TÍTULO
Language Value
http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue
December 2010, Volume 2, Number 1, 144-151
ISSN 1989-7103
Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors 144
MULTIMEDIA REVIEW
Using English for Academic Purposes. A Guide for Students in Higher
Education
Andre Gillet, 2010
Reviewed by Mónica-Stella Cárdenas-Clarós
m.cardenasclaros@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
University of Melbourne, Australia
I. INTRODUCTION
Existing criteria for the evaluation of CALL materials have been mostly designed by
language teachers and CALL scholars. Not surprisingly, the components of such criteria
mostly examine aspects to do with the potential that materials offer for language
learning, teacher fit and learner fit (Levy & Stockwell, 2006). The components of such
criteria rarely evaluate features of multimedia instructional design and visual design
despite the influence that these play in shaping potential learning outcomes (Mayers,
2009). Given these limitations, the guiding criteria to evaluate the website Using
English for Academic Purposes (UEFAP) is nurtured by studies in CALL, visual design
and multimedia instructional design. Table 1 summarizes each of the components.
Following Chapelle (2001) the evaluation of the UEFAP website is judgmental in
nature and results from the interaction with all the sections of the website in several
occasions. Given the space limitations I will touch on the relevant aspects of each
criteria component.
http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue�
Using English for Academic Purposes. A Guide for Students in Higher Education by Mónica-Stella
Cárdenas-Clarós
Language Value 2, (1), 144–151 http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue 145
Table 1. Criteria for website evaluation
Criteria Components Studies
1 Courseware
conception
SLA principles
Learning theories
Jamieson, Chapelle and Preiss 2005, Hubbard 2006,
Susser and Robb 2004, Iwabuchi and Fotos 2004, Reeder
et al. 2004
2. Courseware
and
multimedia
instructional
design
Interface
Navigation
Accessibility
Text quality
Graphics and sound
Susser and Robb 2004, Iwabuchi and Fotos 2004,
Hubbard 2006, Bastiaens and Martens 2000, Lynch and
Horton 2009, Graham 2008
3.Operational
description
Timing/control
options/ Interactivity
User input
Input judging
Feedback
Help options
Coalpert 2004, Chapelle 2001, Hubbard 2006, Reeder et
al. 2004, Iwabuchi and Fotos 2004, Jamieson, Chapelle
and Preiss 2005, Lynch and Horton 2009, Ruiz-Madrid
2006, Susser and Robb 2004
4. Learner fit Chapelle 2001, Hubbard 2006, Levy and Stockwell 2006, Susser and Robb 2004, Iwabuchi and Fotos 2004
5.Potential for
language
learning
Chapelle 2001, Cummins, Brown and Sayers 2007,
Jamieson, Chapelle and Preiss 2005, Susser and Robb
2004
II. OVERVIEW
Using English for Academic Purposes is a free website addressed to learners of English
as a second and/or foreign language in higher education. UEFAP has been primarily
maintained and updated by its creator, Dr. Andy Gillet, for over 10 years and it is
supported by the British Association of Lecturers of English for Academic Purposes.
The website is designed in three frames and is made up of 11 sections: ‘About’,
‘Accuracy’, ‘Assessment’, ‘Background’, ‘Links’, ‘Listening’, ‘Materials’, ‘Reading’,
‘Speaking’, ‘Vocabulary’ and ‘Writing’. Each section is made up of a number of
subsections that vary according to the language component or skill it addresses. Thus,
while the ‘Accuracy section’ is made up of four subsections, the ‘Writing section’ is
made up of 14, as illustrated in Figure 1.
http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue�
Book and Multimedia Review
Language Value 2, (1) 144–151 http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue 146
Figure 1. Subcomponents in the writing section
Most sections in UEFAP start with an introduction page where, in plain language, the
author explains what learners will come across in that particular section. Sections
directly concerned with language learning offer a brief overview of theories informing
the skill together with exercises for practice. The exercises are mostly presented in
multiple choice format, completion exercises, gap-filling exercises and cloze dictations.
III. CRITERION 1: LEARNING THEORIES AND SLA PRINCIPLES
UNDERPINNING THE CONSTRUCTION
UEFAP is a good example of tutorial CALL underpinned in behavioristic approaches to
language learning with some shades of constructivism. The website can be used as a
self-access resource or it can be easily integrated to a language curriculum. Learners are
highly encouraged to complete the practical exercise always with a purpose in mind and
this purpose is made clear in the introduction of each section. One can perceive a clear
intention to help learners develop autonomy and for that the author has carefully crafted
the contents in a way that learners understand the reasons why particular topics need to
be addressed and how these should be developed. This is simply put one of the best
features of the website.
http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue�
Using English for Academic Purposes. A Guide for Students in Higher Education by Mónica-Stella
Cárdenas-Clarós
Language Value 2, (1), 144–151 http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue 147
IV. CRITERION 2: COURSEWARE AND MULTIMEDIA INSTRUCTIONAL
DESIGN
Some principles of Gestalt theory are apparent in the design of the website. For
instance, the design in most pages is plain and consistent and this allows learners focus
on content rather than get distracted by flashy animations. However, in some pages the
selection of background color can be disturbing and not very eye-friendly.
The navigation is consistent throughout the website and it is performed through buttons
displayed on the left-hand frame of each interaction page. Additionally, to help locate
users in the website sections are presented in frames that use the same color of the
selected button (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Frames in the website
Other principles of Gestalt theory seem to be violated. There is no intuitive grouping of
individual sections. I clearly understand that sections are listed in alphabetical order, but
as a language learner and instructor this type of display did not seem intuitive. I would
have expected to see language skills grouped in one section, thus, having the four
language skills listed one after the other and sections such as ‘Materials’, Links’ and
‘Background or References’ offered as last choices.
At times, I felt stuck in some ‘Exercises pages’ given the lack of navigation conventions
and this is partly because there are no textual directions on how to navigate the site. The
http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue�
Book and Multimedia Review
Language Value 2, (1) 144–151 http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue 148
directions are given in an eight- minute video that can be only accessed through the
‘About section’. Although quite informative, new generation of visual learners may find
cumbersome having to spend such a long time watching the video tutorial to find out
that individual pages link to the homepage through the website logo and that individual
sections are not linked among them.
Accessibility issues in the website were simply overlooked. No ALT attributes
(alternate text, tags in pictures) were used in the construction of the website and the
design in frames makes it difficult for learners with disabilities to access it (Lynch &
Horton, 2002).
Media is limited to audio files and static pictures except for the video in the
introduction. Audio files are offered in different formats so they can be played in Real
player, Windows Media player, Flash and Quick time. This offering of options makes
the website easy to use because learners do not need to download additional plug-ins to
access the materials.
V. CRITERION 3: OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION
The feedback is corrective, but at times can be misleading. Despite I did not enter any
answers in some listening and vocabulary exercises the feedback reads: “Good! You
have some answers correct.” Moreover, learners are unable to track results from
previous exercises or get explanations for incorrect items, hence, they need to be
constantly aware of their own progress if they want to focus on specific linguistic forms
and expressions.
As for help, the website does not seem to fully exploit the capabilities of the computer
to offer input enhancements in the form of translations, transcripts, glossed words for
learners to interact with the materials. In the listening and vocabulary sections of the
website, the assistance provided for learners is only performed through hints that
display the first letter of the word in the answer. This means that learners who
experience difficulties in understanding aural or written texts are not assisted to ‘repair’
those problems for task completion and text comprehension.
http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue�
Using English for Academic Purposes. A Guide for Students in Higher Education by Mónica-Stella
Cárdenas-Clarós
Language Value 2, (1), 144–151 http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue 149
VI. CRITERION 4: LEARNER FIT
The language tasks presented in the website mostly resemble classroom tasks and
primarily address visual learners with no much experience in multimodal environments.
Also, the drill-and-practice approach of the website and the repeated open-ended and
multiple-choice cloze tests may fatigue even the most motivated learners.
VII. CRITERION 5: POTENTIAL FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING
The content in all the sections is relevant and comprehensive, but not up-to-date in
particularly, the one in the listening section. Although the website is constantly updated,
some of the references seem rather old compared to the sheer volume of research
produced in the last few years. I spent some time interacting with the rhetorical
functions of the language summarized in the speaking and writing sections. Each
function was fully explained and key expressions that illustrate the function were
provided. I found these materials quite relevant and I completely agree that even
language learners at advance proficiencies would benefit from the interaction with such
functions. However, the proposed exercises did not seem to capture the goal of the such
functions. This in a way can be explained by the limitations of the website regarding
multimodal input and the affordances of both learner-computer interaction and learner-
learner interaction.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Using English for Academic Purposes is a valid resource of digitalized materials for the
avid and self-directed language learner and for language teachers seeking to implement
tutorial CALL in their lessons. However, the website does not fully exploit the
capabilities of the computer to provide opportunities for learner-computer interaction,
participation and collaboration, features available in current technologies.
http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue�
Book and Multimedia Review
Language Value 2, (1) 144–151 http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue 150
REFERENCES
Bastiaens, Th. and Martens, R. 2000. “Conditions for web-based learning with real
events”. In Abbey B. (Ed.) Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-based
Education. Hershley, London: Idea Group Publishing.
Chapelle, C.A. 2001. Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition:
Foundations for Teaching, Testing and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Coalpert, J. 2004. Design of Online Interactive Language Courseware:
Conceptualization, Specifications and Prototyping. Research into the Impact of
Linguistic-didactic Functionality on Software Architecture. Doctoral
dissertation. University of Antwerp, Antwerp. 14 December 2010
Cummins, J., Brown, K. and Sayers, D. 2007. Literacy, Technology, and Diversity.
Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Graham L. 2008. “Gestalt theory in interactive media design”. Journal of Humanities
and Social Sciences, 2 (1), 1-12.
Hubbard, P. 2006. “Evaluating CALL software”. In Ducate, L. and N. Arnold (Eds.)
Calling on CALL: From Theory and Research to New Direction in Foreign
Language Teaching). San Marcos, Texas: CALICO Monograph series. Vol. 5,
313-338.
Iwabuchi, T. and Fotos, S. 2004. “Creating course specific CD-ROMs for interactive
language learning”. In Fotos, S. and C. Browne (Eds.) New Perspectives on
CALL for Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 149-168.
Jamieson, J., Chapelle, C. and Preiss, S. 2005. “CALL evaluation by developers, a
teacher, and students”. CALICO Journal, 23 (1), 93-138.
Levy, M. and Stockwell, G. 2006. Call Dimensions: Options and Issues in Computer
Assisted Language Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Lynch, P.J. and Horton, S. 2009. Web Style Guide: Basic Design Principles for
http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue�
http://www.didascalia.be/doc-design.pdf�
http://www.didascalia.be/doc-design.pdf�
Using English for Academic Purposes. A Guide for Students in Higher Education by Mónica-Stella
Cárdenas-Clarós
Language Value 2, (1), 144–151 http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue 151
Creating Web Sites. Yale: Yale University Press.
Mayer, R. 2009. Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press
Reeder, K., Heift, T., Roche, J., Tabyanian, S., Schlickau, S. and Gölz, P. 2004.
“Toward a theory of evaluation for second language learning media”. In Browne
S.F.C. (Ed.) New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 255-278.
Ruiz-Madrid, M.N. 2006 “Designing CALL from a language learning autonomy
perspective” Les Melanges CRAPEL, 28 n° spécial: TIC et autonomie dans
l’apprentissage des langues, 89-99.
Susser, B. and Robb, T. 2004. “Evaluation of ESL/ EFL instructional websites”. In
Fotos, S. and C. Browne (Eds.) New Perspectives on CALL for Second
Language Classrooms. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
279-296.
Received November 2010
http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue�
MULTIMEDIA REVIEW
III. CRITERION 1: LEARNING THEORIES AND SLA PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING THE CONSTRUCTION
IV. CRITERION 2: COURSEWARE AND MULTIMEDIA INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
V. CRITERION 3: OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION
VI. CRITERION 4: LEARNER FIT
VII. CRITERION 5: POTENTIAL FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING
VIII. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES