This paper is a critique of An Evaluation of CALL

software: UUEG by Abdullah Alfraidan , Research Journal of

Information Technology 5(3): 87-96, 2013.
The purpose of the study at hand was to highlight the
influence of adopting a CALL software in teaching English
grammar to 35 repeater students at the university level.
The author adopted two criteria for his judgmental
evaluation as suggested by Chapelle in her scheme of
CALL evaluation: language learning potential and learning
fit.
The software appears to meet the two mentioned
criteria. It managed to draw learners' attention to form by
observing two conditions suggested by Chapelle and
Skehan: modified interaction and modified input. UUEG
also proved to be fitting for learners in terms of: language
level, learners' control, appeal to learners, and cultural
appropriacy. The study resulted in a "significant"
improvement in learners' achievement. The author rated
the software as "good" in the context of this study. He also
expressed a desire to pursue the study in a variety of
contexts.
Apparently, the argument was built upon a solid
theoretical background that seems to support the validity
of the hypothesis (namely, that UUEG has a positive
influence on language learners). The author referred to
two of six criteria suggested by Chapelle in the judgmental
evaluation of CALL software and was able to demonstrate
how the software succeeded in meeting the criteria in
focus.
It is important to note that one of the purposes of the
study was to seek administrational support for CALL
software. The author's request was a result of his
awareness (based on theory and empirical evidence) of
the effectiveness of CALL software in the teaching and
learning of grammar. Alfraidan seemed very keen of the
incorporation of CALL software in further educational
situations. In addition, he made it clear how using UUEG
resulted positively on learners' achievement. He was also

objective in stating the results. He did not generalize the

results of the current study to other contexts. Rather, the
author declared his readiness to conduct further research
on different groups of learners to test the appropriateness
of the program.
It is also important to note that the sample
selected has aided the study. If any progress was to be
noticed on low- achievers, the hope of improving the
learning of grammar for other groups of learners would be
greater.
What also goes in favor of the study is that it
tested the program on low proficient learners, a group of
learners who have not been popular in this area of
research. Moreover, within the text, the writer pointed out
some of the drawbacks of the software with some
suggestions of how they could be overcome to achieve
better learning experience. However, the author was not
clear in justifying why he selected these two of the six
criteria of judgmental/empirical evaluation when
evaluating the software.
In conclusion, this study makes a good reference for
researchers who are willing to replicate the study for the
same or for different purposes. It provides a detailed
description of the theoretical and empirical sides of the
study. In addition, it suggests a number of solutions to
some of the problems of the software.