The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

“I prefer to think for myself”:
Upper Secondary School Pupils’ Attitudes towards
Computer-based Spanish Grammar Exercises.
Kent Fredholm

90	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Abstract

There is an increasing pressure from school leaders in many countries for teaching to be based
solely on ICT tools. The present study is interested in what this does to pupils’ attitudes towards
ICT in language classrooms. Is a digital monopoly a good way for pupils to learn languages? Is it
what they want?
To understand for which tasks students feel that computers are an appropriate tool, a qualitative
survey mapping upper secondary school pupils’ attitudes towards the ICT use for learning
Spanish has been conducted. The study looks at ICT use for grammar practice. A group of pupils
have completed lesson diaries, reflecting upon web-based grammar exercises, comparing them topaper-based exercises, and a questionnaire survey on general attitudes towards ICT in language
learning.
The results indicate that the majority of participating pupils ask for a greater variety of tasks andsee a need also for traditional forms of grammar practice, especially written exercises which givetime to reflect upon grammar, syntax and vocabulary. They want ICT use to be an option, not a
constraint. Many complain on flaws in the design of web-based grammar exercises. This shows aneed for more research into the effects of different designs of web-based tools. It also becomes
clearer that decision-makers and teachers must focus more on the pedagogical purpose oflearning tasks and that the first question to ask is: “How can I teach this in a way that suits mypupils?” rather than: “How can I add more ICT to my teaching?”.

Keywords: ICT; CALL; Foreign language learning; Pupils’ attitudes; Grammar learning.

91	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Introduction and background
I am one of many teachers witnessing the Information and Communications Technology (ICT)revolution reaching our schools, as an ambitious 1:1-laptop programme is being implemented in
the public upper secondary school where I teach. When private schools started offering freelaptops, it was seen as a way to attract pupils from public schools (Lund, 2006, 2007; Odlander,2007). The current 1:1-implementation is motivated otherwise: we need to prepare today’s youth
for tomorrow’s future, increase entrepreneurial thinking and find new teaching methods toenhance pupils’ learning (examples from discussions among local school authorities).
Educational challenges like these are seemingly all to be solved by giving computers to the pupils.
As is often the case, much thinking and dreaming goes on before the computers arrive, but fewer
efforts are done after that to make something out of the technology (cf. Svärdhagen et al., 2011).
A worrying tendency, locally but also reported in international reports (e.g. Zucker et al., 2005),
is the wish to use ICT to save money on other teaching material.
Many researchers and opinion-makers seem fairly agreed on the need to use ICT in school. Cobo
Romaní & Moravec (2011) discuss how Drucker’s (1959) vision of the “knowledge worker” hasrealised itself and that pupils need to know how to handle the new technique, an opinion
expressed also in Motteram (2011). Cobo Romaní and Moravec observe, nevertheless, that thisdoes not necessarily mean that ICT is always the best method. The voices heard on ICT in school
are, however, mostly focusing on the need of getting more teachers to use ICT, rather than
discussing when, how or why (from a pedagogical point of view) ICT should be used.
Computers are often thought to automatically motivate pupils (Zucker et al., 2005; Ware et al.,2006; Kahraman et al., 2011; Edmunds et al., 2012; AlAmmary, 2012; Tallvid et al., 2009).
According to Usta (2011), however, neither traditional nor web-based teaching methods influenceon pupils’ attitudes towards computers or the Internet; considering this, the methods per se would
92	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  not automatically constitute a motivating (or demotivating) factor; what is needed is rather awell-planned and varied teaching adapted to student needs and preferences. There are indications
that pupils grow weary of computers as the charm of the novelty wears off (Wiebe et al., 2010;
Lim et al., 2006; Warschauer, 1996; Chiu et al., 2013). Few seem to bother, though, to ask pupils
what they perceive as instructive methods.
As Svensson (2008) and others (e.g. Enkvist, 2002, 2011; Roszak, 1994) point out, there issometimes an “almost regularly occurring overconfidence in new media” (Svensson, 2008, p. 145,
my translation). This overconfidence may be forcing ICT-based teaching methods prematurely onteachers and students, thus neglecting other ways of teaching and learning, as well as impeding awell thought-out use of ICT tools in classroom practice. Ware et al. (2006) stress
that, ”Justification for the new uses of technology must be based, not on unmitigated, unrealistic
optimism, or on uninformed, a priori rejection, but on empirical data matched to particular uses in
specific contexts.” (p. 4). Chapelle (2011) also says that it is difficult to conclude what are theeffects of ICT use in language instruction, and Buskqvist et al. (2011) write that it is “problematicthat implementations of ICT-based forms or elements of instruction are based neither onscientific evidence nor are followed up by scientific studies” (pp. 68 – 69; my translation). In
New Millennium Learners, the OECD admits the “intrinsic difficulty when researching the effects
of technology on educational performance”, and mentions “inconclusive results” (OECD, 2008, p.
7; cf. Rosén, 2012), a view shared by Chapelle (2011). According to Nutta (1998), ICT-based
grammar instruction can be as effective or more so than traditional one, while Lim et al. (2006),
on the other hand, have found that CALL does not necessarily give better results than traditional
instruction. Kroksmark (2006) suggests that pupils might prefer traditional teaching. Interestingly,
Wiebe & Kabata, (2010) have found in several studies that teachers perceive ICT use as more
useful than many pupils do, and Svärdhagen et al. (2011) point out that school leaders, in their

93	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  turn, put more faith in it than teachers do. It may be time to find out more about what the pupils
who use the technology actually think of it.
Aim of the present study
A better understanding of pupils’ views on purposeful and instructive ICT use in language
learning could help us construct better programs and software, and make us understand whatneeds to be studied more (Larsson, 1986). To be able to perform research on how ICT use
changes learning outcomes, we first need to gain a better understanding of what pupils do with
their computers in school, and what their feelings towards these study methods are (cf. Wiebe etal., 2010).
According to Ayres (2010), ICT is particularly useful for practicing spelling, writing andgrammar skills, but less motivating in other cases. The present study is particularly interested insituations where ICT can be perceived of as obstructing or disrupting the learning, or simply not
functioning well, from the pupils’ point of view. This is less studied than ICT as a motivating
factor; cf., though, Granath et al. (2008) and Andersson (2010), among others.
The aim of the present study is, thus, to investigate attitudes among Swedish upper secondary
school pupils towards ICT use for Spanish grammar learning. In order to clarify these opinions,computer-based learning methods are compared to “paper-based” methods. This can hopefully
contribute to a better understanding of learning processes in 1:1 language classrooms and of
pupils’ views on appropriate ICT use for language learning.
The main research questions are:• When do pupils see computers as an appropriate tool for learning Spanish grammar?
• When do they not see them as appropriate?
• What didactic and scientific implications can be drawn from these results?
94	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Methods
Data were collected at three occasions during the autumn of 2012, using two lesson diaries and aquestionnaire. In both diaries, the pupils evaluated and reflected on the teaching methods andgrammar exercises they had worked with. The questionnaire, designed according to guidelines inDörnyei (2010, chap. 2), focused on general attitudes towards computer-based and paper-based
grammar learning. The study shows the pupils’ thoughts over a few months, thus reducing theissue of attitudinal changes over time (cf. Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011).
The diaries and the questionnaire were distributed through a course management system (CMS)1
used at the school and chosen for practical reasons, being already there, ready to be used andknown to the pupils.
For the lesson work preceding the lesson diaries, online exercises were chosen to reflect types of
exercises easily accessible on the internet and regularly used at the school of current interest.2
The exercises consist of fill-in-the-blanks, matching, verb conjugations exercises and similar
activities, which, according to Tomlinson (2011), still make up the major part of self-accessonline material for language practice. The paper-based exercises were produced by teachers or
taken from a Spanish textbook (Vanäs Hedberg et al., 2008), and other commercially available
material such as Grönwald (1999a, 1999b). The main difference between the exercises was thatthe paper-based ones also contained sentences to translate to and from Spanish, which will befurther commented on later.
The analysis of the lesson diaries and the questionnaire follows a theme-based qualitative content
analysis, inspired by phenomenographic methods such as described by Larsson (1986).
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1

See www.itslearning.com. “Courseware”, “virtual learning environment”, “learning management system” are otherterms for this kind of platform (Svensson, 2008; Cavus et al., 2010).
2
Established through personal experience and discussions during language teachers’ conferences. The online
exercises were mainly from http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/actividades_ave/aveteca.htm and http://www.vertaal.com/.

95	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Participants
Twenty-six pupils in a group of twenty-seven, age 17, gave their informed consent to be part ofthe study. The average answer rate was 89%. There were 6 boys and 21 girls, reflecting theuneven distribution of Swedish language students at their level (Lannvik Duregård, 2010). The
participants being my own pupils, I have avoided to discuss views on learning methods or inother ways alter their opinions. A variety of teaching methods has been used, involving
computers as much as other modalities. It has also been clearly pointed out that the study has no
relation to grading or other forms of assessing their language skills.
The group was chosen for its mix of pupils from different study programmes: the Arts
Programme (henceforth “Arts”, 5 pupils); the Business Management and Economics Programme(“Economics”, 4 pupils); the Natural Science Programme (“Science”, 15 pupils); and theInternational TIME Programme3 (1 pupil). The TIME pupil’s answers are analysed with the
Science pupils’. It was their sixth year of Spanish studies and their Spanish proficiency
corresponded approximately to the B1 level of the CEFR scale (cf. Skolverket, 2013). They had
their own laptops, provided by their schools.
A note on terminology
Exercises, grammar explanations, etc. in books and on loose sheets of paper are referred to as“paper-based”, exercises etc. in digital form as “computer-based”. The term “online” is used for
explanations and exercises on the Internet. The term “ICT” (information and communication
technologies) is used for discussing not only computers but other digital technologies as well (cf.
Kern, 2006, p. 185).

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
3

This is a Natural Science programme specialising in “telecommunication, IT, media and interactive entertainment”(Karlstads kommun, 2012).

96	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Results and reflections
Results from Lesson diaries
The lesson diaries focused on pupils’ perceptions of grammar exercises on the Spanish futuretense and gerund constructions.4
According to Edmunds et al. (2012), using the “Technology Acceptance Model” developed by
Davis (1989), the perceived ease of use and the perceived usefulness influence on the user
acceptance of a technology. Bearing this in mind, the pupils were asked to grade the instructive
value of the computer-based exercises, on a Likert-scale from 1 to 5. Diagram 1 shows the mean
percentage from both diaries.

Diagram	  1	
  –	
  Perceived	
  instruc3ve	
  value	
  of	
  exercises	
  (group	
  level)	
  
70%	
  
61%	
  
60%	
  
49%	
  

50%	
  

Computer-­‐based	
  

40%	
  

32%	
  

Paper-­‐based	
  

30%	
  

24%	
  
16%	
  
11%	
  

20%	
  
11%	
  
10%	
  
0%	
  

2%	
  

0%	
  

1	
  

3%	
  
2	
  

3	
  

4	
  

5	
  

	
  

More pupils rated computer-based exercises than paper-based ones “5”, but on a whole they
preferred the paper-based exercises. Views differed more within the computer-based exercise
answers. The Science pupils were more negative to computer-based exercises than the otherpupils. It is unlikely that this is due to differing computer skills or experience, as most of thepupils considered their computer skills good (Diagram 3).
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
4

These areas were part of the participants’ on-going curriculum.

97	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  The computer-based exercises rated higher in the second diary than in the first. The mostcommon rating was still “3”, though, whereas the perceived instructive value of the paper-based
exercises continued to rate higher than the computer-based. The increase in popularity for the
online exercises can be explained by the fact that they were better structured than the exercises in
the first lesson diary. Pupil 8 (Science) commented that the instructions were easy and that her
opinion depended “on the quality of the web-sites”.
When asked which kind of exercise they generally prefer, (keeping instructive value in mind but
also considering other criteria such as being fun, user friendliness, etc.), the pupils answered as in
Diagram 2. (No Economics pupils answered this question.)

Diagram	  2	
  –	
  Preferences:	
  computer-­‐based	
  or	
  paper-­‐based	
  exercises	
  
45%	
  
40%	
  
35%	
  
30%	
  

23%	
  

Science

25%	
  

Arts

20%	
  

27%	
  

15%	
  
10%	
  

27%	
  
18%	
  

5%	
  

5%	
  

0%	
  
Paper-based

Combination/variation

Computer-based	
  There was a slight preference for paper-based exercises. Some of the motivations for this werethat the pupils felt that they learned better when they wrote by hand, that it was easier to focus on
the task and that they “sort of get the feeling in the hand” (pupil 16, Arts) when writing by hand.5
Every Arts pupil but one preferred paper-based exercises, and no one wanted only computerbased exercises. Only 6 out of 22 pupils (27%) preferred to use only the computer, none of them
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
5

Cf. Longcamp et al. (2008) and Velay et al. (2004a, 2004b), for neurocognitive studies where young and adultlearners recognised and remembered letters better when they had learned them by handwriting, compared to typing
on a computer.

98	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Arts pupils, while the remaining 73% preferred to work with paper-based exercises or with a
combination. This wish for combined teaching methods is in line with Motteram’s (2011) opinion
that web-resources do not cross out the use of text-books but can be a way to enhance them or
update their information. These results might also be compared with Wiebe et al. (2010), saying
that, “students chose their textbooks to be the most effective for materials in their course” (p. 226)
and Hegelheimer et al., (2006) writing that “learners often want to focus on form and wish for apedagogical tool to serve as a reference and an easy-to-use resource” (p. 259).
In the general comments on computer-based and paper-based exercises, only one pupil thoughtthat the paper-based exercises were “fun”; many appreciated them, however, seeing them as
instructive and presenting them with a good opportunity to review old knowledge and learn more.
Several pupils mentioned the instructive value of tasks involving translation of entire sentences,(something rarely seen in computer-based exercises), and asked for more of them. In a Swedish
school context, this is worth noticing, as the national curriculum for foreign languages does notinclude translation (Skolverket, 2013; cf. Council of Europe, 2001, chap. 2.1.3).
Several pupils stated that they learned more easily when working with pen and paper. Only threepupils believed that they learned more from online exercises then from paper-based, and somepointed out that a combination of methods is preferable. One pupil (5; Science) said that online
exercises facilitate revising grammar at home, but others thought that papers are easier to save forreviewing. The variation of working with both paper-based and computer-based exercises also
made it easier for her to work for longer without getting tired or bored. Another pupil (2; Science)commented that being able to choose from many different types of exercises makes it easier tocater for different learning styles. A few pupils preferred the online exercises because they did
not have to keep any papers, whereas others wanted papers as they felt that it was easier to gather
all the papers in one place and keep them for reviewing or studying for tests later.

99	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Results from the Questionnaire survey
The questionnaire focused on general attitudes towards the use of ICT, compared to paper-based
methods. Questions were also asked about general computer competence and confidence, andcomputer use in and outside of school.
Computer competence and general computer use
As indicated in Diagram 3, a majority of the pupils had high or very high confidence in their
computer competence. Most of them were frequent computer users at home and at school(Diagrams 4 and 5). Negative attitudes towards the use of ICT can apparently not be explainedwith lack of computer competence or experience, in this study.
Diagram	
  3	
  -­‐	
  Es3mated	
  computer	
  competence	
  
60%	
  
50%	
  

Science

40%	
  

Arts

30%	
  

Economics

20%	
  
10%	
  
0%	
  
1 - Very low
computercompetence

2

3

4

100	
  
	
  

5 - Very highcomputercompetence	  The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Diagram	
  4	
  -­‐	
  Frequency	
  of	
  computer	
  use	  at	
  home	  for	
  school	
  purposes	
  
40%	
  
35%	
  
30%	
  
25%	
  

Science

20%	
  

Arts
Economics

15%	
  
10%	
  
5%	
  
0%	
  
Hardlyever

1 day/
week

2

3

4

5

6

7 days/week	
  Diagram	
  5	
  -­‐	
  Frequency	
  of	
  computer	
  use	
  during	
  lessons	
  (all	  subjects)	
  
45%	
  
40%	
  
35%	
  
30%	
  

Science

25%	
  

Arts

20%	
  

Economics

15%	
  
10%	
  
5%	
  
0%	
  
Hardly ever 1 day a week

2 days aweek

3 days aweek

4 days aweek

5 days a
week

	
  

The pupils used computers mostly in language lessons and social sciences. Pupil 21 (Economics)
commented that he hardly ever used the computer in any subject, except for oral presentations.
He preferred to use his smartphone, as it can perform everything he needs during the lessons andis easier to carry around. He was not alone: most pupils used the computer regularly during
Spanish lessons (Diagram 6), but 80% also used smartphones to look up words or otherinformation. More pedagogical uses of the smartphone, such as applications for vocabulary
practice or watching instructive videos, were rarely found.

101	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Diagram	
  6	
  -­‐	
  Individually	
  chosen	
  computer	
  use	
  during	  Spanish	
  lessons	
  
90%	
  
80%	
  
70%	
  
60%	
  
50%	
  
40%	
  
30%	
  
20%	
  
10%	
  
0%	
  

ScienceArts
Economics

1 - Hardly ever useit

2 - Once or twice 3 - A short time most 4 - Almost all theeach termof the Spanish
time on mostlessons
Spanish lessons	  Four main reasons to explain differences in computer use between subjects can be distinguished(Diagram 7). Languages and social sciences involve more information search and writing.
Several pupils pointed out that it is more difficult in some subjects (mathematics, physics, andchemistry) than in others to make notes on the computer, as they require drawing of diagrams,
graphs, etc. The computer use also seems to depend on teachers’ preferences and ways ofteaching (cf. Svärdhagen et al., 2011; Thullberg et al., 2009). Different schools seemingly havedifferent ICT culture; especially the Economics pupils made little use of their computers.
Whether this depends on teacher beliefs, lack of teacher training, or other factors, needs to befurther investigated.

102	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter

	
  

50%	
  
45%	
  
40%	
  
35%	
  
30%	
  
25%	
  
20%	
  
15%	
  
10%	
  
5%	
  
0%	
  

Diagram	
  7	
  -­‐	
  Reasons	
  for	
  diﬀering	  computer	
  use	  in	
  diﬀerent	
  school	
  subjects	
  ScienceArts
Economics

Information Depends on Essay andEasier to
Oral
Onlinesearch.
teaching style. report writing. make notes/ presentations dictionaries.
draw by hand. or hand-in
tasks.

	  Some pupils did not clearly link their computer use to specific subjects, but rather stated personalreasons for (not) using the computer. Pupil 15 (Science) commented that she starts her computer
only if the teacher says that it is going to be used during the lesson; she preferred not to use it as
it makes her focus less on the lesson content. Pupil 18 (Science), showing a clear aversion tocomputers, stated that she chooses to use papers, unless the teacher tells her to use the computer.
An Economics pupil (17) wrote that the computer makes storing information from the lessons
easier. This can explain why she preferred to use the computer in subjects where the teachers giveout digitalised information, but it does not explain why the computer use in those particularsubjects is elicited by the teachers.
The pupils reported many uses of their computers during the Spanish lessons (Diagram 8).
Facebook interaction, dreaded by many teachers, was scarce, although there was much “lesson
irrelevant information search” going on, including looking at the online schedule, finding out
what is for lunch, checking bus time tables etc. Again, reading, writing, searching for informationand doing exercises were among the main areas of computer use; surprisingly, though, essay
writing did not score higher. According to Warschauer et al. (2010), “the greatest impact ofindividual laptop use is on student writing” (p. 221).
103	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  Few pupils used the computer for making notes, and many expressed clearly that they saw great
disadvantages in using the computer for this. (Only one pupil stated the opposite.)	
  Diagram	
  8	
  -­‐	  Areas	
  of	
  computer	
  use	  by	
  pupils	
  during	  Spanish	
  lessons	
  
100%	
  
90%	
  
80%	
  
70%	
  
60%	
  
50%	
  
40%	
  
30%	
  
20%	
  
10%	
  
0%	
  

ScienceArts
Economics	
  Advantages and disadvantages of computer or pen/paper use
As shown in Diagram 9, the most useful use of the computer, according to the pupils, is forwriting essays (although, as seen in Diagram 8, this use could increase among the participants).
Almost half of the pupils saw online dictionaries as useful, and about a third mentioned grammar
exercises and information search; even fewer online grammar explanations (they preferred
explanations by the teacher). Only Economics pupils talked about the use of computers for oralpresentations, with PowerPoint. Again, this might depend on different school or study
programme cultures.

104	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Diagram	
  9	
  -­‐	  Perceived	
  usefulness	
  of	
  computer	
  use	  in	
  Spanish	
  lessons	
  
80%	
  
70%	
  
60%	
  

Science

50%	
  

Arts

40%	
  

Economics

30%	
  
20%	
  
10%	
  
0%	
  

	
  

Diagram 10 shows the areas that the pupils did not see as good for computer use.

40%	
  
35%	
  
30%	
  
25%	
  
20%	
  
15%	
  
10%	
  
5%	
  
0%	
  

Diagram	
  10	
  -­‐	  Perceived	
  disadvantages	
  of	
  using	  computers	  in	
  Spanish	  lessons	
  ScienceArts
Economics	
  Making notes was repeatedly commented on in the questionnaire. Many pupils found it difficult
to make notes on the computer, whereas only one preferred to use the computer. Teachers
wishing to increase ICT use in their classes probably need to take this opinion into account andteach suitable techniques for making notes and filing them (be it on computers or by hand).
Several pupils also wrote that they did not enjoy reading longer texts on the computer, as it was
tiring for the eyes. Working on the computer was also seen as distracting by some pupils.
105	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Grammar explanations are also an area not suitable for computer use, according to some pupils,
who preferred teacher-led oral explanations at the whiteboard and/or individual explanations by
their desks.
	  The major advantage of online Spanish grammar exercises (Diagram 11), according to many ofthe pupils, is the instant corrective feedback. One of the Science pupils also mentioned the spell
checker function in Word as an advantage.
Diagram	
  11	
  -­‐	  Perceived	
  usefulness	
  of	
  using	  computers	
  for	  Spanish	
  grammar	
  learning	
  
60%	
  
50%	
  

ScienceArts
Economics

40%	
  
30%	
  
20%	
  
10%	
  
0%	
  
Instant Big array of Exercises No need to Easier to More fun Easy to findcorrective exercises to can be done keep track revise (e.g. than papers information
feedbackchooseseveralof papers at home)
from
times

	
  

In a study on electronic feedback and development of writing skills in a second language, Ware etal. (2006) conclude, though, that automated grammar feedback has unclear influences on students’
writing skills. Pupils’ reactions to this type of automated correction may be further researched.
Many pupils enjoyed the automatic feedback but were aware of its drawbacks, and commented
that without the automatic correction they were forced to think more for themselves, andperformed the paper-based exercises with greater care.

Features such as big variety of exercises to choose from and repeatability (without having to use
an eraser) were also mentioned as advantages of computer-based exercises, as opposed to typical
paper features (Diagrams 12 and 13).
106	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter

	
  

60%	
  

Diagram	
  12	
  -­‐	  Perceived	
  advantages	
  of	
  using	
  paper-­‐based	
  grammar	  exercises	
  

50%	
  

Science	
  
Arts	
  
Economics	
  

40%	
  
30%	
  
20%	
  
10%	
  
0%	
  
Easier	  /	
  faster	
  to	
   Easy	  to	
  save	   Need	  to	
  think	  for	
   Muscle	
  memory.	
   Reliable,	
  few	  learn.	
  papers	  /	
  consult	  yourself.	
  errors.	
  book	
  and	  review.	
  

	
  

Several pupils conveyed strong opinions on advantages of paper-based exercises. Pupil 9(Science): “there’s no automatic correction [and] you have to know what you’re doing”. Pupil 18(Science): “you get a very concrete feeling, and it absolutely [enters] your brain a hundred percent faster, when things are in paper-form. You can quickly ask the teacher or look things up on
the internet if you’ve made a mistake.” Pupil 14 (Science): “I feel that I learn the spelling better if
I can write by hand instead of using the computer”. Pupil 17 (Economics) also mentions spelling,
and that it is an advantage to have to think for yourself instead of getting the correct spelling fromthe spell checker in Word. Pupil 16 (Arts) says, “I get a better feeling for the grammar when I
write by hand” and “I also think it’s important to keep writing by hand so that we don’t lose it
completely just because the computers soon take over”.
Several pupils liked the auto-correction feature of many online exercises, but here, pupils 23 and
13 (Science) said that it is good for learning to have to do your own corrections or revisions.

107	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Diagram	
  13	
  -­‐	  Perceived	
  disadvantages	
  of	
  using	  computers	
  for	  Spanish	
  grammar	
  learning	
  

25%	
  

Science

20%	
  

Arts
15%	
  

Economics

10%	
  
5%	
  
0%	
  

	
  

Some pupils mentioned the possibility to review online exercises at home as an advantage ofcomputer-based exercises. Nevertheless, when it comes to perceived disadvantages of computerbased exercises (Diagram 13), several pupils pointed out that in order to review the content ofmany online exercises at a later occasion, they must do them all over again, something notneeded with paper-based exercises. They also found computers distracting (either because they
were tempted to do other things online, or because the exercises themselves were distracting due
to bad structure, irrelevant pictures or other design flaws). Unclear grammar explanations or
instructions can also be confusing and take attention away from the instructive purpose of theexercise – pupil 10 (Arts) explained how she sometimes focused more on the exercise layout thanon its content. To cite Brett et al. (2011), “Teaching material’s design stands out as one of theimportant questions for pupils, both in paper format and online”.
108	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Errors in feedback, online dictionaries or translation sites also annoyed the pupils. Pupil 18(Science), wrote, “Google translate [...], it’s the worst thing I know! Many times it absolutely
doesn’t work; many times the sentences are incorrectly constructed. I prefer to think for myself!”.
Discussing advantages and drawbacks of using interactive whiteboards and multimedia in
language classrooms, Cutrim Schmid (2008) raise similar thoughts among pupils, pointing outthat the technology does provide them with easy answers but makes them think less forthemselves, thus not evolving their imagination or learning strategies.

Diagram	
  14	
  -­‐	  Perceived	
  drawbacks	
  of	
  using	
  paper-­‐and-­‐pen	
  grammar	  exercises	
  
45%	
  
40%	
  

Science

35%	
  

Arts

30%	
  

Economics

25%	
  
20%	
  
15%	
  
10%	
  
5%	
  
0%	
  

	
  

Many pupils saw the fact that papers are easy to lose or forget as the main drawback of paperbased exercises (Diagram 14). Pupil 10 (Arts) pointed out, however, that it is up to the pupil not
to lose papers and that he/she can purchase a loose-leaf binder.
Pupil 20 (Science) found it boring to correct the exercises manually, saying that this leads to notdoing any corrections and thus not learning as much. Pupil 11 (Arts) had similar thoughts and
109	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  mentioned that manual corrections are time consuming. Pupil 23 (Science) also thought that
paper-based exercises are boring, since “most of the things you do at school are done in paperform”, and she said that this made her less focused. Pupil 12 (Arts) said that paper-based
exercises generally are less individualised.
Recommendations for the use of computers or paper and pen
The pupils’ most frequent recommendations for computer-based grammar exercises design(Diagram 15) focus on layout, instructions and feedback. The design of exercises influenced
greatly on several pupils’ opinions on whether they were useful (cf. Brett et al., 2011). The
researcher could arguably have found better exercises; however, as mentioned before, efforts
were made not only to find exercises with a clear layout and a well thought-out instructional
purpose, but also to choose material reflecting what is actually used and easily accessible forteachers.

Diagram	
  15	
  -­‐	  Computer-­‐based	
  exercise	
  design	
  recommenda3on	
  
60%	
  
50%	
  
Science

40%	
  

Arts

30%	
  

Economics

20%	
  
10%	
  
0%	
  

	
  

110	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Again, many pupils appreciated the instant corrective feedback. However, automated correction
might be most appropriate as a complement to traditional corrections, as the interactive parts ofordinary feedback from a teacher ought not be underestimated (Ware et al., 2006). Several pupils
stressed that the automatic correction is only useful if the feedback is correct (which was notalways the case), and if it is not too “picky”, i.e. that variations or synonyms should be allowed.6
The most frequent recommendations for design of paper-based grammar exercises are shown in
Diagram 16.

Diagram	  16	
  -­‐	
  Paper-­‐based	
  exercise	
  design	
  recommenda3ons	
  
45%	
  
40%	
  
35%	
  
30%	
  

Science

25%	
  

Arts

20%	
  

Economics

15%	
  
10%	
  
5%	
  
0%	
  

	
  

The diagram sums up some of the main points of the questionnaire and the diaries: pupils prefervaried learning material, with well-structured and easily understood exercises that force them to
use their mental capacities, providing them with good explanations of the grammar to learn. They
like “fill-in-the-blanks”, although not few pupils expressed the feeling that they learn more, betteror faster when writing by hand (making notes, doing exercises, translating, writing essays) as this
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
6

A good example is an exercise asking pupils to conjugate verbs in the “you”-form. Spanish has five verb endings
translatable as “you”. Erroneous corrections were not uncommon.

111	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  makes them think more. The pupils also asked for more written exercises, computerised or byhand, such as translations and essay writing.
Conclusions and discussion
The main research questions in the present study were:• When do pupils see computers as an appropriate tool for learning Spanish grammar?
• When do they not see them as appropriate?
• What didactic and scientific implications can be drawn from these results?
To the pupils, some things seem more important than others in computer-based grammar
exercises: the corrective feedback (preferably instant, but not too picky; it must on the other handmake no mistakes); the interface design (not confusing or distracting, and providing clear
instructions). Many of the participants, thus, enjoyed online grammar exercises, if they are wellstructured, instructive and provide accurate automatic corrective feedback with explanations to
the errors. If these wishes for online exercises design are to be met, teachers (and/or pupils) need
to be able to modify the exercises, as much of the available material is poorly constructed(Pegrum, 2009; Kervin et al., 2011; Motteram, 2011). The question is whether teachers are – orfeel – competent to do so, and if they can find the time for it. If Tomlinson (2011) is correct thatthese kinds of auto-corrected exercises function best for pupils who learn easily on their own, butless for others who need more teacher explanations, schools need to be aware and not put too
much faith in them.
Rosen (2010) writes that pupils “thrive on multimedia, multitasking, social environments forevery aspect of their lives except education” and that “we must find new tools to engage ourstudents and help them learn in ways that work for them and for teachers” (pp. 3 – 5). The present
study contradicts this somewhat, as the participants appreciated traditional learning and teaching
112	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  styles when they were challenging and well thought-through. One might ask, as Roszak (1994), if“the curriculum [is] to adapt to the computer, or the computer to the curriculum?” (p. 52).
The participating pupils saw computers as useful for writing essays, searching for information
and using online dictionaries. These might be the areas of language instruction most suitable for
ICT-based learning. As for online dictionaries, it is important that pupils learn how to use them(as well as printed dictionaries), and which ones are reliable. School authorities should invest ingood digital dictionaries – probably also for mobile phones – rather than suggest that teachers andpupils rely on non-cost online alternatives. The results of Chiu et al. (2013), finding that theretention of new words is better when pupils have used printed dictionaries, compared toelectronic versions of the same dictionaries, ought probably to be taken into account as well.
Most of the pupils saw computers as less useful for making notes. Teachers may teach thembetter ways to make notes and to file information, if it is desirable that computers be used more.
Considering, however, that not few pupils stated clearly that they learn more easily and retain theknowledge better when writing by hand, schools should ask themselves whether computer use ismore important than pupils’ learning. An open dialogue in the language classroom on learning
methods and their advantages or disadvantages may be recommended.
Further research suggestions
The present study does not claim to provide any absolute answers to how or when to use ICTbased teaching methods in the language classroom, but indicates, nevertheless, several paths tofollow in future research and for teachers to consider in their daily teaching practice. The field ofteaching material design would benefit from further studies, especially comparing the effects ofdifferent designs on pupils’ attitudes and reactions and the way the design influence on pupils’

113	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  interactions with the exercises and their experienced learning outcome.7 Multimodal studies
could further elucidate how pupils interact with different learning methods in the language
classroom, and for what purposes.
Further studies on how pupils use and perceive automated corrective feedback would beinteresting, especially in the context of vocabulary and grammar practice, where few studies havebeen conducted. Compared outcomes of vocabulary and grammar learning using online exercisesand exercises written by hand would be of great interest.
Another perspective benefiting from further studies might be the opposite of the one adopted here:teacher incentives to use ICT in the language classroom. Which ICT practices do teachers choose(or not choose), and why? Mechanisms directing teachers’ choice of teaching methods are highlyinteresting in an era where ICT is often seen as the big promising solution to declining pupil
performances. Are choices consciously made or do schools succumb to prevailing ideas andcomputer company lobbyists?
	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
7

It is very difficult to evaluate actual learning outcome of a given modality or technique, considering the many otherfactors involved in any learning situation. Experienced learning outcome may on the other hand have much to say
about the appropriateness of different teaching methods.

114	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  References
AlAmmary, Jaflah (2012), Educational Technology: A Way to Enhance Student Achievement at
the University of Bahrain. 3rd. International Conference on New Horizons in Education INTE 2012, 55: 248–257.
Andersson, Patrik (2010), IKT i skolan. En studie rörande gymnasieelevers attityder till IKT i
undervisningen. Växjö: Linnéuniversitetet, Institutionen för pedagogik, psykologi och
idrottsvetenskap.
Ayres, Robert (2010), Learner Attitudes Towards the Use of CALL. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 15(3): 241 – 249.
Brett, David and González-Lloret, Marta (2011), Technology-Enhanced Materials, 351 – 369, in:Long, M. H. and Doughty, C. J. (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching. Malden;
Oxford; Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Buskqvist, Ulf and Molin, Lennart (2011), Forskningsanknytning och IKT - Röster frånlärarutbildningen vid Karlstads universitet. Karlstad: Karlstads universitet, Estetiskfilosofiska fakulteten, pedagogik.
Cavus, Nadire and Kanbul, Sezer (2010), Designation of Web 2.0 Tools Expected by theStudents on Technology-based Learning Environment. Innovation and Creativity in
Education, 2(2): 5824–5829.
Chapelle, Carol A. (2011), Computer-Assisted Teaching and Testing, 628 – 644, in: Long, M. H.
and Doughty, C. J. (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching. Chichester: WileyBlackwell.

115	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Chiu, Li-Ling and Liu, Gi-Zen (2013), Effects of Printed, Pocket Electronic, and Online
Dictionaries on High School Students’ English Vocabulary Retention. The Asia-PacificEducation

Researcher.

Retrieved

February

04,

2014,

from

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40299-013-0065-1
Cobo Romaní, Cristóbal and Moravec, John W. (2011), Aprendizaje Invisible. Hacia una nueva
ecología de la educación. Barcelona: Col·lecció Transmedia XXI. Laboratori de Mitjans
Interactius / Publicacions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.
Council of Europe (2001), The Common European Framework for Language Learning. Retrieved
February

04,

2014,

from

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/elp-

reg/Source/Key_reference/CEFR_EN.pdf
Cutrim Schmid, Euline (2008), Potential Pedagogical Benefits and Drawbacks of Multimedia Usein the English Language Classroom Equipped with Interactive Whiteboard Technology.
Computers & Education, 51(4): 1553–1568.
Davis, F. D. (1989), Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance ofInformation Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319 – 339.
Drucker, Peter (1959), The Landmarks of Tomorrow. Heinemann.
Dörnyei, Zoltán (2010), Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction,
Administration, and Processing. New York: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Zoltán and Ushioda, Ema (2011), Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.

116	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Edmunds, Rob, Thorpe, Mary and Conole, Grainne (2012), Student Attitudes Towards and Useof ICT in Course Study, Work and Social Activity: A Technology Acceptance Model
Approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1): 71–84.
Enkvist, Inger (2002), Feltänkt. En kritisk granskning av idébakgrunden till svensk skolpolitik.
Stockholm: SNS Förlag.
Enkvist, Inger (2011), La buena y la mala educación: Ejemplos internacionales. Madrid:
Encuentro.
Granath, Solveig and Estling Vannestål, Maria (2008), IKT i språkundervisningen i teori och
praktik, in: Fönster mot språk och litteratur. Karlstad: CSL (Centrum för Språk- ochlitteraturdidaktik.
Grönwald, Bo (1999a), Övningar i spansk grammatik - Del 1. Kolmården: EntreVista Läromedel.
Grönwald, Bo (1999b), Övningar i spansk grammatik - Del 2. Kolmården: EntreVista Läromedel.
Hegelheimer, Volker and Fisher, David (2006), Grammar, Writing, and Technology: A Sample
Technology-supported Approach to Teaching Grammar and Improving Writing for ESL
Learners. CALICO JOURNAL, 23(2): 257.
Kahraman, Sakıp, Çevik, Ceren and Kodan, Hülya (2011), Investigation of University Students’Attitude Toward the Use of Powerpoint According to Some Variables. World Conferenceon Information Technology, 3: 1341–1347.
Karlstads kommun (2012), Karlstads internationella TIME-utbildning (NAES). Retrieved
February

04,

2014,

http://karlstad.se/afiler/Programblad/TIME2012%20liten%20storlek.pdf

117	
  
	
  

from

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Kern, Richard (2006), Perspectives on Technology in Learning and Teaching Languages. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1): 183 – 210.
Kervin, Lisa and Derewianka, Beverly (2011), New Technologies to Support Language Learning,
328 – 351, in: Tomlinson, B. (Ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kroksmark, Tomas (2006), Innovativt Lärande. Didaktisk tidskrift, 16(3): 7–22.
Lannvik Duregård, Maria (2010), Moderna språk - ämnen i kris. Lärarnas Nyheter. Retrieved
February 04, 2014, from http://www.lararnasnyheter.se/alfa/2010/04/15/moderna-sprakamnen-kris
Larsson, Staffan (1986), Kvalitativ analys - exemplet fenomenografi. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Lim, Kang-Mi and Shen, Hui Zhong (2006), Integration of Computers into an EFL Reading
Classroom. ReCALL, 18(2): 212 – 229.
Longcamp, Marieke, Boucard, Céline, Gilhodes, Jean-Claude, Anton, Jean-Luc, Roth, Muriel,
Nazarian, Bruno and Velay, Jean-Luc (2008), Learning through Hand-or Typewriting
Influences Visual Recognition of New Graphic Shapes: Behavioral and Functional
Imaging Evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(5): 802–815.
Lund, Stefan (2006), Marknad och medborgare: elevers valhandlingar i gymnasieutbildningens
integrations- och differentieringsprocesser.
Lund,

Stefan(2007),

Valfrihetochkonkurrens:

Utvecklingstendenser

gymnasieutbildningen. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 12(4): 281–300.

118	
  
	
  

inom

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Motteram, Gary (2011), Developing Language-learning Materials with Technology, 303 – 327, in:Tomlinson, B. (Ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nutta, Joyce (1998), Is Computer-based Grammar Instruction as Effective as Teacher-directed
Grammar Instruction for Teaching L2 Structures? Calico Journal, 16(1): 49 – 62.
Odlander, Johanna (2007), Uppsalaskolor lockar elever med resor. UNT.se. Retrieved February
04,

2014,

from

http://www.unt.se/inc/print/uppsalaskolor-lockar-elever-med-resor-

300098-default.aspx
OECD (2008), New Millennium Learners. Initial Findings on the Effects of Digital Technologies
onSchool-age

Learners.

Retrieved

February

04,

2014,

from

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/51/40554230.pdf
Pegrum, M. (2009), From Blogs to Bombs. Crawley, Western Australia: University of Western
Australia Press.
Rosen, Larry D. (2010), Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the Way They Learn. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rosén, Monica (2012), Förändringar i läsvanor och läsförmåga bland 9- till 10-åringar. Resultatfrån internationella studier, 111 – 139, in: Läsarnas marknad, marknadens läsare – enforskningsantologi SOU 2012:10. Stockholm: SOU.
Roszak, Theodore (1994), The Cult of Information. A Neo-Luddite Treatise on High-Tech,
Artificial Intelligence, and the True Art of Thinking. New York: Pantheon.
Skolverket (2013), Om ämnet Moderna språk. Retrieved February 04, 2014, fromhttp://www.skolverket.se/
119	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Svensson, Patrik (2008), Språkutbildning i en digital värld Informationsteknik, kommunikationoch lärande. Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.
Svärdhagen, Jan and Embretsén, Eva-Lena (2011), Nästa generations lärande. Högskolan
Dalarna: IT och lärande i PUD-regionens kommuners förskolor och skolor. Högskolan
Dalarna.
Tallvid, Martin and Hallerström, Helena (2009), En egen dator i skolarbetet – redskap för
lärande? Utvärdering av projektet En-till-en i två grundskolor i Falkenbergs kommun.
Delrapport 2. Falkenbergs kommun: Barn-och utbildningsförvaltningen.
Thullberg, Per and Szekely, Christina (2009), Redovisning av uppdraget att bedömaverksamheters och huvudmäns utvecklingsbehov avseende IT-användningen inom
förskola, skola och vuxenutbildning samt ge förslag på insatser. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Tomlinson, Brian (2011), Access-self Materials, 414 – 432, in: Tomlinson, B. (Ed.), Materials
Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Usta, Ertugrul (2011), The Effect Of Web-Based Learning Environments On Attitudes Of
Students Regarding Computer And Internet. World Conference on Educational
Technology Researches - 2011, 28: 262–269.
Vanäs Hedberg, Margareta, Herrador Quero, Elvira and Vaccia Izami, Sylvia (2008), Alegría
Paso cuatro. Stockholm: Liber.
Ware, Paige D. and Warschauer, Mark (2006), Electronic Feedback and Second Language
Writing, 105 – 123, in: Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language
Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

120	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Warschauer, Mark (1996), Motivational Aspects of Using Computers for Writing andCommunication, 29 – 46, in: Telecollaboration in foreign language learning:
Proceedings of the Hawai’i symposium. Technical Report. Honolulu, Hawai’i: Universityof Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Warschauer, Mark, Arada, Kathleen and Zheng, Binbin (2010), Laptops and Inspired Writing.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(3): 221 – 223.
Velay, Jean-Luc, Longcamp, Marieke and Zerbato-Poudou, Marie-Thérèse (2004a), De La Plume
Au Clavier: Est-il Toujours Utile D’enseigner L’écriture Manuscrite. Comprendre lesapprentissages: Sciences cognitives et éducation: 69–82.
Velay, Jean-Luc, Longcamp, Marieke and Zerbato-Poudou, Marie-Thérèse (2004b), Le stylo et leclavier. Notre mode d’écriture influence-t-il notre perception de l’écrit  ? Langues etécritures: 37 – 54.
Wiebe, Grace and Kabata, Kaori (2010), Students’ and Instructors’ Attitudes Towards the Use of
CALL in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 23(3): 221 – 234.
Zucker, Andrew A. and McGhee, Raymond (2005), A Study of One-to-One Computer Use in
Mathematics and Science Instruction at the Secondary Level in Henrico County Public
Schools. SRI International.

121	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Online resources:
http://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/actividades_ave/aveteca.htm
http://www.itslearning.com
http://www.ver-taal.com

122