VoxLit: A Computational Tool with Literary Data for Active and Passive Voice Mastery at Eastern University, Sri Lanka
Main Article Content
Abstract
Proficiency in active and passive voice is a fundamental requirement of English language education for first-year language students at Eastern University, Sri Lanka (EUSL), particularly in their core subjects “Advanced Grammar” and “Literature in English”. Mastery of these structures is essential for academic precision and the analytical comprehension of literary texts. However, traditional pedagogical methods like rote memorization and manual exercises often lack the immediate feedback and engagement necessary for deep learning, revealing a gap in the integration of computational technology for grammatical instruction. This study investigates the efficacy of computational tools in comparison with conventional approaches in teaching and testing grammatical voice. To reinforce language competence and literary familiarity, the research incorporates sentences from prescribed grammar texts and literary works, including short stories, poems, and novels. Adopting a mixed-methods approach that integrates quantitative performance data with qualitative error analysis and learner observation, the study sampled 20 first-year students from the Department of Languages at EUSL. Participants underwent a traditional pre-test to establish baseline proficiency before interacting with “VoxLit”, a researcher-developed computational tool designed to analyze and evaluate the grammatical voice structures within literary contexts. A post-test conducted using the tool revealed markedly higher accuracy rates, indicating improved retention, superior error correction, and stronger application skills compared to pre-test results. These findings underscore the effectiveness of technology-enhanced grammar instruction and advocate for the integration of computational tools into language curricula. Such innovation aligns with contemporary educational paradigms and offers significant potential for adoption at EUSL and similar higher education institutions.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Balena, F. (1999). Programming Microsoft visual basic 6.0. Microsoft Press.
Breen, M. P. (1985). Authenticity in the language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 60–70.
Carter, R., & Long, M. N. (1991). Teaching literature. Longman.
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97–118.
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning: Comparing technology-enhanced and traditional instruction. ReCALL, 25(2), 165–198.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Longman.
Kanduboda, K. A. S. S., & Samaranayake, S. W. (2017). Use of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in Sri Lankan universities. Journal of Technology and Humanities, 4(1), 12-25.
Karunaratne, A. K. (2013). English language teaching in Sri Lanka: Issues and challenges. Godage & Brothers.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Laredo Publishing Co.
Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers. Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 53–75.
O’Neill, R., & Russell, A. M. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1).
Perlmutter, D. M., & Postal, P. M. (1983). Toward a universal characterization of passivization. In D. M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1 (pp. 3–29). University of Chicago Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209–231.
Short, M. (1996). Exploring the language of poems, plays and prose. Longman.
Swan, M. (2016). Practical English usage (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Warwick, C., Terras, M., & Nyhan, J. (Eds.). (2012). Digital humanities in practice. Facet Publishing.
Widdowson, H. G. (1975). Stylistics and the teaching of literature. Longman.