|
left
|
|
|
|
Teaching
Articles Home |
Volume
9
Teachers' Articles
January 2006
Article 2
Title:
The Effect of L1 and CAI on Grammar Learning:
An Error Analysis of Taiwanese Beginning
EFL Learners' English Essays.
Author:
Associate
Professor Li-Ling Chen
Bio:
Li-Ling Chen is
Associate Professor at Chung Hwa College
of Medical Technology, Tainan, Taiwan.
Her recent research focuses on errors
made by Taiwanese beginning EFL learners
as well as the effect of CAI on language
learning.
|
|
|
|
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine whether
the CAI (computer assisted instruction) tutorial
program had an impact on the EFL (English as
a Foreign Language) grammar skills of the beginning
EFL language learners. A quasi-experimental
research design was conducted at a private college
located in southern Taiwan. A post-writing assessment
was administered for both the control group
and the experimental group after the treatment.
One hundred written essays were analyzed through
error analysis and data were computed through
a one-way ANOVA on overall error rates. The
major finding on overall error rates demonstrates
that there was no statistical difference between
the control group and the experimental group.
Although the supplemental CAI program in this
study did not produce a statistically significant
effect on reducing beginning EFL learners' overall
written error rates, evidence provided by the
written samples suggest that L1 played a role
in the process of beginning EFL learners' writing
in English. Understanding linguistic differences
between students' L1 and English may help the
learners reduce interference from their first
language.
Key
Words: L1, CAI, error analysis, EFL writing,
beginning EFL grammar learning
Introduction
Writing is a complex process even in the first
language. It is even more complicated to write
in a foreign language. Many studies indicate
that beginning EFL students tend to be interfered
by their first language in the process of
writing in English (Benson, 2002; Cedar, 2004;
Chen & Huang, 2003; Collins, 2002; Jarvis,
2000; Jiang, 1995; Lado, 1957; Liu, 1998;
Mori, 1998; Yu, 1996). A better understanding
of the L1 influence in the process of EFL
writing will help teachers know students'
difficulties in learning English. It will
also aid in the adoption of appropriate teaching
strategies to help beginning EFL students
learn English.
In addition to an awareness of the L1 influence,
the use of technology is another issue that
has been widely discussed in language instruction.
A number of research studies confirm the advantages
of integrating technology into language instruction
(Cheng, 2003; Gonzalez-Bueno & Perez,
2000; Jan, 2000, 2002; Lin, 2003; Liou &
Yeh, 2000; Shih & Cifuentes, 2003; Sotillo,
2000; Sun, 2000; Wei, 2002). This paper reports
the results of a study examining whether grammar
instruction with the addition of CAI as an
instructional support tool can help beginning
level Taiwanese EFL students reduce their
written grammar error rates. It also discusses
how L1-related errors occurred in students'
written essays.
Literature Review
The Role of L1 in EFL Writing
To investigate the relationship between students'
L1 and EFL writing, Chan (2004) examined English
writing samples from 710 Hong Kong ESL college
students. The findings reveal that, in all
of the five error types investigated, most
errors were closely related to the subjects'
L1. The data from interviews with the students
also confirm that EFL students first called
upon their L1 before producing their English
writings. The use of the language transfer
was even more obvious among the learners of
a lower English proficiency level.
Along the same lines, Liu, Sung, and Chien
(1998) also concluded that the less English
proficiency learners possess, the more L1
interference was found in their English writings.
In the study of Liu, et al, the authors applied
a think-aloud method to detect how Taiwanese
EFL students generated notes in the process
of writing in English. The findings reveal
that beginning EFL learners relied on their
L1 to retrieve words more than advanced EFL
learners.
Errors in Taiwanese EFL Learners' Writings
To understand what errors Taiwanese EFL students
tend to make, investigations have been done
over the years. Analyzing the errors made
by Taiwanese EFL college students, Chen (1998)
reported that most Taiwanese students have
difficulties in the use of English tenses
due to the absence of verb conjugation in
Mandarin. Since Mandarin is not an inflected
language, Fang (1999) highlighted the teaching
of English verb tenses to prevent Taiwanese
EFL students from misusing English tenses
due to the linguistic difference.
Another grammatical error that is frequently
found in Taiwanese EFL students' compositions
is the misuse of English articles. Chen (2000)
considered that English articles could be
one of the most difficult grammatical parts
for Taiwanese EFL students as there is not
an equivalent syntactical device to the English
article system. Master (1988) further indicated
that beginning level EFL learners tend to
be more interfered by such a linguistic difference
between Mandarin and English.
Likewise, Hsin (2003) scrutinized the run-on
sentences in Taiwanese EFL students' writings
and identified the possible causes using contrastive
analysis between English and Mandarin. The
researcher observed that English is a subject-prominent
language, in which a subject in a sentence
is always required. In contrast to subject-oriented
structures, Mandarin tends to be a topic-comment
language. Such a linguistic difference between
Mandarin and English creates learning difficulties
for Taiwanese EFL learners and results in
errors in their EFL writings.
Similarly, Li and Thompson (1981) agreed that
the concept of subject in Mandarin is less
significant than the concept of topic. To
help Taiwanese EFL students avoid making such
errors, Hsin (2003) suggested that language
teachers emphasize the necessity of subjects
in English sentences even if the sentence
subjects are clear to speakers and listeners.
Likewise, Jiang (1995) analyzed Taiwanese
EFL learners' errors in English prepositions
and found that a great number of errors derive
from language transfer. The researcher stated
that compared to English speakers, Mandarin
speakers use fewer prepositions for more concepts,
therefore increasing difficulties in learning
English prepositions.
In addition, some researchers employed error
analysis to examine the error types in Taiwanese
EFL students' English writings (Horney, 1998;
Kao, 1999; Lin, 2002; Tseng, 1980; Ying, 1987).
Horney (1998) investigated compositions written
by 80 Taiwanese EFL students. The results
revealed that errors in the use of articles
had the highest error percentage (11%). Both
errors in the use of prepositions and errors
in the use of verbs had the same error rate
9% and were considered the second highest.
By contrasting Mandarin and English, the researcher
confirmed that L1 related errors were the
largest portion of the total errors.
Lin (2002) examined 26 essays from Taiwanese
EFL students at the college level. The results
of this study indicated that the four highest
error frequencies were sentence structures
(30.43 %), wrong verb forms (21.01%), sentence
fragments (15.94%), and wrong use of words
(15.94%), respectively.
Also, to discover learning deficiencies in
writing English, Kao (1999) scrutinized 169
compositions from 53 Taiwanese college students
who were English major students. Twenty-two
of them came from Soochow University and 31
were from Fu Hsing Kang College. A total of
928 errors were found, among which grammatical
errors occurred with the greatest frequency,
66%, Semantic errors occurred 18% of the time,
and Lexical errors occurred with the least
frequency, 16%.
Ying (1987) examined 120 Taiwanese EFL learners'
compositions and sorted errors on the basis
of three criterions: overgeneralization, simplification,
and language transfer. A total of 1,250 errors
were detected in the 120 compositions, among
which 78.9% of the errors were a result of
language transfer, 13.6% were overgeneralization
of the target language, and 7.5% were forms
of simplification.
Computer Technology in EFL Education
The advent of technology has found a welcome
home in foreign language education. Language
instruction that combines technology has become
popular and has had a tremendous impact on
language education. Numerous EFL research
studies (Blake, 2000; Cheng, 2003; Cheng &
Liou, 2000; Egbert, 2002; Higgins, 1993; Kramsch
& Andersen, 1999; LeLoup & Ponterio,
2003; Skinner & Austin, 1999; Strambi
& Bouvet, 2003; Willetts; 1992; Williams
& Williams, 2000) suggest that integration
of technology can improve academic performance,
enhance motivation, and promote learning.
To examine how technology supports teaching
and learning, Chatel (2002) conducted interviews
and observations with eight classroom teachers
and four ESL teachers. One of the participants
in the interview indicated that she chose
appropriate software and websites, which enabled
ESL learners to learn and apply English. Lasagabaster
and Sierra (2003) conducted a similar research
study to examine the attitude of 59 undergraduate
students toward Computer-Assisted Language
Learning (CALL) software programs. The findings
revealed that the students had a positive
attitude toward learning language with computers.
Also, results from some research studies suggest
the value of incorporating technology into
EFL instruction (Carey & Gregory, 2002;
Cheng, 2003; Godwin-Jones, 2002; Gonzalez-Bueno
& Perez, 2000; LeLoup & Ponterio,
2003). Liu, Moore, Graham, and Lee (2002)
investigated the literature relating to how
computer-based technology had been used in
language instruction during the past decade
(1990 - 2002) and found a shift in research
focus. Current research, unlike that conducted
in the early 1990s when the value of technology
was still questioned, is now centered on how
to integrate technology into language instruction
to make teaching and learning more effective.
Methodology
This study was undertaken, through error analysis,
to investigate the errors college level Taiwanese
beginning EFL students made in their EFL writings.
The researcher developed a multimedia project
of grammar instruction with contrastive analysis
between Mandarin (L1) and English to help
the students learn English grammar. The multimedia
program employed in this study was a tutorial
developed using the HyperStudio computer program.
It was the purpose of this study to examine
whether this tutorial, with special attention
to the EFL learners' L1, has an impact on
the EFL grammar skills of the beginning EFL
language learners.
Research Questions
Is
there a significant difference in students'
written English error rates, as measured by
a post-writing assessment, between those Taiwanese
beginning EFL students who receive CAI instruction
to support traditional instruction and those
who receive traditional instruction alone?
The
researcher established the following null
hypothesis, to examine the research question:
There is no statistically significant difference
in error rates between students who receive
CAI instruction as an instructional support
to traditional instruction and those who receive
traditional instruction alone (significance
level: = .05)
Research
Design
This study, a quasi-experimental posttest
only research design, involved a control group
and an experimental group, with 50 Taiwanese
EFL learners in each group who had in-house
TOEFL scores less than or equal to 430. The
criterion of a TOEFL score of 430 is not a
standard to distinguish beginning English
learners but rather a way used in this study
to identify beginning EFL students. Since
all subjects in the two groups shared similar
English proficiency levels, as defined as
beginning English learners with TOEFL scores
less then or equal to 430, the two groups
were considered homogeneous.
Both groups were administered a post-writing
assessment after the treatment. The post-writing
assessment involved a writing assignment of
narrative essays. An error analysis of the
written essays was on the basis of a predetermined
set of error categories.
Participants
The target school for this study was a private
medical technology college located in southern
Taiwan. Although the participants in this
study were not in the same department, all
the subjects have the same cultural and language
background, with Mandarin as their first language.
All of them had received formal English education
at school for about six years. The similar
English proficiency that the subjects possess
makes the two groups as equivalent as possible.
Of the students who participated, 29% were
male and 71% were female.
The study focuses on the EFL students with
in-house TOEFL scores less than or equal to
430 instead of the entire population of EFL
learners because the researcher wished to
examine whether learners with lower English
proficiencies tend to be more interfered by
L1 than advanced learners as the literature
suggests (Chan, 2004; Chen, 1991; Collins,
2002; Liu, et al., 1998; Maxifield, 2002;
Wang & Wen, 2002; Yao, 1991). Since more
advanced EFL learners may make errors with
little or without relation to L1, they were
not included in the study.
Contrastive Analysis
The results in Horney's (1998) study indicated
that some errors made by Taiwanese students
are caused by the interference from the learners'
L1. Chuo (2001) agreed that the use of L1
requires language teachers to explain abstract
and complicated grammar structures. To help
beginning EFL learners better understand English
grammar, contrastive analysis that compares
the Mandarin and English languages was used
in this study to facilitate grammatical explanation
as well as to clarify the linguistic differences
between Mandarin and English. The steps for
contrastive analysis involve selection and
comparability (Sridhar, 1975). Instead of
overall comparison between Mandarin and English,
the researcher contrasted these two languages
on the core elements of speech, including
verbs, nouns, articles, etc. The following
are some examples of contrastive explanation.
Articles
Singular count nouns in English always follow
one of the articles "a, an, the",
while non-count nouns require the "zero"
article or a definite article "the".
While articles in English are strictly required,
there is flexibility in Mandarin. Nouns do
not follow articles but are sometimes marked
through measure words that are particular
words to identify units of nouns. Although
nouns do not always appear together with measure
words, each noun has its own specific measure
word. "Ben" in the sentence of example
one, for instance, is a measure word used
specifically for books. "I have a book,"
in Mandarin can be written either using a
measure word or not, unlike its English counterpart.
Even with a plural noun, unlike "s",
"es," or "ies" that needs
to be added to the end of the noun in English,
the noun in Mandarin remains unchanged.
| Example
1 |
English |
I |
have |
|
a |
book |
|
Mandarin
1 |
wo |
you |
|
|
shu |
|
Mandarin
2 |
wo |
you |
yi
(one) |
ben
(measure word) |
shu |
| Example
2 |
English |
I |
have |
|
|
books |
|
Mandarin |
wo |
you |
|
|
shu |
Tenses
Mandarin is not an inflected language (Fang,
1999). Verbs in Mandarin remain unchanged
regardless of the tenses and aspects. Therefore,
the use of tenses and aspects in English is
challenging for Taiwanese EFL students.
| Example
3 |
I |
|
|
visited |
my |
friend |
yesterday |
|
wo |
zuo
tian |
|
bai
fang |
wo
de |
peng
you |
|
|
|
(yesterday) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Example
4 |
I |
|
will |
visit |
my |
friend |
tomorrow |
|
wo |
ming
tian |
|
bai
fang |
wo
de |
peng
you |
|
|
|
(tomorrow) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Example
5 |
I |
have |
had |
|
lunch |
|
|
|
wo |
|
chi |
|
wu
tsan |
le |
|
| Example
6 |
I |
have |
been |
|
to |
Japan |
|
|
wo |
|
dao |
guo |
|
ji-ben |
|
In
examples 3 and 4, instead of conjugating verbs,
time words, such as "zuo tian" (yesterday)
and "ming tian" (tomorrow), are
used in Mandarin to indicate the past or the
future. Examples 5 and 6 illustrate the differences
between Mandarin and English in the present
perfect. The particle "le" is used
in Mandarin to express the completion of actions,
whereas "guo" is an experiential
marker (Liu, 1994). While verb conjugation
is not required in Mandarin, the particle
"le" enables listeners to realize
the action (having lunch) has been completed.
Likewise, the experiential marker "guo"
makes listeners understand the speaker's experience
(been to Japan).
Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA)
English verb conjugation reflects in subject-verb
agreement as well, while Mandarin verbs remain
unchanged regardless of person. In the examples
7 and 8 where "want" changes to
"wants" in English, the Mandarin
'xiang yao' remains the same.
| Example
7 |
I |
want |
to |
see |
a |
movie |
|
wo |
xiang
yao |
|
kan |
|
dian
yang |
| Example
8 |
He |
wants |
to |
see |
a |
movie |
|
ta |
xiang
yao |
|
kan |
|
dian
yang |
Verbs
Verb construction is another area where Mandarin
and English differ. In many cases, English
needs infinitives to separate two or more
verbs, while a series of verbs is acceptable
in Mandarin.
| Example
9 |
I |
want |
to |
see |
a |
movie |
|
wo |
xiang
yao |
|
kan |
|
dian
ying |
Error
Analysis
Participants were administered a post-writing
assessment that involved a narrative essay
writing assignment. An error analysis of the
subjects' written essays was employed to examine
student performance. Two raters analyzed the
writing samples, using an expert validated
scoring guide. The procedure of the error
analysis that the researcher followed is in
accordance with the following four steps (Huang,
2002):
1.
Data collection
2. Identification of errors
3. Classification of errors into error types
4. A statement of error frequency
Narrative
essays were the data collected in the post-writing
assessment. Errors in these narrative essays
were identified and classified into different
error categories by two raters who were English
grammar experts. Each was a native speaker
of English. The researcher used their completed
score sheets to calculate error rates by SPSS
for data analysis. According to Huang (2002),
absolute frequencies refer to the actual occurrence
of errors, "usually expressed by natural
numbers such as Verb errors: 838" (p.
30). The error rates in this study were obtained
from dividing the absolute numbers of errors
by the total words a certain group of participants
had written.
A total of 15 error categories were used in
this study (see Appendix), among which nine
were based on Horney's (1998) study, and six
were derived from the researcher's pilot study.
To augment inter-rater reliability, an expert
validated guide for error analysis as well
as a scoring sheet were created by the researcher
to provide with detailed error types and English
grammatical rules for the raters to follow.
Error Analysis Training
Two raters were used to establish inter-rater
reliability for the study. Each rater analyzed
the collected essays from the post-writing
assessment. Both raters received training
from the researcher, following an expert validated
guide for error analysis, and corrected 30
writing samples that served as a pilot study.
The 30 writing samples were from a writing
assignment of another English class at the
same institution. Since the error analysis
used in this study focused especially on grammatical
errors regardless of writing skills, such
as idea expression, organization, and cohesion,
the essay scoring involved error frequency
counts for grammatical errors only.
Delivery of Instruction
Instructional methods in this study involved
traditional classroom instruction, referring
to lectures without computer aids, and instruction
with an aid of the computer tutorial. The
multimedia project used in this study was
created with Knowledge Adventure's HyperStudio
4.0 and was developed by the five steps of
the ADDIE model: analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation. The treatment
was administered via a computer tutorial module.
The duration of treatment in this study was
four weeks, four hours a week, with a total
of 16 hours of instruction for both groups.
The students in the control group were taught
in a traditional classroom, while those in
the experimental group were instructed in
a computer lab, with one computer per student.
The content covers parts of speech: nouns,
articles, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs,
prepositions, coordination, and subordination.
In addition to grammar explanation, exercises
were provided as well. Exercises in the control
group were done by papers and pencils, whereas
exercises in the experimental group were practiced
via the computer tutorial with immediate feedback
on students' answers.
Data Collection
Both groups were administered a post-writing
assessment after the treatment. Data in the
form of narrative essays were collected in
the post-writing assessment. In order to ensure
that all writing samples collected from the
subjects were non-revised first drafts, the
subjects were required to write in class during
one 100-minute period. Since typing speed
may vary from student to student, this may
have an impact on the amount of time to write.
To eliminate writing anxiety as a factor in
the study, hand-written drafts were required
for both groups. All the writing samples were
encoded with numbers instead of student names
to maintain confidentiality of the participants.
The following writing prompt was presented
to both groups.
Write
a short essay with the topic "The Most
Memorable Thing in My Life" within a
period of 100 minutes. Minimum page requirement
is one page. Think about an event that is
most memorable or unforgettable for you. Write
a story about what happened. Be sure to narrate
an event and include specific details in your
response.
A narrative essay may include three main parts:
introduction, body, and conclusion. Provide
background information that helps your readers
understand the thesis; develop more examples
and details in the body paragraph; end with
personal opinions or the influence the event
has had on you.
Results
Inter-Rater Reliability
The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
was used to establish the inter-rater reliability
through computing the correlation between
Rater 1 and Rater 2. The computed Pearson
correlation coefficient r for overall errors
was .877. Correlation is significant at the
0.01 level, two-tailed. The result r = .877
(n = 100), p = .000 indicates that there was
a significantly positive and strong relationship
between errors identified by Rater 1 and Rater
2. The Pearson correlation coefficients for
individual error categories are listed in
Table 1.
Table 1.
Inter-Rater Reliability Coefficients for Individual
Error Categories (Correlation Is Significant
at the 0.01 Level, Two-Tailed)
| Error
Categories |
Pearson
Correlation Coefficient (r) |
Sig.
(p value) |
| Verbs |
.806 |
.000 |
| Subject
Omission |
.805 |
.000 |
| Syntax |
.733 |
.000 |
| Punctuation |
.685 |
.000 |
| Pronouns |
.631 |
.000 |
| Articles |
.586 |
.000 |
| Capitalization |
.568 |
.000 |
| Adjectives |
.538 |
.000 |
| Adverbs |
.488 |
.000 |
| Lexicon |
.486 |
.000 |
| Spelling |
.467 |
.000 |
| Sentence
Fragment |
.438 |
.000 |
| Nouns |
.428 |
.000 |
| Conjunctions |
.421 |
.000 |
| Prepositions |
.394 |
.000 |
The
obtained Pearson correlation coefficients
r for all the above 15 error categories were
larger than zero with p values that equaled
.000, which suggests a significantly positive
relationship between Rater 1 and Rater 2,
although the extent varied within different
error categories. Although the values of coefficient
r varied somewhat in individual error categories,
the coefficient for overall errors was convincing.
Descriptive Statistics for Post-Writing Assessment
The writing essays obtained from the post-writing
assessment were created by the 100 participants,
with 50 essays from the control group and
50 essays from the experimental group. Data
collected totaled 14,302 words, of which 6,600
words were from the control group and 7,702
words came from the experimental group. Total
errors found were 3,345, and 3,332 by Raters
1 and 2, respectively. Errors identified by
both of the two raters were considered significantly
and positively related. To avoid error counts
would appear digital numbers, the researcher
did not use the average of error counts identified
by the two raters, but selected one of the
raters instead. Since total errors found by
the two raters were quite similar and their
rating was considered significantly and positively
related. Choosing either Rater 1 or Rater
2 could be acceptable. Data analysis in this
study was based on the errors identified by
Rater 2.
While 1,518 errors were found in the control
group, 1,814 errors were detected in the experimental
group. Of these errors, errors in the use
of verbs (5.05%), errors in punctuation (3.56%),
errors in lexicon (3.10%), errors in syntax
(2.36%), errors in capitalization (2.32%),
errors in subject omission (1.80%), errors
in prepositions (1.03%), and errors in articles
(0.99%) were the eight most frequent error
types (see Table 2).
Table 2
Total Errors Found in This Study
|
Error
Category
|
Number
of Reported Errors
|
Error
Rate (%)
|
| Verbs |
722
|
5.05
|
| Punctuation |
509
|
3.56
|
| Lexicon |
444
|
3.10
|
| Syntax |
338
|
2.36
|
| Capitalization |
332
|
2.32
|
| Subject
Omission |
257
|
1.80
|
| Prepositions |
147
|
1.03
|
| Articles |
141
|
0.99
|
| Spelling |
103
|
0.72
|
| Pronouns |
92
|
0.64
|
| Nouns |
70
|
0.49
|
| Conjunctions |
65
|
0.45
|
| Sentence
Fragments |
59
|
0.41
|
| Adjectives |
40
|
0.28
|
| Adverbs |
13
|
0.09
|
Total
words written by both groups equaled 14,302.
Total errors equaled 3,332.
Table 3 lists error frequencies found in the
control group. It is noted that the five error
categories where the greatest number of errors
occurred were slightly different from those
showed in Table 2. While the first three most
frequent errors in Table 3 were the same as
those in Table 2, the control group had errors
in capitalization as the fourth highest errors
and syntax as the fifth highest errors.
Table 3
Error Frequencies and Error Rates for the
Control Group
|
Error
Category
|
Error
Frequency
|
Error
Rate (%)
|
| Verbs |
303
|
4.59
|
| Punctuation |
246
|
3.73
|
| Lexicon |
166
|
2.52
|
| Capitalization |
150
|
2.27
|
| Syntax |
135
|
2.05
|
| Prepositions |
100
|
1.52
|
| Subject
Omission |
83
|
1.26
|
| Articles |
78
|
1.18
|
| Spelling |
57
|
0.86
|
| Nouns |
50
|
0.76
|
| Pronouns |
49
|
0.74
|
| Conjunctions |
36
|
0.55
|
| Sentence
Fragments |
32
|
0.48
|
| Adjectives |
27
|
0.41
|
| Adverbs |
6
|
0.09
|
Total
words written by the control group equaled
6,600. Total errors equaled 1,518.
Table 4 presents error occurrences for the
experimental group. Like the control group,
the experimental group had the same five most
frequent error types as showed in Table 2
but with a slight difference in the error
order. While the experimental had the second
highest errors in lexicon and third highest
errors in punctuation, Table 2 illustrates
that the second highest errors were punctuation
and the third highest errors were lexicon
for the control group.
Table 4
Error Frequencies and Error Rates for the
Experimental Group
|
Error
Category
|
Error
Frequency
|
Error
Rate (%)
|
| Verbs |
419
|
5.44
|
| Lexicon |
278
|
3.61
|
| Punctuation |
263
|
3.41
|
| Syntax |
203
|
2.64
|
| Capitalization |
182
|
2.36
|
| Subject
Omission |
174
|
2.26
|
| Articles |
63
|
0.82
|
| Prepositions |
47
|
0.61
|
| Spelling |
46
|
0.60
|
| Pronouns |
43
|
0.56
|
| Conjunctions |
29
|
0.38
|
| Sentence
Fragments |
27
|
0.35
|
| Nouns |
20
|
0.26
|
| Adjectives |
13
|
0.17
|
| Adverbs |
7
|
0.09
|
Total
words written by the control group equaled
7,702. Total errors equaled 1,814.
The results in Table 5 display a p
value of 0.393 which is higher than 0.05.
Therefore, the research is unable to reject
the null hypothesis. In other words, the results
in Table 5 (F(1, 98) = 0.736, p = .393)
indicate that the use of CAI instruction as
an instructional support to traditional teaching
in this study did not produce a significant
difference in the overall error rates between
the control group and the experimental group.
That is, the students who received CAI instruction
to support traditional instruction did not
have significantly lower error rates than
those who received traditional instruction
alone.
Table 5
One-Way ANOVA for Overall Error Rates
|
Sum
of Squares
|
df
|
Mean
Square
|
F
|
Sig
|
| Between
Groups |
.005
|
1
|
.005
|
.736
|
.393
|
| Within
Groups |
.722
|
98
|
.007
|
|
|
| Total |
.727
|
99
|
|
|
|
Significance
level at = .05
Conclusions
The result F(1, 98) = 0.736, p = .393 derived
from the one-way ANOVA (see Table 5) indicates
that there was no significant difference in
overall error rates between students who received
CAI instruction as a supplement to traditional
instruction and those who received traditional
instruction, sans computer. While this result
contradicts some research that supports computer-assisted
instruction (Cheng, 2003; Gonzalez-Bueno &
Perez, 2000; Jan, 2000, 2002; Lin, 2003; Liou
& Yeh, 2000; Liu, et al. 2002; Murray,
2000; Shih & Cifuentes, 2003; Sotillo,
2000; Sun, 2000; Wei, 2002), it was consistent
with Liou, Wang, and Hung-Yeh's (1992) study
in which the authors implemented a multimedia
project to motivate students and correct recurrent
grammatical weaknesses to enhance writing
instruction. The results in the study of Liou
et al. showed that instruction plus computers
did not positively impact achievement any
more than traditional instruction. Such a
non-significant phenomenon was also supported
in other studies, in which the effectiveness
of CAI was not found significantly better
than traditional instruction (Chirstmann,
Badgett, & Lucking, 1997; Fletcher-Flinn
& Gravatt, 1995; Lowe, 2001; Shute &
Gawlick-Grendel, 1996; Spotts, 1992; Yaakub,
1998).
While the finding of this study was in harmony
with some studies that indicated the effects
of computer-assisted instruction are overestimated
(Iheanacho, 1997; Liou, et al., 1992; Patron,
Miller, Chisamore, & Lee, 1999; Wood,
2001), Joy and Garcia (2000) contended that
many non-significant difference findings resulted
from uncontrolled variables as perfect controls
over all the factors that may impact a study's
results were sometimes difficult in educational
settings. Uncontrolled variables, such as
the group size, learning styles, and learner
familiarity with technology, could also have
happened during this study.
Other Findings
Other findings worthy of discussion are the
most frequent error types the subjects made.
While overall error rates helped the researcher
understand the students' overall performance,
specifying the frequent errors the participants
made clarified what the students' learning
difficulties were (Chen, 1999). The eight
categories where the greatest number of errors
occurred in this study were: Verbs, Punctuation,
Lexicon, Syntax, Capitalization, Subject Omission,
Prepositions, and Articles (see Figure 1).
The subjects' writings in this study may have
been related to the language structures of
the subjects' first language, Mandarin. For
example, several English writing samples were
found with direct translation from Mandarin
sentences, as all the Mandarin sentences were
followed by Mandarin-structured English sentences.
This finding is in line with some research
that confirmed the interference from L1 in
the process of EFL writing (Chan, 2004; Collins,
2002; Liou, et al, 1992; Liu, et al, 1998;
Wang & Wen, 2002; Yao, 1991; Ying, 1987).
The following paragraphs discuss how and why
the errors were formed.
Figure
1. Error distribution in order for this study
The highest error rates in this study occurred
within the error category of verbs, with 722
errors, an error rate of 5.05% (see Figure
1 and Table 2). This finding may explain that
the use of English verbs was a major learning
difficulty for all the subjects. Some errors
in tenses and subject-verb agreement were
found because the students forgot to conjugate
verbs. The following are examples:
She
say
.(Paper 3)
The doctor say
.(Paper 12)
One day
I meet a cute dog (Paper 9).
I'm six years old at that time (Paper 13).
This
finding echoes Chen's (1998) assertion that
most Taiwanese EFL students have difficulties
in the use of English verbs due to the absence
of verb conjugation in Mandarin.
Punctuation
is the second highest error category in this
study, with a total of 509 errors or an error
rate of 3.56%. The misuse of commas was prevalent
in this study. Unlike sentences in English
ending in periods, commas in Mandarin can
be used to separate long sentences and are
the most frequently used punctuation. The
following are illustrative of this point:
Last
summer, I went to swimming, remember I just
no swimming, because, I aunt teach my swimming,
just begin (Paper 1).
father and mother belt me go to a restaurants
the night, we drop food very much, for instance
.,
the end, waiter to take a cake to appear,
I'm surprised very much, my mood is happy
very much
(Paper 97).
While
high error incidences in Punctuation were
noticed in this study, this finding is contradictory
to Ying's (1987) study. Ying specified various
types of errors commonly made by Taiwanese
EFL learners, yet errors in Punctuation were
not included. An explanation for this could
be that errors in Punctuation were not considered,
in Ying's study, as grammatical errors as
other primary grammatical errors that typically
refer to the parts of speech, such as verbs,
nouns, articles, etc. Nevertheless, there
is no denial that many run-on sentences could
result from the misuse of commas.
Lexicon or word choice is the third highest
error category in this study, with 444 errors
or an error rate of 3.1%. Correct word choice
is based on a better understanding of the
target language and culture. However, due
to the difference in cultures and lexicon
between Mandarin and English, some words used
in the participants' papers were non-native-like
or misused. The inappropriate use of synonyms
was a factor that caused errors in Lexicon.
For example:
The
summer trip is my most memorable thing
.I
often
.feel happy and warm
and fragrant (Paper 11).
Every body ate very full (Paper 12).
I don't watch the car in that time (Paper
13).
The
incorrect word choice could be due to the
lack of consideration of the context in which
a word is used. The more learners understand
the lexicon, the more appropriately they use
vocabulary. This result is consistent with
Lin's (2002) study, in which Lin examined
26 essays from Taiwanese EFL college students
and concluded that the wrong use of words
was one of the four most frequent error types.
Syntactical errors, the fourth highest error
occurrence in the participants' papers of
this study (338 errors or an error rate of
2.36%), were primarily based on the inappropriate
transfer of L1 syntax or word order. The following
are examples:
I
didn't hard learn
(Paper 46)
the entire strip pants all are the soil
(Paper 60)
previous time discussed finally us to
decide rode the train
(Paper 27).
I with my father, mother, sister, grandfather,
grandmother, cousin go to Japan
(Paper 10).
This
finding coincided with the conclusion of Lin's
(2002) study that Taiwanese EFL college students
tend to replace English vocabulary with Mandarin,
thereby making errors in word order. The finding
was also consistent with Yao's (1991) and
Andre and Su's (1996) studies in which the
authors claimed that Chinese-structured English
sentences became the hallmark of L1 transference,
resulting in non-native-like sentences.
The fifth highest error incidence of this
study, errors in capitalization, occurred
332 times, at an error rate of 2.32%. While
capitalization errors were not considered
as frequent errors in other research, such
as Lin's (2002) and Kao's (1999) studies,
errors in capitalization were prevalent in
the current study. In addition to capitalization
for proper nouns, the primary capitalization
errors found in this study were that the participants
forgot to capitalize the first letter of a
sentence. For example:
Then
my sweet and I went to see a movie. he gave
me a birthday present (Paper 26).
And I called it. it knows me too! (Paper 18)
We were went to many places including Xiamen's
most famous park and paino island (paper 23).
As
proposed by Hsin (2003) and Li and Thompson
(1981), Mandarin tends to be a topic-comment
language, unlike English that is a subject-prominent
language in which a subject in a sentence
is always required. Confirming Hsin's and
Li and Thompson's comments, subject omission
is a prevalent error type in this study, occurring
257 times with an error rate of 1.8%. It appears
that the participants may have been affected
by their first language and would sometimes
make English sentences without subjects. The
following are illustrative of this point:
Remember
in my 15 year old birthday... (Paper 19)
Remember eight years ago
(Paper 24)
when you sit up, will not fear very
much
(Paper 34)
He is always to say he forget to prepare the
gift with me. Till evening. Say his ring drops
in the sand heap with me. Call me help to
find (Paper 76).
Consistent
with Jiang's (1995) finding that a great number
of errors in prepositions made by Taiwanese
EFL students derive from language transfer,
the errors in prepositions in this study occurred
with a high frequency, 147 errors or an error
rate of 1.03%. The errors involved omitting
prepositions, using wrong prepositions, or
adding unnecessary prepositions. The following
are examples:
At last, we went the night market
(Paper
85)
I can't forget to forever (Paper 100).
.scattering in the floor
(Paper
61)
At one day
. (Paper 33)
While
Horney's (1998) study indicated that errors
in the use of articles were found to have
the highest error rate, errors in the use
of articles in this study had the 8th highest
error incidence, with 141 errors or a 0.99%
occurrence. Articles in English are strictly
required, whereas there is flexibility in
Mandarin. It is possible that participants
may have forgotten sometimes to use articles
due to the interference from their first language.
For example:
Previous
month
(paper 38)
.take tent
(Paper 61)
while hearing what person say
(Paper 74)
first time
(Paper 19)
Recommendations
For EFL Educators
Grammatical
proficiency is the foundation of better writing
ability. Efficient grammar instruction, especially
for adult learners, helps EFL students learn
English more effectively (Bley-Vronman, 1989;
Valette, 1991; ZhongganGao, 2001). Therefore,
understanding students' learning difficulties
and providing appropriate grammar instruction
is the key to effective teaching for EFL teachers.
Language Comparison to Clarify Learning
Difficulties
English writing for many Taiwanese beginning
EFL students is a process of translation (Lin,
2002), which is confirmed by the current study
as well. This study indicates various errors
the students made and ranked the most frequent
error categories, which can be an indication
for Taiwanese EFL teachers to better understand
what errors their students could make and
provide instruction thereby. Many errors found
in this study were considered L1-related.
It is apparent that L1 plays an important
role in the process of writing in English.
The participants of this study were adult
students who are all eligible to express their
ideas in a clear way. However, language transfer
caused problems for them and made the English
writing process even more complicated.
Clarifying learning difficulties can be the
first step that helps beginning EFL students
master English grammar. Language interference
is apparently a common problem for beginning
EFL learners. English teachers can help beginning
EFL students reduce language interference
by specifying the differences between Mandarin
(L1) and English, in order to make English
grammar instruction more effective. Errors
in the use of verbs in this study, for example,
were ranked as the number one error category
where the greatest number of errors occurred.
Such errors should be paid attention to by
EFL educators. In addition to explaining grammatical
rules of English verbs, EFL teachers may also
compare the verb differences including tense
concepts between Mandarin and English.
EFL students with different English proficiencies
may have different learning difficulties.
While more advanced learners may have more
errors not related to language transfer, L1-related
errors are prevalent for beginning learners.
English grammar instruction with the comparison
of Mandarin and English can be a good option
for EFL instructors, especially those who
speak Mandarin or are native speakers of Mandarin.
Language Transfer Problems between Mandarin
and English
The researcher identified eight error categories
where the greatest number occurred: (1) verbs,
(2) punctuation, (3) lexicon, (4) syntax,
(5) capitalization, (6) subject omission,
(7) prepositions, and (8) articles (see Figure
1). Language transfer problems in terms of
these errors may benefit EFL educators' grammar
instruction especially when comparing the
two languages. The very different grammatical
structures between Mandarin and English make
it more difficult for beginning EFL students
to learn English, yet such distinct differences
could also make it easier for educators to
compare the two languages when instructing
English grammar.
Incorporation of Technology in EFL Education
Aside from the comparison of English and Mandarin
that may facilitate students' learning of
English grammar, the incorporation of technology
in EFL education motivates students to learn
a new language (Blake, 2000; Cheng, 2003;
Egbert, 2002; LeLoup & Ponterio, 2003;
Skinner & Austin, 1999; Strambi &
Bouvet, 2003; Williams & Williams, 2000).
Although this study does not demonstrate that
CAI produced a significant effect on reducing
students' overall written error rates, no
evidence was found in this study suggesting
that CAI as an aid of instruction is detrimental.
The CAI instructional aid was not proven to
be superior to the traditional instruction
in this study, yet it may be at least as good
as traditional instruction.
The HyperStudio tutorial used in this study
contains the core elements of the parts of
speech: nouns, articles, pronouns, verbs,
adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions.
Teachers may focus on only one or two parts
at a time and evaluate performance with an
objective test that is well designed to cover
all the learning content and an error analysis
of learners' written essays before moving
on to the next part of speech. Language learning
anxiety, especially written assignments, should
be diminished as much as possible, which may
be done through allowing sufficient time for
essay development as well as providing more
examples and exercises. Remedial instruction
should be provided for the content that students
do not master.
For adult learners, learning a foreign language
is a complex process. The confusion of language
transfer is more common for beginning EFL
learners. Beginning English learners will
be benefited if provided with systematic and
well-designed grammar instruction in connection
with their first language, through which language
differences were indicated. Employing technology
to facilitate language instruction is educators'
new responsibility in today's technological
age to bring about greater learning.
Appendix:
Error Categories Used in This Study
*Errors in the use of nouns
o Singular/Plural
*Errors in the use of articles
*Errors in the use of pronouns
o Incorrect case forms
o Missing possessives
*Errors in the use of verbs
o Tense
o Subject-verb agreement
o Auxiliary
o Verb omitted
*Errors in the use of prepositions
o Prepositions omitted
o Wrong prepositions
o Unnecessary prepositions
*Errors in the use of adjectives
o Wrong form (confusion of adjectives and
adverbs)
o Comparative/Superlative forms
*Errors in the use of adverbs
o Wrong form (confusion of adjectives and
adverbs)
o Comparative/Superlative forms
*Errors in the use of conjunction
o Coordination
o Subordination (adverbial clauses, relative
clauses, and nominal clauses)
o Missing conjunctions
*Errors in sentence fragments
o Incomplete sentences
*Errors in Syntax
o Word order (incorrect sentence structures)
*Errors in Lexicon
o Word choice
*Errors in Punctuation
*Errors in Spelling
o Misspelling
*Errors in Capitalization
*Errors in Subject Omission
References
Benson,
C. (2002, January). Transfer/cross-linguistic
influence. ELT Journal, 56(1), 68-70.
Blake,
R. (2000, May). Computer medicated communication:
A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language
Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136.
Retrieved June
11, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
Carey,
J. O., & Gregory, V. L. (2002). Students'
perceptions of academic motivation, interactive
participation, and selected pedagogical and
structural factors in Web-based distance learning.
Journal of Education for Library and Information
Science, 43, 6-15.
Cedar,
P. S. (2004). Transferability and translatability
of idioms by Thai-speaking learners of English.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(08),
2570. (UMI No. 3101068).
Chan,
A. Y. W. (2004, Spring). Syntactic transfer:
Evidence from the interlanguage of Hong Kong
Chinese ESL learners. The Modern Language
Journal, 88(1), 56-74.
Chatel,
R. G. (2002). New technology, new literacy:
Creating a bridge for English language learners.
The New England Reading Association Journal,
38(3), 45-49.
Chen,
C. Y., & Huang, H. Y. (2003). L2 acquisition
of subject-prominence by EFL students in Taiwan.
English Teaching & Learning, 27(4),
99-122.
Chen,
H. C. (1998). A contrastive analysis of the
language errors made by the Chinese students
of English as a second/foreign language. Journal
of Wu-Feng Applied
Linguistics, 6, 224-237.
Chen,
H. C. (2000). Error analysis of some features
of English article usage. Journal of Wu-Feng
Applied Linguistics, 8, 282-296.
Chen,
S. J. (1999). How error analysis can be used
in translation class. Journal of Translation,
4, 51-80.
Cheng,
Y. (2003). The effects of web-based instruction
on Chinese EFL students' learning outcomes.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(2),
382. (UMI No.
3081482)
Cheng,
Y. C., & Liou, H. C. (2000, November).
Using electronic bulletin board as a virtual
community to aid college English. Paper
presented in Learning Societies in the New
Millennium: Creativity, Caring & Commitments.
International Conference on Computers in Education/International
Conference on Computer-Assisted Instruction,
Taipei, Taiwan. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED454819)
Chirstmann,
E. P., & Badgett, J. L. & (2000).
The comparative effectiveness of CAI on collegiate
academic performance. Journal of Computing
in Higher Education, 11(2), 91-103.
Chuo,
I. (2001). Mother tongue use in foreign language
classrooms: A survey of teachers' and students'
perception. Journal of the College of Liberal
Arts, NCHU, 31, 199-218.
Collins,
L. (2002). The role of L1 influence and lexical
aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology.
Language Learning, 52(1), 43-94.
Egbert,
J. (May 2002). A project for everyone: English
language learners and technology in content-area
classrooms. Learning and Leading with Technology,
29(8), 36-41.
Fang,
Y. C. (1999). Teaching English verb tenses
to Chinese EFL students. Journal of Kuen-Shan
Institute of Technology, 2, 119-123.
Fletcher-Flinn,
C. M., & Gravatt, B. (1995). The efficacy
of computer-assisted instruction (CAI): A
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 12(3), 219-
242.
Godwin-Jones,
B. (2002, September). Emerging Technologies:
Technology for prospective language teachers.
Language Learning & Technology, 6(3),
10-14. Retrieved June 7, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/pdf/emerging.pdf
Gonzalez-Bueno,
M., & Perez, L. C. (2000). Electronic
mail in foreign language writing: A study
of grammatical and lexical accuracy, and quantity
of language. Foreign Language Annals, 33(2),
189-198.
Huang,
J. (2002). Error analysis in English teaching:
A review of studies. Journal of Chung-San
Girls' Senior High School, 2, 19-34.
Jan,
L. C. (2000). An experimental computer and
Internet based English writing course in CCIT.
Journal of C.C.I.T., 19, 229-261.
Jan,
L. C. (2002). Interactive online discussion
in an Internet assisted English writing course.
Journal of C.C.I.T., 31(1), 39-58.
Jarvis,
S. (2000). Methodological Rigor in the Study
of Transfer: Identifying L1 Influence in the
Interlanguage Lexicon. Language Learning,
50(2), 245-309.
Jiang,
M. C. (1995). An analysis of Chinese ESL learns'
errors in prepositions. Journal of National
Chiayi Institute of Agriculture, 41, 187-201.
Kao,
C. C. (1999). An Investigation into lexical,
grammatical, and semantic errors in English
compositions of college students in Taiwan.
Fu Hsing Kang Journal, 67,1-32.
Kramsch,
C., & Andersen, R. W. (1999, January).
Teaching text and context through multimedia.
Language Learning & Technology, 2(2),
31-42. Retrieved June, 7,
2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article1/
Lado,
R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures:
Applied linguistics for language teachers.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Lasagabaster,
D., & Sierra, J. M (2003, September).
Student' evaluation of CLL software programs.
Educational Media International, 40(3/4),
293-304.
LeLoup,
J., & Ponterio, B. (2003). Integrating
technology in the foreign language classroom.
Retrieved June, 7, 2004, from State University
of New York College at Cortland, Institute
for Educational Technology Web site:
www.cortland.edu/flteach/mm-course/flowchart.html
Li,
C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin
Chinese: A functional reference grammar.
Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Lin,
S. (2002). A case study of English writing
competence of students at the Mei Ho Institute
of Technology. Journal of Mei Ho Institute
of Technology, 20, 180-206.
Lin,
S. F. (2003). Modeling a supplemental course
web site for EFL vocabulary acquisition.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(01),
118. (UMI No. 3077889).
Liou,
H. C., & Yeh, H. Y. (2000, November).
A study of using web articles to support
college English students' ideas in writing.
Paper presented in Learning Societies in the
New Millennium: Creativity, Caring & Commitments.
International
Conference on Computers in Education/International
Conference on Computer-Assisted Instruction,
Taipei, Taiwan. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED454819)
Liou,
H-S, Wang, S. H., & Hung-Yeh, Y. (1992).
Can grammatical CALL help EFL writing instruction?
CALICO Journal, 10(1), 23-43. Retrieved
Feb. 25, 2005,
from http://calico.org/journalarticles/Volume10/vol10-1/Liou,etal.pdf
Liu,
C. K. (1994). The English present perfect
and the gou and le in Mandarin. Journal
of Hua-Kang Foreign Language, 1, 241-270.
Liu,
C. K., Sung, C. J., & Chien, S. C. (1998)
[The process of generating notes when the
EFL students write English]. Humanity and
sociology teaching newsletter, 8(6), 132-150.
Liu,
D. (1998). Acquisition of culturally-loaded
words in EFL. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers
of Other Languages, Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document
Production Service No. ED424742)
Liu.
M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee. S. (2002,
Spring). A look at the research on computer-based
technology use in second language learning:
A review of the literature from 1990-2000.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education
34(3), 250-273.
Lowe,
J. (2001). Computer-based education: Is it
a panacea? Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 34(2), 163-171.
Master,
P. (1988). Acquiring the English article
system: A cross-lingustic interlanguage analysis.
Paper presented at the 22nd Annual TESOL Convention,
Chicago, IL.
(ERIC Document Production Service No. ED298768).
Mori,
Y. (1998). Effects of First Language and Phonological
Accessibility on Kanji Recognition. The
Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 69-82.
Shih,
Y. D., Cifuentes, L. (2003). Taiwanese intercultural
phenomena and issues in a United States -
Taiwan telecommunications partnership. Educational
Technology
Research and Development, 51(3), 82-90.
Shute,
V. J., & Gawlick-Grendel, L. A. (1996).
Experimental approach to teaching and learning
probability: Stat lady. Lack Land Air
Force Base, TX: Galaxy Scientific
Corporation (NTIS No. ADA 316 969/5/XAB).
Skinner,
B., & Austin, R. (1999). Computer conferencing:
Does it motive EFL students? ELT Journal,
53(4), 270-277.
Sotillo,
S. M. (May 2000). Discourse functions and
syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous
communication. Language Learning &
Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Retrieved June
7, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
Spotts,
D. S. (1992). Comparison of computer-based
training and conventional classroom training
for technical instruction. (Report No.
AFIT/CI/CIA-94-010). Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base OH: Air Force Institute of Technology
(NTIS
No. ADA 281 825).
Sridhar,
S. N. (1975). Contrastive analysis, error
analysis and interlanguage: Three phases of
one goal? Studies in Language Learning,
1. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED123888)
Sun,
Y. C. (2000, March). Using on-line corpus
to facilitate language learning. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers
of English to Speakers of Other Languages,
Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada. (ERIC
Document Production Service No. ED442275)
Tseng,
D. S. D. (1980). Error analysis, contrastive
analysis, and the acquisition of English communicative
competence. Journal of the Taiwan Provincial
College of Education, 4, 69-105.
Valette,
R. M. (1991). Proficiency and the prevention
of fossilization: An editorial. Modern
Language Journal, 75(3), 325-328.
Wang,
W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2
composing process: An exploratory study of
16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 11(3), 225-246.
Wei,
C. L. (2002). DFLL learners' perceptions of
Internet assisted English writing instruction:
A case study. Journal of Humanities, College
of Liberal Arts, NCHU, 32, 483-503.
Willetts,
K. (1992). Technology and second language
learning. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Language and Linguistics. (ERIC Document
Production Service No. ED350883)
Williams,
H. S., & Williams, P. N. (2000). Integrating
reading and computer: An approach to improve
ESL students reading skills. Reading improvement,
37(3), 98-101.
Yaakub,
M. N. (1998). Mata-analysis of the effectiveness
of computer-assisted instruction in technical
education and training. Retrieved Mar.
28, 2005, from
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-6398-20243/unrestricted/
Yao,
C. K. (1991). A study on the EFL writing process
of Chinese college students - four case studies.
Literature and History Learned Journal
(National Chung Hsing University), 21,
29-55.
Ying,
S. Y. (1987). Types of errors in English
compositions by Chinese students: a search
for interlanguage. Unpublished master's
thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei,
Taiwan).
Yu,
L. (1996). The role of L1 in the acquisition
of motion verbs in English by Chinese and
Japanese learners. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 53, 191-218.
|
|
right
|