I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to all the teachers and friends who have offered me all kinds of help in accomplishing this thesis.

First of all, I owe great gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Zhu Xiaomei, whose constant encouragement has motivated me throughout the completion of this thesis. Her genuine regard for students and enthusiasm for teaching have greatly impressed me since I was still an undergraduate student seven years ago. It is under her patient guidance, incisive criticism and detailed revision that this thesis can finally assume its present shape.

Special thanks also go to Prof. Zhu Yue, whose insightful suggestions and constructive comments have contributed a lot to my research. I benefit from his lectures on linguistics and applied linguistics greatly.

Likewise, I would like to extend my thanks to all my teachers whose lectures have given me considerable instruction and inspiration. They are Professors Hua Quankun, Hong Zengliu, Chen Zhengfa, Zhou Fangzhu and Tian Debei.

I owe my gratitude to all the students who have participated in the research and offered their kind cooperation and support during the phase of data collection.

In addition, I am also grateful to my former classmate Yang Ming, who has helped a lot in my reference collection.

Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my family for their sincere concern and constant support.

Computer assisted language learning (CALL) has been taken as an ideal way to facilitate second language acquisition in recent years (e.g. Egbert, 1999; Gu, 1995; Jonassen, 1999; Kenning & Kenning, 1990; Pennington, 1996; Warschauer, 2000; etc.). This thesis investigates the effects of a computer-assisted “Fundamental English” course teaching program on the development of English-majors’ motivation, learner autonomy, learning strategies and interactive & cooperative learning in a Chinese context. By exploring its impact on learners, this thesis aims to improve our ability to design CALL programs that can create optimized language environment for learners so that we can implement such programs more effectively in future. The theoretical base for this study is a constructivist view of learning.

In the study, both quantitative and qualitative methods are employed. The quantitative data are collected from two surveys of 30 first-year English major students who have undergone a computer assisted “Fundamental English” course teaching program in the academic year of 2002-2003 at Anhui University, China. Besides, interviews, the subjects’ forum records, the subjects’ reports and writer’s observation notes are employed as qualitative data in order to gain insights into the process and underlying reasons of learner changes. The major findings of the study can be summarized as follows:

● CALL environment uplifts learners’ motivation;

● CALL environment improves learners’ autonomy;

● CALL environment enriches learners’ learning strategies;

● CALL environment enhances learners’ interactive & cooperative learning.

Based on the findings, the writer concludes that CALL does facilitate EFL learning in the Chinese context and thus its related issues are worth further researching. The thesis finally reveals some implications for effective application of CALL in the Chinese context and points out some limitations of this study.

Key Words: CALL, constructivism, motivation, learner autonomy, learning strategies, interactive & cooperative learning

近年来，专家学者普遍认为计算机辅助语言学习能够有效地促进第二语言习得 (例如：Egbert, 1999; Gu, 1995; Jonassen, 1999; Kenning & Kenning, 1990; Pennington, 1996; Warschauer, 2000; etc.)。本文探讨了在中国这一环境中计算机辅助学习“基础英语”课程的教学项目对英语专业学生在学习动机、学习自主性、学习策略和交互合作式学习四个方面的影响。通过对这些影响的探索，本文旨在提高我们设计计算机辅助语言学习项目的能力，从而为语言学习者提供一个最优化的环境，并使得计算机辅助语言学习项目能够更有效地促进语言学习。本文是以建构主义学习观为理论基础的。

本课题同时采用了定量和定性研究的方法。定量研究材料来源于对30名安徽大学英语专业学生的两次问卷调查。这些学生于2002－2003学年参加了为期一年的“基础英语”课程计算机辅助语言学习项目试验。另外，还将在此次试验中对学生的采访、学生在论坛上发表帖子的记录、学生的学习报告和作者的观察笔记作为定性研究的材料，以此来分析学生变化的过程和原因。

主要研究结果归纳如下：

●计算机辅助语言学习有效地激发了学习者的学习动机；

●计算机辅助语言学习有效地提高了学习者的学习自主性；

●计算机辅助语言学习有效地丰富了学习者的学习策略；

●计算机辅助语言学习有效地增强了学习者的交互合作式学习。

关键词：计算机辅助语言学习，建构主义，学习动机，学习自主性，学习策略，交互合作式学习

Chapter One Introduction ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．1

2.1 CALL Environment ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．5

2.1.1 The Role of Computers ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．6

2.1.2 Changes in Learner and Teacher Roles in CALL Environment ．．．．．．．．．．．8

2.2 Constructivism & Constructivist Courseware Design ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．10

2.2.1 Cognitive Constructivism & Social Constructivism ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．10

2.2.2 Constructivist Learning ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．12

2.3 Motivation ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．12

2.3.1 Definition of Motivation ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．12

2.3.2 Cognitive and Constructivist View of Motivation ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．13

2.3.3 Motivation and CALL ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．13

2.4.1 Definition of Learner Autonomy ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．14

2.4.2 Learner Autonomy and CALL ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．15

2.5 Learning Strategies ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．16

2.5.1 Definition of Learning Strategies ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．16

2.5.2 Learning Strategies and CALL．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．18

2.6.1 Definition of Interactive & Cooperative Learning ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．19

2.6.2 Interactive & Cooperative Learning and CALL ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．20

3.1 Context ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．22

3.1.1 “Fundamental English” course ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．22

3.1.2 The Characteristics of First-year Students ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．23

4.1 Uplifted Motivation ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．31

4.1.1 Changes in Communication．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．31

4.1.2 Changes in Empowerment ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．33

4.1.3 Changes in Learning Effect ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．34

4.2 Improved Learner Autonomy ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．35

4.2.1 Changes in Goal-setting ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．36

4.2.2 Changes in Independent Action ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．37

4.2.3 Changes in Evaluation ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．40

4.3.1 Changes in the Use of Non-traditional Learning Strategies ．．．．．．．．．．．．41

4.3.2 Changes in the Perception of Courseware ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．43

4.3.3 Changes in the Learning Methods in a CALL Classroom ．．．．．．．．．．．．．45

4.4 Enhanced Interactive & Cooperative Learning ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．47

4.4.1 Changes in Interdependence ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．47

4.4.2 Changes in Interaction ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．49

4.4.3 Changes in Accountability ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．50

4.4.4 Changes in Interpersonal Skills．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．51

4.4.5 Changes in Group Processing ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．52

Chapter Five Implications and Conclusion ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．53

5.1 Implications ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．53

5.1.1 Preparing Teacher’s Support ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．53

5.1.2 Clearing Students’ Inveteracy ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．54

5.1.3 Upgrading Low-Tech Conditions ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．55

5.2 Conclusion ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．55

Appendix I Pre-program Survey ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．64

Appendix III Reliability Analysis of the Two Surveys ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．70

Appendix V Publications ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．74

In this coming information age, no one can escape from the influence of knowledge explosion. There is no longer a fixed amount of knowledge that can be readily transmitted to learners. Only when learners avail themselves of each learning opportunity to find or create different types of knowledge, and continue life-long learning, can they meet the requirements of the new information age. Therefore, developing learners’ comprehensive competence, including language competence, critical inquiry, analysis, collaborative and autonomous learning abilities has been considered as the ultimate goal of English education by many educators (Warschauer, 1999).

However, for a long time, language educators have clung to a transmission model, which sees the function of educational systems as the passing on of a received body of facts, values and procedures (Nunan, 2001). With this model, teachers, the center of the learning process, are regarded as authority, knowledge-givers and error-correctors. Their primary responsibility is to instruct learners, who are restricted to receiving and storing the information taught in class, with little knowledge about syllabus and objectives. And the learners are accustomed to being passively spoon-fed with grammatical rules and vocabulary that they have few chances to put into use. There is little or no room for the learners’ independent thoughts as if learning is a straightforward reflection of teachers’ actions (Littlewood, 2000). Consequently, learners often feel disoriented, lose confidence and fail to pinpoint their goals in learning if their teachers’ help is not available. It is necessary that reforms should be taken.

Recent researches in cognitive psychology have shed light on the human learning process. Both cognitive constructivism and social constructivism emphasize the learners’ central place in classroom. They proclaim that learners have their own distinctive personalities, motivation, learning styles and strategies that could affect the learning results. Each person is ultimately responsible for his/her own learning and engages his/her own personality in the learning process. Learning takes place only when learners actively construct their own understanding and knowledge through their interaction with the world around them. Influenced by these constructivist concepts, the focus of language learning has begun to shift from how to teach to how to learn, since learners are the internal and dominant factor in the process (Piaget, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978).

A highly motivated, autonomous learner who can cooperate and interact with partners during the learning process and has his own adequate learning strategies would be an ideal model in modern educators’ eyes. In order to better cultivate learners of these ideal features, many researchers turned to a novel way of teaching and learning, i.e., Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL).

Computer technology has been used in education for more than forty years. The popularization of modern multimedia personal computers provides technological assurance for the progress of foreign language teaching. And the Internet not only offers greatly expanded opportunities for language learners to communicate with native speakers or others promptly and inexpensively; but also offers access to the most update and abundant information throughout the world. Many CALL educators place greater emphasis on language use in authentic social contexts and integrate various language skills and computers more fully into language learning process.

Recent years have witnessed great efforts made by researchers at home and abroad to develop learners’ language competence in a Computer-Assisted Language Learning Environment （CALL）(Gu, 1995; Kenning, M-M. & Kenning M.J., 1990; Liu, 1998, Pennington, 1996; Warschauer, 1995 & 2000 etc.). However, most of the related domestic researches have focused on the non-English-majors’ College English learning. It is a pity that little has been done in the field of English majors’ English learning, especially in the reform of “Fundamental English” course which is the trunk course for first and second year English majors according to Syllabus for English-majors published by the state authority, not to mention empirical studies to investigate learners’ changes in the process of developing motivation, autonomy, learning strategies, and interactive & cooperative learning in an EFL classroom supported by technology and a constructivist pedagogy. There are two main reasons for it: on the one hand, our state lays more emphasis on the teaching reform of non-English majors’ College English learning since it will influence greater numbers of learners’ language learning outcome; on the other hand, since “Fundamental English” course is the trunk course for first and second year English major students, teachers of this course usually have much work to do during the first year, for example, they have to correct students’ inaccurate pronunciation, improve students’ listening and speaking competence, etc. They do not have extra time and energy to try teaching reform. Besides, both computer accessibility and teachers’ knowledge of computer are still obstacles for CALL reform in the teaching of “Fundamental English” course.

In order to bridge this gap, an empirical study has been conducted on 30 first-year English-major students who have undergone a computer assisted “Fundamental English” course teaching program implemented in the academic year of 2002-2003 at Anhui University, China. Through a combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods, this study explores the changes such a program has brought about in learners’ motivation, autonomy, learning strategies, and interactive & cooperative learning. The underlying factors leading to the changes are also discussed. In other words, it aims to gain a better understanding of the relationship of the CALL environment to perceived changes in learners’ motivation, autonomy, learning strategies as well as interactive & cooperative learning, so that we can design and implement such programs more effectively in the future.

This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter One serves as an introduction to the purpose and content of the thesis. Chapter Two is a literature review covering the related studies in the present research, such as constructivism and constructivist courseware design, motivation, learner autonomy, learning strategies, and interactive & cooperative learning etc.. An introduction to CALL environment concerning the role of computer, learner and teacher in EFL classroom will also be made. Chapter Three is an introduction to the study, describing the context, the subjects and the procedures of the present study, as well as presenting the methods of data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, findings derived from the study are reported and possible factors that contribute to those results are discussed in great detail. The last chapter is a conclusion, it discusses the implications for the development of learners’ motivation, autonomy, learning strategies as well as interactive & cooperative learning in CALL environment, limitations of the present study and suggestions for further research.

CALL has been a buzz-word in language education for the past few decades. At present, it has mature guidance theories developed by both foreign and domestic scholars. The present research, which is mainly descriptive in nature, is intended to investigate how learners have been influenced by CALL in the light of motivation, learner autonomy, learning strategies and interactive & cooperative learning. The relevant research literature will be reviewed in this chapter.

CALL environment, the term employed by the author, refers to a classroom language learning environment composed by three major elements: teachers, learners and computers. Some researchers have done comprehensive researches on CALL environment. For example, Egbert et al (1999) provides eight conditions which are most widely researched and supported in the literature and make up a general model of optimal environmental conditions. These conditions are:

(1) learners have opportunities to interact and negotiate meaning;

(2) learners interact in the target language with an authentic audience;

(3) learners are involved in authentic tasks;

(4) learners are exposed to and encouraged to produce varied and creative language;

(5) learners have enough time and feedback;

(6) learners are guided to attend mindfully to the learning process;

(7) learners work in an atmosphere with an ideal stress/anxiety level;

(8) learner autonomy is supported.

In the works of Kenning & Kenning (1990) and Dudeney (2000), it is widely documented that proper application of computers can help make the above conditions available to learners and offer more teaching potential for teachers.

In a CALL EFL classroom, the role of technology is to support, enhance and facilitate the learning process. Debski (1997) proclaims that it is used to enrich the language classroom through fostering human to human communication and creative endeavor, and build environments in which learners could learn through exploration and experience.

When computer is introduced into an EFL classroom, learners are provided with more authentic and more sufficient information. A computer which is wired with the Internet can bring the outside world into the classroom by providing 24-hour access to a vast amount of authentic material on any topic the learner may be interested in, and by allowing opportunities for authentic communication and even publishing. However, though technology can enhance the authenticity of knowledge, it does not necessarily mean that it can make teaching and learning more successful. Authenticity lies more in the goals and content of learning, as designed by teachers or performed by learners, than just in the use of technology.

Since it is impossible to exhaustively review all the roles computer can play in an EFL classroom, this paper will especially focus on that of word processors, electronic slide and web page developer, multimedia and the Internet, which have been frequently applied and are considered as effective language learning tools.

Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint and Microsoft Frontpage or Macromedia Dreamweaver are the most frequently used courseware developers. In a CALL classroom, teacher will use computer to replace old-fashioned chalk and blackboard. More active, sometimes even interactive courseware will be presented to learners. Definitely, the highlighted key points and flickering mouse arrow will be more vivid and interesting to learners. At present, due to its convenience and adaptability to both single computer and the Internet, more and more teachers choose to develop web page courseware, which is used to refer to the courseware developed by Hypertext Markup Language integrated with JavaScript or VBScript, Cascading Style Sheet and ActiveX etc.. The most significant advantage of using courseware is that its HYPERLINK can provide learners with more freedom in learning. The courseware with hyperlinks is arranged in a non-linear network structure with context broken up into different layered pages. Thus learners do not need to read it from the first page to the end to find the information they need just like what they do with an ordinary textbook. They can jump to any page they want to read by simple and light mouse-click.

Applying word processors as writing tools matches the newly strengthened emphasis on the writing process in composition. Pennington (1996) believes that learners who use word processors spend more time writing, alter revision behaviors, do more and different types of revisions and improve their attitudes towards writing. Today, more learners are using word processors to write E-mail or to “chat” with others on the Internet. If transmission rate for network permits, they can even have a real audial or visual chat with others.

Multimedia technology allows a variety of media, i.e., text, graphics, sound, animation and video, to be accessed on a single computer. Therefore, it is no wonder that some scholars proclaim that it can provide learners with a language learning environment which is closer to natural acquisition (e.g. Gu, 1995). Meanwhile, since the same information transmitted to learners can be reinforced through various media, learning efficiency can be largely improved. Most learners enjoy language learning with high quality digital sound, well-done graphics and appealing animations. Multimedia environment is a rich one which allows the user to enter new worlds and traverse new territories. For example, using multimedia, the learner is able to: create a path through hyperspace that leads to increasingly deep and diversified coverage of a topic, using a variety of media to organize different “passes” through the material; or virtually experience walking down the street in a foreign land and conversing with its inhabitants (Pennington, 1996).

Via the Internet, learners can communicate synchronously (real-time communication) or asynchronously (E-mail, BBS etc.) with the outside world (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). The Internet has been used by language teachers for providing linguistic exercises, accessing authentic language materials, stimulating communicative exercises, and as a medium of learners publishing (Warschauer et al., 2000). Besides providing access to information, the Internet also allows inexpensive international publishing. Writing for the Internet is quite different from traditional writing. It can incorporate written text, graphics, images, sounds and video, containing hyperlinks. When writing over a network, the anonymity and ease of communication seem to encourage a spontaneous and playful form of “speak-writing” that results in more creative and natural language than in some other environments (Pennington, 1996). Learners often write collaboratively for a public audience on the Internet. What is more, when the product is finally published, it can be accessible to the learners for further changes and updating (Warschauer et al., 2000). Therefore, writing for the Internet is claimed by many to be effective to increase learners’ awareness of readers and to practice learners’ wide range of language skills, especially if collaborative research and discussion are incorporated as part of the process (Kenning & Kenning, 1990).

Pennington (1996) also points out that the power of CALL in language learning and language teaching is to introduce new types of input, from both a quantitative and a qualitative perspective. The added quantity of input leads to a richer language learning environment, while the unique quality of CALL input means different possibilities for accessing and developing information. CALL makes for better quality of input as well in being more focused and more individualized than many other learning media. Therefore, CALL modes of teaching and learning can increase the variety or diversity of learning opportunities and the quality of the learning experience in making input of more varied kind learnable and accessible to each individual learner. Qualitatively different learning modes in CALL may increase the effectiveness of instruction for some individuals or populations of learners. In short, CALL promotes a better learning/teaching process.

In traditional teacher-centered EFL classrooms, learners have long been accustomed to the traditional teaching methods and rigid curriculum. They have been taught decontextualized grammar and rules that they have few chances to put into use and have been passive spoon-fed learners for many years. There is little or no room for the learners’ independent thoughts as if learning were a straightforward reflection of teachers’ actions. As the center of the learning process, teachers are regarded as authority, knowledge-givers and error-correctors. Their primary responsibility is to instruct learners, who are restricted to receiving and storing the information taught in class, with little knowledge about syllabus and objectives. Consequently, learners often feel disoriented, lose confidence and fail to pinpoint their goals in learning if their teachers’ help is not available. However, in CALL environment, learners abandon the role of diligent acquirers of knowledge, and become responsible, reflective and creative agents, taking over some responsibility for the outcome of the course. Teachers will no longer occupy the privileged role of sole importers of language and linguistic knowledge, but there are still important roles for them as guides and coordinators of the learning process. Teachers are more frequently viewed as a force maintaining productive levels of motivation in students, facilitating their social contacts and access to resources. (Debski, 1997)

Pennington (1996) proclaims that, in a CALL classroom, an ideal learner should be highly motivated to sustain effort and actively engaged to carry out language learning since creative construction of a language is a long and effortful process; he should deliberately apply learning strategies to control the content, the rate and the conditions of learning; he must be in a favorable psychological state and willing to experiment and take risks, learning by making errors and receiving feedback on performance to improve knowledge, skills, and subsequent performance; and he must be aware of that language learning is a process of interacting not only with input but also with people through various senses and modalities: face-to-face or eye-to-eye (as in ordinary conversation), ear-to-ear (as over the telephone) and mind-to-mind (as in reading and writing), hence a process of learning to communicate with others.

Drawing on the discussion of Pennington, the writer has worked on an empirical study to investigate learner’s performance on motivation, autonomy, learning strategies, and interactive & cooperative learning, which is reported in the following chapters.

Based on the discussion above, Pennington (1996) further points out that the ideal teacher will be one who:

·Helps learners develop and elaborate their increasingly specified cognitive representation for the second language;

·Allows learners to experiment and take risks in a psychologically favorable and motivating environment;

·Offers input to both conscious and unconscious learning processes;

·Offers learners opportunities to practice and to receive feedback on performance;

·Allows learners to learn according to their own purposes and goals;

·Puts learners in touch with other learners;

·Promotes cultural and social learning;

·Promotes interactivity in learning and communication;

·Exposes the learner to appropriate contexts for learning;

·Expands the learner’s “zone of proximal development”;

·Builds to learner independence.

However, in a CALL classroom, teacher’s visibility decreases as learners gain control of the communication. Warschauer (1996a) warned that students might feel disoriented. The empowering nature of CALL and the demands they make on the individual learner may, paradoxically, be disheartening if care is not taken to facilitate students’ culture leap from being passive language learners to being active knowledge contributors and learners. Therefore, teachers should pay more attention to this point in the implementation of CALL environment to avoid the deficit influence on learners.

The concept of CALL is backed up by constructivism, a theory of cognitive growth and social learning that has gained many supporters from both cognitive psychology and educational philosophy (e.g. Dewey, 1938; Piaget, 1977, Vygostsky, 1978). It is often discussed from two perspectives, i.e., cognitive constructivism and social constructivism. The former concerns with individuals’ conceptual reorganizations (Piaget, 1977), while the latter takes the individual-in-social-action as the unit of analysis and explains how participation in social interactions and cultural activities influences mental development (Vygotsky, 1978).

Cognitive constructivism insists that knowledge is reorganization and restructuring of experience, which cannot be taught but is unique for every individual (Candy, 1989). Knowledge, therefore, cannot be simply transmitted to the students but should be viewed as something created, discovered and experienced by the students themselves (Fosnot, 1996). Many philosophers such as Piaget and Rousseau shared the idea. Piaget viewed knowledge as a natural process and a continuous mental construction. To Rousseau (1966), a child learns through experience with nature, things and finally people, in a serial process. These experiences help to build learners’ schemes of the world, which mold and change the structure of their old knowledge, and determine the intake of new knowledge. Whenever learners encounter something they do not know but need to understand, their natural inclination is to attempt to reconcile it with what they already know. Learning, therefore, is a self-regulatory process of struggling with the conflict between existing personal models of the world and discrepant new insights (Fosnot, 1996). As learners have different former cognitive structures, different learners construct different new meanings out of the same given information. Social constructivism holds that learner autonomy does not mean isolated learning and that interaction and collaboration, either among learners or between learners and their teachers, is the driving force to individuals’ cognitive development (Bruffee, 1986; Dewey, 1938). Naturally, teachers’ task is not to impart knowledge to students but to “find ways of enriching, balancing and clarifying the students’ experiences with the diverse ways of life in their culture” (Huttunen, 1986:19). Similarly, the function of an education system is to create the condition whereby learners might be more able to relate the new intake to their previous schemata and recreate their own knowledge and skills (Nunan, 2001).

Constructivism encourages movement away from the “transmission model of learning” to the “experiential model” (Nunan, 2001). It emphasizes both learners’ active experimentation and collaboration. To sum up, the constructivist view of learning has the following features: First, knowledge is embedded in authentic activities that are representative of future tasks and real-world problems (Jonassen, 1999; Papert, 1987). Secondly, learning is intentional. One of the characteristics of the constructivist classroom is to support students to “actively and strategically pursue learning as a goal” (Jonassen, 1999), because when learners are actively trying to achieve a cognitive goal, they will be highly motivated and learn more (Schank, 1994). Thirdly, knowledge arises from actions and the learners’ reflection on them (Glasersfeld, 1995; Piaget, 1977). Finally, knowledge building is inherently a social-dialogistic process (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996).

It seems only sensible to assume that learning is most likely to occur when we want to learn. In a general sense, motivation can be defined as “the dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected, prioritized, operationalised and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out” (D?rnyei & Otto, 1985:65). Also, D?rnyei (2001) once points out that perhaps the only thing about motivation most researchers would agree on is that it, by definition, concerns the direction and magnitude of human behavior, that is: the choice of a particular action, the persistence with it, and the effort expended on it. In other words, motivation is responsible for why people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and how hard they are going to pursue it.

There is no question that learning a foreign language is different from learning other subjects, mainly because of the social nature of such a venture. A cognitive view of motivation centers on individuals making decisions about their own actions as opposed to being at the mercy of external forces over which they have no control. However, there are limitations to taking a purely cognitive approach as such a view fails to take account of the influence of affective factors, the emotions, or of social and contextual influences. A constructivist view of motivation centers on the premise that each individual is motivated differently. People will make their own sense of the various external influences that surround them in ways that are personal to them, and they will act on their internal disposition and use their personal attributes in unique ways. Therefore, what motivates one person to learn a foreign language and keeps that person going until he or she has achieved a level of proficiency with which he or she is satisfied will differ from individual to individual. However, an individual’s motivation is also subject to social and contextual influences. These will include the whole culture and context and the social situation, as well as other significant people and the individual’s interactions with these people. Thus, the approach we are taking in this research is social constructivist view of motivation.

At present, motivation has been widely accepted by both teachers and researchers as one of the key factors that influence the rate and success of language learning (Brown, 1994), so it is crucial to create a relaxed and non-threatening learning environment in which learners’ motivation and self-confidence can be promoted and learners’ anxiety can be reduced. Extensive researches have shown that CALL environment is potentially stimulating. In 1996, Warschauer conducted a large-scale survey on learners’ motivation in computer-assisted activities. He found four common motivating factors, i.e., communication, empowerment, learning effects and achievements (1996b). Some other researchers proclaim that CALL environment helps to empower students, because students can have a sense of accomplishment after they have grasped some technical skills and written with the aid of computers as many professionals do (Brown, 1986; Means & Olson, 1995; Thorn, 1997). In addition, learning achievements, such as collaborative products with high quality and skills gained in the process of fulfilling the projects can also be motivating factors.

In the present research, the writer has drown on three motivational factors from Warshauer’s findings (1996b), i.e., communication, empowerment and learning effects to investigate the influence of CALL on learners’ motivation in a Chinese context.

It is difficult to define concepts like “autonomy” for three reasons. First, different writers have defined the concepts in different ways. Second, they are areas of ongoing debate and therefore definitions are continuing to mature as more discussion takes place. Third, these concepts have developed independently in different geographical areas and therefore they have been defined using different (but often similar) terminology (Gardner & Miller, 1999).

The literature has offered many representations of the concept of autonomy and its applications in foreign language education. One of these representations is often equated with the notion of leaner independence or, to quote Brookfield (1986:56), with “methodological expertise”. Learners will be independent to the extent that they will be capable of working on their own without help or direction from the teacher or tutor. Little (1996:23) defines autonomy as “a capacity for self-direction”. According to him, “this capacity is exercised in the planning, monitoring and evaluation of learning activities, and necessarily embraces both the content and the process of learning. Learners take their first step towards autonomy when they consciously accept responsibility for their own learning; and they develop their autonomy through a continuous effort to understand what they are learning, why, how, and with what degree of success”.

Autonomy also encompasses the concept of self-government which is “the administration by a people or state of its own affairs without external direction or interference” (The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Edition). The development of learner autonomy involves more than the development of individual independence in relation to the setting of objectives and to ways of attaining them. It also involves the development of interdependence through which a group of learners and teacher will collaboratively take responsibility for and control of their learning/teaching environment. Therefore, learner autonomy can be defined as an educational goal that can be promoted by an approach to education that will help learners to move from dependency ---- through counter-dependence ---- to independence and interdependence (Boud, 1988).

Computers are said to offer ways of promoting learner independence and interdependence while facilitating the construction of knowledge about the target language and enhancing the development of language skills (Wolff , 1997& 1998). CALL is said to promote certain aspects of learner autonomy such as learning at one’s own pace, freedom to choose materials and one’s pedagogical path, and this argument has often been used to justify the establishment of self-access language centers.

Holec (1985:176) points out that “the acceptance of responsibility can be seen as consisting of carrying out the three main operations: goal-setting, independent-action and evaluation”. In his article, these are the three essential elements crucial to the development of learner autonomy and their subdivisions are presented in the table below:

The framework for the learner autonomy part of the present research is built on the three essential elements categorized by Holec (1985).

Over the last twenty years, there has been a growing amount of research on learning strategies, emerging from a concern for identifying the characteristics of effective learners. A distinction is often made between three types of strategies: production, communication, and learning (Ellis, 1994). Some researchers would like to classify learning strategies into two types: language learning strategies and language use strategies (Cohen, 2000; Ellis, 1994). Also, according to the level or type of processing involved, O’Malley et al (1985) differentiate learning strategies into three categories: metacognitive strategies which are higher order executive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learning activity; cognitive strategies which operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance learning; and social/affective strategies which represent a broad grouping that involves either interaction with another person or ideational control over affect.

Although research on learning strategies has been conducted for about 20 years, there is no consensus on the definition of the term “learning strategies”. Almost every well-known researcher on learning strategies has put forward their own definitions (See Table 2).

Several problems are revealed in the above table according to Ellis (1994): it is not clear whether learning strategies are to be perceived of as behavioral (and, therefore, observable) or as mental, or as both; there is considerable uncertainty of the behaviors that are to count as learning strategies; it is not clear whether learning strategies can be seen as conscious and intentional or as subconscious; it is not clear whether learning strategies are seen as having a direct or an indirect effect on interlanguage development; and there are differences in opinions about what motivates the use of learning strategies. Therefore, Ellis proclaims that strategies take the form of production sets (i.e. “if…then” statements). He further defines strategies as “production sets that exist as declarative knowledge and are used to solve some learning problem” (1994:533).

As early as 1989, Chapelle added some basic questions to the heated researches on CALL, among which are those on strategies used by learners during CALL activities. Recognizing the importance of learning strategies in language learning, many researchers and teachers have started doing the relevant research in CALL environment. Some of them (Bichek & Truscello, 1996; Chapelle, 1989; Dunkel, 1991; Robinson, 1991) carried out empirical researches into learner’s application of learning strategies in CALL environment.

In the present research, the writer also lays emphasis on language learning strategies in CALL environment. Language learning strategy involves actions and operations used in problem solving that require direct analysis, transformation of synthesis of learning materials (Rubin, 1987). It is composed of traditional strategies and non-traditional strategies. Studies on language learning strategies in CALL environment revealed the learners’ tendency to use non-traditional strategies, such as information processing and inferencing.

With the advent of the Internet, the amount of information available worldwide has boomed up in recent years. Knowing how to navigate the Internet resources, search for information, and critically evaluate and interpret what is found involves a series of information processing strategies. Inferencing refers to the actions using available information to guess meaning of new items, predict outcomes, or fill in missing information. This strategy is also frequently used in CALL.

In this research, the writer will mainly focus on the CALL influence on learners’ using of non-traditional learning strategies, i.e., information processing and inferencing, perception of courseware and learning methods in a CALL classroom.

The value of cooperation has been recognized throughout human history. According to Johnson et al (1995), cooperative learning is one of the most thoroughly researched areas in educational psychology. It has been defined in different ways and implies several related methods of organizing and conducting classroom instruction. Oslen and Kagan (1992:8) define it as “group learning activity organized so that learning is dependent on the socially structured exchange of information between learners in groups and in which each learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is motivated to increase the learning of others.” Thus, cooperative learning has taken on the connotation of a set of highly structured, psychologically and socially based techniques that help students work together to reach learning goals (Oxford, 1997).

It is important as well to note that there is an enormous diversity of cooperative learning approaches. Methods may be informal, where students simply work together on their own individual work. Or it may be formal, where structure is imposed, with specific ways of forming groups or teams. Learners may be working together on projects or creative activities or on specific content. All members may be working on a different portion to bring together as a whole or they may all be working on the same task. Even numbers in groups may vary from as low as two to more than six. Groups may be together for short lengths of time or even go through the whole semester.

Computer networks as a medium for communication have created opportunities for cooperative learning that were never possible before. These opportunities include synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous (time-delayed) interaction, one-to-one interaction between students and teachers or among students within classrooms, and wider communication with individuals and groups around the world. Text and talk are available within the classroom and in a rapidly expanding universe of resources not bound by physical space (Peyton, 1999).

E-mail, NetMeeting, Bulletin Board System (BBS), Local Area Network (LAN), etc. are some frequently used means of online communication which enables language teachers to make use of computer networks for a variety of purposes within classrooms, across schools, and even across national boundaries. According to Warschauer’s (1997) review, online learning has its distinguishing features that provide an impressive array of new ways to link learners and inspire great potential of collaboration. The researches conducted concerning online learning have repeatedly showed its power on efficient cooperation work in language learning.

CALL environment (online) has its great potential in promoting effective cooperation among language learners. It may have more direct impact on the way interaction is structured, including the kind of information accessed, the amount of learner control, the mode of interaction, and the immediacy of interaction. It provides various ways to promote interaction among language learners that arouses their interest of learning and nurtures a spirit of critical inquiry. More equality in the participation of online communication can result in a healthier social relationship that helps to create the community of learners. Learners’ positive interdependence is efficiently enhanced when they take part in some net-based projects and manage themselves to be responsible for the learning gains. Therefore, it can be identified as a useful way for optimizing cooperative language learning.

According to Johnson et al (1994), the conditions that can help ensure cooperative efforts and enable the disciplined implementation of cooperative learning for long-term success are as follows:

clearly perceived positive interdependence;

considerable promotive interaction;

clearly perceived individual accountability and personal responsibility to achieve the group’s goals;

frequent use of interpersonal and small group skills;

frequent and regular group processing of current functioning to improve future effectiveness.

The writer of the present paper would try to investigate CALL influence on learners’ interactive & cooperative learning from five aspects: interdependence, interaction, accountability, interpersonal skills and group processing.

As mentioned in the introduction of the thesis, Chinese students have long been accustomed to the traditional teaching methods and rigid curriculum. They have been passive learners for many years. Whether they will feel comfortable in the flexible and active learning environment provided by CALL and whether the advocated merits of CALL environment can help them to learn better still remains questionable. In an effort to find the effects of CALL environment on college English-major students’ language learning in Chinese context, the writer has conducted an empirical study on 30 first-year English-major students who have undergone a computer assisted “Fundamental English” course teaching program implemented in the academic year of 2002-2003 at Anhui University, China. The study aims to answer the following questions:

1) What are learners’ perceptions of the CALL environment?

2) What impacts does the CALL environment exert on learners’ motivation, autonomy, learning strategies, and interactive & cooperative learning?

3) What factors enhance or inhibit learner motivation, autonomy, learning strategies, and interactive & cooperative learning in the CALL environment?

The study has been conducted in the context of a computer-assisted “Fundamental English” course, which is the trunk course for first and second year English-majors in tertiary education. In the General Teaching Program of English for English-Majors of Tertiary Education issued by English Branch of Foreign Language Majors Teaching Advisory Committee of Tertiary Education in 2000, “Fundamental English” course is described as “an integrative English language skill course, with the aim of cultivating and improving students’ integrative ability to use English. Through language foundation training and discourse explanation and analysis, students’ discourse reading ability can be improved, their knowledge of various English stylistic expressions and characteristics will be accumulated; meanwhile, their vocabulary will be enlarged, and they will become familiar with frequently used English sentence structures and have fundamental oral and written expression ability. Teachers should encourage students to actively take part in various classroom language communication activities to acquire fundamental communicative competence, and to meet the requirements of listening, speaking, reading, writing and translation of the new General Teaching Program.”

At present, the textbook for “Fundamental English” course used in the English Department, Anhui University is A New English Course (Revised Edition, Volumes 1-2) published by Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Courseware of the computer-assisted “Fundamental English” course under study has been developed on this set of textbooks.

In the study, 30 first-year English majors have been investigated. For most of these students, it is their first time to be introduced to a CALL environment. Some researchers show that students inexperienced in using the computer previously reacted more favorably toward the computer than did students who were familiar with their operation (Warschauer, 1998). Therefore, to achieve more favorable experimental results, we choose first-year English majors. Secondly, one of the aims of tertiary education is to cultivate students into independent learners who can continue the life-long learning even after graduation, which is in accordance with the purpose of CALL environment. We choose first-year students in order to introduce this concept of modern education to them as early as possible, hoping that it can also benefit their study of university. Thirdly, according to the General Teaching Program, emphasis of first-year English teaching lies on listening and speaking, and other communicative abilities. Many researches reviewed in the previous chapter proclaim that CALL environment has a great potential in promoting students’ listening, speaking and other communicative abilities since it can provide students with a real language environment. To sum up, first-year students would be perfect subjects for the study.

The subjects of the study are Class 3 of Grade 2002 totaling 30 first-year English majors from the English Department of Anhui University, China, among whom are 21 girls, 9 boys, with an average age of 19.17. The following two graphs are the Constitution Graphs of Age and Gender made by SSPS:

We can take this class a typical sample of the whole grade which is divided into 5 classes, with about 30 students in every class, since the class division of the whole grade is done in an equidistance sampling way. Statistically speaking, this is an ideal sample that can best represent characteristics of the population of the whole grade.

Results of the pre-program survey (see Appendix I) show the educational and technical background of the subjects. They have been learning English for about 9 to 12 years, with an average of 9.6 years. As English majors of Anhui University which is a key university of the state “211” project (a project by the Ministry of Education by which 100 key universities in China will be built in the 21^st century), all of these students have a very good English foundation since they have achieved high scores in the strict national college entrance examination, with an average of 117 on the subject of English. They are all qualified to take part in the experimental program. Before participating in the program, 46.7% of these students have never used any operating system or software, and the most computer-literate student in the class has just used 11 operating systems and softwares out of the 18 items listed in the questionnaire. 33.3% students have the experience of surfing on the Internet, but according to their conversation with the teacher, they got plugged into the Internet only for getting some entertainment, for example, using OICQ to chat with net pals in Chinese, or reading Chinese news.

The study was conducted during the whole academic year 2002-2003 (Oct. 8^th ~ July 4^th), in an Internet lab at School of Foreign Studies of Anhui University in China. It was conducted by the writer who taught “Fundamental English” course to Class 3, Grade 2002. The purpose of the experiment which is also a trial reform of the teaching of “Fundamental English” course is to provide the participants with an opportunity to practice new electronic literacy through a hands-on approach and cooperation with their classmates. They meet in the lab four times a week, two class hours for each time. Besides, they regularly have three hours’ self-access time every Wednesday afternoon and sometimes two hours before or after each meeting (depending on whether students are free or not before or after each meeting). During their self-access time, they can finish their assignment which has to be done on computer or the Internet, or they can surf on the Internet to practice language competence, or to review teacher’s courseware which has been stored on the server.

According to Maddux (1988), non-native speakers’ attitudes toward CALL improve if the students are computer literate as a result of taking computer literacy training courses. Considering those students’ technical background, a computer literacy training course is very necessary. In the first 4 weeks of the course, a preparatory stage was arranged, in which not only students’ language skills but also basic electronic literacy skills were trained, such as fundamental computer hardware and software knowledge, computer operation system, e-mail writing, BBS, database and the Internet information retrieval, PowerPoint construction, web page making, and so on. The preparatory stage was followed by a production stage which lasted from the fifth week of the first semester to the end of the academic year. At this stage, students were taught by using courseware developed on A New English Course together with other supplementary materials. During this learning process, teacher used different ways to facilitate learner motivation, encouraged autonomous learning and interaction & cooperation between learners, and trained them in basic knowledge of learning strategies. Students wrote progress reports regularly and posted reflections of the program in a public folder on teacher’s PC to share with others. At the end of the program, every student wrote a report on his/her perception of CALL as a conclusion.

In the Internet lab, 31 PCs (1 for teacher, 30 for students) together with 3 servers are linked together to form an LAN that enables the in-class communications. They are connected to the Internet through the campus network, a part of CERNET (China Education and Research Network). All the 31 PCs in the lab are controlled by Tellhow Multimedia Classroom Software 3.0. By using this software, teacher can not only broadcast audial or visual courseware to every student, but can also realize some special interactive activities with students, for example, remote instruction (teacher can control any student’s PC via her own PC remotely), screen surveillance (teacher can surveille any student’s screen), chat between teacher and students, group discussion (teacher can electronically divide students into groups at will and allow students to chat with each other within the group, meanwhile, teacher can take part in any group’s discussion), electronic forum, sending messages between teacher and students or among students, file transmitting (teacher can transmit any file to students, or students can hand in their assignment electronically), network cinema, and even courseware-on-demand system. Before the program, every student applied for a free E-mail account. Thus, the use of both the Internet and LAN formed an online learning environment.

As teacher of the class, the writer has designed and observed the whole program. To examine its impacts on learners, both quantitative and qualitative data have been collected through surveys, interviews, records of the students’ e-mails and reports as well as the writer’s observation notes.

Two surveys have been administered: Pre-program Survey (see Appendix I) and Post-program Survey (see Appendix II). Both surveys ask similar questions related to learners’ motivation, autonomy, learning strategies, and interactive & cooperative learning etc. Part I of both surveys consists of questions to investigate learners’ attitude toward computer and CALL. Part II of both surveys consists of 25 items to be answered on a five-point Likert scale, with 5 being the highest score. Part II was designed on the basis of the 4 major influences of CALL environment discussed in Chapter 2, i.e., motivation, learner autonomy, learning strategies, and interactive & cooperative learning. Under each category, there are several sub-constructs. Influence on motivation is investigated from three motivational factors: communication, empowerment and learning effects; influence on learner autonomy is investigated from three essential elements: goal-setting, independent action and evaluation; influence on learning strategies is investigated from the two non-traditional strategies: information processing and inferencing, perception of courseware and learning methods in a CALL classroom; and influence on interactive & cooperative learning is investigated from five aspects: interdependence, interaction, accountability, interpersonal skills and group processing.

An end-of-program interview of some open-ended questions has also been conducted. The interview questions are related to students’ overall evaluation of the program and the benefits and deficiencies as they perceive. The interview questions are as follows:

What have you learned from the program? How is the experience different from that in the normal classrooms?

Which one do you prefer in your future learning: CALL or traditional way of teaching? Why?

What are the special difficulties or problems you have to cope with in this program?

If you have a chance to participate in a similar program, what would you suggest for improvement?

During the program, students are encouraged to discuss their perceptions of the program and questions concerning the program on the forum or store those discussions in the public folder on the hard disk of the teacher’s PC. Teacher-student and student-student correspondences serve as another source of data for study.

Students are asked to write reports of reflections on the program twice, once in the middle of the program, i.e., the end of the first semester; the other at the end of the program, i.e., the end of the second semester. These reports are authentic data for study.

Throughout the whole program, the writer has kept notes about major events, impressions and observations. This is also useful data with which the writer can trace the students’ changes when undergoing the program.

The raw data collected from the two surveys are processed by means of the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS 11.5 for MS Windows). The software is first operated to check the internal consistency of each preconceived category, aiming to verify whether the classification of the twenty-five questions meets the statistical demands. The value of each question’s internal consistency is termed as Alpha (see Appendix III). The result indicates that Q13 and Q20 need to be deleted in order to achieve the internal consistency for statistical purpose. After the two questions are deleted, values of the internal consistency of pre-program questionnaire and post-program questionnaire arrive at 0.7029 and 0.8198 respectively, both higher than 0.5 which is the least acceptable value acknowledged by most scholars. It indicates that the internal consistencies of both questionnaires are very high. Therefore, they are of satisfying reliability.

Then SPSS is used to obtain the mean and standard deviation of each item and categories (which is calculated from the mean of every item contained in that category), make paired-sample t-tests (a procedure which compares the means of two variables that represent the same group at different times) with the purpose to see whether there is any statistically significant change for all the subjects in each of the categories. Q12, Q23 and Q24 are reverse coded before this process. Reverse coding means requiring a negative response to indicate a positive attitude. These three questions are included just in case the students might tend to answer all questions positively. But when typing in the data from the raw material, responses of those negative questions should be reverse coded again to ensure the accuracy of questionnaire, i.e., change the original 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree), 5 to 1, 2 to 4, and 4 to 2. Since the value of 3 does not change, 3 remains unrecorded (Qin, 2003).

The analysis formulas used in the present study are listed as follows (Han, 2000; Qin, 2003):

Mean:

Standard Deviation:

T-Test:

( represents the value of each variable, and represent the number of cases, and represent the mean values of the two variables compared, and represent the standard deviation values of the two variables compared, and means the correlation coefficient of the two variables compared.)

Patton (1990:347) points out that qualitative data analysis should be data interpretation and analysis which involve “making sense out of what people have said, looking for patterns, putting together what is said in one place with what is said in another place, and integrating what different people have said”.

The qualitative data analysis of this study conforms to Patton’s methodology. The interview transcripts, students’ forum records, students’ reports and writer’s observation notes are all taken as raw data. They have undergone line-by-line key points coding firstly. Then all these key-points extracted from the raw materials are categorized in terms of motivation, learner autonomy, learning strategies and interactive & cooperative learning. Quotations of some of these extracts are taken as proof in this thesis. They are italicized inside quotation marks to indicate that they are the original data collected from the students.

This chapter presents the results on the research questions mentioned in the previous chapter and the discussions of the reasons underlying the changes. It consists of four sections. The first section reports and discusses changes in motivation in terms of factors of communication, empowerment and learning effect. The second section is devoted to learner autonomy in terms of factors of goal-setting, independent action and evaluation. The third section presents changes in learning strategies. The last section is for interactive & cooperative learning which is discussed in five sub-sections: interdependence, interaction, accountability, interpersonal skills and group processing. In these sections, changes are presented, alongside discussion of the enhancing and inhibiting factors.

The research results show that the program has been effective in intriguing learners’ interests in language learning and greatly enhanced their self-esteem. Put it in students’ own words cited from one of their reports, in a CALL environment,

“we felt active and joyful instead of depressing and insipid. Our enthusiasm for study increased!”

*P<.001

Table 4.1.1 reveals the changes in the factor of communication in learner’s motivation among the 30 subjects. Mean score of the factor of communication in post-program survey is 4.2167, which is 1.5667 points higher than that in pre-program survey. Standard deviation drops from .75601 to .70324. The increased mean score indicates that learners’ communication with others has been facilitated while the decreased standard deviation suggests variation of learners’ perception on this category has become more homogeneous. Result of the t-test (t=-9.560, p=.000) shows that the change in this category reached the statistical significant level (p<.001).

The authentic and purposeful communication in the program has been greatly welcomed by the students as shown by the high mean scores of 4.2333 for Q1 (“I feel more confident and comfortable to join discussion via computer.”) and 4.2000 for Q2 (“I enjoy using the computer to communicate in English with people around the world.). As the writer has observed, most students spent much spare time communicating with their classmates or net pals from all over the world in English on a great variety of topics.

Causes that contribute to this change can be summed up as follows:

Firstly, the long-distance, sometimes even cross-cultural network communication has helped sustain their interests. As a student talked to the writer in the interview, “I always long for opportunities to communicate with foreigners as much as possible, it is the Internet that provides me with this possibility. On the Internet, my dreams come true”. On a website called “Dave’s ESL Café” (www.davescafe.com) or Chat Rooms on Yahoo (www.yahoo.com), many students exchange their experiences of learning English with other English-learners. A girl reports that,

“I felt so excited when I saw there were responses to my message left on ‘Dave’s ESL Café’. I value the chance to communicate and exchange opinions with those Indian, German, Australian and many other countries’ students.”

This kind of communication has increased learners’ awareness of being members of a global village. When they get familiar with some of the Western customs and other cultural activities from those foreign net pals, they just feel even more interested in communicating with them. At the same time, the information they acquired will appear to be more vivid and more impressive compared with that they learnt from dull textbooks.

Secondly, computer-networks have also helped provide a more easy-going communicative environment. With the aid of computers and the Internet, learners can publish, revise, move or delete any part of their own language performance conveniently. At the same time, when facing a computer, learners have more time to think and can work at their own pace, their anxiety of being afraid of making mistakes or losing face seems to have reduced to an optimal level. Just as a popular saying quoted in one of the students’ reports,

“No one knows whether the guy you’re talking to at the other end of the net is a dog or not”.

No wonder that these young adult students welcome this kind of communication in such an enthusiastic way.

*P<.001

As can be seen from Table 4.1.2, the mean score of changes in the factor of empowerment in the post-program survey is 4.28333, much higher than that in the pre-program survey 2.48333. The standard deviation drops from .59427 to .48572. More students tend to agree with each other in this category. Thus, the result of paired samples t-test (t=-13.801) shows the factor of empowerment has undergone a statistically significant change at the level of .000.

Under this category, the mean score of Q3 (“The way of learning ‘Fundamental English’ course in CALL environment has increased my interest in communicating in English”) increases by 1.667 points while that of Q4 (“I now know better about how to effectively ask for information”) increases by 1.9667 points. Both have very significant improvement.

Through the program, the learners have been empowered to control their learning. It is them instead of the teachers who decide what to learn and how to learn. This empowering nature of CALL environment pushes them to work responsibly. When they feel that they are the owner and leading role in class when learning “Fundamental English” course in CALL environment, they are empowered with greater freedom together with greater responsibility. For greater freedom, they are provided with more abundant and colorful language materials; for greater responsibility, they should take charge of their own learning, and no one else would be blamed except themselves if they waste their precious time and learning opportunity.

As introduced in Chapter Three, there is a computer literacy training phase before the formal implementation of this program. During that period, these students are given lectures on the Internet search engine, database, information retrieval rules and symbols, and some related technology and skills, for example, the use of agent server, popular download softwares, FTP service and so on. After being empowered of efficient knowledge of information retrieval, learners are all capable of finding any information they want on the Internet or in some specific databases.

*P<.001

By examining the statistical result for changes in the factor of learning effect from Table 4.1.3, we can see that significant changes have also taken place again in this category (t=-9.800, P=.000, smaller than .001). The mean score increases by 1.9000 points from 2.2000 before the program to 4.1000 after the program. However, it is out of expectation that the standard deviation increases, which means that learners’ perception in this category tends to be more diversified.

There is only one question, i.e., Q5 (“When I use computer networks to work with other students, the experience enables me to be more self-confident.) in this category. Generally speaking, most students’ self-esteem and learning motivation have been strengthened by positive learning effects gained in this program. In their reports, students uniformly claim that they have a great interest in exploring the computer and their confidence have been enhanced for their increased familiarity with computer operation. Although at the beginning of this program, 46.7% of those students have never used any operating system or software, after the program, they are all capable of operating Windows 98, MS Word, MS Powerpoint, MS FrontPage, Macromedia Dreamweaver, Internet Explorer, Hotmail, Windows Media Player, Leap FTP, Caj Viewer, etc.. They are proud that they can grasp these current prevailing technical skills, which are not only useful for the current English learning, but also beneficial to future jobs and life-long learning.

In addition, during the processing of exploiting the Internet to work with other students, an unparalleled information treasury is unfolded before them. They absorb knowledge about language as well as other subjects. The Internet broadens their horizon. Meanwhile, they practice their skills to solve some real-life or real-work problems.

“Via the Internet, I feel more confident to use English to solve similar problems in English. …and through extensive reading on the net, my comprehensive ability has been improved.”

A student thus shares his experiences with his classmates in the public folder.

The research results show that the program has a great potential in nurturing learner autonomy in terms of goal-setting, independent action and evaluation.

As shown in Table 4.2.1, the result of the paired samples t-test (t=-1.153, P=.258) indicates that the change in this category did not reach the statistical significant level (P>.05). In other words, students’ perception on goal-setting does not change obviously after the program. However, this result is not out of our expectation.

As for the underlying causes of this result, it is not difficult to find out that the question learners are asked is something concerned with learning goal (Q6: “A definite goal is important to the success of English learning.”). As introduced in Chapter Three, the subjects of this program have been learning English for about 9 to 12 years, with an average of 9.6 years. Being English majors of Anhui University which is a key university of the state “211” project, all of these students have achieved high scores in the strict national college entrance examination, with an average of 117 on the subject of English. These successful English learners (at least successful at the secondary education level) have cultivated favorable learning habits and effective learning strategies in the past 9-12 years. At the same time, they are quite aware of the importance of setting up a definite learning goal. Therefore, the result of goal-setting element investigated in the pre-program survey has already reached a satisfying level (Mean = 3.8667), which is the category of the highest mean score in the pre-program survey. Consequently, the space for further development in this category is quite limited. It is almost impossible to achieve significant improvement in this category.

However, upon scrutiny of the statistics, it can still be found that the mean score has increased from 3.8667 in the pre-program survey to 4.0333 in the post-program survey. And the result of the standard deviation decreases greatly from .86037 to .31984. That is to say, goal-setting element has undergone a certain amount of change in the expected direction and learners’ variation in this category has become more homogeneous. After the program, students lay more emphasis on the setting of a definite learning goal and their perception on this question has been improved wholly to the satisfying level.

In the CALL classroom, learners are given more freedom in choosing what to learn and how to learn. Once the program has started, they are guided to set goals for each learning unit and tasks. Teachers are no longer the controller of their learning by only providing them necessary orientation. It is themselves who determined their own focuses on learning. When they take more control over their goals of learning and achieved favorable results of their own decisions, their awareness of setting a definite goal at the beginning of a learning process increases. One of the students expresses it in the interview like this:

“I think it (learning goal) is very important. If you can make arrangements for yourself, you can then carry out your learning plan systematically to achieve this goal. …without a definite goal, in self-access period in the Internet lab, sometimes we would just wander on the net in great idleness, visiting some websites only for entertainment and killing time.”

*P<.001

By examining Table 4.2.2, it can be concluded that great changes have taken place in the element of independent action, since the mean score in the post-program survey is higher than that in the pre-program survey, being improved significantly from 2.3200 to 4.0933; paired samples t-test shows that t-value is -17.654 and significant level is . 000, smaller than .001.

In this category, there are five questions designed in the two surveys. Q7 (“I’ve taken more responsibility for my own learning in the Internet classroom.”) focuses on responsibility acceptance (t=-11.119, P=.000). Its mean score has improved from 2.3000 before the program to 4.1000 after it. Actually, the training of learners’ sense of responsibility has been successful. At the very beginning of the program, some of the subjects feel at a loss when they are told that teacher will no longer occupy the privileged role of sole input of language and linguistic knowledge and they themselves should be responsible for their learning. However, after continuous explanation and sometimes even forcibly pushing them into the state of self-responsibility by only giving them limited but adequate instructions, their deep-rooted traditional concepts have been gradually changed.

Q8, Q9 and Q10 focus on choice-making. All of them have undergone significant changes (see Appendix IV), which indicate that as the program goes on, the learners are able to take great control over the learning content and to choose adequate learning materials.

Among these three questions, the one with the greatest differences between the two survey means is Q8 (t=-11.171, P=.000) (“I believe that whether I can choose what I want to learn or not is important to the success of my English learning.”) with an increase of 1.9667 points (from 2.2333 to 4.2000) (see Appendix IV). This suggests that being trained in the novel CALL environment with the most extensive freedom of learning and exposure to the authentic, update, abundant language materials, learners’ perception of passive learning has been changed most significantly in these three questions. They are discontent with receiving the confined knowledge arranged for them or being spoon-fed by the teacher. They believe that they should have freedom in choosing learning resources and that is important to the success of their English learning. This is in accordance with constructivists’ view that by giving learners the control over the learning content, they are more likely to make the link to their internal schemes (Jonassen, 1999).

Compared with Q8 and Q10, Q9 (t=-12.794, P=.000, pre-program mean=2.4000, post-program mean=4.3333) (“I can choose to read or listen what I am interested in on the net.”) is the one that has the highest mean score in the post-program survey. After receiving the computer-literacy training courses, all of the subjects are capable of utilizing the search engines on the Internet, e.g., www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, etc.; or finding information in different kinds of databases, e.g., the library’s online catalog, etc.. Therefore, they can access the extensive information they want freely.

Q10 (t=-10.814, P=.000) (“I can choose what is suitable to my own English level to learn on the Internet.”) has undergone significant changes as well. This implies that after the program, learners are aware of the importance of choosing learning materials with an adequate difficulty to their own level. At the same time, the Internet provides them with an unparalleled variety of materials. No matter at what level, they can find materials proper for them. It is a remarkable leap from the limited resource of traditional textbooks.

Cognitive constructivism holds that the factor essential to learner autonomy is that of choice; that is, people have choice over the way in which they behave (Williams & Burden, 1997). The above research findings confirm that learners in a CALL environment have much freedom in choice-making. As McGarry (1995) claims, when students are given control over what, how and when they learn, their intrinsic motivation will be greatly aroused and they are more likely to set realistic goals, develop strategies for coping with new situations, and learn how to be more efficient learners.

Q11 (t=-8.823, P=.000) (“When I meet problems in my English learning, I’d like to find solutions on the Internet or in other reference books by myself first.”) is designed to investigate how learners solve problems met in the process of learning. In traditional classrooms, the teacher will be most students’ first choice. In fact, in most traditional teachers’ minds, they like students who always ask questions since they are “diligent”. However, in a CALL classroom, learners are encouraged to find answers by themselves. The teacher will only give orientation to help learners. After the program, all the subjects are capable of finding any information they want on the Internet. Gradually, their ways of learning have been completely changed. This can be best illustrated by the opinion of a girl interviewed by the writer. To her,

“After the whole year of study, I found myself changed. When I met problems before, the first thing I would do was go to ask teachers. But now, I prefer to search for answers on the Internet by myself. I’ve learned how to solve problems independently. … Actually, this process is what we called ‘innovation’. This is an essential quality a student must have to face the new age.”

*P<.001

As shown in Table 4.2.3, the mean of evaluation element in the post-program survey is 3.7333, while that in the pre-program is only 1.5000. The standard deviation increases to .63968 from .57235. The result of paired samples t-test shows that there is significant change in evaluation element (t=-9.560, P=.000).

In this category, the only one question ---- Q12 (“The result of our learning should be evaluated by our teacher, not ourselves.”) is reverse-coded. This indicates that the learners’ reports, informal reflections pasted on the forum, self-evaluation and peer-evaluation which have been practiced during the program did work at last. In the two reports students handed in, each of them sums up their perceptions of the CALL environment. To write these report, they have to reflect on their past experience of this program, find areas where they have made progress and where they still need more work. By pasting opinions on the forum or in the public folder, their ideas will be exposed to other students, and at the same time, they can get responses from others. This kind of electronic peer-observation and peer-evaluation also contribute to their self-evaluation and help to broaden their view. Gradually, the concept of self-evaluation penetrates into students’ minds, so the mean score can be improved by 2.2333 points.

However, it is also clear that the post-program mean score is still not very high although it has improved greatly. At the same time, the standard deviation has increased which means that students’ perception on evaluation is more diversified. Causes of this problem can be found in the interview of the students. A boy said that they had been greatly accustomed to the teacher-centered way of teaching. Through this program, their concept of learning has changed greatly. At the moment, they can understand that they should be more independent in learning. However, some of them still believe that evaluation of learning results should be made by teachers. In their minds, teachers are the absolute authority and only teachers are qualified to judge how well they do. Therefore, the deep-rooted traditional learning concept hinders the further development of students’ self-evaluation. And the uneven progress of all subjects leads to the increased standard deviation, i.e., the more diversified opinions. These should be paid more attention to in future study.

Since Q13 has been deleted to achieve higher internal consistency of the whole questionnaire, this category consisted of four questions. Q14 and Q15 focus on the development of non-traditional learning strategies. Q16 is designed with the purpose of investigating learners’ perception of the courseware teacher has used. Q17 aims at learners’ general understanding of learning methods in a CALL classroom.

*P<.001

As can be seen from Table 4.3.1, the mean score of the use of non-traditional learning strategies in the post-program survey is 4.0690, higher than that in the pre-program survey 2.5483. The result of paired samples t-test (t=-12.697) shows that use of non-traditional learning strategies has undergone a statistically significant change at the level of .000.

There are two questions in this category. Q14 (t=-9.607, P=.000) (“I know how to find the information I want on the Internet.”) focuses on the use of information processing strategy. In the CALL classroom, students have free access to the Internet. When they surf on the net, reading strategies are intimately bound up with information sorting and reconstruction, i.e., to find the materials that they want and then reorganize the information according to requirement. In the computer literacy training period, all those 30 students have been taught to use the search engines on the Internet and different kinds of databases. During the program, they have been practicing such skills as scanning, skimming, retrieving, determining what is worth keeping, reorganizing and reconstructing their thoughts when they get new pieces of non-liner information on the web. After the program, they possess basic abilities to evaluate things critically, and are able to retrieve and read information they want on the Internet. This result is echoed in a student’s post-program report:

“…At the same time, the Internet provides various answers to each question. Facing those manifold opinions, I practiced to discard the dross and select the essence. In this way, I found answers with my individuality…”

Q15 (t=-9.021, P=.000) (“Information can be better processed by computers, I can choose what I want and acquire information as much as possible in the shortest time.”) is designed to investigate the change of using inferencing strategy. Inferencing is a frequently used strategy in CALL. As we all know, web pages are connected in the form of hyperlinks. Browsing numerous webs for special purpose, users can achieve their goal by clicking the shortcut from the related known information. Based on their background information and their task information, all learners are able to navigate reasonably and successfully through the different sites, surfing largely by use of the browser’s “back” and “forward” buttons. Owing to the inferencing strategy used and the aid of computer technology such as search engines, database, hyperlinks on the web pages, shortcut buttons and so on, the information retrieving process has been changed completely for learners in a CALL classroom. The result of paired samples t-test shows clearly that learners’ perception on Q15 has undergone a satisfying change toward the CALL environment.

*P<.001

By examining Table 4.3.2, it can be seen that there is significant changes that have taken place in the category of perception of courseware since the mean score of post-program survey is much higher than that of pre-program survey while standard deviation decreases after the program, with a t-value of -17.517.

In this category, there is only one question ---- Q16 (“I can understand the text better if the teacher uses a web page courseware in class.” in the pre-program survey and “The web page courseware teacher has used helps me understand the text better.” in the post-program survey). As introduced in Chapter Three, a web page courseware has been developed on the basis of A New English Course to serve as the teaching instrument in the program. Before the program, some students totally had no idea as to what is a courseware. However, at the end of the program, they appraise the courseware used in the program in an extraordinarily high way. The reason lies in that the courseware has helped them to understand the text in a more direct, visual and vivid way. Sometimes, even in an interactive way.

To illustrate, take Unit 17 in A New English Course Book 1 as an example. In Dialogue I The Great Pyramid, the question that whether pyramids of Egypt were tombs or not is discussed. To understand the dialogue, it is very important to form a clear picture of the inner structure of pyramids in students’ minds. In traditional classrooms, it is impossible to show students the complicated inner structure of pyramids clearly by only reading the description of it in the text. However, by making a hyperlink to the English website that introduces the Great Pyramid (see Picture 4.3.2 a) in the courseware, students can see the inner structure (see Picture 4.3.2 b) directly together with the background music featured in ancient Egypt.

Picture 4.3.2 a

Picture 4.3.2 b

In the post-program interview, a student expresses his feeling about the courseware in this way:

“Last semester, a lesson called ‘Halloween’ impressed me very much. The teacher led us to a foreign website. Just click, all kinds of ‘jack-o’-lantern’ began to smile at us. Pictures of various tricks made us laugh all the time. Vivid introduction attracted our whole minds.”

These coursewares are not only used in the class period, but are also stored under a public folder in the teacher’s PC to provide students with access to them after class. Thus, students can browse those coursewares after class on their own computer through the LAN established in the Internet Lab. A girl reflects in her report:

“Last semester we were taught in the Internet lab. The courseware teacher used almost contains everything we need to know concerning the textbook. Then we can use computer to find what we want to learn. Especially, sometimes we didn’t understand the contents in the class, but we can look them up on the teacher’s computer after class. It’s really convenient! And during the class, you do not need to worry about missing anything, since you can make it up later. I feel comfortable about that. ”

*P<.001

As shown in Table 4.3.3, the mean of learning methods in a CALL classroom increases from 2.7000 in the pre-program survey to 4.7000 in the post-program survey and the standard deviation descends greatly from .65126 to .46609. The significant value (t=-13.904, P=.000) for the t-test indicates that there is a significant difference between the two surveys. In other words, the mean score of the learners’ learning methods in the post-program survey is significantly higher than that in the pre-program survey. By examining all the mean scores of questions in post-program survey, that of learners’ learning methods is the highest one (Mean=4.7000).

There is only one question ---- Q17 (“Computer and the Internet provides me with many ways to learn and use English.”) in this category. The highest mean score devoted to Q17 reflects learners’ positive attitude toward CALL clearly. The following illustrates causes.

First, computer and the Internet expand learners’ exposure to vast authentic English language materials. Before entering the university, all those students were only given a textbook used throughout the country, assigned with mountainous exercises and forced to take part in endless examinations. Few middle school teachers dare to let students have more exposure to interesting and colorful authentic language materials to run the risk of failure in the national “College Entrance Examination”. Therefore, after taking a whole year of English learning in CALL environment, situations for those students have changed completely. With an estimated 85% of the electronically stored information in the world in the English language (Crystal, 1997), students get exposed to a “sea of English” whenever they surf the World Wide Web. A boy reflects in his post-program report,

“Learning through the Internet can change the way of learning. It’s more convenient and much faster. The information is huge, you can search everything you want.”

Secondly, along with the tremendous changes of language input, the quantity and quality of language output changes as well. To write in hypertext and correspond via E-mail involve great challenges for students. Language output in CALL environment stimulates better language performance due to learners’ improved self-confidence when he sees his writing get printed, less anxiety when he adopts playful form of “speak-writing”, and enhanced responsibility when he faces an authentic audience.

Thirdly, CALL environment empowers students to be more independent and cooperative in the process of language learning. The Internet and LAN enhance students’ interaction and discussion with others. At the same time, they have more freedom to have control over their learning material, methods, time, place, pace, etc.. Moreover, the CALL environment serves as a self-access center, which gives them much flexibility in learning.

To sum up, computer and the Internet offer many new possibilities of connection and creativity. Therefore, students have more opportunities to interact and cooperate. Besides, with more freedom in learning, they can study in a more independent, and flexible way. No wonder that the post-program mean score of Q17 is on the top of the list.

Both quantitative and qualitative studies show that learners’ interaction and cooperation with each other have been enhanced through the program. The influences of CALL on the five conditions for effective interaction and cooperation claimed by Johnson et al are discussed below.

*P<.001

As can be seen from Table 4.4.1, the mean score of interdependence in the post-program survey is 4.2500, higher than that in the pre-program survey 2.4500. The result of paired samples t-test (t=-10.770) shows that interdependence has undergone a statistically significant change at the level of .000.

There are two questions in this category ---- Q18 (t=-10.189, P=.000) (“Computer networks provide me with a collaborative and supportive learning environment.”) and Q19 (t=-8.762, P=.000) (“I like the experience that we group members carry out a somewhat difficult but challenging task together.”).

As introduced in 2.1.1, computer networks, e.g., the Internet and LAN can enable learners to communicate synchronously (real-time communication) or asynchronously (E-mail, BBS etc.) with people all over the world. To language learners, the opportunity of communicating with native speakers is beneficial to their language learning. In the traditional way of language learning, learners, especially most Chinese learners lack this kind of opportunities badly. Most of them cannot afford to go abroad to live in an authentic language atmosphere. Even for English majors in the schools which have favorable school-running conditions, their chance to communicate with native speakers is confined to the “Oral English” course which lasts for two class hours every week. However, the Internet can provide them with inexpensive, sometimes even free, abundant opportunities to do that. Moreover, the Internet can broaden their view on language learning by enabling them to communicate with language learners from other countries or cultures. This kind of cross-cultural interaction definitely can facilitate their language learning. Another student shares her experience of finding the meaning of “pajama party” on the Internet by pasting the following message in the public folder.

“When I found this phrase in a story, I was puzzled. ‘Pajama party’, it didn’t make any sense to me! So I asked the meaning of it on the BBS named ‘Dave’s Café’, an American girl gave me a reply immediately, she not only explained that to me, but also sent me a photo of her pajama party. It’s so cute! All those lovely girls were attending the party in their pajamas! I love those lovely girls! I love those beautiful pajamas!”