Đánh giá và ứng dụng một số phần mềm trình chiếu đa phương tiện trong thiết kế bài giảng môn tiếng anh tại khoa công nghệ thông tin

PART A: INTRODUCTION
I. RATIONALE:
It goes without saying that technology is all around us and it is inevitable to get in
contact with it in every single action of our lives. Whether we like it or not, we can hardly
deny the fact that technology has bettered our lives in an unprecedented way. Since its
appearance in our lives, technology have changed the way we live, the way we work, the
way we think, the way we entertain ourselves and the way we learn.
In education, particularly in the area of language teaching and learning, new terms
have been coined along with the arrival of technology. CALL (Computer Assisted
Language Learning), TELL (Technology Enhanced Language Learning), "educational
software", MPS (Multimedia Presentation Software) are now buzzwords in ELT. They
could be easily caught in publications, language websites, online forums and daily
conversations among language teachers. It is impossible for language teachers to carry on
their jobs without technological applications. Consequently, the question left is not
whether to accept technology or not but how to make the best of it.
It is partly for this deep-rooted reason that the author decided to conduct a study on
how to better the technological application, especially educational software to design
lectures. As a teacher of English at Faculty of Information Technology - Thai Nguyen
University (FIT -TNU) working with IT students, the author enjoys the advantages of IT in
her job. Investigating CALL applications in ELT has long been pursued by her. As a
matter of fact, this issue has been discussed a lot in literature but such research into MPS
applications in English teaching and learning at TNU is quite few. Furthermore, the credit-
based training system has been adopted at FIT -TNU, which allows more outside
classroom self-study and less in-class lessons. Therefore, teachers of English need to
increase in utilizing technology to make the best use of in-class hours. All above-
mentioned reasons have motivated the author to carry out the research in evaluating MPS
to design English lectures for second- year students at FIT - TNU.
ii. Aims of the study
The study aims at the following targets:
1
 Studying the influence of CALL applications in English teaching and learning in

general and the extent to which MPS can assist English learning and teaching.
 Evaluating the uses of some MPS in English teaching and learning, especially the
use of Microsoft Producer in comparison with Microsoft PowerPoint, Adobe
Presenter and Articulate Presenter.
 Applying and assessing Microsoft Producer in designing English lectures at FIT -
TNU.
iII. Research questions
In order to achieve above-mentioned aims, the study focuses on answering the
research questions: Do MPS facilitate the design of English lectures at FIT - TNU? More
specifically, it aims to address the following sub-questions:
(i) Research sub-question 1: How has MPS been exploited in designing English
lectures?
(ii) Research sub- question 2: How has Microsoft Producer software been evaluated
in comparison with other MPS?
(iii) Research sub- question 3: How has Microsoft Producer software been applied
and assessed in designing English lectures at FIT - TNU?
IV. Methods of the study
The subjects for this study are four representative MPS: Microsoft Producer,
Microsoft PowerPoint, Adobe Presenter 7.0 and Articulate Presenter 09. Based on
methodological framework created by reliable software evaluators, these MPS are
compared and analyzed both objectively and subjectively on the author's real experiences
of teaching General English for the second-year students learning at FIT - TNU.
After these MPS evaluations, an application and assessment of the best-evaluated
MPS, Microsoft Producer, will be implemented in designing English lectures at FIT -
TNU.
V. Scope of the study
It would bee too ambitious for this minor thesis to cover all aspects of CALL in
English teaching and learning. Thus, the author would like to focus only on evaluating four
MPS: Microsoft Producer, Microsoft PowerPoint, Adobe Presenter 7.0 and Articulate
2

Presenter 09. Especially, Microsoft Producer software will be evaluated to be applied and
assessed in designing English lectures for second-year students at FIT - TNU.
VI. Design of the study
The study includes three main parts: Introduction, Development, and Conclusion.
Introduction presents the rationale, the scope, the methodology and the design of
the study.
Development consists of three chapters:
 Chapter I gives the theoretical background of the study with the theories related to
CALL software in EFL in general and multimedia presentation software (MPS)
used in designing English lectures in particular.
 Chapter II details the evaluation of MPS in English teaching and learning and
Microsoft Producer applications in designing English lectures at FIT - TNU.
 Chapter III is centered on Microsoft Producer software applications and
assessment in English teaching and learning at FIT - TNU.
Conclusion provides the main findings of the study and proposes the limitations of
the study and suggestions for further research.
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
3
Chapter I: Literature review
I.1. Theoretical background of CALL in English teaching and learning
Since the first time being introduced to EFL teaching and learning in 1960s,
computers have had certain effects on the general picture of EFL education. However,
along with the continuous development of information technology, the impact of
computers in EFL teaching and learning is still under discussion.
The following sub-sections provide an overview of (1) definition of CALL, (2) brief
history of CALL, (3) CALL applications in English teaching and learning, (4) advantages
and disadvantages of CALL in English teaching and learning.
I.1.1. Definition of CALL
Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is often perceived somewhat
narrowly, as an approach to language teaching and learning in which the computer is used

as an aid to the presentation, reinforcement and assessment of material to be learnt, usually
including a substantial interactive element. Since 1980s, CALL widened its scope,
embracing the communicative approach and a range of new technologies, especially
multimedia and communication technology. Technology Enhanced Language Learning
(TELL) is an alternative term to CALL, however, TELL has not gained as wide acceptance
as CALL.
Levy (1997) defines CALL more broadly as "the search for and study of applications of
the computer in teaching and learning". This definition is in line with the view held by the
majority of modern CALL practitioners.
I.1.2. Brief history of CALL
Warschauer, M & Healey, D (1998) categorizes the development of CALL into
three phases: behaviouristic CALL, communicative CALL and integrative CALL.
Behaviouristic CALL conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and
1970s. This phase was based on "then-dominant behaviouristic theories of learning" which
emphasized repetitive language drills (drill and practice) in language learning.
4
Communicative CALL emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s as
behaviouristic approaches was both theoretically and pedagogically, and personal
computers offered more possibilities for individual works. Communicative CALL
corresponded to cognitive theories, which stressed that learning was "a process of
discovery, expression and development" (Warschauer, M & Healey, D, 1998). Though
communicative CALL was viewed to be a breakthrough compared to behaviouristic
CALL, it received criticisms in the late 1980s for being used in "an ad hoc and
disconnected fashion" and just focus on "marginal rather than central elements" of the FL
learning process. There was a trend to move from cognitive view to a more social -
cognitive one in FL teaching. This leaded to the new phase, integrative CALL.
Integrative CALL based on two important technological developments of the last
decade in the 20th century: multimedia computers and the Internet. Multimedia
technologies allow a variety of media (text, graphics, sound, animation, and video) to be
accessible on a single machine. When multimedia resources are all linked together, this

technology becomes more powerful and is called hypermedia. However, multimedia
technology rarely involves the integration of meaningful and authentic communication into
all aspect of language learning curriculum. This is then solved with the help of another
technological breakthrough, electronic communication and the Internet. Supported by the
socio-cognitive view of learning, integrative CALL referred to technology to create
authentic learning environments, which integrated reading, listening, speaking, and writing
skills in a target language.
Warschauer (2002) adds the next phase of CALL development in the 21st century,
collaborative CALL, in which technology is considered more as a tool for individual and
societal development rather than just isolated language and literacy skills. This approach is
under the influence of socio-cultural theories of education, where human learning and
development are tied to collaborative purposeful activities mediated by tools and the social
environment. Both integrative and developmental CALL support highly interactive and
communicative language learning and include extensive use of the Internet.
All of the four phases in the development of CALL can be illustrated in the
following figure:
5
Figure 1- The evolution of CALL
I.1.3. CALL applications in EFL teaching and learning
Computers are potential in various uses in English classroom with the domination
of technological features. The current main uses of computers in language teaching and
learning can be generated as follows:
I.1.3.1. Reference tool:
Through CD/ DVD-ROMS or Internet, teachers and students can search for all
sorts of information related to their language teaching and learning. There are now various
encyclopedias available on CD-ROM or on line, offering not only definitions but also
pronunciation, practice exercises and activities as well. Internet is considered the most
convenient reference tool. Accessing directories or search engines such as Google, MSN,
Yahoo, etc can help to find out "any subjects under the sun" (Hammer, 2001:146).
I.1.3. 2. Computer mediated communication (CMC):

According to Abrams, Z (2006), this is the process of using computers to facilitate
authentic communication between to or more people. Such kind of communication could
be an asynchronous form such as email, electronic bulletin board, and electronic
newsgroups or in a synchronous such as real internet chat or instant message. Using CMC
in EFL language teaching and learning seems the main trend in the process of applying IT
in EFL education.
I.1.3. 3. Websites:
6
Harmer, J (2001:148) claims that almost website has great potential for students of
English in getting in touch with the authentic language. They can search for any
information in various forms such as text, audio, video. There are also a number of
websites specially designed for EFL students to exchange emails, do exercises, playing
games. EFL teachers also can make lesson plans online or download many activities for
their language classes from these websites.
I.1.3. 4. Word processor:
Word processor is one of the computer software used earliest in EFL learning and
teaching. Harmer (2000:150) suggests that word processor is the most successful use of
computer. Word processor has been mainly used in writing skill, which serve both personal
and group writing, can be a successful tool for the process approach in EFL writing. Word
processors can also be used to create an endless number of exercises in English, filling in
the gaps; rearranging disordered paragraphs in a text; replacing incorrect words by the
corresponding correct ones etc. Doing exercises in a word processor implies giving
traditional exercises a new format. Nevertheless, this way of working in the English
language classroom results in a quite successful experience, since students enjoy the mere
fact of being manipulating computers.
I.1.3.5. Teaching and learning programs:
Most of the programs in this group offer two different versions: tutorial programs
and authoring programs.
Tutorial programs with short introductory notes are followed by a series of
questions, to which the student responds at the keyboard. Discrete comments can be built

in, and error, review routines are automatic. If required, a set of help notes can also be
called up during the question-answer sequence in order to understand the student who has
not fully understood the point of the exercise. The results of students' attempts at each
exercise are stored on the computer. Language teaching software is currently much
available on CD- ROM to meet the demand of learners at different levels and various
learning purposes. These software packages offer students chances to participate in many
learning activities at the same time. The current trend is that many EFL learning programs
are available on the Internet. There are also websites where students can sign up to take
self-study courses, accessing course information and sending work to tutors who monitor
the progress. Langmaster, DynEd, EDO, etc. are such popular programs in Vietnam.
7
Authoring programs allows teachers to create their own different exercises or units
unlike as in ready-made "dedicated" or "turnkey" programs, where the contents, questions
and texts come with the program and cannot be changed. Hot Potatoes and Quizmaker are
examples of popular CALL authoring packages. Hot Potatoes is especially developed to
create Web-based language exercises, including multiple choice, gap-filling, matching,
jumbled sentences, crosswords and short text entry. It is used extensively on websites that
provide interactive exercises and tests. Quizmaker is a comprehensive yet easy-to-use
quiz creator for making highly customized Flash-based quizzes, assessments and surveys
without the need for difficult programming.
The applications of authoring software in EFL teaching and learning are various; however,
the author will focus on multimedia presentation software (MPS), which will be clarified in
the next part.
To sum up, a few main uses of computers in EFL teaching and learning have been
mentioned. As Warschauer, M (1996) points out, "the use of computer does not constitute
a method", but it is only a "medium in which a variety of methods approaches and
pedagogical philosophies may be implemented".
I.1.4. Advantages and disadvantages of CALL applications in English teaching and
learning:
CALL has much to offer English language teachers and will have more to offer in

the future. Let us guide ourselves just as if we were blind by the seductive and powerful
technology that CALL represents. It is vital to develop and maintain a critical eye on it.
According to Philip (1986), one of the advantages of CALL is that it offers a powerful self-
access facility; that is, it helps to generate autonomous learners who will experience
freedom of choice. The tools that learners find in computers allow them to assume mastery
of their own learning experience. Students can call up the programs held by computers
whenever they want; besides, computers are sensitive to the learners level of proficiency.
This advantage, though, can also be seen as a disadvantage, since many teachers may
consider that computers are undertaking functions that should be performed by trained
teachers. In this paper, the author will not demonstrate that this disadvantage which is not a
real one, since, in fact, computers should be used by teachers as a complementary tool in
the teaching process.
8
Another advantage of CALL is that it gives a new role to teaching materials. Out of
the context of CALL, teaching materials are passive. Before computers were used in the
classroom context, nothing the student said or did could influence in any deep sense the
linear progression of the content. In CALL, materials adapt themselves to the requirements
of the individual student, thus, they become interactive. To this advantage, Phillips attaches
a counter-argument: to what extent is it desirable that more of the management of learning
be embodied in the materials themselves rather than in the way they are exploited?
In the field of methodology, the author also finds one advantage and one
correspondent disadvantage. The advantage is that CALL, like other new technologies,
brings about changes in the teaching methodologies of English. There are cases, though, in
which computers are just used to give old materials a new aspect. This is the case of
teachers who put students in front of the computer just to make fill-in-the-gap exercises.
Those advantages make us aware of an important fact in relation to CALL, we have
to constantly analyse whether the uses to which CALL are just reinforcing current
practices or if they are promoting curriculum renewal. In order to fully benefit from the
potential of the computer for language learning, language teachers have to promote a
complementary relationship with computers. The technology that computers offer has to be

integrated with pedagogic programs that guarantee a real evolution of the teaching
methodologies and procedures. The teachers abandons their informative role to take on a
more active part in the teaching process thanks to computer co-operation, since the
computer is now going to be the new source of information. This results in an innovative
teaching methodology in which the dichotomy teacher/transmissor - student/receiver is
broken. Now, teachers are going to promote communication/interaction with students; in
order to attain this objective and to encourage students to take risks, leaving aside penalties
for producing incorrect bits of language. Besides, the teachers' analysis of the teaching-
learning process and their planning of its development will make possible for them to
correct possible errors in this process. Finally, the introduction of the unexpected will be
determinant to give students enough motivation for them to take an active part in their
learning process. With the practice of this kind of activities, curriculum renewal is
guaranteed, so that there is no doubt that a real and evident progress in teaching
methodologies is taking place.
9
One final aspect should be analysed in relation to the implementation of computers
in English language teaching is ultimately an ethical question: What is the kind of
environment that is going to be created by means of the computer? Personally, the author
considers that the creation of autonomous learners should not be associated to the concept
of human alienation. The CALL classroom should not be conceived as a room in which
every learner is studying in isolation in front of his/her computer. Teachers must think of
activities that enable group work/human interaction and computers to be compatible.
Otherwise, men as social beings will be replaced by men as alienated computer slaves.
I.2. Theoretical background of multimedia presentation software (MPS)
I.2.1. Definitions of MPS
“Multimedia” is a term frequently discussed among educators today. Unless clearly
defined, the term can alternately mean “a judicious mix of various mass media such as
print, audio and video” or it may mean the development of computer-based hardware and
software packages produced on a mass scale and yet allow individualized use and learning.
In essence, multimedia merges multiple levels of learning into an educational tool that

allows for diversity in curricula presentation.
Fenrich (1997) claims that “Multimedia is the exciting combination of computer hardware
and software that allows you to integrate video, animation, audio, graphics, and test
resources to develop effective presentations on an affordable desktop computer” . Another
definition of multimedia given by Phillips (1997) is "the presence of text, pictures, sound,
animation and video; some or all of which are organized into some coherent program”.
Multimedia Presentation Software (MPS) is defined in ICT Glossary as the use of
computer software to create slides similar to those used on an overhead projector, except
that the display can include text, sound, still and moving images. Slides are prepared in
advance, can be edited and are stored in the correct sequence. MPS assists in the creation
of 35-mm slides, overheads, and electronic presentations. Microsoft PowerPoint is one of
the most commonly used presentation software packages.
I. 2. 2. Different levels of MPS:
According to Rhyne et al (2005), there are three levels of MPS: desktop,
production, and enterprise. However, the author distinguishes between only two levels of
MPS: desktop and enterprise, which are sufficient for the author's studying purposes.
10
I. 2. 2. 1. Desktop level MPS:
The desktop level MPS is characterized by an instructor or even a student using a
program or programs that are free or relatively inexpensive. This level involves a single
computer with the software installed, even if the computer is part of a larger intranet.
The author specifically avoids discussing production-level MPS that would require
expertise, training, or resources not generally available to or of interest to the typical
faculty member.
Followings are two representatives of desktop level MPS: Microsoft PowerPoint
and Microsoft Producer.
 Microsoft PowerPoint
EFL teachers have been so familiar with the popular presentation program
PowerPoint developed by Microsoft. PowerPoint 2003, the Microsoft Office presentation
graphics program, allows you to create an impact in person or online. With improvements

to the user interface and support for Smart tags, PowerPoint 2003 makes it easier to view
and create presentations. Multimedia support in PowerPoint 2003 is also improved. We can
easily save PowerPoint 2003 files to a CD, and integration with Microsoft Windows Media
Player allows you to play streaming audio and video within a slide show.
 Microsoft Producer
Microsoft Producer is a standalone application that captures and synchronizes
audio, video, slides and images, and publishes the presentation online for others to view in
a Web browser. The built-in visual timeline makes it easy for the presenter to manage the
timing of the slides. In essence, Microsoft Producer allows easily capturing and
synchronizing audio and video with slides from PowerPoint presentations while providing
a handy integrated set of wizards which further facilitate the creation of rich-media
presentations.
Though Microsoft calls Microsoft Producer a PowerPoint add-in, the software can
create a multimedia presentation with or without importing PowerPoint slides along with
the PowerPoint animations, transitions and effects. Producer imports many popular media
formats for images, video, audio and Web-based files. The application can capture still
images from a Web camera, video camera (both digital and analog) and from the computer
screen. Producer outputs files in Producer's proprietary format but also exports files in
HTML. We can save published presentations to a recordable or rewriteable CD. These
11
presentations can then be easily distributed via CD or streaming media over the Internet as
well as being archived for later on-demand access. Microsoft Producer has been positively
reviewed in trade magazines by industry professionals (Muratore, 2004). It is free to
licensed users of PowerPoint 2003 and can be downloaded from
I. 2. 2. 2. Enterprise level MPS
The enterprise level MPS involves server-based programs available via either an
application service provider (APS) or a dedicated server solution. Adobe Presenter 7.0
and Articulate Presenter 09 are two MPS to be considered in this study.
 Adobe Presenter 7.0
In the website Centre for Learning & Performance Technology

( Adobe Presenter 7.0 has been
voted the Top 10 Tool 2008 by e-learning professionals worldwide. Adobe Presenter is
useful for adding audio to a PowerPoint presentation and outputting Flash for the web.
With PowerPoint plug-ins like Adobe Presenter, users are empowered to construct
dynamic multimedia audio-based Flash-light presentations.
The Adobe Presenter application helps to simplify and accelerate the creation,
delivery, and sharing of rich media presentations and courses for teaching and learning. It
also provides a rich multimedia presentation and content-creation system that supports
authoring, managing, delivering, and measuring education and training activities. Teachers,
administrators, and students alike can use familiar content-creation tools such as Microsoft
PowerPoint to quickly and easily develop Flash based multimedia learning content in
minutes without having to develop new technical skills or depend upon web professionals.
Adobe Presenter is a tool that allows rapid development of e-learning and
presentation materials. It can also be used to host online meetings. It is a plug-in to
PowerPoint. Once Presenter has been installed, it can be accessed from the tool bar in
PowerPoint. The basic method of operation is to set up a presentation in PowerPoint and
then add to it using the features contained in Presenter. These features include:
* A variety of pre-designed skins & navigation buttons
* Record a voiceover track and key it into slide/slide animations
* Import sound files
* Import video
12
* Import Flash files
* Sync PowerPoint animations with video and audio
* Set MCQ, True/False, Cloze, Short Answer, Matching
* Set up and deliver Surveys
* Track user responses and performance
* Manage student groups
 Articulate Presenter '09
For the 4th year in a row, Articulate has been named a winner in the Best of E-

learning 2008 Awards. Between them, Articulate Presenter ‘09 and Articulate Quizmaker
‘09 were given an excellence award in 3 categories, including Best Presentation Tool and
Best Assessment Tool. Articulate Presenter can help to create compelling Flash
presentations and e-learning courses. Articulate Presenter '09 makes it easy for anyone to
add interactivity and narration to PowerPoint slides. Just click a button to turn the
presentation into a compelling Flash course. We can quickly distribute highly interactive,
persuasive materials. With Articulate Presenter '09, we will have the power to create real
change. Followings are easy-to-use features of Articulate Presenter that cannot be found in
other programs:
 Animated annotations that highlight important points
 Clear, crisp images and video
 Multi-level navigation and branching
 Embedded live web pages and other objects
 Multiple publishing options, including Flash, Word, CD and podcasts.
Articulate Presenter '09 saves the content in the universally accepted Flash format, so it
runs on any Web server or LMS. It also creates SCORM and AICC-compliant content so
we can easily track results on your LMS.
I.2.3. Advantages and disadvantages of using MPS in English teaching and learning
I. 2. 3. 1. Advantages in the use of MPS
• Greater Class Capacity
13
It is much easier for teachers to explain as well as for students to understand points beyond
expression by using dynamic presentations in class. Besides, for those courses emphasizing
practical skills, MPS is also helpful in expanding teaching capacity and improving teaching
efficiency.
• Solving Focal and Difficult Points
Unlimited in time and space, MPS will give more intuitionistic contents and effects,
disintegrate the complex contents of knowledge, skills and information more completely,
convey the teaching information, solve difficult points in teaching, display information in
more variable ways and give prominence to focal points. For example, with the use of flash

software, vivid and straightforward effects will be produced.
• Increasing Interactivity
Interactivity should be the most distinctive characteristics of MPS as well as the core of
multimedia teaching. In a multimedia-aided class, teachers can have heuristic teaching by
giving on-the-spot analysis and answers to students’ feedback.
• Stimulating Students' Enthusiasm
The pedagogical strength of MPS is that it uses the natural information processing abilities
that we already possess as humans. Our eyes and ears, in conjunction with our brain, form
a formidable system for transforming meaningless sense data into information. The old
saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words" often understates the case especially
with regard to moving images, as our eyes are highly adapted by evolution to detecting and
interpreting movement. With multimedia providing for students comprehensive
information with vocal, video, pictorial and literal effects, students will keep their attention
longer and will have higher enthusiasm for learning. The use of MPS in teaching is quite
necessary in EFL, in which only blackboard will not achieve desirable effects.
• Optimizing teaching Contents
When making their courseware, teachers tend to optimize their preparation for class.
Therefore, it helps to improve teachers’ teaching ability in a short time. In this sense,
teaching with slides will help teachers a lot in grasping their courses as well as organizing
their classes.
I. 2. 3. 2. Disadvantages in the use of MPS
In spite of the widespread use of MPS nowadays, there are some disadvantages which are
mainly shown as follows:
14
• Technical requirements
Multimedia requires high-end computer systems. Sound, images, animation, and especially
video, constitute large amounts of data, which slow down, or may not even fit in a low-end
computer. Unlike simple text files created in word processing, multimedia packages
require good quality computers.
• Poor Priority Control of MPS

Teachers are supposed to use multimedia flexibly to ensure reasonable teaching tempo and
atmosphere. However, if multimedia courseware is used at improper situations, poor
priority control will be caused. Furthermore, if the prerequisites for using multimedia
include to computers with related software, the user must possess a minimum level of
computer literacy in order to exploit the capabilities of this medium for learning. Of the
educator who is unfamiliar with the production and design of MPS or packages can be
equally complicating.
• Lacking in circumstances
The significance of interest for learning can be revealed in Einstein’s quotation of
“Interest is the best teacher”. In fact, profound interest will stimulate learning motivation
and encourage enthusiasm for learning effectively. However, multimedia teaching, due to
its boring and one fold forms, fails to arouse students’ learning interest.
• Lacking in Instances
Teaching coming from our life, applied to our life, displays some practical problems in
our life to students with certain multimedia means and therefore, arouses their interest to
explore knowledge. However, some multimedia courseware, only with simple literal
introduction and lacking in practical instances, will surely fail to encourage students’
enthusiasm for learning.
• Financial issues
While proponents of this new technology are very enthusiastic about its potential, they
often leave the financial issues unattended. Development costs in multimedia are very high
and the process of developing effective multimedia takes time. Time spent on developing
multimedia package requires money so that the true cost of an interactive programme
mounts with each delay.
In short, it should be avoided to “refuse multimedia courseware when necessary or
abuse it without purpose or plan”. In my teaching process, multimedia courseware should
15
be designed, developed and used properly in order to optimize my teaching contents and
improve my class efficiency, hence exerting the real value of multimedia-aided teaching.
CHAPTER II:

AN EVALUATION OF MPS IN DESIGNING ENGLISH
LECTURES AT FIT - TNU
16
II. 1. Introduction
When teachers evaluate a textbook for possible adoption in a language course, they
are working in familiar territory. They have used textbooks for years as students and may
already have significant experience teaching with them. Although teachers can profit from
receiving instruction in how to approach textbook evaluation more analytically (Byrd,
2001), textbooks are relatively straightforward to evaluate because they tend to have a
transparent structure allowing teachers to skim through them to get an overview of the
organization and content. Furthermore, teachers can almost always get a full version to
review in advance of making a selection.
However, it is not the case with software. Although this profile is changing, many
current language teachers have limited experience with CALL software from the learners’
perspective and may be novices as well using technology for teaching. Unlike textbooks,
software structure is often not transparent and can be difficult to “skim” for both content
and program operation. Additionally, for commercial materials it may be difficult to get a
fully operational version for review. Finally, as Bradin (1999) notes, “language teachers
who are not accustomed to looking at CALL software may perceive its purpose very
differently than those who are more experienced”. All of these factors combine to make
CALL evaluation a unique challenge. Evaluation refers to the process of
(i) Investigating CALL to judge its appropriateness for a given language learning
setting;
(ii) Identifying ways it may be effectively implemented in that setting;
(iii) Assessing its degree of success and determining whether to continue use or to
make adjustments in implementation for future use.
The author thinks of these three stages respectively as selection, implementation,
and assessment. MPS evaluation has been primarily concerned with the selection stage to
choose the right software to be implemented. Then, the implementation is taken place in
the real setting at FIT - TNU. Assessment will be touched on after the stage of

implementation.
II. 2. Purposes of Evaluation
II. 2.1. Selection for a Course
17
The most common reason for doing an evaluation is for a teacher to select
appropriate software for his or her own class. In this situation, there is a lot of known
information that can be brought to bear on the evaluation process. Such information
includes
(i) An understanding of the technical infrastructure of the institution or the
computing hardware and software available to the students if they are using their own
equipment,
(ii) Relevant data about other course materials, the student characteristics, and the
structure and specific objectives of the course, and
(iii) The teacher’s/evaluator’s assumptions about how language is learned. Besides
the classroom setting where many of the preceding factors are known, teachers may also
evaluate software for use beyond their own courses.
II. 2.2. Selection for Self-access or Other Instructors’ Use
In some situations, teachers may be asked to recommend software selections for a
self-access lab or for an entire language program. In this case, the same considerations of
technology infrastructure will presumably be taken into account, but the information about
student characteristics, course objectives and materials, and teacher assumptions may be
less readily available. In addition, there can be a great deal of variability in student and
course characteristics that can make the selection process more challenging. Evaluators in
this circumstance would do well to begin with some investigation of these factors rather
than simply relying on their own assumptions and biases.
II. 3. Three Approaches to Evaluation
Levy and Stockwell have identified three major types of CALL software
evaluation: evaluation driven by checklists or forms, evaluation guided by methodological
frameworks for language teaching, and evaluation linked to second language acquisition
(SLA) theory and research-based criteria. Each of these is discussed briefly below.

II. 3.1 Checklists
Checklists have been present from the earliest stages of CALL and remain
widespread. Typically, a checklist presents a series of questions or categories for judgment
18
and the evaluator is expected to make a response based on information gathered through
the reviewing process. Many checklists simply ask for a yes/no indication or a response
along a Likert scale. Others, despite the “checklist” label, also include space for open-
ended commentary following specific prompts. Published checklists have been criticized
for a number of reasons, including focusing too heavily on technology at the expense of
pedagogy and for being biased and restrictive (Hubbard, 1988). In the end, as Susser
(2001) notes, checklists can be adapted and updated for particular purposes. They have the
capacity to provide teachers with a useful tool for recognizing the variety of elements that
make up a software application and for triggering reflection on some of their own
assumptions about CALL.
II. 3.2 Methodological Frameworks
Methodological frameworks are compatible with some checklists but differ in two
significant ways. First, methodological frameworks attempt to be largely descriptive rather
than judgmental in their form. Second, they attempt fundamentally to link with the
language teaching and learning considerations that take place outside of technology. As
noted in Hubbard (1988). The framework approach to courseware evaluation is different
from others. A framework in this context means an integrated description of the
components of CALL materials, with respect to a particular goal in this case evaluation.
Rather than asking a specific set of questions, a framework provides a tool through which
an evaluator can create his or her own questions or develop some other evaluation scheme.
Until the mid-1980s, evaluation had largely been conceptualized in terms of checklists and
procedures borrowed from general education and were lacking an appropriate language
learning focus. But in 1985, Phillips offered a framework more explicitly linked to
language teaching methodology. It included categories for the CALL program types of its
era but also described dimensions such as language difficulty, learner focus (i.e., skill area:
listening, speaking, reading, and writing), and language focus (i.e., lexis, grammar, and

discourse) that were important to the language learning character of the program. Hubbard
(1988) expanded Phillips’ system and integrated it with one developed independently by
Richards and Rodgers (1982) for describing and analyzing language teaching methods.
Richards and Rodgers characterized language teaching methods in terms of three
descriptive categories:
19
(i) Approach, or the underlying theories of linguistics and language learning
assumed by the method;
(ii) Design, consistent with the assumptions of the approach and including the
syllabus model, general and specific objectives of the method, and the roles of the students,
teacher, and materials;
(iii) Procedure, or the classroom techniques and activities through which the
design is realized.
Hubbard (1988) adapted the approach, design, and procedure constructs into
categories describing the key elements of evaluation and renamed them teacher fit,
learner fit, and operational description, respectively. The resulting framework became
the evaluation module in a proposed comprehensive methodological framework that also
included modules for courseware development and implementation (Hubbard, 1996).
II.3.3. SLA-based Approaches
Given that teaching languages with software is a form of language teaching,
another reasonable procedure for developing software evaluation rubrics is to build on
recommendations from theory or research in instructed SLA. Ultimately, the author might
expect to have definitive SLA results specifically from research on learning with software,
but to date there has not been a sufficiently established base for such results. Consequently,
this approach takes findings from non-CALL domains and interprets them in the CALL
context.
An early attempt in this direction was Underwood (1984), who presented a case for
a communicative approach to CALL based on generalizations from research and
communicative theory of that period. His 13 points characterizing communicative CALL
became a de facto evaluation rubric. Egbert and Hanson-Smith (1999) structured the

chapters in an edited volume on CALL around eight generalizations for optimal language
learning environments, again providing content for a research-based evaluation scheme,
although their work was not specifically aimed at evaluation.
Chapelle (2001) offers a set of five principles for evaluating CALL summarized as
follows:
• CALL evaluation is situation-specific;
• CALL should be evaluated both judgmentally and empirically;
20
• CALL evaluation criteria should come from instructed SLA theory and research;
• the criteria should be applied relative to the purpose of the CALL task;
• the central consideration should be language learning potential.
In line with the preceding principles, Chapelle proposes a set of six general evaluation
criteria useful in determining the appropriateness of a given CALL task for supporting
language acquisition. Note that these criteria are relevant for “both the aspects of the task
defined by the software and those defined by the teacher” (Chapelle, 2001, p. 58). These
criteria appear initially in Chapelle (2001) and are reprised in a recent evaluation study by
Jamieson, Chapelle, and Preiss (2005, p. 94).
 Language learning potential: The degree of opportunity present for beneficial focus
on form;
 Learner fit: The amount of opportunity for engagement with language under
appropriate conditions given learner characteristics;
 Meaning focus: The extent to which learners’ attention is directed toward the
meaning of the language;
 Authenticity: The degree of correspondence between the learning activity and
target language activities of interest to learners out of the classroom;
 Positive Impact: The positive effects of the CALL activity on those who participate
in it; and
 Practicality: The adequacy of resources to support the use of the CALL activity.
Jamieson, Chapelle, and Preiss (2004) show how these criteria can be operationalized for a
judgmental analysis of a major software project.

It is worth noting that Chapelle’s framework, though quite different in structure and in
underlying assumptions, is in some respects compatible with the methodological
framework and checklist approaches described earlier. For instance, Chapelle’s concept of
learner fit can be related to that of Hubbard (1988), and most of her other criteria are
representative of a task-based, interactionist language teaching approach that is likely to
provide a good “teacher fit” for many current language instructors, especially those who
have been recently trained in such an approach.
II.4. An evaluation of MPS in English teaching and learning:
II.4.1. Criteria for MPS evaluation
21
Most of the evaluators suggested specific MPS evaluation criteria. Although still
subjective in most cases, three major components: content, instructional characteristics
and technical characteristics are commonly included (Heller, 1991).
One of the most comprehensive lists produced by the Educational Software
Evaluation Consortium shows this effort to include all the three major components. They
include the 22 most common criteria. Instead of the technology aspect of the software, the
list focuses on the content and pedagogy of the material. The rank order of the criteria is as
follows:
Table 1- MPS evaluation criteria
1. Correctness of Content Presentation. 2. Content Presentation
3. Use of Technology 4. Integration into Classroom Use
5. Ease of Use 6. Curriculum Congruence
7. Interaction 8. Content Sequence/Levels
9. Reliability 10. Use Control of Program
11. Feedback (general) 12. Objectives
13. Motivation 14. Branching
15. Negative feedback/Help 16. Content Modification
17. Content Bias 18. Teacher Documentation
19. User Support Materials 20. Color, Sound, Graphics, Animation
21. Screen Displays 22. Management System

Pace, L. A and Kelley, F.A ( 2006) suggested ten criteria to evaluate both desktop-
level and enterprise-level MPS. The author uses these criteria to summarize her evaluation
of the MPS solutions discussed in this study. The criteria and the author's evaluation of
each of the reviewed solutions are found in Table 2.
 Ease of use:
Some MPS are transparent to the users. They simply invoke the solution before starting the
narrated presentation, or from within PowerPoint or other presentation program. Other
MPS are less transparent and require user orientation or training.
 Service model:
Some MPS are desktop-level authoring systems that produce files that can be uploaded to
an LMS or course web-site. Others are enterprise-wide systems invoked through an
22
organization's intranet, and still others are invoked through an APS (application service
provider) model.
 File formats supported:
Some MPS produce only one output file format while others can produce files in a variety
of output formats.
 Operating system supported for content development:
Some MPS can be used to develop multimedia content on more than one operating system,
while others are available for only one operating system. It is important distinguish the
content development platform from the platform used for viewing content, as all the
multimedia presentations discussed in this paper are viewable via standard web browsers
on multiple operating systems.
 Initial costs:
These are evaluated as free, moderate ($1 – $500), or high (more than $500).
 Recurring costs :
These are evaluated as the same as initial costs
 Simplicity or complexity of output:
Some programs or program options produce a single integrated output file, such as WMV
or EXE, while others produce a folder of multiple separate files with HTML, audio, video,

and synchronization files. For enterprise systems, such file proliferation is not a problem,
but for desktop systems, file proliferation can create difficulties in uploading files to a
server.
 Ability to perform post-production editing:
Some programs provide little or no post-production editing capabilities, while others
permit substantial opportunity to modify or augment post-production content.
 Level of the MPS:
Some products are invoked primarily at the desktop level, while others are invoked at the
enterprise level.
 Form of integration:
Some software integrates easily with institutional LMS such as Adobe Presenter and
Articulate Presenter, or others course modules. Other products integrate adequately via the
ability to upload files or folders to a server either as part of a hosted solution, an LMS, or a
course web site.
23
II.4. 2. MPS applications in English teaching and learning at FIT - TNU
At FIT - TNU with its specialization in information technology, both teachers and
students are interested in IT applications in teaching and learning. A variety of software
has been used to enhance teaching and learning quality. As for English, which is a non-
major subject in FIT, teachers of English still manage to make English lessons useful and
effective in both real classes and virtual classes by using MPS. Also, FIT students can
enjoy e-learning of all subjects, including English at />Currently in FIT, Microsoft PowerPoint and Microsoft Producer are the most
widely-used authoring tools in designing English lectures. Besides, Adobe Presenter and
Articulate Presenter are also recommended to use in teaching in FIT. How are these MPS
exploited in teaching and learning English will be under evaluation of the author in the
next section.

II.4.3. An evaluation of Microsoft Producer vs. Microsoft PowerPoint, Adobe
Presenter 7, Articulate Presenter 09
As mentioned earlier, the author evaluates some MPS based on ten criteria of Pace,

L. A and Kelley, F.A (2006). Only four representatives of MPS were chosen to be
evaluated: Microsoft Producer, Microsoft PowerPoint, Adobe Presenter 7.0 and Articulate
Presenter 09 in the following table:
Table 2 - An Evaluation of Multimedia Presentation Software

MPS
Criteria
Microsoft
PowerPoint
Microsoft
Producer
Adobe
Presenter
7.0
Articulate
Presenter 09
Ease of use Very Easy Very Easy Medium Medium
Service model Desktop Desktop Mixed ASP
LMS
Mixed ASP
LMS
File formats supported .ppt Windows
Media
Flash Flash
Operating system(s)
supported for content
development
Win
Mac
Win Win Win

Initial costs Free Free High High
24
Recurring costs Free Free High High
Simplicity or complexity
of output
Simple Complex Simple to
Complex
Simple to
Complex
Ability to perform post-
production editing
None Limited Extensive Extensive
Level of the MPS Desktop Desktop Desktop Desktop
Form of integration Internet/
LMS
Internet/
LMS
Internet/
Hosted/
LMS
Internet/
Hosted/
LMS
The author also makes a comparison between the two desktop MPS: Microsoft
PowerPoint and Microsoft Producer. Like PowerPoint, Microsoft Producer comes with
design templates and layouts to help the presenter visualize the presentation. The design
templates provide a little color and background image for the presentation and each design
has various layouts from which to choose. Users can customize the layouts to their liking
including the background. The key difference between Producer and PowerPoint is that
Producer comes with a timeline. Presenters can set timing on PowerPoint slides, but the

program requires opening each slide and changing the number. The Producer timeline has
drag and drop capabilities for moving media in a different order, making the media longer
or shorter and adding or removing the media from the presentation. The visual timeline
provides an excellent overview of how the presentation is set up.
Also, a descriptive comparison between Microsoft Producer and two
representatives of enterprise MPS, Adobe Presenter and Articulate Presenter is clarified in
the following table:
Table 3: Microsoft Producer vs. Adobe Presenter and Articulate Presenter
Microsoft Producer Adobe Presenter Articulate Presenter
Description
Capture, synchronize,
and publish audio, video,
slides, and images to
create rich-media
presentations viewable in
a browser.
Capture and
synchronize audio and
video from PowerPoint
with ability to add
interactive features,
including SCORM
compliant assessment.
Create rich-media
presentations from
PowerPoint, with
ability to add
interactive features,
including SCORM
compliant assessment.

25