The  Effects of Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Different Interaction Patterns on Vocabulary Development of EFL Learners

Fatemeh Shamshiri; Sajad Shafiee; Fariba Rahimi

doi:10.17323/jle.2023.12093

Fatemeh Shamshiri Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
Sajad Shafiee Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
Fariba Rahimi Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.12093

Keywords: Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL), Individual-Content Interaction, Pair work, Small-group work, Vocabulary Development

Abstract

Background: Research on the integration of Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in EFL contexts has witnessed a significant advance due to the modern changes in language education and technology over the last decades. However, the effects of CALL on vocabulary development through different interaction patterns have not been investigated by researchers.

Purpose: Attempts have been made to assess the effects of CALL and Memrise software on the vocabulary development of intermediate EFL learners through the three interaction patterns: 1) pair-work interaction, 2) small-group-work interaction, and 3) individual content.

Method: A total of 100 male and female Iranian EFL learners were selected through convenience sampling and assigned into three experimental and one control groups, each consisting of 25 learners. The Oxford Quick Placement Test was taken to assure the homogeneity of the participants. Then, a multiple-choice vocabulary test was taken as a pretest. The three experimental groups learned vocabulary through Memrise desktop software with three different interaction patterns, while the control group learned the same through the conventional pattern. A reshuffled version of the pretest constitutes the subsequent posttest.

Result: The results of the comparison between all pretests and posttests indicated that there was a significant difference between the vocabulary scores of the pretest and the posttest of the experimental groups, indicating the efficiency of these treatments. It was revealed that the pair work was slightly more effective than small-group work and that these two types of intervention were more effective than individual-content interaction, where the latter was more effective than conventional instruction.

Conclusion: According to the findings, students are advised to take advantage of CALL-based facilities and participate in interactive activities.