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: [email protected]
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