CALL : ARTICLE REVIEW

Title: An Evaluation of English Language Teaching Course in Malaysia

Journal: English Language Teaching, Volume 4; No. 3 (September 2011)

Authors:

1) Jayakaran Mukundan

He taught at the Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia. He had more than 33 years of teaching experience. His major was Teaching of Writing and ELT materials as well as Professional Development for Language Teachers. He taught both undergraduates and post-graduates. He was a Director on the Extensive Reading Board and had won gold medals at the British Invention Show and IENA (Germany). He had been actively participating in Asian Regional creative Writing Group since 2003.

2) Vahid Nimehchisalem

He held the position of Postdoctoral Fellow in the Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia. He was pretty much interested in assessing writing and English language teaching materials areas. He was in the English Language Teaching area since 1994.

            In this study, it posed the common issues faced in terms of technology employment in education. How efficient is it? How feasible is it? These were some of the questions asked and Mukundan as well as Nimehchisalem used this study to determine the efficiency of using courseware in a second language classroom. According to these two researchers, teachers needed to be equipped with the knowledge of ICT in order to cater to the needs of students nowadays. In order to make full use of the technology, teachers must be able to differentiate between two educational software; VLE and LMS. It was crucial for them to know this so that they were able to use the right software for the right subject. VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) was a software system which was developed to assist students and teachers in educational setting, whereas LMS (Learning Management System) included all types of software which deliver, track and manage training. Teachers had to understand the best courseware to use with their students whether to choose a software that taught one topic at a time (LMS) or a software which contained all topics but allowing the students to choose which topic they wanted to learn (VLE) (Lewis, 2008). The Curiculum Development Centre had developed a courseware for Form 1 students and it contained 28 units. Each unit was broken down into 5 lessons. The courseware came in 9 compact discs which contained 140 lessons. Each lesson was equipped with PDF files for the teachers which included worksheets, scripts and notes.  

Categories	Descriptions
Introduction	General idea of the topic, prepare the class for the lesson.
Content	Provides exposure to the students on the language forms and functions used in the lesson.
Activity	Provides a platform to practice the language items learned in the content of the courseware.
Evaluation	Requires students to elicit new forms and functions of the language learned.
Enhancement	Helps students to anchor what is learned in the lesson and provides remedial exercises for those who encounter problems in the evaluation section.
Extension	New tasks which help students to make the lesson meaningful to them.

1) To what extent is the courseware in line with the principles of second language methodology?The objectives and the research questions of the study were:

2) How efficient and consistent are the anticipated roles of the leaners, teacher and material?

3) Does the courseware emphasize the language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) equally?

4) How practical is the time management scheme suggested by the teaching courseware manual?

The aim of this study was to evaluate on the effectiveness of the courseware developed by the Curriculum Development Center for Form 1 students. It was a qualitative study which included teacher and students' role while using the courseware in order to promote language learning. The teacher was said to hold the position as a computer operator while students heeded the instructions presented in the courseware.

Two units of the courseware were chosen by the researcher and the results were qualitatively analyzed for its efficiency and effectiveness. Three female instructors with minimum of 12 years of teaching experience were selected to evaluate the courseware. These instructors were experts in ESL field. The data obtained were cross-checked and tabulated for reference. These data were used to answer the research questions and objectives. The samples were those whom were involved in a teaching and learning process; a teacher, students and the designed courseware.

The results were answered according to the research questions:

Research Question 1

The results were unfavorable to this research question. The courseware abandoned some ELT elements which was crucial to the teaching of second language (Tomlinson, 1998). The content structure and the delivery element were somehow isolated from Approach (theories that support the method) and Procedure (teachers, students and material's role in the lesson). The teacher who acted like a computer operator may manipulate the courseware and the lesson in turned became teacher-centered and not learner-centered. The teacher too used traditional method; PPP (present, practice and produce) which was similar to which how a teacher taught using textbook. In fact, with little animation and less interesting graphics, the courseware was just static educational software which can also be best replaced by textbooks.

Research Question 2

           

The teacher was supposed to play the role as a computer operator, but without muting the speaker, it could be a nuisance to the teacher. The students were expected to follow the PPP roles and began as passive but developed in becoming interactive and productive towards the content through discussions and activities included. The courseware was the teacher during the lesson. It was supposed to provide the knowledge as well as the exercises for the students to practice the language. In fact, it gave immediate feedback in the interactive exercises included. Thus, these three components should be in harmony for meaningful language learning to take place.

Research Question 3

Not all four skills were equally integrated in the courseware. Less focus was put on speaking and the weightage of the focus on each skill was tabulated below:

Language skills	Percentage of focus in the courseware (%)
Listening	30
Speaking	13
Reading	28
Writing	29

Research Question 4 

The instructors managed to switch the study in real time classroom duration. Each lesson would take 40 minutes to complete, which adhered to the allotted time for this subject. These experts had proposed the exact duration of time to be used for each item in the lesson:

Categories	Time allocated (minutes)
Introduction	3
Content	10
Activity	10
Evaluation	5
Enhancement	7
Extension	5

            The research was interesting in terms of second language teaching principles; however, the sample was vague which led to confusion among readers. There was no exact number of students stated, and the background of the teacher involved was not even mentioned. In fact, there was no evidence of the exact whereabouts of which this study was conducted. The proficiency level of the students remained unknown except for the fact that they were Form 1 students. I cannot deduced whether the research was really successful due to this limited information and whether the teacher was equipped with the knowledge of using ICT in a classroom or not. However, on the positive side, it concerned with the absence of the elements required to teach a second language. The isolation between approach and procedure showed the gap could deter students understanding on the language. There was not much focus on TPR (total physical response) and CLT (communicative language teaching) which prevent the students from practicing the language verbally and in authentic manner. According to Kathlan B. Egan (1999), language courseware had less focus on oral practice and the main skills were at play would be listening, reading and writing. Kathlan also agreed that the drawbacks in terms of developing a courseware were not solely due to technology but also lack in pedagogy principles and learning goals. In his study, he determined the use of ASR (automated speech recognition) in developing language courseware which focused on speaking skill. It was undoubtedly true that some web based courseware promoted interactions; chat rooms, email and others, but learners remained mute. Thus, there was a need for learners to actually practice the language by opening their mouth and speak. Though there were lots of challenges in using ASR in CALL, it was agreed that ASR was able to promote an increase in students' proficiency level.  

            I was also interested with a touch on the design of the courseware used in the study. It was said to be less animated and less appealing to students. CDC (curriculum development center) stressed that this was due to the limitation of fund, thus the courseware created was just to promote CALL in language learning. CALL should be interactive with interesting GUI and exciting simulation activities. According to Carla Meskill (1987), the visual aspect of CALL should be uncluttered, easy to read and possessed consistent laid out screen. It was also crucial for teachers to create an environment which was suitable and affective for language learners to discuss and practice the language apart from engrossing themselves in front of the computer screen. CALL should promote interactivity and contained elements which were not found in textbooks. Thus, students will be interested to learn.

            The results too showed interesting feedback whereby learners could become easily interested with the designed courseware even though it was considered as static educational software. This proved that learners were attracted to visuals and interactive elements. The use of technology too catered the need for today's learners who were always 'connected'.

            The research was not well conducted with the absence of the information stated in the previous question. However, it can be improved by stating the sample and why that particular sample was chosen. The analysis was well described and the appendix was included as well. There was no issue to be further amended in this study.

            The study was done in Malaysian context, thus based on what was proposed by the CDC, extra funding should be given to develop better courseware to be used in any language classroom. Apart from that, the digital divide that occurred in the rural areas needed to be addressed first. All the technology and equipment needed to be available in the rural areas in order to make this a national education change. The courseware too should include equal focus for all language skills and not lopsided as reported in this research. There were still many weaknesses and limitations that required to be addressed before the implementation of courseware in the curriculum could be successful. However, this method of teaching the second language was somehow favorable since students nowadays had bonded well with advanced technology. Teachers had to be prepared and fully equipped to overcome technology illiteracy in order to face a possible future education change.

Bibliography

Egan, K. B. (1999, March). Speaking: A Critical Skill and a Challenge. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from Calico Journal: http://www.calico.org/

Meskill, C. (1987). Interactivity in CALL Courseware Design. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from CALICO Journal: http://www.calico.org/

Mukundan, J., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2011, September). An Evaluation of English Language Teaching Courseware in Malaysia. Retrieved April 9, 2014, from English Language Teaching: http://www.ccsenet.org/elt