Computer assisted vocabulary learning: A study with Turkish 4th grade efl learners

In recent years, computer assisted language learning has come to fore in language learning. Indeed, it can help learners to study language individually at their own pace in a motivated atmosphere with a high level of interactivity. Computer assisted vocabulary learning has been considered to be one of the most common applications of CALL. This research paper aims to determine whether learning and retaining of foreign language vocabulary would prove to be profitable for students who study vocabulary instruction in a computer environment when compared to students who study the same vocabulary instruction material in a classroom environment under the guidance of their teacher. The subjects of this research consisted of 68 fourth grade students who enrolled in M.Akif Ersoy primary school in Eskişehir. The students were equally assigned to a computer assisted vocabulary instruction (CAVI) group and a teacher-led group. The CAVI group studied target words by using `Word Bird?s Land? CD in a computer lab whereas the teacher-led instruction group was instructed the same words by their teacher in the classroom. Both groups participated in two implementation sessions which were conducted in two subsequent weeks in the first semester of 2007-2008 academic year. Totally, they studied 40 words at the end of the two implementations. After each implementation, both groups were evaluated on recognition or production tests. The same tests were also assigned two weeks and one month after each implementation session in order to determine vocabulary retention. The results of mean scores were interpreted by using independent-sample t-test. The outcome of the research indicated that the CAVI group performed better on both immediate and delayed tests when compared to the teacher-led instruction group. The statiscal analysis also revealed that while there were significant differences between the CAVI and teacher-led group in both immediate and delayed recognition posttests, the only significant difference occured in the immediate production posttest. Conversely, there were no significant differences between the groups on delayed production tests. This indicates that by practicing with CAVI, students learned more receptive vocabulary than productive vocabulary.