Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee

3,621

Published on

Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee

Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Member of PhD Committee

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,621
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNINGPROGRAMS FOR ENHANCING ENGLISH LEARNING AMONG STUDENTS OF LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY A Dissertation by CHENG-CHIEH LAI Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies Prairie View A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 2008 Major Subject: Educational Leadership
  • 2. Copyright byCHENG-CHIEH LAI December 2008All Rights Reserved
  • 3. ABSTRACT The Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Language Learning Programs for Enhancing English Learning among Students of Limited English Proficiency (December 2008) Cheng-Chieh Lai: B.F.A. – Taipei National University of the Arts M.S., Texas A&M University - Kingsville Dissertation Chair: David E. Herrington, Ph.D. The purpose of the study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of theeffectiveness of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) programs on English asa Second Language (ESL) education for diverse Limited English Proficiency (LEP)learners and instructors and to provide the results as a reference to educational leadersand administrators who are considering the use of ESL for their English instructionprograms. A combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was utilized tocollect and analyze data. A questionnaire modified from Davis’ Technology AcceptanceModel theory (1989) was used to collect the quantitative data. The sample of thequantitative study consisted of 329 LEP students taking ESL courses and CALLprograms in college level schools or adult educational institutions in the Houston area ofTexas during the summer semester of 2008. Descriptive statistics and a one-way analysisof variance (ANOVA) were used to examine the influence of ESL students’ individualbackgrounds on their perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs.Qualitative interviews and observations were conducted to identify the advantages and iii
  • 4. disadvantages of CALL programs, the roles of CALL programs, and the expectations offuture CALL programs from both students’ and instructors’ viewpoints. The qualitativeinterviews included seven ESL instructors and thirteen LEP students. The findings of the study indicate that the student’s native language and age maybe regarded as factors that influenced the student’s perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease ofUse” of CALL programs. The advantages of current CALL programs not only provideinstructors and students more teaching and learning resources, but also vary theirteaching and learning methods. Through the qualitative interviews, the roles of CALLprograms are varied in each instructor’s and student’s opinions. Different instructors andstudents have reasons to use CALL programs in different area, as a tool, a tutor, and atutee to meet their individual needs. Price, artificial intelligence, and ease of use are threemajor concerns of future CALL programs by ESL instructors and LEP students. The study is significant in that it provides valuable data for educational leadersand administrators that may use in determining the extent to which technologyinvestments are effective within specific populations of English language learners. Theassessment results can also be used to recommend changes in technology utilization andsoftware applications so that CALL programs can be updated and improved. iv
  • 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. David E.Herrington, whose expertise, understanding, and patience, added considerably to mygraduate experience. I appreciate his vast knowledge and skill in many areas and hisassistance. I would like to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Pamela Barber-Freeman, Dr. Williams A. Kritsonis, Dr. Tyrone Tanner, and Dr. Camille Gibson for theassistance they provided at all levels of the research project. Last but not least, I wouldlike to thank my parents, my young brother, and my friends Julie Williams and Dr. Kuofor their supports. v
  • 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS PageABSTRACT................................................................................................................. iiiACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................vTABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ viLIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES..............................................................................xCHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1 Introduction........................................................................................................1 Background of the Problem ...............................................................................4 Statement of the Problem...................................................................................6 Purpose of the Study .........................................................................................7 Conceptual Framework .....................................................................................8 Research Questions .........................................................................................10 Null Hypotheses ..............................................................................................10 Significance of the Study ................................................................................12 Assumptions ....................................................................................................12 Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................13 Definition of Terms .........................................................................................13 Organization of the Study ................................................................................15CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................16 Overview .........................................................................................................16 The Relationship between ESL Learners and ESL Programs ........................17 ESL Population and ESL Policy ...........................................................18 vi
  • 7. ESL Instructional Types in the United States .......................................20 ESL Education for ESL Children .........................................................23 ESL Education for ESL Adults .............................................................27 The Relationship between CALL Programs and ESL Education ...................31 Historical Development of CALL Programs for ESL Education .........32 Advantages and Disadvantages of CALL Programs for ESL Learners ...................................................................................38 Roles of CALL Programs in ESL Classrooms .....................................43 Technology Leadership for Integrating Technology in ESL Education ..................................................................................48 The Relationship between ESL learners’ Backgrounds, ESL, and Technology Learning ..........................................................................................................59 Native Languages ..................................................................................61 Genders .................................................................................................66 Ages ......................................................................................................70 Previous Educational Backgrounds ......................................................73 Summary .........................................................................................................77CHAPTER III. METHOD ..........................................................................................78 Research Questions..........................................................................................78 Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................79 Research Method .............................................................................................81 Research Design...............................................................................................83 Subjects of the Study .......................................................................................85 vii
  • 8. Instrumentation ...............................................................................................86 Validity ............................................................................................................88 Reliability.........................................................................................................89 Procedures........................................................................................................90 Data Collection and Recording .......................................................................91 Confidentiality .................................................................................................92 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................92 Summary .........................................................................................................93CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .....................................................................95 Research Questions..........................................................................................95 Quantitative Research Data Analysis...............................................................96 Characteristics of the Quantitative Research Sample ...........................96 Research Question One .......................................................................102 Research Question Two ......................................................................113 Qualitative Research Data Analysis...............................................................121 Characteristics of the Qualitative Research Sample ...........................121 Research Question Three ....................................................................122 Research Question Four ......................................................................129 Research Question Five ......................................................................135 Summary .......................................................................................................139CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDTIONS ......141 Summary ........................................................................................................142 Demographic Data ...............................................................................143 viii
  • 9. Research Question One........................................................................145 Research Question Two .......................................................................150 Research Question Three .....................................................................154 Research Question Four.......................................................................156 Research Question Five .......................................................................157 Conclusions....................................................................................................159 Contributions to the Literature.......................................................................162 Recommendations..........................................................................................162 Recommendations for Educational Leaders and Administrators.........162 Recommendations for Second Language Instructors ..........................164 Recommendations for Second Language Learners..............................165 Recommendations for Further Study .............................................................165REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................168APPENDIXES ...........................................................................................................198 Appendix A Survey Instruments....................................................................199 Appendix B Interview Questions...................................................................221 Appendix C Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval .............................223 Appendix D Permission Letters .....................................................................225 Appendix E Translation Certificate ...............................................................229VITA ..........................................................................................................................231 ix
  • 10. LIST OF TABLESTable Page1 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by School ........................972 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by School and Age Group ………………………………………………………….................983 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by Native Language Group……………………………………………………….....................1004 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by School Location and Previous Educational Level………………………………………….......1015 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by Previous Technology Experiences………………………………………………………………1026 Means of Six Statements for ESL Participants Perceived “Usefulness” of CALL Programs for English Learning ……………………………….1047 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for ESL Students Perceive “Usefulness” of CALL Programs for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL …………………………………………………………..1058 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Native Language Groups on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……….…………………........1068.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …………….....................1069 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between means of ESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale………………………………………..........................................10810 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Age Groups on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……………………….……………………10910.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …….…………………………….109 x
  • 11. 10.2 LSD Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale ………… …….………………….…….11111 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Educational Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …….…………………………….11212 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …….……………….…….11313 Means of Six Statements Contributing to ESL Participants Perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL Programs for English Learning……...................11413.1 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for ESL Students Perceive “Ease of Use” of CALL Programs for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL……………………………………....................................11514 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Native Language on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……………………………….................11614.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale….………….………… 11715 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between Means of ESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……………………………………..….........................................11816 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Age Groups on the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale……………………….………………… 11917 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……..….………………… 12018 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale……….………………… 12019 Frequency of Advantages of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning ……………………………………..……………………………125 xi
  • 12. Figure Page1 Composition of Participative Sample by Age Group ............................... 982 Composition of Participative Sample by Gender.......................................993 Composition of Participative Sample by Previous Educational Level......1014 Frequency of Disadvantages of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning……………………………………………………….................1295 Frequency of the Best Roles of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning………………………………………………………………….1326 Frequency of English Skills Can Be Improved Effectively When Using CALL Programs for ESL Learning………………………………………137 xii
  • 13. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The increasing number of non-English or limited English speaking persons in theUnited States makes it critical that educational leaders and school administrators assistthese persons to acquire English skills toward developing fully functioning members ofthe society. Educational programs that focus on the teaching of English to LimitedEnglish Proficiency (LEP) individuals employ a variety of methods including bothtraditional and non-traditional approaches. Computer Assisted Language Learning(CALL) is an area within applied linguistics and second language acquisition. It includesall kinds of language learning activities utilizing computer technology for assisting thelearning process. With the increased advancement of computer technology, CALL hasbeen regarded as an important solution to the problem of assisting in the delivery ofquality English as a Second Language (ESL) pedagogy (Egbert, 2005). A Nation at Risk, published in 1983, recommended computer literacy as one ofthe five “new basics” to schooling, and The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994)offered a national vision and strategy to infuse technology and technology planning intoall educational programs. Since then, schools with LEP students have begun to value thesignificance of educational technology and CALL programs and have made dramaticimprovements in their technological capability and infrastructure (Dickard, 2003).Although the U.S. Congress has spent billions of dollars to help schools increase accessto online learning opportunities and the computer has now become increasinglycommonplace in ESL classrooms, research on the effectiveness of using CALL programsin ESL instruction has lagged behind technology’s growth. 1
  • 14. 2 Davies (2002) defined CALL programs as an approach to language teaching andlearning where the computer is used to assist the presentation, reinforcement andassessment of the learning material. The purpose of CALL programs is to offer languagelearners resources and experiences that will provide instruction and practice to their targetlanguage, as well as cultural information necessary to develop a full understanding of thelanguage they are studying (Stroud, 1998). The origins of CALL programs can be traced back to the 1960s where they wereconfined mainly to universities’ large mainframe computers. The famous PLATO(Programmed Logic Automated Teaching Operations) project was initiated at theUniversity of Illinois during this period. The PLATO project used custom softwarerunning on Control Data Corporation equipment to serve thousands of remote terminalssimultaneously. It established an important landmark in the early development of CALLprograms (Marty, 1981). After the late 1970s, the arrival of the personal computer (PC) brought computingwithin reach of a wider audience and resulted in a virtual boom in the development ofCALL programs. Over the past 30 years, the historical development of CALL programscan be roughly categorized in three stages: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL,and Integrative CALL. Each stage corresponds to a certain level of technology and acertain linguistic pedagogical approach (Waschauer, 1996). CALL programs encompass several different applications in language acquisitionteaching and learning. These applications can be categorized into two distinct types: oneinvolves the use of general software applications such as word processors, text analysis,
  • 15. 3presentation software, email packages, and Web browsers; the other type is softwareapplications designed specifically to promote language learning. CALL programs are effective with a variety of LEP students and give them anumber of advantages, such as ease and flexibility of use, control over pacing andsequencing of learning, individualization, privacy, and immediate feedback (Askov,Maclay, & Meenan, 1987; Kulik, Kulik, & Shwalb, 1986). Other researchers alsosupported this statement and indicated that the use of CALL programs has a positiveeffect on the achievement levels of LEP students (Arnold & Ducate, 2005; Egbert, Paulus,& Nakamichi, 2002; Fotos & Browne, 2003). Although CALL programs seem to have many benefits for ESL instruction,several questions exist regarding their practical application. As pointed out by Garrett(1991), “the use of the computer does not constitute a method. Rather, it is a medium inwhich a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may beimplemented” (p. 75). No matter what impressive functions CALL programs have, theyare a mere medium of language instruction and learning. The effectiveness of CALLprograms depends on how they are put to use. CALL programs need support fromeducational leaders, school administrators, and ESL instructors to guide students in usingcomputer technologies in the most effective way. Students’ personal backgrounds and their learning attitudes may play a vital rolein the success of CALL programs. LEP students have distinct characteristics and differentneeds in their learning processes. Students are typically new to American culture, as wellas to its language. Their cultural backgrounds and previous educational attainment mayinfluence their English learning progress (Rice & Stavrianos, 1995). On the other hand,
  • 16. 4LEP students’ ages, genders, and previous technology experiences may also sway theirattitudes and expectations of CALL programs in their English learning (McGroarty,1993). Each of these individual factors should be considered when educational leadersand administrators engage in CALL program design, instructional practice, andassessment. The application of CALL programs in ESL pedagogy is a new approach comparedwith traditional ESL instruction, and some functions of CALL programs are still underintense debate among researchers and learners (Salaberry, 1999). Instructional technologyhas now become critical in supporting 21st century learning environments. Appropriatetechnology use can be very beneficial in increasing educational productivity (Byrom &Bingham, 2001; Clements & Sarama, 2003). In helping students benefit from the rapidlyevolving development of computer technology, educational leaders and schooladministrators must not only evaluate and supervise the effectiveness of CALL programs,but also provide informed, creative, and transformative leadership to integrate thistechnological change into ESL education. Background of the Problem With the escalating worldwide development of computer technology, CALLprograms have become part of the fabric of current ESL educational practice (Samuel,2005). Educators and researchers are still discussing how to apply CALL programs toESL education system and debating the following questions: What kind of role shouldCALL programs play in current ESL instruction? How effective are CALL programs?How worthwhile is it to spend time and money on them? Can they replace the existingpedagogy? How might they change the role of teachers? Is there any untapped potential
  • 17. 5left in CALL? These questions are frequently raised in traditional language learningenvironments (Lee, 2000; Resier & Dempsey 2002; & Roblyer, 2003). People hope tobenefit from effective learning methods through the computer technology, but they alsodoubt its potential. It is the responsibility of educational leaders and school administratorsto address these concerns. Each school expends large amounts of funds to provide technology training forteachers. National and state standards require teachers to integrate technology into theirteaching (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2001). Data fromthe National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2002 showed that only 27% ofin-service teachers felt confident enough to prepare and integrate educational technologyinto their courses, and only 45% of teachers often used computer-learning programs toenhance their teaching (NCES, 2004). These data may provide an explanation of theattitudes held by some instructors who still resist adoption of computer technology inclassrooms. The infusion of computer technology into educational learning activities isstill not as well developed as would be desired. Educational leaders and schooladministrators must assess the reasons that lead to the phenomenon of technologyresistance. Such knowledge could assist instructors in overcoming their fears and lowskill levels. Finally, diverse LEP students have different needs and preferred learning methodsin their English learning processes. Although educators (Roberts, 2004; Warschauer, 2001)asserted that CALL programs can be a motivating tool that enhances LEP students’learning interest, CALL programs are intended to make learning more effective ratherthan easier. In utilizing CALL programs in learning, students must learn basic technology
  • 18. 6knowledge and skills that may increase the learning loads of LEP students. If LEPstudents do not value CALL programs, or reject using the computer altogether, CALLprograms become irrelevant. Statement of the Problem Each year more than 1.8 million immigrants arrive in the United States, but 60%of recent arrivals had limited English proficiency (Camarota, 2005). This situation hasbeen a powerful force shaping the United States’ population and ethnic composition. Ithas brought a number of unpredicted impacts on the American culture, economy, andeducation system. To solve this crisis, educational leaders and school administratorsbegan to pay attention to CALL programs and regard them as an effective remedy to theproblem of assisting non-English immigrants in acquiring English skills. Pervious research findings indicated that CALL programs can increase theefficacy of English learning, enhance self-directed learning, and provide a meaningfulpractice environment for LEP students (Beauvious, 1998; Cunningham, 1998). LEPstudents often come from different countries and have diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds; their genders, ages, educational levels, and previous technologyexperiences are dissimilar. Whether all LEP students can accept this technologicalpedagogy and gain the learning benefits from CALL programs based on their varyingbackgrounds will be a significant issue for educational leaders, school administrators, andESL educators. In addition, debate continues regarding the role that computers play in theESL classrooms. Students’ and instructors’ expectations of CALL programs in theirlinguistic teaching and learning may result in different outcomes. To get the best resultsfrom CALL programs and determine their effectiveness in current ESL programs,
  • 19. 7additional research conducted from both LEP students’ and instructors’ perspectives willbe useful for ESL leaders and educators in improving ESL pedagogy. This study’s focus is the general application of CALL programs in the Houstonarea of Texas. Different factors contributing to the level of computer technologyacceptance of ELL students from diverse personal backgrounds were investigated. Thestudy further explored the expectations of instructors and learners regarding the role ofmodern technology in their ESL classrooms. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of theeffectiveness of CALL programs on ESL education for diverse English language learnersand instructors and to provide the results as a reference to educational leaders andadministrators who are considering the use of ESL for their English instruction programs.Four factors were examined and explored in the study: 1. The relationship between LEP students’ personal backgrounds and their perceptions of learning English with CALL programs. 2. The strengths and limitations of CALL programs that are used to support LEP students. 3. The role of CALL programs in ESL learning environments and their relationship with ESL instructors and LEP students. 4. The expectations of ESL instructors and LEP students regarding future CALL programs development.
  • 20. 8 Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework of the study was based on the Technology AcceptanceModel (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and the Theory of Customer Value (Woodruff & Gardial,1996). According to Davis, the TAM is an information system theory that models howusers come to accept and use new technology. It asserts that when users are presentedwith a new software package, two major psychological perceptions may influence theirattitudes and behavioral intentions toward accepting, valuing, and using the softwarepackage: one is “Perceived Usefulness” (PU), and the other is “Perceived Ease-of-Use”(PEOU). Davis defined PU as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particularsystem would enhance his or her job performance”, and PEOU is “the degree to which aperson believes that using a particular system would be free from effort” (p.320). Davisfurther indicated that perceived usefulness was significantly correlated with self-reportedcurrent usage and self-predicted future usage, and perceived ease of use was alsosignificantly correlated with current usage and future usage. Abundant empirical studiesin user technology acceptance literature (Pavlou, 2003; Shih, 2004; Wang, Hsu, & Fang,2005) have also shown that PU and PEOU can predict a user’s acceptance and actualusage of a technology system. Knowing the determinants of these predictors can have strong implications forESL leaders, CALL designers, and trainers, enabling them to better strategize theirresources and emphases. No matter how schools spend money on their technologyinfrastructure and how educators declare that CALL programs are conducive to ESLpedagogy, students’ learning perceptions as to whether CALL programs are useful or
  • 21. 9easy to use will determine the effectiveness of CALL programs directly. Based on thisconcept, the TAM was adopted as a model for investigating LEP students’ perceptions ofthe usefulness and ease of use of CALL programs for their English learning in thequantitative part of the study. On the other hand, the software of CALL programs is still a commercial product.No matter how many functions CALL software has, it must satisfy the needs of users.According to the Theory of Customer Value which was built by Woodruff and Gardial in1996, they claimed that customer value includes not only examining the attributes of theproduct and results after using, but further exploring the real needs and wants of thecustomers. In examining the effectiveness of CALL programs and improving CALLprograms in the future, communicating with LEP students and instructors about theirvalues concerning CALL programs is needed because communication with customers isthe key in influencing users’ decisions of why, when, and what to buy, and use of theproducts (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996). As Woodruff and Gardial noted, measuring customer value is rooted in the use ofqualitative data-gathering techniques. The aim of the study was to use the Theory ofCustomer Value as the conceptual framework in the qualitative part of the study.Interviews were conducted to understand the viewpoints of perceived advantages anddisadvantages of CALL programs, the roles and functions of CALL programs in ESLeducation, and the expectations of future CALL programs from both LEP students andinstructors.
  • 22. 10 Research Questions The research questions guiding the study were:Quantitative 1. What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived usefulness of CALL programs for English learning? 2. What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived ease of use of CALL programs for English learning?Qualitative 3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs in actual ESL teaching and learning? 4. What is the role of CALL programs in current ESL instruction? 5. What are the second-language learning efficiency expectations of LEP students and ESL instructors utilizing CALL programs? Null Hypotheses The following were the null hypotheses measured for the study: Ho1: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among their native language backgrounds as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. Ho2: There is no statistically significant difference between male and female LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. Ho3: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by
  • 23. 11 TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different age groups.Ho4: There is no statistically significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire based on LEP students’ previous educational levels.Ho5: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different technology experience groups.Ho6: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing their English learning among native language backgrounds as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire.Ho7: There is no statistically significant difference between male and female LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire.Ho8: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different age groups.Ho9: There is no statistically significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire based on LEP students’ previous educational levels.Ho10: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different technology experience groups.
  • 24. 12 Significance of the Study The roles and responsibilities of educational leaders have shifted in this digitaltechnology age. This study was conducted to ascertain what CALL attributes affect ESLinstruction and discuss how educational leaders integrate CALL programs to improveESL teaching and learning. The study investigated the roles and functions of CALLprograms in ESL pedagogies for ESL instructors and students. Results of the study mayencourage ESL instructors to adopt CALL programs as a viable educational alternativeand inspire LEP students to promote their language abilities through the application ofCALL programs. The study examined LEP students’ perceptions of “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use”of learning English with CALL programs. Results of the study may provide educationalleaders and ESL program administrators a view of the problems associated with currentuses of technology in ESL education so they can improve future ESL instruction andCALL programs. Assumptions The following assumptions were made: 1. The quality of responses to inquiry questions is dependent on the honesty and sincerity of the respondents. 2. The interpretation of the data collected accurately reflects the intentions of the subjects providing the data.
  • 25. 13 Limitations of the Study The first limitation of the study is the way in which the survey was constructed. Itis possible that the survey created by the researcher did not include all measuresassociated with good instructional practices. If this occurs, the results may be influenced. The second limitation of the study is that the accuracy of the data may not holdtrue when new technologies and CALL programs are developed. The data gathered forthis study represent the opinions, expertise, and experience of respondents during aspecific period in time. The ability of computers continues to evolve rapidly. The third limitation of the study is that the research area only focused on the useof CALL programs in the English language learning environment. CALL programs havebeen developed and used in different language learning categories for decades. Theresults of the study may not be applied to other second language learning environments. The fourth limitation of the study is the research was limited to a population ofstudents and instructors in ESL education with CALL programs of the Houston area ofTexas during the summer semester of 2008. The population was further reduced by thefact that not all institutions of ESL programs could have been sampled. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in order to present a consistent and standardizedapproach for interpretation of terms used in the study:Attitude--Attitude is a summary construct that represents an individual’s overall feelingstoward or evaluation of an object (Bohner & Wanke, 2002).Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)--An approach to language teaching andlearning, where the computer and the Internet is used to assist the presentation,
  • 26. 14reinforcement and assessment of the learning material (Davies, 2002).Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)--Computer-assisted instruction is an instructionalmethod that incorporates the use of computers into an overall teaching strategy; it is aninteractive instructional technique in which a computer is used to present instructionalmaterial, monitor learning, and select additional instructional material in accordance withindividual learner needs (Turner, 1990).Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Learner--The federal definition of LEP learner is onewhose native language is a language other than English; who comes from a region whereEnglish is not dominant; or whose difficulty using English reduces his or her ability tolearn in U.S. classrooms or participate fully in society. Other terms commonly found inthe literature include language minority students, limited English proficient (LEP),English as a second language (ESL), and culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD)(Batalova, 2006).English as Second Language (ESL) program--A program of techniques, methodology andspecial curriculum designed to teach LEP students English language skills, which mayinclude listening, speaking, reading, writing, study skills, content vocabulary, and culturalorientation. ESL instruction is usually in English with little use of native language (U. S.Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1992).Language proficiency--Refers to the degree to which the student exhibits control over theuse of language, including the measurement of expressive and receptive language skillsin the areas of phonology, syntax, vocabulary, and semantics and including the areas ofpragmatics or language use within various domains or social circumstances (U. S.Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2007).
  • 27. 15Technology Acceptance Model--Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an informationsystems theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. The modelsuggests that when users are presented with a new software package, a number of factorsinfluence their decision about how and when they will use it (Adams, Nelson, & Todd,1992). Organization of the Study The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter I contains an introduction,background of the problem, statement of the problem, research questions, purpose of thestudy, conceptual framework, significance of the study, assumptions, delimitations andlimitations, and definition of terms. Chapter II provides a review of related literature insupport of the research study. The methods for the study, which includes the researchdesign, population and samples, instrumentation, and the collection of data are describedin Chapter III. Chapter IV presents the findings of the study in relation to the researchquestions. A summary of the study with conclusions and recommendations for furtherstudy is in Chapter V.
  • 28. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Overview Language learning in the 21st Century presents both unparalleled opportunitiesand extraordinary challenges, many of which are the direct result of computer technology(Ostendorf, Shriberg, & Stolcke, 2005). Educational leaders and administrators must beaware of these new constraints and opportunities and develop applicable leadership todeal with this digital change (Carmen & Haefner, 2002). There are now more than 35million immigrants, both legal and illegal, living in the United States, including over 20million who speak English less than “very well” (U. S. Census Bureau, 2000).Determining the effectiveness of CALL programs and then redesigning more appropriateESL curricula to help LEP students achieve proficiency in English is an inevitableresponsibility of educational leaders and administrators in this digital age. The focus of this literature review is on the interrelationship among LEP students,ESL education, and CALL programs. Three sections are presented in this chapter. Thefirst section explores the relationship between LEP students and ESL instruction. Thissection describes the change of the LEP population and recent changes to ESL policieswithin the American education community. It provides an introduction about populartypes of ESL instruction in the United States, and discusses the benefits of ESL educationfor LEP children and adults. The second section refers to the relationship betweencomputer technologies and ESL education. The historical development of CALLprograms with ESL pedagogy, the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs forLEP students, the roles of CALL programs in ESL classrooms, and methods for applying 16
  • 29. 17educational technology leadership for integrating CALL programs into ESL education arereviewed. The third section reports the relationship between LEP students’ backgrounds,second language acquisition, and learning through technology. LEP students’ nativelanguages, ages, genders, and prior education levels are presented as factors that mayinfluence LEP students’ English language and technology learning processes based onprevious studies. The Relationship between LEP students and ESL Programs The United States is the third most populous country in the world, with apopulation of 300 million. From the year 2000 to 2005, the total national population hasgrown by nearly three million people every year, and one-third of this growth is a resultof immigration. Every 31 seconds a new immigrant enters this country with the intent tostay (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005). Immigration has been a powerful force shaping theUnited States’ population counts and ethnic composition. Although the issue ofimmigration has become a topic of concern in national discussions about the Americansociety, a consistent point of agreement in the often-contentious debate over immigrationis that learning English is essential for successful integration into American life(Gonzalez, 2007). There is a supply-demand relationship between immigrants and ESL instruction.As First (1988) pointed out, immigrants often enter the United States with cultural scriptsmodeled on the material and social environments of their homelands. “Their behaviornorms stem from lives they are no longer living but cannot forget. To survive, they mustintegrate old scripts with their new environment” (p. 205). ESL education can suppliesimmigrants the opportunity to integrate their cultural scripts and previous knowledge for
  • 30. 18acquiring enough basic English abilities and basic American social skills to survive intheir new society. On the other hand, the fast-growing immigrant population is causingincreased demand for ESL instruction. For example, the New Haven Adult School in SanFrancisco used to conduct only four classes two times a day. Currently, the programoffers nine classes in the morning, two in the afternoon, and nine at night for serving thegrowing ESL immigrant population (Tucker, 2006).LEP Population and ESL Policy According to Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994), the LEPstudent is one whose native language is a language other than English; who comes from aregion where English is not dominant; who has sufficient difficulty in speaking, reading,writing or understanding the English language; or whose difficulties may deny such anindividual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language ofinstruction is English, or to participate fully in American society (U. S. House ofRepresentatives, 1994). Over the last two decades, the United States has experienced agreat influx of migrants, immigrants, refugees, and international students. Most of themare non-native English speakers and their English skills are not sufficient to deal with thedemands of their daily lives. Data from the U. S. Census Bureau (2006) indicated that the foreign-bornresidents of the United States increased from 19.8 million in 1990 to 35.7 million in 2005.Additionally, the number of English Language Learners (ELLs) who were born in theUnited States has also increased from approximately one third of the LEP population in1991-1992 (Fleischman & Hopstock, 1993) to 64% of the whole LEP population in 2006(Batalova, 2006). The total percentage of Americans speaking a language other than
  • 31. 19English at home rose from 14% in 1990 to more than 19% (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005).Since more than 23 million individuals speak English less than “very well” and the LEPpopulation continues to increase year after year, finding ways to meet the demands ofESL education to help this LEP population achieve English proficiency is an urgent issue. Providing ESL education for LEP students is the responsibility of every schooldistrict and educational leader. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) mandated thatindividuals in the United States could not be discriminated against based on race, color,or national origin in any program that receives federal funding. This law decreed thatpublic schools could not deny the benefits of an education to students based on nationalorigin, which was extended to English proficiency (Retzak, 2003). The United StatesCongress enacted the Equal Education Opportunities Act in 1974 that made explicitinterpretations regarding what states and school districts must do to enable Englishlanguage learners to participate meaningfully in educational programs (Hernandez, 1997).Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994) further ruled that state educationagencies and local school districts should put federal funds to good use implementingsupplemental instructional programs for LEP students (U. S. Department of Education,1994). Recently, The No Child Left Behind Act, passed in 2001, reiterated that LEPstudents’ language proficiency and academic achievement should be assessed in order toprovide equal educational opportunities to LEP students. The law mandated anaccountability system for ESL language and academic growth. To ensure that LEPstudents are being taught by appropriately qualified educators, educational authoritiesshould establish and require unique credentialing procedures and programs for qualified
  • 32. 20and trained ESL educators and specialists working in public schools based on guidelinesissued by the federal government (Abedi, 2004).ESL Instructional Types in the United States According to the New York City Department of Education (2007), the definitionof ESL instruction is an academic discipline designed to allow LEP students to acquireEnglish language proficiencies across the major skill areas of listening, speaking, reading,writing, and critical thinking in a systematic and spiraling fashion. It is also a focal pointfor the introduction and reinforcement of the concepts of cross-cultural or multiculturalunderstanding and social responsibility. ESL instruction plays a major role in affordingLEP students the opportunity to acquire the English proficiency and the academic,cognitive, and cultural knowledge they need to become active participants in society. Different LEP students have different needs for English learning based on theircultural and educational backgrounds. There are several different ESL program modelsdesigned and implemented for LEP students, and each specific model a school districtadopts and implements may depend on the composition of the student population,individual student characteristics, district resources, and the community’s preferences.The following is a brief description of seven popular ESL programs in the Untied States:1. Dual Language Immersion Program The Dual Language Immersion Program (or Bilingual Program) is a carefullyplanned instructional program where two languages are used in ESL classrooms, such asSpanish and English or Chinese and English. In this model, LEP students are instructed inacademic subject areas in their native language while simultaneously being taught tospeak, read, and write English. The amount of instruction delivered in the native language
  • 33. 21decreases as students become more proficient in English. This ESL model is often usedeither at the elementary or secondary level (Seelye & Navarro, 1977).2. Content-Based English as a Second Language Program This approach makes use of instructional materials, learning tasks, and classroomtechniques from academic content areas as the vehicle for developing language, content,cognitive, and study skills. English is used as the medium of instruction for LEP studentsin this model (U. S. Department of Education, 2007).3. Newcomer Program The Newcomer Program is a separate, relatively self-contained educationalintervention program designed to meet the academic and transitional needs of newlyarrived students. This model offers intensive ESL instruction and an introduction to U. S.cultural and educational practices for a student initially identified as LEP to acquire thenecessary skills for achieving academic success in an English-speaking world as quicklyas possible (Friedlander, 1991).4. Pull-Out Program This is a program model in which a paraprofessional or tutor pulls LEP students,often either a small group or single individuals, from the regular or mainstreamclassrooms for special instruction in English as a second language. Schools without alarge LEP population often adopt this model to serve their LEP students who needremedial work in learning the English language (Baker, 2000).
  • 34. 225. Sheltered English Immersion Program A Sheltered English Immersion Program is an instructional approach used tomake academic instruction in English understandable to LEP students. This programmodel asks LEP students to study the same curriculum with their native English-speakingpeers, and teachers employ ESL methods to make instruction comprehensible. In thesheltered classroom, teachers often use physical activities, visual aids, and theenvironment to teach vocabulary for concept development in mathematics, science, socialstudies, and other subjects (Chamot & Stewner-Manzanares, 1985).6. Structured English Immersion Program The goal of this program is the acquisition of English language skills so that LEPstudents can succeed in the English-only mainstream classroom. Instruction is entirely inEnglish. LEP students are thrown into the general education classroom and thereforeimmersed in English. Content area instruction is based on the notion of “comprehensibleinput,” in which the teacher uses only the vocabulary and structures that can beunderstood by students (Ramirez, 1986).7. High Intensity Language Training Program The High Intensity Language Training Program is designed to provide the mostproductive language learning experience in the shortest possible time. In this ESL model,LEP students are grouped for a significant portion of the school day. Students receiveintensive training in ESL, usually for three hours a day in the first year of instruction, lessin succeeding years. Placement of students into regular classrooms is accomplished on asubject-by-subject basis and usually includes initial mainstreaming into linguisticallyundemanding classes such as music, physical education, and art (Chamot &
  • 35. 23Stewner-Manzanares, 1985). All of the above models are commonly used in current ESL education in theUnited States. Some models provide varying degrees of support in the LEP students’native language, while others preserve and build upon the LEP students’ native languageskills as they learn English. Although there may be reasons to claim the superiority of oneESL program model over another in certain situations, a variety of ESL programs can beeffective. Indeed, different approaches are necessary because of the great diversity ofconditions faced by schools and the varying experiences of LEP students with literacyand schooling in their first language (August & Hakuta, 1997). The best choice should bemade at the local level after careful consideration of the needs of the LEP studentsinvolved and the resources available (Collier, 1992). No matter which model is used, thelearning outcomes still depend on many other factors, such as LEP students’ personalbackgrounds, the frequency of learning opportunities to speak English in the family andcommunity, and whether or not a qualified ESL teacher instructs the class (Garcia, 1991).ESL Education for LEP Children Based on state reported data, the National Clearinghouse for English LanguageAcquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA, 2006) indicatedthat more than 5.1 million LEP children were enrolled in public schools frompre-kindergarten to grade 12 for the 2004-2005 school year in the United States. Thenumber represents approximately 10.5% of total public school student enrollment, and a56.2% increase over the reported 1994–1995 total public school LEP student enrollment.Among the states, California enrolled the largest number of public school LEP students,
  • 36. 24with 1,591,525, followed by Texas (684,007), Florida (299,346), New York (203,583),Illinois (192,764), and Arizona (155,789). With the growing number of LEP students,determining how to help these students to overcome English language, academic English,and study skills problems is a challenge for all ESL leaders and teachers. The academic achievement of LEP students has long been a major nationaleducational concern. LEP students often encounter a variety of difficulties in achievingacademic success in schools. These difficulties may be related to language, educationalbackground, socioeconomic status, psychological trauma, or any combination of thesefactors (Anstrom, 1997). To assist LEP students in gaining higher level academicachievement, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) suggested that before LEP students are ableto achieve in the regular classroom, they should be able to use English as a tool forlearning subject matter. Cummins (1996) further theorized that there are two kinds ofEnglish proficiency that LEP students must learn. The first is Basic InterpersonalConversational Skills (BICS) and the other proficiency is Cognitive Academic LanguageProficiency (CALP). BICS is the kind of language used in face-to-face communication. It is languageneeded for social interaction. This is sometimes called playground language, everydaylanguage, social language, or surface fluency (Cummins, 1996). BICS English ischaracterized as context-embedded because contextual cues are available to both speakerand listener involved in the conversation, and it is cognitively undemanding. LEPstudents can easily recount orally what happened to them personally without difficultyonce they attain fluency. The ability of social language can usually be developed withinthe first two years of arrival in an English-speaking setting (Collier, 1995)
  • 37. 25 On the other hand, CALP -- referred to as school language, academic language, orthe language of academic decontextualized situations -- is the kind of language needed tolearn new information, think in more abstract ways, and carry out more cognitivelydemanding communicative tasks required by the core curriculum (Cummins, 1996). Thisdimension of language is transferable across languages. Collier and Thomas (1989)indicated that the process of learning academic language requires much more time thanneeded to learn language for interacting on a social level with English speakers. UnlikeBICS learning, CALP English used in context academic learning demands high cognitionfrom LEP students. This language proficiency, necessary for learning academic content,is often a long-term undertaking and may require five to eight years or longer, dependingon the age and prior educational background of the LEP student (Collier, 1995). ESL instruction provides LEP students with opportunities to develop their basicinterpersonal communicative skills and to develop their cognitive academic languageproficiency through the specially designed academic instruction in English (Cummins,1996). Educators (Wang, 1996; Wright & Kuehn, 1998) agree that low proficiency inacademic language will cause LEP students to fail their academic studies. LEP studentscan often become proficient in communication skills within a short time after their arrivalin the United States, but their social language is still not adequate for academic learning.If an LEP student is too quickly mainstreamed into the regular classroom, he or she willinevitably encounter many difficulties understanding and completing schoolwork in themore cognitively demanding language needed for successful performance in academicsubjects (Short & Spanos, 1989). ESL education is very important for LEP students in
  • 38. 26this transition stage because ESL instruction can serve as a short-term transitional bridgeto mainstream English courses (Alanis, 2000). The transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledge from the first language tothe second language is essential for LEP students. Hakuta (1990) stated that nativelanguage proficiency is a strong indicator of the second language development becausethe level of proficiency in the first language has a direct influence on the development ofproficiency in the second language. The lack of continuing first language developmentwill inhibit the levels of second language proficiency and cognitive academicgrowth. O’Malley and Chamot’s study (1990) of 64 Spanish and 34 Russian studentsshowed that beginning- to intermediate-level LEP students often use transfer strategies intheir English language learning. This means that the transfer of prior linguistic andcognitive knowledge from the first language to the second language is a requisite learningprocess for LEP students. Collier (1995) stated that LEP students who are schooled in a second language forpart or all of the school day typically do reasonably well in the early years of schooling,especially kindergarten through second or third grade. From fourth grade through middleschool and high school, when the academic and cognitive demands of the curriculumincrease rapidly with each succeeding year, students with little or no academic andcognitive development in their first language do less and less well as they move into theupper grades. On the contrary, students who have spent four to seven years in a qualityESL or bilingual program can get better academic achievement and can outperformmonolingually schooled students in the upper grades (Thomas & Collier, 2002).
  • 39. 27 As noted by August and Hakuta (1997), LEP students are at a higher risk thanmost other students to fail in schools. The average dropout rate for LEP students is fourtimes the average dropout rate for normal students (Slavin & Madden, 1999). A report,Bilingual Education: Cause or Cure? released by the Texas Educational ExcellenceProject (TEEP, 2005) also pointed out that there is a link between education programsgeared toward LEP students and Latino student dropout rates. As the number of LEPstudents served by either ESL or bilingual education programs increase, Latino dropoutrates decrease. This means that high Latino dropout rates are at least, in part, a result ofnot addressing the language needs of certain students within the Latino studentpopulation. Taking this fact into consideration, it is extremely necessary for LEP studentsto have ESL education programs available to them. In order to effectively instruct LEPstudents, school leaders and educators must be equipped to respond to the sociocultural,cognitive, and linguistic needs of diverse LEP students and value the importance of ESLprograms.ESL Education for LEP Adults According to the U. S. Census Bureau (2006), one in five working-age adultsbetween 18 and 65 years old in the United States speak a language other than English athome. Cities such as Los Angeles and New York have roughly three-quarters andtwo-thirds of their respective immigrant adult populations identified as limited Englishproficiency (Capps, Fix, & Ku, 2002). Due to the high rates of immigration and becauseof the importance of helping these LEP immigrants, there is an increasing number of ESLclasses and materials designed for LEP adults to promote English proficiency.
  • 40. 28 ESL programs have become the fastest growing segment in federally funded adulteducation programs in past decades. The U. S. Department of Education, Office ofVocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy (2005)indicated that a total of about 1.2 million (1,172,569) adults were enrolled instate-administered ESL or English Literacy programs during 2003-2004. Adult Englishlanguage learners now account for at least one-half of the total adult educationpopulation. The reasons for LEP adults participating in adult ESL classes include wanting to:1) learn English to communicate in their everyday lives; 2) become a citizen of theUnited States; 3) get a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED)certificate; 4) acquire skills needed to advance to higher education programs; 5) acquireskills to help their children succeed in school; and especially 6) get a job or pursue betteremployment (Skilton-Sylvester & Carlo, 1998). English speaking ability is crucial forLEP adults because it opens the door to jobs that yield family-sustaining wages andallows LEP adults to communicate with their neighbors, their children’s teachers, healthcare providers, and others with whom they must interact in their daily life. English skillsare a prerequisite to passing the U. S. citizenship examination. An urban institute studyconducted by Fix, Passel, and Kenneth (2003) found that 60% of legal immigrants whowere eligible to become citizens but had not done so were limited English proficiency. LEP adults are hesitant to attend ESL classes for many reasons. LEP adults aretrying to acquire a new language and a new culture. They are working, managing theirhouseholds, and raising their children. These challenges often present significantobstacles to learning. The National Center for Education Statistics (1995) indicated that
  • 41. 29the barriers for LEP adults to participate in ESL programs included limited time, money,childcare, and transportation, and lack of knowledge about appropriate programs in theirlocal area. The National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL, 2004) surveyed communityleaders and educators in Washington communities with recent rapid growth in numbers ofimmigrant families and the respondents also identified similar challenges. Analysis of data from the U. S. Census Bureau (2000) revealed there is a positiverelation between earnings and English language ability. The lower a person’s Englishliteracy level, the more likely the individual is to be struggling economically, often livingbelow the poverty line. About 62% of low-wage immigrant workers in America are LEP(U. S. Census Bureau, 2006). These adults with poor English skills are often unemployedor trapped in low-paying jobs that provide no benefits and offer little opportunity forpromotion (Greenberg, Macias, Rhodes, & Chan, 2001). ESL Programs can help LEPadults to improve their English language skills and thereby reduce this economicdisparity. Research conducted by Mora (2003) found that learning to speak Englishfluently results in a 76% jump in earnings for immigrants with more than twelve years ofeducation, compared to a 4% increase for workers with fewer than eight years ofeducation. Martinez and Wang (2005) emphasized that limited English proficiency placesbarriers not only against labor force participation and in regard to the community as awhole. Limited English proficiency may isolate immigrant families from the largercommunity, preventing them from interacting with American-born neighbors, engagingin civic life, and becoming integrated into their new community. Lack of English fluencywill undermine parents’ ability to guide, protect, and educate their children.
  • 42. 30Well-designed ESL programs can effectively counteract these risks by teachingimmigrant adults English while helping to bolster their children’s early languagedevelopment and school readiness. Through ESL learning and training, parents canbecome their child’s first teacher by engaging in activities to improve literacy skills. Most LEP adults recognize the importance of good English skills to their successdue to the high economic and social value of English acquisition and therefore they arehighly motivated to learn English. As a result of limited government funding, demand farexceeds the supply of ESL classes (Tucker, 2006). An Adult Student Waiting List Surveyby the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education (NCSDAE, 2006) showedthat 40 out of 43 states reporting confirmed that LEP students were on waiting lists intheir states. In New York City, where the ESL need is estimated to include one millionindividuals, only 41,347 adults were able to enroll in 2005 because of limited availability. Most adult ESL programs no longer keep waiting lists because of the extremedemand, but instead use lotteries in which at least three of four individuals are turnedaway. Some ESL adult learners must wait several years to receive ESL services. To solvethis serious problem, it is essential for educational leaders and educators to pay moreattention to ESL education. ESL immigrants’ growing numbers and their pivotal role inthe future of the United States create a compelling demographic, social, and economicimperative for providing ESL immigrants more opportunities to improve their Englishskills (Martinez & Wang, 2005). Investments in ESL education for LEP adults will raiseLEP adults’ earnings and improve their social and economic situations in the future.Investments in ESL education can reduce rates of poverty and lower rates of publicbenefits use.
  • 43. 31 The Relationship between CALL Programs and ESL Education When the first computer was invented in 1942, a new era of technology began.The original goal of the computer was to help scientists dealing with difficult tasks thatwere unable to be solved by humans (Cuban, 2001). As technology improved over thedecades the capabilities of computers became more powerful. Computer applicationshave been gradually adopted and widely used by every discipline, especially ineducational curriculum and language learning fields. According to Muir-Herzig (2004),modern computer technology and its assisted language learning programs in the languageclassroom is widely believed to help reshape both the content and processes of languageeducation and help teachers promote a constructive class environment. CALL programs have changed the ideas of language educators and learners allover the world (Snell, 1999). Warschauer and Kern (2000) pointed out, CALLmethodology has been greatly influenced throughout its history by the overallmethodology that has characterized second language teaching and learning at variouspoints of its development. In their opinion, there are three theoretical perspectives insecond language learning: the structural, cognitive and socio-cognitive perspectives. The change in language teaching is more of a complex overlapping of the threemovements than a polar shift from structural to communicative. The shifts in perspectiveson language learning and teaching are parallel to the developments in computertechnology and CALL programs. As technology shifts from the mainframe to thepersonal computer, the roles of computers in language classroom also shift from as a“tutor” to a “stimulative” resource and a “tool.”
  • 44. 32 Today’s computer has become much more than a tutor, a stimulative or a tool fordeveloping LEP students’ language skills in ESL education. Egbert and Hanson-Smith(1999) indicated that technology provides support for a total environment of secondlanguage learning rather than providing use as a single tool or source of information. It isnow less a question of the role of computers in the language classroom and more aquestion of the role of the language classroom in today’s information technology society(Warschauer & Healey, 1998).Historical Development of CALL Programs for ESL Education Since 1950, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology employed 70 engineers andtechnicians to create the first major Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) project, and thecomputer began to play an important role in education (Phillips, 1983). CALL programscan be grouped under CAI’s collateral branch, and they are the applications of CAI tolanguage learning and teaching. Over the past decade, CALL programs have emerged asa significant teaching and learning instrument for ESL education. The widespread use ofESL software, local area networks, and the Internet has created enormous opportunitiesfor LEP students to enhance their English learning. According to Davies (2007), CALL programs are designed to promote explicit orimplied language learning objectives, and offer support in the acquisition of knowledgeabout language and in the application of that knowledge in discrete and mixed skillactivities. Historically, the development of CALL programs can be roughly categorizedinto three main stages: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL, and IntegrativeCALL. Each stage of development corresponds to a certain level of technology as well asa certain pedagogical approach (Barson & Debski, 1996).
  • 45. 33 The first stage of CALL program development—Behavioristic CALL, conceivedin the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and ’70s—tended to concentrate on languagelearning through behavioristic stimulus-response approaches. This stage entailedrepetitive language drills and can be referred to as “drill and practice” becauseBehavioristic educators believe that language students can successfully learn their targetlanguages through imitating and repeating pattern drills (Warschauer, 1996).Behavioristic CALL was designed to promote student mastery of a body of rules byindicating to the learner whether or not the language they produced matched that stored inthe computer’s memory (Garrett, 1991). This kind of “wrong-try-again” model requiresthe language learner to input the correct answer before proceeding, provides the languagelearner with positive feedback for correct answers, and does not accept errors as thecorrect answer. Hubbard (1987) indicated the Behaviorist approach to CALL as one that presentsvocabulary and structure appropriate to the learner’s level through pattern reinforcement.It intends to keep the learner’s attention to the task and provides sufficient material formastery and over-learning to occur. Chiquito, Meskill and Renjilian-Burgy (1997) furtherdescribed Behavioristic CALL as an attempt to “transfer existing foreign languagetextbooks to computer-based applications. Students could then essentially use thecomputer to turn pages of the textbook, fill in the blanks in workbook drills, and choosemultiple choice answers to questions” (p. 72). Behavioristic CALL placed the computerin the role of electronic drill master (Backer, 1995), computer-as-tutor (Taylor, 1980) orcomputer-as-magister (Higgens, 1986), and the computer served as a vehicle fordelivering ESL instructional exercise materials to LEP students in this era.
  • 46. 34 Based on the above contentions, a large number of CALL tutoring systems werecreated during this stage. One of the most sophisticated software programs was thePLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) System. The PLATOSystem that was invented by Donald Bitzer and his team in 1960 at the University ofIllinois included vocabulary drills, brief grammar explanations and drills, and translationtests at various intervals. It enabled students to learn interactively and control their ownlearning pace (Smith & Sherwood, 1976). Until today, many language educators stillbelieve that this kind of repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or evenessential to second language learning (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). In the 1970s and 80s, the second stage of CALL program development, theCommunicative CALL, was founded on the Communicative approach to teaching. In thisstage, linguistic educators felt that the drill-and-practice programs of the previous decadedid not allow enough authentic communication to be of much value. They furtheradvocated that “all CALL courseware and activities should build on intrinsic motivationand should foster interactivity—both learner-computer and learner-learner” (Stevens,1989, p. 31). Krashen’s language acquisition theory (1982) claimed that language is acquiredthrough language input so that language acquisition and language learning are twocompletely separate processes; along with a growth in socio-linguistics, that also led to agreater focus on the role of meaning and communication in language learning. The typesof computer programs using a Communicative approach might still include those of thedrill and practice type. The difference between Communicative CALL and BehavioristicCALL is that students can make choices, manipulate controls, and conduct interactions
  • 47. 35by themselves and play a more important, involved role within their own CALL programlearning processes (Warschauer, 1996). John Underwood, a main advocate of this new approach, proposed a series of“Premises for Communicative CALL” in 1984. He developed a comprehensive set ofprinciples for Communicative CALL. He argued that such an approach to languageteaching: (a) focuses on communication rather than on the form and avoids drill; (b) teaches grammar implicitly through the lesson rather than explicitly; (c) allows and encourages the student to generate original utterances rather than merely manipulate prefabricated language; (d) does not judge or evaluate everything the student does; (e) avoids telling students they are wrong; (f) does not reward students with congratulatory messages, lights, bells whistles: success is sufficient reward; (g) does not try to be "cute;” (h) uses the target language exclusively; (i) is flexible and avoids having only one response; (j) allows the student to explore the subject matter by providing an environment in which to play with language or manipulate it; (k) creates an environment in which using the target language feels natural; (l) does not try to do anything that a book could do just as well; (m) is fun, attractive, optional, supplementary: students explore, experiment and learn without being evaluated (Underwood, 1984, p. 33).
  • 48. 36 Fortunately, the functions of computers had developed during this time and hadbecome powerful enough to meet the requirement of Communicative CALL. Theappearance of e-mail, media software, and on-line discussion boards support the claimsof Communicative CALL. In this period, computers played the role of individual learningtutor and became a stimulus and a communicative tool (Levy, 1997). The purpose of thecommunicative CALL activity is not so much to have students discover the right answer,but rather to stimulate students’ discussion, writing, or critical thinking. The dividing linebetween Behavioristic and Communicative CALL involves not only which software isused, but also how the software is put to use by the teacher and students (Warschauer,1996). This second phase of CALL does not distinguish itself totally from the first phase.Instead, it serves as more of a bridge to what could be referred to as the third phase ofCALL. The last stage of CALL program development, Integrative CALL, is the maturestage. In the 1990s, language educators moved away from a cognitive view ofcommunicative language teaching to a socio-cognitive view that emphasizes reallanguage use in a meaningful and authentic context. They started to claim that there is areal world to be experienced, yet the meaning and comprehension of that world isindividualized, and the individual language learners should impress their ownunderstanding on that world (Reiser & Dempsey, 2002). This version of CALL offers awealth of authentic language material that requires a combination of skills, such asreading, writing, listening and speaking. In this integrative CALL, the students learn touse a variety of technological tools in language learning and language use. Instead ofbeing passive recipients of knowledge, students are challenged to construct their own
  • 49. 37knowledge with guidance from a teacher (Warschauer, 2004). Integrative CALL seeks both to integrate the various skills of language learningand to integrate technology more fully into language teaching (Warschauer & Healey,1998). The multimedia-networked computer provides a range of informational,communicative, and publishing tools that can potentially be available to every languagestudent. Warschauer (1966) indicated that two important elements make up theIntegrative CALL together: One is the multimedia computer, the other is the Internet.These elements have already emerged with the potential to make an enormous impact onlanguage teaching. The ability of multimedia to integrate high quality video and audio with texts andlanguage exercises can provide an environment that is more language-rich than anyprevious technology, and one which can be controlled by the learner. Multimediacomputers allow for a variety of media to be accessed on a single machine, includingtexts, graphics, sound, animation, and video. The use of multimedia enables a student toread, listen, and view through a single program. The Internet can break down the walls ofthe classroom and give access to diverse sources of information and opportunities forgenuine communication. Warschauer further observed that since the advent of localnetworks and the Internet in the early 1990s, the use of computers for authenticcommunication has become widespread in language learning and teaching. Web browsingand authoring, discussion boards, e-mail, and chat rooms are now widely used inlanguage classrooms, and the computer tends to function as a “messenger”communicating information to and from the learners.
  • 50. 38 To briefly summarize, if the mainframe was the technology of BehavioristicCALL, and the personal computer (PC) was the technology of Communicative CALL,the multimedia networked computer is the technology of Integrative CALL (Warschauer& Healey, 1998). In other words, the development tracks of CALL programs range fromfocusing on individual exercise, to communicating with each other, to combining theadvantages of Behavioristic CALL and Communicative CALL together. Today’s CALLprograms serve as platforms that hold both individual learning and social process ofstudying.Advantages and Disadvantages of CALL Programs for LEP students In the second language acquisition domain, Perrett (1995) indicated that if secondlanguage learners are provided with the opportunities to use language and learningstrategies, and some training or explanation in their application, they can develop theirown learning strategies through exposure to and experience in the second language.Explaining the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs to ESL teachers andLEP students seems to be necessary and useful. Only with careful guidance can ESLteachers and LEP students realize the benefits of current computer technology for secondlanguage acquisition. ESL teachers and LEP students are then able to apply computertechnology appropriately and join those already engaged in computer assisted languagelearning. Certain educators (Jonassen, 1996; Rost, 2002; Salaberry, 1999) indicate thatcurrent computer technology has many advantages for second-language learning.Computer and CALL programs could provide LEP students more independence fromESL classrooms and allow LEP students the opportunity to work on their learning
  • 51. 39material at any time of the day. Once implemented, it can be expected that the cost forcomputer technology is considerably lower than for face-to-face classroom teaching.When used in conjunction with traditional ESL classroom study, LEP students can studymore independently, leaving the ESL teacher more time to concentrate efforts on thoseparts of second language teaching that are still difficult or impossible to teach using thecomputer, such as pronunciation, work on spoken dialogue, training for essay writing,dictation, and presentation. Lee (2000) further claimed that the reasons ESL teachers and LEP students shouldapply computer technology in ESL instruction include computer and CALL programsthat can: (a) prove practices for students through the experiential learning; (b) offer students more the learning motivation; (c) enhance student achievement; (d) increase authentic materials for study; (e) encourage greater interaction between teachers and students and between students and peers; (f) emphasize the individual needs; (g) regard independence from a single source of information; and (h) enlarge global understanding. Taylor (1980) further expressed the view that computer and CALL programs canbe wonderful stimuli for ESL learning. For example, CALL programs can provide anumber of fun games and communicative activities, reduce the learning stresses andanxieties, and provide repeated lessons as often as necessary for LEP students. These
  • 52. 40abilities will promote LEP students’ learning motivation. In addition, computertechnology and CALL programs can help LEP students strengthen their linguistic skills,affect their learning attitudes, and build their self-instruction strategies andself-confidence through various communicative and interactive activities. According toan observation by Robertson et al. (1987), the participants who joined CALL programsalso had significantly higher self-esteem ratings than regular second-language students. With the advanced development of computer technology, today’s computers canalready capture, analyze, and present data on a LEP student’s performance during his orher learning process. Observing and monitoring a student’s learning progress are veryimportant because when ESL teachers attempt to assess a LEP student’s progress, theycan obtain essential information about the student’s learning problems and then try tooffer feedback tailored to the student’s learning needs (Taylor & Gitsaki, 2003). CALLprograms and the Internet can provide interdisciplinary and multicultural learningopportunities for LEP students to carry out their independent studies. For example, LEPstudents can get various authentic reading materials either at school or from home byconnecting to the Internet, and those materials can be accessed 24 hours a day (Brandl,2002). With regard to learning interaction, Warschauer (2004) indicated that randomaccess to Web pages would break the linear flow of instruction. By sending E-mail andjoining newsgroups, LEP students can communicate with people they have never metbefore and interact with their own teachers or classmates. Shy or inhibited learners cangreatly benefit from the individualized technology-learning environment. Studiouslearners can benefit because they are able to proceed at their own pace to achieve at
  • 53. 41higher levels. Many concepts and cognitions are abstract and difficult to express throughlanguage and the language teaching field. It seems that computers can make up for thisdifficulty by using the image showing on the screen. Kozma (1991) stated that interactivevisual media that computers provide seem to have a unique instructional capability fortopics that involve social situations or problem solving, such as interpersonal solving,foreign language or second language learning. Cognitive theorists and humanists have pointed out that practice experience is animportant factor for learning. Experiential theory educators believe that learning is aboutmaking sense of information, extracting meaning, and relating information to everydaylife. They believe that learning is about understanding the world through reinterpretingknowledge (Ormrod, 1999). When computer technology combines with the Internet, itcreates a channel for students to obtain a huge amount of human experience and it guidesstudents to enter the “Global Community.” As a result, students can extend their personalviews, thoughts, and experiences and learn to live in the real world. They become thecreators not just the receivers of knowledge. In addition, since the way information ispresented is not linear, second language learners can still develop thinking skills andchoose what to explore (Lee, 2000). Although there are many advantages to computer use, the application of currentcomputer technology has its limitations and disadvantages. Gips, DiMattia, and Gips(2004) indicated that the first disadvantage of computers and assisted language learningprograms is that they will increase educational costs and harm the equity of education. Ifcomputers become a new basic requirement for students to purchase, schools with limitedbudgets and low-income students may not be able to afford a computer. This will cause
  • 54. 42unfair educational conditions for lower socio-economic schools and students. Expensivehardware and software become large obligations for schools and parents. The second disadvantage of computer technology is that it is necessary for bothESL teachers and LEP students to have basic technology knowledge before they applycomputer technology to assist ESL teaching and learning. No student can utilize acomputer if he or she lacks training in the uses of computer technology. Unfortunately,most ESL teachers today do not have sufficient technological training to guide theirstudents in exploring computers and assisted language learning programs. The benefits ofcomputer technology for those LEP students who are not familiar with computers areinexistent (Roblyer, 2003). The third disadvantage is that the software of CALL programs is still imperfect.Current computer technology mainly addresses reading, listening, and writing skills.Even though some speaking programs have been developed recently, their functions arestill limited. Warschauer (1996) indicated that a good speaking training program shouldideally be able to understand a user’s “spoken” input and evaluate it not just forcorrectness but also for “appropriateness.” It should be able to diagnose a student’sproblems with pronunciation, syntax, or usage, and then it should be able to intelligentlydecide among a range of options. The fourth disadvantage is that computers and CALL programs had not been ableto handle unexpected situations until now. Indeed, each LEP student’s learning situationis different and ever changing. Due to the limitations of computers’ artificial intelligence,computer technology is unable to deal with a learner’s unexpected learning problems andit is unable to respond to the learner’s question as immediately as teachers do. The
  • 55. 43reasons for the computer’s inability to interact effectively can be traced back to afundamental difference in the way humans and computers utilize information (Dent,2001). Blin (1999) indicated that computer technology with that degree of intelligence donot exist, and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. Today’s computertechnology and CALL programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive.Computer engineers, CALL program designers, and ESL educators still have to put moreeffort into developing and improving computer technology in order to increase the qualityof CALL programs in the future.Roles of CALL Programs in ESL Classrooms Although computers have been used for second language teaching and learningfor five decades, the role of the computer within the context of the second languageinstruction is still debated. The development of computers and networks has shaped newsecond language teaching and learning paradigms, making computers the new medium oflocal and global communication through asynchronous and synchronouscomputer-mediated communication (CMC); as well as a source of authentic materialthrough globally linked hypertext and hypermedia in the World Wide Web (Warschauer &Kern, 2000). The functions of computers range from mere typewriter tasks tosophisticated presentations, and from simulated talks with programs to long-distancechatting via Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or forums (Wiazowski, 2002). As many ESL schools and institutions begin to include computer systems in theirESL instructional programs, identifying what role the computer plays in the curricula andlesson plans is important because the knowledge of the impact of the computer hasincreased. This knowledge is a result of an understanding of the relationship between
  • 56. 44technology and language learning. By clarifying and investigating what roles thecomputer might have, ESL leaders and teachers can better understand how computertechnology is best implemented in their ESL classrooms for enhancing teaching andassisting learning. Computers actually play various roles and deeply impact ESL teaching andlearning methods. The theoretical framework underlying CALL programs is very difficultto define because CALL programs exist in so many forms. In general, linguistic educatorsrecognize that there are three main theories of learning and roles for the computer inCALL programs. The three major theorists are Stephen Kemmis, John Higgins andRobert Taylor. The first theory regarding the role of computers was proposed by Kemmis, Atkinand Wright (1977). They analyzed computer use in terms of experience of learner and setup a classification system for CALL programs consisting of four paradigms: (a) Instructional CALL: This paradigm is based on Skinner’s (1969) behaviorist perspective. The computer instructs the learner, who is given opportunities to practice tasks and is then provided with feedback from the program. Drill and practice programs would serve as a good example of this type of CALL program. (b) Revelatory CALL: This paradigm is based on the discovery learning ideas of Bruner (1960) and simulations are an example. This paradigm allows learners to use their notions of second language to manipulate virtual worlds simulating the real world.
  • 57. 45 (c) Conjectural CALL: This paradigm is based on constructivist theories and includes modeling and Artificial Intelligence packages for computer science applications learning. This paradigm emphasizes that language students should build, model, or manipulate ideas and concepts in order to test conjectured hypotheses. (d) Emancipatory CALL: This paradigm contains aspects of the other paradigms. This student-centered paradigm is based on the idea that computer software and programs can be a labor saving device (Kemmis, Atkin, & Wright, 1977, p. 26). The second theory regarding the role of computers was proposed by Higgins(1988). Higgins first made a distinction between the role of the teacher as a “Magister” ora “Pedagogue.” He then extends this distinction to different approaches to computer usein language learning and teaching. In his view, the Magister role of the CALL program isany activity in which the computer evaluates student performance and, like the traditionalschoolmaster, dictates the order in which learning is expected to occur. It initiates andcontrols the interaction, directs the learning process, and controls the sequence and thelevel of difficulty. This is similar to Kemmis’s Instructional CALL. Higgins stated that the Pedagogue role of CALL programs is to respond and serve.Pedagogue includes all those activities, such as games, simulations, access to tools andlook-up tables of information, in which the computer was providing services similar tothose provided by a slave—much like the Pedagogue in ancient Rome who escorted richchildren to school. In this CALL paradigm students can decide what they want to learn,how they want to learn, and in what order. The users are in control and call on particular
  • 58. 46functions when they need CALL programs. This category encompasses Kemmis’ otherthree categories. Higgins’ Magister-Pedagogue dichotomy has strongly influenced CALLsoftware development over the past decades. The main force of this argument was thatwhile language learners probably need both Magister and Pedagogue during the course oftheir learning, the computer performs more effectively as Pedagogue and the human moreeffectively as Magister. The third theory regarding the role of computers was proposed by Taylor (1980).Taylor proposed a tripartite conceptualization of CALL programs for assisting students’language learning which includes the “Tutor,” “Tool,” and “Tutee;” and each kind of roleof CALL program depends on different needs and situations. Taylor described these rolesas follows: To function as a tutor, the computer presents some subject material, the student responds, the computer evaluates the response and from the results of the evaluation, determines what to present next. At its least computers keep complete records of each student being tutored…To function as a tool, the computer needs only some useful capability programmed into it such as statistical analysis, super calculation, or word processing. The learner can then use it to help them in a variety of subjects…To use the computer as tutee is to tutor the computer; for that, the student or teacher doing the tutoring must learn to program, to talk to the computer in a language that it understands (p.3). In Taylor’s view, when the computer plays as a “Tutor,” the computer presentsthe material, assesses the student’s response, and then determines the next activity whilesimultaneously keeping a record of the student’s performance. This is similar to
  • 59. 47Higgins’s Magister role and Kemmis’s Instructional CALL. In the role of “Tool,” somecapacity of the computer is used by the student to achieve a specific task and thecomputer amplifies the student’s ability to address academic tasks. In the role of “Tutee,”the teacher or student must tutor the computer. In order to do this, they must learn theprogramming language and then use the programming language to instruct the computerto perform certain tasks. No matter what roles computers have, the teacher is a key variable in CALLprogram implementation and effectiveness. With the rapid development of computertechnology and CALL programs, a teacher’s role in an ESL classroom has changed. Withregard to infusing technology into teaching, teachers have become more involved in theprocess of the creation of classroom materials, rather than being the consumers ofsyllabuses and textbooks. Teachers are naturally creative and want to be able to modifythe materials to better suit their learners’ needs. They have also become managers andfacilitators of classroom activities (Motteram, 1997). Lewis indicated (1986) that the roles of computers are determined by teachers’attitudes. For example, computers play the role of “tutor” when they are used directly byteachers to guide students to autonomous learning. In this way, CALL programs cantemporarily replace the teachers’ functions. By contrast, the role of CALL programswould be just as a “tool” if teachers viewed computers as an instrument. Teachers are stillthe leaders of the classroom and should control students’ learning progress. Teachers canalso view CALL programs as the “cooperator” and share their teaching activities orcomplete some difficult learning tasks. Teachers can manage students’ interaction withCALL programs. The computer becomes a supplementary instrument.
  • 60. 48Technology Leadership for Integrating Technology into ESL Education Due to the advancement of computers and the Internet, the use of educationaltechnology to improve teaching and learning has become a popular theme in currenteducational reform initiatives. The purpose of education technology is to use iteffectively as a tool to support schooling and enhance learning and teaching processes(Collins, 2004). Many researchers and educational organizations recognize that strong leadershipis an essential component for successful technology-based school reform (Anderson &Dexter, 2000; Lai & Pratt, 2004; National School Boards Foundation, 2002; U. S.Department of Education, 2005). But, how can we define strong leadership? According toAnderson and Dexter (2005), current leadership focuses on interrelationships amongdistributed participants (Neuman & Simmons, 2000), a leader’s ability to cope withcomplex change (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991), and whether an organization hasestablished a culture of a continuous learning (Senge, 1998). Anderson and Dexterclaimed that decision-making in schools concerning electronic information andcommunication technologies is a particularly appropriate setting for analyzing how thesethree forces play out because change is so basic to managing this new technology. Merely installing computers and networks in schools is insufficient foreducational reform. To successfully infuse technology into schooling, school leadersshould have an awareness of this digital change and integrate technology knowledge intoeffective approaches of leadership. Educational leaders are thereby expected to possessnot only general leadership skills, but also “Technology Leadership” skills (Flanagan &Jacobson, 2003). According to Valdez (2004), technology leadership is a combination of
  • 61. 49strategies and techniques that are general to all leadership, but that require attention tosome specifics of technology—especially those related to providing hardware access,updating rapidly changing technology, and recognizing that professional developmentand the use of technology are constantly evolving. Educational technology involves botheducation and technology and aims for their harmonious integration. A successful schoolleader should possess the ability for updating and integrating technology into schooling. The infusion and integration of technology in classrooms can result in greater useof collaborative learning strategies, thematic teaching, guided inquiry practice, groupproblem solving, and critical thinking skills that can help students be more successfullearners throughout their education experience (Duhaney & Zemel, 2000). A handbook,Technology in Schools: Suggestions, Tools and Guidelines for Assessing Technology inElementary and Secondary Education, published by National Center for EducationStatistics (NCES, 2002), identifies technology integration as the incorporation oftechnology resources and technology-based practices into the daily routines, work, andmanagement of schools. Technology resources include computers and specializedsoftware, network-based communication systems, and other equipment and infrastructure.Technology-based practices involve collaborative work and communication,Internet-based research, remote access to instrumentation, network-based transmissionand retrieval of data, and other methods. Based on this assessment, successful technologyleadership has to integrate technology routinely, seamlessly, and effectively in order tosupport school goals and purposes.
  • 62. 50 The integration of technology in classrooms has been demonstrated to have apositive impact on student achievement (Valdez et al., 1999). Cummins (1998) indicatedthat the reason formal second language instruction cannot be successful is that languagelearners receive impoverished or insufficient input in the target language. Fortunately,technology used wisely can play a major role in enhancing all second language learnercontact with the target language. Integrating computer technologies to promote secondlanguage teaching and learning is a complicated task. Integration of technologies mustconsider the students’ technology knowledge and computer skills. Integratingtechnologies requires excellent instructors who have obtained technology training,appropriate curricula and activities which have been designed specially, and have largeenough budgets to purchase the computer equipment and software. All of these factorsdepend on ESL leaders who should develop technology leadership and strategies toovercome barriers. Appropriate and effective uses of computers and related technologies in ESLinstruction are the ultimate vision of technology leadership for ESL education. Bailey,Ross, and Griffin (1995) have identified ten major barriers to technology integration.Among them are the failure to develop a shared vision of how technology should be usedto improve teaching and learning, the failure to design and implement effectivetechnology staff development programs, and the failure to empower teachers and studentsto engage in risk-taking and experimentation with new technologies. Slowinski (2000)indicated that ESL leaders can develop a five-step strategic plan to surmount the barriers.The five steps are as follows:
  • 63. 51 (a) Sharing vision and objectives: Engage school board members, faculty and staff members, students, and community members in the process of reflecting on, discussing, and articulating a shared vision of the future of the school or district. (b) Assessing current school environment: Analyze the existing conditions of the school to more accurately comprehend the terrain that must be navigated to achieve the articulated vision. (c) Analyzing gaps: Recognize the gaps between the current environment of learning and where the school wants to be in the future as the basis for an action plan to guide the school toward the vision through the utilization of technology. (d) Evaluating the results: Set in place appropriate methods for continually evaluating progress toward the vision and, based on this ongoing feedback, for reformulating the action plan. (e) Developing strategies for altering objectives in accordance with formative evaluation data: Articulate a change strategy that includes a plan for altering the objectives. Creating a vision is an important step in an organizational development processbecause the successful movement of any school or institution is dependent upon a clearpicture of an ideal future. A vision is simply an aspiration or a description of a desirableworld that exists within the imagination that can inspire people, bring meaning to theirwork, mobilize them to action, and help them decide what to do and what not to do in thecourse of their work (Parker, 2001). To enhance ESL education through technology, ESL
  • 64. 52leaders should develop a technology leadership vision and they should set goals. Both thevision and the goals should focus on improved student learning and teacher effectivenessas the predominate outcomes. Once the vision is created, it must be communicated andarticulated effectively so that it becomes the shared vision of everyone in the ESL schoolor institution. ESL leaders should design and conduct needs assessments that will 1) informteachers and students where they stand with regard to technology integration; 2) indicatehow far they are from reaching their vision and goals; and 3) provide information aboutwhat the initial priorities for accomplishing those goals are. ESL leaders also have todevelop action plans to define immediate and long-term tasks, resources needed,timelines, and benchmarks for accomplishing technology goals. After these two steps arecompleted, ESL leaders can further create the communication plans and political actionstrategies necessary to establish commitment and obtain resources (Valdez, 2004). Although computer technology and CALL programs were used in ESL instructionfor several decades, many ESL instructors still do not have the technical knowledge orskills to recognize the potential for technology in teaching and learning. For example,Bruess (2003) in her dissertation, University ESL instructors’ perceptions and use ofcomputer technology in teaching, interviewed five ESL instructors in five Louisianauniversities and then indicated that the use of CALL programs for most ESL instructors isstill at very minimal level and not uniformly applied in their teaching. The role of the ESL teacher is the crucial factor in the full development and use oftechnology in ESL education (Trotter, 1999). The lack of technology professionaldevelopment is one of the most serious obstacles to fully integrating technology into the
  • 65. 53ESL curriculum (Fatemi, 1999). Today, most ESL teachers want to learn to usetechnology and CALL programs effectively, but they often lack the time, access, trainingand support necessary to do so (Guhlin, 1996). For successful implementation of CALLprograms in ESL classrooms, ESL leaders should address this serious problem and designthe necessary technology professional development plans for ensuring ESL teachers havethe knowledge and skills to apply computer technology in their teaching. A well-designed technology professional development program is essential toreach the goal of preparing ESL teachers for effective technology use. According toRodriguez and Knuth (2000), there are two requirements that will help ESL leadersensure the success of a technology professional development program. First, thetechnology professional development program should be an integral part of the schooltechnology plan or overall school-improvement plan. Second, the technologyprofessional development program should contain all the necessary components thatresearch has found to be important. The opinions of Rodriguez and Knuth indicate that initial inclusion in thetechnology plan will ensure that the technology professional development program isconsidered an essential factor in using technology to improve teaching and learning, andwill guarantee that the professional development component of the technology plan isresearch-based and meets high standards for effective staff development. Rodriguez andKnuth further indicate that designing a successful technology professional developmentprogram should contain fourteen essential components. These components include:
  • 66. 54(a) Connection to student learning: ESL leaders should provide ESL teachers with abundant opportunities to become fluent in using technology to bolster instruction and help LEP students develop higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills. As a result, the use of technology enables ESL teachers to implement new teaching techniques, help students work collaboratively, encourage students to be engaged in the learning process, assist students who have various learning styles and special needs, and expose students to a broad range of information and experts (National Staff Development Council, 1999).(b) Hands-on technology use: Teachers need to acquire core technology competencies and skills and should be thinking in terms of how the technology can enhance student learning and how it can be used in different content areas. Hands-on technology use allows ESL teachers to develop confidence in their skills and a level of comfort with the technology. When teachers are accustomed to using the equipment to boost their own productivity, they are more likely to see ways in which similar uses could support the projects they want their students to do (U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1994).(c) Variety of learning experiences: To help teachers incorporate technology in ways that support powerful instruction requires an array of professional development experiences quite different from traditional workshops and how-to training sessions (David, 1996). Professional development for effective technology use can come in a variety of forms, such as mentoring,
  • 67. 55 modeling, ongoing workshops, special courses, structured observations, and summer institutes (Guhlin, 1996). These various learning experiences will extend ESL teachers’ viewpoints and enrich their teaching strategies.(d) Curriculum-specific applications: If technology is to be used to produce improvements in student achievement, teachers must see a direct link between the technology and the curriculum for which they are responsible (Byrom & Bingham, 2001). The best integration training for ESL teachers does not simply show them how to add technology in the classrooms. On the contrary, it should help ESL teachers learn how to select digital content based on the students’ needs and then infuse it into the curriculum (Fatemi, 1999).(e) New roles for teachers: Technology encourages teachers to take on new and expanded roles, both inside and outside the classroom. Within the student-centered classrooms, ESL teachers can assume the role of coach or facilitator to help LEP students work collaboratively (Kupperstein, Gentile, & Zwier, 1999). Outside of the classroom, technology supports teacher collaboration. Instead of working in isolation, teachers can act as peer advisors and work together on school programs (Lieberman, 1996).(f) Collegial learning: According to the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996), a good technology professional development should build teacher networks and provide teachers with additional opportunities to discuss the new instructional methods that technology promotes. Guhlin (1996) also pointed out that a technology professional development should help teachers use technology for discovery learning and communicate teaching
  • 68. 56 ideas. Thus, it cannot be implemented in isolation. When working in pairs or teams, teachers need access to follow-up discussion and collegial activities, as required of professionals in other fields.(g) Active participation of teachers: One strategy for encouraging teachers to participate in technology professional development is creating incentives for technology use. Possible incentives include additional pay, bonuses, and rewards. According to U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1994), mini grants can reward teachers who have innovative ideas for using technology in instruction.(h) Ongoing process: A high-quality technology professional development program is conducted as an ongoing process, not a one-shot approach. Speck (1996) indicated that “a professional development takes time and must be conducted over several years for significant change in educational practices to take place. Substantial change in school practice typically takes four to seven years, and in some cases longer” (p. 35). ESL leaders must take into account this long time frame, and ESL teachers must be prepared to be involved in technology professional development programs throughout their careers.(i) Sufficient time: For any professional development activity, teachers need time to plan, practice skills, try out new ideas, and reflect on ideas. Acquiring technology skills and becoming proficient in new ways of teaching in which technology is appropriately integrated requires additional time (Brand, 1997). To address these professional development issues and to acknowledge that the demands of engaged learning using technology may lead to longer class
  • 69. 57 periods, more team teaching, and more interdisciplinary work, the school district may have to make some adjustments to the school-day schedule.(j) Technical assistance and support: When teachers are trying to use technology in their classrooms and encounter difficulties, they need immediate help and support. Teachers will return to more traditional ways of teaching if their problems cannot be solved quickly and efficiently. Schools should therefore have a vested interest in providing technical support. McKenzie (1998) stated that the best way to win widespread use of new technologies is to provide just-in-time support, assistance, and encouragement when needed.(k) Administrative support: Fully implementing an effective professional development program as part of a well-designed technology plan requires support from school leaders and administrators. Leaders and administrators must have a clear vision of technology to support student learning and an understanding of the roles that all school staff must play in achieving that vision (Byrom & Bingham, 2001).(l) Adequate resources: The overall technology plan and its professional development component cannot occur without a significant commitment of resources. School leaders must purchase the type of technical equipment necessary to meet the learning goals identified and provide for ongoing maintenance and upgrading.(m) Continuous funding: The funding of using technology to improve teaching and learning should be not a one-time investment but an ongoing expense. Finding the funding for ongoing technology needs and professional
  • 70. 58 development can be difficult sometimes. Therefore, school leaders should create plans for securing the funding. (n) Built-in evaluation: An effective professional development should build an evaluation system to ensure that each activity is meeting the needs of the participants. This evaluation system should embrace three types, including pre-formative evaluation (assesses educators’ needs during the planning process), formative evaluation (provides feedback and determines changes that can be made during the activity to make it more valuable to participants), and summative evaluation (allows participants to judge the overall merit or worth of the activity and gives decision makers the information they need to plan for the future) (Rodriguez and Knuth, 2000). When professional development experiences show teachers how technology canamplify their teaching, the technology becomes relevant and teachers are motivated toacquire the requisite skills. A successful leader should know that professionaldevelopment starts and ends with classroom practice; he or she should know where theywant to go. A successful leader should also measure teachers’ progress by what changesin the classroom, not by a teacher skills checklist. To achieve this goal, a good leadermust have sufficient knowledge of the change process research in order to anticipate andaddress change problems and issues (Rodriguez & Knuth, 2000). Fullan (2001) indicated that effective change leaders work on changing thecontexts in learning organizations and aim to create new settings that are conducive tolearning and sharing that learning. ESL leaders play a decisive role in applying a CALLprogram as an instructional tool in ESL education. For CALL programs to be used
  • 71. 59successfully as a supplemental and instructional tool in ESL classrooms, ESL teachersmust be willing and able to construct pedagogically sound reasons for doing so.Moreover, teachers’ own knowledge and beliefs about teaching, learning, and technologywill lead to the real changes in the classrooms. It is up to ESL leaders to align thosechanges in meaningful, productive directions for the future (Hughes & Zachariah, 2001). The Relationship between LEP Students’ Backgrounds, ESL Education, and Computer Technology Learning Why is it that some people succeed while others fail in their attempt to learn asecond language or technology? Is perfect language proficiency or easy use of technologyaccessible only to a special few among us who are linguistically or technologically gifted?What factors help or hinder a learner acquiring a second language or learning to usetechnology? According to von Glasersfeld’s (1995) Constructivist Theory, learning is anactive, continuous process whereby the learner takes information from the environmentand constructs personal interpretations and meaning based on prior knowledge andexperience. Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) further indicated that second language learning is acomplex process that develops under a diverse set of conditions, and there is a complexrelationship that exists among five different factors involved in an individual’s attempt atlearning a second language. The five factors are language, brain, mind, self, and culture.Bialystok and Hakuta believed that a LEP student’s level of first language acquisition,physiological structure of the brain, cognitive development, self-knowledge andself-experience, and cultural background will play a important role in influencing theirEnglish as a second language learning.
  • 72. 60 Will these factors affect LEP students’ ability to acquire technology knowledgeand influence their intentions to use CALL programs to assist their English learning? Toanswer this question, previous studies have documented that there are differences intechnology adoption rates between the sexes, races, and education levels (Fairlie, 2004).A report by the U. S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications andInformation Administration in October of 2000 indicates that a digital divide still remains.It exists between individuals with different levels of income and education, individuals ofdifferent racial and ethnic groups, old and young individuals, single and dual-parentfamilies, and those with and without disabilities; the Pew Internet and American LifeProject (2005) showed that 57% of African-Americans go online, compared with 70% ofwhites; 29% of those who have not graduated from high school have access the Internet,compared with 61% of high school graduates and 89% of college graduates; and 26% ofAmericans age 65 and older go online, compared with 67% of those age 50-64, 80% ofthose age 30-49, and 84% of those age 18-29. Due to the increasing numbers of non-English speaking people migrating into theUnited States year after year, there is an educational, social, and even economic urgencyto provide a meaningful ESL education for this group to gain English proficiency so theymay be mainstreamed into American society. The learning approach is usually combinedin today’s informational society. With the increased advancement of computertechnology, the methods of learning English are no longer limited to traditionalface-to-face instruction. The application of computer technology and CALL programs hasalready become a new trend in second-language learning instructional programs all overthe world. For this reason, examining what effects LEP students’ backgrounds have on
  • 73. 61combining current computer technology into second language learning is significant. LEPstudents’ native languages, ages, genders, and prior education levels are factors that mayinfluence LEP students’ English and technology learning processes in this section basedon previous studies.Native Languages The role that a learner’s native language plays in his or her second languageacquisition (SLA) has been the focus of many researchers in the past few decades (Guo,2005). According to National Center for Educational Statistics’ Student Data Handbook(2000), the native language is the language or dialect first learned by an individual or firstused by the parent or guardian with a child. This term is often referred to as primarylanguage or mother tongue. Grimes (2000) indicated that there are approximately 337languages spoken or signed by the population in the United States. Over 30 millionAmericans, roughly 12% of the population, speak Spanish as a first or second language inthis country; over 2 million Americans speak Chinese; and the third most-commonlanguage, French, is spoken mainly by the native French, Haitian or French-Canadianpopulations in the former colony states of France, including Maine, New Hampshire, andLouisiana. In the field of second-language teaching and learning, there is widespreadacceptance of the idea that native language could greatly affect second-languageacquisition, and the most accepted term to describe such an influence is transfer (Zhang& Wang, 2007). According to Odlin (1989), transfer can be defined as “the influenceresulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any otherlanguage that has been previously acquired” (p.27). Lado (1957) expressed that
  • 74. 62“individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms andmeanings of their native language and culture to the second language and culture—bothproductively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture; andreceptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language and the culture aspracticed by natives” (p. 2). Naiman et al. (1978), contends that a good second-language learner refers back tohis or her native language judiciously and makes effective cross-linguistic comparisons atdifferent stages of language learning; and analyzes the target language and makesinferences about it. Faerch and Kasper (1986) further asserted that it is necessary thatlearners utilize their first language knowledge in order to solve a learning orcommunication problem in their second language learning processes. Walqui (2000)claimed that specific languages can be more or less difficult to learn, depending on howdifferent from or similar they are to the languages the learner already knows. Indeed, difficulty or ease in learning English is determined respectively bydifferences and similarities between LEP students’ native languages and English, andsuch differences lead to the “distortions” that are predictable (Lado, 1957). For example,in their book, The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (1999), Celce-Murciaand Larsen-Freeman indicated that LEP students who are native speakers of Japanese,Chinese, and Korean have to grasp the grammatical difference between English and theirnative languages and often take a longer period of time to master English because thegrammars of these native languages are very different from the grammar of English.Sadek (2006) further explained that if the LEP student’s native language and Englishshare many similarities—similar or identical alphabetical writing system; many
  • 75. 63“cognates,” such as words with similar pronunciation, meaning, and spelling; similarsyntax or sentence patterns—the LEP student will master English faster due to “transferof learning.” On the contrary, if the LEP student’s native language and English share veryfew or have no similarities—totally different writing systems, no “cognates;” differentsyntactical patterns to express similar thoughts—it will tend to be more difficult for theLEP student. A study, First language influences on second language word reading: All roadslead to Rome, conducted by Wade-Woolley (1999), showed that different nativelanguages’ orthographic systems could differentially influence the way that learnersaccess English words from their lexicons due to different orthographic and phonologicalprocessing patterns. This study involved 32 participants from two different groups: onegroup consisted of sixteen Japanese LEP students in an intensive English program at aCanadian university; and the other group consisted of sixteen Russian learners of Englishand Hebrew at an IEP/Intensive Hebrew Program at an Israeli university. All the learnerswere successful readers in their native languages. Prior to the beginning of the study noneof the participants had lived in an area where English was primarily spoken. They were ofsimilar ages, similar gender distribution, and had similar backgrounds in English study. The findings of this study revealed that the Japanese ESL speakers were faster andmore accurate on tasks involving recognition of orthographic patterns in both real Englishwords and in pseudo-words. The Russian ESL speakers were faster and more accurate indeleting phonemes from words. These differences are likely due to differences in theirnative language literacy experiences. Wade-Woolley believed that Russian learners areused to a phonologically-based alphabetic system, and they are likely to access words
  • 76. 64from writing through the phonological system. On the contrary, Japanese students do notaccess words solely from phonology but from their orthographic knowledge. Japanesestudents are not used to focusing on phonemes to map sounds in reading, but are rathermore accustomed to sight recognition of letter sequences. This result provides evidence toconfirm that an LEP student’s native language heavily influences his or her Englishlanguage learning. LEP students who speak diverse native languages often come from differentcountries, and different countries may have dissimilar levels of technology development.Is it possible that this could influence LEP students’ acquisition of technology knowledge,technology experiences, computer skills, and even the interest for using computertechnology? The answer is confirmed by the International Telecommunication Union(ITU). The report, Digital Access Index: World’s First Global ICT Ranking—Educationand Affordability Key to Boosting New Technology Adoption, published by ITU in 2003,showed that different countries have different Digital Access Index (DAI) scores. The DAI is a set of indicators put forward by the United Nations to address theneed for a set of globally comparable indices that reveal the level of information andcommunication technologies that a nation possesses. It measures the overall ability ofindividuals within a country to access and use information and communicationtechnologies in general. The score of DAI comes from eight variables describingavailability, such as the technology infrastructure, affordability of access, educationallevel, quality of information and communication technology services, and Internet usage,etc. It means that a student who lives in a higher DAI scoring country may have moreopportunities to get the benefits of computer technologies and the Internet, and can gain
  • 77. 65more opportunities to increase their individual computer literacy skills. For example, theDAI score of Taiwan was 0.79, Germany was 0.74, Mexico was 0.50, Thailand was 0.48,Haiti was 0.15, and Ethiopia was only 0.10. Based on these data, a student who comesfrom Taiwan or Germany may have more previous technology experiences than a studentwho comes from Haiti or Ethiopia (ITU, 2003). Zoe and DiMartino (2000) conducted a study that investigated how students viewand use complex electronic information systems based on their language backgrounds.The results of this study provide evidence to prove how a learner’s native languageinfluences the application of computer technology. The researchers surveyed 52 nativeEnglish speakers, 49 East Asian (Chinese, Korean) individuals, 17 individuals with aEuropean language background (French, Spanish, Russian, German), and 13 individualswho speak other languages largely from Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Thesestudents were studied at Baruch College of the City University of New York on computeruse for basic library database search skills. The results showed that there is a highlysignificant correlation between a student’s native language and his or her searchingability, and the cultural differences of international students will produce a variety ofculture-specific learning styles and information-seeking behavior. They concluded that,“with the lack of controlled vocabulary and the need for sophisticated precision searchtechniques which are language based, such as proximity connectors and use of synonyms,students for whom English is not the native language may be at a disadvantage for usingcomputers in electronic information searching” (p.302).
  • 78. 66Genders Gender differences are a disparity between male and female humans. Accordingto gender role theory, prevalent gender stereotypes are culturally shared expectations forgender appropriate behaviors. Females and males learn the appropriate behaviors andattitudes from the family and from the overall culture with which they grow up.Non-physical gender differences are a product of socialization (Eagly& Karau, 2002).From the biological viewpoint, females and males differ fundamentally in their cognitiveabilities and learning styles. These differences derive from both basic physiologicaldifferences—such as differences in the development of brain—and from differences inhigher-level cortical functions (Keefe, 1982). No matter what gender differences are primarily culturally or biologicallydetermined, educational research in the last several decades has proven that genderdifferences manifestly influenced students’ academic interests, needs, and achievements(Collins, Kenway & McLeod, 2000; Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2000). Differenteducational domains have different claims to the gender issue. Theorists of secondlanguage acquisition believe that female learners show possible superiority in theirsecond language learning process (Boyle, 1987; Ehrlich, 2001). Some scholars oftechnology education deem that males have more positive attitudes than females in usingcomputer technology to assist their academic learning (Na, 2001; Li, 2002). According to Macleod et al. (2002), although the margin of gender differences isgetting smaller with the changes of society and the times, gender differences still play animportant role to influence students’ learning interests and outcomes in certain academicsubjects, such as language, computer technology, science, and math. Indeed, the common
  • 79. 67gender-stereotypical judgments influence a student’s learning beliefs, aspiration, attitude,and strategies unconsciously. For example, a survey was conducted by Lai and Kuo in2007 to investigate the influences of gender difference in the Teaching English asForeign Language (TEFL) program in the Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages ofTaiwan. The result shows that the numbers of males and females who participated in thestudy were not balanced, because only 34 male students enrolled in the TEFL program ascompared with 166 female students. The authors believe that the reason this phenomenonoccurred is because of the gender-stereotypical portrayals. As Kleinfeld (1998) pointedout, the traditionally gender-stereotypical socialization patterns emphasize that femaleshave a tendency to be stronger in language subjects and fine arts, but males dominate theareas of mathematics and science. This cultural gender bias deeply influences Taiwanstudents’ inclinations to choose the major of their study. Pappamihiel (2001) developed an English Language Anxiety Scale (ELAS) basedon the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale to examine English language anxietyin Mexican middle schools. The findings showed that there is a significant difference inthe attitudes of female and male students when using English in mainstream classes.Pappamihiel further explained that female Mexican students are more concerned aboutlanguage difficulties and more anxious than Mexican male students. Siebert (2003) surveyed 64 female and 91 male language learners who study ESLprogram at institutions of higher education in the Northwest region of the United States;and found a number of significant differences in beliefs among male and female learnersin relation to language learning and strategy use. For example, 23% of females, asopposed to 47% of males either strongly agreed or agreed that the most important part of
  • 80. 68learning English is learning grammar. Only 7% of females, but 24% of males, agreed thatit is important to practice English with audio-visual equipment. And female studentsestimated that it would take 5-10 years, or that English cannot be learned in one hour aday; while male students, were much more optimistic and indicated that it would take oneto two or three to five years. Another study conducted by Kato (2005) supported Siebert’s findings. Aftersurveying 144 female and 50 male Japanese university students, Kato indicated that thereis a significant gender difference between affective and social strategies. A lower use ofaffective and social strategies among male students implied that male Japanese universitystudents are rather hesitant to look for help with learning and they do not pay muchattention to their psychological state when they are learning English. Conversely, femalestudents passively ask for help to improve their English skills. The above studies againconfirm that gender differences still exist and have an effect on a student’s learning beliefand strategy choice for his or her English language learning (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). Previous research also attempted to identify the role of gender on attitudes andcomputer technology usage. For example, Christensen, Knezek, and Overall (2005)examined 10,000 Texas public school students in Grades 3–12 over the years 2000, 2001,2002, and 2005. They noted that boys and girls do not differ in their enjoyment of thecomputer in early elementary and in late elementary school. Starting in middle school andcontinuing through high school, girls come to find less enjoyment in computers.Shashaani (1994) surveyed 902 boys and 828 girls in secondary schools and found that astudent’s computer experience has a direct relationship with his or her computer useattitude. In her study, male students had more computer experiences and more positive
  • 81. 69attitudes toward using computers to assist their learning. Koohang (2004) investigated154 university students enrolled in an undergraduate hybrid program in management at amedium-sized university in the midwestern region of the United States. The findingsshowed that male students had significantly higher positive perceptions than femalestudents towards the use of a digital library. Gefen and Straub (1997) studied gender differences in the perception and use ofe-mail. Compared to male students, the authors found that female students perceived ahigher level of usefulness of e-mail. Contrary to their expectations, the researchers foundthat female students scored lower on the ease of use of e-mail than male students.Venkatesh and Morris (2000) investigated gender differences in technology usagedecisions. They found that men’s technology usage decisions were more stronglyinfluenced by their perceptions of usefulness, while women were more stronglyinfluenced by perceptions of ease of use. Enoch and Soker (2005) examined students’ useof Web-based instruction at an open university of Israel. They found that there had been acontinuous increase in the use of the Internet for both female and male students. Thedifferences between the two gender categories were still significant and quite large. Malestudents were more likely to use Web-based materials as an addition to the printedmaterials. All of the above research indicates that the gender gap in technology continues toexist in the current educational system. But why does this phenomenon occur? Someresearchers point out that the main reason causing this technology gender gap is that boysview computers as a playful and recreational toy and are more likely to interact moredeeply with computers, while girls tend to see computers as a means of achieving a
  • 82. 70concrete goal. Girls are more likely to conceptualize computers as a tool—be it for e-mailor word processing, but still a medium with which to accomplish a task (Volman, 1997;Christensen, Knezek, & Overall, 2005).Ages People commonly believe that the “younger the better” mentality applies tolanguage learning. This stereotypical view of the older adult as a poor language learnercan be traced to two roots: a theory of the brain and how it matures, and classroompractices that discriminate against the older learner (Schleppegrell, 1987). According toLenneberg’s (1967) Critical Period Hypothesis, the acquisition of language is an innateprocess determined by biological factors which limit the critical period for acquisition ofa language from roughly two years of age to puberty. Lenneberg asserted that afterlateralization—a process by which the two sides of the brain develop specializedfunctions—the brain will lose its plasticity. Adults will find it difficult to learn a newlanguage because his or her lateralization of the language function was completed atpuberty. Many studies have tested Lenneberg’s Critical Period Hypothesis and it is agreedthat the earlier one starts to learn a second language, the more likely one will reach anative-like pronunciation. For example, Asher and Garcia (1969) tested 71 Cubanimmigrants who had arrived in the United States between the ages of one and 19 years.They found out that the younger one begins to learn a second language, the morenative-like the accent one develops in the language. Oyama (1976) conducted a study toexamine the English pronunciation of 60 Italian-born male immigrants who had beenliving in the United States for period of five to 18 years. The results showed that the age
  • 83. 71of arrival had a major influence on the presence or absence of a noticeable accent.Fullana (2005), in her unpublished dissertation, assessed the effects of the starting ages ofstudents ranging from eight to 11, 14, and 18+ years old on production of English as aforeign language in a strictly instruction-classroom context. The results showed that in aformal learning environment, students with a starting age of 8 had a better perception ofEnglish sounds in the long run than did students with a starting age of 11, 14, and 18+. On the contrary, many researchers cannot agree with Lenneberg’s Critical PeriodHypothesis. They argue that different rates of second language acquisition may reflectpsychological and social factors that favor child learners (Newport, 1990). Krashen, Longand Scarcella (1979) indicated that people usually possess more capacity to concentratemore general knowledge when they are older. Krashen and Terrell (1983) furtherexplained that young children learning a second language seem to manage to internalizethe grammar without it being explicitly taught. By being surrounded by a language youngchildren eventually learn to use it. Adults seem more conscious of their learning and relymore on their analytical abilities. Krashen and Terrell asserted: “adults acquiring a highlevel of second language proficiency are faster than children” (p. 45). Schleppegrell(1987) claimed that the difficulties older adults often experience in the second languageclassroom can be overcome through adjustments in the learning environment, throughattention to affective factors, and through the use of effective teaching methods. Different linguists have different positions about the effect of age-related factorsin second language learning. This situation occurs in the technology-learning domain.While some technology scholars believe that the age difference plays an influential rolein the application of technologies, some insist that the age difference cannot be viewed as
  • 84. 72a factor affecting whether or not a person uses the computer and the Internet. Enoch andSoker (2005) conducted a seven-year research study in Israel to examine whether there isa significant relationship between university students’ ages and Internet use. The samplepopulation of the study was 17,136 students who were enrolled in the Israel Universityfrom 1995 to 2002. The authors divided all participants into four age groups: “Young”(students who were age 19 and below); “regular” (students who were age 20-24); “adult”(students who were age 25-29); and finally “mature students” (who were defined as allstudents age 30 years and older). After the data collection and analysis, the researchersreported that although there is a significant increase over time in the use of the Internetand e-mail in all age categories, a steady and significant gap among the youngest, theintermediate, and the oldest age groups using the Internet existed. Only 20% of the youngstudents in 2002 were not Internet users and 27% of the intermediate students belonged tothis category, while the figure for the mature age groups was around 36%. Taghavi (2006) conducted another study that yielded different results. Taghavisurveyed 174 undergraduate college students who were enrolled in a computer literacycourse in the Technology and Education Department at Mississippi State University toinvestigate the relationship between students’ ages and their attitudes toward computers,including anxiety, confidence, liking, and usefulness. The results showed that age was notsignificantly related to computer attitudes on any of the four subscales. Additionally, in their study, Finding information on the World Wide Web:Exploring older adults’ exploration, Kubeck, Miller–Albrecht, and Murphy (1999)recruited 30 younger adult college students and 29 community-dwelling older adultswhose computer experiences showed no significant difference. Participants in this study
  • 85. 73were requested to fill out a Pre-Web Research Questionnaire to firstly survey theirmetempirical computer attitude, computer experience, and technology knowledge. Afterthis procedure, a brief training in using a Web browser was provided by the researchersfor giving novice participants the basic knowledge and skills needed to conductindependent Web searches. All participants were asked to complete a Post-Web ResearchQuestionnaire in order to collect participants’ impression. Through the responses fromthese two questionnaires, the authors indicate that although the scores of older adults’search performance and technology knowledge were significantly lower than youngadults, the older and younger adults’ post-Web search impressions were very similar.Most of the older and younger learners reported that they would be very likely to use theWeb again if they had reasonable access. Kubeck and his colleagues therefore concludedthat the age difference could not be regarded as an influential factor affecting older adultsengaging in Web-searching activities. They claimed that if we can provide more trainingsand opportunities to older adults, older adults can overcome the age difference and enjoythe benefits of computer technologies.Previous Educational Backgrounds According to the U. S. Census Bureau (2000), approximately 14 million or nearly9.5% of all working-age adults between the ages of 18 and 55 in the United States eitherdid not speak English at all or spoke English less than very well. Fifty percent of LEPadults report having nine or fewer years of education, and 64 percent have less than ahigh school degree. Only 18% have any post-secondary education. According toeducators (Adkins, Sample, & Birman, 1999; Thomas & Collier, 1997), the cognitive andacademic development from previous education has an extremely important and positive
  • 86. 74effect on second language schooling. Limited academic skills in a learner’s nativelanguage due to limited previous education will slow down the progress of learningEnglish. Walqui (2000) indicated that students’ previous educational experience andknowledge of the second language is a significant factor in their current second languagelearning. For example, if a LEP student who did not learn English grammar through hisor her previous education, that he or she may have difficulties understanding Englishgrammatical systems and may need specific instruction in English grammar. Mowry(2007) emphasized that the length of time a LEP student can achieve proficiency inEnglish often depends on his or her previous educational background and the amount ofexposure to English. In 2004, the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks conducted a two-yearproject to investigate how long and how fast it would take adult immigrants in Calgary,Canada, to learn enough English to meet their needs. The study used The CanadianLanguage Benchmarks Assessment, a set of Canadian national standards for English as asecond language, and described what people can do in English at 12 levels of competency.The study surveyed 1,387 adult immigrants, who participated in an array of languageinstruction programs, and examined what gains in English proficiency can be expectedbased on learners’ previous educational backgrounds. The results showed that for any oneof the 69 individuals who has an elementary level of education (0-7 years; mean= 4.2years), who starts with an initial language proficiency in English of 2.0 in listening andspeaking, 1.8 in reading, and 1.3 in writing, language acquisition is a difficult process. Onaverage, they have to take 320 hours in language instruction programs in order to achievethe benchmark from 2 to 3, and 611 hours to move from benchmark 3 to 4. In listening
  • 87. 75and speaking, it is estimated that 1,871 hours of instruction would be required for theselower education students to move from benchmark 1 to benchmark 5. On the contrary, forany one of the 130 individuals with graduate level education (17+ years; mean= 19), whostarts with an initial language proficiency in English of 2.5 in listening and speaking, 2.2in reading, and 2.5 in writing, their English learning progress is most accelerated.Generally, they record the fewest hours for achieving any single benchmark, movingfrom benchmark 3 to 4 in 280 hours, 4 to 5 in 300 hours, 5 to 6 in 341 hours, and 6 to 7 in380 hours. In listening and speaking, it is estimated that only 1,791 hours of instructionwould be required for these higher education learners to move from benchmark 1 tobenchmark 7 (p.4). This means that previous educational levels influence LEP students’second-language learning progresses and outcomes. In the technology dimension, educators view previous educational attainment andexperience as an important factor that may influence a person’s behavior and attitudetoward the use of computers as well as the Internet. For example, Al-Zahrani (2000)investigated the perceptions of 147 library professional and paraprofessional staffmembers concerning information technology innovations and training in universitylibraries in Saudi Arabia. He found a significant relationship among respondents’educational background, experience in using information technology, and theirperceptions about information technology. In their study, Research into the use of information literacy web resources byArabic students, Martin, Birks, and Hunt (2007) pointed out that the educationalexperiences of students prior to university are likely to have a strong impact on theirability to successfully undertake learning in an online or blended learning format. Kridel,
  • 88. 76Rappoport, and Taylor (2002) surveyed over 32,000 U. S. households and also stated thateducation levels influence the likelihood of a household having high-speed access to theInternet. The report, Disadvantage and Distance, was published by the Social and CulturalPlanning Office of the Netherlands (2007) to investigate the digital divide in theNetherlands. The authors, Van Ingen, De Haan, and Duimel, indicated that informationand communication technology has become indispensable in western societies, andparticipation in the knowledge society therefore requires adequate digital skills. Dutchcitizens differ in the extent to which they possess digital skills. The data presented in thisreport showed that there are wide differences in digital skills between people with a highand a low education level. For example, 43% of people with a lower education level usethe Internet to search for specific information, compared with 81% of those with a highereducation level. People with a lower education level tend to be mainly skilled inentertainment applications, which means that their use of the information andcommunication technology is not only less diverse, but also less functional. The authors further indicated that the weak digital skills of the low-educatedemerge clearly when the number of computer applications used (on a scale from 0 to 8) iscompared. People who have only completed elementary education use the computer forjust under one application on average (0.9), whereas people with a university educationuse more than three applications (3.4). In addition, the results also showed that 75% ofpeople with a low education level find that their deficient computer skills are a problemin progressing in their work. People in the low education level group are less willing thanthe more highly educated to invest in acquiring digital skills. Through this report, we can
  • 89. 77confirm that a person’s behavior, attitude, or belief toward the use of computers and theInternet is really influenced by his or her previous educational background. Summary The developments of computer technology and CALL programs have influencedESL instruction step by step. Today, the fast-growing LEP immigrant population iscausing increased demand for ESL instruction. Educators indicate that ESL instructionplays a major role in affording LEP students the opportunity to acquire Englishproficiency and the academic, cognitive, and cultural knowledge they need to becomeactive participants in American society. Current educational policy reiterates thatschooling should provide equal educational opportunities to LEP students. There areseveral different ESL program models designed and implemented for LEP students. Thedecision of which specific model a school district adopts should be made at the locallevel after careful consideration of the needs of the LEP students involved and theresources available. In addition, the developments of CALL programs have changed theideas of language educators and learners all over the world. As educational leaders andadministrators, we should pay attention to the advantages and disadvantages of CALL,clarify the roles of CALL programs in current ESL classrooms, and develop educationalleadership relating to technology in order to appropriately infuse technology and CALLprograms into ESL curricula. Finally, LEP students often come from different countriesand have diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Their genders, ages, educationallevels, and previous technology experiences are dissimilar. It is necessary to investigateand consider how these factors influence LEP students’ learning progress so we can meetthe special needs of individuals and create a more effective ESL learning environment.
  • 90. CHAPTER III METHOD According to the U.S. Department of Education (2004), school enrollment growthof non-English speaking students in 18 states through mid-America increased more than200% since 1990. In light of this demographic change, helping these non-Englishspeaking students improve English skills has become a significant issue for educationalleaders and administrators. Educators (Davies, 2007; Kung, 2002; Stevens, 2004) havestated that utilizing Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) programs can beconvenient in creating both independent and collaborative English as a Second Language(ESL) learning environments and provide students with language experiences as theymove through the various stages of English acquisition. Some functions of CALLprograms are still under intense debate among educational leaders and ESL educators(Salaberry, 1999). Research regarding the effects of CALL programs on ESL educationfor diverse English language learners is needed in order for educational leaders andadministrators to reform ESL education in the future. Research Questions The study attempted to provide a comprehensive understanding of the experienceand expectations of LEP students and ESL instructors using CALL programs to assisttheir English learning and teaching, determine what background factors may influenceLEP students’ perceptions toward using CALL programs, discuss the advantages anddisadvantages of CALL programs for current ESL instruction, and explore what roleCALL programs may play in actual ESL classrooms. The research questions guiding thestudy were: 78
  • 91. 79Quantitative 1. What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived usefulness of CALL programs for English learning? 2. What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived ease of use of CALL programs for English learning?Qualitative 3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs in actual ESL teaching and learning? 4. What is the role of CALL programs in current ESL instruction? 5. What are the second-language learning efficiency expectations of LEP students and ESL instructors utilizing CALL programs? Null Hypotheses The following were the null hypotheses measured for the study. Ho1: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among their native language backgrounds as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. Ho2: There is no statistically significant difference between male and female LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. Ho3: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different age groups.
  • 92. 80Ho4: There is no statistically significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire based on LEP students’ previous educational levels.Ho5: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different technology experience groups.Ho6: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing their English learning among native language backgrounds as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire.Ho7: There is no statistically significant difference between male and female LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire.Ho8: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different age groups.Ho9: There is no statistically significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire based on LEP students’ previous educational levels.Ho10: There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different technology experience groups.
  • 93. 81 Research Method To answer and examine the research questions and null hypotheses, a combinationof quantitative and qualitative research methods were utilized for the study. According toDuffy (1985), quantitative research is described by the terms empiricism and positivism.It is an objective, formal systematic process in which numerical data findings are used. Itdescribes, tests, and examines cause and effect relationships, using a deductive process ofknowledge attainment. In contrast, the qualitative approach is used as a vehicle forstudying the empirical world from the perspective of the subject, not the researcher. Gay and Airasian (2000) further pointed out that each individual researchapproach has its weakness and strengths. Quantitative measurements only tell us howoften or how many people behave in a certain way, but they do not adequately answer thequestion “why”. On the other hand, qualitative research has no explicit intention to countor quantify the findings, which are instead described in the language employed during theresearch process (Leach, 1990). When used in combination, quantitative and qualitativeresearch methods can represent the full range of educational research methods and allowa focus on each single method’s relevant strengths. Therefore, a researcher should aim toachieve the situation where “blending qualitative and quantitative methods of researchcan produce a final product which can highlight the significant contributions of both”(Nau, 1995, p.1), and where “qualitative data can support and explicate the meaning ofquantitative research” (Jayaratne, 1993, p.117). Based on these concepts, bothquantitative and qualitative approaches will be employed in the study in order to achievea convergence of results.
  • 94. 82Quantitative According to Gay and Airasian (2000), a quantitative descriptive study can becarried out to obtain information about the preferences, attitudes, practices, concerns, orinterests of some group of people. To evaluate the effectiveness of CALL programs onESL acquisition, Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) theory wasadopted as the conceptual framework of this quantitative research in the study. The TAMis a well-established model of information technology adoption and use. It has beentested in numerous studies and shown to explain a reasonable amount of the variance inactual use of the technology (Riemenschneider, Harrison, & Mykytyn, 2003;Subramanian, 1998). In the TAM, Davis claimed that perceived ease of use (PEU) andperceived usefulness (PU) are the key determinants of computer usage, and a learner’sexternal variables will indirectly influence a learner’s intention and decision to usecomputer technologies through the impact on PEU and PU. To examine LEP students’ perceptions of using CALL programs to assist theirEnglish learning, a TAM in CALL Questionnaire modified from Davis’ TAM was used tocollect the quantitative data. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographicdata. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistical method was used to analyze thevariances of the sum scale scores of the “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALLprograms among LEP students at different native language backgrounds, males andfemales, age groups, educational levels, and previous technology experiences.
  • 95. 83Qualitative Gay and Airasian (2000) indicated that qualitative research seeks to probe deeplyinto the research setting in order to obtain understanding of the way things are, why theyare that way, and how the participants in the context perceive them. The software ofCALL programs is still the commercial product and no matter how many functionsCALL software has, it must satisfy the needs of users or customers. According to theTheory of Customer Value (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996), communication with customersis the key in influencing users’ decisions concerning why, when, and what to buy, and useof the products. To examine the effectiveness of CALL programs and improving CALLprograms in the future, communicating with LEP students and ESL instructors about thevalues they place on CALL programs must be utilized. In the study, qualitative interviews were conducted to investigate both LEPstudents’ and ESL instructors’ opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of CALLprograms in ESL teaching and learning, the roles and functions CALL programs play inESL environments, and the expectations of future CALL programs. Research DesignQuantitative The quantitative component of the study was designed to identify whether thefactors of personal backgrounds will influence students’ acceptance of the generalapplication of CALL program technology, from the LEP students’ perceptions. The TAMin CALL Questionnaire including 12 items was used to collect data. A one-way ANOVAstatistical method was employed to test the difference between LEP students’ individualbackgrounds and their “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” perceptions of CALL programs.
  • 96. 84 To answer the quantitative research questions, 10 null hypotheses were examined.Each null hypothesis had one independent variable, comprising the LEP student’s nativelanguage, gender, age, previous educational level, and previous technology experience.The dependent variables included the LEP student’s scale scores of perceived“Usefulness” and perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs.Qualitative The qualitative component of the study involved interviews designed to identifythe advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs for ESL instruction, the role CALLprograms play in current ESL learning environments, and the expectations of futureCALL programs from both LEP students’ and instructors’ viewpoints. A number of strategies proposed by Denzin and Lincoln (2000) were followed toestablish the interview’s trustworthiness and credibility. These strategies includeprolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, referential adequacymaterials, peer debriefing, and member check (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen,1993). For example, to achieve triangulation, the grounded theory research approach wasused to identify, describe, and interpret both LEP students’ and ESL instructors’ opinionstoward using CALL programs in ESL teaching and learning. In peer debriefing, a personwho serves in an ESL program and has rich ESL teaching experience as the peer wasinvited to discuss the hypotheses, the questionnaire, and the interview questions to ensurethe study was not influenced by personal biases of the researcher.
  • 97. 85 Subjects of the StudyQuantitative The subjects of the quantitative portion in the study were LEP students takingESL courses and using CALL programs in college level schools or adult educationalinstitutions in the Houston area of Texas during summer semester of 2008. A list of theseESL schools and institutions was obtained from the Texas Higher Education CoordinatingBoard and school websites. From this list, college or university ESL programs and adultESL institutions was identified. The researcher and his chair went to visit each of theinstitution on the list to obtain the authorization. Each ESL program director wasrequested to obtain information regarding procedures for the research, and help toidentify students who meet the criteria of the study. The final participants of this quantitative study consisted of 329 LEP studentsselected using the convenience sampling method. Each participating student was asked tocomplete the TAM in CALL Questionnaire. LEP participants were provided informationwith which to make voluntary decisions about whether or not to participate in the study.Qualitative A convenience sampling was used for the purpose of this study. A conveniencesample is non-random and it was selected for this study, because it was practical(McBurney, 2001). Once the surveys had been completed, follow-up face-to-faceinterviews were conducted among ESL instructors and LEP students to determine someof the issues related to their use and non-use of CALL technologies.
  • 98. 86 The final qualitative portion of the study included twenty interviews: sevenin-service ESL instructors and thirteen LEP students. Three instructors were teachingESL courses with CALL programs in the Houston Community College and fourinstructors from the University of Houston were interviewed. Three students came fromthe Houston Community College, four students came from the University of Houston,and six students came from the Chinese Community Center. All participants wereinterviewed and observed in their language learning environment to obtain qualitativedata. Instrumentation The instrumentation for the study consisted of a questionnaire instrument forquantitative collection of data and interviews for qualitative data collection.Quantitative The purpose of the quantitative instrument was to collect data through diverseLEP students’ learning experiences and perceptions in the general application of CALLprograms. A TAM in CALL Questionnaire modified from Davis’s Technology AcceptanceModel (1989) was used as the instrument in the study. LEP students were asked in thequestionnaire to provide their individual background information and scale scoresrelating to the “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing Englishlearning. The instrument contained four sections. Section one elicits demographicinformation that was used to classify the students. Section two and three consisted of 12questions that examine students’ perceived “Usefulness” and perceived “Ease of Use” ofgeneral CALL programs for assisting their English learning. Each question was answered
  • 99. 87on a Likert-type 5-point scale form. The response choices were: 1 = “Strongly Disagree,”2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly Agree.” Section four had oneopen-ended item, asking respondents to list any other comments or questions relating totheir use of CALL programs. Based on students’ native language backgrounds and to help LEP studentscomprehend the content of the questionnaire, the original English version of TAM inCALL Questionnaire was translated into five language versions: three by the certifiedtranslators (Spanish, French, and Korean) and two by a recognized expert in Chineselanguages (Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese). ALL of “Others” groupparticipants comprised 89 persons and used sixteen native languages. These were askedto respond in the English version of the TAM in CALL Questionnaire. The questionnaire did not gather any information that identifies the participants.The questionnaire was completely anonymous. Individuals who participate in thisquantitative study would not be identified in any way when they responded. Thequestionnaires was provided in two ways: one is the traditional printed out paper form,and the other is the online survey which is linked directly to an on-line survey website,SurveyMonkey.com, that collected the respondents’ data.Qualitative The purpose of the qualitative instrument was to collect information from LEPstudents and ESL instructors in ESL college level schools or adult educational institutionsin the Houston area of Texas. Nine interview questions have been structured, butopen-ended, which provided information concerning the participants’ opinions relating tolearning and teaching with CALL programs. The content of interview questions was
  • 100. 88focused on the instructors’ and learners’ individual ESL teaching and learningexperiences to identify the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs and theroles of CALL programs in actual ESL classrooms, and what expectations andsuggestions they have for future CALL programs, based on their individual ESL teachingor learning needs. Validity According to Gay and Airasian (2000), validity refers to the appropriateness,meaningfulness, and usefulness of specific inferences the researcher makes from testscores gathered from an instrument. It is concerned with the appropriateness of theinterpretations made from instrument scores. Three techniques were used to enhance thevalidity of the research instrument in the study: First, an extensive literature review was conducted to identify the underlyingconcepts, relevant theories, hypothesis, propositions, potential constructs, and previousempirical studies and scales used. Second, the content validity of the TAM in CALLQuestionnaire and the interview questions were checked by a panel comprised ofdissertation chair and two ESL instructors. The panel analyzed and guaranteed theinstrument for reliability and validity. Each panelist evaluated the instrument for content,clarity, and appropriateness. Third, using interviews as a second data resource alsostrengthen the validity of the study because one of the strengths of the interview processis the ability to immediately check the validity of data (Cooper, 2000).
  • 101. 89 Reliability Reliability is the degree to which assessment scores are consistent, stable,dependable, and relatively free from errors of measurement. Reliability coefficients varybetween values of 0.00 and 1.00, with 1.00 indicating perfect reliability, 0.00 indicatingno reliability, and 0.62 indicating acceptable reliability (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).Quantitative Reliability was further examined by Cronbach’s alpha correlation statisticalprocedure to test association in terms of establishing the internal consistency of terms.Coefficient alpha tends to be the most frequently used estimate of internal consistency(Green et al., 2000). Twelve statements measured the LEP students’ perceived“Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs were checked the reliability of theTAM in CALL Questionnaire. To examine the reliability of six scale items of “Usefulness”, Cronbach’scoefficient alpha was applied to estimate internal consistency of scores. The six scaleitems of “Usefulness” returned an internal consistency alpha of .926. It meant that thissection instrument had a fairly high estimation of internal consistency and reliability. To examine the reliability of six scale items of “Ease of Use”, Cronbach’scoefficient alpha was employed again to estimate internal consistency of scores. The sixscale items of “Ease of Use” returned an internal consistency alpha of .914. This section ofthe instrument also had a fairly high estimation of internal consistency and reliability.
  • 102. 90Qualitative One of the key goals of qualitative research is to establish trustworthiness. Twotechniques were used to ensure trustworthiness of this study. The first technique is peerdebriefing. One peer was invited to discuss the hypotheses, the questionnaire, and theinterview questions with the researcher in order to ensure that none of the researcher’spersonal biases would affect the study. To improve the transferability of this study, thesecond technique that was used in the study is thick description. Although it is notpossible in qualitative research to suggest external validity, the thick description can“enable someone interested in making a transfer to reach a conclusion about whethertransfer can be contemplated as a possibility” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 316). Procedures Permission for the study was granted by the Prairie View A&M University’sInstitutional Review Board (IRB). Thereafter, the researcher and his chair went to visiteach ESL department of schools and institutions in the Houston area of Texas to obtaintheir authorization. A list of these ESL schools and institutions was obtained from theTexas Higher Education Coordinating Board and school websites. After obtaining the authorization of the ESL institutions, the ESL instructors werefurther contacted with the researcher. After receiving responses confirming that theinstructors were willing to participate in the study, printed hard copy surveys and URL ofonline survey and instructions for completing the questionnaire were sent to theinstructors, with a request for them to help their LEP students complete the questionnaire.LEP participants were provided information with which to make voluntary decisionsabout whether or not to participate in the study. Once the surveys had been completed,
  • 103. 91follow-up face-to-face interviews were conducted among ESL instructors and LEPstudents to determine some of the issues related to the roles and functions of CALLprograms in ESL education. Data Collection and Recording Questionnaires and interviews are used extensively in educational research tocollect data about phenomena that are not directly observable: inner experience, opinions,values, interests, and the like. They also can be used to collect data about observablephenomena, but more conveniently than by direct observation (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).Quantitative The purpose of the quantitative instrument was to collect data concerning LEPstudents’ perceived “Usefulness” and perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs forenhancing English learning. Data were collected from students enrolled in ESL andCALL programs courses offered by the Houston Community College, the University ofHouston, and Chinese Community Center in the Houston area of Texas during thesummer semester of 2008. A survey instrument entitled TAM in CALL Questionnaire wasused to collect related data.Qualitative The purpose of the qualitative instrument was to collect data on LEP students’ andinstructors’ opinions about using CALL programs in their ESL learning and teaching.Interviews were conducted using nine interview questions structured to identify theadvantages and disadvantages of CALL programs in ESL instruction, the role CALLprograms play in ESL classrooms, and the expectations of future CALL programs fromboth LEP students’ and ESL instructors’ actual experiences and viewpoints.
  • 104. 92 Confidentiality Since the researcher has the obligation to respect and protect the rights and wishesof the research participants, the researcher has protected the anonymity of the participants.Documents and reports utilize pseudonyms for the sites and the samples; and theresearcher informed the participants of the study’s purpose. The security of the raw data gathered through the questionnaire and the interviewswas assured in order to protect the anonymity of the participants and to uphold thetrustworthiness of the study. Data and information will be stored in a secure location in abank safe deposit box for seven years. After seven years, the data will be destroyed byincineration. Only the researcher and dissertation chair may access the gathered data andinformation. The above measures regarding trustworthiness and confidentiality wereshared with the participants when the researcher contacted them through e-mail,telephone, mail, or in person. Data AnalysisQuantitative The quantitative data from the LEP students’ responses in the questionnaireinstrument, including individual background factors and the variances of the sum scalescores of the “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs, were analyzed usingthe Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13.0 for Windows. Results of the study were reported as descriptive statistics, including frequenciesand percentages. Population demographic characteristics were compiled and categorizedto show characteristics of the sample. The data were analyzed by means of a one-wayANOVA statistic method to examine the difference between LEP students’ individual
  • 105. 93backgrounds and their perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs forenhancing their English learning.Qualitative Gay and Airasian (2000) stated that data analysis of qualitative research involvessimultaneous data collection and analysis as new data are collected. For the qualitativeportion of the interviews, data analysis included coding, generating categories, andwriting interview summaries. This coding occurred by reading through the data andsearching for regularities and patterns, as well as for themes, and then classifying theinformation into categories that represent different aspects of the data. This was done bygrouping similar units of meaning together and assigning them a category, or a theme. Based on the above concepts, four steps were conducted to analyze the interviewdata in the study: (a) record all that the researcher hears and observes from theinterviewers, (b) describe the coding and identify the major themes, (c) discuss the resultof pattern codes, and (d) contrast the results with the quantitative research questions. Summary This chapter presented the methodology and the research design for the study. Acombination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was utilized to collect andanalyze data. A quantitative questionnaire and descriptive statistics were developed toexamine the significant difference among LEP students’ diverse backgrounds and theirperceptions concerning the “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs forenhancing their English learning. Qualitative interviews and observations were conductedto identify the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs for ESL instruction, therole CALL programs play in current ESL learning environments, and the expectations of
  • 106. 94future CALL programs from both LEP students’ and ESL instructors’ viewpoints. Subjects for the study were selected using the cluster sampling method. Thesample of the quantitative study consisted of 329 LEP students who were taking ESLcourses and CALL programs in college level schools or adult educational institutions inthe Houston area of Texas during the summer semester of 2008. The qualitativeinterviews included 20 participants. Convenience sampling method was used to inviteESL instructors and LEP students to join in the face-to-face interviews.
  • 107. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of the study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of theeffects of CALL programs on ESL education for diverse English language learners. Toachieve this purpose, both quantitative and qualitative research methods were used tocollect and to analyze data. Age, gender, native language, previous educational level, andprevious technology experience were five factors used to examine LEP students’“Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” perceptions toward using CALL programs for Englishlearning in the quantitative design. The strengths, limitations, roles, and expectations ofCALL programs in ESL teaching and learning activities were main concerns in thequalitative interviews to collect information from both ESL instructors and LEP students.This chapter includes the research questions, the quantitative research data analysis, thequalitative research data analysis, and a summary of research results. Research QuestionsQuantitative The following research questions guided the quantitative portion of the study: 1. What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived usefulness of CALL programs for English learning? 2. What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived ease of use of CALL programs for English learning? 95
  • 108. 96Qualitative The following research questions guided the qualitative portion of the study: 3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs in actual ESL teaching and learning? 4. What is the role of CALL programs in current ESL instructions? 5. What are the second language learning efficiency expectations of LEP students and ESL instructors utilizing CALL programs? Quantitative Research Data Analysis Statistical analyses of quantitative data were conducted using SPSS 13.0. A TAMin CALL Questionnaire was used to collect data. The responses were on a 5-point Likertscale which was regarded as numerical values for each item response on the instruments:Strongly Agree = 5; Agree = 4; Neutral = 3; Disagree = 2; and Strongly Disagree = 1.The “neutral” category option was provided to the respondents to select a choice whenthey were no comments to the question or not understand the meaning of the question.Descriptive statistics were used to acquire a profile of the participants of the study. Thedifference between / among the variables described in the null hypotheses were analyzedusing the one-way ANOVA. If the p value for any of the analyses were significance atthe p < .05 confidence level, the null hypothesis was rejected.Characteristics of the Quantitative Research Sample Demographic questions on the survey instrument were not use to test forstatistical significance, and were only reported using descriptive statistics. Eachparticipant was asked to provide personal information necessary to generate variablespertinent to the study.
  • 109. 97 The purposive sample was to be LEP students taking ESL courses and CALLprograms in college level schools or adult education institutes in the Houston area ofTexas during summer 2008. Not all of ESL schools or institutes agreed to join in thestudy after the researcher and his faculty supervisor visited and asked each school’s ESLprogram directors or administrators. For example, one university indicated that their ESLinstruction did not use computer technology for supporting student’s English learning, sothey declined to participate. Another university which allowed their students toparticipate, but they only had six ESL students enrolled in summer 2008 and all in thebeginning level and all from Africa. Without appropriate language translativequestionnaire, those students may not be suited to join in the study. So, those studentswere not included. The main participants of the study came from the following schools asshown in Table 1: Houston Community College, University of Houston, and ChineseCommunity Center.Table 1Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by School Participated School Frequency Percent University of Houston (Main campus) 213 64.7 Houston Community College 67 20.4 Chinese Community Center 49 14.9 Total 329 100.0 The age range of the participants (N=329) in the study was from 15 to 74, and themean of age was 29.7 (SD = 12.2). Figure 1 presented that the largest group ofrespondents was represented by the age group 21-30 years old (44.1%), the second andthird largest age groups were students’ ages under 20 years old (21.9%) and students’
  • 110. 98ages from 31 to 40 years old (15.8%).Figure 1Composition of Participative Sample by Age Group 180 160 145 140 120 100 72 80 52 60 40 24 12 13 11 20 0 Under 20 21-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years 51-60 years Above 61 Missing years old old old old old years old Table 2 showed the difference in age distribution of participants from differentschools. Student’s age under 20 years old (N=71) and 20-30 years old (N= 125) arecentralized in the University of Houston. Twenty eight students, age from 30-40 years old,selected to enroll in Houston Community College for their English learning; and theChinese Community Center had more above 60 years old senior LEP students.Table 2Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by School and Age Group Under 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Above 60 years old years old years old years old years old years oldHoustonCommunity 1 17 28 13 3 1CollegeUniversityof Houston 71 125 15 1ChineseCommunity 3 9 10 9 12Center
  • 111. 99 The sample (N=329) included 147 males (44.7%) and 180 females (54.7%), asshown in Figure 2. The gender composition of the sample population included tworespondents who did not indicate gender.Figure 2Composition of Participative Sample by Gender 200 180 147 150 100 50 20 0 Male Female Missing As shown in Table 4, among the 329 LEP students use 20 different nativelanguages were represented, including Chinese speaking group(25.5%), Spanish speakinggroup (23.7%), French speaking group (14%), Korean speaking group(7%), and “Others”speaking group (27.1%). The “Others” category of learners comprised of 89 persons whouse 16 different native languages. All of the “Others” participants responded to theEnglish version of the TAM in CALL Questionnaire. The native languages composition ofthe sample population is shown in Table 3, and there were nine respondents who did notindicate native language.
  • 112. 100Table 3Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by Native Language Group Native Language Group Frequency PercentValid Chinese 84 25.5 Spanish 78 23.7 French 46 14.0 Korean 23 7.0 Vietnamese 21 6.4 Arabic 28 8.5 Bambara 2 .6 Gujarati 2 .6 Turkish 7 2.1 Russian 9 2.7 Portugues 5 1.5 Others Kazakh 3 .9 Tajik 2 .6 Thai 2 .6 Gorane 2 .6 Hindi 1 .3 Japanese 1 .3 Indian 1 .3 Farsi 1 .3 English 2 .6 Super-total 89 27.1 Total 320 97.3Missing System 9* 2.7Total 329 100.0* Participant did not indicate native language Figure 3 presents data regarding the participant’s previous educational level. Asshown, 160 respondents (48.6%) had a college or university degree, 90 LEP students(27.4%) possessed high school diploma, and 35 students (10.6%) graduated fromsecondary school.
  • 113. 101Figure 3Composition of Participative Sample by Previous Educational Level 180 160 160 140 120 100 90 80 60 35 40 29 14 20 1 0 Elementary Secondary High school College or Postgraduate Missing school school university Most of the students who studied in the University of Houston had more collegeor university degree (N=123). On the contrary, students enrolled in Houston CommunityCollege had more secondary school degree (N=27) than college or university degrees(N=13), as shown in Table 4.Table 4Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by School Location and PreviousEducational Level College or Elementary Secondary High school university Postgraduate school level school level level level levelHoustonCommunity 11 27 13 13 2CollegeUniversity 2 1 61 123 26of HoustonChineseCommunity 1 7 16 24 1CenterTotal 14 35 90 160 29
  • 114. 102 Table 5 presented data regarding the LEP student’s years of previous technologyexperience. Technology experience is based on the number of years using the computerand the Internet. As shown, 104 LEP participants (31.6%) had technology experience ofmore than 10 years, 56 respondents owned 7-9 years technology experience, 69 studentshad experience of using the computer and the Internet within 4-6 years, and 27 studentswhose actual technology experiences were less than one year.Table 5Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by Previous Technology Experiences Frequency PercentValid Under 1 year 27 8.2 1-3 years 50 15.2 4-6 years 69 21.0 7-9 years 56 17.0 More than 10 years 104 31.6 Total 306 93.0Missing System 23* 7.0Total 329 100.0* Participant did not indicate previous technology experienceResearch Question One What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived usefulness of CALLprograms for English learning? The third section of the survey instrument examined LEP students’ perceptions of“Usefulness” toward using CALL program for enhancing English learning. The
  • 115. 103following six statements measured the LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALLprograms found on the entitled TAM in CALL Questionnaire was: 1. Using computers and the Internet in my English learning can enable me to achieve a higher English level more quickly. 2. Using the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, can improve my English learning performance. 3. Using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room can provide me more opportunities for communicating and interacting with my ESL teachers and peers. 4. Using the computer learning software and the Internet’s World Wide Web can help me get more ESL learning resources and materials to enhance my English learning. 5. Using the computer learning software and the Internet’s World Wide Web can expose me to the American culture as well as learning English. 6. I believe that computer technologies and ESL learning software are useful for fulfilling my ESL learning goals. Mean scores of the response are shown in Table 6. Among these statements,“Using the computer learning software and the Internet’s World Wide Web can help meget more ESL learning resources and materials to enhance my English learning” was themost favored statement (M = 3.87, SD= 1.059) and “Using the computer software, suchas Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, can improve my English learning performance”was the least favored statement (M= 3.76, SD = 1.036).
  • 116. 104Table 6Means of Six Statements for LEP Participants Perceived “Usefulness” of CALLPrograms for English Learning (N=323) Statement N Mean Std. Deviation Using computers and the Internet in my English learning can enable me to achieve 324 3.81 1.080 a higher English level more quickly Using the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, can 323 3.76 1.036 improve my English learning performance Using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room can provide me more opportunities for communicating and 324 3.82 1.110 interacting with my ESL teachers and peers Using the computer learning software and the Internets World Wide Web can help me get more ESL learning resources and 324 3.87 1.059 materials to enhance my English learning Using the computer learning software and the Internets World Wide Web can expose me to the American culture as well as 324 3.77 1.081 learning English I believe that computer technologies and ESL learning software are useful for 324 3.86 .990 fulfilling my ESL learning goals To examine the reliability of six scale items, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha wasapplied to estimate internal consistency of scores. According to Gall, Gall, and Borg(2003), reliability coefficients vary between values of 0.00 and 1.00, with 1.00 indicatingperfect reliability, 0.00 indicating no reliability, and 0.62 indicating acceptable. The sixscale items of “Usefulness” returned an internal consistency alpha of .926, as shown inTable 7. It meant that this section instrument had a fairly high estimation of internalconsistency and reliability.
  • 117. 105Table 7Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for LEP Students Perceive “Usefulness” of CALLPrograms for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL Cronbachs Alpha Cronbachs Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .926 .926 6 To answer the research question one, null hypotheses from Ho1 to Ho5 wereconducted to examine whether a significant difference exists among LEP students’background factors their perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancingEnglish learning and their background factors. Data analysis of each null hypothesisutilized for the study was presented in tables and a narrative form. Each null hypothesiseither was rejected or not rejected based on the statistical test of significance at the .05level. If a significant difference was found, post hoc analysis Scheffe or Least SignificantDifference (LSD) was carried out to further detect the differences. The following findingswere revealed by applying the one-way ANOVA to the data:(1) Null Hypothesis One There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived“Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among their nativelanguage backgrounds as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. Null hypothesis one argued that native language is not a factor that influencesdifferences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs forenhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 8revealed that there was a significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALLprograms among different native language groups with a mean score of , F (4, 309) =7.49, p = .000. The null hypothesis was rejected. The alternative hypothesis that
  • 118. 106statistically significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs amongnative language groups, therefore, was accepted.Table 8One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and amongGroup Means of ESL Native Language Groups on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness”Subscale (N=314) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 823.220 4 205.805 7.487 .000*Within Groups 8493.748 309 27.488 Total 9316.968 313* p < .05 To further examine the differences, a Scheffe post hoc analysis was conducted asshown in Table 8.1. A statistically significant difference was found between Chineselanguage learners and the “Others” language learners (p = .004). Similarly, a significantdifference was also noted between Spanish version survey respondents and “Others”category respondents who adopted English version survey (p = .000).Table 8.1Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM inCALL “Usefulness” Subscale (N=314) Mean Difference(I) Native Languages (J) Native Languages (I-J) Std. Error Sig.Chinese Spanish -.741 .830 .938 French 1.079 .971 .872 Korean 3.148 1.257 .183 Others 3.161(*) .804 .004 (Table 8.1 Continued)
  • 119. 107(Table 8.1 Continued) (I) Native Languages (J) Native Languages Mean Difference Std. Error Sig. (I-J) Spanish Chinese .741 .830 .938 French 1.820 .984 .491 Korean 3.890 1.267 .054 Others 3.903(*) .820 .000 French Chinese -1.079 .971 .872 Spanish -1.820 .984 .491 Korean 2.070 1.364 .680 Others 2.083 .963 .324 Korean Chinese -3.148 1.257 .183 Spanish -3.890 1.267 .054 French -2.070 1.364 .680 Others .013 1.251 1.000 Others Chinese -3.161(*) .804 .004 Spanish -3.903(*) .820 .000 French -2.083 .963 .324 Korean -.013 1.251 1.000* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.(2) Null Hypothesis Two There is no statistically significant difference between male and female LEPstudents’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning asmeasured by the TAM in CALL Questionnaire.
  • 120. 108 Null hypothesis two stated that gender is not a factor that influences differences inmeasured LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancingEnglish learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 9 revealed thatthere was no significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programsbetween male and female LEP students with a mean score of , F (1, 319) = 1.73, p = .189.Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.Table 9One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between means ofESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale (N=321) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 50.731 1 50.731 1.734 .189 Within Groups 9334.092 319 29.260 Total 9384.822 320* p < .05.(3) Null Hypothesis Three There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived“Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM inCALL Questionnaire, among different age groups. Null hypothesis three stated that age is not a factor that influences differences inmeasured LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancingEnglish learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 10 revealed thatthere was a significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs amongdifferent age groups with a mean score of , F (5, 306) = 4.53, p = .001. The nullhypothesis was rejected. The alternative hypothesis that statistically significant difference
  • 121. 109in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs between age groups was thereforeaccepted.Table 10One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and amongGroup Means of ESL Age Groups on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale (N=312) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 639.943 5 127.989 4.528 .001*Within Groups 8649.173 306 28.265 Total 9289.115 311* p < .05. To further examine the differences, a Scheffe post hoc analysis was conducted.However, the result Table 10.1 presented that there were no mean difference betweeneach age group and a p value shown in Scheffe test.Table 10.1Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM in CALL“Usefulness” Subscale (N=312) Mean Difference(I) Age Group (J) Age Group (I-J) Std. Error Sig.Under 20 years old 21-30 years old -.181 .779 1.000 31-40 years old -2.977 .976 .101 41-50 years old -3.855 1.260 .099 51-60 years old -2.825 1.726 .749 Above 60 years old -2.804 1.607 .69321-30 years old Under 20 years old .181 .779 1.000 31-40 years old -2.795 .861 .064 41-50 years old -3.674 1.173 .084 51-60 years old -2.643 1.663 .772 Above 60 years old -2.622 1.540 .71531-40 years old Under 20 years old 2.977 .976 .101 21-30 years old 2.795 .861 .064 41-50 years old -.878 1.312 .994 51-60 years old .152 1.764 1.000 Above 60 years old .173 1.649 1.000 (Table 10.1 Continued)
  • 122. 110(Table 10.1 Continued) (I) Age Group (J) Age Group Mean Difference Std. Error Sig. (I-J) 41-50 years old Under 20 years old 3.855 1.260 .099 21-30 years old 3.674 1.173 .084 31-40 years old .878 1.312 .994 51-60 years old 1.030 1.936 .998 Above 60 years old 1.051 1.831 .997 51-60 years old Under 20 years old 2.825 1.726 .749 21-30 years old 2.643 1.663 .772 31-40 years old -.152 1.764 1.000 41-50 years old -1.030 1.936 .998 Above 60 years old .021 2.178 1.000 Above 60 years old Under 20 years old 2.804 1.607 .693 21-30 years old 2.622 1.540 .715 31-40 years old -.173 1.649 1.000 41-50 years old -1.051 1.831 .997 51-60 years old -.021 2.178 1.000* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. A Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was conducted to examine thedifference continually. The LSD test uses the t distribution rather than the F distributionof the Scheffe tests. According to Garson (2008), LSD test is the most liberal of the posthoc tests. It is not a range test, but instead is based on the t-statistic and can be considereda form of t-test. It compares all possible pairs of means after the F-test rejects the nullhypothesis that groups do not differ. The result further yielded a statistically significant (p< .05) difference between thefollowing pairs of age groups as shown in Table 10.2: 1. “under 20 years” age group and “31 to 40 years” age group (p = .002) 2. “under 20 years” age group and “41 to 50 years” age group (p = .002) 3. “21 to 30 years” age group and the “31 to 40 years” age group (p =.001) 4. “21 to 30 years” age group and “41 to 50 years” age group (p =.002)
  • 123. 111Table 10.2LSD Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM in CALL“Usefulness” Subscale (N=312) Mean Difference (I) Age Group (J) Age Group (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Under 20 years old 21-30 years old -.181 .779 .816 31-40 years old -2.977(*) .976 .002 41-50 years old -3.855(*) 1.260 .002 51-60 years old -2.825 1.726 .103 Above 60 years old -2.804 1.607 .082 21-30 years old Under 20 years old .181 .779 .816 31-40 years old -2.795(*) .861 .001 41-50 years old -3.674(*) 1.173 .002 51-60 years old -2.643 1.663 .113 Above 60 years old -2.622 1.540 .090 31-40 years old Under 20 years old 2.977(*) .976 .002 21-30 years old 2.795(*) .861 .001 41-50 years old -.878 1.312 .504 51-60 years old .152 1.764 .931 Above 60 years old .173 1.649 .916 41-50 years old Under 20 years old 3.855(*) 1.260 .002 21-30 years old 3.674(*) 1.173 .002 31-40 years old .878 1.312 .504 51-60 years old 1.030 1.936 .595 Above 60 years old 1.051 1.831 .566 51-60 years old Under 20 years old 2.825 1.726 .103 21-30 years old 2.643 1.663 .113 31-40 years old -.152 1.764 .931 41-50 years old -1.030 1.936 .595 Above 60 years old .021 2.178 .992 Above 60 years old Under 20 years old 2.804 1.607 .082 21-30 years old 2.622 1.540 .090 31-40 years old -.173 1.649 .916 41-50 years old -1.051 1.831 .566 51-60 years old -.021 2.178 .992* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
  • 124. 112(4) Null Hypothesis Four There is no statistically significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALLprograms for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnairebased on LEP students’ previous educational levels. Null hypothesis four assumed that educational level is not a factor that influencesdifferences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs forenhancing English learning. As shown in Table 11, the result of a one-way ANOVArevealed that there was no significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALLprograms among different educational level group with a mean score of , F (4, 317) =1.36, p = .249. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.Table 11One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and amongGroup Means of ESL Educational Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale(N=322) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 159.058 4 39.765 1.355 .249 Within Groups 9301.218 317 29.341 Total 9460.276 321* p < .05(5) Null Hypothesis Five There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived“Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM inCALL Questionnaire, among different technology experience groups. Null hypothesis five stated that technology experience is not a factor thatinfluences differences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALLprograms for enhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown inTable 12 revealed that there was no significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of
  • 125. 113CALL programs among different the years of technology experience groups with a meanscore of , F (4, 295) = .111, p = .987. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.Table 12One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and amongGroup Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness”Subscale (N=300) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 13.716 4 3.429 .111 .978 Within Groups 9086.214 295 30.801 Total 9099.930 299* p < .05.Research Question Two What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived ease of use of CALLprograms for English learning? The forth section of the survey instrument examined LEP students’ perceived“Ease of Use” of CALL program for enhancing English learning. Statement 7 to 12 wasregarded as the scale items for collecting the “Ease of Use” subscale scores from eachESL respondent: 7. I am willing to study English with the computer because I find that it is easy to get the computer to do whatever I want it to do, whenever and wherever I choose. 8. It is easy for me to use the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, as tools for showing my English learning progress. 9. I have no problem using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room to communicate and interact with my ESL teachers and peers.
  • 126. 114 10. When I use the computer learning software and the Internet’s World Wide Web, I find that it is easy to gain the ESL learning resources and materials what I need them. 11. I find that it is easy for me to learn more basic knowledge of English and American culture through the computer and the Internet. 12. I believe that operating the computer and using computer assisted language learning programs is easy. Three hundred eighteen respondents completed this section survey. As shown inTable 13, the mean scores of each scale item were from 3.57 to 3.80. The statement “Ibelieve that operating the computer and using computer assisted language learningprograms is easy” (M= 3.80) was stronger than the statement “I am willing to studyEnglish with the computer because I find that it is easy to get the computer to dowhatever I want it to do, whenever and wherever I choose” (M=3.57).Table 13Means of Six Statements Contributing to LEP Participants Perceived “Ease of Use” ofCALL Programs for English Learning (N=318) Statement N Mean Std. DeviationI am willing to study English with the computerbecause I find that it is easy to get the computerto do whatever I want it to do, whenever and 318 3.57 1.184wherever I chooseIt is easy for me to use the computer software,such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, as 318 3.66 1.068tools for showing my English learning progressI have no problem using email, electronicdiscussion board, or online chat-room tocommunicate and interact with my ESL 318 3.75 1.063teachers and peers (Table 13 Continued)
  • 127. 115(Table13 Continued) Statement N Mean Std. Deviation When I use the computer learning software and the Internet’s World Wide Web, I find that it is 318 3.75 .976 easy to gain the ESL learning resources and materials what I need them. I find that it is easy for me to learn more basic knowledge of English and American culture 318 3.64 1.022 through the computer and the Internet I believe that operating the computer and using computer assisted language learning programs 318 3.80 .993 is easy For examining the reliability of these statements in this section, Cronbach’scoefficient alpha was employed again to estimate internal consistency of scores. The sixscale items of “Ease of Use” returned an internal consistency alpha of .914, as shown inTable 13.1. This section of the instrument had a fairly high estimation of internalconsistency and reliability.Table 13.1Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for LEP Students Perceive “Ease of Use” of CALLPrograms for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL Cronbachs Alpha Cronbachs Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .914 .916 6 Null hypotheses six through ten were conducted to examine whether there are asignificant difference between LEP students’ personal backgrounds and their perceived“Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. Tables and narrativeform were used to present results. Each null hypothesis either be rejected or be notrejected was based on the statistic significance which also reflected in the tables. Thefollowing findings were revealed by applying the one-way ANOVA to the data:
  • 128. 116(6). Null Hypothesis Six There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease ofUse” of CALL programs for enhancing their English learning among native languagebackgrounds as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. Null hypothesis six stated that native language is not a factor that influencesdifferences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs forenhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 14revealed that there was a significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALLprograms among different native language groups with a mean score of , F (4, 304) =2.55, p = .040. The null hypothesis was rejected. The alternative hypothesis thatstatistically significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs amongnative language groups, therefore, was accepted.Table 14One-way ANOVA to test the statistical significance of differences between and amonggroup means of ESL Native Language on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” subscale(N=309) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 286.232 4 71.558 2.546 .040 Within Groups 8544.254 304 28.106 Total 8830.485 308* p < .05. To further examine these differences, a Scheffe post hoc analysis was conductedas shown in Table 14.1. A statistically significant difference was found between Chineselanguage learners and the “Others” category language learners (p = .045).
  • 129. 117Table 14.1Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM inCALL “Ease of Use” Subscale (N=309) Mean Difference (I) Native Languages (J) Native Languages (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Chinese Spanish 1.474 .847 .554 French 1.701 .984 .560 Korean 1.952 1.273 .671 Others 2.564(*) .821 .047 Spanish Chinese -1.474 .847 .554 French .227 1.000 1.000 Korean .478 1.285 .998 Others 1.089 .840 .794 French Chinese -1.701 .984 .560 Spanish -.227 1.000 1.000 Korean .252 1.379 1.000 Others .863 .977 .941 Korean Chinese -1.952 1.273 .671 Spanish -.478 1.285 .998 French -.252 1.379 1.000 Others .611 1.268 .994 Others Chinese -2.564(*) .821 .047 Spanish -1.089 .840 .794 French -.863 .977 .941 Korean -.611 1.268 .994* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
  • 130. 118(7) Null Hypothesis Seven There is no statistically significant difference in male and female LEP students’perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measuredby TAM in CALL Questionnaire. Null hypothesis seven stated that gender is not a factor that influences differencesin measured LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancingEnglish learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 15 revealed thatthere was no significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programsbetween male and female LEP students with a mean score of , F (1, 314) = .90, p = .344.Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.Table 15One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between Means ofESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale (N=316) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 25.067 1 25.067 .898 .344Within Groups 8766.056 314 27.917 Total 8791.123 315* p < .05.(8). Null Hypothesis Eight There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease ofUse” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALLQuestionnaire, among different age groups. Null hypothesis eight stated that age is not a factor to influence difference inmeasured LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancingEnglish learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 16 revealed that
  • 131. 119there was no significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs amongdifferent age groups with a mean score of , F (5, 301) = 1.56, p = .172. Therefore, thenull hypothesis was not rejected.Table 16One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and amongGroup Means of ESL Age Groups on the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale (N=307) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 219.161 5 43.832 1.559 .172Within Groups 8464.501 301 28.121 Total 8683.661 306* p < .05.(9) Null Hypothesis Nine There is no statistically significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” ofCALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALLQuestionnaire based on LEP students’ previous educational levels. Null hypothesis nine stated that educational level is not a factor to influencedifference in measured LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs forenhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 17revealed that there was no significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALLprograms among different educational level groups with a mean score of , F (4, 312) =1.14, p = .336. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.
  • 132. 120Table 17One-way ANOVA to test the statistical significance of differences between and amonggroup means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness”subscale (N=317) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 128.724 4 32.181 1.143 .336 Within Groups 8782.702 312 28.150 Total 8911.426 316* p < .05.(10). Null Hypothesis Ten There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease ofUse” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALLQuestionnaire, among different technology experience groups. Null hypothesis ten stated that technology experience is not a factor to influencedifference in measured LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs forenhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 18revealed that there was no significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALLprograms among different the years of technology experience groups with a mean scoreof , F (4, 290) = .97, p = .422. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.Table 18One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and amongGroup Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use”Subscale (N=295) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 111.673 4 27.918 .974 .422 Within Groups 8308.443 290 28.650 Total 8420.115 294* p < .05.
  • 133. 121 Qualitative Research Data Analysis The purpose of the qualitative research was to explore both ESL instructors’ andstudents’ perspectives on the roles and functions of CALL programs played in actualESL teaching and learning activities. For achieving this purpose, a series of interviewswere conducted that reflected the research questions. Nine interview questions werestructured but open-ended in order to gather information to answer research questionthree to five and help explain the quantitative findings of the study. To organize the interview information, three strategies were used in thisqualitative portion included coding, generating categories, and writing up interviewsummaries. The coding occurred by reading through the data and searching the data forregularities and patterns, as well as for topics, and then classified into categories thatrepresent different aspects of the data (Gay & Airasian, 2000). Qualitative data analysiswas done by grouping similar units of meaning together and giving these a category or atheme.Characteristics of the Qualitative Research Sample After getting permission from the participating educational institutions, sevenESL instructors and thirteen LEP students agreed to participate in the study. Allinterviews were conducted in August 2008, and all subjects were informed of the purposeof the study. Throughout this chapter, the participants are noted as T1 for ESL instructormember 1, T2 for ESL instructor member 2, etc., and LEP students are noted as S1, S2,etc.
  • 134. 122 Seven instructor interviewees came from two different participated schools whichinclude six female instructors and one male instructor. Three instructors are teaching ESLcourses with CALL programs in the Houston Community College (T1, T2, T3) and fourESL teachers who are in-service in the Language and Culture Center of the University ofHouston (T4, T5, T6, T7). These instructors’ teaching experiences are varied from threeyears to more than thirty years. Thirteen student interviewees came from three differently participated schoolswhich included three male and ten female students. Three students are from the HoustonCommunity College (S1, S2, S3), four students are from the University of Houston (S4,S5, S6), and six students are from the Chinese Community Center (S7, S8, S9, S10, S11,S12, S13). These students’ English skills are varied from the beginning level to theadvance English degree. The verbal responses reflect actual comments and were notrevised.Research Question Three What are the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs in actual ESLteaching and learning? To answer this research question, all interviewees members were asked threeinterview questions to clarify their viewpoints about the advantages and disadvantages ofCALL programs for ESL teaching and learning. The first question was to understand theeffects of CALL programs on interviewees’ ESL teaching and learning experiences. AllESL instructors pointed out that computer technology and CALL programs have haddeep influences in their teaching.
  • 135. 123 Five instructors indicated that computer technology and CALL programs can helpthem to get the teaching materials and enhance their teaching contents (T1, T2, T3, T6,T7). One instructor indicated that “The room I am teaching right now has a computer anda projector. We use them during the class events. We go online to check or search theinformation and then discuss” (T4). Another instructor also stated that she created herpersonal website and posted learning resources for her students. “Although there aremany learning resources on the Internet, they may not be very good. So, I create mypersonal website and post useful learning resource to my students” (T5). The computertechnology had changed their teaching methods and pedagogy. In addition, onlineresources and activities have become necessary supporting teaching material in their ESLclassrooms. One instructor further pointed out her attitude toward using computer technologyin her ESL teaching: I regard the computer and the Internet as a tool. I am like an old fashion teacher. I like to use blackboard in my classes rather than computers… but I still have to say that computer technology really influence my teaching because I often use the Internet to search the teaching resources (T1).Compared with the traditional ESL instruction, the application of CALL programs in theESL pedagogy is a new approach. Even though some ESL instructors still preferred thetraditional teaching method to the CALL teaching approach, infusing online resources orapplying CALL learning activities into the classrooms seemed unavoidable in currentESL education.
  • 136. 124 When student interviewees were asked the same question, ten of the studentsconfirmed that computer technology and its assisted learning programs have had aninfluence on their English learning. Most students indicated that computers and CALLprograms provided them more opportunities to learn English (S3, S4, S7, S8, S9, S10,S11), two students mentioned that the electronic translation software is useful to them forunderstanding the word meanings or reading the online articles (S6, S10), and twostudents noted that writing and reading English emails have become their routine methodfor communicating with their friends and improving their writing (S8, S11). There were four students who announced that computer technology and CALLprograms did not influence their English learning. Two students indicated that“computers cannot give the correct and immediate feedback” as the main reason whythey refused to use CALL programs for assisting their English learning. “I often havemany questions, but computer just give me an answer…the computer is not like theteacher can help me immediately or understand what I want” (S2). That interviewee wasa beginning English level learner. She often had questions in her learning process, but thecomputer did not provided immediate answers. In her opinion, the functions of thecomputer are not good enough to satisfy the beginning learners’ learning needs. The other reason why LEP students did not confirm the effect of CALL programson their English learning was “lack technology knowledge”. One student pointed out thatshe did not have any idea to operate the computer and CALL programs although shebelieves that there are some useful CALL programs in the school’s computer lab (S13).Another student rejects to use CALL programs even in the school’s CALL learningschedule. She stated that she cannot learn English and technology knowledge at the same
  • 137. 125time (S1). Without basic technology knowledge, CALL programs to some students maybecome unimportant supplements. It is necessary to provide basic training for students inorder to get them started using CALL programs in their English learning.(1) Advantages of CALL After the first interview question, the second interview question, based on theresearch of Lee (2000), was asked. In Lee’s article, he pointed out that provide practicethrough the experiential learning, offer more learning motivation, enhance achievement,increase authentic materials, encourage interactive activities, emphasize the individualneeds, and enlarge globe understanding are the main advantages when applying CALLprograms in ESL teaching and learning. All interviewees were asked what advantagesthat CALL programs have through their actual ESL teaching and learning experiences.The frequencies of the interviewees’ responses were listed in Table 19.Table 19Frequency of Advantages of CALL Programs for ESL teaching and learning FrequencyAdvantages of CALL Programs ESL Instructor LEP Studentsprovide practice through the 5 3experiential learningoffer more learning motivation 4 4enhance achievement 4 2increase authentic materials 7 8encourage interactive activities 2 6emphasize the individual needs 3 4enlarge globe understanding 0 1
  • 138. 126 “Increase authentic materials” was the most frequent response when answeringthis interview question. One instructor stated that “I had accessed a lot of materials. Forexample, different websites were published by different publishers. If the website doesn’tactually give me materials to use in class, some of them will give me the ideas that I canuse in my classes” (T6). Another instructor further expressed that online materials are notonly suitable for the instructors’ teaching, but also for the students’ learning (T5).Similarly, most LEP students confirmed that the best advantage of CALL programs is toprovide them a great deal of online resources for their English learning. One studentespecially pointed out two useful websites: “There are many useful learning resources onthe ESL websites, such as VOANews.com (Voice of America) and RepeatAfterUs.com. Ioften visit these websites to practice my listening and reading” (S9). Not all ESL instructors and learners held the same viewpoint toward CALLprogram. “Providing practice through the experiential learning” ranked as the secondimportant advantage of CALL programs by five instructors (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5), but onlythree students thought the statement is important to them as an advantage (S3, S7, S12).On the contrary, “encourage interactive activities” ranked as the second importantadvantage of CALL programs by six students (S4, S5, S6, S8, S10, S11), but only twoinstructors thought the statement was important to them as an advantage (T6, T7).Students hoped that CALL programs can offer them more interactive opportunities tocommunicating with their teachers, but instructors did not show their enthusiasm to usethe interactive functions of CALL program to communicate with their students. Duringthe interviews, only two instructors expressed that they often used email or online chat
  • 139. 127room to interact with their students. Other instructors preferred using the traditional wayto interact with their students.(2) Disadvantages of CALL To discuss the disadvantages of CALL programs, four instructors believed thatthere is no disadvantage of CALL programs for ESL teaching or learning (T3, T4, T5,T7). One instructor indicated that she did not see any disadvantage of CALL programs.“Just do it. When you use it, you will know the advantages are always more than thedisadvantages” (T7). In her opinion, computer technology and CALL programs havemany potential advantages in ESL teaching and learning, and the only disadvantage isthat people did not use it at all.Another instructor held the same opinion: No disadvantage. I just think we don’t use enough. Computer technology has much more potential abilities. For example, we have level-one students. They probably get the benefits from graphic software in the beginning. You see the pictures, you see the words. I want my students use it more and more (T4).The other two instructors further indicated that to eliminate the limitations of CALLprograms is teachers’ responsibility: If students had higher motivator, CALL program to them is great. Therefore, teachers should motivate students. In addition, teachers should also do the background works. Teachers should know what students need, and then give them appropriate links (T5). No disadvantages. In fact, it depends on teachers. If teachers can support and help students and themselves to overcome the problems, computer and the Internet are
  • 140. 128 very good for learning and teaching. For example, if teachers can spend time to learn new programs, there is no technology knowledge update problem (T3).According to these instructors’ statements, the disadvantages of CALL programs will notexist if teachers can expand their personal technology skills and help students overcometheir technologic problems. On the other hand, one instructor did point out some disadvantages of CALLprograms according to her experiences. The first disadvantage of computer is that the computer may cause student to make some misunderstandings sometimes because the computer cannot explain the word’s meaning well, and it may give wrong information to LEP students. The second disadvantage is that using the computer and the Internet will reduce students’ opportunities to explore other learning resources. For example, students will not like to go to library for search of print materials or have more real communications with real people. The third disadvantage is that using a CALL program which I am not very familiar with may increase my workload (T1).“Increase the workload” was recognized as the disadvantage by the other two instructors(T2, T6). “It spent me too much time because there are many available teaching andlearning resources, and I should check one by one before I provide to my students” (T6).“In the past, I just prepare teaching materials through the traditional textbook, but now Ihave to search extra teaching materials through the Internet or CALL programs in orderto satisfy students’ needs” (T2).
  • 141. 129 When student interviewees were asked the same question, the answers about thedisadvantages of CALL programs were varied. Four students did not have any commentbecause they preferred traditional ESL pedagogies to the learning methods of CALLprograms (S2, S3, S12, S13). Three students indicated that they relied on computer toomuch and they have the spelling problem now (S4, S5, S8). One student indicated: I did not pay attention to the word spelling because the computer often has the spelling correcting function. It can check words for me. So, I made a lot of spelling mistakes when I wrote English by hand. It is a disadvantage (S5).The spelling correcting function may help ESL learners to recheck their writing, but mayalso influence students’ spelling skill at the same time. All of disadvantages of CALLprograms that ESL instructors and students mentioned were organized in the Figure 4.Figure 4Frequency of Disadvantages of CALL Programs for ESL teaching and learning No comment Influence spelling skill Hurt eyesught &healthy Student Increase teaching or learning load Instructor Software is imperfect No Disadvantage 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Research Question Four What is the role of CALL programs in current ESL instructions? To answer this research question, all interviewees members were asked threeinterview questions to clarify their viewpoints about the roles of CALL programs in their
  • 142. 130ESL teaching and learning and to understand when, where, and how they use CALLprograms in their ESL teaching and learning. All seven ESL instructors indicated that the main purpose why they use computerand the Internet is to prepare the teaching materials and enrich their teaching contents.When further detail were asked to instructors about how often they use CALL programsto support their ESL teaching, the average time ESL teachers spent in preparing teachingmaterials is four hours per week. Three instructors indicated that the time they spent onCALL programs is often depended on two factors: the length of semester and the contentof textbook. I did not use computer and the Internet too much in the summer semester because the summer class is short. I have to teach whole textbook, so I did not have time to use computer and the Internet frequently (T3). The time I spend in computer for prepare teaching materials is depended on the textbook. For example, this semester I had found two good textbooks, so I did not spend too much time on computer for preparing my teaching contents (T5). If you have a good textbook, you don’t need the supplements so much. Sometimes, you have to write some text if the publishing does not give you (T6). On the other hand, the average time LEP students spent on CALL programs wastotally different with instructors’ time, and it was often decided by the student’stechnology background. For students without technology background or with littletechnology knowledge, they spend little time (S2, S12) or none (S1, S13) on usingtechnology to enhance their learning. On the contrary, students who have rich technologyexperiences often spend more than 10 hours per day for using the computer and the
  • 143. 131Internet. For example, one student stated that “I always open my computer and access tothe Internet 24 hours” (S5), and another student further announced that “I can have no TV,but I cannot have no computer. I do everything with computer” (S8). According to students’ statement, “lack of technology knowledge” was the factorthat impacted students’ pleasures for employing CALL program to assist their Englishlearning. To remove this barrier and infuse CALL programs into ESL educationsuccessfully, helping students acquire basic technology knowledge is an indispensablemission for all ESL leaders and instructors. Administrators and designers of ESLprogram may have to consider adding basic technology trainings into their ESLcurriculum in order for all students can get the benefits of CALL programs. Through the student interview, three extra factors, which influenced students’time spending on CALL programs, were revealed in the study. The first factor was the“student’s attitude toward technology”. Two students mentioned that because theirchildren use the computer and the Internet for entertainment instead of study everyday,this kind of behavior caused their resentment and they refused to spend time on thecomputer (S1, S13). From this case, the interviewees’ attitudes toward technology wereinfluenced by their personal environments. The “gender” and “age” were the followingfactors which may influence student’s time spending on CALL programs. Two femalestudents declared that they were busy with household daily duties, so they did not havemuch time to use CALL programs for their English learning (S1, S2). Another elderfemale student indicated she did have time to learn English with CALL programs. Thegender factor was not a problem to her because her children already grew up, and she didnot have to deal with too many household jobs.
  • 144. 132 Finally, “culture background” could be the factor influence student’s technologyacceptance. One instructor pointed out that Asian students are often good at computertechnology. Their countries usually have more technology infrastructure, so they can getmore technology exercise opportunities. Oppositely, students came from Africancountries may have fewer occasions for receiving technology training, so they may notspend too much time on computers and CALL programs due to their poor technologyskills. To further understand what roles of CALL programs played in actual ESLteaching and learning, the third interview question, based on the study of Taylor (1980),was asked. In Taylor’s theory, CALL programs have three different roles: Tutor, Tool,and Tutee. After explaining Taylor’s theory, all instructors and students were asked whatrole of CALL programs is the most important for their ESL teaching and learning.Thirteen interviewees believed that the role of CALL programs should be “Tool”, threeinterviewees chose “Tutor” as the role, and two interviewees indicated that “Tutee” ismore significant to them. The result was organized in Figure 5.Figure 5Frequency of the best roles of CALL Programs for ESL teaching and learning No comment Tutee Student Instructor Tool Tutor 0 2 4 6 8 10
  • 145. 133(1) Role of Tutor One instructor explained why she chooses “Tutor” as the major role of CALLprograms because she believed that evaluating and tracking students’ learning progressesis the most important thing that CALL programs should provide. She said that “as a tutor,CALL programs can offer reading, vocabulary, or other kind practices to evaluatestudents work and keep the record” (T4). Another instructor also selected “Tutor” but sheindicated the role of CALL programs should be changed by different ESL courses needs:“If I teach writing, I will say the tool…. But, I am not teaching writing now, so I think itis the tutor” (T5). Similarly, one LEP student held the same answer. She stated that “themost important role of computers to me may be the tutor because it can record and tellme what learning progress I had made” (S1).(2) Role of Tool The other students seemed did not agree with the “tutor” role is the main rolethrough their CALL programs learning experiences. They indicated that I use computers and the Internet to watch English webpage and join English learning activities, but I never use computer and the Internet to practice my TOFEL exam (S4) When I studied in high school, I used computer to play a lot English games. Through those games, I learned how to spell English and find out words’ meanings, and I also watched DVD movie with English subtitle though the multimedia software. So, I want to say the most important role is tool rather than tutor or tutee (S6)
  • 146. 134 One instructor supported this opinion and made an additional remark. Heindicated that he did not need the computer to evaluate students’ learning achievementbecause he can access that by the traditional way. Students may feel uncomfortabletoward computer if using computer to test or evaluate them (T6). In his belief, thefunctions of computers and CALL programs should be more than testing students’learning results. CALL programs should inspire students’ learning motivation and theirlifelong learning interesting. The other three instructors (T1, T3, T7) and seven students (S2, S3, S5, S8, S9,S10, S11) selected “Tool” as the major role for applying CALL programs. The reasonsthey choose “Tool” were: vary their teaching and learning paths, provide interactiveactivities, and facilitate the effectiveness of teaching and learning.(3) Role of Tutee One instructor and one student asserted that “Tutee” should be the main role ofCALL programs played in ESL learning. One instructor indicated that “each individualhas his or her learning needs. So, CALL programs should follow and satisfy students’needs as the “Tutee”” (T2). In her opinion, the purpose of CALL programs is to helpstudents to overcome the learning gaps and to acquire English skills. Therefore, CALLprograms should cater to students’ requirements. One student stood for this viewpoint. Hehopes that computer can teach him what he does not know, and CALL programs canfollow his needs to provide the learning and training. He did not need just read-madeprograms because some of them maybe not suitable for his current English level (S7).
  • 147. 135Research Question Five What are the second language learning efficiency expectations of LEP studentsand ESL instructors utilizing CALL programs? To answer this research question, all ESL instructors and students were askedthree interview questions to clarify their expectation for future CALL programs. The firstquestion was to identify whether these instructors and students are satisfied with thecurrent functions of CALL programs or not. All seven instructors indicated that thecurrent computer technology and CALL programs are good enough for ESL education.But students held different opinions toward the same question. Only four LEP studentsare satisfied with CALL programs (S3, S4, S9, S11), four students indicated that someCALL programs are not perfect enough to meet their learning needs (S1, S8, S10, S12),and five students remained neutral or had no comment toward this question (S2, S5, S6,S7, S13). To further find out the reasons made students unsatisfied with CALL program,one answer appeared several time during the interviews: the translating function of CALLprograms. Three students, who use difference native languages included Spanish,Vietnamese, and Chinese, mentioned that the electronic translation software is moreconvenient than the traditional dictionary for their English learning, but the qualities oftranslation still have more spaces to be improved: The computer can translate English to Spanish for me, let me understand the word’s meanings and help me finish homework that teacher gave us… but the translation is not good. It gives me wrong words sometimes (S3).
  • 148. 136 I often go to the New York Time website to read news and articles. When I read some words that I did not understand, I can use the electronic dictionary to find out the meaning immediately. This way helps me a lot for improving my English level…but I hope the translating software can translate whole article accurately one day, not just word to word (S5). Electronic dictionary can translate my Chinese sentences to English sentences immediately and give me some examples for assisting my writing…but the translating software is not very smart now, it cannot translate my sentences perfectly (S11). To identify the functions of CALL programs on ESL education, the secondquestion was asked about what kind of English skills can be improved effectively whenlearning English with computer technology. These language skills included listening,reading, writing, and speaking. During the interviews, three instructors and two students(T1, T2, T3, T5, T7, S8, S11) chose the “Listening” skill to be their answers, twoinstructors and six students (T4, T6, S1, S3, S4, S6, S10, S12) regarded the “Reading”skill as the best one, one instructor and one student (T1, S2) believed that CALLprograms are good for improving the “Writing” skill, and two students (S7, S9) thoughtthat they can learn more “Speaking” skill with CALL programs. Two students (S5, S13)did not make any comment to this question. The result was shown in Figure 6.
  • 149. 137Figure 6Frequency of English Skills Can Be Improved Effectively When Using CALL Programsfor ESL Learning No comment Speaking Student Writing Instructor Reading Listening 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 One instructor pointed out the reason why she chose the “Listening” skill as themost promoting skill. She said: “It is not easy to find the structured listening activitiesoutside of the Internet” (T5). Another instructor further explained that “you can playthem (listening resources) again and again. I often give me students when the book hasthe CD, and I always give my students listening exercise, do them, listen to them tentimes” (T7). For the “Reading “skill, six student confirmed that CALL programs can improvethis skill a lot, but only two instructors agreed with this opinion. One instructor indicatedthat there are rich reading resources on the Internet web pages. If students can read oneonline articles everyday, their English level will progress rapidly (T6). One studentfurther made a clear expression and stated that “I like to talk with people face to face, socomputer can not help me to improve my speaking skill. But, for the reading, onlinearticles are more interesting than the textbook” (S10).
  • 150. 138 To identify what kind of English skills cannot be improved effectively whenlearning English with CALL programs, two instructors (T3, T4) picked the “Writing”skill as their answer. One instructor noted that “computer can help improve students’writing skill but it is not the best teacher for their writing. So, I probably will not useCALL programs in writing class unless I find real good software. In general, work withindividual teacher for improving writing will be better” (T4). Another instructor showeddifferent opinion. She believed that the writing skill can be improved more effectivelythan other language skills because the computer can recheck students’ spelling andgrammar mistakes. In this way, it is easy for student to improve their writing throughCALL programs (T1). Instructors also had different opinions toward the speaking skill. Four instructorsand one student (T1, T2, T6, T7, S6) asserted that CALL programs can not improve thespeaking skills very much. The reasons included “it is difficult to find the speakingresources”, “the artificial pronunciation is not real” and “programs often cannot correctstudents’ pronunciation”. But one student retorted this perspective and said: “when Istudied at middle school and high school in my country, I already went to online chatrooms to talk with native English speakers and ask them to correct my grammar andpronunciations” (S4). She further indicated that by using online chat rooms to practicespeaking with native English speaker is more convenient and cheaper than the realconversation class. Finally, when instructors and students were asked about their expectation offuture CALL programs, price is the first priority from their concerns. Most instructorsand students expect CALL program should be cheaper than the current price, which is too
  • 151. 139expensive for them to purchase. They hoped the price of computer and Internetconnection fee can be reduced (T2, S5, S6, S8, S13). Their second expectation is the easeof use of the future CALL programs (T1, T2, S9, S11). One instructor pointed out that“To beginning level learners, computers or CALL programs are difficult to operatesometimes” (T1). She hoped that the design of CALL programs can be easier in thefuture. Other expectations from instructors and students included: One instructor hopedthat CALL programs can have a perfect evaluating system to assess students’ writing(T6); another instructor hoped that CALL programs can develop distance learning tool sothat students can learn ESL at home. In addition, she looked forward that computersshould have more human intelligence to understand learners’ needs and can give studentscorrect feedback immediately (T3); and one student wished that there should be no virusproblem in the future, so they can feel more confidence to use CALL programs (S12). Summary The quantitative data presented in this chapter were obtained through the use ofmodified TAM survey instrument developed for the purpose of the study. Data wasentered and analyzed by the software of SPSS 13.0. The data analysis used wasdescriptive statistics and an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Descriptive statistics were used to acquire a profile of the participants of the study.One-way ANOVA was used as the test of statistical significance for the analyses atthe .05 level of confidence to examine whether a statistical significant difference existsamong LEP students’ individual backgrounds and their perceived “Usefulness” and “Easeof Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning.
  • 152. 140 The qualitative component of the study included collection of data throughpersonal interviews with ESL instructors and students. This process involved engagingparticipants in a dialogue to determine the functions and roles of CALL programs in ESLteaching and learning environment. Information was presented with themes embedded.
  • 153. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The entire society and educational system of the United States is being radicallyaltered by the increasing number of non-English or limited English speaking populations.Helping these people acquire English skills so that they can become fully functioningmembers of society has become a growing concern for educational policy makers andadministrators. Educational programs which focus on the teaching of English language tonon-English speaking individuals employ a variety of methods including both traditionaland non-traditional approaches. One major trend, the focus of inquiry for this study, is theinfusion of computer technology into the teaching and learning of English. “ComputerAssisted Language Learning” (CALL) is used in different ways by English instructors.Some use the technology in specially designed programs that assist beginning Englishlearners. The World-Wide-Web can also be used by advanced learners as thinking andcommunication tools that allow students to interact with other English speakers on higherintellectual levels. A major concern for school administrators is that computer and software assetsare expensive to provide. The real costs of purchasing and maintaining equipment andcomputer labs can be prohibitively expensive. They must also be concerned aboutopportunity costs incurred when learning opportunities are lost due to use of lesseffective instructional methods. Students can waste a lot of time on learning activitieswithout learning English. This study employs an assessment tool that educational leadersand administrators may use to determine the extent to which technology investments areeffective within specific populations of adult English language learners. The study 141
  • 154. 142explores various factors that might influence the level of CALL use for English languagelearners. This chapter provides a summary, conclusions, and recommendations forfurther study. Summary Houston is the fourth-largest city in the United States. Thousands of LimitedEnglish Proficiency (LEP) students come to Houston from different countries to continuetheir education. The primary language groups are Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and French.Russian and Arabic are also growing populations. Most of these individuals enroll inEnglish as a Second Language (ESL) program of some sort with the express goal ofacquiring English proficiency in the shortest possible time. To help these studentsachieve this goal, many university and college directors of ESL programs have embracedComputer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) programs as an essential supplement forenhancing traditional ESL instruction and learning. Past research reveals very littleevaluation of the effectiveness of CALL programs on ESL teaching and learning hasbeen done. The purpose of the study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of theeffectiveness of CALL programs on ESL education for diverse English language learnersand instructors and to provide the results as a reference to educational leaders andadministrators who are considering the use of ESL for their English instruction programs.The assessment results can also be used to recommend changes in technology utilizationand software applications so that CALL programs can be continuously updated andimproved. To frame the context for this study a literature review was conducted toexplore the relationship among ESL education, CALL programs, and learners’ personal
  • 155. 143backgrounds. Two quantitative research questions and three qualitative researchquestions were developed and conducted in the study. Both quantitative and qualitative questions data were collected using a surveyinstrument and through personal interviews. The survey instrument entitled TAM inCALL Questionnaire was modified from Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)theory (1989) to provide a quantitative analysis of two predictors or technologyutilization, “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use.” Quantitative data were analyzed with theStatistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13.0. Descriptive statistics andone-way ANOVA were used to examine the influence of LEP students’ individualbackgrounds on their perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs forenhancing English learning. Once the surveys had been completed, follow-up face-to-face interviews wereconducted among ESL instructors and students to determine some of the issues related totheir use and non-use of CALL technologies. Of particular interest were reportedadvantages and disadvantages of CALL programs, the roles of CALL programs in ESLclassrooms. ESL instructors and students were called upon to predict future utility ofCALL programs for ESL instruction and suggest possible modifications or adaptations.Demographic Data A purposeful sample for the study consisted of LEP students (N=239) enrolled inESL courses using CALL programs within Houston area colleges, universities, or adulteducation institutes during the summer of 2008. All participants came from threeparticipating schools, included the Houston Community College, University of Houston,and Chinese Community Center. The participants consisted of 180 females, 147 males,
  • 156. 144and 20 students who did not indicate gender. Twenty different native languages were spoken by participating students (N=320),while 9 students did not indicate native language. Five native language groups werecategorized in the study including Chinese (N=89), Spanish (N=78), French (N=46),Korean (N=23), and “Others” (N=89). Based on students’ native language backgrounds,the original English version of TAM in CALL Questionnaire was translated into fivelanguage versions: three by the certified translators (Spanish, French, and Korean) andtwo by a recognized expert in Chinese languages (Traditional Chinese and SimplifiedChinese). ALL of “Others” group participants comprised 89 persons and used sixteennative languages. These were asked to respond in the English version of the TAM inCALL Questionnaire. The age range of the participants in the study was from 15 to 74 and six agegroups were categorized, included “under 20 years” age group (N=72), 21 to 30 years ofage group (N=145), 31 to 40 years age group (N =52), 41 to 50 years age group (N=24),51 to 60 years old group (N=12), and an “above 61 years old” group (N=13). Theparticipants consisted of 160 students who have a college or university degree, 90students who have high school diplomas, 35 students who have secondary school degrees,29 students who have postgraduate degree, and 14 students who have elementary schooleducation. Five “technology experience” groups were categorized by the participants’number of years in using computers and the Internet. One hundred four (N = 104)participants had technology experience for more than 10 years; fifty-six (N = 56)respondents reported seven to nine years of technology experience; sixty-nine (N=69)students had experience using computer technology and the Internet for 4 to 6 years; and
  • 157. 14527 students’ technology experiences were for “less than one year.” The participants of the qualitative study consisted of seven ESL instructors andthirteen LEP students. Three instructors were teaching ESL courses with CALL programsin the Houston Community College and four instructors from the University of Houstonwere interviewed. Three students came from the Houston Community College, fourstudents came from the University of Houston, and six students came from the ChineseCommunity Center. All participants were interviewed and observed in their languagelearning environment to obtain qualitative data.Research Question One: Personal Factors and Perceived Usefulness of CALL To answer research question one, five null hypotheses were tested to determinewhether a the significant difference existed among the LEP students’ diversebackgrounds with regard to “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing Englishlearning. One-way ANOVA statistical test was applied to examine the data. Each nullhypothesis either was accepted or rejected based on a criterion value or confidence levelof p < .05. The following is a summary of the findings.(1) Null Hypothesis One A statistically significant difference was found among LEP students’ nativelanguage groups and their perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancingEnglish learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. As indicated in Table 8, an F ratio of 7.49 or a p value of .000 is less than thecriterion p value of .05. Null hypothesis one therefore was rejected. Through Scheffe posthoc analysis, a statistically significant difference was further found between Chineselanguage learners and the “Others” language learners (p = .004) and between Spanish
  • 158. 146version survey respondents and “Others” category respondents who adopted Englishversion survey (p = .000), as shown in Table 8.1.(2) Null Hypothesis Two There is no statistically significant difference in male and female LEP students’perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measuredby TAM in CALL Questionnaire. As indicated in Table 9, an F ratio of 1.73 or a p value of .189 is greater than thecriterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis two. Gendertherefore was not a factor for explaining any mean differences in TAM in CALLQuestionnaire scores for “Usefulness.”(3) Null Hypothesis Three A statistically significant difference was found among LEP students’ age groupsand their LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancingEnglish learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. As indicated in Table 10, an F ratio of 4.53 or a p value of .001 is less than thecriterion p value of .05. Therefore null hypothesis three (Ho3) should be rejected. Furtherpost hoc analysis using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) yielded a statisticallysignificant (p < .05) difference between the following pairs of age groups as shown inTable 10.2 in Chapter IV: 1. “under 20 years” and “31 to 40 years” (p = .002) 2. “under 20 years” and “41 to 50 years” p (p = .002) 3. “21 to 30 years” group and the “31 to 40 years” age group (p =.001) 4. “21 to 30 years” and “41 to 50 years” (p =.002)
  • 159. 147(4) Null Hypothesis Four There is no statistically significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALLprograms for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnairebased on LEP students’ previous educational levels. As indicated in Table 11 of Chapter IV, an F ratio of 1.36 or a p value of .249 isgreater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesisfour. Therefore previous educational experience was not a factor in how usefulrespondents perceived CALL programs as a tool for language learning.(5) Null Hypothesis Five There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived“Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM inCALL Questionnaire, among different technology experience groups. As indicated in Table 12, an F ratio of .11 or a p value of .978 is greater than thecriterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis five. Thereforethe amount of prior technology experience was not a factor in how respondents rated theusefulness of technology for their English language learning.Discussion of Conclusions from Research Question One: From the quantitative analysis of data, English learners’ native languagebackground was the single most important factor that yielded significantly differences in“Usefulness” of CALL; this was especially evident when comparing the Spanishspeaking group, and the Chinese group with the “Other” group. Three reasons maycontribute to the result. One explanation is that language and culture backgrounds ofEnglish as Second Language learners are diverse. The popularization of computer
  • 160. 148utilization and the public infrastructure of technology of their previous countries mayplay a part in influencing their attitudes and behaviors for applying technology in generaland specifically in this study for English language learning. This is the phenomenon maystem from an international “digital divide” (International Telecommunication Union,2003). China and Korea represented two of the largest language subgroups among LEPstudents of this study. In both China and Korea modernization and globalization areoccurring at frenetic pace. Fueling that pace has been national emphases upon use oftechnology. Children are expected to be technologically competent very early in life.Students who spoke Spanish or French came primarily from Latin American countries orAfrican nations, most of which have not provided the same level of technologicalinfrastructure for their citizens. These factors may account for the differences that werefound. Second, students who came from the Houston Community College District wereprimarily Hispanic students and tended to come from Latin America. Chineserespondents came primarily from the Chinese Community Center and the University ofHouston, while students of the “Other” languages group came almost entirely from theUniversity of Houston. Among these educational institutions, the students from theUniversity of Houston had higher levels of English proficiency than those from the othertwo institutions. According to Doll (2007), students of varying levels of Englishproficiency in English do have differing perceptions of the use of technology. In Doll’sresearch, Beginner and Intermediate levels of English learners were most appreciate useof the computer technology in their English learning while Advanced and Core levels ofEnglish students do not rely as heavily on it.
  • 161. 149 Another result from a study conducted by Hayes and Hicks (2004) showed thatlower level of English proficiency students preferred computer-enhanced learningenvironment for studying English were more than higher level of English students. Hayesand Hicks indicated that lower level of English proficiency students were enthusiasticabout the CALL environment because they felt that they can get more learning resourcesthrough CALL programs, learn more independently, and were able to enjoy theexperience of working with other students. By contrast, higher level of Englishproficiency students need more significant learning inputs and might be difficult toperceive an improvement through regular CALL programs for their English skills.Therefore, not only the students’ native language and culture backgrounds may haveinfluenced their perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing Englishlearning, but students’ English proficiency levels may become a factor that influencedtheir perceptions. The last factor which may contribute to the result is that the “Other” groupstudents took the English survey instead of their native language, while the Chinese andSpanish group students took the survey translated into their native language. Thecomprehension of the survey instrument may influence the “Other” group students tocomplete the survey and influenced the result. The students’ age range was a factor that caused significant differences towardstudents’ “Usefulness” perceptions when using CALL programs among the three agegroups: “under 20 years”,” 31 to 40 years,” and “41 to 50 years.” Three reasons may havecontributed to the result. First, the younger learners under 20 years and 20-30 years oldwho grew up with technology may have more technology skills for using computer and
  • 162. 150the Internet. They use technology for communication, social interaction, for learning tocommunicate with other individuals daily, and technology has become part of their sociallife. They may be unaware of the usefulness of the CALL programs as a tool in theirEnglish learning. By contrast, the English learners that were older than 30 years grew upin an environment without computers and the Internet. They may regard the computer asan extra useful tool to enhance their language learning. Second, most of the students under 20 years of age came from the University ofHouston. The other two education institutions, Houston Community College and theChinese Culture Center have more older students than younger students. The studentsfrom the University of Houston have higher English proficiency levels than students fromthe other two institutions. Student’s age combined with their English proficiency levelmay have contributed to this result. Older lower levels of English students may relaymore on computer as a useful tool than younger higher level students in their languagelearning. Third, according to the qualitative interviews, the older students needed to spendmore time on their jobs and household duties. This left very little time for study orcomputer use at home. This might account for some of the difference in “Usefulness”scores between age groups.Research Question Two: Personal Factors and Perceived Ease of Use of CALL To answer the research question two, five null hypotheses were conducted toexamine the significant difference among LEP students’ personal factors and theirperceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The one-way ANOVA was applied to examine the data. Each null hypothesis either was accepted
  • 163. 151or rejected was based on the statistical test of significance at the p < .05 confidence level.The following is a summary of the findings.(6) Null Hypothesis Six A statistically significant difference was found among LEP students’ nativelanguage groups and their perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancingEnglish learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. As indicated in Table 14, an F ratio of 2.55 or a p value of .040 is less than thecriterion value of p < .05. Null hypothesis six therefore was rejected. Through a Scheffepost hoc analysis, a statistically significant difference was found between Chineselanguage learners and the “Others” category language learners (p = .045), as shown inTable 14.1.(7) Null Hypothesis Seven There is no statistically significant difference male and female LEP students’perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measuredby TAM in CALL Questionnaire. As indicated in Table 15, an F ratio of .898 or a p value of .344 is greater than thecriterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis seven. Thereforegender was not a factor in the “Ease of Use” score for the TAM in CALL Questionnaire.(8) Null Hypothesis Eight There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease ofUse” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among different age groups asmeasured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire.
  • 164. 152 As indicated in Table 16, an F ratio of 1.56 or a p value of .172 is greater than thecriterion value of p < .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis eight.Therefore age group did not affect how individual learners perceive the “Ease of Use” ofCALL programs.(9) Null Hypothesis Nine There is no statistically significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” ofCALL programs for enhancing English learning based on students’ previous educationallevels as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. As indicated in Table 17, an F ratio of 1.14 or a p value of .336 is greater than thecriterion value p < .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis nine. Thereforeprevious educational level of respondents did not affect differences in scores on “Ease ofUsefulness” for the TAM in CALL Questionnaire.(10) Null Hypothesis Ten There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease ofUse” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALLQuestionnaire, among different technology experience groups. As indicated in Table 18, an F ratio of .97 or a p < .422 is greater than thecriterion p < .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis ten. Therefore previoustechnology experience of the English language learner did not affect the English learners’perceptions of “Ease of Use” for TAM in CALL Questionnaire.
  • 165. 153Discussion of Conclusions from Research Question Two From the analysis of data, students’ native language background is a factor inexplaining significant differences toward English learners’ “Ease of Use” perceptionsbetween Chinese learners of English and the “Other” group of English learners. Tworeasons may contribute to this result. First, the “digital divide” may play an importantrole. Student’s native language and culture background may influence his or herperception regarding the use of computer technology for enhancing their learning (Zoe &DiMartino, 2000). As pointed out by one ESL instructor through the qualitative interview,Asian students are often good at computer technology. Their countries usually have moretechnology infrastructure, so they can get more technology exercise opportunities.Oppositely, students came from other countries may have fewer occasions for receivingtechnology training, so they may not feel the ease of use of computer and spend too muchtime on CALL programs due to their poor technology skills. Second, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) indicated that beginning level tointermediate level of English learners often use transfer strategies in their Englishlanguage learning. The transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledge from the firstlanguage to the second language is a requisite learning process for LEP students. In thisstudy, the student population of the Chinese Community Center is mainly Chinese. Theinstitution purchased Chinese version of CALL programs to provide their Chinesestudents. By contrast, the “Other” group students participated in this study use sixteendifferent native languages. It is difficult for an institution to purchase CALL programswith different native language versions in order to meet each student’s learning needs.Without the appropriate CALL programs with students’ native language versions may
  • 166. 154influence those students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing theirEnglish learning.Research Question Three: Advantages and Disadvantages of CALL in ESL According to the results of the qualitative interviews, all ESL instructors (N = 7)indicated that CALL programs have a positive influence on their ESL teaching. Threemajor strengths of CALL programs were pointed out by ESL instructors. These included: 1. increased access to authentic materials for teaching and learning English 2. more opportunities for practice through experiential learning 3. more varied learning situations that enhance learning motivation and achievement.Online resources and examinations have become important teaching assets in the Englishinstructors’ classrooms. CALL programs have enriched their teaching content enablinginstructors to explore new and different teaching methods. Similarly, most LEP students (N = 9) agreed that CALL programs haveinfluenced their English learning experiences in a positive way. The major strength ofCALL programs, they pointed out, were different from those identified by the instructors.In addition to extra learning resources, the English learners hoped that they could havemore interactive opportunities to communicate with their teachers through CALLprograms. Having available instruction in “real-time” enabled them to learn at a placethat was comfortable and efficient for them. By contrast, only two of the seven instructorsexpressed that they often used email or online chat rooms to interact with their studentsafter classroom hours.
  • 167. 155 One disadvantage identified by most English instructors was that English learnersin their classes did not use the technology at all. One instructor provided the followingdisadvantages as she saw them: 1. CALL programs may not totally tally [align] with beginning level English learners’ needs; 2. may reduce English learners’ opportunities to explore other learning resources; and 3. may increase the teaching and learning loads [demands on their time] of the instructors. LEP students identified a key disadvantage in the use of computers for Englishlearning. They were concerned that over-use of CALL programs may influence theirspelling ability. The spell-correcting function of CALL programs may help to rechecktheir writing, but it may prevent them from learning to spell. The review of literature endorsed the notion that current computer technologymay have many advantages for second language learning. Additionally, “the use of thecomputer does not constitute a method. Rather, it is a medium in which a variety ofmethods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented” (Garrett, 1991,p. 75). No matter what fantastic functions CALL programs provide, they are still no morethan media for teaching and learning. The effectiveness of CALL programs does not liein the medium alone but in how the programs are used and the quality of personalteaching and guidance that accompany them.
  • 168. 156Research Question Four: Roles of CALL in ESL All seven ESL instructors indicated that the main purpose why they use CALLprograms was to prepare the teaching materials, but the time they spent on CALLprograms often depended on two factors: 1) the length of the semester, and 2) the contentof textbook. This means that, to them, CALL programs may be essential, but only as theysupplement their instruction. Some instructors still favored the traditional ESLpedagogies more than CALL teaching methods. When they do not have time to rely onthe programs during a teachable moment, the technology would not be so useful. If thetextbook and other resources are very good, they may not feel a need to supplement theirteaching with the technology. Comparatively, the average time English learners spent on CALL programs wasmore than instructors. This may be influenced by student’s technology background.Although the TAM in CALL Questionnaire results and analysis did not support this view,individual interviews with students revealed in some cases that this is true. Among thestudents that were interviewed some students reported that they had limited technologybackground and that they spent very little time, or none at all, using CALL programs toenhance their learning. On the contrary, students who have rich technology experienceswere willing to spend more time using computers and the Internet. Technologyknowledge is a critical factor that impacts the amount of pleasure experienced by studentsfor employing CALL programs as tools for learning English. When discussing the role of CALL programs in English teaching and learning,most instructors and students preferred the “Tool” role. Both ESL instructors and LEPstudents indicated that CALL programs played a role as a “Tool” that can vary their
  • 169. 157teaching and learning paths, provide more interactive activities, and facilitate theeffectiveness of teaching and learning. Some instructors reported that the most importantrole of CALL programs is the “Tutor” role because CALL programs can offer reading,vocabulary, and other kinds of practice to evaluate students’ works and keep their records.One instructor and one English learner believed that CALL programs should not play the“Tutor” role because each student has individual learning needs and the computer is notable to adapt to different learning styles of the student. CALL programs should followand satisfy English learners’ needs as a “Tutee.” The review of literature endorses the notion that computers play various roles thatdeeply impact ESL teaching and learning methods. The theoretical framework underlyingCALL programs is very difficult to define because CALL programs exist in so manydifferent forms. The specific role of CALL programs often depends upon different needsand different situations (Kemmis, Atkin, & Wright, 1977; Higgins, 1988, Taylor, 1980).Research Question Five: Expectations of future CALL in ESL According to the results of the qualitative interviews, all participating ESLinstructors (N = 7) indicated that the current computer technology and CALL programsare adequate for ESL education. Some LEP students noted that current CALL programsare not perfect for meeting their learning needs, such as the translation function of CALLprograms. When asked what kind of English skills can be improved effectively throughCALL programs, ESL instructors and students expressed different usages and reasonswith the language skill they liked most. Some believed that CALL audio materials areuseful for improving students’ listening skill. Others insisted that CALL programs make
  • 170. 158it easy to develop high level reading skills with rich online reading resources. The varietyof CALL programs permits different users to address different learning goals and producedifferent learning results. Finally, when instructors and students were asked about their expectationsregarding future development of CALL programs, two major expectations were revealedduring the interviews. The first priority from their concerns was the price. Mostinstructors and students expressed a desire for future CALL programs to cost less so thatthey can afford to purchase them. The second priority for CALL programs of the futurewas that be they easier to use. Future programs should focus more human intelligence tounderstand the language learners’ needs – they should be able to give students correctfeedback immediately on correct pronunciation, grammar, usage, and syntax. Based onthe interviews, most of the instructors and students were satisfied with the CALLprograms for their language teaching and learning needs. Both instructors and studentsexpressed expectations for future CALL programs that have more intelligence, humanity,and ease of use. The review of literature endorses the assertion that software of CALL programs isstill imperfect, and their functions are limited (Warschauer, 1996). Due to the limitationsof computer’s artificial intelligence, current computer technology is unable to deal withlearner’s unexpected learning problems and response immediately as teachers do. Thereasons for the computer’s inability to interact effectively can be traced back to afundamental difference in the way humans and computers utilize information (Dent,2001).
  • 171. 159 Conclusions The findings of the quantitative and qualitative study resulted in the followingconclusions:(1) Personal factors and Effectiveness of CALL Programs According to results from the analysis of LEP students’ survey responses on theTAM in CALL Questionnaire, students’ native languages and ages may be regarded asfactors that influenced students’ perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALLprograms. This result may not be surprising because LEP students come from differentcountries and have distinct learning habits and attitudes toward the use of technology andthe usefulness of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. Although LEP students’ genders, previous educational levels, and technologyexperiences did not cause a significant difference in their perceptions of the “Usefulness”and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs, these personal factors were reflected through theirwords in personal interviews. It is important that educational leaders and ESL instructorspay greater attention to students’ personal factors. These personal factors include thestudents’ learning needs and personal circumstances. Educational leaders andadministrators should develop policies and strategies that will support more effective andefficient systems for purchasing and maintaining technology applications that will assistEnglish teaching and learning. This can best be accomplished by continuously evaluatingthe effectiveness and efficiency of technology usage among the various populations thatare served. When investments in CALL programs are made, it is important that the CALLprograms be useful and easy to use for all populations served. Failure to evaluate CALL
  • 172. 160applications continuously and to make improvements in the development and deploymentof CALL software can result in non-use or ineffective use.(2) Advantages and Disadvantages of CALL programs for Second Language Learning Today’s CALL programs are widely believed to help reshape both the content andprocesses of language education. Through the qualitative interviews, most ESLinstructors and students confirmed that CALL programs had deep influences upon them.The advantages of CALL programs provide them with more teaching and learningresources and vary their teaching and learning methods. Lack of technology knowledge is a major obstacle to realizing the advantages ofCALL programs. Most ESL teachers and English learners know the importance of CALLprograms but they often lack technology skills to obtain the benefits of CALL programs.For implementing CALL programs successfully in ESL classrooms, educational leadersand administrators should face this serious problem and develop technology trainingplans to ensure that all ESL teachers and students have the knowledge and skills to applycomputer technology in their teaching and learning. Although there are many advantages of CALL programs, the application ofcurrent computer technology still has its disadvantages. For example, CALL programsmay be difficult for English learners to use, may increase teaching and learning loads,and influence LEP students’ spelling abilities. Educational leaders, computer engineers,CALL program designers, and ESL instructors all have significant roles to play in thedevelopment of the next generation of CALL programs.
  • 173. 161(3) Roles of CALL Programs for Second Language Learning Computers have been used for second language teaching and learning for decades.There are continuing debates about the role of the computer technology within thecontext of the second language instruction. Through the qualitative interviews, the rolesof CALL programs are varied in each instructor’s and student’s opinions. Differentinstructors and students have reasons to use CALL programs in different areas, as a tool,a tutor, and a tutee to meet their individual needs. There are no solid guidelines and standards of how to adapt CALL programs inthe language teaching and learning methods. Because there are no solid guidelines andstandards, some instructors and students become confused with the functions and abilitiesof current CALL program. To identify what role the computer technology played in theclassroom is important because each instructor’s and student’s perceptions of the roles ofCALL programs will further influence their decisions on how to apply CALL programsin their language teaching and learning. It is the responsibility of educational leaders andadministers to identify the role of CALL programs. It is important to clarify what roles ofCALL programs play so educators can better understand how computer technology canbest be implemented in the second language learning programs.(4) Expectations of Future CALL Programs for Second Language Learning Price, artificial intelligence, and ease of use are three major barriers facing CALLprograms by ESL instructors and LEP students. These barriers must be considered inorder to infuse CALL programs into ESL education successfully. To overcome the priceproblem and ensure each student has the equity of education to get CALL programs,educational leaders and administrators may have to negotiate with computer producing
  • 174. 162factories and software companies to reduce the selling prices of computers and CALLsoftware. To improve the artificial intelligence and ease of use problems, educationalleaders and administrators may have to communicate with software designers andsoftware companies to design more appropriate CALL programs for ESL teaching andlearning. Contributions to the Literature This study has contributed a unique element to the literature by researching theperceptions of students who use twenty different native languages and who were learningEnglish in an ESL education environment with CALL programs. Rather than focusing onstudent outcomes, this study adapted the Technology Acceptance Model theory toexamine the connection between students’ varied personal backgrounds and theirperceptions of using CALL programs in their English language learning experiences. Itcombined quantitative data regarding the constructs “Ease of use” and ‘Usefulness” ofCALL programs and qualitative data to provide humanistic aspect to the study. Recommendations This study has implications on many levels and is subdivided into the followingareas: Recommendations of Educational Leaders and Administrators, Recommendationsfor Second Language Instructors, and Recommendations for Second Language Learners.Recommendations for Educational Leaders and Administrators The following recommendations are based on the findings of the study and aresupported by the National Education Technology Standards (NETS) for Administrators(2002) published by the International Society for Technology Education (ITSE). 1. Educational leaders and administrators should facilitate the shared development
  • 175. 163 by all stakeholders of a vision for technology use in second language instruction and widely communicate that vision.2. Educational leaders and administrators should maintain an inclusive and cohesive process to develop, implement, and monitor a dynamic, long-range, and systemic technology plan to achieve the vision.3. Educational leaders and administrators should advocate for research-based effective practices in use of CALL programs for second language education4. Educational leaders and administrators should identify, use, evaluate, and promote appropriate CALL programs to enhance and support second language instruction and curriculum leading to high levels of ESL student achievement.5. Educational leaders and administrators should facilitate and support collaborative technology-enriched learning environments conducive to innovation for improved second language learning.6. Educational leaders and administrators should provide for and ensure that faculty and staff take advantage of high-quality professional learning opportunities for improved second language learning and teaching with CALL programs.7. Educational leaders and administrators should provide for learner-centered environments that use CALL programs to meet the individual and diverse needs of LEP students.8. Educational leaders and administrators should allocate financial and human resources to ensure complete and sustained implementation of the technology plan for second language education.
  • 176. 164 9. Educational leaders and administrators should use multiple methods to assess and evaluate CALL programs and appropriate uses of technology resources for second language learning.Recommendations for Second Language Instructors The following recommendations are based on the findings of the study and aresupported by the National Education Technology Standards (NETS) for Teachers (2008)published by the International Society for Technology Education (ITSE). 1. Second language instructors should strengthen their technology knowledge, know the development and trend of modern computer technology, and assist school leaders and administrators to achieve goals for implementing CALL programs in second language education. 2. Second language instructors should model and facilitate effective use of current and emerging CALL programs to locate, analyze, evaluate, and use information resources to support second language research and learning. 3. Second language instructors should design or adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate CALL programs and the Internet resources to promote ESL student learning and creativity. 4. Second language instructors should address the diverse needs of all LEP students by using learner-centered strategies providing equitable access to appropriate CALL programs and online resources for their second language learning. 5. Second language instructors should mention the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs to students in order for students can understand the strengths and
  • 177. 165 limitations of computer technology, and then change their personal biases and attitudes toward using CALL programs to enhance their second language learning.Recommendations for Second Language Learners The following recommendations are based on the findings of the study and aresupported by the National Education Technology Standards (NETS) for Students (2007)published by the International Society for Technology Education (ITSE). 1. Second language learners should require basic technology knowledge to understand and use CALL programs for enhancing their second language learning. 2. Second language learners should realize the advantages and disadvantages of each CALL program and exhibit a positive attitude toward using CALL programs that supports collaboration, learning, and productivity. 3. Second language learners should interact, collaborate, and publish with peers, experts, or others employing a variety of CALL programs for their English learning. 4. Second language learners should develop cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with learners of other cultures. Recommendations for Further Study Recommendations for further study are as follows: 1. A study could be conducted at the state level or national level. 2. A study could be conducted that focused on the same student’s English level. 3. A study could be conducted that focused on specific software of CALL program. 4. A study could be conducted of the student’s learning style associated with CALL programs.
  • 178. 1665. A study could be conducted of the effectiveness of pedagogies associated with CALL programs.6. A study could be conducted of the curriculum design associated with CALL programs.7. A study could be conducted of the students’ learning achievements associated with CALL programs.8. A study could be conducted to address different learning goals that produces different results.9. A study could be conducted to focus on more human intelligence of CALL programs to understand the language learners’ needs.10. A study could be conducted on personal factors related to students’ learning needs and personal circumstances.11. A study could be conducted on how educational leaders and administrators can develop policies and strategies that will support more effective and efficient systems for purchasing and maintaining applications that will assist English teaching and learning.12. A study could be conducted on how educational leaders and administrators can develop and implement training plans to ensure that all ESL teachers and students have the knowledge and skills to apply computer technology in their teaching and learning.13. A study could be conducted about the role of computer technology within the context of the second language instruction.
  • 179. 16714. A study could be conducted that specifically focuses on the three major barriers: price, artificial intelligence, and ease to use.15. A study could be conducted dealing with “Ease of Use” and “Usefulness” of CALL programs.16. A study could be conducted on ways technology has become a powerful force in education.
  • 180. REFERENCESAbedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33, 4-14.Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16, 227-247Adkins, M. A., Sample, B., & Birman, D. (1999). Mental health and the adult ESL refugee: The role of the ESL teacher. Washington, DC: National Center for ESL Literacy Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 439625)Alanis, I. (2000) A Texas two-way bilingual program: Its effects on linguistic and academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 24. Retrieved August 14, 2007, from http://brj.asu.edu/v243/articles/art2.htmlAl-Zahrani, R. S. (2000), Perceptions concerning Information Technology (IT) innovations and IT training in university libraries in Saudi Arabia, Florida State University, Tallahasee, FL, Doctoral dissertation Abstracts. Retrieved August 14, 2007, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. L. (2000). School technology leadership: Incidence and impact. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 National survey report #6. Education Policy and Practice at the National Science Foundation and the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/findings.htmlAnderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82. 168
  • 181. 169Anstrom, K. (1997). Academic achievement for secondary language minority students: Standards, measures and promising practices. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.Asher, J., & Garcia, R. (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 53, 334-41.Askov, E., Maclay, C., & Meenan, A. (1987). Using computers for adult literacy instruction. In W.M. Rivera & S.M. Walker (Eds.), Lifelong Learning Research Conference Proceedings. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Agriculture and Extension Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278786)Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2005). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language learning and technology, 10(1), 42-66.August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Backer, J. (1995). Teaching Grammar with CALL: Survey of theoretical literature. Israel: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Retrieved August 13, 2007, from http://ietn.snunit.k12.il/gramcall.htmBailey, G., & Pownell, D. (1998). Technology staff development and support programs: Applying Abraham Maslows hierarchy of needs. Learning and Leading With Technology, 26(3), 47-51.Bailey, G., Ross, T., & Griffin, D. (1995). Barrier to curriculum-technology integration in education: Are you asking the right questions? Catalyst for Change, 25(1), p. 16.
  • 182. 170Baker, S. B. (2000). School counseling for the twenty-first century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Barson, J., & Debski, R. (1996). Calling back CALL: Technology in the service of foreign language learning based on creativity, contingency and goal-oriented activity. In M. Warschauer (ed.) Telecollaboration in foreign language learning. Honolulu quality of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.Batalova, J. (2006). Spotlight on Limited English Proficiency (LEP) in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198-217.Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words: The science and psychology of second language acquisition. New York: Harper Collins.Blin, F. (1999). CALL and the development of learner autonomy. In R. Debski and M. Levy (eds.), WorldCALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning, 133-147. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Bohner, G., & Wänke, M. (2002). Attitudes and attitude change. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Boyle, J. (1987). Sex differences in listening vocabulary. Language Learning, 37, 273-84.Brand, G. A. (1997). What research says: Training teachers for using technology. Journal of Staff Development, 19(1). Retrieved August 13, 2007, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/brand191.cfm
  • 183. 171Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher- to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 87-107. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/brandlBruess, L. (2003). University ESL instructors’ perceptions and use of computer technology in teaching. PhD Dissertation, University of New Orleans.Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001). Factors influencing the effective use of technology for teaching and learning: Lessons learned from the SEIR/TEC intensive site schools. Durham, NC: SouthEast Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium.Camarota, S. A. (2005). Immigrants at mid-decade: A snapshot of Americas foreign-born population in 2005. Report released by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank that supports lower levels of immigration. Retrieved on June 30, 2006, from http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.htmlCarmen, C., & Haefner, J. (2002). Mind over manner: Transforming course management systems into effective learning environments. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0261.pdfCapps, R., Fix, M., & Ku, L. (2002). How are immigrants faring after welfare reform: Preliminary evidence from Los Angeles and New York City. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Retrieved January 23, 2007, from http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/410426_final_report.pdfCelce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/ EFL teachers course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
  • 184. 172Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2004). Final report: Benchmarking adult rates of second language acquisition & integration: How long and how fast? Retrieved April 17, 2006, from http://www.language.ca/pdfs/Benchmarking%20Adult%20Rates%20of%20Second %20Language%20Acquisition%20and%20Integration1.pdfChamot, A. U., & Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1985). A summary of current literature on English as a second language. Part C: Research Agenda. Rosslyn, VA: InterAmerica Research Associates.Chiquito, A. B., Meskill, C., & Renjilian-Burgy, J. (1997). Multiple, mixed, and malleable media. In Bush, M.D. (Ed.), Technology-enhanced language learning. pp.47-76. Illinois: National Textbook Company.Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Overall, T. (2005). Transition points for the gender gap in computer enjoyment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 23-38.Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2003). Strip mining for gold: Research and policy in educational technology—A response to fool’s gold. Educational Technology Review, 11(1), 7–69. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/issue4/clements2.pdfCollier, V. P. (1992). A Synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 187-212.Collier, V. P. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education: Washington, DC.
  • 185. 173Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English? Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, 26-38.Collins, C., Kenway, J., & McLeod, J. (2000). Factors influencing the educational performance of males and females in school and their initial destinations after leaving school. A Project Funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Canberra. Retrieved April 11, 2007, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/fac tors_influencing_educational_performance.htmCollins, S. R. (2004). E-learning frameworks for NCLB. White paper for U.S. Department of Education Secretary’s No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit. Increasing Options through E-Learning.Cooper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464–494.Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Ontario, CA: CABE.Cummins, J. (1998). Elective language learning: Design of a computer-assisted text-based ESL/EFL learning system. TESOL Journal, Spring, pp. 18-21.Cunningham, D. (1998). Twenty-five Years of Technology in Language Teaching – A Personal Experience, Babel, 33(1), 5-7.
  • 186. 174Davies, G. (2002). ICT and MFL in the national curriculum: some personal views: Retrieved May 27, 2007, from http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/ictmfl.htmDavies, G. (Ed.). (2007). Information and communications technology for language teachers (ICT4LT), Slough, Thames Valley University. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.ict4lt.orgDavid, J. L. (1996). Developing and spreading accomplished teaching: Policy lessons from a unique partnership. In C. Fisher, D.C. Dwyer, & K. Yocam (Eds.), Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. pp. 237-245. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.Dent, C. (2001). Studer: classification v. categorization. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/cdent/fiaarts/docs/1005018884:23962.htmlDenzin N. K., & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London, UK: Sage Publications.Dickard, N. (2003). The sustainability challenge: taking edtech to the next level. Benton Foundation. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.benton.org/publibrary/sustainability/sus_challenge.htmlDoll, J. J. (2007). Using English language learner perceptions of technology to your advantage. Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, June 2007, 4(6). Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jun_07/article03.htmDuffy, M. E. (1985). Designing research the qualitative –quantitative debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 11(3), 225-232.
  • 187. 175Duhaney, D., & Zemel, P. (2000). Technology and the educational process: transforming classroom activities. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 67-72.Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.Egbert, J. (2005) CALL essentials: Principles and practice in CALL classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia : TESOLEgbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice and critical issues. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc.Egbert, J., Paulus, T., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126.Ehrlich, S. (2001). Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. London: Routledge.Enoch, Y., & Soker, Z. (2005). Age, gender, ethnicity, and the digital divide: University students use of Web-based instruction. Open learning, 21(2), 99-110. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 738646)Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Faerch, C., & Kasper, G., (1986). One-learner two languages: Investigating types of interlanguage knowledge”, in J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.) (1986): Interlingual and intercultural communication, pp. 211-227. Tuebingen: Gunter Narr.Fairlie, R.W. (2004). Race and the digital divide. Contributions to economic analysis & policy. The Berkeley Electronic Journals, 3(1), 1-38.
  • 188. 176Fatemi, E. (1999). Building the digital curriculum. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/summary.htmFirst, J. M. (1988). Immigrant students in U.S. public schools: Challenges with solutions. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 205-210.Flanagan, L., & Jacobson, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142.Fleischman, H. L., & Hopstock, P. J. (1993). Descriptive study of services to Limited English Proficient Students, Vol. 1, Summary of Findings and Conclusions. Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.Fix, M. E., Passel, J. S., & Kenneth, S. (2003). Trends in Naturalization. Immigrant Families and Workers: Facts and Perspectives, No.3. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310847Friedlander, M. (1991). The newcomer program: Helping immigrant students succeed in U.S. schools. The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) Program Information Guide Series, No. 8, Fall 1991. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/pigs/pig8.htmFotos, S., & Browne, C. (Eds.). (2003).The development of CALL and current options. New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. pp. 3-14. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • 189. 177Fullana, R. M. (2005). Age-related effects on the acquisition of a foreign language phonology in a formal setting. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University de Barcelona, Spain.Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Garcia, E. (1991). Education of linguistically and culturally diverse students: Effective instructional practices. Educational practice report number 1. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338099).Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 74-101.Garson, G. D. (2008). Univariate GLM, ANOVA, and ANCOVA. Statnotes, North Carolina University. Retrieved August 10, 2008 from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/anova.htm#posthocGay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly, pp. 389-400.Gips, A., DiMattia, P., & Gips, J. (2004). The effect of assistive technology on educational costs: Two case studies. In K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. Zagler, D. Burger (eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs, Springer, 2004, pp. 206-213.
  • 190. 178Gonzalez, A. (2007). California’s commitment to adult English learners: Caught between funding and need. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved August 11, 2007, from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=744Green, S., Salkind, N., & Akey, T. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.Greenberg, E., Macias, R. F., Rhodes, D., & Chan, T. (2001). English literacy and language minorities in the United States. Statistical Analysis Report No. NCES 2001464. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved September 27, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001464Grimes, B. F. (Ed.) (2000). Ethnologue: Languages of the world, (14th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from http://www.ethnologue.com/Guhlin, M. (1996). Stage a well-designed Saturday session and they will come. Technology Connection, pp. 13-14.Guo, N. (2005). The role of native language in second language acquisition. Sino-US English Teaching, Sep. 2005, 2(9), Serial No.21. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.linguist.org.cn/doc/su200509/su20050903.pdfHakuta, K. (1990). Language and cognition in bilingual children. In A. Padilla, H. Fairchild & C. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies, pp. 47-59. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Hernandez, H. (1997). Teaching in multilingual classrooms: A teacher’s guide to context, process, and content. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • 191. 179Higgins, J. (1986). The computer and grammar teaching. In G. Leech & C. Candlin, C. (Eds.). Computers in English language teaching and research. pp. 31-45. New York: LongmanHubbard, P. (1987). Language teaching approaches, the evaluation of CALL software, and design implications. In W. Smith (Ed.) Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation, pp. 227-254. Illinois: National Textbook Co.Hughes, M., & Zachariah, S. (2001). An investigation into the relationship between effective administrative leadership styles and the use of technology. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5(5). Retrieved August 11, 2007, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume5/hughes.htmlInternational Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2002). Educational technology standards and performance indicators for administrators. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://cnets.iste.org/administrators/a_stands.htmlInternational Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards for students: Essential conditions. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NE TS-S_2007_Essential_Conditions.pdfInternational Society for Technology Education. (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_book.htmlInternational Telecommunication Union. (ITU, 2003). Digital Access Index: World’s First Global ICT Ranking- Education and Affordability Key to Boosting New
  • 192. 180 Technology Adoption. Press release 19 November 2003, Geneva. Retrieved August, 11, 2007, from http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2003/30.htmlJayaratne, T. (1993). Quantitative methodology and feminist research. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Social research: Philosophy, politics and practice. pp. 109-123. London: Sage.Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Merrill.Kato, S. (2005). How language learning strategies affect English proficiency in Japanese university students. 文京學院大學研究紀要, 7(1), 239-262. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from http://www.lib.u-bunkyo.ac.jp/kiyo/2005/kyukiyo/kato.pdfKeefe, J. W. (1982). Assessing student learning styles: An overview. In J. Keefe (ed.), Student learning styles and brain behavior, pp. 43-53. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.Kemmis, S., Atkin, R., & Wright, E. (1977). How do students learn? Working papers on computer assisted language learning. United Kingdom: University of East Anglia, Centre for Applied Research in Education.Kleinfeld, J. (1998). The Myth That Schools Shortchange Girls: Social Science in the Service of Deception. Washington, D.C.: Women’s Freedom Network. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 210)Koohang, A. (2004). Students’ perceptions toward the use of the digital library in weekly web-based distance learning assignments portion of a hybrid program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 617-626.Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.
  • 193. 181Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 573-582.Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.Kridel D. J., Rappoport P. N., Taylor, L. D. (2002). The demand for high-speed access to the Internet, the Case of Cable Modems. In D.G. Loomis and Kluwer L.D. Taylor, editors, Forecasting the Internet: Understanding the Explosive Growth of Data Communications. Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002. pp. 11-22.Kubeck, J. E., Miller-Albrecht, S. A. & Murphy, M. D. (1999). Finding information on the World Wide Web: exploring older adults’ exploration. Educational Gerontology, 25(2), 167-83.Kulik, C., Kulik, J., & Shwalb, B. (1986). The effectiveness of computer-based adult education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 235–250.Kung, S. C. (2002). A framework for successful key-pal programs in language learning. CALL-EJ Online, 3(2). Retrieved March 20, 2006 from http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/6-2/SCKung.htmKuperstein, J., Gentile, C., & Zwier, J. (1999). The connected learning community technology roadmap. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.microsoft.com/Education/vision/roadmap/default.aspLado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • 194. 182Lai, C. C., & Kuo, M. M. (2007). Gender Difference in CALL Programs for English as a Second Language Acquisition. Paper presented at the Annual International Meeting of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE) 18th, San Antonio, Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 496190)Lai, K-W., & Pratt, K. (2004). Information and communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools: the role of the computer coordinator. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 461-475.Leach, M. (1990). Philosophical choice. Journal of Education, 3(3), 16-18.Lee, K.W. (2000). English teachers barriers to the use of Computer assisted language learning. The Internet TESL journal, Retrieved February 25, 2006, from http://www.4english.cn/research/0012-%20English%20Teachers%20.htmLenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: WileyLevy, M. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford University Press.Lewis, R. (1986). Computers and language teaching, in Leech, G. and Candlin, N. L. Computers in English Language Teaching and Research. London: Longman, pp. 55-59.Li, Q. (2002). Gender and computer-mediated communication: An exploration of elementary students mathematics and science learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(4), 341-359.Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1996). Rethinking professional development. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/IASA/newsletters/profdev/pt1.html
  • 195. 183Lincoln, I. S., & Guba, E. C. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.Macleod, H., Haywood, D., Haywood, J., & Anderson, C. (2002) Gender & information & communications technology: A 10 year study of new undergraduates. TechTrends, 46(6), 11-15.Martin, J., Birks, J., & Hunt, F. (2007). Research into the use of information literacy web resources by Arabic students. Zayed University Research. Retrieved December 26, 2007, from http://libwebserver.uob.edu.bh/sla07/Papers_pdf/English/Research_information.pdfMartinez, T. E., & Wang, T. (2005). Supporting English language acquisition: Opportunities for foundations to strengthen the social and economic well-being of immigrant families. The Annie E. Casey Foundation and Grantmakers Concerned With Immigrants And Refugees.Marty, F. (1981). Reflections on the use of computers in second-language acquisition, in Hart, R., (ed.), Studies in Language Learning: The PLATO System and Language Study, 3(1), 25-53.McBurney, D. H. (2001). Research Methods, 5th Ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth / Thomson Learning.McGroarty, M. (1993). Second language instruction in the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 86-108.McKenzie, J. (1998). Adult technology learning: Creating learning cultures with just-in-time support. ESchool News. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://staffdevelop.org/adult.html
  • 196. 184Microsoft Corporation. (2007). Microsoft family business survey reveals conflict in family-owned businesses. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/jun07/06-21FamilyBusinessSurvey PR.mspx#top.Mora, M. T. (2003). An Overview of the Economics of Language in the U.S. Labor Market: Presentation Notes. Presentation Prepared for the American Economic Association Summer Minority Program University of Colorado at Denver.Motteram, G. (1997). Computer assisted language learning: An overview. Retrieved: July 26, 2007, from http://www.scut.edu.cn/cwis/scut/setup/foreign/gary.htmMowry, B. (2007). English language learners find success in Saint Paul public schools. Retrieved November 02, 2007, from http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2007/09/12/english-language-learners-find-succ ess-saint-paul-public-schools.htmlMuir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42(2), 111-131.Na, M. (2001). The cultural construction of the computer as a masculine technology: an analysis of computer advertisements in Korea. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 7(3), 93-114.Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationNational Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Participation of adults in English as a second language classes: 1994–1995. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/web/97319t.asp
  • 197. 185National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Computer and Internet use by children and adolescents in 2001: Statistical analysis report. Retrieved March 02, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004014.pdfNational Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Technology in schools: Suggestions, tools and guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. Retrieved January 02, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003313National Center for Family Literacy. (2004). Stories of impact: Improving parent involvement through family literacy in the elementary school. Louisville, KY: Author. Retrieved March 02, 2006, from www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/archives/CEP/brainnewsltr.htmlNational Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA, 2006). Frequently asked questions: School-aged English language learners in the United States. Retrieved January 2007, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/01leps.htmlNational Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for Americas future. New York: Author. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://documents.nctaf.achieve3000.com/WhatMattersMost.pdfNational Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (NCATE, 2001). Guidelines for electronic exhibits rooms. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://www.ncate.org/accred/guidelines_electronic_exhibits.htmNational Council of State Directors of Adult Education. (2006). Adult student waiting list survey. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from www.ncsdae.org
  • 198. 186National School Boards Foundation. (2002). Are we there yet? Research and guidelines on schools’ use of the internet. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from http://www.nsbf.org/thereyet/fulltext.htmNational Staff Development Council. (1999). Standards for staff development. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfmNational Telecommunications & Information Administration. (2000). Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. Washington, D.C.: National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdfNau, D. (1995). Mixing methodologies: Can bimodal research be a viable post-positivist tool? The Qualitative Report, 2(3). Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-3/nau.htmlNeuman, M., & Simmons, W. (2000). Leadership for student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(1), 9-12.Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11-28.New York City Department of Education. (2007). English as a second language. Performance Standards, New York City, first edition. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/default.htmOdlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • 199. 187Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Ostendorf, M., Shriberg, E., & Stolcke A. (2005). Human language technology: opportunities and challenges. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.speech.sri.com/papers/icassp2005-specialsession.pdfOxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 261-285.Pappamihiel, N. E. (2001). Moving from the ESL classroom into the mainstream: an investigation of English language anxiety in Mexican girls. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 31-38.Parker, P. H. (2001). I have a dream: communicating a vision Helps Managers Become Leaders. Pharmaceutical Executive. Advanstar Communications, Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://pharmexec.findpharma.com/pharmexec/Careers/I-Have-A-Dream-Communica ting-a-Vision-Helps-Manage/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/2856Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101.Perrett, G. (1995). August Communicative language teaching and second language acquisition theory. Paper delivered at 1993 MLTA Conference. Published in MLTAQ Inc. Newsletter, No. 101.
  • 200. 188Pew Internet & American Life project. (2005). January 2005 tracking survey. Retrieved April 27, 2005 from http://207.21.232.103/trends/User_Demo_03.07.05.htmPhillips, A. F. (1983). Computer conferences: Success or failure? In Bostrom, R. N. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 6, 837-856. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Ramirez, J. D., (1986). Comparing structured English immersion and bilingual education: First year results of a national study. American Journal of Education, 95, 122-49.Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2002). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.Retzak, A. (2003). Teacher allocation of turns to limited English proficiency students. Research paper: The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout. Retrieved January 2007, from http://www.uwstout.edu/lib/thesis/2003/2003retzaka.pdfRice, J., & Stavrianos, M. (1995). Adult English as a second language programs: An overview of policies, participants, and practices. Washington, DC: Mathematical Policy Research, Inc. and Research Triangle Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388115)Riemenschneider, C. K., Harrison, D. A., & Mykytyn, P. P. (2003). Understanding IT adoption decisions in small business: Integrating current theories. Information & Management, 40, 269-285.Roberts, T. S. (2004) What interest rate are you getting? Learning Technology Newsletter, Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/issues/octover2004/learn_tech_october2004.pdf
  • 201. 189Robertson, E. B., Ladewig, B. H., Strickland, M. P., & Boschung, M. D. (1987). Enhancement of self-esteem through the use of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 80(5), 314-316.Roblyer, M. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Columbus, Ohio: Person EducationRodriguez, G. & Knuth, R. (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te1000.htmRost, M. (2002). New technologies in language education: Opportunities for professional growth. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http://www.longman.com/ae/multimedia/pdf/MikeRost_PDF.pdfSadek, C. S. (2006). How long will a student remain in an ESL program? National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, Certification. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://educationalquestions.org/qa65.htmSalaberry, R. (1999). CALL in the year 2000: still developing the research agenda’. Language learning and technology, 3(1), 104-107.Samuel, M. (2005). Ageism is clogging up the flow of skilled IT workers computing. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/features/2147273/ageism-clogging-flow-ski lledSchleppegrell, M. (1987). The older language learner. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED287313)
  • 202. 190Seelye, H. N., & Navarro, B. N. (1977). A guide to the selection of bilingual education program designs. Arlington Heights, IL: Bilingual Education Service Center.Senge, P. (1998). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.Shashaani, L. (1994). Gender differences in computer experience and its influence on computer attitudes, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 347-367.Shih, H. P. (2004). An empirical study on predicting user acceptance of e-shopping on the Web. Information & Management, 41(3), 351-368.Short, D. J., & Spanos, G. (1989). Teaching mathematics to limited English-proficient students. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Siebert, L. (2003). Student and teacher beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 33(4), 394-420.Skilton-Sylvester, E., & Carlo, M. (1998). I want to learn English: Examining the goals and motivations of adult ESL students in three Philadelphia learning sites. Technical Report No. TR98-08. Philadelphia: National Center for Adult Literacy. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://literacyonline.org/products/ncal/pdf/TR9808.pdfSkinner, B. F. (1969). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1999). Effects of bilingual and English as a second language adaptations of success for all on the reading achievement of students acquiring English. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 4(4), 393-416.Slowinski, J. (2000). Becoming a technologically savvy administrator. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, ERIC Digest 135, Retrieved August 15, 2007, from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest135.html
  • 203. 191Smith, S. G., & Sherwood, B. A. (1976). Educational uses of the PLATO computer system. Science, 192, p. 344.Snell, J. (1999). Improving teacher-student interaction in the EFL classroom: An action research report. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(4). Retrieved August 10, 2007 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Snell-Interaction.htmlSpeck, M. (1996). Best practice in professional development for sustained educational change. ERS Spectrum, pp. 33-41.Stevens V. (Ed.). (1989) A direction for CALL: from behavioristic to humanistic courseware. In Pennington M. (ed.), Teaching languages with computers: the state of the art, La Jolla, CA: Athelstan. pp. 31-43.Stevens, V. (2004). ESL Home: A web resource for CALL lab managers and for teachers and learners of languages. Retrieved March 03, 2006, from http://www.geocities.com/vance_stevens/esl_home.htmStroud, M. D. (1998). Incorporating technology into the foreign language classroom. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from http://www.trinity.edu/mstroud/technology/CALL.htmlSubramanian, G. H. (1998). A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decision Science, 25(5-6), 863-874.Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (2000). Gender differences in academic attitudes among gifted elementary school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(4), 360-77.
  • 204. 192Taghavi, S. E. (2006). The effects of age, access to a computer, and college status on computer attitudes. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 6(1), 1-8. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://www.jiti.com/v06/jiti.v6n1.001-008.pdfTaylor, R. P. (1980). The computer in school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.Taylor, R. & Gitsaki, C. (2003) Teaching well and loving it. In Fotos & Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. pp. 131-147. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Texas Educational Excellence Project. (2005). Bilingual Education: Cause or Cure? Texas A&M University is located in College Station. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://teep.tamu.edu/release023.htmlThomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED475048)Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2003). What we know about effective instructional approaches for language minority learners. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.Trotter, A. (1999). Preparing teachers for the digital age. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/teach.htm
  • 205. 193Tucker, J. T. (2006). Waiting times for adult ESL classes and their impact on English learners. Washington, DC: National Association of Latino Elected Officials. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://renewthevra.civilrights.org/resources/ESL.pdfTurner, A. (1990). Computer-assisted instruction in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 115, 352-354.Underwood, J. (1984) Linguistics, computers and the language teacher: a communicative approach, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.U. S. Census Bureau. (2000). Language use and English speaking ability: 2000. Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/U. S. Census Bureau. (2005). Language spoken at home. Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau. Retrieved July 28, 2007, from http://factfinder.census.gov/U. S. Census Bureau. (2006). 200 American community survey. Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau. Retrieved July 28, 2007, from http://factfinder.census.gov/U. S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. A report on Americans’ access to technology tools. Washington DC: NTIA. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99.contents.htmlU. S. Department of Education. (2005). Adult Education and Family Literacy Act: Program facts. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/aeflaprogfacts.doc
  • 206. 194U. S. Department of Education. (2005). Innovative pathways to school leadership. Washington, DC: Office of Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.edpubs.org/U. S. Department of Education. (1994). Preliminary guidance for migrant education program, Title I, Part C, Public Law 103-382. Washington, DC: Improving Americas Schools Act of 1994 (IASA). Retrieved December 13, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/MEP/PrelimGuide/eseaptc.htmlU. S. Department of Education. (1994). Technology and education reform. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTechU. S. Department of Education. (1992). The provision of an equal education opportunity to limited English proficient students. Washington, DC: Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from http://www.edpubs.org/U. S. Department of Education. (2007). What program models exist to serve English language learners? Washington, DC: Office of Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.edpubs.org/U. S. House of Representatives. (1994). Improving America’s Schools Act, P. L. 103-382. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.nabe.org/documents/policy_legislation/TitleVII1994.pdfValdez, G. (2004). Critical issue: technology leadership enhancing positive educational change. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le700.htm
  • 207. 195Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes. M., & Rassck, L. (1999). Computer-Based Technology and Learning: Evolving Uses and Expectations. Oak Brook, Illinois: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Van Ingen, E. J., De Haan, J., & Duimel M. (2007). Disadvantage and distance. Digital skills of the low-educated, the elderly, ethnic minorities and the economically inactive. Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands. ISSN: 9789037703160. Retrieved August 24, 2007, from http://www.scp.nl/english/publications/summaries/9789037703160.htmlVenkatesh, V., & Morris, M. (2000). Why dont men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139.Volman, M. (1997). Gender-related effects of computer and information literacy education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29, 315–328.von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London & Washington: The Falmer Press.Wade-Woolley, L. (1999). First language influences on second language word reading: All roads lead to Rome. Language Learning, 49, 447-471.Walqui, A. (2000). Contextual factors in second language acquisition. ERIC Digest ED444381. Washington: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/2a/31/ 03.pdf
  • 208. 196Wang, C., Hsu, Y., & Fang, W. (2005). Acceptance of technology with network externalities: An empirical study of internet instant messaging services. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 6(3), 15-28.Wang, L. S. (1996). Causal modeling research on language minorities achievement. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/call.htmlWarschauer, M. (2001). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 511-535.Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In Fotos & Browne (Ed.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. pp. 15-26. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (eds.) (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.Wiazowski, J. (2002). Computer-assisted language learning as a bridge to social inclusion of blind learners in mainstream schooling. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http://www.icevi.org/publications/ICEVI-WC2002/papers/01-topic/Woodruff, R. B. & Gardial, S. F. (1996). Know your customer: New approaches to understanding customer value and satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: BlackWell Business.
  • 209. 197Wright, E., & Kuehn, P. A. (1998). The effects of academic language instruction on college bound at risk secondary students. Journal of Educational Opportunity, 17(1), 9-22.Zhang, Y. and Wang, Y. (2007). Neural plasticity in speech acquisition and learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 147-160.Zoe, L. R., & DiMartino, D. (2000). Cultural diversity and end user searching: An analysis by gender and language background. Research Strategies, 17(4), 291-305.
  • 210. APPENDIXES 198
  • 211. 199 Appendix A Survey Instruments(English, Spanish, French, Korean, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese)
  • 212. 200 TAM in CALL Questionnaire (English Version) CONSENT BY SUBJECT FOR PARTICIPATION IN A RESEARCH PROJECTPrincipal Investigator: Cheng-Chieh Lai, Graduate Student, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 713-771-6710. email: lai.moore@gmail.comFaculty Sponsor: Dr. David Herrington, Professor of Educational Leadership, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 936-261-3649.Questionnaire Instruction:(a) The purpose of the study is to examine the effects of Computer Assisted LanguageLearning (CALL) programs on English as a Second Language (ESL) education forLimited English Proficiency (LEP) learners. This questionnaire attempts to find out whatindividual backgrounds may influence the levels of a student’s Technology Acceptance ofCALL programs for assisting English learning.(b) The definition of CALL programs in here is the use of general computer softwareapplications, such as word processors, presentation software, email, multimedia packages,online communicating software, and Web browsers.(c) You are being invited to participate in this questionnaire. There are no risks orpenalties for your participation in this research study. By completing the questionnaireyou are voluntarily agreeing to participate. You may refuse to participate without beingsubject to any penalty or losing any benefits. However, there is substantial potential forbenefit. The information you provide may offer ESL leaders and educators a view of theproblems associated with current uses of technology in ESL education, so that they canimprove future ESL instructions and CALL programs.(d) All data you write down in this questionnaire is available only to the principalinvestigator and his faculty supervisor. The data will be held in confidence to the extentpermitted by law. Should the data be published, your identity will not be disclosed.(e) There are four sections in this questionnaire, including (1) the demographic data, (2)perceived usefulness of CALL programs for English learning, (3) perceived ease of useof CALL programs for English learning, and (4) comments, questions, or recommendsfor this questionnaire. The total anticipated time commitment is approximately 5-10minutes. Your participation is very important to the success of this questionnaire.(f) Please click on your choice of responses that most closely matches your perception ofthe degree to which the following characteristics are evident in your opinion.
  • 213. 201Section 1: Demographic Data1. Age: ______ Years Old2. Gender: □ Male □ Female3. What is your native (first) language? □ Chinese □ Spanish □ French □ Korean □ Vietnamese □ Other, Please specify: ____________________4. What is the highest level of your education ever completed?□ Elementary school□ Secondary school□ High school□ College or University□ Postgraduate school5. How many years have you been using computer and the Internet? ______ Years6. In which school or institution are you enrolled to study ESL?_______________________________________________Section 2: Perceived Usefulness of CALL Programs for English Learning1. Using computers and the Internet in my English learning can enable me to achievehigher English level more quickly.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree2. Using the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, can improvemy English learning performance.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree3. Using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room can provide me moreopportunities for communicating and interacting with my ESL teachers and peers.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree4. Using the computer learning software and the Internet’s World Wide Web can help meget more ESL learning resources and materials to enhance my English learning.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree5. Using the computer learning software and the Internet’s World Wide Web can exposeme to the American culture as well as learning English.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
  • 214. 2026. I believe that computer technologies and ESL learning software are useful for fulfillingmy ESL learning goals.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly DisagreeComments for this section:Section 3: Perceived Ease of Use of CALL Programs for English Learning7. I am willing to study English with the computer because I find that it is easy to get thecomputer to do whatever I want it to do, whenever and wherever I choose.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree8. It is easy for me to use the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, andMultimedia, as tools for showing my English learning progress.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree9. I have no problem using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room tocommunicate and interact with my ESL teachers and peers.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree10. When I use the computer learning software and the Internet’s World Wide Web, I findthat it is easy to gain the ESL learning resources and materials what I need them.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree11. I find that it is easy for me to learn more basic knowledge of English and Americanculture through the computer and the Internet.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree12. I believe that operating the computer and using computer assisted language learningprograms is easy.□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly DisagreeComments for this section:Section 4: Comments, Questions, or Recommends for This Questionnaire
  • 215. 203 TAM in CALL Questionnaire (Spanish Version) CONSENT BY SUBJECT FOR PARTICIPATION IN A RESEARCH PROJECTPrincipal Investigator: Cheng-Chieh Lai, Graduate Student, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 713-771-6710. email: lai.moore@gmail.comFaculty Sponsor: Dr. David Herrington, Professor of Educational Leadership, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 936-261-3649.Instrucciones Como Llenar Cuestionario:(a) El fin del estudio es examinar los efectos de programas de Aprendizaje de IdiomaAsistido por Computadora (AIAC) sobre programas de Ingles como Segundo Idioma (ISI)para estudiantes clasificados con Proficiencia Limitada en el Ingles. El intento de estecuestionario es para encontrar que caracteristicas individuales influencian los niveles deaprobación sobre la tecnologia de programas de AIAC que ayudan sobre el aprendizajedel Ingles por estudiantes.(b) La definicion de programas AIAC aqui es el uso de aplicaciones generales desoftware de computadora, como procesadores de palabras, software de presentacion,correo electronico, paquetes de multimedia, software de comunicación a traves delInternet, y Web browsers.(c) Usted ha sido invitado para participar en este estudio. No hay riesgos o penalidadespor su participacion en este estudio. Completando este cuestionario significa que ustedesta voluntariamente de acuerdo en participar. Usted puede rechazar su participación eneste estudio sin ninguna penalidad o perdida de beneficios. Sin embargo, hay un potencialsubstancial de beneficio en participar. La informacion que usted de puede ofrecerle a loslideres y educadores del ISI un panorama de los problemas asociados con el presente usode la tecnologia en la educación del ISI, para que ellos puedan mejorar en el futuro lasinstrucciones del ISI y programas de AIAC.(d) Todos los datos que usted escriba en este cuestionario seran solamente disponiblespara el investigador principal y su supervisor de la facultad. Los datos seran mantenidosbajo confidencialidad hasta los limites permitidos por ley. Si por casualidad los datos sonpublicados, su identidad no sera revelada.(e) Hay cuatro secciones en este cuestionario, incluyendo (1) datos demograficos, (2)percepciones sobre que tan útiles son los programas de AIAC para el aprendizaje deIngles, (3) percepción sobre la facilidad del uso de programas de AIAC para elaprendizaje del Ingles, y (4) comentarios, preguntas, o recomendaciones para estecuestionario. El tiempo aproximado para llenar este cuestionario es de 5-10 minutos. Suparticipacion es muy importante para el exito de este estudio.(f) Por favor haga click sobre las selecciones que mejor midan su percepcion o opiniónsobre las siguientes caracteristicas.
  • 216. 204Seccion 1: Datos Demograficos1. Edad: ______ años2. Genero: □ Masculino □ Femenino3. Cual es su idioma nativo? □ Chino □ Espanol □ Frances □ Koreano □ Otro, Por favor especifique: ____________________4. Cual es el nivel mas alto de educacion que usted ha logrado?□ Educacion Primaria□ Educacion Secundaria□ Educacion Preparatoria□ Colegio o Universidad□ Postgrado5. Por cuantos anos ha estado usted utilizando la computadora y el Internet? ______ años6. En cual escuela o institucion esta usted estudiando ISI?Seccion 2: Percepciones Sobre que tan Utiles son Los Programas de AIAC para elAprendizaje de Ingles1. Utilizando la computadora y el internet para aprender el Ingles, me puede ayudar alograr un nivel de Ingles mas alto y mas rapido.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo2. Utilizando software de computadora como Word, PowerPoint, y Multimedia puedemejorar mi exito sobre mi aprendizaje del Ingles.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo3. Utilizando correo electronico, blog para discucion, o salon de chat me pueden dar masoportunidades para comunicacion e interaccion con mis maestros de ISI y con miscompaneros de clase.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo
  • 217. 2054. Utilizando software de computadora para el aprendizaje y el internet me pueden ayudara obtener mas materiales y recursos sobre el tema de ISI para avanzar en mi aprendizajede Ingles.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo5. Utilizando software de computadora para el aprendizaje y el internet me puedenexponer a la cultura Americana y tambien al aprendizaje del Ingles.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo6. Yo creo que las tecnologias de computadora y software de aprendizaje para ISI sonútiles paras lograr mis metas de aprender el ISI.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en DesacuerdoComentarios sobre esta seccion:Seccion 3: Percepción sobre la Facilidad del Uso de Programas de AIAC para elAprendizaje del Ingles7. Yo estoy dispuesto a estudiar Ingles por computadora porque encuentro que es masfacil hacer con la computadora lo que uno quiere, cuando y donde uno escoja.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo8. Esta facil para mi usar software de computadora, como Word, PowerPoint, yMultimedia, como instrumentos para medir mi progreso en el aprendizaje del Ingles.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo9. Yo no tengo dificultades en usar correo electronico, blog para discucion, o salon dechat para comunicar e interactuar con mis maestros de ISI y con mis companeros de clase.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo10. Cuando uso software de computadora para aprendizaje y el internet, es mas facil parami encontrar materiales y otros recursos que necesito para el aprendizaje de ISI.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo
  • 218. 20611. Es facil para mi aprender mas conocimientos basicos sobre la cultura Ingles yAmericana por medio de la computadora y el internet.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo12. Yo creo que utilizando la computadora y usando programas de computadora para elaprendizaje de idioma es facil.□ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral□ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en DesacuerdoComentarios sobre esta seccion:Seccion 4: Comentarios, Preguntas, o Recomendaciones sobre este Cuestionario
  • 219. 207 TAM in CALL Questionnaire (French Version)Principal Investigator: Cheng-Chieh Lai, Graduate Student, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 713-771-6710. email: lai.moore@gmail.comFaculty Sponsor: Dr. David Herrington, Professor of Educational Leadership, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 936-261-3649.Instruction de questionnaire:(a) Le but de létude est dexaminer les effets des programmes d’apprentissage deslangues assistés par ordinateur (ALAO) de l’éducation de langlais comme deuxièmelangue (lADL) pour les étudiants d’anglais de compétence limitée (ACL). Cequestionnaire essaye de découvrir quels différents milieux peuvent influencer les niveauxde lacceptation de la technologie dun étudiant des programmes dALAO pour aiderlétude d’anglais.(b) La définition des programmes dALAO voici est lutilisation des applicationsgénérales de logiciel, telles que les unités de traitement de texte, le logiciel deprésentation, lemail, les paquets de multimédia, le logiciel de communication en ligne, etles navigateurs de Web.(c) Vous êtes invité à participer à ce questionnaire. Il ny a aucun risque ou pénalités pourvotre participation à cette étude de recherche. En remplissant le questionnaire vousacceptez volontairement de participer. Vous pouvez refuser de participer sans être sujet ànimporte quelle pénalité ou ne perdre aucun avantage. Cependant, il y a potentielsubstantiel pour lavantage. Les informations que vous fournissez peuvent offrir des chefset des éducateurs de lADL une approche des problèmes liés aux utilisations courantes dela technologie dans léducation de lADL, de sorte quils puissent améliorer de futursinstructions de lADL et programmes dALAO.(d) Toutes les données que vous notez en ce questionnaire sont disponibles seulement àlinvestigateur principal et à son surveillant de faculté. Les données seront contenues dansla confiance jusquau degré autorisé par loi. Si les données sont éditées, votre identité nesera pas révélée.(e) Il y a quatre sections en ce questionnaire, y compris (1) les données démographiques,(2) utilité perçue des programmes dALAO pour lapprentissage d’anglais, (3) facilitédutilisation perçue des programmes dALAO pour lapprentissage d’anglais, et (4)commentaires, questions, ou recommandation pour ce questionnaire. Tout le engagementprévu de temps est approximativement 5-10 minutes. Votre participation est trèsimportante pour le succès de ce questionnaire.(f) Veuillez cliquer sur votre choix des réponses qui assortit le plus étroitement votreperception du degré auquel les caractéristiques suivantes sont évidentes à votre avis.
  • 220. 208Section 1: Données démographiques1. Âge: ____ ans2. Genre: □ Mâle □ Femelle3. Quelle est votre (première) langue maternelle? □ Chinois □ Espagnol □ Français □ Coréen □ Autre, spécifiez svp: ____________________4. Quel est le niveau le plus haut de votre éducation jamais accomplice? □ École primaire □ École secondaire □ Lycée □ Université □ École universitaire supérieure5. Combien dannées vous avez utilisé lordinateur et linternet? ______ Ans6. Dans quelle école ou établissement sont vous êtes inscrit pour étudier lADL?Section 2: Utilité perçue des programmes dALAO pour lapprentissage d’anglais1. Utilisant les ordinateurs et lInternet dans l’apprentissage de l’anglais peut mepermettre d’avoir un niveau d’anglais plus élevé plus rapidement.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord2. Utilisant le logiciel, tel que le Word, PowerPoint, et les multimédia, peuvent améliorerle résultat d’apprentissage d’anglais.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord3. Utilisant lemail, le tablaeu électronique de discussion, ou la chat-room en ligne peutme présenter plus de moyens de communication et de linteraction avec mes professeurset pairs de lADL.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord
  • 221. 2094. Utilisant le logiciel dapprentissage par ordinateur et linternet peut maider à obtenirplus de ressources et de matériaux dapprentissage de lADL pour augmenter monapprentissage d’anglais.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord5. Utilisant le logiciel dapprentissage par ordinateur et linternet peut mexposer à laculture américaine aussi bien quapprendre langlais.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord6. Je crois que les techniques d’informatique et le logiciel d’apprentissage de lADL sontutiles pour accomplir mes buts d’apprentissage de lADL.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accordCommentaires pour cette section:Section 3: Facilité dutilisation perçue des programmes dALAO pourlapprentissage d’anglais7. Je suis disposé à étudier langlais avec lordinateur parce que je constate quil est faciledobtenir lordinateur de faire quoi que je veuille quil fasse, toutes les fois et ce que jechoisis.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord8. Il est facile pour moi dutiliser le logiciel, tel que le Word, le PowerPoint, et lesmultimédia, car des outils pour montrer mon progrès de l’apprentissage d’anglais.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord9. Je n’ai pas de problème d’utiliser lemail, le tablaeu électronique de discussion, ou lachat-room en ligne peut me présenter plus de moyens de communication et delinteraction avec mes professeurs et pairs de lADL.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord
  • 222. 21010. Quand jutilise le logiciel dapprentissage par l’ordinateur et lInternet, je constate quilest facile de gagner les ressources et les matériaux dapprentissage de lADL dont jaibesoin.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord11. Je constate quil est facile pour moi dapprendre la connaissance plus fondamentale dela culture anglaise et américaine par lordinateur et linternet.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord12. Je crois que le fonctionnement de lordinateur et lutilisation des programmes assistéspar ordinateur d’apprentissage des langues est facile.□ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre□ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accordCommentaires pour cette section:Section 4: Les commentaires, questions, ou recommande pour cequestionnaire
  • 223. 211 TAM in CALL Questionnaire (Korean Version)Principal Investigator: Cheng-Chieh Lai, Graduate Student, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 713-771-6710. email: lai.moore@gmail.comFaculty Sponsor: Dr. David Herrington, Professor of Educational Leadership, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 936-261-3649.문제소개:(a). 이 연구의 목적은 영어가 아직 숙달되지 않은 LEP 의 학습자들이 컴퓨터보조언어 학습과정 (CALL Programs) 을 통해 제 2 의 언어인 영어(ESL)교육에 미치는 영향을 시험하기 위한 조사이다.이 설문지는 어떤 개인배경적 요소들이 학생들로 하여금 과학기술을 접촉하는정도를 알아내며, 그것은 또한 그들이 적용하는 컴퓨터를 통한 영어학습을 할때, 컴퓨터 보조 언어학습 과정의 유용성(usefulness)과 쉽게 사용하는 (easeof use) 점 등을 포함한 것이다.(b). 컴퓨터 관련 보조 언어학습과정에 대한 정의는, 이 설문지상에 현재보편적으로 사용하는 각종 컴퓨터 응용 소프트웨어, 문서처리, 문서분석,강의설명 소프트웨어, 전자메엘, 멀티미디어 세트 및 인터넷 브라우저등을포함한다.(c). 본 설문에 당신을 초청합니다. 이 설문은 당신에게 어떤 위험이나 처벌은없습니다. 그러나 반드시 당신이 스스로 동의하여 완성해 주셔야 만 합니다.만약 참여를 거절하신다면, 역시 당신의 권리에 어떤 처벌이나 손실도없습니다.그리고, 이 설문지를 완성하시면 잠재적인 유익이 있습니다. 왜냐하면, 당신이제공해 주신 정보가 ESL 교육 지도자와 학습자들이 당면해 있는 컴퓨터기술을 이용한 ESL 수업상 문제를 이해하는데 도움을 줍니다. 그래서 미래의ESL 학습과 컴퓨터 보조언어 프로그램에 더 좋은 개선이 될 것입니다.(d). 당신이 작성하신 자료는, 연구자와 감독자만 읽을 수 있습니다. 법률규정내에서 자료는 비밀로 보장이 됩니다. 향후 연구 발표시, 당신의 신분은밝혀지지 않습니다.(e). 이 설문지는 4 개의 부분으로 나뉜다. 그것은:(1)개인기본자료, (2)컴퓨터보조언어 학습이 영어 학습에 주는 유용성의 인식, (3)컴퓨터 보조언어 학습이영어 학습상 쉽게 사용하는 것의 인식 및 (4)이 설문조사에 대한 평론, 문제,혹은 건의 이다. 이 설문지를 작성하는데는 대략 5 분에서 10 분정도가필요하다. 당신이 참여하는 이 설문조사의 성공도는 예, 아니오에 중요성이있습니다.(f). 이러한 것을 근거로 당신의 개인적 생각을, 당신에게 가장 적합한 답에표기해 주십시요.
  • 224. 212제 1 부분 : 개인부분 자료1. 연령: ________ 세2. 성별: □ 남성 □ 여성3. 모국어(제 1 언어)?□ 중국어 □ 스페인어 □ 프랑스어 □ 한국어□ 기타, 을 지정하십시오: ____________________4. 최고학력?□ 초등학교 이하□ 초등학교 졸업□ 중학교 졸업□ 고등학교 졸업□ 대학 졸업□ 석사이상5. 당신은 몇 년동안 컴퓨터 및 인터넷을 사용했습니까? ______ 년6. 당신이 현재 공부하는 ESL 과정의 학교 혹은 교육기관명칭은? _____________________________________________________제 2 부분 : 컴퓨터 보조 언어학습 운용 (CALL Programs)에 대한 영어학습의유용성1. 컴퓨터와 인터넷을 이용한 결과, 나의 영어 학습상 더 빠른 더 높은수준의 영어 효과를 보았는가.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴2. 컴퓨터 소프트웨어를 이용한, 예를 들면 WORD 문서처리, PowerPoint, 및기타 멀티미디어 등등의 프로그램이, 나의 영어 학습에서 표현이 개선이되었다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴
  • 225. 2133. 이메일(email),인터넷 토론방(electronic discussion board),및 인터넷체팅룸(online chat-room)등은, 많은 기회를 통해 ESL 선생님과 학생들간에소통과 교류를 제공해 준다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴4. 컴퓨터 학습 소프트웨어와 인터넷 홈페지를 이용하면, 더 많은 영어학습상의 자료과 소식을 제공하는데 도움을 준다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴5. 컴퓨터 학습 소프트웨어와 인터넷 홈페지를 이용한 것이, 나로 하여금영어환경과 미국문화를 더욱 쉽게 이해하고, 영어학습 목표를 달성하게되었다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴6. 내가 그냥 한 마디로 말한다면, 컴퓨터 기술이 ESL 학습 소프트웨어가영어 학습에 효과가 있었다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴이 부분에 대한 설문조사이 의견으로 :제 3 부분 : 컴퓨터 보조 언어 학습운용 (CALL Programs) 이 영어학습을쉽게 하는점.7. 나는 컴퓨터를 통해 영어학습을 하기 원합니다. 왜냐하면, 내가 느낀바로는 어느곳이든 어느 시간이든 내가 쉽게 컴퓨터를 사용할 수 있고 내가하고 싶은 것들을 할 수 있기 때문입니다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴
  • 226. 2148. 나는 컴퓨터 소프트웨어를 사용하는 것, 예를들면 WORD 문서처리,파워포인트 등의 소프트웨어 및 기타 멀티미디어등이 나의 영어 학습상표현등을 쉽게 개선시켜 준다고 생각한다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴9. 나는 이메일(email)이나, 인터넷토론방(electronic discussion board), 인터넷체팅룸(online chat-room)등이,나의 ESL 선생님과 친구들의 커뮤니케이션이나교류상 문제가 없다고 생각한다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴10. 나는 컴퓨터 학습과 인터넷 홈페지를 통하여, 내게 필요한 영어 자료나정보를 쉽게 제공 받는 것을 느낀다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴11.총체적으로 나는, 컴퓨터학습 소프트웨어와 인터넷 홈페지를 통해 쉽게더 많은 영어 상식과 미국문화를 학습하게 된 것을 느낀다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴12.한마디로 말하면, 어떻게 컴퓨터를 컨트롤하여 사용할 것인지와, 또한컴퓨터 보조언어 학습 소프트웨어를 배워서 사용하는 것은 쉬운 것이다.□ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴이 부분에 대한 설문조사이 의견으로 :제 4 부분 : 전체 질문사항에 대한 의견, 문제 및 제의
  • 227. 215 TAM in CALL Questionnaire (Traditional Chinese Version) CONSENT BY SUBJECT FOR PARTICIPATION IN A RESEARCH PROJECTPrincipal Investigator: Cheng-Chieh Lai, Graduate Student, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 713-771-6710. email: lai.moore@gmail.comFaculty Sponsor: Dr. David Herrington, Professor of Educational Leadership, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 936-261-3649.問卷說明:(1). 這項研究的目的是調查英文未達流利(LEP)的學習者他們所認為電腦輔助語言學習課程(CALL Programs)對英語作為第二語言(ESL)教育的影響。這份問卷試圖找出什麼樣的個人背景因素可能會影響學生們的科技接受度,包括當他們運用電腦學習英語時,所感受到電腦輔助語言學習課程的有用性(usefulness)與易用性(ease of use)。(2). 有關電腦輔助語言學習課程的定義,在這份問卷裡指的是目前普遍使用的各種電腦應用軟件,如文字處理,文本分析,演講展示軟件,電子郵件,多媒體套件,以及網絡瀏覽等等。(3). 您被邀請參與本次問卷調查。參與這份問卷您不會遭遇任何風險或處罰,但您必須是自願同意完成的。若您拒絕參與,也將不會遭受任何處罰或損失您應有的權利。然而,完成這份問卷能帶來潛在的好處,因為您所提供的資訊可能帶給 ESL 教育領導者與學者們了解當前電腦科技運用在 ESL 課程上的問題,因此他們能進一步改善未來的 ESL 課程與電腦輔助語言程式。(4). 任何您所填寫的任何資訊,都只限主要研究者和他的指導監督者才能檢閱。有關資料保密都將維持在法律規定範圍內。未來研究發表時,你的身份將不會被暴露。(5). 這個問卷共有四個部分,包括有:(1)個人基本資料,(2)電腦輔助語言教學對英語學習上有用性的認知,(3)電腦輔助語言教學對英語學習上易用性的認知,以及(4)對整份問卷的評論,問題,或建議。填寫這份問卷大約需要 5 至 10 分鐘。您的參與對這份問卷的成功與否是重要的。(6). 請依據您個人的看法,點選一個最符合您感受的答案。
  • 228. 216第一部份: 個人基本資料1. 年齡: ______ 歲2. 性別: □ 男性 □ 女性3. 您的母語(第一語言)為何? _______________□ 中文 □ 西班牙語 □ 法語 □ 韓語□ 其他,請說明: ____________________4. 您的最高學歷為何?□ 低於國小□ 國小畢業□ 國中畢業□ 高中畢業□ 大學畢業□ 碩士以上5. 您大約有多少年使用電腦與網際網路的經驗? ______ 年6. 您目前就讀 ESL 課程的學校或教育機構名稱為何? .第二部分: 電腦輔助語言學習軟體(CALL Programs) 對英文學習之有用性1. 利用電腦與網際網路,在我的英文學習上能讓我更快達到較高的英文程度。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意2. 利用電腦軟體,諸如 WORD 文書處理, PowerPoint 簡報軟體, 以及其他多媒體等等, 能改善我在英文學習上的表現。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意3. 利用電子信件(email),網路討論版(electronic discussion board),以及網路聊天室 (online chat-room)等,能提供我更多機會和 ESL 老師與同學們進行溝通與交流。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意4. 利用電腦學習軟體和網路網頁,能幫助我得到更多的 ESL 學習資源與材料,加強我的英文學習。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意5. 利用電腦學習軟體和網路網頁,可令我更了解美國文化,進而學好英文。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意
  • 229. 2176. 我相信電腦科技和 ESL 學習軟體,對達成我學習英文的目標而言,是有用的。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意對這部分問卷問題的意見:第三部分: 電腦輔助語言學習軟體(CALL Programs) 對英文學習之易用性7. 我願意利用電腦學英文,因為我發現不論何時何地,我都能輕易使用電腦做我想做的事。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意8. 對我而言,利用電腦軟體,諸如 WORD 文書處理, PowerPoint 簡報軟體, 以及其他多媒體等等,很容易便能呈現我在英文學習上的進展。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意9. 對我而言,利用電子信件(email),網路討論版(electronic discussion board),和網路聊天室(online chat-room)等,和我的 ESL 老師和同學們進行溝通與交流,是沒問題的。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意10. 我發現當我使用電腦學習軟體和網路網頁,我很容易就能取得我所需要的英文學習資源與材料。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意11. 我發現透過電腦和網路網頁,我能容易學習到更多的基本英文知識與了解更多的美國文化。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意12. 我相信操作電腦與使用電腦輔助語言學習軟體是容易的。□ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 沒意見 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意對這部分問卷問題的意見:第四部分: 對這整份問卷的意見與建議
  • 230. 218 TAM in CALL Questionnaire (Simplified Chinese Version) CONSENT BY SUBJECT FOR PARTICIPATION IN A RESEARCH PROJECTPrincipal Investigator: Cheng-Chieh Lai, Graduate Student, Department of EducationalLeadership, College of Education, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 713-771-6710.email: lai.moore@gmail.comFaculty Sponsor: Dr. David Herrington, Professor of Educational Leadership, PrairieView A&M University. Phone: 936-261-3649.问卷说明:(1). 这项研究的目的是调查英文未达流利(LEP)的学习者他们所认为电脑辅助语言学习课程(CALL Programs)对英语作为第二语言(ESL)教育的影响。这份问卷试图找出什么样的个人背景因素可能会影响学生们的科技接受度,包括当他们运用电脑学习英语时,所感受到电脑辅助语言学习课程的有用性(usefulness)与易用性(ease of use)。(2). 有关电脑辅助语言学习课程的定义,在这份问卷里指的是目前普遍使用的各种电脑应用软件,如文字处理,文本分析,演讲展示软件,电子邮件,多媒体套件,以及网络浏览等等。(3). 您被邀请参与本次问卷调查。参与这份问卷您不会遭遇任何风险或处罚,但您必须是自愿同意完成的。若您拒绝参与,也将不会遭受任何处罚或损失您应有的权利。然而,完成这份问卷能带来潜在的好处,因为您所提供的信息可能带给 ESL 教育领导者与学者们了解当前电脑科技运用在 ESL 课程上的问题,因此他们能进一步改善未来的 ESL 课程与电脑辅助语言程序。(4). 任何您所填写的任何信息,都只限主要研究者和他的指导监督者才能检阅。有关资料保密都将维持在法律规定范围内。 未来研究发表时,你的身份将不会被暴露。(5). 这个问卷共有四个部分,包括有:(1)个人基本资料,(2)电脑辅助语言教学对英语学习上有用性的认知,(3)电脑辅助语言教学对英语学习上易用性的认知,以及(4)对整份问卷的评论,问题,或建议。填写这份问卷大约需要 5 至 10 分钟。您的参与对这份问卷的成功与否是重要的。(6). 请依据您个人的看法,点选一个最符合您感受的答案。
  • 231. 219第一部份: 个人基本资料1. 您的年龄: ______ 岁2. 您的性别: □ 男性 □ 女性3. 您的母语(第一语言)为何? _______________ 中文 □ 西班牙语 □ 法语 □ 韩语 其他,请说明: ____________________4. 您的最高学历为何?□小学毕业□初中毕业□高中毕业□大学毕业□硕士以上5. 您大约有多少年使用电脑与网际网络的经验? ______ 年6. 您目前就读 ESL 课程的学校或教育机构名称为何?________________________________________________第二部分: 电脑辅助语言学习软件(CALL Programs) 对英文学习之有用性1. 利用电脑与网际网路,在我的英文学习上能让我更快达到较高的英文程度。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意2. 利用电脑软体,诸如 WORD 文书处理, PowerPoint 简报软体, 以及其他多媒体等等,能改善我在英文学习上的表现。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意3. 利用电子信件(email),网路讨论版(electronic discussion board),以及网路聊天室 (online chat-room)等,能提供我更多机会和 ESL 老师与同学们进行沟通与交流。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意4. 利用电脑学习软件和网络网页,能帮助我得到更多的 ESL 学习资源与材料,加强我的英文学习。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意5. 利用电脑学习软体和网路网页,可令我更了解美国文化,进而学好英文。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意
  • 232. 2206. 我相信电脑科技和 ESL 学习软体,对达成我学习英文的目标而言,是有用的。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意对这部分问卷问题的意见:第三部分: 电脑辅助语言学习软体(CALL Programs) 对英文学习之易用性7. 我愿意利用电脑学英文,因为我发现不论何时何地,我都能轻易使用电脑做我想做的事。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意8. 对我而言,利用电脑软件, 诸如 WORD 文书处理, PowerPoint 简报软件, 以及其他多媒体等等,很容易便能呈现我在英文学习上的进展。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意9. 对我而言,利用电子信件(email),网路讨论版(electronic discussion board),和网路聊天室(online chat-room)等 和我的 ESL 老师和同学们进行沟通与交流 是没问题的。 , , □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意10. 我发现当我使用电脑学习软体和网路网页,我很容易就能取得我所需要的英文学习资源与材料。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意11. 我发现通过电脑和网络网页,我能容易学习到更多的基本英文知识与了解更多的美语文化。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意12. 我相信操作电脑与使用电脑辅助语言学习软件是容易的。 □ 非常同意 □ 同意 □ 没意见 □ 不同意 □ 非常不同意对这部分问卷问题的意见:第四部分: 对这整份问卷的意见与建议
  • 233. 221 Appendix BInterview Questions
  • 234. 222 Interview QuestionsPrincipal Investigator: Cheng-Chieh Lai, Graduate Student, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 713-771-6710. email: lai.moore@gmail.comFaculty Sponsor: Dr. David Herrington, Professor of Educational Leadership, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 936-261-3649.Regarding research questions three to five, the following questions will be asked:(I) Strengths and Limitations of CALLQ 1: What effects do CALL programs have on your whole ESL teaching/ learning processes through your experiences?Q 2: What are the strengths (advantages) of CALL programs in your ESL teaching/learning through your experiences?Q 3: What are the limitations (disadvantages) of CALL programs in your ESL teaching/learning through your experiences?(II) Role of CALLQ 4: How often do you use CALL programs to support your ESL teaching/learning?Q 5: What kind of situations, occasion, or timing will you use CALL programs to support your ESL teaching/learning?Q 6: What is the important role of CALL programs played in your ESL teaching/learning? (Tutor, Stimuli, Tool, Tutee, or Other) Why?Expectation of Oncoming CALLQ 7: Do you satisfy the current functions of CALL programs through your ESL teaching/learning experiences? Why?Q 8: What kind of English skills (Listening. Reading, Writing, and Speaking) can be most and worst promoted when learning English with CALL programs? Why?Q 9: What expectation for oncoming CALL programs do you have?
  • 235. 223 Appendix CInstitutional Review Board (IRB) Approval
  • 236. 224
  • 237. 225 Appendix DPermission Letters
  • 238. 226
  • 239. 227
  • 240. 228
  • 241. 229 Appendix ETranslation Certificate
  • 242. 230
  • 243. VITA CHENG-CHIEH LAI No.72, Lane 219, Minzu Rd., Changhua City Changhua County 500, Taiwan (R.O.C.)EDUCATIONAL HISTORY Texas A&M University, Kingsville. M.S. in Bilingual Education, December 2004 Taipei National University of the Arts Tunghai University, Taiwan. B.F.A. in Drama Theater, Jun 1990EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1997 - 2002 Drama Teacher, China Youth Corps , Taiwan 1994 - 2002 Professional Drama Theater & TV programs Writer, Taiwan. 231

×