Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
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, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member

8,776

Published on

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Committee for Dr. Cheng-Chieh Lai, PhD Program in Educational Leadership, PVAMU, Member of the Texas A&M University System. …

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Committee for Dr. Cheng-Chieh Lai, PhD Program in Educational Leadership, PVAMU, Member of the Texas A&M University System.

Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair for Dr. Cheng-Chief Lai.

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
8,776
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
159
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 LEARNING PROGRAMS 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 by CHENG-CHIEH LAI December 2008 All 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 the effectiveness of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) programs on English as a Second Language (ESL) education for diverse Limited English Proficiency (LEP) learners and instructors and to provide the results as a reference to educational leaders and administrators who are considering the use of ESL for their English instruction programs. A combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was utilized to collect and analyze data. A questionnaire modified from Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model theory (1989) was used to collect the quantitative data. The sample of the quantitative study consisted of 329 LEP students taking ESL courses and CALL programs in college level schools or adult educational institutions in the Houston area of Texas during the summer semester of 2008. Descriptive statistics and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine the influence of ESL students’ individual backgrounds 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 of future CALL programs from both students’ and instructors’ viewpoints. The qualitative interviews included seven ESL instructors and thirteen LEP students. The findings of the study indicate that the student’s native language and age may be regarded as factors that influenced the student’s perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs. The advantages of current CALL programs not only provide instructors and students more teaching and learning resources, but also vary their teaching and learning methods. Through the qualitative interviews, the roles of CALL programs are varied in each instructor’s and student’s opinions. Different instructors and students have reasons to use CALL programs in different area, as a tool, a tutor, and a tutee to meet their individual needs. Price, artificial intelligence, and ease of use are three major concerns of future CALL programs by ESL instructors and LEP students. The study is significant in that it provides valuable data for educational leaders and administrators that may use in determining the extent to which technology investments are effective within specific populations of English language learners. The assessment results can also be used to recommend changes in technology utilization and software 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 my graduate experience. I appreciate his vast knowledge and skill in many areas and his assistance. 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 the assistance they provided at all levels of the research project. Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents, my young brother, and my friends Julie Williams and Dr. Kuo for their supports. v
  • 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ vi LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES..............................................................................x CHAPTER 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 ................................................................................15 CHAPTER 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 .........................................................................................................77 CHAPTER 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 .........................................................................................................93 CHAPTER 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 .......................................................................................................139 CHAPTER 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 .............................................................165 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................168 APPENDIXES ...........................................................................................................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 ...............................................................229 VITA ..........................................................................................................................231 ix
  • 10. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by School ........................97 2 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by School and Age Group ………………………………………………………….................98 3 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by Native Language Group……………………………………………………….....................100 4 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by School Location and Previous Educational Level………………………………………….......101 5 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by Previous Technology Experiences………………………………………………………………102 6 Means of Six Statements for ESL Participants Perceived “Usefulness” of CALL Programs for English Learning ……………………………….104 7 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for ESL Students Perceive “Usefulness” of CALL Programs for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL …………………………………………………………..105 8 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……….…………………........106 8.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …………….....................106 9 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between means of ESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale………………………………………..........................................108 10 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……………………….……………………109 10.1 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 ………… …….………………….…….111 11 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 …….…………………………….112 12 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 …….……………….…….113 13 Means of Six Statements Contributing to ESL Participants Perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL Programs for English Learning……...................114 13.1 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for ESL Students Perceive “Ease of Use” of CALL Programs for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL……………………………………....................................115 14 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……………………………….................116 14.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale….………….………… 117 15 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between Means of ESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……………………………………..….........................................118 16 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……………………….………………… 119 17 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……..….………………… 120 18 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……….………………… 120 19 Frequency of Advantages of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning ……………………………………..……………………………125 xi
  • 12. Figure Page 1 Composition of Participative Sample by Age Group ............................... 98 2 Composition of Participative Sample by Gender.......................................99 3 Composition of Participative Sample by Previous Educational Level......101 4 Frequency of Disadvantages of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning……………………………………………………….................129 5 Frequency of the Best Roles of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning………………………………………………………………….132 6 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 the United States makes it critical that educational leaders and school administrators assist these persons to acquire English skills toward developing fully functioning members of the society. Educational programs that focus on the teaching of English to Limited English Proficiency (LEP) individuals employ a variety of methods including both traditional and non-traditional approaches. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is an area within applied linguistics and second language acquisition. It includes all kinds of language learning activities utilizing computer technology for assisting the learning process. With the increased advancement of computer technology, CALL has been regarded as an important solution to the problem of assisting in the delivery of quality English as a Second Language (ESL) pedagogy (Egbert, 2005). A Nation at Risk, published in 1983, recommended computer literacy as one of the 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 into all educational programs. Since then, schools with LEP students have begun to value the significance of educational technology and CALL programs and have made dramatic improvements in their technological capability and infrastructure (Dickard, 2003). Although the U.S. Congress has spent billions of dollars to help schools increase access to online learning opportunities and the computer has now become increasingly commonplace in ESL classrooms, research on the effectiveness of using CALL programs in ESL instruction has lagged behind technology’s growth. 1
  • 14. 2 Davies (2002) defined CALL programs as an approach to language teaching and learning where the computer is used to assist the presentation, reinforcement and assessment of the learning material. The purpose of CALL programs is to offer language learners resources and experiences that will provide instruction and practice to their target language, as well as cultural information necessary to develop a full understanding of the language they are studying (Stroud, 1998). The origins of CALL programs can be traced back to the 1960s where they were confined mainly to universities’ large mainframe computers. The famous PLATO (Programmed Logic Automated Teaching Operations) project was initiated at the University of Illinois during this period. The PLATO project used custom software running on Control Data Corporation equipment to serve thousands of remote terminals simultaneously. It established an important landmark in the early development of CALL programs (Marty, 1981). After the late 1970s, the arrival of the personal computer (PC) brought computing within reach of a wider audience and resulted in a virtual boom in the development of CALL programs. Over the past 30 years, the historical development of CALL programs can be roughly categorized in three stages: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL, and Integrative CALL. Each stage corresponds to a certain level of technology and a certain linguistic pedagogical approach (Waschauer, 1996). CALL programs encompass several different applications in language acquisition teaching and learning. These applications can be categorized into two distinct types: one involves the use of general software applications such as word processors, text analysis,
  • 15. 3 presentation software, email packages, and Web browsers; the other type is software applications designed specifically to promote language learning. CALL programs are effective with a variety of LEP students and give them a number of advantages, such as ease and flexibility of use, control over pacing and sequencing of learning, individualization, privacy, and immediate feedback (Askov, Maclay, & Meenan, 1987; Kulik, Kulik, & Shwalb, 1986). Other researchers also supported this statement and indicated that the use of CALL programs has a positive effect 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 in which a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented” (p. 75). No matter what impressive functions CALL programs have, they are a mere medium of language instruction and learning. The effectiveness of CALL programs depends on how they are put to use. CALL programs need support from educational leaders, school administrators, and ESL instructors to guide students in using computer technologies in the most effective way. Students’ personal backgrounds and their learning attitudes may play a vital role in the success of CALL programs. LEP students have distinct characteristics and different needs in their learning processes. Students are typically new to American culture, as well as to its language. Their cultural backgrounds and previous educational attainment may influence their English learning progress (Rice & Stavrianos, 1995). On the other hand,
  • 16. 4 LEP students’ ages, genders, and previous technology experiences may also sway their attitudes and expectations of CALL programs in their English learning (McGroarty, 1993). Each of these individual factors should be considered when educational leaders and administrators engage in CALL program design, instructional practice, and assessment. The application of CALL programs in ESL pedagogy is a new approach compared with traditional ESL instruction, and some functions of CALL programs are still under intense debate among researchers and learners (Salaberry, 1999). Instructional technology has now become critical in supporting 21st century learning environments. Appropriate technology use can be very beneficial in increasing educational productivity (Byrom & Bingham, 2001; Clements & Sarama, 2003). In helping students benefit from the rapidly evolving development of computer technology, educational leaders and school administrators must not only evaluate and supervise the effectiveness of CALL programs, but also provide informed, creative, and transformative leadership to integrate this technological change into ESL education. Background of the Problem With the escalating worldwide development of computer technology, CALL programs have become part of the fabric of current ESL educational practice (Samuel, 2005). Educators and researchers are still discussing how to apply CALL programs to ESL education system and debating the following questions: What kind of role should CALL 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 existing pedagogy? How might they change the role of teachers? Is there any untapped potential
  • 17. 5 left in CALL? These questions are frequently raised in traditional language learning environments (Lee, 2000; Resier & Dempsey 2002; & Roblyer, 2003). People hope to benefit from effective learning methods through the computer technology, but they also doubt its potential. It is the responsibility of educational leaders and school administrators to address these concerns. Each school expends large amounts of funds to provide technology training for teachers. National and state standards require teachers to integrate technology into their teaching (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2001). Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2002 showed that only 27% of in-service teachers felt confident enough to prepare and integrate educational technology into their courses, and only 45% of teachers often used computer-learning programs to enhance their teaching (NCES, 2004). These data may provide an explanation of the attitudes held by some instructors who still resist adoption of computer technology in classrooms. The infusion of computer technology into educational learning activities is still not as well developed as would be desired. Educational leaders and school administrators must assess the reasons that lead to the phenomenon of technology resistance. Such knowledge could assist instructors in overcoming their fears and low skill levels. Finally, diverse LEP students have different needs and preferred learning methods in 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 rather than easier. In utilizing CALL programs in learning, students must learn basic technology
  • 18. 6 knowledge and skills that may increase the learning loads of LEP students. If LEP students do not value CALL programs, or reject using the computer altogether, CALL programs 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 has been a powerful force shaping the United States’ population and ethnic composition. It has brought a number of unpredicted impacts on the American culture, economy, and education system. To solve this crisis, educational leaders and school administrators began to pay attention to CALL programs and regard them as an effective remedy to the problem of assisting non-English immigrants in acquiring English skills. Pervious research findings indicated that CALL programs can increase the efficacy of English learning, enhance self-directed learning, and provide a meaningful practice environment for LEP students (Beauvious, 1998; Cunningham, 1998). LEP students often come from different countries and have diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds; their genders, ages, educational levels, and previous technology experiences are dissimilar. Whether all LEP students can accept this technological pedagogy and gain the learning benefits from CALL programs based on their varying backgrounds will be a significant issue for educational leaders, school administrators, and ESL educators. In addition, debate continues regarding the role that computers play in the ESL classrooms. Students’ and instructors’ expectations of CALL programs in their linguistic teaching and learning may result in different outcomes. To get the best results from CALL programs and determine their effectiveness in current ESL programs,
  • 19. 7 additional research conducted from both LEP students’ and instructors’ perspectives will be useful for ESL leaders and educators in improving ESL pedagogy. This study’s focus is the general application of CALL programs in the Houston area of Texas. Different factors contributing to the level of computer technology acceptance of ELL students from diverse personal backgrounds were investigated. The study further explored the expectations of instructors and learners regarding the role of modern technology in their ESL classrooms. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of CALL programs on ESL education for diverse English language learners and instructors and to provide the results as a reference to educational leaders and administrators 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 Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and the Theory of Customer Value (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996). According to Davis, the TAM is an information system theory that models how users come to accept and use new technology. It asserts that when users are presented with a new software package, two major psychological perceptions may influence their attitudes and behavioral intentions toward accepting, valuing, and using the software package: 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 particular system would enhance his or her job performance”, and PEOU is “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort” (p.320). Davis further indicated that perceived usefulness was significantly correlated with self-reported current usage and self-predicted future usage, and perceived ease of use was also significantly correlated with current usage and future usage. Abundant empirical studies in 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 actual usage of a technology system. Knowing the determinants of these predictors can have strong implications for ESL leaders, CALL designers, and trainers, enabling them to better strategize their resources and emphases. No matter how schools spend money on their technology infrastructure and how educators declare that CALL programs are conducive to ESL pedagogy, students’ learning perceptions as to whether CALL programs are useful or
  • 21. 9 easy to use will determine the effectiveness of CALL programs directly. Based on this concept, the TAM was adopted as a model for investigating LEP students’ perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use of CALL programs for their English learning in the quantitative 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 in 1996, they claimed that customer value includes not only examining the attributes of the product and results after using, but further exploring the real needs and wants of the customers. In examining the effectiveness of CALL programs and improving CALL programs in the future, communicating with LEP students and instructors about their values concerning CALL programs is needed because communication with customers is the key in influencing users’ decisions of why, when, and what to buy, and use of the products (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996). As Woodruff and Gardial noted, measuring customer value is rooted in the use of qualitative data-gathering techniques. The aim of the study was to use the Theory of Customer Value as the conceptual framework in the qualitative part of the study. Interviews were conducted to understand the viewpoints of perceived advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs, the roles and functions of CALL programs in ESL education, and the expectations of future CALL programs from both LEP students and instructors.
  • 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 digital technology age. This study was conducted to ascertain what CALL attributes affect ESL instruction and discuss how educational leaders integrate CALL programs to improve ESL teaching and learning. The study investigated the roles and functions of CALL programs in ESL pedagogies for ESL instructors and students. Results of the study may encourage ESL instructors to adopt CALL programs as a viable educational alternative and inspire LEP students to promote their language abilities through the application of CALL 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 educational leaders and ESL program administrators a view of the problems associated with current uses of technology in ESL education so they can improve future ESL instruction and CALL 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. It is possible that the survey created by the researcher did not include all measures associated 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 hold true when new technologies and CALL programs are developed. The data gathered for this study represent the opinions, expertise, and experience of respondents during a specific 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 use of CALL programs in the English language learning environment. CALL programs have been developed and used in different language learning categories for decades. The results 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 of students and instructors in ESL education with CALL programs of the Houston area of Texas during the summer semester of 2008. The population was further reduced by the fact 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 standardized approach for interpretation of terms used in the study: Attitude--Attitude is a summary construct that represents an individual’s overall feelings toward or evaluation of an object (Bohner & Wanke, 2002). Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)--An approach to language teaching and learning, where the computer and the Internet is used to assist the presentation,
  • 26. 14 reinforcement and assessment of the learning material (Davies, 2002). Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)--Computer-assisted instruction is an instructional method that incorporates the use of computers into an overall teaching strategy; it is an interactive instructional technique in which a computer is used to present instructional material, monitor learning, and select additional instructional material in accordance with individual learner needs (Turner, 1990). Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Learner--The federal definition of LEP learner is one whose native language is a language other than English; who comes from a region where English is not dominant; or whose difficulty using English reduces his or her ability to learn in U.S. classrooms or participate fully in society. Other terms commonly found in the 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 and special curriculum designed to teach LEP students English language skills, which may include listening, speaking, reading, writing, study skills, content vocabulary, and cultural orientation. 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 the use of language, including the measurement of expressive and receptive language skills in the areas of phonology, syntax, vocabulary, and semantics and including the areas of pragmatics or language use within various domains or social circumstances (U. S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2007).
  • 27. 15 Technology Acceptance Model--Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an information systems theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. The model suggests that when users are presented with a new software package, a number of factors influence 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 the study, conceptual framework, significance of the study, assumptions, delimitations and limitations, and definition of terms. Chapter II provides a review of related literature in support of the research study. The methods for the study, which includes the research design, population and samples, instrumentation, and the collection of data are described in Chapter III. Chapter IV presents the findings of the study in relation to the research questions. A summary of the study with conclusions and recommendations for further study is in Chapter V.
  • 28. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Overview Language learning in the 21st Century presents both unparalleled opportunities and extraordinary challenges, many of which are the direct result of computer technology (Ostendorf, Shriberg, & Stolcke, 2005). Educational leaders and administrators must be aware of these new constraints and opportunities and develop applicable leadership to deal with this digital change (Carmen & Haefner, 2002). There are now more than 35 million immigrants, both legal and illegal, living in the United States, including over 20 million who speak English less than “very well” (U. S. Census Bureau, 2000). Determining the effectiveness of CALL programs and then redesigning more appropriate ESL curricula to help LEP students achieve proficiency in English is an inevitable responsibility 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. The first section explores the relationship between LEP students and ESL instruction. This section describes the change of the LEP population and recent changes to ESL policies within the American education community. It provides an introduction about popular types of ESL instruction in the United States, and discusses the benefits of ESL education for LEP children and adults. The second section refers to the relationship between computer technologies and ESL education. The historical development of CALL programs with ESL pedagogy, the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs for LEP students, the roles of CALL programs in ESL classrooms, and methods for applying 16
  • 29. 17 educational technology leadership for integrating CALL programs into ESL education are reviewed. The third section reports the relationship between LEP students’ backgrounds, second language acquisition, and learning through technology. LEP students’ native languages, ages, genders, and prior education levels are presented as factors that may influence LEP students’ English language and technology learning processes based on previous studies. The Relationship between LEP students and ESL Programs The United States is the third most populous country in the world, with a population of 300 million. From the year 2000 to 2005, the total national population has grown by nearly three million people every year, and one-third of this growth is a result of immigration. Every 31 seconds a new immigrant enters this country with the intent to stay (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005). Immigration has been a powerful force shaping the United States’ population counts and ethnic composition. Although the issue of immigration has become a topic of concern in national discussions about the American society, a consistent point of agreement in the often-contentious debate over immigration is 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 scripts modeled on the material and social environments of their homelands. “Their behavior norms stem from lives they are no longer living but cannot forget. To survive, they must integrate old scripts with their new environment” (p. 205). ESL education can supplies immigrants the opportunity to integrate their cultural scripts and previous knowledge for
  • 30. 18 acquiring enough basic English abilities and basic American social skills to survive in their new society. On the other hand, the fast-growing immigrant population is causing increased demand for ESL instruction. For example, the New Haven Adult School in San Francisco used to conduct only four classes two times a day. Currently, the program offers nine classes in the morning, two in the afternoon, and nine at night for serving the growing ESL immigrant population (Tucker, 2006). LEP Population and ESL Policy According to Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994), the LEP student is one whose native language is a language other than English; who comes from a region where English is not dominant; who has sufficient difficulty in speaking, reading, writing or understanding the English language; or whose difficulties may deny such an individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English, or to participate fully in American society (U. S. House of Representatives, 1994). Over the last two decades, the United States has experienced a great influx of migrants, immigrants, refugees, and international students. Most of them are non-native English speakers and their English skills are not sufficient to deal with the demands of their daily lives. Data from the U. S. Census Bureau (2006) indicated that the foreign-born residents 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 the United States has also increased from approximately one third of the LEP population in 1991-1992 (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. 19 English 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 LEP population continues to increase year after year, finding ways to meet the demands of ESL education to help this LEP population achieve English proficiency is an urgent issue. Providing ESL education for LEP students is the responsibility of every school district and educational leader. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) mandated that individuals 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 that public schools could not deny the benefits of an education to students based on national origin, which was extended to English proficiency (Retzak, 2003). The United States Congress enacted the Equal Education Opportunities Act in 1974 that made explicit interpretations regarding what states and school districts must do to enable English language learners to participate meaningfully in educational programs (Hernandez, 1997). Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994) further ruled that state education agencies and local school districts should put federal funds to good use implementing supplemental instructional programs for LEP students (U. S. Department of Education, 1994). Recently, The No Child Left Behind Act, passed in 2001, reiterated that LEP students’ language proficiency and academic achievement should be assessed in order to provide equal educational opportunities to LEP students. The law mandated an accountability system for ESL language and academic growth. To ensure that LEP students are being taught by appropriately qualified educators, educational authorities should establish and require unique credentialing procedures and programs for qualified
  • 32. 20 and trained ESL educators and specialists working in public schools based on guidelines issued by the federal government (Abedi, 2004). ESL Instructional Types in the United States According to the New York City Department of Education (2007), the definition of ESL instruction is an academic discipline designed to allow LEP students to acquire English 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 point for the introduction and reinforcement of the concepts of cross-cultural or multicultural understanding and social responsibility. ESL instruction plays a major role in affording LEP 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 their cultural and educational backgrounds. There are several different ESL program models designed and implemented for LEP students, and each specific model a school district adopts 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 carefully planned instructional program where two languages are used in ESL classrooms, such as Spanish and English or Chinese and English. In this model, LEP students are instructed in academic subject areas in their native language while simultaneously being taught to speak, read, and write English. The amount of instruction delivered in the native language
  • 33. 21 decreases as students become more proficient in English. This ESL model is often used either 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 classroom techniques 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 students in this model (U. S. Department of Education, 2007). 3. Newcomer Program The Newcomer Program is a separate, relatively self-contained educational intervention program designed to meet the academic and transitional needs of newly arrived 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 the necessary skills for achieving academic success in an English-speaking world as quickly as 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 mainstream classrooms for special instruction in English as a second language. Schools without a large LEP population often adopt this model to serve their LEP students who need remedial work in learning the English language (Baker, 2000).
  • 34. 22 5. Sheltered English Immersion Program A Sheltered English Immersion Program is an instructional approach used to make academic instruction in English understandable to LEP students. This program model asks LEP students to study the same curriculum with their native English-speaking peers, and teachers employ ESL methods to make instruction comprehensible. In the sheltered classroom, teachers often use physical activities, visual aids, and the environment to teach vocabulary for concept development in mathematics, science, social studies, 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 LEP students can succeed in the English-only mainstream classroom. Instruction is entirely in English. LEP students are thrown into the general education classroom and therefore immersed in English. Content area instruction is based on the notion of “comprehensible input,” in which the teacher uses only the vocabulary and structures that can be understood by students (Ramirez, 1986). 7. High Intensity Language Training Program The High Intensity Language Training Program is designed to provide the most productive 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 receive intensive training in ESL, usually for three hours a day in the first year of instruction, less in succeeding years. Placement of students into regular classrooms is accomplished on a subject-by-subject basis and usually includes initial mainstreaming into linguistically undemanding classes such as music, physical education, and art (Chamot &
  • 35. 23 Stewner-Manzanares, 1985). All of the above models are commonly used in current ESL education in the United States. Some models provide varying degrees of support in the LEP students’ native language, while others preserve and build upon the LEP students’ native language skills as they learn English. Although there may be reasons to claim the superiority of one ESL program model over another in certain situations, a variety of ESL programs can be effective. Indeed, different approaches are necessary because of the great diversity of conditions faced by schools and the varying experiences of LEP students with literacy and schooling in their first language (August & Hakuta, 1997). The best choice should be made at the local level after careful consideration of the needs of the LEP students involved and the resources available (Collier, 1992). No matter which model is used, the learning outcomes still depend on many other factors, such as LEP students’ personal backgrounds, the frequency of learning opportunities to speak English in the family and community, 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 Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA, 2006) indicated that more than 5.1 million LEP children were enrolled in public schools from pre-kindergarten to grade 12 for the 2004-2005 school year in the United States. The number represents approximately 10.5% of total public school student enrollment, and a 56.2% 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. 24 with 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 national educational concern. LEP students often encounter a variety of difficulties in achieving academic success in schools. These difficulties may be related to language, educational background, socioeconomic status, psychological trauma, or any combination of these factors (Anstrom, 1997). To assist LEP students in gaining higher level academic achievement, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) suggested that before LEP students are able to achieve in the regular classroom, they should be able to use English as a tool for learning subject matter. Cummins (1996) further theorized that there are two kinds of English proficiency that LEP students must learn. The first is Basic Interpersonal Conversational Skills (BICS) and the other proficiency is Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). BICS is the kind of language used in face-to-face communication. It is language needed for social interaction. This is sometimes called playground language, everyday language, social language, or surface fluency (Cummins, 1996). BICS English is characterized as context-embedded because contextual cues are available to both speaker and listener involved in the conversation, and it is cognitively undemanding. LEP students can easily recount orally what happened to them personally without difficulty once they attain fluency. The ability of social language can usually be developed within the 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, or the language of academic decontextualized situations -- is the kind of language needed to learn new information, think in more abstract ways, and carry out more cognitively demanding communicative tasks required by the core curriculum (Cummins, 1996). This dimension of language is transferable across languages. Collier and Thomas (1989) indicated that the process of learning academic language requires much more time than needed to learn language for interacting on a social level with English speakers. Unlike BICS learning, CALP English used in context academic learning demands high cognition from 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, depending on the age and prior educational background of the LEP student (Collier, 1995). ESL instruction provides LEP students with opportunities to develop their basic interpersonal communicative skills and to develop their cognitive academic language proficiency through the specially designed academic instruction in English (Cummins, 1996). Educators (Wang, 1996; Wright & Kuehn, 1998) agree that low proficiency in academic language will cause LEP students to fail their academic studies. LEP students can often become proficient in communication skills within a short time after their arrival in 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 will inevitably encounter many difficulties understanding and completing schoolwork in the more cognitively demanding language needed for successful performance in academic subjects (Short & Spanos, 1989). ESL education is very important for LEP students in
  • 38. 26 this transition stage because ESL instruction can serve as a short-term transitional bridge to mainstream English courses (Alanis, 2000). The transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledge from the first language to the second language is essential for LEP students. Hakuta (1990) stated that native language proficiency is a strong indicator of the second language development because the level of proficiency in the first language has a direct influence on the development of proficiency in the second language. The lack of continuing first language development will inhibit the levels of second language proficiency and cognitive academic growth. O’Malley and Chamot’s study (1990) of 64 Spanish and 34 Russian students showed that beginning- to intermediate-level LEP students often use transfer strategies in their English language learning. This means that the transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledge from the first language to the second language is a requisite learning process for LEP students. Collier (1995) stated that LEP students who are schooled in a second language for part 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 middle school and high school, when the academic and cognitive demands of the curriculum increase rapidly with each succeeding year, students with little or no academic and cognitive development in their first language do less and less well as they move into the upper grades. On the contrary, students who have spent four to seven years in a quality ESL or bilingual program can get better academic achievement and can outperform monolingually 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 than most other students to fail in schools. The average dropout rate for LEP students is four times the average dropout rate for normal students (Slavin & Madden, 1999). A report, Bilingual Education: Cause or Cure? released by the Texas Educational Excellence Project (TEEP, 2005) also pointed out that there is a link between education programs geared toward LEP students and Latino student dropout rates. As the number of LEP students served by either ESL or bilingual education programs increase, Latino dropout rates decrease. This means that high Latino dropout rates are at least, in part, a result of not addressing the language needs of certain students within the Latino student population. Taking this fact into consideration, it is extremely necessary for LEP students to have ESL education programs available to them. In order to effectively instruct LEP students, 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 ESL programs. ESL Education for LEP Adults According to the U. S. Census Bureau (2006), one in five working-age adults between 18 and 65 years old in the United States speak a language other than English at home. Cities such as Los Angeles and New York have roughly three-quarters and two-thirds of their respective immigrant adult populations identified as limited English proficiency (Capps, Fix, & Ku, 2002). Due to the high rates of immigration and because of the importance of helping these LEP immigrants, there is an increasing number of ESL classes and materials designed for LEP adults to promote English proficiency.
  • 40. 28 ESL programs have become the fastest growing segment in federally funded adult education programs in past decades. The U. S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational 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 in state-administered ESL or English Literacy programs during 2003-2004. Adult English language learners now account for at least one-half of the total adult education population. 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 the United States; 3) get a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED) certificate; 4) acquire skills needed to advance to higher education programs; 5) acquire skills to help their children succeed in school; and especially 6) get a job or pursue better employment (Skilton-Sylvester & Carlo, 1998). English speaking ability is crucial for LEP adults because it opens the door to jobs that yield family-sustaining wages and allows LEP adults to communicate with their neighbors, their children’s teachers, health care providers, and others with whom they must interact in their daily life. English skills are a prerequisite to passing the U. S. citizenship examination. An urban institute study conducted by Fix, Passel, and Kenneth (2003) found that 60% of legal immigrants who were 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 are trying to acquire a new language and a new culture. They are working, managing their households, and raising their children. These challenges often present significant obstacles to learning. The National Center for Education Statistics (1995) indicated that
  • 41. 29 the barriers for LEP adults to participate in ESL programs included limited time, money, childcare, and transportation, and lack of knowledge about appropriate programs in their local area. The National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL, 2004) surveyed community leaders and educators in Washington communities with recent rapid growth in numbers of immigrant families and the respondents also identified similar challenges. Analysis of data from the U. S. Census Bureau (2000) revealed there is a positive relation between earnings and English language ability. The lower a person’s English literacy level, the more likely the individual is to be struggling economically, often living below 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 unemployed or trapped in low-paying jobs that provide no benefits and offer little opportunity for promotion (Greenberg, Macias, Rhodes, & Chan, 2001). ESL Programs can help LEP adults to improve their English language skills and thereby reduce this economic disparity. Research conducted by Mora (2003) found that learning to speak English fluently results in a 76% jump in earnings for immigrants with more than twelve years of education, compared to a 4% increase for workers with fewer than eight years of education. Martinez and Wang (2005) emphasized that limited English proficiency places barriers not only against labor force participation and in regard to the community as a whole. Limited English proficiency may isolate immigrant families from the larger community, preventing them from interacting with American-born neighbors, engaging in civic life, and becoming integrated into their new community. Lack of English fluency will undermine parents’ ability to guide, protect, and educate their children.
  • 42. 30 Well-designed ESL programs can effectively counteract these risks by teaching immigrant adults English while helping to bolster their children’s early language development and school readiness. Through ESL learning and training, parents can become 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 success due to the high economic and social value of English acquisition and therefore they are highly motivated to learn English. As a result of limited government funding, demand far exceeds the supply of ESL classes (Tucker, 2006). An Adult Student Waiting List Survey by the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education (NCSDAE, 2006) showed that 40 out of 43 states reporting confirmed that LEP students were on waiting lists in their states. In New York City, where the ESL need is estimated to include one million individuals, 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 extreme demand, but instead use lotteries in which at least three of four individuals are turned away. Some ESL adult learners must wait several years to receive ESL services. To solve this serious problem, it is essential for educational leaders and educators to pay more attention to ESL education. ESL immigrants’ growing numbers and their pivotal role in the future of the United States create a compelling demographic, social, and economic imperative for providing ESL immigrants more opportunities to improve their English skills (Martinez & Wang, 2005). Investments in ESL education for LEP adults will raise LEP 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 public benefits 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 that were unable to be solved by humans (Cuban, 2001). As technology improved over the decades the capabilities of computers became more powerful. Computer applications have been gradually adopted and widely used by every discipline, especially in educational curriculum and language learning fields. According to Muir-Herzig (2004), modern computer technology and its assisted language learning programs in the language classroom is widely believed to help reshape both the content and processes of language education and help teachers promote a constructive class environment. CALL programs have changed the ideas of language educators and learners all over the world (Snell, 1999). Warschauer and Kern (2000) pointed out, CALL methodology has been greatly influenced throughout its history by the overall methodology that has characterized second language teaching and learning at various points of its development. In their opinion, there are three theoretical perspectives in second language learning: the structural, cognitive and socio-cognitive perspectives. The change in language teaching is more of a complex overlapping of the three movements than a polar shift from structural to communicative. The shifts in perspectives on language learning and teaching are parallel to the developments in computer technology and CALL programs. As technology shifts from the mainframe to the personal 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 for developing LEP students’ language skills in ESL education. Egbert and Hanson-Smith (1999) indicated that technology provides support for a total environment of second language learning rather than providing use as a single tool or source of information. It is now less a question of the role of computers in the language classroom and more a question 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 and technicians to create the first major Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) project, and the computer began to play an important role in education (Phillips, 1983). CALL programs can be grouped under CAI’s collateral branch, and they are the applications of CAI to language learning and teaching. Over the past decade, CALL programs have emerged as a significant teaching and learning instrument for ESL education. The widespread use of ESL software, local area networks, and the Internet has created enormous opportunities for LEP students to enhance their English learning. According to Davies (2007), CALL programs are designed to promote explicit or implied language learning objectives, and offer support in the acquisition of knowledge about language and in the application of that knowledge in discrete and mixed skill activities. Historically, the development of CALL programs can be roughly categorized into three main stages: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL, and Integrative CALL. Each stage of development corresponds to a certain level of technology as well as a certain pedagogical approach (Barson & Debski, 1996).
  • 45. 33 The first stage of CALL program development—Behavioristic CALL, conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and ’70s—tended to concentrate on language learning through behavioristic stimulus-response approaches. This stage entailed repetitive language drills and can be referred to as “drill and practice” because Behavioristic educators believe that language students can successfully learn their target languages through imitating and repeating pattern drills (Warschauer, 1996). Behavioristic CALL was designed to promote student mastery of a body of rules by indicating to the learner whether or not the language they produced matched that stored in the computer’s memory (Garrett, 1991). This kind of “wrong-try-again” model requires the language learner to input the correct answer before proceeding, provides the language learner with positive feedback for correct answers, and does not accept errors as the correct answer. Hubbard (1987) indicated the Behaviorist approach to CALL as one that presents vocabulary 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 for mastery and over-learning to occur. Chiquito, Meskill and Renjilian-Burgy (1997) further described Behavioristic CALL as an attempt to “transfer existing foreign language textbooks to computer-based applications. Students could then essentially use the computer to turn pages of the textbook, fill in the blanks in workbook drills, and choose multiple choice answers to questions” (p. 72). Behavioristic CALL placed the computer in the role of electronic drill master (Backer, 1995), computer-as-tutor (Taylor, 1980) or computer-as-magister (Higgens, 1986), and the computer served as a vehicle for delivering ESL instructional exercise materials to LEP students in this era.
  • 46. 34 Based on the above contentions, a large number of CALL tutoring systems were created during this stage. One of the most sophisticated software programs was the PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) System. The PLATO System that was invented by Donald Bitzer and his team in 1960 at the University of Illinois included vocabulary drills, brief grammar explanations and drills, and translation tests at various intervals. It enabled students to learn interactively and control their own learning pace (Smith & Sherwood, 1976). Until today, many language educators still believe that this kind of repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or even essential to second language learning (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). In the 1970s and 80s, the second stage of CALL program development, the Communicative CALL, was founded on the Communicative approach to teaching. In this stage, linguistic educators felt that the drill-and-practice programs of the previous decade did not allow enough authentic communication to be of much value. They further advocated that “all CALL courseware and activities should build on intrinsic motivation and should foster interactivity—both learner-computer and learner-learner” (Stevens, 1989, p. 31). Krashen’s language acquisition theory (1982) claimed that language is acquired through language input so that language acquisition and language learning are two completely separate processes; along with a growth in socio-linguistics, that also led to a greater focus on the role of meaning and communication in language learning. The types of computer programs using a Communicative approach might still include those of the drill and practice type. The difference between Communicative CALL and Behavioristic CALL is that students can make choices, manipulate controls, and conduct interactions
  • 47. 35 by themselves and play a more important, involved role within their own CALL program learning 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 of principles for Communicative CALL. He argued that such an approach to language teaching: (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 had become powerful enough to meet the requirement of Communicative CALL. The appearance of e-mail, media software, and on-line discussion boards support the claims of Communicative CALL. In this period, computers played the role of individual learning tutor and became a stimulus and a communicative tool (Levy, 1997). The purpose of the communicative 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 line between Behavioristic and Communicative CALL involves not only which software is used, 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 of CALL. The last stage of CALL program development, Integrative CALL, is the mature stage. In the 1990s, language educators moved away from a cognitive view of communicative language teaching to a socio-cognitive view that emphasizes real language use in a meaningful and authentic context. They started to claim that there is a real world to be experienced, yet the meaning and comprehension of that world is individualized, and the individual language learners should impress their own understanding on that world (Reiser & Dempsey, 2002). This version of CALL offers a wealth of authentic language material that requires a combination of skills, such as reading, writing, listening and speaking. In this integrative CALL, the students learn to use a variety of technological tools in language learning and language use. Instead of being passive recipients of knowledge, students are challenged to construct their own
  • 49. 37 knowledge with guidance from a teacher (Warschauer, 2004). Integrative CALL seeks both to integrate the various skills of language learning and 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 language student. Warschauer (1966) indicated that two important elements make up the Integrative 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 on language teaching. The ability of multimedia to integrate high quality video and audio with texts and language exercises can provide an environment that is more language-rich than any previous technology, and one which can be controlled by the learner. Multimedia computers allow for a variety of media to be accessed on a single machine, including texts, graphics, sound, animation, and video. The use of multimedia enables a student to read, listen, and view through a single program. The Internet can break down the walls of the classroom and give access to diverse sources of information and opportunities for genuine communication. Warschauer further observed that since the advent of local networks and the Internet in the early 1990s, the use of computers for authentic communication has become widespread in language learning and teaching. Web browsing and authoring, discussion boards, e-mail, and chat rooms are now widely used in language 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 Behavioristic CALL, 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 from focusing on individual exercise, to communicating with each other, to combining the advantages of Behavioristic CALL and Communicative CALL together. Today’s CALL programs serve as platforms that hold both individual learning and social process of studying. Advantages and Disadvantages of CALL Programs for LEP students In the second language acquisition domain, Perrett (1995) indicated that if second language learners are provided with the opportunities to use language and learning strategies, and some training or explanation in their application, they can develop their own learning strategies through exposure to and experience in the second language. Explaining the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs to ESL teachers and LEP students seems to be necessary and useful. Only with careful guidance can ESL teachers and LEP students realize the benefits of current computer technology for second language acquisition. ESL teachers and LEP students are then able to apply computer technology appropriately and join those already engaged in computer assisted language learning. Certain educators (Jonassen, 1996; Rost, 2002; Salaberry, 1999) indicate that current computer technology has many advantages for second-language learning. Computer and CALL programs could provide LEP students more independence from ESL classrooms and allow LEP students the opportunity to work on their learning
  • 51. 39 material at any time of the day. Once implemented, it can be expected that the cost for computer technology is considerably lower than for face-to-face classroom teaching. When used in conjunction with traditional ESL classroom study, LEP students can study more independently, leaving the ESL teacher more time to concentrate efforts on those parts of second language teaching that are still difficult or impossible to teach using the computer, 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 should apply computer technology in ESL instruction include computer and CALL programs that 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 can be wonderful stimuli for ESL learning. For example, CALL programs can provide a number of fun games and communicative activities, reduce the learning stresses and anxieties, and provide repeated lessons as often as necessary for LEP students. These
  • 52. 40 abilities will promote LEP students’ learning motivation. In addition, computer technology and CALL programs can help LEP students strengthen their linguistic skills, affect their learning attitudes, and build their self-instruction strategies and self-confidence through various communicative and interactive activities. According to an observation by Robertson et al. (1987), the participants who joined CALL programs also had significantly higher self-esteem ratings than regular second-language students. With the advanced development of computer technology, today’s computers can already capture, analyze, and present data on a LEP student’s performance during his or her learning process. Observing and monitoring a student’s learning progress are very important because when ESL teachers attempt to assess a LEP student’s progress, they can obtain essential information about the student’s learning problems and then try to offer feedback tailored to the student’s learning needs (Taylor & Gitsaki, 2003). CALL programs and the Internet can provide interdisciplinary and multicultural learning opportunities for LEP students to carry out their independent studies. For example, LEP students can get various authentic reading materials either at school or from home by connecting to the Internet, and those materials can be accessed 24 hours a day (Brandl, 2002). With regard to learning interaction, Warschauer (2004) indicated that random access to Web pages would break the linear flow of instruction. By sending E-mail and joining newsgroups, LEP students can communicate with people they have never met before and interact with their own teachers or classmates. Shy or inhibited learners can greatly benefit from the individualized technology-learning environment. Studious learners can benefit because they are able to proceed at their own pace to achieve at
  • 53. 41 higher levels. Many concepts and cognitions are abstract and difficult to express through language and the language teaching field. It seems that computers can make up for this difficulty by using the image showing on the screen. Kozma (1991) stated that interactive visual media that computers provide seem to have a unique instructional capability for topics 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 an important factor for learning. Experiential theory educators believe that learning is about making sense of information, extracting meaning, and relating information to everyday life. They believe that learning is about understanding the world through reinterpreting knowledge (Ormrod, 1999). When computer technology combines with the Internet, it creates a channel for students to obtain a huge amount of human experience and it guides students to enter the “Global Community.” As a result, students can extend their personal views, thoughts, and experiences and learn to live in the real world. They become the creators not just the receivers of knowledge. In addition, since the way information is presented is not linear, second language learners can still develop thinking skills and choose what to explore (Lee, 2000). Although there are many advantages to computer use, the application of current computer technology has its limitations and disadvantages. Gips, DiMattia, and Gips (2004) indicated that the first disadvantage of computers and assisted language learning programs is that they will increase educational costs and harm the equity of education. If computers become a new basic requirement for students to purchase, schools with limited budgets and low-income students may not be able to afford a computer. This will cause
  • 54. 42 unfair educational conditions for lower socio-economic schools and students. Expensive hardware and software become large obligations for schools and parents. The second disadvantage of computer technology is that it is necessary for both ESL teachers and LEP students to have basic technology knowledge before they apply computer technology to assist ESL teaching and learning. No student can utilize a computer 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 their students in exploring computers and assisted language learning programs. The benefits of computer technology for those LEP students who are not familiar with computers are inexistent (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 are still limited. Warschauer (1996) indicated that a good speaking training program should ideally be able to understand a user’s “spoken” input and evaluate it not just for correctness but also for “appropriateness.” It should be able to diagnose a student’s problems with pronunciation, syntax, or usage, and then it should be able to intelligently decide among a range of options. The fourth disadvantage is that computers and CALL programs had not been able to handle unexpected situations until now. Indeed, each LEP student’s learning situation is 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 and it is unable to respond to the learner’s question as immediately as teachers do. The
  • 55. 43 reasons for the computer’s inability to interact effectively can be traced back to a fundamental difference in the way humans and computers utilize information (Dent, 2001). Blin (1999) indicated that computer technology with that degree of intelligence do not exist, and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. Today’s computer technology and CALL programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive. Computer engineers, CALL program designers, and ESL educators still have to put more effort into developing and improving computer technology in order to increase the quality of CALL programs in the future. Roles of CALL Programs in ESL Classrooms Although computers have been used for second language teaching and learning for five decades, the role of the computer within the context of the second language instruction is still debated. The development of computers and networks has shaped new second language teaching and learning paradigms, making computers the new medium of local and global communication through asynchronous and synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC); as well as a source of authentic material through globally linked hypertext and hypermedia in the World Wide Web (Warschauer & Kern, 2000). The functions of computers range from mere typewriter tasks to sophisticated presentations, and from simulated talks with programs to long-distance chatting via Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or forums (Wiazowski, 2002). As many ESL schools and institutions begin to include computer systems in their ESL instructional programs, identifying what role the computer plays in the curricula and lesson plans is important because the knowledge of the impact of the computer has increased. This knowledge is a result of an understanding of the relationship between
  • 56. 44 technology and language learning. By clarifying and investigating what roles the computer might have, ESL leaders and teachers can better understand how computer technology is best implemented in their ESL classrooms for enhancing teaching and assisting learning. Computers actually play various roles and deeply impact ESL teaching and learning methods. The theoretical framework underlying CALL programs is very difficult to define because CALL programs exist in so many forms. In general, linguistic educators recognize that there are three main theories of learning and roles for the computer in CALL programs. The three major theorists are Stephen Kemmis, John Higgins and Robert Taylor. The first theory regarding the role of computers was proposed by Kemmis, Atkin and Wright (1977). They analyzed computer use in terms of experience of learner and set up 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” or a “Pedagogue.” He then extends this distinction to different approaches to computer use in language learning and teaching. In his view, the Magister role of the CALL program is any activity in which the computer evaluates student performance and, like the traditional schoolmaster, dictates the order in which learning is expected to occur. It initiates and controls the interaction, directs the learning process, and controls the sequence and the level 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 and look-up tables of information, in which the computer was providing services similar to those provided by a slave—much like the Pedagogue in ancient Rome who escorted rich children 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. 46 functions when they need CALL programs. This category encompasses Kemmis’ other three categories. Higgins’ Magister-Pedagogue dichotomy has strongly influenced CALL software development over the past decades. The main force of this argument was that while language learners probably need both Magister and Pedagogue during the course of their learning, the computer performs more effectively as Pedagogue and the human more effectively 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 role of CALL program depends on different needs and situations. Taylor described these roles as 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 presents the material, assesses the student’s response, and then determines the next activity while simultaneously keeping a record of the student’s performance. This is similar to
  • 59. 47 Higgins’s Magister role and Kemmis’s Instructional CALL. In the role of “Tool,” some capacity of the computer is used by the student to achieve a specific task and the computer 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 the programming language and then use the programming language to instruct the computer to perform certain tasks. No matter what roles computers have, the teacher is a key variable in CALL program implementation and effectiveness. With the rapid development of computer technology and CALL programs, a teacher’s role in an ESL classroom has changed. With regard to infusing technology into teaching, teachers have become more involved in the process of the creation of classroom materials, rather than being the consumers of syllabuses and textbooks. Teachers are naturally creative and want to be able to modify the materials to better suit their learners’ needs. They have also become managers and facilitators 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 by teachers to guide students to autonomous learning. In this way, CALL programs can temporarily replace the teachers’ functions. By contrast, the role of CALL programs would be just as a “tool” if teachers viewed computers as an instrument. Teachers are still the leaders of the classroom and should control students’ learning progress. Teachers can also view CALL programs as the “cooperator” and share their teaching activities or complete some difficult learning tasks. Teachers can manage students’ interaction with CALL programs. The computer becomes a supplementary instrument.
  • 60. 48 Technology Leadership for Integrating Technology into ESL Education Due to the advancement of computers and the Internet, the use of educational technology to improve teaching and learning has become a popular theme in current educational reform initiatives. The purpose of education technology is to use it effectively as a tool to support schooling and enhance learning and teaching processes (Collins, 2004). Many researchers and educational organizations recognize that strong leadership is 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 to Anderson and Dexter (2005), current leadership focuses on interrelationships among distributed participants (Neuman & Simmons, 2000), a leader’s ability to cope with complex change (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991), and whether an organization has established a culture of a continuous learning (Senge, 1998). Anderson and Dexter claimed that decision-making in schools concerning electronic information and communication technologies is a particularly appropriate setting for analyzing how these three forces play out because change is so basic to managing this new technology. Merely installing computers and networks in schools is insufficient for educational reform. To successfully infuse technology into schooling, school leaders should have an awareness of this digital change and integrate technology knowledge into effective approaches of leadership. Educational leaders are thereby expected to possess not only general leadership skills, but also “Technology Leadership” skills (Flanagan & Jacobson, 2003). According to Valdez (2004), technology leadership is a combination of
  • 61. 49 strategies and techniques that are general to all leadership, but that require attention to some specifics of technology—especially those related to providing hardware access, updating rapidly changing technology, and recognizing that professional development and the use of technology are constantly evolving. Educational technology involves both education and technology and aims for their harmonious integration. A successful school leader should possess the ability for updating and integrating technology into schooling. The infusion and integration of technology in classrooms can result in greater use of collaborative learning strategies, thematic teaching, guided inquiry practice, group problem solving, and critical thinking skills that can help students be more successful learners throughout their education experience (Duhaney & Zemel, 2000). A handbook, Technology in Schools: Suggestions, Tools and Guidelines for Assessing Technology in Elementary and Secondary Education, published by National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2002), identifies technology integration as the incorporation of technology resources and technology-based practices into the daily routines, work, and management of schools. Technology resources include computers and specialized software, 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 transmission and retrieval of data, and other methods. Based on this assessment, successful technology leadership has to integrate technology routinely, seamlessly, and effectively in order to support school goals and purposes.
  • 62. 50 The integration of technology in classrooms has been demonstrated to have a positive impact on student achievement (Valdez et al., 1999). Cummins (1998) indicated that the reason formal second language instruction cannot be successful is that language learners receive impoverished or insufficient input in the target language. Fortunately, technology used wisely can play a major role in enhancing all second language learner contact with the target language. Integrating computer technologies to promote second language teaching and learning is a complicated task. Integration of technologies must consider the students’ technology knowledge and computer skills. Integrating technologies requires excellent instructors who have obtained technology training, appropriate curricula and activities which have been designed specially, and have large enough budgets to purchase the computer equipment and software. All of these factors depend on ESL leaders who should develop technology leadership and strategies to overcome barriers. Appropriate and effective uses of computers and related technologies in ESL instruction 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 used to improve teaching and learning, the failure to design and implement effective technology staff development programs, and the failure to empower teachers and students to 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 process because the successful movement of any school or institution is dependent upon a clear picture of an ideal future. A vision is simply an aspiration or a description of a desirable world that exists within the imagination that can inspire people, bring meaning to their work, mobilize them to action, and help them decide what to do and what not to do in the course of their work (Parker, 2001). To enhance ESL education through technology, ESL
  • 64. 52 leaders should develop a technology leadership vision and they should set goals. Both the vision and the goals should focus on improved student learning and teacher effectiveness as the predominate outcomes. Once the vision is created, it must be communicated and articulated effectively so that it becomes the shared vision of everyone in the ESL school or institution. ESL leaders should design and conduct needs assessments that will 1) inform teachers and students where they stand with regard to technology integration; 2) indicate how far they are from reaching their vision and goals; and 3) provide information about what the initial priorities for accomplishing those goals are. ESL leaders also have to develop action plans to define immediate and long-term tasks, resources needed, timelines, and benchmarks for accomplishing technology goals. After these two steps are completed, ESL leaders can further create the communication plans and political action strategies necessary to establish commitment and obtain resources (Valdez, 2004). Although computer technology and CALL programs were used in ESL instruction for several decades, many ESL instructors still do not have the technical knowledge or skills to recognize the potential for technology in teaching and learning. For example, Bruess (2003) in her dissertation, University ESL instructors’ perceptions and use of computer technology in teaching, interviewed five ESL instructors in five Louisiana universities and then indicated that the use of CALL programs for most ESL instructors is still 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 of technology in ESL education (Trotter, 1999). The lack of technology professional development is one of the most serious obstacles to fully integrating technology into the
  • 65. 53 ESL curriculum (Fatemi, 1999). Today, most ESL teachers want to learn to use technology and CALL programs effectively, but they often lack the time, access, training and support necessary to do so (Guhlin, 1996). For successful implementation of CALL programs in ESL classrooms, ESL leaders should address this serious problem and design the necessary technology professional development plans for ensuring ESL teachers have the knowledge and skills to apply computer technology in their teaching. A well-designed technology professional development program is essential to reach the goal of preparing ESL teachers for effective technology use. According to Rodriguez and Knuth (2000), there are two requirements that will help ESL leaders ensure the success of a technology professional development program. First, the technology professional development program should be an integral part of the school technology plan or overall school-improvement plan. Second, the technology professional development program should contain all the necessary components that research has found to be important. The opinions of Rodriguez and Knuth indicate that initial inclusion in the technology plan will ensure that the technology professional development program is considered an essential factor in using technology to improve teaching and learning, and will guarantee that the professional development component of the technology plan is research-based and meets high standards for effective staff development. Rodriguez and Knuth further indicate that designing a successful technology professional development program 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 can amplify their teaching, the technology becomes relevant and teachers are motivated to acquire the requisite skills. A successful leader should know that professional development starts and ends with classroom practice; he or she should know where they want to go. A successful leader should also measure teachers’ progress by what changes in the classroom, not by a teacher skills checklist. To achieve this goal, a good leader must have sufficient knowledge of the change process research in order to anticipate and address change problems and issues (Rodriguez & Knuth, 2000). Fullan (2001) indicated that effective change leaders work on changing the contexts in learning organizations and aim to create new settings that are conducive to learning and sharing that learning. ESL leaders play a decisive role in applying a CALL program as an instructional tool in ESL education. For CALL programs to be used
  • 71. 59 successfully as a supplemental and instructional tool in ESL classrooms, ESL teachers must be willing and able to construct pedagogically sound reasons for doing so. Moreover, teachers’ own knowledge and beliefs about teaching, learning, and technology will lead to the real changes in the classrooms. It is up to ESL leaders to align those changes 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 a second language or technology? Is perfect language proficiency or easy use of technology accessible 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 use technology? According to von Glasersfeld’s (1995) Constructivist Theory, learning is an active, continuous process whereby the learner takes information from the environment and constructs personal interpretations and meaning based on prior knowledge and experience. Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) further indicated that second language learning is a complex process that develops under a diverse set of conditions, and there is a complex relationship that exists among five different factors involved in an individual’s attempt at learning 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 and self-experience, and cultural background will play a important role in influencing their English as a second language learning.
  • 72. 60 Will these factors affect LEP students’ ability to acquire technology knowledge and influence their intentions to use CALL programs to assist their English learning? To answer this question, previous studies have documented that there are differences in technology adoption rates between the sexes, races, and education levels (Fairlie, 2004). A report by the U. S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration in October of 2000 indicates that a digital divide still remains. It exists between individuals with different levels of income and education, individuals of different racial and ethnic groups, old and young individuals, single and dual-parent families, and those with and without disabilities; the Pew Internet and American Life Project (2005) showed that 57% of African-Americans go online, compared with 70% of whites; 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% of Americans age 65 and older go online, compared with 67% of those age 50-64, 80% of those age 30-49, and 84% of those age 18-29. Due to the increasing numbers of non-English speaking people migrating into the United States year after year, there is an educational, social, and even economic urgency to provide a meaningful ESL education for this group to gain English proficiency so they may be mainstreamed into American society. The learning approach is usually combined in today’s informational society. With the increased advancement of computer technology, the methods of learning English are no longer limited to traditional face-to-face instruction. The application of computer technology and CALL programs has already become a new trend in second-language learning instructional programs all over the world. For this reason, examining what effects LEP students’ backgrounds have on
  • 73. 61 combining current computer technology into second language learning is significant. LEP students’ native languages, ages, genders, and prior education levels are factors that may influence LEP students’ English and technology learning processes in this section based on previous studies. Native Languages The role that a learner’s native language plays in his or her second language acquisition (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 first used by the parent or guardian with a child. This term is often referred to as primary language or mother tongue. Grimes (2000) indicated that there are approximately 337 languages spoken or signed by the population in the United States. Over 30 million Americans, roughly 12% of the population, speak Spanish as a first or second language in this country; over 2 million Americans speak Chinese; and the third most-common language, French, is spoken mainly by the native French, Haitian or French-Canadian populations in the former colony states of France, including Maine, New Hampshire, and Louisiana. In the field of second-language teaching and learning, there is widespread acceptance of the idea that native language could greatly affect second-language acquisition, 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 influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language 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 and meanings of their native language and culture to the second language and culture—both productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture; and receptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language and the culture as practiced by natives” (p. 2). Naiman et al. (1978), contends that a good second-language learner refers back to his or her native language judiciously and makes effective cross-linguistic comparisons at different stages of language learning; and analyzes the target language and makes inferences about it. Faerch and Kasper (1986) further asserted that it is necessary that learners utilize their first language knowledge in order to solve a learning or communication problem in their second language learning processes. Walqui (2000) claimed that specific languages can be more or less difficult to learn, depending on how different from or similar they are to the languages the learner already knows. Indeed, difficulty or ease in learning English is determined respectively by differences and similarities between LEP students’ native languages and English, and such 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-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman indicated that LEP students who are native speakers of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean have to grasp the grammatical difference between English and their native languages and often take a longer period of time to master English because the grammars 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 English share many similarities—similar or identical alphabetical writing system; many
  • 75. 63 “cognates,” such as words with similar pronunciation, meaning, and spelling; similar syntax or sentence patterns—the LEP student will master English faster due to “transfer of learning.” On the contrary, if the LEP student’s native language and English share very few or have no similarities—totally different writing systems, no “cognates;” different syntactical patterns to express similar thoughts—it will tend to be more difficult for the LEP student. A study, First language influences on second language word reading: All roads lead to Rome, conducted by Wade-Woolley (1999), showed that different native languages’ orthographic systems could differentially influence the way that learners access English words from their lexicons due to different orthographic and phonological processing patterns. This study involved 32 participants from two different groups: one group consisted of sixteen Japanese LEP students in an intensive English program at a Canadian university; and the other group consisted of sixteen Russian learners of English and Hebrew at an IEP/Intensive Hebrew Program at an Israeli university. All the learners were successful readers in their native languages. Prior to the beginning of the study none of the participants had lived in an area where English was primarily spoken. They were of similar ages, similar gender distribution, and had similar backgrounds in English study. The findings of this study revealed that the Japanese ESL speakers were faster and more accurate on tasks involving recognition of orthographic patterns in both real English words and in pseudo-words. The Russian ESL speakers were faster and more accurate in deleting phonemes from words. These differences are likely due to differences in their native language literacy experiences. Wade-Woolley believed that Russian learners are used to a phonologically-based alphabetic system, and they are likely to access words
  • 76. 64 from writing through the phonological system. On the contrary, Japanese students do not access words solely from phonology but from their orthographic knowledge. Japanese students are not used to focusing on phonemes to map sounds in reading, but are rather more accustomed to sight recognition of letter sequences. This result provides evidence to confirm that an LEP student’s native language heavily influences his or her English language learning. LEP students who speak diverse native languages often come from different countries, 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 computer technology? The answer is confirmed by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The report, Digital Access Index: World’s First Global ICT Ranking—Education and 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 the need for a set of globally comparable indices that reveal the level of information and communication technologies that a nation possesses. It measures the overall ability of individuals within a country to access and use information and communication technologies in general. The score of DAI comes from eight variables describing availability, such as the technology infrastructure, affordability of access, educational level, 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 more opportunities to get the benefits of computer technologies and the Internet, and can gain
  • 77. 65 more opportunities to increase their individual computer literacy skills. For example, the DAI 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 comes from Taiwan or Germany may have more previous technology experiences than a student who comes from Haiti or Ethiopia (ITU, 2003). Zoe and DiMartino (2000) conducted a study that investigated how students view and use complex electronic information systems based on their language backgrounds. The results of this study provide evidence to prove how a learner’s native language influences the application of computer technology. The researchers surveyed 52 native English speakers, 49 East Asian (Chinese, Korean) individuals, 17 individuals with a European language background (French, Spanish, Russian, German), and 13 individuals who speak other languages largely from Southeast Asia and the Middle East. These students were studied at Baruch College of the City University of New York on computer use for basic library database search skills. The results showed that there is a highly significant correlation between a student’s native language and his or her searching ability, and the cultural differences of international students will produce a variety of culture-specific learning styles and information-seeking behavior. They concluded that, “with the lack of controlled vocabulary and the need for sophisticated precision search techniques 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 using computers in electronic information searching” (p.302).
  • 78. 66 Genders Gender differences are a disparity between male and female humans. According to gender role theory, prevalent gender stereotypes are culturally shared expectations for gender appropriate behaviors. Females and males learn the appropriate behaviors and attitudes 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 cognitive abilities and learning styles. These differences derive from both basic physiological differences—such as differences in the development of brain—and from differences in higher-level cortical functions (Keefe, 1982). No matter what gender differences are primarily culturally or biologically determined, educational research in the last several decades has proven that gender differences manifestly influenced students’ academic interests, needs, and achievements (Collins, Kenway & McLeod, 2000; Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2000). Different educational domains have different claims to the gender issue. Theorists of second language acquisition believe that female learners show possible superiority in their second language learning process (Boyle, 1987; Ehrlich, 2001). Some scholars of technology education deem that males have more positive attitudes than females in using computer technology to assist their academic learning (Na, 2001; Li, 2002). According to Macleod et al. (2002), although the margin of gender differences is getting smaller with the changes of society and the times, gender differences still play an important role to influence students’ learning interests and outcomes in certain academic subjects, such as language, computer technology, science, and math. Indeed, the common
  • 79. 67 gender-stereotypical judgments influence a student’s learning beliefs, aspiration, attitude, and strategies unconsciously. For example, a survey was conducted by Lai and Kuo in 2007 to investigate the influences of gender difference in the Teaching English as Foreign Language (TEFL) program in the Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages of Taiwan. The result shows that the numbers of males and females who participated in the study were not balanced, because only 34 male students enrolled in the TEFL program as compared with 166 female students. The authors believe that the reason this phenomenon occurred is because of the gender-stereotypical portrayals. As Kleinfeld (1998) pointed out, the traditionally gender-stereotypical socialization patterns emphasize that females have a tendency to be stronger in language subjects and fine arts, but males dominate the areas of mathematics and science. This cultural gender bias deeply influences Taiwan students’ inclinations to choose the major of their study. Pappamihiel (2001) developed an English Language Anxiety Scale (ELAS) based on the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale to examine English language anxiety in Mexican middle schools. The findings showed that there is a significant difference in the attitudes of female and male students when using English in mainstream classes. Pappamihiel further explained that female Mexican students are more concerned about language difficulties and more anxious than Mexican male students. Siebert (2003) surveyed 64 female and 91 male language learners who study ESL program 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 learners in relation to language learning and strategy use. For example, 23% of females, as opposed to 47% of males either strongly agreed or agreed that the most important part of
  • 80. 68 learning English is learning grammar. Only 7% of females, but 24% of males, agreed that it is important to practice English with audio-visual equipment. And female students estimated that it would take 5-10 years, or that English cannot be learned in one hour a day; while male students, were much more optimistic and indicated that it would take one to two or three to five years. Another study conducted by Kato (2005) supported Siebert’s findings. After surveying 144 female and 50 male Japanese university students, Kato indicated that there is a significant gender difference between affective and social strategies. A lower use of affective and social strategies among male students implied that male Japanese university students are rather hesitant to look for help with learning and they do not pay much attention to their psychological state when they are learning English. Conversely, female students passively ask for help to improve their English skills. The above studies again confirm that gender differences still exist and have an effect on a student’s learning belief and strategy choice for his or her English language learning (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). Previous research also attempted to identify the role of gender on attitudes and computer 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 the computer in early elementary and in late elementary school. Starting in middle school and continuing 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 a student’s computer experience has a direct relationship with his or her computer use attitude. In her study, male students had more computer experiences and more positive
  • 81. 69 attitudes toward using computers to assist their learning. Koohang (2004) investigated 154 university students enrolled in an undergraduate hybrid program in management at a medium-sized university in the midwestern region of the United States. The findings showed that male students had significantly higher positive perceptions than female students towards the use of a digital library. Gefen and Straub (1997) studied gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail. Compared to male students, the authors found that female students perceived a higher level of usefulness of e-mail. Contrary to their expectations, the researchers found that female students scored lower on the ease of use of e-mail than male students. Venkatesh and Morris (2000) investigated gender differences in technology usage decisions. They found that men’s technology usage decisions were more strongly influenced by their perceptions of usefulness, while women were more strongly influenced by perceptions of ease of use. Enoch and Soker (2005) examined students’ use of Web-based instruction at an open university of Israel. They found that there had been a continuous increase in the use of the Internet for both female and male students. The differences between the two gender categories were still significant and quite large. Male students were more likely to use Web-based materials as an addition to the printed materials. All of the above research indicates that the gender gap in technology continues to exist in the current educational system. But why does this phenomenon occur? Some researchers point out that the main reason causing this technology gender gap is that boys view computers as a playful and recreational toy and are more likely to interact more deeply with computers, while girls tend to see computers as a means of achieving a
  • 82. 70 concrete goal. Girls are more likely to conceptualize computers as a tool—be it for e-mail or 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 to language learning. This stereotypical view of the older adult as a poor language learner can be traced to two roots: a theory of the brain and how it matures, and classroom practices that discriminate against the older learner (Schleppegrell, 1987). According to Lenneberg’s (1967) Critical Period Hypothesis, the acquisition of language is an innate process determined by biological factors which limit the critical period for acquisition of a language from roughly two years of age to puberty. Lenneberg asserted that after lateralization—a process by which the two sides of the brain develop specialized functions—the brain will lose its plasticity. Adults will find it difficult to learn a new language because his or her lateralization of the language function was completed at puberty. Many studies have tested Lenneberg’s Critical Period Hypothesis and it is agreed that the earlier one starts to learn a second language, the more likely one will reach a native-like pronunciation. For example, Asher and Garcia (1969) tested 71 Cuban immigrants 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 more native-like the accent one develops in the language. Oyama (1976) conducted a study to examine the English pronunciation of 60 Italian-born male immigrants who had been living in the United States for period of five to 18 years. The results showed that the age
  • 83. 71 of 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 of students ranging from eight to 11, 14, and 18+ years old on production of English as a foreign language in a strictly instruction-classroom context. The results showed that in a formal learning environment, students with a starting age of 8 had a better perception of English 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 Period Hypothesis. They argue that different rates of second language acquisition may reflect psychological and social factors that favor child learners (Newport, 1990). Krashen, Long and Scarcella (1979) indicated that people usually possess more capacity to concentrate more general knowledge when they are older. Krashen and Terrell (1983) further explained that young children learning a second language seem to manage to internalize the grammar without it being explicitly taught. By being surrounded by a language young children eventually learn to use it. Adults seem more conscious of their learning and rely more on their analytical abilities. Krashen and Terrell asserted: “adults acquiring a high level of second language proficiency are faster than children” (p. 45). Schleppegrell (1987) claimed that the difficulties older adults often experience in the second language classroom can be overcome through adjustments in the learning environment, through attention to affective factors, and through the use of effective teaching methods. Different linguists have different positions about the effect of age-related factors in second language learning. This situation occurs in the technology-learning domain. While some technology scholars believe that the age difference plays an influential role in the application of technologies, some insist that the age difference cannot be viewed as
  • 84. 72 a factor affecting whether or not a person uses the computer and the Internet. Enoch and Soker (2005) conducted a seven-year research study in Israel to examine whether there is a significant relationship between university students’ ages and Internet use. The sample population of the study was 17,136 students who were enrolled in the Israel University from 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 all students age 30 years and older). After the data collection and analysis, the researchers reported that although there is a significant increase over time in the use of the Internet and e-mail in all age categories, a steady and significant gap among the youngest, the intermediate, and the oldest age groups using the Internet existed. Only 20% of the young students in 2002 were not Internet users and 27% of the intermediate students belonged to this category, while the figure for the mature age groups was around 36%. Taghavi (2006) conducted another study that yielded different results. Taghavi surveyed 174 undergraduate college students who were enrolled in a computer literacy course in the Technology and Education Department at Mississippi State University to investigate the relationship between students’ ages and their attitudes toward computers, including anxiety, confidence, liking, and usefulness. The results showed that age was not significantly 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 adults whose computer experiences showed no significant difference. Participants in this study
  • 85. 73 were requested to fill out a Pre-Web Research Questionnaire to firstly survey their metempirical computer attitude, computer experience, and technology knowledge. After this procedure, a brief training in using a Web browser was provided by the researchers for giving novice participants the basic knowledge and skills needed to conduct independent Web searches. All participants were asked to complete a Post-Web Research Questionnaire in order to collect participants’ impression. Through the responses from these two questionnaires, the authors indicate that although the scores of older adults’ search performance and technology knowledge were significantly lower than young adults, 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 the Web again if they had reasonable access. Kubeck and his colleagues therefore concluded that the age difference could not be regarded as an influential factor affecting older adults engaging in Web-searching activities. They claimed that if we can provide more trainings and opportunities to older adults, older adults can overcome the age difference and enjoy the benefits of computer technologies. Previous Educational Backgrounds According to the U. S. Census Bureau (2000), approximately 14 million or nearly 9.5% of all working-age adults between the ages of 18 and 55 in the United States either did not speak English at all or spoke English less than very well. Fifty percent of LEP adults report having nine or fewer years of education, and 64 percent have less than a high school degree. Only 18% have any post-secondary education. According to educators (Adkins, Sample, & Birman, 1999; Thomas & Collier, 1997), the cognitive and academic development from previous education has an extremely important and positive
  • 86. 74 effect on second language schooling. Limited academic skills in a learner’s native language due to limited previous education will slow down the progress of learning English. Walqui (2000) indicated that students’ previous educational experience and knowledge of the second language is a significant factor in their current second language learning. For example, if a LEP student who did not learn English grammar through his or her previous education, that he or she may have difficulties understanding English grammatical systems and may need specific instruction in English grammar. Mowry (2007) emphasized that the length of time a LEP student can achieve proficiency in English often depends on his or her previous educational background and the amount of exposure to English. In 2004, the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks conducted a two-year project 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 Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment, a set of Canadian national standards for English as a second 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 language instruction programs, and examined what gains in English proficiency can be expected based on learners’ previous educational backgrounds. The results showed that for any one of the 69 individuals who has an elementary level of education (0-7 years; mean= 4.2 years), who starts with an initial language proficiency in English of 2.0 in listening and speaking, 1.8 in reading, and 1.3 in writing, language acquisition is a difficult process. On average, they have to take 320 hours in language instruction programs in order to achieve the benchmark from 2 to 3, and 611 hours to move from benchmark 3 to 4. In listening
  • 87. 75 and speaking, it is estimated that 1,871 hours of instruction would be required for these lower education students to move from benchmark 1 to benchmark 5. On the contrary, for any one of the 130 individuals with graduate level education (17+ years; mean= 19), who starts with an initial language proficiency in English of 2.5 in listening and speaking, 2.2 in reading, and 2.5 in writing, their English learning progress is most accelerated. Generally, they record the fewest hours for achieving any single benchmark, moving from benchmark 3 to 4 in 280 hours, 4 to 5 in 300 hours, 5 to 6 in 341 hours, and 6 to 7 in 380 hours. In listening and speaking, it is estimated that only 1,791 hours of instruction would be required for these higher education learners to move from benchmark 1 to benchmark 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 and experience as an important factor that may influence a person’s behavior and attitude toward the use of computers as well as the Internet. For example, Al-Zahrani (2000) investigated the perceptions of 147 library professional and paraprofessional staff members concerning information technology innovations and training in university libraries in Saudi Arabia. He found a significant relationship among respondents’ educational background, experience in using information technology, and their perceptions about information technology. In their study, Research into the use of information literacy web resources by Arabic students, Martin, Birks, and Hunt (2007) pointed out that the educational experiences of students prior to university are likely to have a strong impact on their ability to successfully undertake learning in an online or blended learning format. Kridel,
  • 88. 76 Rappoport, and Taylor (2002) surveyed over 32,000 U. S. households and also stated that education levels influence the likelihood of a household having high-speed access to the Internet. The report, Disadvantage and Distance, was published by the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands (2007) to investigate the digital divide in the Netherlands. The authors, Van Ingen, De Haan, and Duimel, indicated that information and communication technology has become indispensable in western societies, and participation in the knowledge society therefore requires adequate digital skills. Dutch citizens differ in the extent to which they possess digital skills. The data presented in this report showed that there are wide differences in digital skills between people with a high and a low education level. For example, 43% of people with a lower education level use the Internet to search for specific information, compared with 81% of those with a higher education level. People with a lower education level tend to be mainly skilled in entertainment applications, which means that their use of the information and communication technology is not only less diverse, but also less functional. The authors further indicated that the weak digital skills of the low-educated emerge clearly when the number of computer applications used (on a scale from 0 to 8) is compared. People who have only completed elementary education use the computer for just under one application on average (0.9), whereas people with a university education use more than three applications (3.4). In addition, the results also showed that 75% of people with a low education level find that their deficient computer skills are a problem in progressing in their work. People in the low education level group are less willing than the more highly educated to invest in acquiring digital skills. Through this report, we can
  • 89. 77 confirm that a person’s behavior, attitude, or belief toward the use of computers and the Internet is really influenced by his or her previous educational background. Summary The developments of computer technology and CALL programs have influenced ESL instruction step by step. Today, the fast-growing LEP immigrant population is causing increased demand for ESL instruction. Educators indicate that ESL instruction plays a major role in affording LEP students the opportunity to acquire English proficiency and the academic, cognitive, and cultural knowledge they need to become active participants in American society. Current educational policy reiterates that schooling should provide equal educational opportunities to LEP students. There are several different ESL program models designed and implemented for LEP students. The decision of which specific model a school district adopts should be made at the local level after careful consideration of the needs of the LEP students involved and the resources available. In addition, the developments of CALL programs have changed the ideas of language educators and learners all over the world. As educational leaders and administrators, we should pay attention to the advantages and disadvantages of CALL, clarify the roles of CALL programs in current ESL classrooms, and develop educational leadership relating to technology in order to appropriately infuse technology and CALL programs into ESL curricula. Finally, LEP students often come from different countries and have diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Their genders, ages, educational levels, and previous technology experiences are dissimilar. It is necessary to investigate and consider how these factors influence LEP students’ learning progress so we can meet the 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 growth of non-English speaking students in 18 states through mid-America increased more than 200% since 1990. In light of this demographic change, helping these non-English speaking students improve English skills has become a significant issue for educational leaders and administrators. Educators (Davies, 2007; Kung, 2002; Stevens, 2004) have stated that utilizing Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) programs can be convenient in creating both independent and collaborative English as a Second Language (ESL) learning environments and provide students with language experiences as they move through the various stages of English acquisition. Some functions of CALL programs are still under intense debate among educational leaders and ESL educators (Salaberry, 1999). Research regarding the effects of CALL programs on ESL education for diverse English language learners is needed in order for educational leaders and administrators to reform ESL education in the future. Research Questions The study attempted to provide a comprehensive understanding of the experience and expectations of LEP students and ESL instructors using CALL programs to assist their English learning and teaching, determine what background factors may influence LEP students’ perceptions toward using CALL programs, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs for current ESL instruction, and explore what role CALL programs may play in actual ESL classrooms. The research questions guiding the study were: 78
  • 91. 79 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 TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different age groups.
  • 92. 80 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.
  • 93. 81 Research Method To answer and examine the research questions and null hypotheses, a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods were utilized for the study. According to Duffy (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. It describes, tests, and examines cause and effect relationships, using a deductive process of knowledge attainment. In contrast, the qualitative approach is used as a vehicle for studying the empirical world from the perspective of the subject, not the researcher. Gay and Airasian (2000) further pointed out that each individual research approach has its weakness and strengths. Quantitative measurements only tell us how often or how many people behave in a certain way, but they do not adequately answer the question “why”. On the other hand, qualitative research has no explicit intention to count or quantify the findings, which are instead described in the language employed during the research process (Leach, 1990). When used in combination, quantitative and qualitative research methods can represent the full range of educational research methods and allow a focus on each single method’s relevant strengths. Therefore, a researcher should aim to achieve the situation where “blending qualitative and quantitative methods of research can 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 of quantitative research” (Jayaratne, 1993, p.117). Based on these concepts, both quantitative and qualitative approaches will be employed in the study in order to achieve a convergence of results.
  • 94. 82 Quantitative According to Gay and Airasian (2000), a quantitative descriptive study can be carried out to obtain information about the preferences, attitudes, practices, concerns, or interests of some group of people. To evaluate the effectiveness of CALL programs on ESL acquisition, Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) theory was adopted as the conceptual framework of this quantitative research in the study. The TAM is a well-established model of information technology adoption and use. It has been tested in numerous studies and shown to explain a reasonable amount of the variance in actual use of the technology (Riemenschneider, Harrison, & Mykytyn, 2003; Subramanian, 1998). In the TAM, Davis claimed that perceived ease of use (PEU) and perceived usefulness (PU) are the key determinants of computer usage, and a learner’s external variables will indirectly influence a learner’s intention and decision to use computer technologies through the impact on PEU and PU. To examine LEP students’ perceptions of using CALL programs to assist their English learning, a TAM in CALL Questionnaire modified from Davis’ TAM was used to collect the quantitative data. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic data. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistical method was used to analyze the variances of the sum scale scores of the “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs among LEP students at different native language backgrounds, males and females, age groups, educational levels, and previous technology experiences.
  • 95. 83 Qualitative Gay and Airasian (2000) indicated that qualitative research seeks to probe deeply into the research setting in order to obtain understanding of the way things are, why they are that way, and how the participants in the context perceive them. The software of CALL programs is still the commercial product and no matter how many functions CALL software has, it must satisfy the needs of users or customers. According to the Theory of Customer Value (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996), communication with customers is the key in influencing users’ decisions concerning why, when, and what to buy, and use of the products. To examine the effectiveness of CALL programs and improving CALL programs in the future, communicating with LEP students and ESL instructors about the values they place on CALL programs must be utilized. In the study, qualitative interviews were conducted to investigate both LEP students’ and ESL instructors’ opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs in ESL teaching and learning, the roles and functions CALL programs play in ESL environments, and the expectations of future CALL programs. Research Design Quantitative The quantitative component of the study was designed to identify whether the factors of personal backgrounds will influence students’ acceptance of the general application of CALL program technology, from the LEP students’ perceptions. The TAM in CALL Questionnaire including 12 items was used to collect data. A one-way ANOVA statistical method was employed to test the difference between LEP students’ individual backgrounds 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 native language, 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 identify the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs for ESL instruction, the role CALL programs play in current ESL learning environments, and the expectations of future CALL programs from both LEP students’ and instructors’ viewpoints. A number of strategies proposed by Denzin and Lincoln (2000) were followed to establish the interview’s trustworthiness and credibility. These strategies include prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, referential adequacy materials, peer debriefing, and member check (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). For example, to achieve triangulation, the grounded theory research approach was used to identify, describe, and interpret both LEP students’ and ESL instructors’ opinions toward using CALL programs in ESL teaching and learning. In peer debriefing, a person who serves in an ESL program and has rich ESL teaching experience as the peer was invited to discuss the hypotheses, the questionnaire, and the interview questions to ensure the study was not influenced by personal biases of the researcher.
  • 97. 85 Subjects of the Study Quantitative The subjects of the quantitative portion in the study were LEP students taking ESL courses and using CALL programs in college level schools or adult educational institutions in the Houston area of Texas during summer semester of 2008. A list of these ESL schools and institutions was obtained from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and school websites. From this list, college or university ESL programs and adult ESL institutions was identified. The researcher and his chair went to visit each of the institution on the list to obtain the authorization. Each ESL program director was requested to obtain information regarding procedures for the research, and help to identify students who meet the criteria of the study. The final participants of this quantitative study consisted of 329 LEP students selected using the convenience sampling method. Each participating student was asked to complete the TAM in CALL Questionnaire. LEP participants were provided information with 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 convenience sample 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-face interviews were conducted among ESL instructors and LEP students to determine some of the issues related to their use and non-use of CALL technologies.
  • 98. 86 The final qualitative portion of the study included twenty interviews: seven in-service ESL instructors and thirteen LEP students. Three instructors were teaching ESL courses with CALL programs in the Houston Community College and four instructors from the University of Houston were interviewed. Three students came from the Houston Community College, four students came from the University of Houston, and six students came from the Chinese Community Center. All participants were interviewed and observed in their language learning environment to obtain qualitative data. Instrumentation The instrumentation for the study consisted of a questionnaire instrument for quantitative collection of data and interviews for qualitative data collection. Quantitative The purpose of the quantitative instrument was to collect data through diverse LEP students’ learning experiences and perceptions in the general application of CALL programs. A TAM in CALL Questionnaire modified from Davis’s Technology Acceptance Model (1989) was used as the instrument in the study. LEP students were asked in the questionnaire to provide their individual background information and scale scores relating to the “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The instrument contained four sections. Section one elicits demographic information that was used to classify the students. Section two and three consisted of 12 questions that examine students’ perceived “Usefulness” and perceived “Ease of Use” of general CALL programs for assisting their English learning. Each question was answered
  • 99. 87 on 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 one open-ended item, asking respondents to list any other comments or questions relating to their use of CALL programs. Based on students’ native language backgrounds and to help LEP students comprehend the content of the questionnaire, the original English version of TAM in CALL Questionnaire was translated into five language versions: three by the certified translators (Spanish, French, and Korean) and two by a recognized expert in Chinese languages (Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese). ALL of “Others” group participants comprised 89 persons and used sixteen native languages. These were asked to 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 this quantitative study would not be identified in any way when they responded. The questionnaires 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 LEP students and ESL instructors in ESL college level schools or adult educational institutions in the Houston area of Texas. Nine interview questions have been structured, but open-ended, which provided information concerning the participants’ opinions relating to learning and teaching with CALL programs. The content of interview questions was
  • 100. 88 focused on the instructors’ and learners’ individual ESL teaching and learning experiences to identify the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs and the roles of CALL programs in actual ESL classrooms, and what expectations and suggestions they have for future CALL programs, based on their individual ESL teaching or learning needs. Validity According to Gay and Airasian (2000), validity refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of specific inferences the researcher makes from test scores gathered from an instrument. It is concerned with the appropriateness of the interpretations made from instrument scores. Three techniques were used to enhance the validity of the research instrument in the study: First, an extensive literature review was conducted to identify the underlying concepts, relevant theories, hypothesis, propositions, potential constructs, and previous empirical studies and scales used. Second, the content validity of the TAM in CALL Questionnaire and the interview questions were checked by a panel comprised of dissertation chair and two ESL instructors. The panel analyzed and guaranteed the instrument for reliability and validity. Each panelist evaluated the instrument for content, clarity, and appropriateness. Third, using interviews as a second data resource also strengthen the validity of the study because one of the strengths of the interview process is 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 vary between values of 0.00 and 1.00, with 1.00 indicating perfect reliability, 0.00 indicating no reliability, and 0.62 indicating acceptable reliability (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Quantitative Reliability was further examined by Cronbach’s alpha correlation statistical procedure 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 the TAM in CALL Questionnaire. To examine the reliability of six scale items of “Usefulness”, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was applied to estimate internal consistency of scores. The six scale items of “Usefulness” returned an internal consistency alpha of .926. It meant that this section instrument had a fairly high estimation of internal consistency and reliability. To examine the reliability of six scale items of “Ease of Use”, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was employed again to estimate internal consistency of scores. The six scale items of “Ease of Use” returned an internal consistency alpha of .914. This section of the instrument also had a fairly high estimation of internal consistency and reliability.
  • 102. 90 Qualitative One of the key goals of qualitative research is to establish trustworthiness. Two techniques were used to ensure trustworthiness of this study. The first technique is peer debriefing. One peer was invited to discuss the hypotheses, the questionnaire, and the interview questions with the researcher in order to ensure that none of the researcher’s personal biases would affect the study. To improve the transferability of this study, the second technique that was used in the study is thick description. Although it is not possible in qualitative research to suggest external validity, the thick description can “enable someone interested in making a transfer to reach a conclusion about whether transfer 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’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Thereafter, the researcher and his chair went to visit each ESL department of schools and institutions in the Houston area of Texas to obtain their authorization. A list of these ESL schools and institutions was obtained from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and school websites. After obtaining the authorization of the ESL institutions, the ESL instructors were further contacted with the researcher. After receiving responses confirming that the instructors were willing to participate in the study, printed hard copy surveys and URL of online survey and instructions for completing the questionnaire were sent to the instructors, with a request for them to help their LEP students complete the questionnaire. LEP participants were provided information with which to make voluntary decisions about whether or not to participate in the study. Once the surveys had been completed,
  • 103. 91 follow-up face-to-face interviews were conducted among ESL instructors and LEP students to determine some of the issues related to the roles and functions of CALL programs in ESL education. Data Collection and Recording Questionnaires and interviews are used extensively in educational research to collect 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 observable phenomena, but more conveniently than by direct observation (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Quantitative The purpose of the quantitative instrument was to collect data concerning LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” and perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. Data were collected from students enrolled in ESL and CALL programs courses offered by the Houston Community College, the University of Houston, and Chinese Community Center in the Houston area of Texas during the summer semester of 2008. A survey instrument entitled TAM in CALL Questionnaire was used to collect related data. Qualitative The purpose of the qualitative instrument was to collect data on LEP students’ and instructors’ opinions about using CALL programs in their ESL learning and teaching. Interviews were conducted using nine interview questions structured to identify the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs in ESL instruction, the role CALL programs play in ESL classrooms, and the expectations of future CALL programs from both 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 wishes of the research participants, the researcher has protected the anonymity of the participants. Documents and reports utilize pseudonyms for the sites and the samples; and the researcher informed the participants of the study’s purpose. The security of the raw data gathered through the questionnaire and the interviews was assured in order to protect the anonymity of the participants and to uphold the trustworthiness of the study. Data and information will be stored in a secure location in a bank safe deposit box for seven years. After seven years, the data will be destroyed by incineration. Only the researcher and dissertation chair may access the gathered data and information. The above measures regarding trustworthiness and confidentiality were shared with the participants when the researcher contacted them through e-mail, telephone, mail, or in person. Data Analysis Quantitative The quantitative data from the LEP students’ responses in the questionnaire instrument, including individual background factors and the variances of the sum scale scores of the “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs, were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13.0 for Windows. Results of the study were reported as descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages. Population demographic characteristics were compiled and categorized to show characteristics of the sample. The data were analyzed by means of a one-way ANOVA statistic method to examine the difference between LEP students’ individual
  • 105. 93 backgrounds and their perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing their English learning. Qualitative Gay and Airasian (2000) stated that data analysis of qualitative research involves simultaneous data collection and analysis as new data are collected. For the qualitative portion of the interviews, data analysis included coding, generating categories, and writing interview summaries. This coding occurred by reading through the data and searching for regularities and patterns, as well as for themes, and then classifying the information into categories that represent different aspects of the data. This was done by grouping 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 interview data in the study: (a) record all that the researcher hears and observes from the interviewers, (b) describe the coding and identify the major themes, (c) discuss the result of 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. A combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was utilized to collect and analyze data. A quantitative questionnaire and descriptive statistics were developed to examine the significant difference among LEP students’ diverse backgrounds and their perceptions concerning the “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing their English learning. Qualitative interviews and observations were conducted to identify the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs for ESL instruction, the role CALL programs play in current ESL learning environments, and the expectations of
  • 106. 94 future CALL programs from both LEP students’ and ESL instructors’ viewpoints. Subjects for the study were selected using the cluster sampling method. The sample of the quantitative study consisted of 329 LEP students who were taking ESL courses and CALL programs in college level schools or adult educational institutions in the Houston area of Texas during the summer semester of 2008. The qualitative interviews included 20 participants. Convenience sampling method was used to invite ESL 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 the effects of CALL programs on ESL education for diverse English language learners. To achieve this purpose, both quantitative and qualitative research methods were used to collect and to analyze data. Age, gender, native language, previous educational level, and previous technology experience were five factors used to examine LEP students’ “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” perceptions toward using CALL programs for English learning in the quantitative design. The strengths, limitations, roles, and expectations of CALL programs in ESL teaching and learning activities were main concerns in the qualitative interviews to collect information from both ESL instructors and LEP students. This chapter includes the research questions, the quantitative research data analysis, the qualitative research data analysis, and a summary of research results. Research Questions Quantitative 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. 96 Qualitative 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 TAM in CALL Questionnaire was used to collect data. The responses were on a 5-point Likert scale 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 when they 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. The difference between / among the variables described in the null hypotheses were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA. If the p value for any of the analyses were significance at the 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 for statistical significance, and were only reported using descriptive statistics. Each participant was asked to provide personal information necessary to generate variables pertinent to the study.
  • 109. 97 The purposive sample was to be LEP students taking ESL courses and CALL programs in college level schools or adult education institutes in the Houston area of Texas during summer 2008. Not all of ESL schools or institutes agreed to join in the study after the researcher and his faculty supervisor visited and asked each school’s ESL program directors or administrators. For example, one university indicated that their ESL instruction did not use computer technology for supporting student’s English learning, so they declined to participate. Another university which allowed their students to participate, but they only had six ESL students enrolled in summer 2008 and all in the beginning level and all from Africa. Without appropriate language translative questionnaire, those students may not be suited to join in the study. So, those students were not included. The main participants of the study came from the following schools as shown in Table 1: Houston Community College, University of Houston, and Chinese Community Center. Table 1 Descriptive 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 the mean of age was 29.7 (SD = 12.2). Figure 1 presented that the largest group of respondents was represented by the age group 21-30 years old (44.1%), the second and third largest age groups were students’ ages under 20 years old (21.9%) and students’
  • 110. 98 ages from 31 to 40 years old (15.8%). Figure 1 Composition 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 different schools. Student’s age under 20 years old (N=71) and 20-30 years old (N= 125) are centralized 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 the Chinese Community Center had more above 60 years old senior LEP students. Table 2 Descriptive 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 old Houston Community 1 17 28 13 3 1 College University of Houston 71 125 15 1 Chinese Community 3 9 10 9 12 Center
  • 111. 99 The sample (N=329) included 147 males (44.7%) and 180 females (54.7%), as shown in Figure 2. The gender composition of the sample population included two respondents who did not indicate gender. Figure 2 Composition 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 native languages were represented, including Chinese speaking group(25.5%), Spanish speaking group (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 who use 16 different native languages. All of the “Others” participants responded to the English version of the TAM in CALL Questionnaire. The native languages composition of the sample population is shown in Table 3, and there were nine respondents who did not indicate native language.
  • 112. 100 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by Native Language Group Native Language Group Frequency Percent Valid 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 97.3 Missing System 9* 2.7 Total 329 100.0 * Participant did not indicate native language Figure 3 presents data regarding the participant’s previous educational level. As shown, 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 from secondary school.
  • 113. 101 Figure 3 Composition 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 college or university degree (N=123). On the contrary, students enrolled in Houston Community College had more secondary school degree (N=27) than college or university degrees (N=13), as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by School Location and Previous Educational Level College or Elementary Secondary High school university Postgraduate school level school level level level level Houston Community 11 27 13 13 2 College University 2 1 61 123 26 of Houston Chinese Community 1 7 16 24 1 Center Total 14 35 90 160 29
  • 114. 102 Table 5 presented data regarding the LEP student’s years of previous technology experience. Technology experience is based on the number of years using the computer and the Internet. As shown, 104 LEP participants (31.6%) had technology experience of more than 10 years, 56 respondents owned 7-9 years technology experience, 69 students had experience of using the computer and the Internet within 4-6 years, and 27 students whose actual technology experiences were less than one year. Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by Previous Technology Experiences Frequency Percent Valid 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 93.0 Missing System 23* 7.0 Total 329 100.0 * Participant did not indicate previous technology experience Research Question One What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived usefulness of CALL programs 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. 103 following six statements measured the LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs 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 me get more ESL learning resources and materials to enhance my English learning” was the most favored statement (M = 3.87, SD= 1.059) and “Using the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, can improve my English learning performance” was the least favored statement (M= 3.76, SD = 1.036).
  • 116. 104 Table 6 Means of Six Statements for LEP Participants Perceived “Usefulness” of CALL Programs 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 Internet's 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 Internet's 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 was applied 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 indicating perfect reliability, 0.00 indicating no reliability, and 0.62 indicating acceptable. The six scale items of “Usefulness” returned an internal consistency alpha of .926, as shown in Table 7. It meant that this section instrument had a fairly high estimation of internal consistency and reliability.
  • 117. 105 Table 7 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for LEP Students Perceive “Usefulness” of CALL Programs for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .926 .926 6 To answer the research question one, null hypotheses from Ho1 to Ho5 were conducted to examine whether a significant difference exists among LEP students’ background factors their perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning and their background factors. Data analysis of each null hypothesis utilized for the study was presented in tables and a narrative form. Each null hypothesis either was rejected or not rejected based on the statistical test of significance at the .05 level. If a significant difference was found, post hoc analysis Scheffe or Least Significant Difference (LSD) was carried out to further detect the differences. The following findings were 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 native language backgrounds as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. Null hypothesis one argued that native language is not a factor that influences differences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 8 revealed that there was a significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs 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. 106 statistically significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs among native language groups, therefore, was accepted. Table 8 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 (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 as shown in Table 8.1. A statistically significant difference was found between Chinese language learners and the “Others” language learners (p = .004). Similarly, a significant difference was also noted between Spanish version survey respondents and “Others” category respondents who adopted English version survey (p = .000). Table 8.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM in CALL “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 LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by the TAM in CALL Questionnaire.
  • 120. 108 Null hypothesis two stated that gender is not a factor that influences differences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 9 revealed that there was no significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs between 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 9 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between means of ESL 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 in CALL Questionnaire, among different age groups. Null hypothesis three stated that age is not a factor that influences differences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 10 revealed that there was a significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs among different age groups with a mean score of , F (5, 306) = 4.53, p = .001. The null hypothesis was rejected. The alternative hypothesis that statistically significant difference
  • 121. 109 in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs between age groups was therefore accepted. Table 10 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 (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 between each age group and a p value shown in Scheffe test. Table 10.1 Scheffe 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 .693 21-30 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 .715 31-40 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 the difference continually. The LSD test uses the t distribution rather than the F distribution of the Scheffe tests. According to Garson (2008), LSD test is the most liberal of the post hoc tests. It is not a range test, but instead is based on the t-statistic and can be considered a form of t-test. It compares all possible pairs of means after the F-test rejects the null hypothesis that groups do not differ. The result further yielded a statistically significant (p< .05) difference between the following 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. 111 Table 10.2 LSD 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 CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire based on LEP students’ previous educational levels. Null hypothesis four assumed that educational level is not a factor that influences differences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. As shown in Table 11, the result of a one-way ANOVA revealed that there was no significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs 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 11 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 (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 in CALL Questionnaire, among different technology experience groups. Null hypothesis five stated that technology experience is not a factor that influences differences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 12 revealed that there was no significant difference in perceived “Usefulness” of
  • 125. 113 CALL programs among different the years of technology experience groups with a mean score of , F (4, 295) = .111, p = .987. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Table 12 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 (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 CALL programs 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 was regarded as the scale items for collecting the “Ease of Use” subscale scores from each ESL 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 in Table 13, the mean scores of each scale item were from 3.57 to 3.80. The statement “I believe that operating the computer and using computer assisted language learning programs is easy” (M= 3.80) was stronger than the statement “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” (M=3.57). Table 13 Means of Six Statements Contributing to LEP Participants Perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL Programs for English Learning (N=318) Statement N Mean Std. Deviation 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 318 3.57 1.184 wherever I choose It is easy for me to use the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, as 318 3.66 1.068 tools for showing my English learning progress I have no problem using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room to communicate and interact with my ESL 318 3.75 1.063 teachers 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’s coefficient alpha was employed again to estimate internal consistency of scores. The six scale items of “Ease of Use” returned an internal consistency alpha of .914, as shown in Table 13.1. This section of the instrument had a fairly high estimation of internal consistency and reliability. Table 13.1 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for LEP Students Perceive “Ease of Use” of CALL Programs for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .914 .916 6 Null hypotheses six through ten were conducted to examine whether there are a significant difference between LEP students’ personal backgrounds and their perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. Tables and narrative form were used to present results. Each null hypothesis either be rejected or be not rejected was based on the statistic significance which also reflected in the tables. The following 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 of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing their English learning among native language backgrounds as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. Null hypothesis six stated that native language is not a factor that influences differences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 14 revealed that there was a significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs 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 that statistically significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs among native language groups, therefore, was accepted. Table 14 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 (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 conducted as shown in Table 14.1. A statistically significant difference was found between Chinese language learners and the “Others” category language learners (p = .045).
  • 129. 117 Table 14.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM in CALL “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 measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. Null hypothesis seven stated that gender is not a factor that influences differences in measured LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 15 revealed that there was no significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs between male and female LEP students with a mean score of , F (1, 314) = .90, p = .344. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Table 15 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between Means of ESL 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 .344 Within 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 of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different age groups. Null hypothesis eight stated that age is not a factor to influence difference in measured LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 16 revealed that
  • 131. 119 there was no significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs among different age groups with a mean score of , F (5, 301) = 1.56, p = .172. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Table 16 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 (N=307) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 219.161 5 43.832 1.559 .172 Within 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” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire based on LEP students’ previous educational levels. Null hypothesis nine stated that educational level is not a factor to influence difference in measured LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 17 revealed that there was no significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs 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. 120 Table 17 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 (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 of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different technology experience groups. Null hypothesis ten stated that technology experience is not a factor to influence difference in measured LEP students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. The result of a one-way ANOVA as shown in Table 18 revealed that there was no significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs among different the years of technology experience groups with a mean score of , F (4, 290) = .97, p = .422. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Table 18 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 (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’ and students’ perspectives on the roles and functions of CALL programs played in actual ESL teaching and learning activities. For achieving this purpose, a series of interviews were conducted that reflected the research questions. Nine interview questions were structured but open-ended in order to gather information to answer research question three to five and help explain the quantitative findings of the study. To organize the interview information, three strategies were used in this qualitative portion included coding, generating categories, and writing up interview summaries. The coding occurred by reading through the data and searching the data for regularities and patterns, as well as for topics, and then classified into categories that represent different aspects of the data (Gay & Airasian, 2000). Qualitative data analysis was done by grouping similar units of meaning together and giving these a category or a theme. Characteristics of the Qualitative Research Sample After getting permission from the participating educational institutions, seven ESL instructors and thirteen LEP students agreed to participate in the study. All interviews were conducted in August 2008, and all subjects were informed of the purpose of the study. Throughout this chapter, the participants are noted as T1 for ESL instructor member 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 which include six female instructors and one male instructor. Three instructors are teaching ESL courses with CALL programs in the Houston Community College (T1, T2, T3) and four ESL teachers who are in-service in the Language and Culture Center of the University of Houston (T4, T5, T6, T7). These instructors’ teaching experiences are varied from three years to more than thirty years. Thirteen student interviewees came from three differently participated schools which included three male and ten female students. Three students are from the Houston Community 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 the advance English degree. The verbal responses reflect actual comments and were not revised. Research Question Three What are the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs in actual ESL teaching and learning? To answer this research question, all interviewees members were asked three interview questions to clarify their viewpoints about the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs for ESL teaching and learning. The first question was to understand the effects of CALL programs on interviewees’ ESL teaching and learning experiences. All ESL instructors pointed out that computer technology and CALL programs have had deep influences in their teaching.
  • 135. 123 Five instructors indicated that computer technology and CALL programs can help them 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 and a projector. We use them during the class events. We go online to check or search the information and then discuss” (T4). Another instructor also stated that she created her personal website and posted learning resources for her students. “Although there are many learning resources on the Internet, they may not be very good. So, I create my personal website and post useful learning resource to my students” (T5). The computer technology had changed their teaching methods and pedagogy. In addition, online resources and activities have become necessary supporting teaching material in their ESL classrooms. One instructor further pointed out her attitude toward using computer technology in 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 the ESL pedagogy is a new approach. Even though some ESL instructors still preferred the traditional teaching method to the CALL teaching approach, infusing online resources or applying CALL learning activities into the classrooms seemed unavoidable in current ESL education.
  • 136. 124 When student interviewees were asked the same question, ten of the students confirmed that computer technology and its assisted learning programs have had an influence on their English learning. Most students indicated that computers and CALL programs 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 for understanding the word meanings or reading the online articles (S6, S10), and two students noted that writing and reading English emails have become their routine method for communicating with their friends and improving their writing (S8, S11). There were four students who announced that computer technology and CALL programs did not influence their English learning. Two students indicated that “computers cannot give the correct and immediate feedback” as the main reason why they refused to use CALL programs for assisting their English learning. “I often have many questions, but computer just give me an answer…the computer is not like the teacher can help me immediately or understand what I want” (S2). That interviewee was a beginning English level learner. She often had questions in her learning process, but the computer did not provided immediate answers. In her opinion, the functions of the computer are not good enough to satisfy the beginning learners’ learning needs. The other reason why LEP students did not confirm the effect of CALL programs on their English learning was “lack technology knowledge”. One student pointed out that she did not have any idea to operate the computer and CALL programs although she believes 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 learning schedule. She stated that she cannot learn English and technology knowledge at the same
  • 137. 125 time (S1). Without basic technology knowledge, CALL programs to some students may become unimportant supplements. It is necessary to provide basic training for students in order 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 the research of Lee (2000), was asked. In Lee’s article, he pointed out that provide practice through the experiential learning, offer more learning motivation, enhance achievement, increase authentic materials, encourage interactive activities, emphasize the individual needs, and enlarge globe understanding are the main advantages when applying CALL programs in ESL teaching and learning. All interviewees were asked what advantages that CALL programs have through their actual ESL teaching and learning experiences. The frequencies of the interviewees’ responses were listed in Table 19. Table 19 Frequency of Advantages of CALL Programs for ESL teaching and learning Frequency Advantages of CALL Programs ESL Instructor LEP Students provide practice through the 5 3 experiential learning offer more learning motivation 4 4 enhance achievement 4 2 increase authentic materials 7 8 encourage interactive activities 2 6 emphasize the individual needs 3 4 enlarge globe understanding 0 1
  • 138. 126 “Increase authentic materials” was the most frequent response when answering this interview question. One instructor stated that “I had accessed a lot of materials. For example, different websites were published by different publishers. If the website doesn’t actually give me materials to use in class, some of them will give me the ideas that I can use in my classes” (T6). Another instructor further expressed that online materials are not only 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 to provide them a great deal of online resources for their English learning. One student especially pointed out two useful websites: “There are many useful learning resources on the ESL websites, such as VOANews.com (Voice of America) and RepeatAfterUs.com. I often visit these websites to practice my listening and reading” (S9). Not all ESL instructors and learners held the same viewpoint toward CALL program. “Providing practice through the experiential learning” ranked as the second important advantage of CALL programs by five instructors (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5), but only three students thought the statement is important to them as an advantage (S3, S7, S12). On the contrary, “encourage interactive activities” ranked as the second important advantage of CALL programs by six students (S4, S5, S6, S8, S10, S11), but only two instructors thought the statement was important to them as an advantage (T6, T7). Students hoped that CALL programs can offer them more interactive opportunities to communicating with their teachers, but instructors did not show their enthusiasm to use the interactive functions of CALL program to communicate with their students. During the interviews, only two instructors expressed that they often used email or online chat
  • 139. 127 room to interact with their students. Other instructors preferred using the traditional way to interact with their students. (2) Disadvantages of CALL To discuss the disadvantages of CALL programs, four instructors believed that there 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 the disadvantages” (T7). In her opinion, computer technology and CALL programs have many potential advantages in ESL teaching and learning, and the only disadvantage is that 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 CALL programs 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 not exist if teachers can expand their personal technology skills and help students overcome their technologic problems. On the other hand, one instructor did point out some disadvantages of CALL programs 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 and learning 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 I have to search extra teaching materials through the Internet or CALL programs in order to satisfy students’ needs” (T2).
  • 141. 129 When student interviewees were asked the same question, the answers about the disadvantages of CALL programs were varied. Four students did not have any comment because they preferred traditional ESL pedagogies to the learning methods of CALL programs (S2, S3, S12, S13). Three students indicated that they relied on computer too much 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 may also influence students’ spelling skill at the same time. All of disadvantages of CALL programs that ESL instructors and students mentioned were organized in the Figure 4. Figure 4 Frequency 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 5 Research Question Four What is the role of CALL programs in current ESL instructions? To answer this research question, all interviewees members were asked three interview questions to clarify their viewpoints about the roles of CALL programs in their
  • 142. 130 ESL teaching and learning and to understand when, where, and how they use CALL programs in their ESL teaching and learning. All seven ESL instructors indicated that the main purpose why they use computer and 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 programs to support their ESL teaching, the average time ESL teachers spent in preparing teaching materials is four hours per week. Three instructors indicated that the time they spent on CALL programs is often depended on two factors: the length of semester and the content of 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 was totally different with instructors’ time, and it was often decided by the student’s technology background. For students without technology background or with little technology knowledge, they spend little time (S2, S12) or none (S1, S13) on using technology to enhance their learning. On the contrary, students who have rich technology experiences often spend more than 10 hours per day for using the computer and the
  • 143. 131 Internet. For example, one student stated that “I always open my computer and access to the 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 factor that impacted students’ pleasures for employing CALL program to assist their English learning. To remove this barrier and infuse CALL programs into ESL education successfully, helping students acquire basic technology knowledge is an indispensable mission for all ESL leaders and instructors. Administrators and designers of ESL program may have to consider adding basic technology trainings into their ESL curriculum 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 their children 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 the computer (S1, S13). From this case, the interviewees’ attitudes toward technology were influenced by their personal environments. The “gender” and “age” were the following factors which may influence student’s time spending on CALL programs. Two female students declared that they were busy with household daily duties, so they did not have much time to use CALL programs for their English learning (S1, S2). Another elder female student indicated she did have time to learn English with CALL programs. The gender factor was not a problem to her because her children already grew up, and she did not have to deal with too many household jobs.
  • 144. 132 Finally, “culture background” could be the factor influence student’s technology acceptance. One instructor pointed out that Asian students are often good at computer technology. Their countries usually have more technology infrastructure, so they can get more technology exercise opportunities. Oppositely, students came from African countries may have fewer occasions for receiving technology training, so they may not spend too much time on computers and CALL programs due to their poor technology skills. To further understand what roles of CALL programs played in actual ESL teaching 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 what role 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”, three interviewees chose “Tutor” as the role, and two interviewees indicated that “Tutee” is more significant to them. The result was organized in Figure 5. Figure 5 Frequency 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 CALL programs because she believed that evaluating and tracking students’ learning progresses is 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 evaluate students work and keep the record” (T4). Another instructor also selected “Tutor” but she indicated 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 it is the tutor” (T5). Similarly, one LEP student held the same answer. She stated that “the most important role of computers to me may be the tutor because it can record and tell me 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 role through 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. He indicated that he did not need the computer to evaluate students’ learning achievement because he can access that by the traditional way. Students may feel uncomfortable toward computer if using computer to test or evaluate them (T6). In his belief, the functions of computers and CALL programs should be more than testing students’ learning results. CALL programs should inspire students’ learning motivation and their lifelong 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 reasons they choose “Tool” were: vary their teaching and learning paths, provide interactive activities, 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 of CALL programs played in ESL learning. One instructor indicated that “each individual has 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 help students to overcome the learning gaps and to acquire English skills. Therefore, CALL programs should cater to students’ requirements. One student stood for this viewpoint. He hopes that computer can teach him what he does not know, and CALL programs can follow his needs to provide the learning and training. He did not need just read-made programs because some of them maybe not suitable for his current English level (S7).
  • 147. 135 Research Question Five What are the second language learning efficiency expectations of LEP students and ESL instructors utilizing CALL programs? To answer this research question, all ESL instructors and students were asked three interview questions to clarify their expectation for future CALL programs. The first question was to identify whether these instructors and students are satisfied with the current functions of CALL programs or not. All seven instructors indicated that the current computer technology and CALL programs are good enough for ESL education. But students held different opinions toward the same question. Only four LEP students are satisfied with CALL programs (S3, S4, S9, S11), four students indicated that some CALL 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 CALL programs. Three students, who use difference native languages included Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese, mentioned that the electronic translation software is more convenient than the traditional dictionary for their English learning, but the qualities of translation 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 second question was asked about what kind of English skills can be improved effectively when learning 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, two instructors 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 CALL programs are good for improving the “Writing” skill, and two students (S7, S9) thought that 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. 137 Figure 6 Frequency of English Skills Can Be Improved Effectively When Using CALL Programs for 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 the most promoting skill. She said: “It is not easy to find the structured listening activities outside of the Internet” (T5). Another instructor further explained that “you can play them (listening resources) again and again. I often give me students when the book has the CD, and I always give my students listening exercise, do them, listen to them ten times” (T7). For the “Reading “skill, six student confirmed that CALL programs can improve this skill a lot, but only two instructors agreed with this opinion. One instructor indicated that there are rich reading resources on the Internet web pages. If students can read one online articles everyday, their English level will progress rapidly (T6). One student further made a clear expression and stated that “I like to talk with people face to face, so computer can not help me to improve my speaking skill. But, for the reading, online articles are more interesting than the textbook” (S10).
  • 150. 138 To identify what kind of English skills cannot be improved effectively when learning 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 use CALL programs in writing class unless I find real good software. In general, work with individual teacher for improving writing will be better” (T4). Another instructor showed different opinion. She believed that the writing skill can be improved more effectively than other language skills because the computer can recheck students’ spelling and grammar mistakes. In this way, it is easy for student to improve their writing through CALL programs (T1). Instructors also had different opinions toward the speaking skill. Four instructors and one student (T1, T2, T6, T7, S6) asserted that CALL programs can not improve the speaking skills very much. The reasons included “it is difficult to find the speaking resources”, “the artificial pronunciation is not real” and “programs often cannot correct students’ pronunciation”. But one student retorted this perspective and said: “when I studied at middle school and high school in my country, I already went to online chat rooms to talk with native English speakers and ask them to correct my grammar and pronunciations” (S4). She further indicated that by using online chat rooms to practice speaking with native English speaker is more convenient and cheaper than the real conversation class. Finally, when instructors and students were asked about their expectation of future CALL programs, price is the first priority from their concerns. Most instructors and students expect CALL program should be cheaper than the current price, which is too
  • 151. 139 expensive for them to purchase. They hoped the price of computer and Internet connection fee can be reduced (T2, S5, S6, S8, S13). Their second expectation is the ease of 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 operate sometimes” (T1). She hoped that the design of CALL programs can be easier in the future. Other expectations from instructors and students included: One instructor hoped that CALL programs can have a perfect evaluating system to assess students’ writing (T6); another instructor hoped that CALL programs can develop distance learning tool so that students can learn ESL at home. In addition, she looked forward that computers should have more human intelligence to understand learners’ needs and can give students correct feedback immediately (T3); and one student wished that there should be no virus problem 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 of modified TAM survey instrument developed for the purpose of the study. Data was entered and analyzed by the software of SPSS 13.0. The data analysis used was descriptive 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 at the .05 level of confidence to examine whether a statistical significant difference exists among LEP students’ individual backgrounds and their perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning.
  • 152. 140 The qualitative component of the study included collection of data through personal interviews with ESL instructors and students. This process involved engaging participants in a dialogue to determine the functions and roles of CALL programs in ESL teaching 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 radically altered by the increasing number of non-English or limited English speaking populations. Helping these people acquire English skills so that they can become fully functioning members of society has become a growing concern for educational policy makers and administrators. Educational programs which focus on the teaching of English language to non-English speaking individuals employ a variety of methods including both traditional and non-traditional approaches. One major trend, the focus of inquiry for this study, is the infusion of computer technology into the teaching and learning of English. “Computer Assisted Language Learning” (CALL) is used in different ways by English instructors. Some use the technology in specially designed programs that assist beginning English learners. The World-Wide-Web can also be used by advanced learners as thinking and communication tools that allow students to interact with other English speakers on higher intellectual levels. A major concern for school administrators is that computer and software assets are expensive to provide. The real costs of purchasing and maintaining equipment and computer labs can be prohibitively expensive. They must also be concerned about opportunity costs incurred when learning opportunities are lost due to use of less effective instructional methods. Students can waste a lot of time on learning activities without learning English. This study employs an assessment tool that educational leaders and administrators may use to determine the extent to which technology investments are effective within specific populations of adult English language learners. The study 141
  • 154. 142 explores various factors that might influence the level of CALL use for English language learners. This chapter provides a summary, conclusions, and recommendations for further study. Summary Houston is the fourth-largest city in the United States. Thousands of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students come to Houston from different countries to continue their education. The primary language groups are Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and French. Russian and Arabic are also growing populations. Most of these individuals enroll in English as a Second Language (ESL) program of some sort with the express goal of acquiring English proficiency in the shortest possible time. To help these students achieve this goal, many university and college directors of ESL programs have embraced Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) programs as an essential supplement for enhancing traditional ESL instruction and learning. Past research reveals very little evaluation of the effectiveness of CALL programs on ESL teaching and learning has been done. The purpose of the study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of CALL programs on ESL education for diverse English language learners and instructors and to provide the results as a reference to educational leaders and administrators who are considering the use of ESL for their English instruction programs. The assessment results can also be used to recommend changes in technology utilization and software applications so that CALL programs can be continuously updated and improved. To frame the context for this study a literature review was conducted to explore the relationship among ESL education, CALL programs, and learners’ personal
  • 155. 143 backgrounds. Two quantitative research questions and three qualitative research questions were developed and conducted in the study. Both quantitative and qualitative questions data were collected using a survey instrument and through personal interviews. The survey instrument entitled TAM in CALL Questionnaire was modified from Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) theory (1989) to provide a quantitative analysis of two predictors or technology utilization, “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use.” Quantitative data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13.0. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA were used to examine the influence of LEP students’ individual backgrounds on their perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. Once the surveys had been completed, follow-up face-to-face interviews were conducted among ESL instructors and students to determine some of the issues related to their use and non-use of CALL technologies. Of particular interest were reported advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs, the roles of CALL programs in ESL classrooms. ESL instructors and students were called upon to predict future utility of CALL 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 in ESL courses using CALL programs within Houston area colleges, universities, or adult education institutes during the summer of 2008. All participants came from three participating schools, included the Houston Community College, University of Houston, and Chinese Community Center. The participants consisted of 180 females, 147 males,
  • 156. 144 and 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 were categorized 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 five language versions: three by the certified translators (Spanish, French, and Korean) and two by a recognized expert in Chinese languages (Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese). ALL of “Others” group participants comprised 89 persons and used sixteen native languages. These were asked to respond in the English version of the TAM in CALL Questionnaire. The age range of the participants in the study was from 15 to 74 and six age groups were categorized, included “under 20 years” age group (N=72), 21 to 30 years of age 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). The participants consisted of 160 students who have a college or university degree, 90 students who have high school diplomas, 35 students who have secondary school degrees, 29 students who have postgraduate degree, and 14 students who have elementary school education. 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. 145 27 students’ technology experiences were for “less than one year.” The participants of the qualitative study consisted of seven ESL instructors and thirteen LEP students. Three instructors were teaching ESL courses with CALL programs in the Houston Community College and four instructors from the University of Houston were interviewed. Three students came from the Houston Community College, four students came from the University of Houston, and six students came from the Chinese Community Center. All participants were interviewed and observed in their language learning 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 determine whether a the significant difference existed among the LEP students’ diverse backgrounds with regard to “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. One-way ANOVA statistical test was applied to examine the data. Each null hypothesis either was accepted or rejected based on a criterion value or confidence level of p < .05. The following is a summary of the findings. (1) Null Hypothesis One A statistically significant difference was found among LEP students’ native language groups and their perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English 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 the criterion p value of .05. Null hypothesis one therefore was rejected. Through Scheffe post hoc analysis, a statistically significant difference was further found between Chinese language learners and the “Others” language learners (p = .004) and between Spanish
  • 158. 146 version survey respondents and “Others” category respondents who adopted English version 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 measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. As indicated in Table 9, an F ratio of 1.73 or a p value of .189 is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis two. Gender therefore was not a factor for explaining any mean differences in TAM in CALL Questionnaire scores for “Usefulness.” (3) Null Hypothesis Three A statistically significant difference was found among LEP students’ age groups and their LEP students’ perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English 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 the criterion p value of .05. Therefore null hypothesis three (Ho3) should be rejected. Further post hoc analysis using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) yielded a statistically significant (p < .05) difference between the following pairs of age groups as shown in Table 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 CALL programs for enhancing English learning as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire based 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 is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis four. Therefore previous educational experience was not a factor in how useful respondents 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 in CALL 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 the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis five. Therefore the amount of prior technology experience was not a factor in how respondents rated the usefulness of technology for their English language learning. Discussion of Conclusions from Research Question One: From the quantitative analysis of data, English learners’ native language background was the single most important factor that yielded significantly differences in “Usefulness” of CALL; this was especially evident when comparing the Spanish speaking group, and the Chinese group with the “Other” group. Three reasons may contribute to the result. One explanation is that language and culture backgrounds of English as Second Language learners are diverse. The popularization of computer
  • 160. 148 utilization and the public infrastructure of technology of their previous countries may play a part in influencing their attitudes and behaviors for applying technology in general and specifically in this study for English language learning. This is the phenomenon may stem from an international “digital divide” (International Telecommunication Union, 2003). China and Korea represented two of the largest language subgroups among LEP students of this study. In both China and Korea modernization and globalization are occurring at frenetic pace. Fueling that pace has been national emphases upon use of technology. Children are expected to be technologically competent very early in life. Students who spoke Spanish or French came primarily from Latin American countries or African nations, most of which have not provided the same level of technological infrastructure for their citizens. These factors may account for the differences that were found. Second, students who came from the Houston Community College District were primarily Hispanic students and tended to come from Latin America. Chinese respondents came primarily from the Chinese Community Center and the University of Houston, while students of the “Other” languages group came almost entirely from the University of Houston. Among these educational institutions, the students from the University of Houston had higher levels of English proficiency than those from the other two institutions. According to Doll (2007), students of varying levels of English proficiency in English do have differing perceptions of the use of technology. In Doll’s research, Beginner and Intermediate levels of English learners were most appreciate use of the computer technology in their English learning while Advanced and Core levels of English students do not rely as heavily on it.
  • 161. 149 Another result from a study conducted by Hayes and Hicks (2004) showed that lower level of English proficiency students preferred computer-enhanced learning environment for studying English were more than higher level of English students. Hayes and Hicks indicated that lower level of English proficiency students were enthusiastic about the CALL environment because they felt that they can get more learning resources through CALL programs, learn more independently, and were able to enjoy the experience of working with other students. By contrast, higher level of English proficiency students need more significant learning inputs and might be difficult to perceive an improvement through regular CALL programs for their English skills. Therefore, not only the students’ native language and culture backgrounds may have influenced their perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, but students’ English proficiency levels may become a factor that influenced their perceptions. The last factor which may contribute to the result is that the “Other” group students took the English survey instead of their native language, while the Chinese and Spanish group students took the survey translated into their native language. The comprehension of the survey instrument may influence the “Other” group students to complete the survey and influenced the result. The students’ age range was a factor that caused significant differences toward students’ “Usefulness” perceptions when using CALL programs among the three age groups: “under 20 years”,” 31 to 40 years,” and “41 to 50 years.” Three reasons may have contributed to the result. First, the younger learners under 20 years and 20-30 years old who grew up with technology may have more technology skills for using computer and
  • 162. 150 the Internet. They use technology for communication, social interaction, for learning to communicate with other individuals daily, and technology has become part of their social life. They may be unaware of the usefulness of the CALL programs as a tool in their English learning. By contrast, the English learners that were older than 30 years grew up in an environment without computers and the Internet. They may regard the computer as an extra useful tool to enhance their language learning. Second, most of the students under 20 years of age came from the University of Houston. The other two education institutions, Houston Community College and the Chinese Culture Center have more older students than younger students. The students from the University of Houston have higher English proficiency levels than students from the other two institutions. Student’s age combined with their English proficiency level may have contributed to this result. Older lower levels of English students may relay more on computer as a useful tool than younger higher level students in their language learning. Third, according to the qualitative interviews, the older students needed to spend more time on their jobs and household duties. This left very little time for study or computer 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 to examine the significant difference among LEP students’ personal factors and their perceived “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. 151 or 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’ native language groups and their perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English 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 the criterion value of p < .05. Null hypothesis six therefore was rejected. Through a Scheffe post hoc analysis, a statistically significant difference was found between Chinese language learners and the “Others” category language learners (p = .045), as shown in Table 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 measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire. As indicated in Table 15, an F ratio of .898 or a p value of .344 is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis seven. Therefore gender 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 of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among different age groups as measured 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 the criterion 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” of CALL programs. (9) Null Hypothesis Nine There is no statistically significant difference in perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning based on students’ previous educational levels 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 the criterion value p < .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis nine. Therefore previous educational level of respondents did not affect differences in scores on “Ease of Usefulness” for the TAM in CALL Questionnaire. (10) Null Hypothesis Ten 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. As indicated in Table 18, an F ratio of .97 or a p < .422 is greater than the criterion p < .05 which indicates a failure to reject null hypothesis ten. Therefore previous technology experience of the English language learner did not affect the English learners’ perceptions of “Ease of Use” for TAM in CALL Questionnaire.
  • 165. 153 Discussion of Conclusions from Research Question Two From the analysis of data, students’ native language background is a factor in explaining significant differences toward English learners’ “Ease of Use” perceptions between Chinese learners of English and the “Other” group of English learners. Two reasons may contribute to this result. First, the “digital divide” may play an important role. Student’s native language and culture background may influence his or her perception 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 more technology infrastructure, so they can get more technology exercise opportunities. Oppositely, students came from other countries may have fewer occasions for receiving technology training, so they may not feel the ease of use of computer and spend too much time on CALL programs due to their poor technology skills. Second, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) indicated that beginning level to intermediate level of English learners often use transfer strategies in their English language learning. The transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledge from the first language to the second language is a requisite learning process for LEP students. In this study, the student population of the Chinese Community Center is mainly Chinese. The institution purchased Chinese version of CALL programs to provide their Chinese students. By contrast, the “Other” group students participated in this study use sixteen different native languages. It is difficult for an institution to purchase CALL programs with 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. 154 influence those students’ perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing their English 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. Three major 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 English instructors’ classrooms. CALL programs have enriched their teaching content enabling instructors to explore new and different teaching methods. Similarly, most LEP students (N = 9) agreed that CALL programs have influenced their English learning experiences in a positive way. The major strength of CALL 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 have more interactive opportunities to communicate with their teachers through CALL programs. Having available instruction in “real-time” enabled them to learn at a place that was comfortable and efficient for them. By contrast, only two of the seven instructors expressed that they often used email or online chat rooms to interact with their students after classroom hours.
  • 167. 155 One disadvantage identified by most English instructors was that English learners in their classes did not use the technology at all. One instructor provided the following disadvantages 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 English learning. They were concerned that over-use of CALL programs may influence their spelling ability. The spell-correcting function of CALL programs may help to recheck their writing, but it may prevent them from learning to spell. The review of literature endorsed the notion that current computer technology may have many advantages for second language learning. Additionally, “the use of the computer does not constitute a method. Rather, it is a medium in which a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented” (Garrett, 1991, p. 75). No matter what fantastic functions CALL programs provide, they are still no more than media for teaching and learning. The effectiveness of CALL programs does not lie in the medium alone but in how the programs are used and the quality of personal teaching and guidance that accompany them.
  • 168. 156 Research Question Four: Roles of CALL in ESL All seven ESL instructors indicated that the main purpose why they use CALL programs was to prepare the teaching materials, but the time they spent on CALL programs often depended on two factors: 1) the length of the semester, and 2) the content of textbook. This means that, to them, CALL programs may be essential, but only as they supplement their instruction. Some instructors still favored the traditional ESL pedagogies more than CALL teaching methods. When they do not have time to rely on the programs during a teachable moment, the technology would not be so useful. If the textbook and other resources are very good, they may not feel a need to supplement their teaching with the technology. Comparatively, the average time English learners spent on CALL programs was more 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 the students that were interviewed some students reported that they had limited technology background and that they spent very little time, or none at all, using CALL programs to enhance their learning. On the contrary, students who have rich technology experiences were willing to spend more time using computers and the Internet. Technology knowledge is a critical factor that impacts the amount of pleasure experienced by students for 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 LEP students indicated that CALL programs played a role as a “Tool” that can vary their
  • 169. 157 teaching and learning paths, provide more interactive activities, and facilitate the effectiveness of teaching and learning. Some instructors reported that the most important role 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 not able to adapt to different learning styles of the student. CALL programs should follow and satisfy English learners’ needs as a “Tutee.” The review of literature endorses the notion that computers play various roles that deeply impact ESL teaching and learning methods. The theoretical framework underlying CALL programs is very difficult to define because CALL programs exist in so many different forms. The specific role of CALL programs often depends upon different needs and 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 ESL instructors (N = 7) indicated that the current computer technology and CALL programs are adequate for ESL education. Some LEP students noted that current CALL programs are not perfect for meeting their learning needs, such as the translation function of CALL programs. When asked what kind of English skills can be improved effectively through CALL programs, ESL instructors and students expressed different usages and reasons with the language skill they liked most. Some believed that CALL audio materials are useful for improving students’ listening skill. Others insisted that CALL programs make
  • 170. 158 it easy to develop high level reading skills with rich online reading resources. The variety of CALL programs permits different users to address different learning goals and produce different learning results. Finally, when instructors and students were asked about their expectations regarding future development of CALL programs, two major expectations were revealed during the interviews. The first priority from their concerns was the price. Most instructors and students expressed a desire for future CALL programs to cost less so that they can afford to purchase them. The second priority for CALL programs of the future was that be they easier to use. Future programs should focus more human intelligence to understand the language learners’ needs – they should be able to give students correct feedback immediately on correct pronunciation, grammar, usage, and syntax. Based on the interviews, most of the instructors and students were satisfied with the CALL programs for their language teaching and learning needs. Both instructors and students expressed 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 is still imperfect, and their functions are limited (Warschauer, 1996). Due to the limitations of computer’s artificial intelligence, current computer technology is unable to deal with learner’s unexpected learning problems and response immediately as teachers do. The reasons for the computer’s inability to interact effectively can be traced back to a fundamental 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 following conclusions: (1) Personal factors and Effectiveness of CALL Programs According to results from the analysis of LEP students’ survey responses on the TAM in CALL Questionnaire, students’ native languages and ages may be regarded as factors that influenced students’ perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs. This result may not be surprising because LEP students come from different countries and have distinct learning habits and attitudes toward the use of technology and the usefulness of CALL programs for enhancing English learning. Although LEP students’ genders, previous educational levels, and technology experiences 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 their words in personal interviews. It is important that educational leaders and ESL instructors pay greater attention to students’ personal factors. These personal factors include the students’ learning needs and personal circumstances. Educational leaders and administrators should develop policies and strategies that will support more effective and efficient systems for purchasing and maintaining technology applications that will assist English teaching and learning. This can best be accomplished by continuously evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of technology usage among the various populations that are served. When investments in CALL programs are made, it is important that the CALL programs be useful and easy to use for all populations served. Failure to evaluate CALL
  • 172. 160 applications continuously and to make improvements in the development and deployment of 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 and processes of language education. Through the qualitative interviews, most ESL instructors and students confirmed that CALL programs had deep influences upon them. The advantages of CALL programs provide them with more teaching and learning resources and vary their teaching and learning methods. Lack of technology knowledge is a major obstacle to realizing the advantages of CALL programs. Most ESL teachers and English learners know the importance of CALL programs but they often lack technology skills to obtain the benefits of CALL programs. For implementing CALL programs successfully in ESL classrooms, educational leaders and administrators should face this serious problem and develop technology training plans to ensure that all ESL teachers and students have the knowledge and skills to apply computer technology in their teaching and learning. Although there are many advantages of CALL programs, the application of current computer technology still has its disadvantages. For example, CALL programs may 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 the development 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 the context of the second language instruction. Through the qualitative interviews, the roles of CALL programs are varied in each instructor’s and student’s opinions. Different instructors 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 in the language teaching and learning methods. Because there are no solid guidelines and standards, some instructors and students become confused with the functions and abilities of current CALL program. To identify what role the computer technology played in the classroom is important because each instructor’s and student’s perceptions of the roles of CALL programs will further influence their decisions on how to apply CALL programs in their language teaching and learning. It is the responsibility of educational leaders and administers to identify the role of CALL programs. It is important to clarify what roles of CALL programs play so educators can better understand how computer technology can best 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 CALL programs by ESL instructors and LEP students. These barriers must be considered in order to infuse CALL programs into ESL education successfully. To overcome the price problem 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. 162 factories and software companies to reduce the selling prices of computers and CALL software. To improve the artificial intelligence and ease of use problems, educational leaders and administrators may have to communicate with software designers and software companies to design more appropriate CALL programs for ESL teaching and learning. Contributions to the Literature This study has contributed a unique element to the literature by researching the perceptions of students who use twenty different native languages and who were learning English in an ESL education environment with CALL programs. Rather than focusing on student outcomes, this study adapted the Technology Acceptance Model theory to examine the connection between students’ varied personal backgrounds and their perceptions of using CALL programs in their English language learning experiences. It combined quantitative data regarding the constructs “Ease of use” and ‘Usefulness” of CALL programs and qualitative data to provide humanistic aspect to the study. Recommendations This study has implications on many levels and is subdivided into the following areas: Recommendations of Educational Leaders and Administrators, Recommendations for 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 are supported 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 education 4. 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 are supported 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 are supported 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. 166 5. 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. 167 14. 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. REFERENCES Abedi, 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, 227-247 Adkins, 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.html Al-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.html Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82. 168
  • 181. 169 Anstrom, 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.htm Bailey, G., & Pownell, D. (1998). Technology staff development and support programs: Applying Abraham Maslow's 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. 170 Baker, 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. 171 Brandl, 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/brandl Bruess, 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 America's 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.html Carmen, 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.pdf Capps, 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.pdf Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/ EFL teacher's course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
  • 184. 172 Centre 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.pdf Chamot, 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.pdf Collier, 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. 173 Collier, 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.htm Collins, 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. 174 Davies, G. (2002). ICT and MFL in the national curriculum: some personal views: Retrieved May 27, 2007, from http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/ictmfl.htm Davies, G. (Ed.). (2007). Information and communications technology for language teachers (ICT4LT), Slough, Thames Valley University. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.ict4lt.org David, 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.html Denzin 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.html Doll, 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.htm Duffy, M. E. (1985). Designing research the qualitative –quantitative debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 11(3), 225-232.
  • 187. 175 Duhaney, 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 : TESOL Egbert, 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. 176 Fatemi, E. (1999). Building the digital curriculum. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/summary.htm First, 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=310847 Friedlander, 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.htm Fotos, 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. 177 Fullana, 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#posthoc Gay, 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. 178 Gonzalez, 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=744 Green, 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=2001464 Grimes, 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.pdf Hakuta, 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. 179 Higgins, 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: Longman Hubbard, 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.html International 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.html International 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.pdf International 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.html International 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.html Jayaratne, 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.pdf Keefe, 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. 181 Krashen, 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.htm Kuperstein, 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.asp Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • 194. 182 Lai, 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.htm Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley Levy, 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. 183 Lincoln, 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.pdf Martinez, 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. 184 Microsoft 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.htm Mowry, 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.html Muir-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 Education National 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. 185 National 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.pdf National 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=2003313 National 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.html National 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.html National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://documents.nctaf.achieve3000.com/WhatMattersMost.pdf National 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.htm National Council of State Directors of Adult Education. (2006). Adult student waiting list survey. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from www.ncsdae.org
  • 198. 186 National 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.htm National Staff Development Council. (1999). Standards for staff development. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm National 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.pdf Nau, 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.html Neuman, 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.htm Odlin, 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. 187 Ormrod, 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.pdf Oxford, 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/2856 Pavlou, 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. 188 Pew 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.htm Phillips, 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.pdf Rice, 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. 189 Robertson, 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 Education Rodriguez, 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.htm Rost, 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.pdf Sadek, 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.htm Salaberry, 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 lled Schleppegrell, M. (1987). The older language learner. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED287313)
  • 202. 190 Seelye, 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.pdf Skinner, 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. 191 Smith, 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.html Speck, 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.htm Stroud, M. D. (1998). Incorporating technology into the foreign language classroom. Retrieved May 11, 2007, from http://www.trinity.edu/mstroud/technology/CALL.html Subramanian, 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. 192 Taghavi, 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.pdf Taylor, 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.html Thomas, 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. 193 Tucker, 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.pdf Turner, 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.html U. 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. 194 U. 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 America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA). Retrieved December 13, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/MEP/PrelimGuide/eseaptc.html U. 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/EdTech U. 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.pdf Valdez, 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. 195 Valdez, 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.html Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. (2000). Why don't 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. 196 Wang, 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.html Warschauer, 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. 197 Wright, 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 PROJECT 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.com Faculty 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 Language Learning (CALL) programs on English as a Second Language (ESL) education for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) learners. This questionnaire attempts to find out what individual backgrounds may influence the levels of a student’s Technology Acceptance of CALL programs for assisting English learning. (b) The definition of CALL programs in here is the use of general computer software applications, 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 or penalties for your participation in this research study. By completing the questionnaire you are voluntarily agreeing to participate. You may refuse to participate without being subject to any penalty or losing any benefits. However, there is substantial potential for benefit. The information you provide may offer ESL leaders and educators a view of the problems associated with current uses of technology in ESL education, so that they can improve future ESL instructions and CALL programs. (d) All data you write down in this questionnaire is available only to the principal investigator and his faculty supervisor. The data will be held in confidence to the extent permitted 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 use of CALL programs for English learning, and (4) comments, questions, or recommends for this questionnaire. The total anticipated time commitment is approximately 5-10 minutes. 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 of the degree to which the following characteristics are evident in your opinion.
  • 213. 201 Section 1: Demographic Data 1. Age: ______ Years Old 2. Gender: □ Male □ Female 3. 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 school 5. How many years have you been using computer and the Internet? ______ Years 6. In which school or institution are you enrolled to study ESL? _______________________________________________ Section 2: Perceived Usefulness of CALL Programs for English Learning 1. Using computers and the Internet in my English learning can enable me to achieve higher English level more quickly. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree 2. Using the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, can improve my English learning performance. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree 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. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree 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. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree 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. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
  • 214. 202 6. I believe that computer technologies and ESL learning software are useful for fulfilling my ESL learning goals. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree Comments for this section: Section 3: Perceived Ease of Use of CALL Programs for English Learning 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. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree 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. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree 9. I have no problem using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room to communicate and interact with my ESL teachers and peers. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree 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. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree 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. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree 12. I believe that operating the computer and using computer assisted language learning programs is easy. □ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree Comments 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 PROJECT 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.com Faculty 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 Idioma Asistido por Computadora (AIAC) sobre programas de Ingles como Segundo Idioma (ISI) para estudiantes clasificados con Proficiencia Limitada en el Ingles. El intento de este cuestionario es para encontrar que caracteristicas individuales influencian los niveles de aprobación sobre la tecnologia de programas de AIAC que ayudan sobre el aprendizaje del Ingles por estudiantes. (b) La definicion de programas AIAC aqui es el uso de aplicaciones generales de software de computadora, como procesadores de palabras, software de presentacion, correo electronico, paquetes de multimedia, software de comunicación a traves del Internet, y Web browsers. (c) Usted ha sido invitado para participar en este estudio. No hay riesgos o penalidades por su participacion en este estudio. Completando este cuestionario significa que usted esta voluntariamente de acuerdo en participar. Usted puede rechazar su participación en este estudio sin ninguna penalidad o perdida de beneficios. Sin embargo, hay un potencial substancial de beneficio en participar. La informacion que usted de puede ofrecerle a los lideres y educadores del ISI un panorama de los problemas asociados con el presente uso de la tecnologia en la educación del ISI, para que ellos puedan mejorar en el futuro las instrucciones del ISI y programas de AIAC. (d) Todos los datos que usted escriba en este cuestionario seran solamente disponibles para el investigador principal y su supervisor de la facultad. Los datos seran mantenidos bajo confidencialidad hasta los limites permitidos por ley. Si por casualidad los datos son publicados, 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 de Ingles, (3) percepción sobre la facilidad del uso de programas de AIAC para el aprendizaje del Ingles, y (4) comentarios, preguntas, o recomendaciones para este cuestionario. El tiempo aproximado para llenar este cuestionario es de 5-10 minutos. Su participacion es muy importante para el exito de este estudio. (f) Por favor haga click sobre las selecciones que mejor midan su percepcion o opinión sobre las siguientes caracteristicas.
  • 216. 204 Seccion 1: Datos Demograficos 1. Edad: ______ años 2. Genero: □ Masculino □ Femenino 3. 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 □ Postgrado 5. Por cuantos anos ha estado usted utilizando la computadora y el Internet? ______ años 6. En cual escuela o institucion esta usted estudiando ISI? Seccion 2: Percepciones Sobre que tan Utiles son Los Programas de AIAC para el Aprendizaje de Ingles 1. Utilizando la computadora y el internet para aprender el Ingles, me puede ayudar a lograr un nivel de Ingles mas alto y mas rapido. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo 2. Utilizando software de computadora como Word, PowerPoint, y Multimedia puede mejorar mi exito sobre mi aprendizaje del Ingles. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo 3. Utilizando correo electronico, blog para discucion, o salon de chat me pueden dar mas oportunidades para comunicacion e interaccion con mis maestros de ISI y con mis companeros de clase. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo
  • 217. 205 4. Utilizando software de computadora para el aprendizaje y el internet me pueden ayudar a obtener mas materiales y recursos sobre el tema de ISI para avanzar en mi aprendizaje de Ingles. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo 5. Utilizando software de computadora para el aprendizaje y el internet me pueden exponer a la cultura Americana y tambien al aprendizaje del Ingles. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo 6. Yo creo que las tecnologias de computadora y software de aprendizaje para ISI son útiles paras lograr mis metas de aprender el ISI. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo Comentarios sobre esta seccion: Seccion 3: Percepción sobre la Facilidad del Uso de Programas de AIAC para el Aprendizaje del Ingles 7. Yo estoy dispuesto a estudiar Ingles por computadora porque encuentro que es mas facil hacer con la computadora lo que uno quiere, cuando y donde uno escoja. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo 8. Esta facil para mi usar software de computadora, como Word, PowerPoint, y Multimedia, como instrumentos para medir mi progreso en el aprendizaje del Ingles. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo 9. Yo no tengo dificultades en usar correo electronico, blog para discucion, o salon de chat 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 Desacuerdo 10. Cuando uso software de computadora para aprendizaje y el internet, es mas facil para mi encontrar materiales y otros recursos que necesito para el aprendizaje de ISI. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo
  • 218. 206 11. Es facil para mi aprender mas conocimientos basicos sobre la cultura Ingles y Americana por medio de la computadora y el internet. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo 12. Yo creo que utilizando la computadora y usando programas de computadora para el aprendizaje de idioma es facil. □ Totalmente de Acuerdo □ De Acuerdo □ Neutral □ En Desacuerdo □ Totalmente en Desacuerdo Comentarios 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.com Faculty Sponsor: Dr. David Herrington, Professor of Educational Leadership, Prairie View A&M University. Phone: 936-261-3649. Instruction de questionnaire: (a) Le but de l'étude est d'examiner les effets des programmes d’apprentissage des langues assistés par ordinateur (ALAO) de l’éducation de l'anglais comme deuxième langue (l'ADL) pour les étudiants d’anglais de compétence limitée (ACL). Ce questionnaire essaye de découvrir quels différents milieux peuvent influencer les niveaux de l'acceptation de la technologie d'un étudiant des programmes d'ALAO pour aider l'étude d’anglais. (b) La définition des programmes d'ALAO voici est l'utilisation des applications générales de logiciel, telles que les unités de traitement de texte, le logiciel de présentation, l'email, les paquets de multimédia, le logiciel de communication en ligne, et les navigateurs de Web. (c) Vous êtes invité à participer à ce questionnaire. Il n'y a aucun risque ou pénalités pour votre participation à cette étude de recherche. En remplissant le questionnaire vous acceptez volontairement de participer. Vous pouvez refuser de participer sans être sujet à n'importe quelle pénalité ou ne perdre aucun avantage. Cependant, il y a potentiel substantiel pour l'avantage. Les informations que vous fournissez peuvent offrir des chefs et des éducateurs de l'ADL une approche des problèmes liés aux utilisations courantes de la technologie dans l'éducation de l'ADL, de sorte qu'ils puissent améliorer de futurs instructions de l'ADL et programmes d'ALAO. (d) Toutes les données que vous notez en ce questionnaire sont disponibles seulement à l'investigateur principal et à son surveillant de faculté. Les données seront contenues dans la confiance jusqu'au degré autorisé par loi. Si les données sont éditées, votre identité ne sera pas révélée. (e) Il y a quatre sections en ce questionnaire, y compris (1) les données démographiques, (2) utilité perçue des programmes d'ALAO pour l'apprentissage d’anglais, (3) facilité d'utilisation perçue des programmes d'ALAO pour l'apprentissage d’anglais, et (4) commentaires, questions, ou recommandation pour ce questionnaire. Tout le engagement prévu de temps est approximativement 5-10 minutes. Votre participation est très importante pour le succès de ce questionnaire. (f) Veuillez cliquer sur votre choix des réponses qui assortit le plus étroitement votre perception du degré auquel les caractéristiques suivantes sont évidentes à votre avis.
  • 220. 208 Section 1: Données démographiques 1. Âge: ____ ans 2. Genre: □ Mâle □ Femelle 3. 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 supérieure 5. Combien d'années vous avez utilisé l'ordinateur et l'internet? ______ Ans 6. Dans quelle école ou établissement sont vous êtes inscrit pour étudier l'ADL? Section 2: Utilité perçue des programmes d'ALAO pour l'apprentissage d’anglais 1. Utilisant les ordinateurs et l'Internet dans l’apprentissage de l’anglais peut me permettre 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’accord 2. Utilisant le logiciel, tel que le Word, PowerPoint, et les multimédia, peuvent améliorer le 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’accord 3. Utilisant l'email, le tablaeu électronique de discussion, ou la chat-room en ligne peut me présenter plus de moyens de communication et de l'interaction avec mes professeurs et pairs de l'ADL. □ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre □ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord
  • 221. 209 4. Utilisant le logiciel d'apprentissage par ordinateur et l'internet peut m'aider à obtenir plus de ressources et de matériaux d'apprentissage de l'ADL pour augmenter mon 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’accord 5. Utilisant le logiciel d'apprentissage par ordinateur et l'internet peut m'exposer à la culture américaine aussi bien qu'apprendre l'anglais. □ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre □ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord 6. Je crois que les techniques d’informatique et le logiciel d’apprentissage de l'ADL sont utiles pour accomplir mes buts d’apprentissage de l'ADL. □ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre □ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord Commentaires pour cette section: Section 3: Facilité d'utilisation perçue des programmes d'ALAO pour l'apprentissage d’anglais 7. Je suis disposé à étudier l'anglais avec l'ordinateur parce que je constate qu'il est facile d'obtenir l'ordinateur de faire quoi que je veuille qu'il fasse, toutes les fois et ce que je choisis. □ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre □ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord 8. Il est facile pour moi d'utiliser le logiciel, tel que le Word, le PowerPoint, et les multimédia, 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’accord 9. Je n’ai pas de problème d’utiliser l'email, le tablaeu électronique de discussion, ou la chat-room en ligne peut me présenter plus de moyens de communication et de l'interaction avec mes professeurs et pairs de l'ADL. □ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre □ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord
  • 222. 210 10. Quand j'utilise le logiciel d'apprentissage par l’ordinateur et l'Internet, je constate qu'il est facile de gagner les ressources et les matériaux d'apprentissage de l'ADL dont j'ai besoin. □ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre □ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord 11. Je constate qu'il est facile pour moi d'apprendre la connaissance plus fondamentale de la culture anglaise et américaine par l'ordinateur et l'internet. □ Je suis totalement d’accord □ Je suis d’accord □ Neutre □ Je ne suis pas d’accord □ Je ne suis pas totalement d’accord 12. Je crois que le fonctionnement de l'ordinateur et l'utilisation des programmes assistés par 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’accord Commentaires pour cette section: Section 4: Les commentaires, questions, ou recommande pour ce questionnaire
  • 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.com Faculty 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 컴퓨터 보조언어 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 접촉하는 정도를 알아내며, 그것은 또한 그들이 적용하는 컴퓨터를 통한 영어학습을 할 때, 컴퓨터 보조 언어학습 과정의 유용성(usefulness)과 쉽게 사용하는 (ease of use) 점 등을 포함한 것이다. (b). 컴퓨터 관련 보조 언어학습과정에 대한 정의는, 이 설문지상에 현재 보편적으로 사용하는 각종 컴퓨터 응용 소프트웨어, 문서처리, 문서분석, 강의설명 소프트웨어, 전자메엘, 멀티미디어 세트 및 인터넷 브라우저등을 포함한다. (c). 본 설문에 당신을 초청합니다. 이 설문은 당신에게 어떤 위험이나 처벌은 없습니다. 그러나 반드시 당신이 스스로 동의하여 완성해 주셔야 만 합니다. 만약 참여를 거절하신다면, 역시 당신의 권리에 어떤 처벌이나 손실도 없습니다. 그리고, 이 설문지를 완성하시면 잠재적인 유익이 있습니다. 왜냐하면, 당신이 제공해 주신 정보가 ESL 교육 지도자와 학습자들이 당면해 있는 컴퓨터 기술을 이용한 ESL 수업상 문제를 이해하는데 도움을 줍니다. 그래서 미래의 ESL 학습과 컴퓨터 보조언어 프로그램에 더 좋은 개선이 될 것입니다. (d). 당신이 작성하신 자료는, 연구자와 감독자만 읽을 수 있습니다. 법률 규정내에서 자료는 비밀로 보장이 됩니다. 향후 연구 발표시, 당신의 신분은 밝혀지지 않습니다. (e). 이 설문지는 4 개의 부분으로 나뉜다. 그것은:(1)개인기본자료, (2)컴퓨터 보조언어 학습이 영어 학습에 주는 유용성의 인식, (3)컴퓨터 보조언어 학습이 영어 학습상 쉽게 사용하는 것의 인식 및 (4)이 설문조사에 대한 평론, 문제, 혹은 건의 이다. 이 설문지를 작성하는데는 대략 5 분에서 10 분정도가 필요하다. 당신이 참여하는 이 설문조사의 성공도는 예, 아니오에 중요성이 있습니다. (f). 이러한 것을 근거로 당신의 개인적 생각을, 당신에게 가장 적합한 답에 표기해 주십시요.
  • 224. 212 제 1 부분 : 개인부분 자료 1. 연령: ________ 세 2. 성별: □ 남성 □ 여성 3. 모국어(제 1 언어)? □ 중국어 □ 스페인어 □ 프랑스어 □ 한국어 □ 기타, 을 지정하십시오: ____________________ 4. 최고학력? □ 초등학교 이하 □ 초등학교 졸업 □ 중학교 졸업 □ 고등학교 졸업 □ 대학 졸업 □ 석사이상 5. 당신은 몇 년동안 컴퓨터 및 인터넷을 사용했습니까? ______ 년 6. 당신이 현재 공부하는 ESL 과정의 학교 혹은 교육기관명칭은? _____________________________________________________ 제 2 부분 : 컴퓨터 보조 언어학습 운용 (CALL Programs)에 대한 영어학습의 유용성 1. 컴퓨터와 인터넷을 이용한 결과, 나의 영어 학습상 더 빠른 더 높은 수준의 영어 효과를 보았는가. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴 2. 컴퓨터 소프트웨어를 이용한, 예를 들면 WORD 문서처리, PowerPoint, 및 기타 멀티미디어 등등의 프로그램이, 나의 영어 학습에서 표현이 개선이 되었다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴
  • 225. 213 3. 이메일(email),인터넷 토론방(electronic discussion board),및 인터넷 체팅룸(online chat-room)등은, 많은 기회를 통해 ESL 선생님과 학생들간에 소통과 교류를 제공해 준다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴 4. 컴퓨터 학습 소프트웨어와 인터넷 홈페지를 이용하면, 더 많은 영어 학습상의 자료과 소식을 제공하는데 도움을 준다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴 5. 컴퓨터 학습 소프트웨어와 인터넷 홈페지를 이용한 것이, 나로 하여금 영어환경과 미국문화를 더욱 쉽게 이해하고, 영어학습 목표를 달성하게 되었다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴 6. 내가 그냥 한 마디로 말한다면, 컴퓨터 기술이 ESL 학습 소프트웨어가 영어 학습에 효과가 있었다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴 이 부분에 대한 설문조사이 의견으로 : 제 3 부분 : 컴퓨터 보조 언어 학습운용 (CALL Programs) 이 영어학습을 쉽게 하는점. 7. 나는 컴퓨터를 통해 영어학습을 하기 원합니다. 왜냐하면, 내가 느낀 바로는 어느곳이든 어느 시간이든 내가 쉽게 컴퓨터를 사용할 수 있고 내가 하고 싶은 것들을 할 수 있기 때문입니다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴
  • 226. 214 8. 나는 컴퓨터 소프트웨어를 사용하는 것, 예를들면 WORD 문서처리, 파워포인트 등의 소프트웨어 및 기타 멀티미디어등이 나의 영어 학습상 표현등을 쉽게 개선시켜 준다고 생각한다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴 9. 나는 이메일(email)이나, 인터넷토론방(electronic discussion board), 인터넷 체팅룸(online chat-room)등이,나의 ESL 선생님과 친구들의 커뮤니케이션이나 교류상 문제가 없다고 생각한다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴 10. 나는 컴퓨터 학습과 인터넷 홈페지를 통하여, 내게 필요한 영어 자료나 정보를 쉽게 제공 받는 것을 느낀다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴 11.총체적으로 나는, 컴퓨터학습 소프트웨어와 인터넷 홈페지를 통해 쉽게 더 많은 영어 상식과 미국문화를 학습하게 된 것을 느낀다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴 12.한마디로 말하면, 어떻게 컴퓨터를 컨트롤하여 사용할 것인지와, 또한 컴퓨터 보조언어 학습 소프트웨어를 배워서 사용하는 것은 쉬운 것이다. □ 심히 동의 □ 동의 □ 의견없슴 □ 동의하지 않음 □심히동의할 수 없슴 이 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 PROJECT 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.com Faculty 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. 217 6. 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 PROJECT 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.com Faculty Sponsor: Dr. David Herrington, Professor of Educational Leadership, Prairie View 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. 220 6. 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 B Interview Questions
  • 234. 222 Interview Questions 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.com Faculty 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 CALL Q 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 CALL Q 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 CALL Q 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 C Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval
  • 236. 224
  • 237. 225 Appendix D Permission Letters
  • 238. 226
  • 239. 227
  • 240. 228
  • 241. 229 Appendix E Translation 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 1990 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1997 - 2002 Drama Teacher, China Youth Corps , Taiwan 1994 - 2002 Professional Drama Theater & TV programs Writer, Taiwan. 231

×