This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]On: 23 April 2013, At: 19:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computer Assisted Language LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

CALL on hold: The delayed benefits ofan online workbook on L2 vocabularylearningGabriela Zapata a & Nuria Sagarra ba University of Alberta, Canadab The Pennsylvania State University, USAVersion of record first published: 24 May 2007.

To cite this article: Gabriela Zapata & Nuria Sagarra (2007): CALL on hold: The delayed benefits ofan online workbook on L2 vocabulary learning, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20:2, 153-171

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220701331352

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

CALL on Hold: The delayed benefits of

an online workbook on L2 vocabulary

learning

Gabriela Zapataa* and Nuria Sagarrab

aUniversity of Alberta, Canada; bThe Pennsylvania State University, USA

This study examines the effects of an online workbook and a paper workbook on L2 vocabulary

acquisition. Participants consisted of 549 L2 learners of Spanish enrolled in a large language

program at an American state university. The participants received 4 hours of classroom instruction

per week and worked with an online or a paper workbook once a week during two semesters. They

also completed a screening test and four vocabulary tests: two during the first semester and two

during the second semester. The results showed no significant differences between the online and

the paper workbook groups after one semester of instructional treatment. However, the online

workbook group proved better than the paper workbook group in the second semester. These

findings confirm results of previous studies on the beneficial role of CALL on L2 vocabulary

acquisition, and they point to the pedagogical advantages of online workbooks for large language

programs as long as enough length of exposure to the online environment is allotted.

The growing popularity of computer assisted language learning (CALL) in second

language (L2) classes has aroused the interest of numerous researchers (see Jung,

2005a, b, for a comprehensive review). Because the acquisition of grammatical and

lexical knowledge has traditionally been the backbone of L2 syllabi, a substantial body

of literature has investigated the impact of instructional technology on both L2

grammatical accuracy (e.g. Abrams, 2003; Arvan & Musumeci, 2000; Nagata, 1996,

1998a, b, 2002; Pelletieri, 2000; Salaberry, 2000; Sotillo, 2000; Torkalovic & Deugo,

2004) and L2 vocabulary learning (e.g. Allum, 2004; De la Fuente, 2003; Groot,

2000; Tozcu & Cody, 2004). However, most of these studies expose learners to the

*Corresponding author. Modern Languages and Cultural Studies, 200 Arts Building, University of

Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E6, Canada. Email: gzapata@ualberta.ca

Computer Assisted Language LearningVol. 20, No. 2, April 2007, pp. 153 – 171

ISSN 0958-8221 (print)/ISSN 1744-3210 (online)/07/020153–19

� 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09588220701331352

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

online environment for a short period of time and assess learning outcomes

immediately or shortly after the treatment. This methodological shortcoming limits

the scope of the findings but can be addressed by performing longer treatments and

assessing learning outcomes longitudinally.

Another drawback of some of the existing studies on CALL entails the utilization of

synchronous tools hardly applicable to large language programs, as well as software

rarely in line with the resources available at many colleges and universities (Sanders,

2005; Twigg, 2003). Salaberry (2001) points out the need for researchers to consider

the effect of information technology not only on L2 acquisition but also on the

‘‘efficient use of human and material resources’’ (p. 51). Hybrid instruction that

combines face-to-face class time with an online workbook can enhance L2 learning

without incurring additional expenses. This explains why most current foreign

language textbooks include a companion website with an online workbook.

Online workbooks promote the acquisition of L2 grammatical and vocabulary

knowledge because they allow students to learn in a self-paced manner that better

meets their individual needs (Singh, 2003) and that allows them to ‘‘manufacture

rather than receive knowledge’’ (Collentine, 2000, p. 44). In addition, online

workbooks help learners create and test hypotheses about the target language because

they provide immediate feedback and allow multiple attempts (Arvan &

Musumeci, 2000; Felix, 2003). Considering the increasing popularity of online

workbooks and their potential benefits for L2 acquisition, it is important to examine

their effects in more depth. To this end, the present study explores the effects of an

online workbook and its paper counterpart on the acquisition of L2 vocabulary

in beginning courses at a large Spanish language program for two consecutive

semesters.

CALL and L2 Vocabulary Knowledge

There is a substantial body of literature indicating that reading L2 texts, especially

those including electronic glossaries and hyperlinks, helps L2 vocabulary acquisition

(e.g. DeRidder, 2002; Gettys, Imhof, & Kautz, 2001; Lomicka, 1998; Wallen, Plas, &

Brunken, 2005). However, learning L2 vocabulary through texts is a slow and time-

consuming process that does not comply with the high volume of vocabulary covered

in current basic language curricula. Previous literature has produced mixed findings

when comparing the effects of CALL with face-to-face instruction concerning the

acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Some studies have found that CALL and oral face-to-

face interaction equally help learners to learn new vocabulary (De la Fuente, 2003),

other studies support the superiority of CALL over traditional instruction (Groot,

2000; Tozcu & Cody, 2004), and others report mixed findings within the same study

(Arvan & Musumeci, 2000).

To investigate the impact of synchronous computer-mediated communication

(CMC) on L2 lexical retention and production, De la Fuente (2003) assigned 24

beginning L2 learners of Spanish to a written synchronous CMC group or an oral

face-to-face interaction group. All participants completed an information-gap activity

154 G. Zapata and N. Sagarra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

that prompted negotiation in the form of clarification checks, explanation of unknown

vocabulary, and question and answer. As expected, the results indicated that

learners completing the activity orally showed a better oral production of the target

vocabulary than those performing the activity through a written virtual chat.

However, both the face-to-face and the online learning environments facilitated the

learners’ written and oral receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge in Spanish,

one day, one week, and three weeks after the treatment. These findings are consonant

with studies reporting a positive effect of synchronous CMC on L2 vocabulary and

grammar negotiation (e.g. Pelletieri, 2000), L2 grammatical knowledge (e.g. Blake &

Delforge, 2006; Salaberry, 2000), and L2 speaking (see Payne & Ross, 2005, for a

review). De la Fuente’s findings are also in line with research suggesting that

synchronous CMC (e.g. emails, bulletin boards) promotes the production of

more syntactically complex language and more words (e.g. Abrams, 2003; Sotillo,

2000).

Tozcu and Cody (2004) also compared computer-enhanced with face-to-face

instruction, but they used an asynchronous interactive program to learn vocabulary.

In their study, 56 intermediate learners of L2 English were assigned to an

experimental or a control group. The experimental group learned high-frequency

English words through study, practice, and review tasks by means of a computer

program during 24 hours in the semester. The control group read two articles on

subjects of their preference per week and completed reading comprehension

exercises. The results comparing a pretest and an eight-week delayed posttest

showed that, while both groups equally increased their vocabulary knowledge and

reading comprehension, the experimental group outperformed the control group.

The authors explained such findings in terms of the individualized and direct

instruction that students receive when they work with a computer program such as

the vocabulary software used by the experimental group. The focused instruction,

practice, and feedback provided by the software promoted the kind of focused

attention that leads to automatization and vocabulary acquisition.

Groot (2000) also examined the effects of vocabulary software on the acquisition of

L2 vocabulary. The study used a program called CAVOCA, which is based on three

learning stages: deduction, usage, and examples. CAVOCA includes tasks that

present words in different contexts and that allow students to produce the words and

check their understanding of words embedded in a discourse. Groot reported four

studies (Bonte, 1997; Dufour, 1997; Janssen, 1996; Nep, 1998) that investigated the

impact of CAVOCA on the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The participants of these

studies consisted of university and secondary school students assigned to an

experimental (CAVOCA) or a control condition (bilingual lists of words). The results

revealed that both groups experienced higher levels of retention in an immediate and

a 3-week delayed posttest after only two learning sessions, but that the experimental

group was able to retain more words than the control group. In addition, the

experimental group scored higher than the control group in delayed cloze tests. Groot

interpreted these findings as evidence that the increased depth of processing involved

in vocabulary learning and practice through CAVOCA facilitated L2 vocabulary

CALL and L2 Vocabulary Learning 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

acquisition. This interpretation of the findings springs from the vast body of literature

indicating that vocabulary learning involving deeper processing produces better

lexical retention than vocabulary learning requiring shallower processing (see Au &

Glusman, 1990, for a review of L1 studies; see de Groot & Van Hell, 2004, and

Sagarra & Alba, 2006, for a review of L2 studies). This literature supports the

claims of Craik and Lockhart (1972) that lexical learning that needs deeper

processing facilitates the integration of new lexical units into the learner’s previous

knowledge.

In addition to depth of processing, Arvan and Musumeci (2000) suggested that

individual teacher differences in grading and experience with instructional technology

also affected the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. In their study, 600 second- and third-

semester learners of L2 Spanish attended class 4 hours per week and completed paper

homework (control group), or attended class 2 hours per week and completed online

homework (experimental group). The results showed that third-semester students in

the experimental group outperformed third-semester students in the control group on

several tests of L2 grammar, vocabulary, listening, and reading. However, the two

groups performed alike with second-semester students in grammar and vocabulary

midterm exam scores and final course grades. The difference between the

performance of second- and third-semester students lies in the instructor’ lack of

experience with hybrid courses when teaching second-semester Spanish, compared

with at least one semester of experience with hybrid courses when teaching third-

semester Spanish (see Zapata, 2004, for a review of other factors affecting teacher

attitudes toward instructional technology). Follow-up interviews with teachers also

revealed that the lack of significant differences between the experimental and the

control group for writing assignments was the result of differences in the way such

assignments were graded.

The studies presented in this section constitute a sample of the research that has

explored what CALL factors facilitate L2 vocabulary acquisition. These studies

generally point to the beneficial effects of computer-enhanced instruction on L2

lexical retention and production. However, most of the studies cannot speak to the

long-term effects of CALL on L2 vocabulary acquisition because they have employed

short treatments and assessment measures conducted after only three weeks (De la

Fuente, 2003; Groot, 2000) and eight weeks (Tozcu & Cody, 2004) of learning with

an online component. While Arvan and Musumeci (2000) employed tests carried out

four months after exposure to the online environment, differences in the way some

assignments were graded and variability in the amount of teacher experience with

instructional technology may compromise the reliability and validity of the study. If

we add to this the fact that substituting class time for virtual time can easily reduce the

potential of CALL, we must acknowledge the need to conduct longitudinal

research that explores the effect of CALL on L2 grammatical and vocabulary

knowledge without reducing face-to-face class time. The present study fills this gap

by investigating how complementing class time with an online workbook

affects L2 vocabulary knowledge over eight months of exposure to the learning

environment.

156 G. Zapata and N. Sagarra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

The Present Study

The goal of the present study is to examine the impact of a paper and an online

workbook on L2 vocabulary knowledge during a prolonged period of time. To

accomplish this goal, 549 beginning L2 learners attended class 4 hours and

completed a homework set in a paper or an online workbook every week for two

successive semesters (second- and third-semester Spanish). The effects of the

instructional treatment were assessed in four vocabulary course tests: second-

semester midterm test (two months of treatment), second-semester final test (four

months of treatment), third-semester midterm test (6 months of treatment), and

third-semester final test (eight months of treatment). Taking into consideration

existing literature on CALL and L2 vocabulary acquisition, we hypothesized that

students working with the online workbook and those working with its paper

counterpart would perform in similar ways over a short period of time, and that the

beneficial effects of CALL would only play a role on L2 vocabulary acquisition after

students had been exposed to online activities for a lengthier period of time. To test

this hypothesis, the following experiment was carried out.

Method

Participants

To test the aforementioned hypothesis, 927 learners in their second and third

semester of study of Spanish at a large American university participated in the study.

Students needed to meet the following criteria in order to be included in the statistical

analyses. First, they had to belong to a household where English was the only

language of communication and could not be familiar with any other Romance

language. They also needed to have two or three years of Spanish in high school to be

placed into second-semester Spanish by the university. During data collection,

students could not be exposed to Spanish outside of the course; they had to obtain a

minimum score of 60% on all sets of homework; and they needed to participate in all

screening and lexical knowledge tests used in the study. While students received extra

credit for completing the screening tests, they volunteered for the tests of lexical

knowledge, because the latter constituted part of their second and third semester

midterm and final course tests. The final sample was formed by 549 participants: 304

with a paper workbook and 245 with an online workbook. Courses with a paper and

an online workbook were taught by the same pool of teachers and were offered during

different semesters, impeding participants to choose one of the two. Subject attrition

(78.9%) was caused by the high percentage of students enrolled in a major that only

required them to take 8 credits (two semesters) of a foreign language. This means that

a considerable number of students were eliminated because they took second-

semester Spanish and did not continue to the next level, or because they were placed

in third-semester Spanish directly from high school and had not completed the

second-semester homework sets.

CALL and L2 Vocabulary Learning 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

Course Description and Software

The second- and third-semester Spanish courses under investigation formed part of a

series of three courses at a 5000-student language program (first-semester

Spanish¼4 credits, second-semester Spanish¼4 credits, and third semester

Spanish¼4 credits). To maintain homogeneity and continuity, the three courses

used the same textbook, Temas (Cubillos, 2000), and the same pedagogical

framework (communicative language teaching with focus on form and culture).

Each course consisted of 60 hours of instruction (4 hours per week) and 12 sets of

weekly homework. Whereas some students completed the homework with a paper

workbook and others with an online workbook, they were all taught by the same

group of teachers, who had attended identical teacher training workshops. Classroom

instruction was also kept constant across treatment groups, by using the same syllabi,

content, grading criteria, and tests. The current study employed the vocabulary

section of the midterm and final tests of second- and third- semester Spanish to

measure lexical learning outcomes resulted from using a paper or an online workbook

(instructional treatment).

To complete the online workbook, participants used the course management

system A New Global Environment for Learning (ANGEL) (see http://www.

angellearning.com/tour/default.html# and http://www.angellearning.com/). ANGEL

is a popular, powerful, and easy-to-use learning tool that gives instructors flexibility to

change a calendar, access course rosters and grades, and upload materials they would

like to make available to their students. Students had access to a wide variety of

workshops and online tutorials to get accustomed to ANGEL. However, because

ANGEL supported 61,604 student/course combinations at the university where data

were collected, most students had used ANGEL for another hybrid course and were

already familiar with the system. As mentioned earlier, participants completed one set

of homework per week and online homework was only active during the week prior to

the submission deadline.

Materials and Procedure

Screening tests. The third week of the second-semester Spanish course, students

completed two screening tests: a language history questionnaire and a lexical

assessment test. The language history questionnaire included questions such as what

language was spoken at home, what previous Spanish coursework students had taken,

whether they knew another Romance language that would facilitate the learning of

Spanish, and what their class standing and major was. The lexical assessment test was

a computerized version of a test designed and tested by Mecartty (2000), and it

comprised two tasks. The word – synonym task required participants to associate a

word in Spanish with its equivalent meaning in English, and the word – antonym task

asked them to match a word in Spanish with the opposite meaning in English. Each

task consisted of 12 Spanish words and four words in English were provided for each

word in Spanish. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate an example of these tasks but a complete

158 G. Zapata and N. Sagarra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

version of the original tasks created by Mecartty can be found in Appendix B at http://

www.dliflc.edu/Academics/academic_materials/all/ALLissues/allmilled11twofeb.pdf.

Mecartty’s decision to use these tasks was motivated by various factors. First, L1

and L2 research has employed word synonyms and antonyms to measure lexical

knowledge (Meara, 1983). Second, the format of the tasks mirrored the manner in

which students access words for production (i.e. by connecting the L2 to the L1

equivalent, Kroll & Sunderman, 2003) and for classroom tests (i.e. memorizing the

list of Spanish – English translations presented in textbooks glossaries). Third, the

tasks cover a wide range of words in Spanish selected from beginning, intermediate,

and advanced language textbooks and chosen by six instructors as representative

words for each level.

Instructional treatment (paper vs. online workbook). As mentioned earlier, participants

completed one set of homework per week for a total of 24 weeks (12 weeks during

their second semester of Spanish and 12 weeks during their third semester of

Spanish). For comparison purposes, the content and amount of homework was the

same for the paper and the online workbooks. Each set of homework consisted

of grammar and vocabulary exercises, a listening activity using the textbook’s

Figure 1. Example of the word – synonym task

CALL and L2 Vocabulary Learning 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

CD-ROM, and a content-based reading (e.g. Cuban tourist routes, unemployment in

Spain). Figures 3 – 6 display an example of an input and an output vocabulary activity

for each of the workbooks.

Apart from the obvious advantage that an online environment exposes learners to a

wider range of formats and learning tools (from clipart and photos to multiple choice,

matching, and fill-in-the-blank activities), the online workbook facilitated learning

because it provided immediate feedback and multiple opportunities for improvement.

While students using the paper workbook needed to wait one week to receive

feedback from their teacher, those with the online workbook obtained feedback

immediately after they submitted their responses. In addition, whereas the paper

workbook only allowed learners to turn in their homework once, the online workbook

permitted two attempts with items with four or more options. This translated into

increased possibilities to incorporate feedback into subsequent responses, which in

turn facilitated and accelerated the process of learning new vocabulary.

Instruments (tests of lexical knowledge). All participants took four identical tests

of lexical knowledge. These tests formed part of the vocabulary sections of the

second- and third-semester midterm and final exams. The midterm and final exams

Figure 2. Example of word – antonym task

160 G. Zapata and N. Sagarra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

were non-cumulative (i.e. the content varied from test to test), followed a similar

content and format to the classroom activities and the homework exercises, and were

given two months apart (i.e. approximately two, four, six, and eight months after

participants had been using the paper or the online workbook). Because the midterm

exams were given during a 50-minute regular class but students were allotted 2 hours

to complete the final exams outside of the classroom, the maximum score was 50 for

the midterm exams and 100 for the final exams. The midterm exams consisted of a

grammar section (20 points), a vocabulary section (20 points), and a listening

Figure 3. Example of an input vocabulary exercise of the paper workbook

CALL and L2 Vocabulary Learning 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

comprehension section (10 points). The final exams were formed by sections on

grammar (30 points), vocabulary (30 points), listening (15 points), reading (10

points), and writing (15 points). The vocabulary sections of the midterm and the final

exams comprised input activities, which required students to recognize the meaning

of words in Spanish, and output activities, which asked them to produce the words

(e.g. based on a definition or a picture).

Scoring and Data Analysis

The scoring of the screening tests, the homework (treatment), and the tests of lexical

knowledge was the same: correct answers received 1 point and incorrect answers 0

points. The input tasks of the tests of lexical knowledge tests comprised 50 – 65% of

the tests and were recorded in bubble sheets and were graded by a Scantron machine.

The combination of the score obtained in the input tasks and that received in the

output tasks formed the final score of each of the tests of lexical knowledge. To

establish the effect of the treatment on each test of lexical knowledge, four t-tests for

independent samples were conducted. A repeated-measures ANOVA was not carried

out because tests varied in content, impeding a test comparison across time.

Figure 4. Example of an input vocabulary exercise of the online workbook

162 G. Zapata and N. Sagarra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

In addition, the t-tests provided statistical power and effect sizes separately per test.

The alpha level was set up at 0.05 for all statistical analyses.

Results

Screening Tests

The language history questionnaire showed that half (50.6%) of the students had

enrolled in Spanish courses to fulfill one of their general education requirements, and

Figure 5. Example of an output vocabulary exercise of the paper workbook

CALL and L2 Vocabulary Learning 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

the other half took Spanish for other reasons, such as enjoying learning the target

language (14.1%) and feeling that Spanish is convenient for their career development

(19.3%). As expected, almost two-thirds (63.4%) of the students were in their first- or

second-year at the university, 9.7% had not declared their major yet, and those who

had a major preferred business (9.2%), finance (7%), and accounting (6.6%). With

regard to the second screening test (the lexical assessment test), two t-tests for

independent samples revealed no significant differences between the groups for

the word synonym task [t(547)¼7 1.12, p4 0.05 (Levene’s F¼ 0.852, p4 0.05)] or

the word antonym task [t(546)¼ 0.828, p4 0.05 (Levene’s F¼ 0.702, p4 0.05)]

(see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). These findings indicate that students using a

paper workbook had the same knowledge of Spanish words than those employing an

online workbook prior to the treatment.

Tests of Lexical Knowledge

As stated earlier, four t-tests for independent samples were performed on the scores of

each of the tests employed to assess lexical knowledge. Table 2 and Figure 7 display

Figure 6. Example of an output vocabulary exercise of the online workbook

164 G. Zapata and N. Sagarra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

the percentage mean scores. The results showed no significant differences after two

months of using one of the workbooks [t(547)¼7 1.844, p4 0.05 (Levene’s

F¼ 0.220, p4 0.05)]. This means that the two groups (paper and online workbook)

Table 1. Descriptive statistics on lexical assessment percentage scores

Word – synonym task Word – antonym task

Treatment M S.D. M S.D.

Paper workbook (n¼ 304) 46.90 14.50 43.48 18.63

Online workbook (n¼ 245) 48.37 16.15 44.86 20.38

Table 2. Descriptive statistics on lexical knowledge percentage scores

Test n True mean k % mean S.D.

2 months

Paper workbook 304 14.33 20 71.65 16.96

Online workbook 245 14.88 20 74.42 18.21

4 months

Paper workbook 304 23.27 30 77.57 17.80

Online workbook 245 24.19 30 80.57 16.68

6 months

Paper workbook 304 13.49 20 67.47 15.68

Online workbook 245 17.36 20 86.82 14.27

8 months

Paper workbook 304 21.54 30 71.83 15.81

Online workbook 245 24.40 30 81.35 11.40

Figure 7. Mean of lexical knowledge percentage scores by treatment group

CALL and L2 Vocabulary Learning 165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

were homogeneous at the beginning of the treatment. Lack of significant differences

also characterized group comparisons after four months of utilizing one of the

workbooks [t(547)¼7 2.025, p4 0.05 (Levene’s F¼ 1.683, p4 0.05)]. These

findings indicate that the two workbooks played the same role on the participants’

level of lexical knowledge. Nonetheless, the online workbook yielded higher scores

than the paper workbook in the tests of lexical knowledge that students completed six

months [t(505.064)¼7 17.972, p4 0.05 (Levene’s F¼68.159, p5 0.05)] and eight

months [t(540.621)¼78.189, p4 0.05 (Levene’s F¼ 26.404, p5 0.05)] after using

the workbooks. These results suggest that, while the two workbooks were

equally beneficial during the first months of implementation, after a lengthier use,

using the online workbook promoted better lexical knowledge than utilizing the

paper workbook. Taken together, these findings reveal that students need a period

of time to become familiar and comfortable with the online language learning

environment.

The internal reliability values of the four vocabulary tests in the paper and the

online workbook ranged a¼ 0.529 to a¼ 0.616. Differences in Cronbach’s alpha

were due to differences in the number of items (k¼20 for tests and 3, vs. k¼ 30 for

tests 2 and 4), rather than differences in the treatment. The large number of

participants (n¼ 549) helped the treatment reach a statistical power of 100%.

Because large samples can lead to statistical significance even when the differences

are small, estimates of the effect size were calculated. Eta values revealed that 77% of

the variance in the four tests was caused by the type of workbook used.

In addition to the t-tests, effect sizes were calculated taking into consideration all

tests to control for significant differences caused by the large number of participants.

Following Cohen (1988), eta square values revealed a large size effect for treatment

(Z2¼ 0.18), length of workbook use (Z2¼ 0.28), and the interaction between the two

(Z2¼ 0.65). This is not surprising considering that the experiment’s sample pool

consisted of 549 participants. On the other hand, the combination of a large number

of participants with a relatively large number of items made the study reach the

maximum statistical power possible including all tests (100% for treatment, length of

workbook use, and the interaction of both).

In addition to completing the tests of lexical measure, students were asked to fill

out a computerized survey to determine their attitudes toward the workbook. The

results from the survey showed that over two-thirds of the respondents expressed

strong to moderate agreement with the statements that the online workbook helped

them understand class content and learn Spanish, and approximately half strongly

agreed or agreed that the in-class activities facilitated completing the online

homework. More than half of the students strongly agreed, agreed or somewhat

agreed that the online workbook helped them improve their Spanish listening skills

(51.9%), reading skills (64.2%), and even pronunciation (62.4%). More importantly

for the present study, almost two-thirds of the respondents (66.1%) agreed and

somewhat agreed that completing online homework promoted their L2 lexical

knowledge. When asked what they liked the most about the online workbook, the

participants chose having multiple attempts because they felt they could learn from

166 G. Zapata and N. Sagarra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

their errors (24.5%), and being able to work at their own pace (20.6%). They also felt

that online assignments reinforced what they learned in class (15.6%), and

appreciated receiving immediate feedback (10.8%).

Discussion

The present study examined the longitudinal role of CALL on L2 vocabulary

knowledge. The results indicated that participants attending class 4 hours weekly and

completing homework online learned L2 vocabulary as well as those attending class 4

hours weekly and completing homework on paper. The beneficial effect of using an

online workbook on L2 lexical knowledge increased after six and eight months of

exposure to the online activities. These findings confirm our initial predictions and

suggest that L2 learners need a period of time to get accustomed to the online

environment for this medium to reach its maximum effectiveness. This conclusion is

especially positive when considering that half of the participants enrolled in a Spanish

course just to fulfill their foreign language requirement.

The lack of significant differences between the paper workbook group and the

online workbook group after two and four months of treatment mirrors the results

obtained by De la Fuente (2003), but contrast with Groot (2000) and Tozcu and

Cody (2000). De la Fuente found that completing an information-gap activity

through oral face-to-face interaction of written chats improved L2 lexical retention in

similar ways and that these effects were maintained over three weeks after the

treatment. However, studies employing software specifically designed to learn L2

vocabulary reported that participants using the software outperformed those exposed

to reading comprehension exercises and bilinguals list of words after three weeks

(Groot, 2000) and eight weeks (Tozcu & Cody, 2004) of using the program. The use

of software exclusively devoted to the learning of L2 vocabulary in these two studies

could easily explain the effectiveness of CALL over more conventional practices.

Because De la Fuente’s work and the present study exposed learners to online tools

that develop their L2 competence in different areas in addition to L2 vocabulary

learning, the impact of these tools is not as immediate as vocabulary software but

better reflect the global needs of L2 courses.

The most important finding of the present study is that the positive effect of the

online workbook on L2 lexical knowledge found after two and four months of

instructional treatment not only persisted but increased after participants worked with

the online activities for six and eight months. These results indicate that the pro-

longed use of an online workbook facilitates L2 vocabulary knowledge significantly

better than working with a paper workbook for the same period of time. This could be

one of the reasons why Arvan and Musumeci’s (2000) third-semester learners

performed better than beginning learners. The absence of a significant difference

between the two groups during the first semester could have been caused by the

novelty effect of the online workbook, as the participants working with it may have

required some time to adjust to the new medium and to learn how to benefit from

online features, such as immediate feedback and multiple attempts to submit an

CALL and L2 Vocabulary Learning 167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

activity. This novelty effect together with the participants’ limited L2 knowledge may

have hindered their learning by impeding them to take advantage of the benefits of

online workbooks.

The superiority of the online workbook over the paper workbook can be explained

by a myriad of factors. For example, online workbooks give learners a central role in

their acquisition process (Collentine, 2000) and a learning space where they can work

at their own pace (Singh, 2003). Online workbooks also provide learners with the

focused instruction, extensive practice, and immediate feedback that allow them to

better construct and reconstruct their knowledge about the target language, all of

which were highlighted by the participants as advantages of the online workbook in

the attitudinal questionnaire. The extensive practice, immediate feedback, and

multiple opportunities typical of online workbooks help strengthen the connections of

the L2 mental lexicon and they engage students in processing words deeper (de

Groot & Van Hell, 2004 note that deeper processing relates to better L2 lexical

retention). Because beginning L2 learners experience heavy cognitive constraints

while processing new words, they avoid devoting extra time and attentional resources

to learn novel vocabulary employing more complex strategies of lexical processing.

Online workbooks help channeling cognitive resources and lead learners to engage in

deeper processing when needed. This is important for the acquisition of L2

vocabulary because associate models of lexical processing claim that the relative

strength of items in the mental lexicon depends on the frequency that a speaker uses

and perceives that word (e.g. Bybee, 2001). The positive attitudes students had

towards the online workbook (as revealed in the results from the attitudinal

questionnaire) may have also played an important role facilitating lexical processing

and acquisition.

In addition to these cognitive benefits, online workbooks can also facilitate

language instruction at large language programs. First of all, they can relieve graduate

teaching assistants, who are often overworked by their duties as students and

instructors, of the task of grading exercises for homework in classes of 20 – 30

students. Second, they ensure homogeneity in grading along all the sections of a

particular course because the task is done by the computer program and not by

particular instructors, which might prevent grading grievances on students’ part (see

Arvan & Musumeci, 2000, for an example of problems with intra-rater reliability).

Third, online workbooks give students the opportunity to work on their homework at

any time and any place with an Internet connection. Online workbooks also provide

access to a wider audience (which can also be beneficial for distance learning

courses). Finally, this type of workbook can contribute to the conservation of the

environment by not resorting to the use of paper.

Conclusion

The findings of this study indicate that combining face-to-face class time with a paper

or an online workbook facilitates L2 vocabulary knowledge. While L2 learners

working with a paper or an online workbook can perform alike after two and four

168 G. Zapata and N. Sagarra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

months of instructional treatment, students completing their weekly homework with

an online workbook prove superior to those working with a paper workbook after a six

and eight months of exposure to the learning environment. The findings also confirm

the need for more longitudinal studies in the area of CALL, and they point to the

administrative and pedagogical benefits that computer-enhanced instruction in the

form of online workbooks can offer large language programs. Finally, the results

invite continued investigation. Research in progress investigates if this type of tool can

have positive effects in L2 grammatical knowledge, and future work will examine the

development of L2 skills. Also, it would prove instructive to explore if the same

beneficial effects reported in this study apply to other student populations and

academic environments.

References

Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in

German. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 157 – 167.

Allum, P. (2004). Evaluation of CALL: Initial vocabulary learning. ReCALL, 16, 488 – 501.

Arvan, L., & Musumeci, D. (2000). Instructor attitudes within the SCALE efficiency projects.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 4. Retrieved 18 February 2006 from http://www.

alnresearch.org/Data_Files/articles/full_text/fs-arvan.htm

Au, T. K., & Glusman, M. (1990). The principle of mutual exclusivity in word learning: To honor

or not to honor? Child Development, 61, 1474 – 1490.

Blake, R., & Delforge, A. M. (2006). Online language learning: The case of Spanish without walls.

In R. Salaberry & B. A. Lafford (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition

from research to praxis (pp. 127 – 148).Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Bonte, W. F. W. (1997). Vocabulaire Verwerving. Een vergelijking van twee methoden [Vocabulary

learning. A comparison of two methods]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universiteit Leiden,

The Netherlands.

Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coada, J., Magoto, J., Hubbard, P., Graney, J., & Makhtari, K. (1993). High frequency vocabulary

and reading proficiency in ESL readers. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second

language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 217 – 228). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing

Corporation.

Chenoweth, N. A., & Murday, K. (2003). Measuring student learning in an online French Course.

CALICO Journal, 20, 284 – 314.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Earlbaum.

Collentine, J. (2000). Insights into the construction of grammatical knowledge provided by user-

behavior tracking technologies. Language Learning and Technology, 3, 44 – 57. Retrieved 20

February 2006 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num2/collentine/index.html

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671 – 684.

Cubillos, J. (2000). Temas: Spanish for the global community. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

De Groot, A. M. B., & Van Hell, J. G. (2004). The learning of foreign language vocabulary.

In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches

(pp. 9 – 29). New York: Oxford University Press.

De la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of

computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 16, 47 – 81.

CALL and L2 Vocabulary Learning 169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

DeRidder, (2002). Visible or invisible links: Does highlighting of hyperlinks affect incidental

vocabulary learning, text comprehension, and the reading process? Language Learning and

Technology, 6, 123 – 146. Retrieved 20 February 2006 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/

DERIDDER/default.html

Dufour, M. J. (1997). Foreign language vocabulary acquisition: Two methods compared. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Faculty of Letters, The Netherlands.

Felix, U. (2003). Language learning online: Deconstructing the myths. Australian Journal of

Educational Technology, 19, 118 – 138.

Gettys, S., Imhof, L. A., & Kautz, J. O. (2001). Computer-assisted reading: The effect of glossing

format on comprehension and vocabulary retention. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 91 – 106.

Green, A., & Earnest Youngs, B. (2001). Using the web in elementary French and German courses:

Quantitative and qualitative study results. CALICO Journal, 19, 89 – 123.

Groot, P. J. M. (2000). Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition. Language

Learning & Technology, 4, pp. 60 – 81. Retrieved 20 February 2006 from http://llt.msu.edu/

vol4num1/groot/default.html

Janssen, A. E. P. (1996). CAVOCA. Computer-assisted vocabulary acquisition. Unpublished master’s

thesis, University of Utrecht, Faculty of Arts, The Netherlands.

Jung, U. O. H. (2005a). An international bibliography of computer assisted language learning: Sixth

installment. System, 33, 135 – 185.

Jung, U. O. H. (2005b). CALL: past, present and future: A bibliometric approach. ReCALL, 17,

4 – 17.

Kroll, J., & Sunderman, G. (2003). Cognitive processes in second language learners and bilinguals:

The development of lexical and conceptual representations. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.),

Handbook of SLA (pp. 104 – 129). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Lomicka, L. (1998). To gloss or not to gloss: An investigation of reading comprehension on-line.

Language Learning and Technology, 1, 41 – 50. Retrieved February 18, 2006 from http://

llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article2/default.html

Meara, P. (1983). Vocabulary in a second language. Specialized Bibliography, 3, London: CILT.

Mecartty, F. H. (2000). Lexical and grammatical knowledge in reading and listening comprehen-

sion by foreign language learners of Spanish. Applied Language Learning, 11, 323 – 348.

Retrieved 15 March 2006 from http://www.dliflc.edu/Academics/academic_materials/all/

ALLissues/allmilled11twofeb.pdf

Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO

Journal, 14, 53 – 75.

Nagata, N. (1998a). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language

acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1, 23 – 40. Retrieved 20 February 2006 from

http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article1/

Nagata, N. (1998b). The relative effectiveness of production and comprehension practice in second

language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11, 153 – 177.

Nagata, N. (2002). BANZAI: An application of natural language processing to web based language

learning. CALICO Journal, 19, 583 – 599.

Nep, W. (1998). Computer ondersteunde woordverwerving in de tweede fase [Computer assisted

vocabulary acquisition at higher levels]. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Utrecht,

IVLOS [Teacher training department], The Netherlands.

Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency

development. Language Learning and Technology, 9, 35 – 54. Retrieved February 20, 2006 from

http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/payne/default.html

Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of

grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language

teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59 – 86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sagarra, N. & Alba, M. (2006). The key is in the keyword: L2 vocabulary learning methods with

beginning learners of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 228 – 243.

170 G. Zapata and N. Sagarra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13

Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated

communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 5 – 27.

Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching:

A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 39-56.

Sanders, R. F. (2005). Redesigning introductory Spanish: Increased enrollment, online manage-

ment, cost reduction, and effects on student learning. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 523 – 532.

Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6),

51 – 54.

Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asyn-

chronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4, 82 – 119. Retrieved February

18, 2006 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html

Torlakovic, E., & Deugo, D. (2004). Application of a CALL system in the acquisition of adverbs in

English. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 203 – 235.

Tozcu, A., & Coady, J. (2004). Successful learning of frequent vocabulary through CALL also

benefits reading comprehension and speed. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17,

473 – 495.

Twigg, C. A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning.

EDUCAUSE, 38 September – October, 28 – 38. Retrieved 20 February 2006 from http://

www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0352.pdf

Wallen, E., Plass, J. L., & Brunken, R. (2005). The function of annotations in the comprehension of

scientific texts: Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 53(3), 59 – 72.

Zapata, G. C. (2004). Second language instructors and CALL: A multidisciplinary research

framework. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 339 – 356.

CALL and L2 Vocabulary Learning 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 1

9:28

23

Apr

il 20

13