Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair for Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense PPT.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair for Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense PPT.

on

  • 344 views

Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair for Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense.

Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair for Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense.

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Committee Member

Statistics

Views

Total Views
344
Views on SlideShare
344
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair for Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense PPT. Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair for Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense PPT. Presentation Transcript

  • The Effectiveness of ComputerAssisted Language LearningPrograms for Enhancing EnglishLearning among Students of LimitedEnglish ProficiencyA Dissertation DefensebyCheng-Chieh LaiOctober 06, 2008Chair: David E. Herrington, Ph.D.
  • Committee MembersDavid E. Herrington, Ph.D.( Dissertation Chair)Pamela Barber-Freeman, Ph.D. William Allan Kritsonis,Ph.D.(Member) (Member)Camille Gibson, Ph.D. Tyrone Tanner, Ed.D.(Member) (Member)
  • Dissertation DefenseFormat1. Background of the Problems2. Purpose of the Study3. Conceptual Framework4. Research Questions5. Significance of the Study6. Research Methods7. Major Findings and Literature Support8. Conclusion9. Recommendations for Further Study
  • Background of the Problems Foreign students contribute about $13.5 billion to the U.S. economyeach year through their tuition and fees and living expenses. Every 31 seconds a new immigrant enters USA, but 60% areLimited English Proficiency (LEP) (Camarota, 2005). 47 million people speak language other than English, and 23 millionpeople speak English less than “very well” (U. S. Census Bureau,2005). CALL programs has become a new solution for ESL education. Definition of CALL programs: An approach to language teachingand learning, where the computer is used to assist the presentation,reinforcement, and assessment of the learning material (Davies,2002).
  • Purpose of the Study to gain a comprehensive understanding of theeffectiveness of Computer Assisted LanguageLearning (CALL) programs on English as aSecond Language (ESL) education for diverseEnglish language learners and instructors to provide the results as a reference toeducational leaders and administrators whoare considering the use of CALL programs fortheir English instruction programs.
  • Conceptual Framework Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989)PerceivedUsefulnessPerceivedEase of UseAttitudeToward useBehavioralIntentionTo use
  • Conceptual Framework (cont.) Theory of Customer Value(Woodruff & Gardial, 1996)Attributesof the productResultsafter usingNeeds and wantsof the customersCustomer ValueIntention toPurchase and Use
  • Research QuestionQuantitative1. What personal factors influence LEP students’perceived usefulness of CALL programs forEnglish learning?2. What personal factors influence LEP students’perceived ease of use of CALL programs forEnglish learning?
  • Research Question (cont.)Qualitative3. What are the advantages and disadvantages ofCALL programs in actual ESL teaching andlearning?4. What is the role of CALL programs in currentESL instruction?5. What are the second language learningefficiency expectations of LEP students andESL instructors utilizing CALL programs?
  •  Ho1~Ho5:Ho1~Ho5:There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceivedUsefulness of CALL programs for enhancing their English learningamong (between) their Ho6~Ho10:Ho6~Ho10:There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceivedEase of Use of CALL programs for enhancing their English learningamong (between) theirNative languages.Age groups.Genders.Previous educational levels.Previous technologyexperiences.Native languages.Age groups.Genders.Previous educational levels.Previous technologyexperiences.Null Hypotheses
  • Significance of the Study May provide educational leaders and administratorsa view of the problems associated with current uses oftechnology in ESL education May present an assessment tool that educationalleaders and administrators may use to determine thedegree to which technology investments are effectivewithin specific populations May encourage ESL instructors to adopt CALLprograms as a viable educational alternative andinspire students to promote language abilitiesthrough the application of CALL programs
  • Research Methods A combination of Quantitative andQualitative research methods wasutilized for the study
  • Research Methods (cont.)Quantitative TAM in CALL Questionnaire was modified from Davis’ TechnologyAcceptance Model Six language translation versions: English, Spanish, French,Korean, Traditional Chinese, and Simplified Chinese. The response scale was a 5-point Likert scale which assigned numerical valuesfor each response:Strongly Agree = 5 Agree = 4 Neutral = 3Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic data One-way ANOVA statistical method was employed to examine thedifference between LEP students’ individual backgrounds and their“Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” perceptions of CALL programs.
  • Research Methods (cont.)Qualitative Nine interview questions based on the CustomerValue Theory were asked during the interviews inorder to identify:1. Advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs2. Roles of CALL programs in actual ESL classrooms3. Expectations for future CALL programs Data analysis included coding, generating categories,and writing interview summaries
  • Subjects of the StudyQuantitative 329 LEP students taking ESL courses and using CALLprograms in college level schools or adult educationalinstitutions in the Houston area of Texas during summersemester of 2008Participated School Frequency PercentUniversity of Houston (Main campus,UH)213 64.7Houston Community College (HCC) 67 20.4Chinese Community Center (CCC) 49 14.9Texas Southern University 0 0Rice University 0 0Total 329 100.0
  • Participants’ Native LanguagesNative Language Group Frequency PercentValid Chinese Speaking Group 84 25.5Spanish Speaking Group 78 23.7French Speaking Group 46 14.0Korean Speaking Group 23 7.0OthersSpeakingGroupVietnamese 21 6.4Arabic 28 8.5Bambara 2 .6Gujarati 2 .6Turkish 7 2.1Russian 9 2.7Portugues 5 1.5Kazakh 3 .9Tajik 2 .6Thai 2 .6Gorane 2 .6Hindi 1 .3Japanese 1 .3Indian 1 .3Farsi 1 .3English 2 .6Super-total 89 27.1Total 320 97.3Missing System 9* 2.7Total 329 100.0
  • Participants’ Age GroupsUnder20 yearsold21-30yearsold31-40yearsold41-50yearsold51-60yearsoldAbove 60years oldHoustonCommunityCollege1 17 28 13 3 1Universityof Houston 71 125 15 1ChineseCommunityCenter3 9 10 9 12
  • Participants’ Genders &Educational Levels143590160291050100150200ElementaryschoolSecondaryschoolHigh school CollegeoruniversityPostgraduate Missing14718020050100150200Male Female Missing
  • Participants’ Technology ExperiencesFrequency PercentValid Under 1 year 27 8.21-3 years 50 15.24-6 years 69 21.07-9 years 56 17.0More than 10 years 104 31.6Total 306 93.0Missing System 23* 7.0Total 329 100.0
  • Subjects of the StudyQualitative Twenty participants joined in the face-to-faceinterviews.Participated School Instructors StudentsUniversity of Houston (Main campus)4 3Houston Community College3 4Chinese Community Center0 6Total7 13
  • Research Instrument ValidityA. The construct validity: based on Twoprevious theories.1. Technology Acceptance model2. Customer Value TheoryB. The content validity: checked by a panel ofexperts.1. Dissertation chair2. One ESL instructors (HISD)3. One EFL assistant professor (Taiwan)
  • Research Instrument ReliabilitySix Statement N Mean Std. DeviationUsing computers and the Internet in my English learning can enable me to achievea higher English level more quickly 324 3.81 1.080Using the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, canimprove my English learning performance 323 3.76 1.036Using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room can provide memore opportunities for communicating and interacting with my ESL teachers andpeers324 3.82 1.110Using the computer learning software and the Internets World Wide Web canhelp me get more ESL learning resources and materials to enhance my Englishlearning324 3.87 1.059Using the computer learning software and the Internets World Wide Web canexpose me to the American culture as well as learning English 324 3.77 1.081I believe that computer technologies and ESL learning software are useful forfulfilling my ESL learning goals 324 3.86 .990Cronbachs Alpha Cronbachs Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items.926 .926 6Perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programsThe result showed that this instrument is reliable.
  • Research Instrument ReliabilitySix Statement N Mean Std. DeviationI am willing to study English with the computer because I find that itis easy to get the computer to do whatever I want it to do, wheneverand wherever I choose318 3.57 1.184It is easy for me to use the computer software, such as Word,PowerPoint, and Multimedia, as tools for showing my Englishlearning progress318 3.66 1.068I have no problem using email, electronic discussion board, oronline chat-room to communicate and interact with my ESLteachers and peers318 375 1.063When I use the computer learning software and the Internet’sWorld Wide Web, I find that it is easy to gain the ESL learningresources and materials what I need them.318 3.75 9.76I find that it is easy for me to learn more basic knowledge of Englishand American culture through the computer and the Internet 318 3.64 1.022I believe that operating the computer and using computer assistedlanguage learning programs is easy 318 3.80 .993Cronbachs Alpha Cronbachs Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items.914 .916 6Perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programsThe result showed that this instrument is reliable.
  • Major FindingsResearch Question One What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceivedusefulness of CALL programs for English learning? Independent Variable: Dependent Variable:Sum of the scale scores relating to the “Usefulness” ofCALL programs for enhancing English learning.Personal factorsNative LanguageGenderAge groupEducational levelTechnology Experience
  • Major FindingsResearch Question One (cont.) Null Hypothesis OneThere is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing Englishlearning among their native language backgrounds as measured byTAM in CALL Questionnaire.The null hypothesis was rejected.Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.BetweenGroups823.220 4 205.805 7.487 .000*WithinGroups8493.748 309 27.488Total 9316.968 313*p < 0.05
  • Major FindingsResearch Question One (cont.) To further examine the differences, a Scheffe testwas conducted(I) Native Languages (J) Native Languages Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.Others SpeakingGroupChinese SpeakingGroup -3.161(*) .804 .004Spanish SpeakingGroup -3.903(*) .820 .000French SpeakingGroup -2.083 .963 .324Korean SpeakingGroup -.013 1.251 1.000*p < 0.05
  •  English learner’s native language was a factor thatyielded a significant difference in LEP students’perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs forenhancing English learning Three reasons may contribute to the result:1. Digital Divide (International Telecommunication Union, 2003)2. Levels of English Proficiency3. Translation VersionsDiscussionNull Hypothesis One
  •  A student who lives in a higher Digital Access Index (DAI)scoring country may have more opportunities to get thebenefits of computer technologies and the Internet, and cangain more opportunities to increase their individual computerliteracy skills (International Telecommunication Union, 2003). Students of varying levels of English proficiency in English dohave differing perceptions of the use of technology (Doll,2007). Lower level of English proficiency students were enthusiasticabout the CALL environment; higher level of Englishproficiency students need more significant learning inputs andmight be difficult to perceive an improvement through regularCALL programs for their English skills (Hayes & Hicks, 2004)Related Literature Support
  • Major FindingsResearch Question One (cont.) Null Hypothesis ThreeThere is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing Englishlearning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, amongdifferent age groups.Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.BetweenGroups 639.943 5 127.989 4.528 .001*Within Groups8649.173 306 28.265Total9289.115 311* p < 0.05The null hypothesis was rejected.
  • Major FindingsResearch Question One (cont.) To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test was conducted.However, there were no the mean difference between each age groupand a p value shown in Scheffe test. A Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was conducted. The result yielded a significant difference between the following pairsof age groups:1. “under 20 years old” and “31 to 40 years old” age groups (p = .002)2. “under 20 years old” and “41 to 50 years old” age groups (p = .002)3. “21 to 30 years old” and “31 to 40 years old” age groups (p =.001)4. “21 to 30 years old” and “41 to 50 years old” age groups (p =.002)
  •  LEP student’s age range was a factor that causedsignificant differences toward students’ “Usefulness”perceptions when using CALL programsThree reasons may contribute to the result:1. Generations2. Levels of English Proficiency3. Duties According to the qualitative interviews, the older students hadto spend more time on their jobs and household duties. Theyhad very little time for English study or computer use at home.This might account for some of the difference in “Usefulness”scores between age groups.DiscussionNull Hypothesis Three
  •  The age difference could not be regarded as an influentialfactor affecting older adults engaging in Web-searchingactivities…….. If we can provide more trainings andopportunities to older adults, older adults may overcomethe age difference and enjoy the benefits of computertechnologies more than younger users (Kubeck, Miller–Albrecht, & Murphy, 1999) .Related Literature Support
  • Major FindingsResearch Question One (cont.) Null Hypotheses Two, Four, and FiveThere is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived“Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among theirgenders (previous educational levels, and previous technology experiences).* p < 0.05the p value is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure toreject Null Hypotheses Two, Four, and Five .Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.GenderBetween Groups 50.731 1 50.731 1.734 .189Within Groups 9334.092 319 29.260Educational LevelBetween Groups 159.058 4 39.765 1.355 .249Within Groups 9301.218 317 29.341Technology ExperienceBetween Groups 13.716 4 3.429 .111 .978Within Groups 9086.214 295 30.801
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Two What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceivedease of use of CALL programs for English learning? Independent Variable: Dependent Variable:Sum of the scale scores relating to the “Ease of Use” ofCALL programs for enhancing English learning.personal factorsNative LanguageGenderAge groupsEducational levelTechnology Experience
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Two (cont.) Null Hypothesis SixThere is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing Englishlearning among their native language backgrounds as measured byTAM in CALL Questionnaire.The null hypothesis was rejected.*p < 0.05Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.BetweenGroups286.232 4 71.558 2.546 .040Within Groups 8544.254 304 28.106Total 8830.485 308
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Two (cont.) To further examine the differences, a Scheffe testwas conducted(I) Native Languages (J) Native LanguagesMean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.Chinese SpeakingGroupSpanish SpeakingGroup1.474 .847 .554French SpeakingGroup1.701 .984 .560Korean SpeakingGroup1.952 1.273 .671Others SpeakingGroup2.564(*) .821 .047*p < 0.05
  •  English learner’s native language was a factor thatyielded significantly differences in “Ease of Use” of CALLprograms Two reasons may contribute to the result:1. Digital Divide2. Language Version of CALL programsDiscussionNull Hypothesis Six
  •  Student’s native language and culture background mayinfluence his or her perception regarding the use ofcomputer technology for enhancing their learning (Zoe &DiMartino, 2000). Through the qualitative interview, one ESL instructorpointed out that Asian students are often good at computertechnology. Their countries usually have more technologyinfrastructure, so they can get more technology exerciseopportunities. The transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledgefrom the first language to the second language is arequisite learning process for LEP students (O’Malley &Chamot,1990) .Related Literature &Qualitative Interview Support
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Two (cont.) Null Hypotheses Seven, Eight, Nine, and TenThere is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease ofUse” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among their genders ( agegroups, previous educational levels, and previous technology experiences).* p < 0.05the p value is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure toreject Null Hypotheses Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten .  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.GenderBetween Groups 25.067 1 25.067 .898 .344Within Groups 8766.056 314 27.917Age GroupBetween Groups 219.161 5 43.832 1.559 .172Within Groups 8464.501 301 28.121Educational LevelBetween Groups 128.724 4 32.181 1.143 .336Within Groups 8782.702 312 28.150Technology ExperienceBetween Groups 111.673 4 27.918 .974 .422Within Groups 8308.443 290 28.650
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Three What are the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs inactual ESL teaching and learning? CALL programs have a positive influence on their ESL teaching andlearning.Major Advantages:1. Increase access to authentic materials for teaching and learning English2. Provide more opportunities for practice through experiential learning3. Offer more varied learning situations that enhance learning motivationand achievement. LEP students: more online interactive opportunities; more learningresources.ESL instructors: prefer the traditional face-to-face interactions. Focus onevaluation and record students’ learning progresses.
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Three (cont.)Major Disadvantage ESL instructors:1. may not totally align with beginning level English learners’needs;2. may reduce English learners’ opportunities to explore otherlearning resources; and3. may increase the teaching and learning loads LEP students: over-use of CALL programs may influencetheir spelling ability. The spell-correcting function of CALLprograms may help to recheck their writing, but it mayprevent them from learning to spell.
  • Related Literature Support “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 beimplemented” (Garrett, 1991, p. 75). No matter what many functions CALL programs provide,they are still no more than media for teaching andlearning. The effectiveness of CALL programs does notlie in the medium alone but in how the programs areused and the quality of personal teaching and guidancethat accompany them.
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Four What is the role of CALL programs in current ESLinstructions?Time spent on CALL programs: ESL instructors: 1. the length of the semester2. the content of textbook LEP students: technology experience backgroundsWithout technology background or with little technologyknowledge, students spend little time or none on usingtechnology to enhance their learning.Students who have rich technology experiences often spendmore than ten hours per day for using the computer and theInternet.
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Four (cont.)Most Important Role of CALL programs0 2 4 6 8 10TutorToolTuteeNo commentStudentInstructor
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Four (cont.)“Tool” role:1. vary their teaching and learning paths2. provide more interactive activities3. facilitate the effectiveness of teaching and learning.“Tutor” role: CALL programs can offer reading, vocabulary, and other kinds ofpractice to evaluate students’ works and keep their records.“Tutee” role: Each student has individual learning needs and the computer is notable to adapt to different learning styles of the student. CALLprograms should follow and satisfy English learners’ needs.
  • Related Literature Support Computers play various roles that deeply impact ESLteaching and learning methods (Warschauer & Kern,2000; Wiazowski, 2002) The theoretical framework underlying CALL programs isvery difficult to define because CALL programs exist inso many different forms. The specific role of CALLprograms often depends upon different needs anddifferent situations (Kemmis, Atkin, & Wright, 1977;Higgins, 1988, Taylor, 1980).
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Five What are the second-language learning efficiencyexpectations of LEP students and ESL instructorsutilizing CALL programs?Satisfaction of current CALL All ESL instructors: Current CALL programs are goodenough for ESL education. Four LEP students: CALL programs are not perfectenough to meet their learning needs. (For example:Translation Function)
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Five (cont.)English skills can be improved effectivelyA. The variety of CALL programs permits different users to addressdifferent learning goals and produce different learning results.B. Because there are no solid guidelines and standards, some instructors andstudents become confused with the functions and abilities of current CALLprogram.0 1 2 3 4 5 6ListeningReadingWritingSpeakingNo commentStudentInstructor
  • Major FindingsResearch Question Five (cont.)Expectations of future CALL programs:1. The price of computer, CALL software, and Internetconnection should be reduced2. The future CALL programs should be easier to use“To beginning level learners, computers or CALLprograms are difficult to operate sometimes”3. Should have more human intelligence to understandlearners’ needs and can give students correct feedbackimmediately
  • Related Literature Support Software of CALL programs is still imperfect, and theirfunctions are limited. Due to the limitations ofcomputer’s artificial intelligence, current computertechnology is unable to deal with learner’s unexpectedlearning problems and response immediately as teachersdo (Warschauer, 1996). The reasons for the computer’s inability to interacteffectively can be traced back to a fundamentaldifference in the way humans and computers utilizeinformation (Dent, 2001).
  • Conclusion LEP students come from different countries and havedistinct learning habits and attitudes toward the use oftechnology for enhancing English learning. It is importantthat educational leaders and ESL instructors pay greaterattention to students’ personal factors and their learningneeds. When investments in CALL programs are made, it isimportant that the CALL programs be useful and easy touse for all populations served. Failure to evaluate CALLapplications continuously and to make improvements inthe development and deployment of CALL software canresult in non-use or ineffective use.
  • Conclusion (cont.) Lack of technology knowledge is a major barrier to realizethe advantages of CALL programs. Educational leadersand administrators should face the problem and developtechnology training plans to ensure that all ESL teachersand LEP students have the knowledge and skills to applyCALL programs in their teaching and learning. To identify what role CALL programs played in theclassroom is important because each instructor’s andstudent’s perceptions of the roles of CALL programs willfurther influence their decisions on how to apply CALLprograms in their language teaching and learning.
  • Conclusion (cont.) To overcome the price problem and ensure each studenthas the equal opportunity to get CALL programs forenhancing their English Learning, educational leadersand administrators may have to negotiate with computerproducing factories and software companies to reduce theselling prices of computers and CALL software. To improve the artificial intelligence and the ease of useproblems, educational leaders and administrators mayhave to communicate with software designers to designmore appropriate CALL programs for ESL teaching andlearning.
  • Recommendationsfor Further Study A study could be conducted at the state level or national level. A study could be conducted that focused on the same student’sEnglish level. A study could be conducted that focused on specific software ofCALL program. A study could be conducted of the student’s learning styleassociated with CALL programs. A study could be conducted of the effectiveness of pedagogiesassociated with CALL programs. A study could be conducted of the curriculum design associatedwith CALL programs. A study could be conducted of the students’ learningachievements associated with CALL programs.
  • Recommendationsfor Further Study (cont.) A study could be conducted to address different learninggoals that produces different results. A study could be conducted to focus on more humanintelligence of CALL programs to understand the languagelearners’ needs. A study could be conducted on personal factors related tostudents’ learning needs and personal circumstances. A study could be conducted on how educational leaders andadministrators can develop policies and strategies that willsupport more effective and efficient systems for purchasingand maintaining CALL applications that will assist Englishteaching and learning.
  • Recommendationsfor Further Study (cont.) A study could be conducted on how educational leaders andadministrators can develop and implement training plansto ensure that all ESL teachers and students have theknowledge and skills to apply computer technology in theirteaching and learning. A study could be conducted about the role of computertechnology within the context of the second languageinstruction. A study could be conducted that specifically focuses on thethree major barriers: price, artificial intelligence, and easeto use. A study could be conducted on ways technology has becomea powerful force in education.
  • ReferencesCamarota, S. A. (2005). Immigrants at mid-decade: A snapshot of Americasforeign-born population in 2005. Report released by the Center forImmigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank that supports lowerlevels of immigration. Retrieved on June 30, 2006, fromhttp://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.htmlDavis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and useracceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.Dent, C. (2001). Studer: classification v. categorization. Retrieved June 28,2006, fromhttp://www.burningchrome.com:8000/cdent/fiaarts/docs/1005018884:23962.htmlDoll, J. J. (2007). Using English language learner perceptions of technology toyour advantage. Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, June 2007,4(6). Retrieved July 30, 2008, fromhttp://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jun_07/article03.htmGarrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: trends andissues. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 74-101.
  • References (cont.)Hayes, B. E., & Hicks, S. K. (2004). Speaking in the CALL environment.Proceedings of CLaSIC 2004, シンガポール国立大学言語研究センター /PacCALL 2004 抄録 (CD-ROM), pp. 954-961. Retrieved August, 27, 2008, fromhttp://www.paccall.org/2004/2004proceedings_papers/hayes.pdfInternational Telecommunication Union. (ITU, 2003). Digital Access Index: World’sfirst global ICT ranking- education and affordability key to boosting newtechnology adoption. Press release 19 November 2003, Geneva. RetrievedAugust, 11, 2007, fromhttp://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2003/30.htmlKubeck, J. E., Miller-Albrecht, S. A. & Murphy, M. D. (1999). Finding information onthe World Wide Web: exploring older adults’ exploration. EducationalGerontology, 25(2), 167-83.National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Computer and Internet use bychildren and adolescents in 2001: Statistical analysis report. Retrieved March02, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004014.pdfO’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second languageacquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • References (cont.)U. S. Census Bureau. (2005). Language spoken at home. Washington, DC: U. S.Census Bureau. Retrieved July, 28, 2007, from http://factfinder.census.gov/Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction.Retrieved March 12, 2006, from http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/call.htmlWarschauer, M., & Kern, R. (eds.) (2000). Network-based language teaching:Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wiazowski, J. (2002). Computer-assisted language learning as a bridge to socialinclusion 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 approachesto understanding customer value and satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: BlackWellBusiness.Zoe, L. R., & DiMartino, D. (2000). Cultural diversity and end user searching: Ananalysis by gender and language background. Research Strategies, 17(4),291-305.
  • Note“In Katy ISD, there are approximately 70 differentlanguages represented by the thousands of studentsthat attend classes in the district. [Katy ISD has]received a special waiver from the state allowing it tocover several other languages in its program includingMandarin Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic, and Korean.”Bradley, D.(2008, October 1). District becoming more diversified. KatyTimes 95 (78), 1, 3.
  • 謝謝謝謝!!(xie xie)Thank YouFor joining in my presentation