Claims

Treatment students preferred communicative CALL tasks or a combination of methods over traditional teacher/CD-player listening (48% preferred both, 36% preferred CALL)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Only 16% of treatment students preferred learning by listening to the teacher or CD player; 36% preferred communicative tasks with CALL and 48% preferred both. → Nguyen Van Han & Henriette van Rensburg 2014

Evidence

Nguyen Van Han & Henriette van Rensburg 2014

Nguyen Van Han & Henriette van Rensburg. (2014). The Effect of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on Performance in the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) Listening Module. English Language Teaching, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p30

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Learning-style question in the post-course questionnaire of the treatment group. "48% of the students felt eager to take part in the tasks organized with two methods at the same time", which the authors read as supporting teacher roles as negotiator, facilitator and organizer.

"16% of the students showed their interest in learning with the traditional method (listen to the teacher or CD player to do the listening tasks). On the other hand, 36% of them preferred communicative tasks with CALL. Surprisingly, 48% of the students felt eager to take part in the tasks organized with two methods at the same time."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.