Computer Assisted Language Learning, Grammar Instruction, Focus on Form, Structural Syllabus, English as a Second Language (ESL), ComputerBased Instruction

Joyce Nutta

Is Computer-Based Grammar
Instruction as Effective as TeacherDirected Grammar Instruction
for Teaching L2 Structures?
Joyce Nutta
University of South Florida
ABSTRACT
The study described here compared postsecondary English as a Second
Language (ESL) students’ acquisition of selected English structures based
on the method of instruction—computer-based instruction versus teacherdirected instruction.1 The results showed that for all levels of English proficiency, the computer-based students scored significantly higher on openended tests covering the structures in question than the teacher-directed
students. No significant differences were found between the computerbased and teacher-directed students’ scores on multiple choice or fill-inthe-blank tests. The results indicate that computer-based instruction can
be an effective method of teaching L2 grammar.

KEYWORDS
Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), Grammar Instruction,
Focus on Form, Structural Syllabus, English as a Second Language (ESL),
Computer-Based Instruction

INTRODUCTION
As the use of computers in language teaching increases, it is essential to
establish research-based indications of the appropriate roles of Computer
Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in curriculum and instruction. One
of the most important questions focuses on whether technology should
attempt to emulate the characteristics of a communicative classroom, engaging students in real and meaningful communication, or provide the
types of tutorials and drills that tend to be de-emphasized in current teaching practice. Numerous Second Language Acquisition researchers have
Volume 16 Number 1

49

Computer-Based and Teacher-Driven Instruction
asserted that the computer should be used to replicate what they believe
ought to occur in the classroom. Many proponents of CALL have advocated the development of communicative computer programs that provide opportunities for meaningful communication (Garrett, 1991;
Underwood, 1993; Quinn, 1990; Lavine, 1992). Although some educators have decried the use of computers as electronic workbooks for drilland-practice exercises (Chun & Brandl, 1992; Underwood, 1993), others
have advocated their use for tutorials and drills to free up more classroom
time for real communication (Gilby, 1996; Hoffman, 1996).
The teaching context often determines the role of CALL. In an English
as a Second Language (ESL) environment, communicative CALL programs often supplement and augment classroom activities by providing
games for practice or word processing applications for compositions. In
some English as a Foreign Language (EFL) programs, computer programs
may complement or completely supplant classroom instruction by providing instruction in a subject or skill not taught in the classroom (Soo &
Ngeow, 1996). In the latter case, computers and other technologies are
relied upon to provide a model of native speech that the instructors, many
of whom are nonnative speakers of English, cannot offer.
During the past decade, numerous studies have examined different approaches to teaching grammar (Doughty, 1991; Ellis,1985, 1993; Fotos,
1993; Green & Hecht, 1992; Tomasello & Herron, 1988). These studies
have shown that many effective means of teaching L2 grammar are available—from teacher-directed Constructivist tutorials (Adair-Hauck &
Donato, 1994), to cooperative group work (Fotos, 1994) and individual
study with textbooks (Scott & Randall, 1992). Because these studies indicate that various effective ways to learn grammar exist, teachers have an
ever increasing array of options with which to meet the needs of students.
The use of computers to teach grammar has not received the same amount
of attention as communicative CALL, but computer-based grammar instruction offers many potential benefits. Although it is currently impossible for the computer to engage learners in authentic two-way communication, it is, in fact, possible for CALL to provide rich input in the form of
integrated multimedia programs and to provide explicit grammar explanations that can be viewed and reviewed at the learner’s own pace. In a
metaanalysis of research on the use of multimedia to teach a variety of
subjects, Ragan, Boyce, Redwine, Savenye, and McMichael (1993) found
that, in general, multimedia instruction reduces learning time by 30%
compared to traditional instruction. They further demonstrated that features of multimedia instruction such as learner interactivity and learner
control over programs produce improved outcomes in achievement.
Results of studies on computer assisted instruction have been generally
positive. For over two decades, researchers have examined the effectiveness of computer assisted instruction to teach many different subjects. In

50

CALICO Journal


Joyce Nutta
1987, Kulik and Kulik published a ground-breaking metaanalysis of comparative studies on computer assisted and classroom instruction in which
they calculated an overall effect size of .31. Other studies by Niemiec and
Walberg (1987) and McNeil and Nelson (1991) uncovered similar results.
In spite of the abundance of comparative research on computer assisted
instruction in other academic fields such as reading (Rachal, 1995) and
the growing body of research on methods of teaching grammar, only recently have researchers investigated the use of computer-based L2 grammar instruction (McEnery, Baker & Wilson, 1995; Nagata, 1996). The
results of these studies seem to indicate that computer-based grammar
instruction can be as effective or more effective than more traditional instruction (e.g., workbooks and lectures).
If subsequent research bears out this initial indication of the benefits of
computer-based grammar instruction, this kind of instruction could become an important complement to communicatively oriented language
classes. By using the computer for the presentation, explanation, and application of grammatical structures, more classroom time could be dedicated to real communication that focuses on expressing meaning and using appropriate grammatical structures to express that meaning. Shifting
the systematic study of grammar points from the realm of the classroom
to the domain of the computer laboratory would enable instructors to
take advantage of classroom interpersonal dynamics and allow them to
take into account differences in background knowledge and learning styles.
The use of computer-based grammar instruction would also support
more individualized instruction in programs that have open-entry/openexit enrollment such as adult and vocational education courses. Students
would not enter the class in the middle of a linear instructional sequence
based on a grammatical syllabus. Instead, the syllabus could be based on
themes of interest and relevance to students, and individual students could
follow a grammatical syllabus in computer-based instruction outside the
classroom.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

This study examined whether computer-based grammar instruction is
as effective as teacher-directed grammar instruction for postsecondary students at multiple levels of proficiency in an intensive ESL program. Two
experiments were conducted at different levels of English language proficiency, one at the first and second level of instruction and the other at the
third and fourth level. The primary research question posed in the study
was whether there was a difference in the acquisition of a specific grammar point for students taught in a teacher-directed class versus those taught
in computer-based instruction.
Volume 16 Number 1

51


Computer-Based and Teacher-Driven Instruction
Method

The first experiment compared the performance of level-one and leveltwo students in a computer-based group versus those in a teacher-directed
group. The second experiment compared the performance of level-three
and level-four students in a computer-based group versus those in a teacherdirected group. The purpose of conducting the two experiments was to
examine the acquisition of discrete structures at different levels of proficiency in order to increase the generalizability of the results.

Sample

The population of the study consisted of 53 students (24 females and 29
males) enrolled in an intensive academic ESL institute at a major university in Florida. The ESL institute offers four levels of instruction and uses
the Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT) to place in-coming students. Ten students were enrolled in level one, 9 in level two, 20 in level
three (in two sections), and 14 in level four. Students were matched for
native language (Japanese, Thai, Korean, Arabic, Spanish, Italian, French,
and Portuguese) and pretest scores on the structures in question and then
randomly assigned to computer-based or teacher-directed sections. Although the groups were not matched for gender, the breakdown was fairly
even, each group differing in gender makeup by no more than two students.

Independent Variable

The independent variable was the method of grammar instruction, either teacher-directed or computer-based. Because the participants in each
experiment consisted of two levels of English proficiency (first and second levels combined, third and fourth levels combined), grammar points
were introduced at the lower level of the combined groups and then reviewed and expanded at the higher level. This cycle held true for the teacherdirected as well as computer-based groups. The treatment consisted of
one hour of instruction per day for seven days. Because studies have indicated that certain grammar points are more easily acquired than others
(Green & Hecht, 1992; Scott & Randall, 1992; Krashen, 1981), this study
examined the acquisition of verb tenses, which included elements of aspect, one of the more difficult forms for ESL students to master (Green &
Hecht, 1992).

52

CALICO Journal


Joyce Nutta
Teacher-Directed Group

Students in the teacher-directed groups were taught by five different
teachers of varying degrees of experience. Classes were held in rooms without computer equipment or other instructional technology. Class size ranged
from four to seven students. Students at all levels used the Focus on Grammar (1994) textbook series and engaged in a variety of types of activities
emphasizing interactive, meaningful, and creative expression.

Computer-Based Groups

Students in the computer-based groups received computer-based instruction outside the classroom. The students who participated in Experiment
One used ELLIS Middle Mastery (1996), and the students who participated in Experiment Two used ELLIS Senior Mastery (1996). ELLIS was
selected because of its multimedia delivery (audio and video, recording
capability, etc.), its modeling of natural and contextualized language, its
interactivity, and its clear grammar explanations and practice activities.

Although ELLIS lacks a mechanism for sophisticated learner feedback
(see Nagata & Swisher, 1995), its exercises do provide simple corrections.
Because the ELLIS program is organized around communicative needs
rather than grammatical structures, students followed a sequential checklist developed by the researcher to direct their navigation through the program. (See the sample navigational guide in Appendix A.)

Dependent Variables

In Experiment One, the grammar structure of interest was the past tense,
and in Experiment Two, the conditional tense. The dependent variables
were students’ achievement scores on three separate criterion-referenced
tests over the selected structures. The tests on the past tense included
items covering the simple past in regular and irregular forms, the past
continuous, and the present perfect (regular form). The tests on the conditional tense included items covering the factual, unreal, and unlikely
conditional.
The three tests consisted of (1) a discrete-point multiple-choice test, (2)
a fill-in-the-blank test, and (3) an open-ended test. The researcher, together with the ESL institute’s curriculum specialist and the grammar teachers, decided which grammar points were appropriate to teach and assess.
The researcher then developed test instruments based on the content of
the instruction in the teacher-directed and computer-based groups.
The students’ scores on the three tests were retained as separate meaVolume 16 Number 1

53


Computer-Based and Teacher-Driven Instruction
surements, not combined into a single dependent variable, since there is a
theoretical basis for considering them as measures of different constructs.
For example, multiple choice tests do not measure linguistic production
(Hughes, 1989) and therefore can be appropriately used to assess students’ knowledge of grammar within the framework of grammatical consciousness-raising (Sharwood-Smith, 1981). Since open-ended tests measure students’ linguistic production, they represent more demanding tasks
of application of knowledge than do multiple choice tests. The same battery of tests were used for pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed
posttests.

A pool of test items was field tested at two adult education schools.
From the initial item pool, ten items were selected for the fill-in-the-blank
tests (scale of zero to five), ten items for the multiple choice tests, and five
items for the open-ended tests (scale of zero to one). Teachers at both
adult education schools, as well as the grammar teachers at the institute,
examined the tests for content validity and made suggestions for changes
that were eventually incorporated into the final version of the tests.
In addition to analyzing students’ performance as represented by their
values for the three dependent variables, the researcher conducted native
language interviews with students in the computer-based group of Experiment One and administered questionnaires to students in the computerbased group of Experiment Two. The purpose of these interviews and
questionnaires was to solicit students’ views of the computer program
and computer-based learning.

Data Collection and Analysis

The pretests were administered three days prior to the beginning of the
treatment, the immediate posttests were administered on the last day of
the treatment, and the delayed posttests were administered two weeks
after the posttests. After having been trained, the classroom teachers administered the pretests and delayed posttests to all students and the immediate posttests to the students in the teacher-directed groups. The researcher administered the immediate posttests to the students in the computer-based group. The researcher scored all the tests blindly with no
knowledge of students’ identity or group status. After the researcher scored
the tests, a certified ESL teacher reviewed students’ answers. For all potentially problematic answers and scores, the researcher and the teacher
reached consensus on the basis of the scoring sheet. (See sample questions and scoring criteria in Appendix B.)
For the pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests in Experiment One, the calculation of internal consistency was .90 for the fill-inthe-blank test, .58 for the multiple choice test, and .63 for the open-ended
54

CALICO Journal


Joyce Nutta
test. For the pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests in Experiment Two, the calculation of internal consistency was .67 for the fillin-the-blank test, .40 for the multiple choice test, and .43 for the openended test. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the

data. Because of the small sample size, the alpha level was set at .10 for
tests of significance.

Results

As in most comparative CALL studies, it was difficult to distinguish
which features of the computer-based instruction led to the outcomes found
in the study and whether these factors were inherent to computer-based
instruction or simply an instructional strategy that could have been employed with a variety of media under different circumstances (see Williams & Brown, 1991). Nonetheless, the results showed that computerbased grammar instruction is at least as effective as, and in some cases
more effective than, teacher-directed grammar instruction.
Experiment One

Table 1 summarizes the results of the descriptive analysis of students’
test scores in Experiment One.
Table 1
Mean Test Scores by Group in Experiment One
Type
Time
Computer-Based Group Teacher-Directed Group
of Test
of Test
(N = 9)
(N = 10)
Mean
Standard
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Deviation
OpenPretest

0.44
0.53
0.30
0.68
Ended
Immediate 3.10
1.76
1.20
1.62
Posttest
Delayed
3.44
1.60
1.80
1.75
Posttest
Fill-inPretest
13.67
11.14
8.20
9.27
the-blank Immediate 31.11
14.62
14.90
14.01
Posttest
Delayed
22.67
17.95
16.80

12.04
Posttest
Multiple Pretest
5.67
2.45
5.00
1.89
Choice Immediate 6.22
2.17
6.80
1.87
Posttest
Delayed
6.56
2.46
5.70
1.77
Posttest
Volume 16 Number 1

55


Computer-Based and Teacher-Driven Instruction
Analysis revealed a significant difference between the test scores of the
students in the computer-based and those in the teacher-directed groups
on the open-ended immediate posttest (p < .10). The computer-based
group’s mean score on this test was 3.10, and the teacher-directed group’s,
1.20. Using adjusted means, the effect size for the difference was 1.56.
Analysis revealed a similar significant difference between the computerbased and the teacher-directed groups on the open-ended delayed posttest

(p < .10). The computer-based group’s mean score was 3.44, and the
teacher-directed group’s, 1.80. Again using adjusted means, the effect size
for this difference was 1.73. Finally, analysis also showed a significant
difference between the computer-based and teacher-directed groups’ mean
scores on the fill-in-the-blank immediate posttest, 31.11 versus 14.90 (p
< .05). This difference disappeared, however, by the time of the delayed
posttest. No significant differences were found between the groups for the
multiple choice immediate posttest or delayed posttest.

Experiment Two
Table 2 summarizes the results of the descriptive analysis of students’
test scores in Experiment Two
Table 2
Mean Test Scores by Group in Experiment Two
Type
Time
Computer-Based Group Teacher-Directed Group
of Test
of Test
(N = 14)
(N = 10)
Mean
Standard
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Deviation
OpenPretest
3.14
1.56

2.80
0.92
Ended
Immediate 4.50
1.02
4.20
0.79
Posttest
Delayed
4.79
0.43
4.00
0.67
Posttest
Fill-inPretest
37.29
2.89
38.90
5.02
the-blank Immediate 45.64
5.18
43.90
4.11
Posttest
Delayed
46.29
3.73
45.90
4.61
Posttest

Multiple Pretest
7.00
2.08
6.40
2.32
Choice Immediate 8.43
1.28
8.10
1.52
Posttest
Delayed
8.71
1.33
8.90
1.10
Posttest
56

CALICO Journal


Joyce Nutta
Analysis showed a significant difference between the computer-based
and the teacher-directed groups’ mean scores on the open-ended delayed
posttest. The computer-based group’s mean score was 4.79, and the teacherdirected group’s, 4.00. The effect size, once more using adjusted means,
was 1.19. No significant differences were found on any of the other
posttests.

Interviews and Questionnaires

Insights into students’ experience with computer-based instruction
emerged from the student interviews and questionnaires. By and large,
students were satisfied with the computer-based instruction and expressed
a desire to spend more time per day using it. Students indicated that the
features of computer-based instruction that were most useful were the
computer’s capacity that allowed them to review the tutorial as many times
as they wished, to proceed at their own learning pace, to record their
voices and compare them against the model, and to get immediate feedback on the exercises. The Asian students especially appreciated not being
“singled out” to speak in class, while some of the Latin students indicated
that they would have preferred more human interaction.

Discussion

Although the sample size of this study was too small to draw definitive
conclusions, the study does present evidence of meaningful differences in
the computer-based and teacher-directed groups’ achievement scores on
the open-ended tests. If open-ended tests measure students’ ability to use
grammatical structures creatively, it would seem that some elements of
computer-based study support the development of this skill more effectively than traditional classroom instruction.
Surprisingly, the scores of the students in the computer-based groups
rose on the open-ended delayed posttests. This result contrasts with those
of other studies of classroom grammar instruction in which students’ production of grammatical structures was accurate on immediate posttests
but fell on the delayed posttests. Perhaps the interim period between the
immediate posttest and the delayed posttest described here allowed the
students in the computer-based group time to apply the structure in question in real communicative situations, providing them with an additional
opportunity to negotiate meaning and monitor their own output. This finding may indicate, as Ellis (1993) has suggested, that the use of computerbased grammar instruction can complement individualized structural syllabi in communicative classrooms and more effectively enable students to
Volume 16 Number 1

57

Computer-Based and Teacher-Driven Instruction
use the newly acquired structures to negotiate meaning.
The potential of the computer laboratory to go beyond providing simple
practice and reinforcement of grammar points taught in the classroom is
only beginning to be explored. Research should be conducted with different populations (e.g., elementary and secondary students) and different
types of courses (e.g., Vocational ESL and English for Specific Purposes).
Moreover, additional research is needed to ascertain which features of
computer-based grammar programs promote the acquisition of L2 structures (e.g., degree of learner control, feedback strategies, etc.). As the
body of knowledge on the application of computer-based grammar instruction increases, so will the flexibility and number of options available
to teachers and students.

58

CALICO Journal


Joyce Nutta
Appendix A
Sample ELLIS Navigational Guide
Conversations by Grammar Topic
Calling to set up a job interview—See your selection now
1. Could I make an appointment for an interview?
Click on each paragraph
Culture
Vocabulary
Grammar
Video (Script, Keywords, Role-Play—Record)
Phrases
Exit—Return to Conversations by Grammar Topic

Date

Conversations by Grammar Topic
Calling for information about a job—See your selection now
1. Could I make an appointment for an interview?
Grammar Guide
Conditional Sentences
Easy—page 1 view/hear
Easy—page 2 view/hear
Easy—page 3 view/hear
Medium—page 1 view/hear
Difficult—page 1 view/hear
Review—page 1 hear

Date

Main Activity Menu
Practice Activities
Practice Items
Easy Grammar
Practice Activities
Practice Items
Medium Grammar
Practice Activities
Practice Items
Difficult Grammar
Main Activity Menu
Listening Activities
Listening Comprehension

Easy
Medium
Difficult
Skills Check
Volume 16 Number 1

Date

Date

59


Computer-Based and Teacher-Driven Instruction
Appendix B
Sample Test Items and Scoring Criteria
Open-Ended
If I didn’t have to study to get good grades, ___________________________
Scored as correct (1 point) or incorrect (0 points). Answers scored as
correct must make sense and be correctly formed.
Multiple Choice
___________ the movie good last night? A. Is B. Did C. Was D. Were
One correct answer per item.
Fill-in-the-Blank
About two hours ago, a very unusual thing ______________. A student
from the English Language Institute __________________ a large, round
UFO…
5 points—correct formal use of grammar and semantically correct
4 points—correct use of formal grammar and semantically incorrect
3 points—correct use of informal grammar and semantically correct

2 points—correct use of informal grammar and semantically incorrect
1 point—incorrect use of grammar and semantically correct
Answers were judged as informal grammar use if they were variations of
the structure that were not taught and that are not part of standard, written usage (e.g., Did you ever go to Europe?)

NOTE
1

This study was funded, in part, by a Florida Department of Education Section
353 Grant.

REFERENCES
Adair-Hauck, B. & Donato, R. (1994). Foreign language explanations within the
Zone of Proximal Development. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 532-557.
Chun, D. M., & Brandl, K. K. (1992). Beyond form-based drill and practice: Meaning-enhanced CALL on the Macintosh. Foreign Language Annals, 25,
255-267.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
60

CALICO Journal


Joyce Nutta
ELLIS [Computer software]. (1996). Salt Lake City, UT: CALI.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL
Quarterly, 27, 91-113.
Focus on Grammar: Longman Grammar Series. (1994). New York: Addison Wesley.
Fotos, S. S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form:

Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407.
Fotos, S. S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language
use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28,
323-351.
Gilby, W. (1996). Irrwege des Zweitsprachenerwerbs: Gehort auch das
Computerlabor dazu? [False directions in second language acquisition:
Does the computer laboratory also count as one?]. Unterrichtspraxis/
Teaching German, 29, 87-91.
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and
issues. Modern Language Journal, 75, 74-101.
Green, P. & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study.
Applied Linguistics, 13, 168-84.
Hoffman, S. (1996). Computers and instructional design in foreign language/ESL
instruction. TESOL Journal, 5 (2), 24-29.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. New York: Cambridge.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language learning and second language acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Kulik, J. & Kulik, C. (1987). Review of recent research literature on computerbased instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 222-30.
Lavine, R. Z. (1992). Rediscovering the audio language laboratory: Learning through
communicative tasks. Hispania, 75, 1360-1367.
McEnery, T., Baker, J. P., & Wilson, A. (1995). A statistical analysis of corpus based
computer versus traditional human teaching methods of part of speech
analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8, 259-274.
McNeil, B. J. & Nelson, K. R. (1991). Metaanalysis of interactive video instruction:
A 10 year review of achievement effects. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18 (1), 1-6.
Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14, 53-75.
Nagata, N. & Swisher, M. V. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer:
The effect of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 337-347.
Niemiec, R. & Walberg, H. (1987). Comparative effects of computer-assisted instruction: A synthesis of reviews. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 19-37.
Volume 16 Number 1

61


Computer-Based and Teacher-Driven Instruction
Quinn, R. A. (1990). Our progress in integrating modern methods and computercontrolled learning for successful language study. Hispania, 73, 297-311.
Rachal, J. R. (1995). Adult reading achievement comparing computer-assisted and
traditional approaches: A comprehensive review of the experimental literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 239-258.
Ragan, T., Boyce, M., Redwine, D., Savenye, W. C., & McMichael, J. (1993, January). Is multimedia worth it?: A review of the effectiveness of individualized multimedia instruction. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Convention, New Orleans, LA.
Scott, V. M. & Randall, S. A. (1992). Can students apply grammar rules after
reading textbook explanations? Foreign Language Annals, 25, 357-367.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner.
Applied Linguistics, 11, 159-168.
Soo, K. S. & Ngeow, Y. H. (1996). The English teacher vs. the multimedia computer: The UNIMAS experience. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 9, 237-246.
Underwood, J. H. (1993, August/September). The lab of the future: Using technology to teach foreign language. American Association of Community Colleges Journal, 33-39.
Williams, C. & Brown, S. (1991). A review of the research issues in the use of
computer-related technologies for instruction: An agenda for research.
Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 17, 26-46.

AUTHOR’S BIODATA
Joyce W. Nutta is an assistant professor of Foreign Language Education/
TESOL at the University of South Florida. She holds a Master’s Degree in
Applied Linguistics and a Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition and Instructional Technology. Her research interests include CALL and distance
learning. She has co-authored Virtual Instruction: Issues and Insights from
an International Perspective, Libraries Unlimited (in press) and is currently completing The Teacher’s Guide to Dynamic Distance Learning.
AUTHOR’S ADDRESS
Joyce W. Nutta, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Foreign/Second Language Education

Department of Secondary Education—EDU 208B
University of South Florida
4202 East Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33620-5650
Phone: 813/974-3759; 813/974-3533
Fax:
813/974-3837
E-Mail:
62

CALICO Journal