9

170/11

6.5%

200/15

*7.5%

10

200/17

17%

296/20

6.8%

 

Table 2. EOOG - Essay Only Online Group Pretest and Posttest Scores

 

 

Figure 3. EOOG – Essay Only Online Group % Mistakes Pre + Post

 

 

OPG

Pre # wds/x

Pre % x

Post # wds/x

Post % x

1

200/29

14.5%

247/19

7.7%

2

90/11

12.2%

154/10

6.5%

3

160/15

9.4%

268/13

4.9%

4

170/10

5.8%

*233/14

*6%

5

136/12

8.8%

160/5

3.1%

6

140/17

12.1%

190/4

2.1%

7

180/10

5.5%

*238/15

*6.3%

8

130/13

13%

190/9

4.7%

9

130/9

6.9%

*232/23

*9.9%

10

150/17

11.3%

200/16

8%

11

240/26

10.8%

301/6

1.9%

12

190/25

13.1%

321/24

7.8%

 

Table 3. Online Program Group Pretest and Posttest Scores

 

Figure 4.OPG - Online Program Group % Mistakes Pre + Post

 

 

 

ICIG

Pre # wds/x

Pre % x

Post # wds/x

Post % x

1

107/12

11.2%

389/24

6.2%

2

108/21

19.4%

412/33

8%

3

91/23

25.2%

206/24

11.7%

4

60/17

28%

98/23

23.5%

5

71/13

18.3%

168/30

17.9%

6

66/9

13.6%

302/39

13%

7

73/33

45.2%

118/22

18.7%

8

121/19

15.7%

112/12

10.7%

9

111/15

13.5%

*361/63

*17.5%

10

120/17

14.1%

256/22

8.6%

11

117/14

12%

524/52

9.9%

12

92/17

18.5%

*283/67

*23.7%

13

80/15

18.8%

138/4

2.9%

 

Table 4. In Class Instruction Group

 

Figure 5. ICIG – In Class Instruction Group % Mistakes Pre + Post

 

Discussion

Analysis of the data shows that improvements in English writing were measurable for the period of study. Results of this study show that the hypothesis was correct. Improvements in English writing were clearly demonstrated when students received error correction, both online and in the classroom with and without instruction. It seems that writing practice and timely teacher feedback whether live or online contributed to improvement in student writing. It seems clear that writing practice and feedback done in conjunction with a formal online writing program with targeted lessons increases scores. As e-learning provides a dominant role in facilitating and enabling knowledge management, continued curriculum development for online courses offered for credit will be of ultimate benefit to future generations of students.

If instructors feel the time constraints of correcting essays is prohibitive, it is suggested that a supervised native English speaking teachers aide could do the correction of essays without affecting the outcome.

Generating a positive attitude toward learning and encouraging students to put forth the necessary effort to continually develop their writing skills is an essential step in long-term language acquisition. Strengthening students’ intrinsic motivation is paramount for successful learning. By receiving feedback that was directly oriented to the individual, students felt visible and this is thought to foster both motivation and learning. This skill set expands over time is an essential component to maintaining the impetus to practice writing. In this study, it appears that practice and feedback were key components in improving writing.


References

Clark, T. & Hermen, A. (2001). Corporate developments and strategic alliances in e-learning. Education and Training, 43(4), 256–267.

Colby, A. Y. (1986). Writing instruction in two-year college. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 272258, 1–4.

Dupin-Bryant. P. A. (2004). Variables related to interactive television teaching style: In search of learner-centered teaching styles. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1(4), 3–14.

Flowers, C. Jordan, L. Algozzine, R. Spooner, F., & Fisher, A. (2004). Evaluating distance education: Comparison of student ratings of instruction in distance education and traditional courses. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1(3), 55­–64.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8(1), 1–11.

Huang, H. (2002). Instructional technologies facilitating online courses. Educational Technology, July-August, 41–46.

Huang, Y. (2001). A review of composition teachers’ written feedback from learners’ perspective. Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, 456–465.

Junaidu, S., & AlGhamdi, J. (2004). Comparative analysis of face-to-face and online course offerings: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals experience. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1(4), 29–39.

Lumsden, L. S. (1992). Student motivation to learn. ERIC Digest 92, 1–5.

Muirhead, B. (2004). Research insights into interactivity. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1(3), 65–74.

Ngeow, K. Y. (1998). Motivation and transfer in language learning. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 4273318, 1-5.

Roffe, I. (2002). E-learning: Engagement, enhancement and execution. Quality Assurance in Education 10(1), 40–50.

Thurmond, V. & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and distance Learning 1(1), 9–25.

Traynor, P. L. (2003). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on different learners. Journal of Instructional Psychology 31, 33–45.

Truscott, J. (1996). Review Article: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46(2), 327–369.

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes:” A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(2), 111–122.

Wild, R. H., Griggs, K. A., & Downing, T. (2002). A framework for e-learning as a tool for knowledge management. Industrial Management & Data Systems 102(7), 371–380.