EVALUATING ONLINE ENGLISH GRAMMAR COURSEWARE FOR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL: INSIGHTS FROM STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Hady Sutris Winarlim, Y. G. Harto Pramono, Agnes Santi Widiati

Abstract


The online English grammar courseware “I-GLO” has been developed by the authors based on the needs of Senior High School students in Indonesia. The courseware was specifically developed to be used as supplementary materials and to provide independent grammar studies for students. The proposed courseware has been used publicly; thus, it is important to evaluate the courseware to determine its quality. The evaluation was performed based on user insights, i.e., students and teachers’ insights.  A questionnaire was developed and validated before distribution to the participants. The questionnaire was used to determine the quality of each part/section of the courseware content, i.e., Explanation, Understanding Check, Quiz, and game content.  The questionnaire also determined the extent to which the courseware supports grammar learning. The findings of this study can help courseware developers improve its quality in future revisions.


Save to Mendeley


Keywords


English grammar courseware; evaluation; students and teachers; senior high school

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arikunto, S. (2013). Management research. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Blake, C. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 227-240.

Colpaert, J. (2006). Pedagogy-driven design for online language teaching and learning. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 477–497.

Flagg, B. (1990). Formative evaluation for educational technologies. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gruba, Hinkelman, and Cardenas-Claros (2016). Blended Language Program Evaluation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hedge, T. (2008). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom: A Guide to Current Ideas about the Theory and Practice of English. Oxford University Press.

Hubbard, P. (2006). Evaluating CALL software. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling in CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (CALICL monograph series, Vol. 5; pp. 313–338). San Marco, TX: Texas State University.

Jamieson, J., & Chapelle, C. (2010). Evaluating CALL use across multiple contexts. System, 38(3), 357–369.

Leech, G and Jan S. (2002). A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman – Pearson

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mukundan, J., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2011). An evaluation of English language teaching courseware in Malaysia. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 142–150.

Murray, G. (1999). Exploring learners’ CALL experiences: A reflection on methods. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12, 179–195.

Nesbitt, D. (2013). Student evaluation of CALL tools during the design process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(4), 371–387.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7(2), 118–132.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2007). e-Learning initiatives in China: Pedagogy, policy and culture. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Strobl, C., & Jacobs, G. (2011). Assessing QuADEM: Preliminary notes on a new method for evaluating online language learning courseware. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 433–449.

Tolhurst, D. (1992). A checklist for evaluating content-based hypertext computer software. Educational Technology, 32(3), 17–21.

Voogt, J. (1990). Courseware evaluation by teachers: An implementation perspective. Computers Educ., 14(4), 299–307.

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 3(1), 57–71.

Yang, Y., & Chan, C. (2008). Comprehensive evaluation criteria for English learning websites using expert validity surveys. Computer & Education, 51(1), 403–422.

Zhang, L. (2005). Awareness-raising in the TEFL phonology classroom. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 145(0), 219–268.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.33508/mgs.v52i2.6049