A study of language learning achievement differences between students using the traditional language laboratory and students using computer-assisted language learning courseware

Until recently the usage of computers has been limited to simple text-oriented drill and practice exercises. However, state of the art computers allow the integration of all of the technological developments of the past fifty years. The technology of today is limited only by the imagination of courseware developers and the financial considerations of educational institutions.;The purposes of the study were twofold: (1) Courseware development. This process included expertise from a variety of fields of study. The first purpose was to develop computer assisted language learning software. (2) Gather data. The second purpose of the study was to develop empirical evidence concerning the value of this courseware specifically and computer-assisted language instruction in general. This was done by using this courseware, administering student testing, and analyzing test results using quantitative methods.;Three sets of data were analyzed. They were data from the: (1) grammar measure; (2) vocabulary measure, and; (3) vocabulary measures within the computer group.;The first set of data found that at every ability level the mean score of the computer group was higher than that of the language lab group. Also the indication was that there was no interaction between type instruction and ability group.;For widespread usage of this technology to occur in foreign language instruction appropriate courseware must be developed. Secondly, and equally as important, the courseware must be subjected to testing in order to provide empirical evidence of its value.;The second set of data found that in every instance the mean score of the computer group was higher than that of the language lab group. The indication was that there was interaction between type instruction and ability group.;Finally, there was a comparison of the performances by the same individuals on two different vocabulary measures. The first tested items that had been taught by computer. The second tested vocabulary items that had not been taught by computer. The mean scores were significantly higher for computer taught items than for non-computer taught items. Again there was no indication of interaction between type instruction and ability group.