Cover not available
Article published In:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp.137–162

Effectiveness of a dynamic usage based computer assisted language program

| University of Sri Jayewardenepura
| University of Groningen
| University of Groningen
ORCID logo | University of Groningen
The current paper explores whether a Dynamic Usage Based (DUB) approach – which takes authentic meaningful language use with repetition and scaffolding for comprehension as its basis – can also be implemented in a CALL environment. The effectiveness of the DUB-CALL program was tested in a semester-long experiment, comparing it with a teacher-fronted DUB program (using the same materials as the CALL program) and a traditional CLT program; 228 university undergraduates in Sri Lanka participated. Language gains were assessed in a pre-post design with an objective General English Proficiency (GEP) test and a writing task. The results show that the students in the DUB-CALL condition performed significantly better on the GEP test than the students in the two teacher-fronted classes. The results of the writing tests show that all groups improved significantly, but here there were no differences among groups.
Keywords: computer assisted language learning, dynamic usage based approach, L2 instruction, effectiveness study
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Rationale for a dynamic usage based teaching approach
  • 3.Principles of a DUB teaching approach
    • Competing attentional resources and exposure first
    • Frequency of exposure through repetition
    • Associative learning through real life exemplars
    • Comprehension and noticing through teacher scaffolding
  • 4.Rationale for a DUB-CALL program
  • 5.The study
    • 5.1Subjects/participants
    • 5.2Teacher participants
    • 5.3Instructional materials
      • 5.3.1DUBc and DUBp
      • 5.3.2tCLT
    • 5.4Measures and procedures
  • 6.Analysis approach
    • 6.1Results
      • GEP scores
      • Writing scores
  • 7.Discussion and conclusion
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 11 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.16018.irs
References (41)
References
Abbs, B., Cook, V., & Underwood, M. (1980). Authentic English for Reading 1. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE transactions on automatic control, 19(6), 716–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allwright, R. (1979). Abdication and responsibility in language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 105–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alper, D., (Producer) & Muccino, G. (Director) (2002). The Pursuit of Happyness [motion picture]. United States: Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of memory and language, 59(4), 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bidlake, E. (2009). Learner Experience using self-instructed CALL: Methodological and learner insights. Novitas-Royal, 3(2), 93–109.Google Scholar
CourseLab [Software]. Moscow: WebSoft Ltd. Retrieved from [URL]
Dickson, S. V., Chard, D. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1993). An integrated reading/writing curriculum: A focus on scaffolding. LD Forum, 18(4), 12–16.Google Scholar
Dobrovolny, J. (2006). How adults learn from self-paced, technology-based corporate training: New focus for learners, new focus for designers. Distance education, 27(2), 155–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in second language acquisition, 24(02), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2013). Input interaction and the second language learner. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(02), 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrell, A. L., & Jordan, M. L. (2015). 50 strategies for teaching English language learners (5th ed.). Pearson.Google Scholar
Hong, N. T. P. (2013). A dynamic usage-based approach to second language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Kao, P., & Windeatt, S. (2014). Low-achieving language learners in self-directed multimedia environments: Transforming understanding. In J.-B. Son (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Learners, teachers and tools (pp. 1–19). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing (APACALL).Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lafford, B. A., Lafford, P. A., & Sykes, J. (2007). Entre dicho y hecho. An assessment of the application of research from second language acquisition and related fields to the creation of Spanish CALL materials for lexical acquisition. Calico Journal, 24(3), 497–529.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 11). Stanford: Stanford university press.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 318–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagasundaram, P. (1996). What’s wrong with the ELT program in our country? Navasilu, 141, 93–97.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennington, M. (1996). When input becomes intake: Tracing the sources of teachers’ attitude change. In D. Freeman, & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in Language Teaching (pp. 320–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pezdek, K., Lehrer, A., & Simon, S. (1984). The relationship between reading and cognitive processing of television and radio. Child Development, 55(6), 2072–2082. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from [URL]
Reinders, H., & Hubbard, P. (2013). CALL and learner autonomy: Affordances and constraints. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 359–375). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. T. (1986). The use of dialogues in teaching transactional competence in foreign languages. ELT Documents 124: The practice of communicative teaching. Oxford: The British Council/Pergamon.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. V., & Medley, F. W. (1988). Language with a purpose: Using authentic materials in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 21(5), 467–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. J. (2015). A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). How language works: A dynamic model of how language use, minds, and societies shape linguistic structure, variation, and change. Paper presented at the Thinking Doing Learning conference, April 21, Munich.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research, 11, 185–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soyemi, J., Ogunyinka, O. I., & Soyemi, O. B. (2011). Integrating self-paced e-learning with conventional classroom learning in Nigeria educational system. Proceedings of the 1st International Technology, Education and Environment Conference. Retrieved from [URL]
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (Eds.). (2010). Research for materials development in language learning. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Oxford: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. (2017). Complex dynamic systems theory and l2 pedagogy: Lessons to be learned. In L. Ortega, & Z. Han (Eds.). (under contract). Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., & Hong, N. T. P. (2013). A dynamic usage-based approach to Communicative Language Teaching. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 22–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Bulletin CILA (Commission interuniversitaire suisse de linguistique appliquée)(«Bulletin VALS-ASLA» depuis 1994), 241, 5–17.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Rousse-Malpat, Audrey, Rasmus Steinkrauss, Martijn Wieling & Marjolijn Verspoor
2022. Communicative language teaching: Structure-Based or Dynamic Usage-Based?. Journal of the European Second Language Association 6:1 ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
Rousse-Malpat, Audrey, Lise Koote, Rasmus Steinkrauss & Marjolijn Verspoor
2021. Parlez-vous francais?Effects of structure-based versus dynamic-usage-based approaches on oral proficiency. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110402 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.