HERE WE GO AGAIN: DOES NETWORK-BASED SPANISH TEACHING ENHANCE LANGUAGE ACQUISITION?

Most language teachers, even the self-proclaimed technologically challenged, use some kind of technology in their classrooms, either course-management systems (such as Blackboard and WebCT) to distribute syllabi, assignments, grades and so on; or video-sharing websites from which they can quickly download songs, movies and other traditional language resources. However, the biggest advantage that the Internet offers to a language teacher is the possibility of low-cost, easy and direct access to other people, languages, and traditions and all the possible cultural artifacts related to them. This is also known as network-based language teaching (NBLT), which refers to the pedagogical use of computers connected in local or global networks.

The researchers in this study created a hybrid setting, teaching Spanish courses with an on-line component (three contact hours a week face-to-face and one contact hour on-line), in which English native speakers studying Spanish in a small liberal arts college on the East Coast of the United States, conducted synchronous interactions with native speakers of Spanish studying English in Mexico City.

Starting in the fall of 2008, the researchers used the Reading and Listening sections of the Minnesota Language Proficiency Assessment (MLPA), which is a proficiency-based second language assessment tool, to investigate whether the use of text-based synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) technology in NBLT courses enhances language acquisition in the Spanish language class. In May 2010, data was analyzed using a mixed model Analysis of Variance, which aimed to determine that the NBLT courses and the traditional courses performed similarly on the pretest, but one group performed significantly different on the posttest. Further research was clearly needed to better understand the differences in posttest scores obtained between the control and treatment groups, as it was not evident why the control groups scored lower in the posttest in comparison to the pretest.

During the fall semester 2010, the researchers replicated the study using the same test procedures in treatment and control groups. Results are presented in this paper in addition to a description of the activities conducted in the treatment groups, and the methodology used to compare language acquisition between the groups.