Is CALL an effective way to learn listening and speaking?

1. Is CALL an effective way to learn listening and speaking? —A Case Study of CALL Model and Traditional Learning Model on English Listening and Speaking Languages School of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (北京邮电大学 语言学院) Liu Aijun（刘爱军） Liuaijun@bupt.edu.cn

2. I. CALL Stages and Constructivism Theory • CALL has developed gradually over the last 30 years and can be categorized in three phases: 1) Behavioristic CALL 2) Communicative CALL 3) Integrative CALL Part One

3. Constructivism  Briefly, constructivism's focus is on less teacher talk and more student talk.  The very nature of Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) allows for constructivist approaches. Communication is learner-centered and teacher talk is minimized. Part One

4. II. The Former Application of Constructivism Theory in Language Teaching and Learning Since constructivism attaches great im-portance to the student-centered communi-cations and interaction, it has somewhat been proved to be effective in listening and speaking in language learning, especially in second language learning. Part Two

5. Research Questions:  In a College English Learning situation, students in slow class with CALL model would attain a higher proficiency in listening and speaking than those with traditional learning model, for students in CALL environment may arrange their own learning plans freely and focus on their weaknesses accordingly. Part Two

6. Research Questions: In a College English Learning situation, students in fast class with CALL model would attain a higher proficiency in listening and speaking than those with traditional learning model. Part Two

7. III. The Research Design • Method • Instruments and Procedures • Results • 1) Results of slow classes Part Three

8. Group t-value Significance Experimental Group (N=30) vs Control Group (N=30) 3.013 .000 Table 1 t-test of CET-1 listening scores for experimental group & control group of slow classes Part Three

9. Group t-value Significance Experimental Group (N=30) vs Control Group (N=30) 2.966 .000 Table 2 t-test of CET-1 Speaking scores for experimental group & control group of slow classes Part Three

10. Test t-value Significance Pretest vs Posttest -3.288 .000 Test t-value Significance Pretest vs Posttest -10.115 .000 Table 3 t-test of listening scores of pretest and posttest for experimental group Table 4 t-test of speaking scores of pretest and posttest for experimental group Part Three

11. Group t-value Significance Experimental Group (N=20) vs Control Group (N=20) 3.243 .000 2) Results of fast classes Table 5 t-test of CET-1 listening scores for experimental group & control group of fast classes Part Three

12. Group t-value Significance Experimental Group (N=20) vs Control Group (N=20) 2.778 .000 Table 6 t-test of CET-1 Speaking scores for experimental group & control group of fast classes Part Three

13. Test t-value Significance Pretest vs Posttest -1.342 .191 Test t-value Significance Pretest vs Posttest -2.598 .000 Table 7 t-test of listening scores of pretest and posttest for experimental group Table 8 t-test of speaking scores of pretest and posttest for experimental group Part Three

14. IV. Conclusion  Statistical analysis revealed that students in slow class with CALL model were significantly better in listening and speaking than those with traditional learning model. Part Four

15. IV. Conclusion  The analysis also showed that students in fast class with CALL model were significantly better in listening and speaking than those with traditional learning model. Part Four

16. IV. Conclusion  It has been found that students in slow class performed significantly better in posttest (listening and speaking) than in pretest. Part Four

17. IV. Conclusion  However, although students in fast class also performed significantly better in posttest of speaking than in pretest, they showed no better in posttest of listening than in pretest. Part Four

18. IV. Conclusion From these findings, we may further confirm that CALL is an effective way to study English, especially listening and speaking. And it is indeed a more effective way to the average students or those below average. Part Four

19. IV. Conclusion For some top students, since they have already reached a relatively high level in listening or speaking, it is somewhat difficult for them to go for even a higher stage. So teachers should find new ways to stimulate these top students to make greater progress in English study. Part Four

20. IV. Conclusion From these findings, we may further confirm that CALL is an effective way to study English, especially listening and speaking. And it is indeed a more effective way to the average students or those below average. Further study is to be done as to whether CALL is also helpful to reading and writing in a wider range. Part Four

21. Thank You !