THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNINGPROGRAMS FOR ENHANCING ENGLISH LEARNING AMONG STUDENTS OF         ...
Copyright byCHENG-CHIEH LAI  December 2008All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT  The Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Language Learning Programs for Enhancing            English Learning amon...
disadvantages of CALL programs, the roles of CALL programs, and the expectations offuture CALL programs from both students...
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS       I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. David E.Herrington, whose experti...
TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                                         ...
ESL Instructional Types in the United States .......................................20                  ESL Education for ...
Instrumentation ...............................................................................................86        V...
Research Question One........................................................................145                    Resear...
LIST OF TABLESTable                                                                                 Page1       Descriptiv...
10.2   LSD Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM       in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale ………… …….………………….……...
Figure                                                                                   Page1        Composition of Parti...
CHAPTER I                                    INTRODUCTION       The increasing number of non-English or limited English sp...
2       Davies (2002) defined CALL programs as an approach to language teaching andlearning where the computer is used to ...
3presentation software, email packages, and Web browsers; the other type is softwareapplications designed specifically to ...
4LEP students’ ages, genders, and previous technology experiences may also sway theirattitudes and expectations of CALL pr...
5left in CALL? These questions are frequently raised in traditional language learningenvironments (Lee, 2000; Resier & Dem...
6knowledge and skills that may increase the learning loads of LEP students. If LEPstudents do not value CALL programs, or ...
7additional research conducted from both LEP students’ and instructors’ perspectives willbe useful for ESL leaders and edu...
8                                 Conceptual Framework       The conceptual framework of the study was based on the Techno...
9easy to use will determine the effectiveness of CALL programs directly. Based on thisconcept, the TAM was adopted as a mo...
10                                   Research Questions       The research questions guiding the study were:Quantitative  ...
11     TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different age groups.Ho4: There is no statistically significant difference in perc...
12                                Significance of the Study       The roles and responsibilities of educational leaders ha...
13                                 Limitations of the Study       The first limitation of the study is the way in which th...
14reinforcement and assessment of the learning material (Davies, 2002).Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)--Computer-assis...
15Technology Acceptance Model--Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an informationsystems theory that models how users com...
CHAPTER II                               REVIEW OF LITERATURE                                         Overview       Langu...
17educational technology leadership for integrating CALL programs into ESL education arereviewed. The third section report...
18acquiring enough basic English abilities and basic American social skills to survive intheir new society. On the other h...
19English at home rose from 14% in 1990 to more than 19% (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005).Since more than 23 million individual...
20and trained ESL educators and specialists working in public schools based on guidelinesissued by the federal government ...
21decreases as students become more proficient in English. This ESL model is often usedeither at the elementary or seconda...
225. Sheltered English Immersion Program       A Sheltered English Immersion Program is an instructional approach used tom...
23Stewner-Manzanares, 1985).        All of the above models are commonly used in current ESL education in theUnited States...
24with 1,591,525, followed by Texas (684,007), Florida (299,346), New York (203,583),Illinois (192,764), and Arizona (155,...
25       On the other hand, CALP -- referred to as school language, academic language, orthe language of academic decontex...
26this transition stage because ESL instruction can serve as a short-term transitional bridgeto mainstream English courses...
27       As noted by August and Hakuta (1997), LEP students are at a higher risk thanmost other students to fail in school...
28       ESL programs have become the fastest growing segment in federally funded adulteducation programs in past decades....
29the barriers for LEP adults to participate in ESL programs included limited time, money,childcare, and transportation, a...
30Well-designed ESL programs can effectively counteract these risks by teachingimmigrant adults English while helping to b...
31             The Relationship between CALL Programs and ESL Education       When the first computer was invented in 1942...
32       Today’s computer has become much more than a tutor, a stimulative or a tool fordeveloping LEP students’ language ...
33       The first stage of CALL program development—Behavioristic CALL, conceivedin the 1950s and implemented in the 1960...
34       Based on the above contentions, a large number of CALL tutoring systems werecreated during this stage. One of the...
35by themselves and play a more important, involved role within their own CALL programlearning processes (Warschauer, 1996...
36        Fortunately, the functions of computers had developed during this time and hadbecome powerful enough to meet the...
37knowledge with guidance from a teacher (Warschauer, 2004).       Integrative CALL seeks both to integrate the various sk...
38       To briefly summarize, if the mainframe was the technology of BehavioristicCALL, and the personal computer (PC) wa...
39material at any time of the day. Once implemented, it can be expected that the cost forcomputer technology is considerab...
40abilities will promote LEP students’ learning motivation. In addition, computertechnology and CALL programs can help LEP...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, Dissertation, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Committee Mem...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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

3,805 views

Published on

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

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,805
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNINGPROGRAMS FOR ENHANCING ENGLISH LEARNING AMONG STUDENTS OF LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY A Dissertation by CHENG-CHIEH LAI Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies Prairie View A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 2008 Major Subject: Educational Leadership
  2. 2. Copyright byCHENG-CHIEH LAI December 2008All Rights Reserved
  3. 3. ABSTRACT The Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Language Learning Programs for Enhancing English Learning among Students of Limited English Proficiency (December 2008) Cheng-Chieh Lai: B.F.A. – Taipei National University of the Arts M.S., Texas A&M University - Kingsville Dissertation Chair: David E. Herrington, Ph.D. The purpose of the study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of theeffectiveness of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) programs on English asa Second Language (ESL) education for diverse Limited English Proficiency (LEP)learners and instructors and to provide the results as a reference to educational leadersand administrators who are considering the use of ESL for their English instructionprograms. A combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was utilized tocollect and analyze data. A questionnaire modified from Davis’ Technology AcceptanceModel theory (1989) was used to collect the quantitative data. The sample of thequantitative study consisted of 329 LEP students taking ESL courses and CALLprograms in college level schools or adult educational institutions in the Houston area ofTexas during the summer semester of 2008. Descriptive statistics and a one-way analysisof variance (ANOVA) were used to examine the influence of ESL students’ individualbackgrounds on their perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs.Qualitative interviews and observations were conducted to identify the advantages and iii
  4. 4. disadvantages of CALL programs, the roles of CALL programs, and the expectations offuture CALL programs from both students’ and instructors’ viewpoints. The qualitativeinterviews included seven ESL instructors and thirteen LEP students. The findings of the study indicate that the student’s native language and age maybe regarded as factors that influenced the student’s perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease ofUse” of CALL programs. The advantages of current CALL programs not only provideinstructors and students more teaching and learning resources, but also vary theirteaching and learning methods. Through the qualitative interviews, the roles of CALLprograms are varied in each instructor’s and student’s opinions. Different instructors andstudents have reasons to use CALL programs in different area, as a tool, a tutor, and atutee to meet their individual needs. Price, artificial intelligence, and ease of use are threemajor concerns of future CALL programs by ESL instructors and LEP students. The study is significant in that it provides valuable data for educational leadersand administrators that may use in determining the extent to which technologyinvestments are effective within specific populations of English language learners. Theassessment results can also be used to recommend changes in technology utilization andsoftware applications so that CALL programs can be updated and improved. iv
  5. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. David E.Herrington, whose expertise, understanding, and patience, added considerably to mygraduate experience. I appreciate his vast knowledge and skill in many areas and hisassistance. I would like to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Pamela Barber-Freeman, Dr. Williams A. Kritsonis, Dr. Tyrone Tanner, and Dr. Camille Gibson for theassistance they provided at all levels of the research project. Last but not least, I wouldlike to thank my parents, my young brother, and my friends Julie Williams and Dr. Kuofor their supports. v
  6. 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS PageABSTRACT................................................................................................................. iiiACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................vTABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ viLIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES..............................................................................xCHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1 Introduction........................................................................................................1 Background of the Problem ...............................................................................4 Statement of the Problem...................................................................................6 Purpose of the Study .........................................................................................7 Conceptual Framework .....................................................................................8 Research Questions .........................................................................................10 Null Hypotheses ..............................................................................................10 Significance of the Study ................................................................................12 Assumptions ....................................................................................................12 Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................13 Definition of Terms .........................................................................................13 Organization of the Study ................................................................................15CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................16 Overview .........................................................................................................16 The Relationship between ESL Learners and ESL Programs ........................17 ESL Population and ESL Policy ...........................................................18 vi
  7. 7. ESL Instructional Types in the United States .......................................20 ESL Education for ESL Children .........................................................23 ESL Education for ESL Adults .............................................................27 The Relationship between CALL Programs and ESL Education ...................31 Historical Development of CALL Programs for ESL Education .........32 Advantages and Disadvantages of CALL Programs for ESL Learners ...................................................................................38 Roles of CALL Programs in ESL Classrooms .....................................43 Technology Leadership for Integrating Technology in ESL Education ..................................................................................48 The Relationship between ESL learners’ Backgrounds, ESL, and Technology Learning ..........................................................................................................59 Native Languages ..................................................................................61 Genders .................................................................................................66 Ages ......................................................................................................70 Previous Educational Backgrounds ......................................................73 Summary .........................................................................................................77CHAPTER III. METHOD ..........................................................................................78 Research Questions..........................................................................................78 Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................79 Research Method .............................................................................................81 Research Design...............................................................................................83 Subjects of the Study .......................................................................................85 vii
  8. 8. Instrumentation ...............................................................................................86 Validity ............................................................................................................88 Reliability.........................................................................................................89 Procedures........................................................................................................90 Data Collection and Recording .......................................................................91 Confidentiality .................................................................................................92 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................92 Summary .........................................................................................................93CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .....................................................................95 Research Questions..........................................................................................95 Quantitative Research Data Analysis...............................................................96 Characteristics of the Quantitative Research Sample ...........................96 Research Question One .......................................................................102 Research Question Two ......................................................................113 Qualitative Research Data Analysis...............................................................121 Characteristics of the Qualitative Research Sample ...........................121 Research Question Three ....................................................................122 Research Question Four ......................................................................129 Research Question Five ......................................................................135 Summary .......................................................................................................139CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDTIONS ......141 Summary ........................................................................................................142 Demographic Data ...............................................................................143 viii
  9. 9. Research Question One........................................................................145 Research Question Two .......................................................................150 Research Question Three .....................................................................154 Research Question Four.......................................................................156 Research Question Five .......................................................................157 Conclusions....................................................................................................159 Contributions to the Literature.......................................................................162 Recommendations..........................................................................................162 Recommendations for Educational Leaders and Administrators.........162 Recommendations for Second Language Instructors ..........................164 Recommendations for Second Language Learners..............................165 Recommendations for Further Study .............................................................165REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................168APPENDIXES ...........................................................................................................198 Appendix A Survey Instruments....................................................................199 Appendix B Interview Questions...................................................................221 Appendix C Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval .............................223 Appendix D Permission Letters .....................................................................225 Appendix E Translation Certificate ...............................................................229VITA ..........................................................................................................................231 ix
  10. 10. LIST OF TABLESTable Page1 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by School ........................972 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by School and Age Group ………………………………………………………….................983 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by Native Language Group……………………………………………………….....................1004 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by School Location and Previous Educational Level………………………………………….......1015 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by Previous Technology Experiences………………………………………………………………1026 Means of Six Statements for ESL Participants Perceived “Usefulness” of CALL Programs for English Learning ……………………………….1047 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for ESL Students Perceive “Usefulness” of CALL Programs for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL …………………………………………………………..1058 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Native Language Groups on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……….…………………........1068.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …………….....................1069 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between means of ESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale………………………………………..........................................10810 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Age Groups on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……………………….……………………10910.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …….…………………………….109 x
  11. 11. 10.2 LSD Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale ………… …….………………….…….11111 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Educational Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …….…………………………….11212 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …….……………….…….11313 Means of Six Statements Contributing to ESL Participants Perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL Programs for English Learning……...................11413.1 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for ESL Students Perceive “Ease of Use” of CALL Programs for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL……………………………………....................................11514 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Native Language on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……………………………….................11614.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale….………….………… 11715 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between Means of ESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……………………………………..….........................................11816 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Age Groups on the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale……………………….………………… 11917 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……..….………………… 12018 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale……….………………… 12019 Frequency of Advantages of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning ……………………………………..……………………………125 xi
  12. 12. Figure Page1 Composition of Participative Sample by Age Group ............................... 982 Composition of Participative Sample by Gender.......................................993 Composition of Participative Sample by Previous Educational Level......1014 Frequency of Disadvantages of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning……………………………………………………….................1295 Frequency of the Best Roles of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning………………………………………………………………….1326 Frequency of English Skills Can Be Improved Effectively When Using CALL Programs for ESL Learning………………………………………137 xii
  13. 13. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The increasing number of non-English or limited English speaking persons in theUnited States makes it critical that educational leaders and school administrators assistthese persons to acquire English skills toward developing fully functioning members ofthe society. Educational programs that focus on the teaching of English to LimitedEnglish Proficiency (LEP) individuals employ a variety of methods including bothtraditional and non-traditional approaches. Computer Assisted Language Learning(CALL) is an area within applied linguistics and second language acquisition. It includesall kinds of language learning activities utilizing computer technology for assisting thelearning process. With the increased advancement of computer technology, CALL hasbeen regarded as an important solution to the problem of assisting in the delivery ofquality English as a Second Language (ESL) pedagogy (Egbert, 2005). A Nation at Risk, published in 1983, recommended computer literacy as one ofthe five “new basics” to schooling, and The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994)offered a national vision and strategy to infuse technology and technology planning intoall educational programs. Since then, schools with LEP students have begun to value thesignificance of educational technology and CALL programs and have made dramaticimprovements in their technological capability and infrastructure (Dickard, 2003).Although the U.S. Congress has spent billions of dollars to help schools increase accessto online learning opportunities and the computer has now become increasinglycommonplace in ESL classrooms, research on the effectiveness of using CALL programsin ESL instruction has lagged behind technology’s growth. 1
  14. 14. 2 Davies (2002) defined CALL programs as an approach to language teaching andlearning where the computer is used to assist the presentation, reinforcement andassessment of the learning material. The purpose of CALL programs is to offer languagelearners resources and experiences that will provide instruction and practice to their targetlanguage, as well as cultural information necessary to develop a full understanding of thelanguage they are studying (Stroud, 1998). The origins of CALL programs can be traced back to the 1960s where they wereconfined mainly to universities’ large mainframe computers. The famous PLATO(Programmed Logic Automated Teaching Operations) project was initiated at theUniversity of Illinois during this period. The PLATO project used custom softwarerunning on Control Data Corporation equipment to serve thousands of remote terminalssimultaneously. It established an important landmark in the early development of CALLprograms (Marty, 1981). After the late 1970s, the arrival of the personal computer (PC) brought computingwithin reach of a wider audience and resulted in a virtual boom in the development ofCALL programs. Over the past 30 years, the historical development of CALL programscan be roughly categorized in three stages: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL,and Integrative CALL. Each stage corresponds to a certain level of technology and acertain linguistic pedagogical approach (Waschauer, 1996). CALL programs encompass several different applications in language acquisitionteaching and learning. These applications can be categorized into two distinct types: oneinvolves the use of general software applications such as word processors, text analysis,
  15. 15. 3presentation software, email packages, and Web browsers; the other type is softwareapplications designed specifically to promote language learning. CALL programs are effective with a variety of LEP students and give them anumber of advantages, such as ease and flexibility of use, control over pacing andsequencing of learning, individualization, privacy, and immediate feedback (Askov,Maclay, & Meenan, 1987; Kulik, Kulik, & Shwalb, 1986). Other researchers alsosupported this statement and indicated that the use of CALL programs has a positiveeffect on the achievement levels of LEP students (Arnold & Ducate, 2005; Egbert, Paulus,& Nakamichi, 2002; Fotos & Browne, 2003). Although CALL programs seem to have many benefits for ESL instruction,several questions exist regarding their practical application. As pointed out by Garrett(1991), “the use of the computer does not constitute a method. Rather, it is a medium inwhich a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may beimplemented” (p. 75). No matter what impressive functions CALL programs have, theyare a mere medium of language instruction and learning. The effectiveness of CALLprograms depends on how they are put to use. CALL programs need support fromeducational leaders, school administrators, and ESL instructors to guide students in usingcomputer technologies in the most effective way. Students’ personal backgrounds and their learning attitudes may play a vital rolein the success of CALL programs. LEP students have distinct characteristics and differentneeds in their learning processes. Students are typically new to American culture, as wellas to its language. Their cultural backgrounds and previous educational attainment mayinfluence their English learning progress (Rice & Stavrianos, 1995). On the other hand,
  16. 16. 4LEP students’ ages, genders, and previous technology experiences may also sway theirattitudes and expectations of CALL programs in their English learning (McGroarty,1993). Each of these individual factors should be considered when educational leadersand administrators engage in CALL program design, instructional practice, andassessment. The application of CALL programs in ESL pedagogy is a new approach comparedwith traditional ESL instruction, and some functions of CALL programs are still underintense debate among researchers and learners (Salaberry, 1999). Instructional technologyhas now become critical in supporting 21st century learning environments. Appropriatetechnology use can be very beneficial in increasing educational productivity (Byrom &Bingham, 2001; Clements & Sarama, 2003). In helping students benefit from the rapidlyevolving development of computer technology, educational leaders and schooladministrators must not only evaluate and supervise the effectiveness of CALL programs,but also provide informed, creative, and transformative leadership to integrate thistechnological change into ESL education. Background of the Problem With the escalating worldwide development of computer technology, CALLprograms have become part of the fabric of current ESL educational practice (Samuel,2005). Educators and researchers are still discussing how to apply CALL programs toESL education system and debating the following questions: What kind of role shouldCALL programs play in current ESL instruction? How effective are CALL programs?How worthwhile is it to spend time and money on them? Can they replace the existingpedagogy? How might they change the role of teachers? Is there any untapped potential
  17. 17. 5left in CALL? These questions are frequently raised in traditional language learningenvironments (Lee, 2000; Resier & Dempsey 2002; & Roblyer, 2003). People hope tobenefit from effective learning methods through the computer technology, but they alsodoubt its potential. It is the responsibility of educational leaders and school administratorsto address these concerns. Each school expends large amounts of funds to provide technology training forteachers. National and state standards require teachers to integrate technology into theirteaching (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2001). Data fromthe National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2002 showed that only 27% ofin-service teachers felt confident enough to prepare and integrate educational technologyinto their courses, and only 45% of teachers often used computer-learning programs toenhance their teaching (NCES, 2004). These data may provide an explanation of theattitudes held by some instructors who still resist adoption of computer technology inclassrooms. The infusion of computer technology into educational learning activities isstill not as well developed as would be desired. Educational leaders and schooladministrators must assess the reasons that lead to the phenomenon of technologyresistance. Such knowledge could assist instructors in overcoming their fears and lowskill levels. Finally, diverse LEP students have different needs and preferred learning methodsin their English learning processes. Although educators (Roberts, 2004; Warschauer, 2001)asserted that CALL programs can be a motivating tool that enhances LEP students’learning interest, CALL programs are intended to make learning more effective ratherthan easier. In utilizing CALL programs in learning, students must learn basic technology
  18. 18. 6knowledge and skills that may increase the learning loads of LEP students. If LEPstudents do not value CALL programs, or reject using the computer altogether, CALLprograms become irrelevant. Statement of the Problem Each year more than 1.8 million immigrants arrive in the United States, but 60%of recent arrivals had limited English proficiency (Camarota, 2005). This situation hasbeen a powerful force shaping the United States’ population and ethnic composition. Ithas brought a number of unpredicted impacts on the American culture, economy, andeducation system. To solve this crisis, educational leaders and school administratorsbegan to pay attention to CALL programs and regard them as an effective remedy to theproblem of assisting non-English immigrants in acquiring English skills. Pervious research findings indicated that CALL programs can increase theefficacy of English learning, enhance self-directed learning, and provide a meaningfulpractice environment for LEP students (Beauvious, 1998; Cunningham, 1998). LEPstudents often come from different countries and have diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds; their genders, ages, educational levels, and previous technologyexperiences are dissimilar. Whether all LEP students can accept this technologicalpedagogy and gain the learning benefits from CALL programs based on their varyingbackgrounds will be a significant issue for educational leaders, school administrators, andESL educators. In addition, debate continues regarding the role that computers play in theESL classrooms. Students’ and instructors’ expectations of CALL programs in theirlinguistic teaching and learning may result in different outcomes. To get the best resultsfrom CALL programs and determine their effectiveness in current ESL programs,
  19. 19. 7additional research conducted from both LEP students’ and instructors’ perspectives willbe useful for ESL leaders and educators in improving ESL pedagogy. This study’s focus is the general application of CALL programs in the Houstonarea of Texas. Different factors contributing to the level of computer technologyacceptance of ELL students from diverse personal backgrounds were investigated. Thestudy further explored the expectations of instructors and learners regarding the role ofmodern technology in their ESL classrooms. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of theeffectiveness of CALL programs on ESL education for diverse English language learnersand instructors and to provide the results as a reference to educational leaders andadministrators who are considering the use of ESL for their English instruction programs.Four factors were examined and explored in the study: 1. The relationship between LEP students’ personal backgrounds and their perceptions of learning English with CALL programs. 2. The strengths and limitations of CALL programs that are used to support LEP students. 3. The role of CALL programs in ESL learning environments and their relationship with ESL instructors and LEP students. 4. The expectations of ESL instructors and LEP students regarding future CALL programs development.
  20. 20. 8 Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework of the study was based on the Technology AcceptanceModel (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and the Theory of Customer Value (Woodruff & Gardial,1996). According to Davis, the TAM is an information system theory that models howusers come to accept and use new technology. It asserts that when users are presentedwith a new software package, two major psychological perceptions may influence theirattitudes and behavioral intentions toward accepting, valuing, and using the softwarepackage: one is “Perceived Usefulness” (PU), and the other is “Perceived Ease-of-Use”(PEOU). Davis defined PU as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particularsystem would enhance his or her job performance”, and PEOU is “the degree to which aperson believes that using a particular system would be free from effort” (p.320). Davisfurther indicated that perceived usefulness was significantly correlated with self-reportedcurrent usage and self-predicted future usage, and perceived ease of use was alsosignificantly correlated with current usage and future usage. Abundant empirical studiesin user technology acceptance literature (Pavlou, 2003; Shih, 2004; Wang, Hsu, & Fang,2005) have also shown that PU and PEOU can predict a user’s acceptance and actualusage of a technology system. Knowing the determinants of these predictors can have strong implications forESL leaders, CALL designers, and trainers, enabling them to better strategize theirresources and emphases. No matter how schools spend money on their technologyinfrastructure and how educators declare that CALL programs are conducive to ESLpedagogy, students’ learning perceptions as to whether CALL programs are useful or
  21. 21. 9easy to use will determine the effectiveness of CALL programs directly. Based on thisconcept, the TAM was adopted as a model for investigating LEP students’ perceptions ofthe usefulness and ease of use of CALL programs for their English learning in thequantitative part of the study. On the other hand, the software of CALL programs is still a commercial product.No matter how many functions CALL software has, it must satisfy the needs of users.According to the Theory of Customer Value which was built by Woodruff and Gardial in1996, they claimed that customer value includes not only examining the attributes of theproduct and results after using, but further exploring the real needs and wants of thecustomers. In examining the effectiveness of CALL programs and improving CALLprograms in the future, communicating with LEP students and instructors about theirvalues concerning CALL programs is needed because communication with customers isthe key in influencing users’ decisions of why, when, and what to buy, and use of theproducts (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996). As Woodruff and Gardial noted, measuring customer value is rooted in the use ofqualitative data-gathering techniques. The aim of the study was to use the Theory ofCustomer Value as the conceptual framework in the qualitative part of the study.Interviews were conducted to understand the viewpoints of perceived advantages anddisadvantages of CALL programs, the roles and functions of CALL programs in ESLeducation, and the expectations of future CALL programs from both LEP students andinstructors.
  22. 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. 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. 24. 12 Significance of the Study The roles and responsibilities of educational leaders have shifted in this digitaltechnology age. This study was conducted to ascertain what CALL attributes affect ESLinstruction and discuss how educational leaders integrate CALL programs to improveESL teaching and learning. The study investigated the roles and functions of CALLprograms in ESL pedagogies for ESL instructors and students. Results of the study mayencourage ESL instructors to adopt CALL programs as a viable educational alternativeand inspire LEP students to promote their language abilities through the application ofCALL programs. The study examined LEP students’ perceptions of “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use”of learning English with CALL programs. Results of the study may provide educationalleaders and ESL program administrators a view of the problems associated with currentuses of technology in ESL education so they can improve future ESL instruction andCALL programs. Assumptions The following assumptions were made: 1. The quality of responses to inquiry questions is dependent on the honesty and sincerity of the respondents. 2. The interpretation of the data collected accurately reflects the intentions of the subjects providing the data.
  25. 25. 13 Limitations of the Study The first limitation of the study is the way in which the survey was constructed. Itis possible that the survey created by the researcher did not include all measuresassociated with good instructional practices. If this occurs, the results may be influenced. The second limitation of the study is that the accuracy of the data may not holdtrue when new technologies and CALL programs are developed. The data gathered forthis study represent the opinions, expertise, and experience of respondents during aspecific period in time. The ability of computers continues to evolve rapidly. The third limitation of the study is that the research area only focused on the useof CALL programs in the English language learning environment. CALL programs havebeen developed and used in different language learning categories for decades. Theresults of the study may not be applied to other second language learning environments. The fourth limitation of the study is the research was limited to a population ofstudents and instructors in ESL education with CALL programs of the Houston area ofTexas during the summer semester of 2008. The population was further reduced by thefact that not all institutions of ESL programs could have been sampled. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in order to present a consistent and standardizedapproach for interpretation of terms used in the study:Attitude--Attitude is a summary construct that represents an individual’s overall feelingstoward or evaluation of an object (Bohner & Wanke, 2002).Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)--An approach to language teaching andlearning, where the computer and the Internet is used to assist the presentation,
  26. 26. 14reinforcement and assessment of the learning material (Davies, 2002).Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)--Computer-assisted instruction is an instructionalmethod that incorporates the use of computers into an overall teaching strategy; it is aninteractive instructional technique in which a computer is used to present instructionalmaterial, monitor learning, and select additional instructional material in accordance withindividual learner needs (Turner, 1990).Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Learner--The federal definition of LEP learner is onewhose native language is a language other than English; who comes from a region whereEnglish is not dominant; or whose difficulty using English reduces his or her ability tolearn in U.S. classrooms or participate fully in society. Other terms commonly found inthe literature include language minority students, limited English proficient (LEP),English as a second language (ESL), and culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD)(Batalova, 2006).English as Second Language (ESL) program--A program of techniques, methodology andspecial curriculum designed to teach LEP students English language skills, which mayinclude listening, speaking, reading, writing, study skills, content vocabulary, and culturalorientation. ESL instruction is usually in English with little use of native language (U. S.Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1992).Language proficiency--Refers to the degree to which the student exhibits control over theuse of language, including the measurement of expressive and receptive language skillsin the areas of phonology, syntax, vocabulary, and semantics and including the areas ofpragmatics or language use within various domains or social circumstances (U. S.Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2007).
  27. 27. 15Technology Acceptance Model--Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an informationsystems theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. The modelsuggests that when users are presented with a new software package, a number of factorsinfluence their decision about how and when they will use it (Adams, Nelson, & Todd,1992). Organization of the Study The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter I contains an introduction,background of the problem, statement of the problem, research questions, purpose of thestudy, conceptual framework, significance of the study, assumptions, delimitations andlimitations, and definition of terms. Chapter II provides a review of related literature insupport of the research study. The methods for the study, which includes the researchdesign, population and samples, instrumentation, and the collection of data are describedin Chapter III. Chapter IV presents the findings of the study in relation to the researchquestions. A summary of the study with conclusions and recommendations for furtherstudy is in Chapter V.
  28. 28. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Overview Language learning in the 21st Century presents both unparalleled opportunitiesand extraordinary challenges, many of which are the direct result of computer technology(Ostendorf, Shriberg, & Stolcke, 2005). Educational leaders and administrators must beaware of these new constraints and opportunities and develop applicable leadership todeal with this digital change (Carmen & Haefner, 2002). There are now more than 35million immigrants, both legal and illegal, living in the United States, including over 20million who speak English less than “very well” (U. S. Census Bureau, 2000).Determining the effectiveness of CALL programs and then redesigning more appropriateESL curricula to help LEP students achieve proficiency in English is an inevitableresponsibility of educational leaders and administrators in this digital age. The focus of this literature review is on the interrelationship among LEP students,ESL education, and CALL programs. Three sections are presented in this chapter. Thefirst section explores the relationship between LEP students and ESL instruction. Thissection describes the change of the LEP population and recent changes to ESL policieswithin the American education community. It provides an introduction about populartypes of ESL instruction in the United States, and discusses the benefits of ESL educationfor LEP children and adults. The second section refers to the relationship betweencomputer technologies and ESL education. The historical development of CALLprograms with ESL pedagogy, the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs forLEP students, the roles of CALL programs in ESL classrooms, and methods for applying 16
  29. 29. 17educational technology leadership for integrating CALL programs into ESL education arereviewed. The third section reports the relationship between LEP students’ backgrounds,second language acquisition, and learning through technology. LEP students’ nativelanguages, ages, genders, and prior education levels are presented as factors that mayinfluence LEP students’ English language and technology learning processes based onprevious studies. The Relationship between LEP students and ESL Programs The United States is the third most populous country in the world, with apopulation of 300 million. From the year 2000 to 2005, the total national population hasgrown by nearly three million people every year, and one-third of this growth is a resultof immigration. Every 31 seconds a new immigrant enters this country with the intent tostay (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005). Immigration has been a powerful force shaping theUnited States’ population counts and ethnic composition. Although the issue ofimmigration has become a topic of concern in national discussions about the Americansociety, a consistent point of agreement in the often-contentious debate over immigrationis that learning English is essential for successful integration into American life(Gonzalez, 2007). There is a supply-demand relationship between immigrants and ESL instruction.As First (1988) pointed out, immigrants often enter the United States with cultural scriptsmodeled on the material and social environments of their homelands. “Their behaviornorms stem from lives they are no longer living but cannot forget. To survive, they mustintegrate old scripts with their new environment” (p. 205). ESL education can suppliesimmigrants the opportunity to integrate their cultural scripts and previous knowledge for
  30. 30. 18acquiring enough basic English abilities and basic American social skills to survive intheir new society. On the other hand, the fast-growing immigrant population is causingincreased demand for ESL instruction. For example, the New Haven Adult School in SanFrancisco used to conduct only four classes two times a day. Currently, the programoffers nine classes in the morning, two in the afternoon, and nine at night for serving thegrowing ESL immigrant population (Tucker, 2006).LEP Population and ESL Policy According to Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994), the LEPstudent is one whose native language is a language other than English; who comes from aregion where English is not dominant; who has sufficient difficulty in speaking, reading,writing or understanding the English language; or whose difficulties may deny such anindividual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language ofinstruction is English, or to participate fully in American society (U. S. House ofRepresentatives, 1994). Over the last two decades, the United States has experienced agreat influx of migrants, immigrants, refugees, and international students. Most of themare non-native English speakers and their English skills are not sufficient to deal with thedemands of their daily lives. Data from the U. S. Census Bureau (2006) indicated that the foreign-bornresidents of the United States increased from 19.8 million in 1990 to 35.7 million in 2005.Additionally, the number of English Language Learners (ELLs) who were born in theUnited States has also increased from approximately one third of the LEP population in1991-1992 (Fleischman & Hopstock, 1993) to 64% of the whole LEP population in 2006(Batalova, 2006). The total percentage of Americans speaking a language other than
  31. 31. 19English at home rose from 14% in 1990 to more than 19% (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005).Since more than 23 million individuals speak English less than “very well” and the LEPpopulation continues to increase year after year, finding ways to meet the demands ofESL education to help this LEP population achieve English proficiency is an urgent issue. Providing ESL education for LEP students is the responsibility of every schooldistrict and educational leader. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) mandated thatindividuals in the United States could not be discriminated against based on race, color,or national origin in any program that receives federal funding. This law decreed thatpublic schools could not deny the benefits of an education to students based on nationalorigin, which was extended to English proficiency (Retzak, 2003). The United StatesCongress enacted the Equal Education Opportunities Act in 1974 that made explicitinterpretations regarding what states and school districts must do to enable Englishlanguage learners to participate meaningfully in educational programs (Hernandez, 1997).Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994) further ruled that state educationagencies and local school districts should put federal funds to good use implementingsupplemental instructional programs for LEP students (U. S. Department of Education,1994). Recently, The No Child Left Behind Act, passed in 2001, reiterated that LEPstudents’ language proficiency and academic achievement should be assessed in order toprovide equal educational opportunities to LEP students. The law mandated anaccountability system for ESL language and academic growth. To ensure that LEPstudents are being taught by appropriately qualified educators, educational authoritiesshould establish and require unique credentialing procedures and programs for qualified
  32. 32. 20and trained ESL educators and specialists working in public schools based on guidelinesissued by the federal government (Abedi, 2004).ESL Instructional Types in the United States According to the New York City Department of Education (2007), the definitionof ESL instruction is an academic discipline designed to allow LEP students to acquireEnglish language proficiencies across the major skill areas of listening, speaking, reading,writing, and critical thinking in a systematic and spiraling fashion. It is also a focal pointfor the introduction and reinforcement of the concepts of cross-cultural or multiculturalunderstanding and social responsibility. ESL instruction plays a major role in affordingLEP students the opportunity to acquire the English proficiency and the academic,cognitive, and cultural knowledge they need to become active participants in society. Different LEP students have different needs for English learning based on theircultural and educational backgrounds. There are several different ESL program modelsdesigned and implemented for LEP students, and each specific model a school districtadopts and implements may depend on the composition of the student population,individual student characteristics, district resources, and the community’s preferences.The following is a brief description of seven popular ESL programs in the Untied States:1. Dual Language Immersion Program The Dual Language Immersion Program (or Bilingual Program) is a carefullyplanned instructional program where two languages are used in ESL classrooms, such asSpanish and English or Chinese and English. In this model, LEP students are instructed inacademic subject areas in their native language while simultaneously being taught tospeak, read, and write English. The amount of instruction delivered in the native language
  33. 33. 21decreases as students become more proficient in English. This ESL model is often usedeither at the elementary or secondary level (Seelye & Navarro, 1977).2. Content-Based English as a Second Language Program This approach makes use of instructional materials, learning tasks, and classroomtechniques from academic content areas as the vehicle for developing language, content,cognitive, and study skills. English is used as the medium of instruction for LEP studentsin this model (U. S. Department of Education, 2007).3. Newcomer Program The Newcomer Program is a separate, relatively self-contained educationalintervention program designed to meet the academic and transitional needs of newlyarrived students. This model offers intensive ESL instruction and an introduction to U. S.cultural and educational practices for a student initially identified as LEP to acquire thenecessary skills for achieving academic success in an English-speaking world as quicklyas possible (Friedlander, 1991).4. Pull-Out Program This is a program model in which a paraprofessional or tutor pulls LEP students,often either a small group or single individuals, from the regular or mainstreamclassrooms for special instruction in English as a second language. Schools without alarge LEP population often adopt this model to serve their LEP students who needremedial work in learning the English language (Baker, 2000).
  34. 34. 225. Sheltered English Immersion Program A Sheltered English Immersion Program is an instructional approach used tomake academic instruction in English understandable to LEP students. This programmodel asks LEP students to study the same curriculum with their native English-speakingpeers, and teachers employ ESL methods to make instruction comprehensible. In thesheltered classroom, teachers often use physical activities, visual aids, and theenvironment to teach vocabulary for concept development in mathematics, science, socialstudies, and other subjects (Chamot & Stewner-Manzanares, 1985).6. Structured English Immersion Program The goal of this program is the acquisition of English language skills so that LEPstudents can succeed in the English-only mainstream classroom. Instruction is entirely inEnglish. LEP students are thrown into the general education classroom and thereforeimmersed in English. Content area instruction is based on the notion of “comprehensibleinput,” in which the teacher uses only the vocabulary and structures that can beunderstood by students (Ramirez, 1986).7. High Intensity Language Training Program The High Intensity Language Training Program is designed to provide the mostproductive language learning experience in the shortest possible time. In this ESL model,LEP students are grouped for a significant portion of the school day. Students receiveintensive training in ESL, usually for three hours a day in the first year of instruction, lessin succeeding years. Placement of students into regular classrooms is accomplished on asubject-by-subject basis and usually includes initial mainstreaming into linguisticallyundemanding classes such as music, physical education, and art (Chamot &
  35. 35. 23Stewner-Manzanares, 1985). All of the above models are commonly used in current ESL education in theUnited States. Some models provide varying degrees of support in the LEP students’native language, while others preserve and build upon the LEP students’ native languageskills as they learn English. Although there may be reasons to claim the superiority of oneESL program model over another in certain situations, a variety of ESL programs can beeffective. Indeed, different approaches are necessary because of the great diversity ofconditions faced by schools and the varying experiences of LEP students with literacyand schooling in their first language (August & Hakuta, 1997). The best choice should bemade at the local level after careful consideration of the needs of the LEP studentsinvolved and the resources available (Collier, 1992). No matter which model is used, thelearning outcomes still depend on many other factors, such as LEP students’ personalbackgrounds, the frequency of learning opportunities to speak English in the family andcommunity, and whether or not a qualified ESL teacher instructs the class (Garcia, 1991).ESL Education for LEP Children Based on state reported data, the National Clearinghouse for English LanguageAcquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA, 2006) indicatedthat more than 5.1 million LEP children were enrolled in public schools frompre-kindergarten to grade 12 for the 2004-2005 school year in the United States. Thenumber represents approximately 10.5% of total public school student enrollment, and a56.2% increase over the reported 1994–1995 total public school LEP student enrollment.Among the states, California enrolled the largest number of public school LEP students,
  36. 36. 24with 1,591,525, followed by Texas (684,007), Florida (299,346), New York (203,583),Illinois (192,764), and Arizona (155,789). With the growing number of LEP students,determining how to help these students to overcome English language, academic English,and study skills problems is a challenge for all ESL leaders and teachers. The academic achievement of LEP students has long been a major nationaleducational concern. LEP students often encounter a variety of difficulties in achievingacademic success in schools. These difficulties may be related to language, educationalbackground, socioeconomic status, psychological trauma, or any combination of thesefactors (Anstrom, 1997). To assist LEP students in gaining higher level academicachievement, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) suggested that before LEP students are ableto achieve in the regular classroom, they should be able to use English as a tool forlearning subject matter. Cummins (1996) further theorized that there are two kinds ofEnglish proficiency that LEP students must learn. The first is Basic InterpersonalConversational Skills (BICS) and the other proficiency is Cognitive Academic LanguageProficiency (CALP). BICS is the kind of language used in face-to-face communication. It is languageneeded for social interaction. This is sometimes called playground language, everydaylanguage, social language, or surface fluency (Cummins, 1996). BICS English ischaracterized as context-embedded because contextual cues are available to both speakerand listener involved in the conversation, and it is cognitively undemanding. LEPstudents can easily recount orally what happened to them personally without difficultyonce they attain fluency. The ability of social language can usually be developed withinthe first two years of arrival in an English-speaking setting (Collier, 1995)
  37. 37. 25 On the other hand, CALP -- referred to as school language, academic language, orthe language of academic decontextualized situations -- is the kind of language needed tolearn new information, think in more abstract ways, and carry out more cognitivelydemanding communicative tasks required by the core curriculum (Cummins, 1996). Thisdimension of language is transferable across languages. Collier and Thomas (1989)indicated that the process of learning academic language requires much more time thanneeded to learn language for interacting on a social level with English speakers. UnlikeBICS learning, CALP English used in context academic learning demands high cognitionfrom LEP students. This language proficiency, necessary for learning academic content,is often a long-term undertaking and may require five to eight years or longer, dependingon the age and prior educational background of the LEP student (Collier, 1995). ESL instruction provides LEP students with opportunities to develop their basicinterpersonal communicative skills and to develop their cognitive academic languageproficiency through the specially designed academic instruction in English (Cummins,1996). Educators (Wang, 1996; Wright & Kuehn, 1998) agree that low proficiency inacademic language will cause LEP students to fail their academic studies. LEP studentscan often become proficient in communication skills within a short time after their arrivalin the United States, but their social language is still not adequate for academic learning.If an LEP student is too quickly mainstreamed into the regular classroom, he or she willinevitably encounter many difficulties understanding and completing schoolwork in themore cognitively demanding language needed for successful performance in academicsubjects (Short & Spanos, 1989). ESL education is very important for LEP students in
  38. 38. 26this transition stage because ESL instruction can serve as a short-term transitional bridgeto mainstream English courses (Alanis, 2000). The transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledge from the first language tothe second language is essential for LEP students. Hakuta (1990) stated that nativelanguage proficiency is a strong indicator of the second language development becausethe level of proficiency in the first language has a direct influence on the development ofproficiency in the second language. The lack of continuing first language developmentwill inhibit the levels of second language proficiency and cognitive academicgrowth. O’Malley and Chamot’s study (1990) of 64 Spanish and 34 Russian studentsshowed that beginning- to intermediate-level LEP students often use transfer strategies intheir English language learning. This means that the transfer of prior linguistic andcognitive knowledge from the first language to the second language is a requisite learningprocess for LEP students. Collier (1995) stated that LEP students who are schooled in a second language forpart or all of the school day typically do reasonably well in the early years of schooling,especially kindergarten through second or third grade. From fourth grade through middleschool and high school, when the academic and cognitive demands of the curriculumincrease rapidly with each succeeding year, students with little or no academic andcognitive development in their first language do less and less well as they move into theupper grades. On the contrary, students who have spent four to seven years in a qualityESL or bilingual program can get better academic achievement and can outperformmonolingually schooled students in the upper grades (Thomas & Collier, 2002).
  39. 39. 27 As noted by August and Hakuta (1997), LEP students are at a higher risk thanmost other students to fail in schools. The average dropout rate for LEP students is fourtimes the average dropout rate for normal students (Slavin & Madden, 1999). A report,Bilingual Education: Cause or Cure? released by the Texas Educational ExcellenceProject (TEEP, 2005) also pointed out that there is a link between education programsgeared toward LEP students and Latino student dropout rates. As the number of LEPstudents served by either ESL or bilingual education programs increase, Latino dropoutrates decrease. This means that high Latino dropout rates are at least, in part, a result ofnot addressing the language needs of certain students within the Latino studentpopulation. Taking this fact into consideration, it is extremely necessary for LEP studentsto have ESL education programs available to them. In order to effectively instruct LEPstudents, school leaders and educators must be equipped to respond to the sociocultural,cognitive, and linguistic needs of diverse LEP students and value the importance of ESLprograms.ESL Education for LEP Adults According to the U. S. Census Bureau (2006), one in five working-age adultsbetween 18 and 65 years old in the United States speak a language other than English athome. Cities such as Los Angeles and New York have roughly three-quarters andtwo-thirds of their respective immigrant adult populations identified as limited Englishproficiency (Capps, Fix, & Ku, 2002). Due to the high rates of immigration and becauseof the importance of helping these LEP immigrants, there is an increasing number of ESLclasses and materials designed for LEP adults to promote English proficiency.
  40. 40. 28 ESL programs have become the fastest growing segment in federally funded adulteducation programs in past decades. The U. S. Department of Education, Office ofVocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy (2005)indicated that a total of about 1.2 million (1,172,569) adults were enrolled instate-administered ESL or English Literacy programs during 2003-2004. Adult Englishlanguage learners now account for at least one-half of the total adult educationpopulation. The reasons for LEP adults participating in adult ESL classes include wanting to:1) learn English to communicate in their everyday lives; 2) become a citizen of theUnited States; 3) get a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED)certificate; 4) acquire skills needed to advance to higher education programs; 5) acquireskills to help their children succeed in school; and especially 6) get a job or pursue betteremployment (Skilton-Sylvester & Carlo, 1998). English speaking ability is crucial forLEP adults because it opens the door to jobs that yield family-sustaining wages andallows LEP adults to communicate with their neighbors, their children’s teachers, healthcare providers, and others with whom they must interact in their daily life. English skillsare a prerequisite to passing the U. S. citizenship examination. An urban institute studyconducted by Fix, Passel, and Kenneth (2003) found that 60% of legal immigrants whowere eligible to become citizens but had not done so were limited English proficiency. LEP adults are hesitant to attend ESL classes for many reasons. LEP adults aretrying to acquire a new language and a new culture. They are working, managing theirhouseholds, and raising their children. These challenges often present significantobstacles to learning. The National Center for Education Statistics (1995) indicated that
  41. 41. 29the barriers for LEP adults to participate in ESL programs included limited time, money,childcare, and transportation, and lack of knowledge about appropriate programs in theirlocal area. The National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL, 2004) surveyed communityleaders and educators in Washington communities with recent rapid growth in numbers ofimmigrant families and the respondents also identified similar challenges. Analysis of data from the U. S. Census Bureau (2000) revealed there is a positiverelation between earnings and English language ability. The lower a person’s Englishliteracy level, the more likely the individual is to be struggling economically, often livingbelow the poverty line. About 62% of low-wage immigrant workers in America are LEP(U. S. Census Bureau, 2006). These adults with poor English skills are often unemployedor trapped in low-paying jobs that provide no benefits and offer little opportunity forpromotion (Greenberg, Macias, Rhodes, & Chan, 2001). ESL Programs can help LEPadults to improve their English language skills and thereby reduce this economicdisparity. Research conducted by Mora (2003) found that learning to speak Englishfluently results in a 76% jump in earnings for immigrants with more than twelve years ofeducation, compared to a 4% increase for workers with fewer than eight years ofeducation. Martinez and Wang (2005) emphasized that limited English proficiency placesbarriers not only against labor force participation and in regard to the community as awhole. Limited English proficiency may isolate immigrant families from the largercommunity, preventing them from interacting with American-born neighbors, engagingin civic life, and becoming integrated into their new community. Lack of English fluencywill undermine parents’ ability to guide, protect, and educate their children.
  42. 42. 30Well-designed ESL programs can effectively counteract these risks by teachingimmigrant adults English while helping to bolster their children’s early languagedevelopment and school readiness. Through ESL learning and training, parents canbecome their child’s first teacher by engaging in activities to improve literacy skills. Most LEP adults recognize the importance of good English skills to their successdue to the high economic and social value of English acquisition and therefore they arehighly motivated to learn English. As a result of limited government funding, demand farexceeds the supply of ESL classes (Tucker, 2006). An Adult Student Waiting List Surveyby the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education (NCSDAE, 2006) showedthat 40 out of 43 states reporting confirmed that LEP students were on waiting lists intheir states. In New York City, where the ESL need is estimated to include one millionindividuals, only 41,347 adults were able to enroll in 2005 because of limited availability. Most adult ESL programs no longer keep waiting lists because of the extremedemand, but instead use lotteries in which at least three of four individuals are turnedaway. Some ESL adult learners must wait several years to receive ESL services. To solvethis serious problem, it is essential for educational leaders and educators to pay moreattention to ESL education. ESL immigrants’ growing numbers and their pivotal role inthe future of the United States create a compelling demographic, social, and economicimperative for providing ESL immigrants more opportunities to improve their Englishskills (Martinez & Wang, 2005). Investments in ESL education for LEP adults will raiseLEP adults’ earnings and improve their social and economic situations in the future.Investments in ESL education can reduce rates of poverty and lower rates of publicbenefits use.
  43. 43. 31 The Relationship between CALL Programs and ESL Education When the first computer was invented in 1942, a new era of technology began.The original goal of the computer was to help scientists dealing with difficult tasks thatwere unable to be solved by humans (Cuban, 2001). As technology improved over thedecades the capabilities of computers became more powerful. Computer applicationshave been gradually adopted and widely used by every discipline, especially ineducational curriculum and language learning fields. According to Muir-Herzig (2004),modern computer technology and its assisted language learning programs in the languageclassroom is widely believed to help reshape both the content and processes of languageeducation and help teachers promote a constructive class environment. CALL programs have changed the ideas of language educators and learners allover the world (Snell, 1999). Warschauer and Kern (2000) pointed out, CALLmethodology has been greatly influenced throughout its history by the overallmethodology that has characterized second language teaching and learning at variouspoints of its development. In their opinion, there are three theoretical perspectives insecond language learning: the structural, cognitive and socio-cognitive perspectives. The change in language teaching is more of a complex overlapping of the threemovements than a polar shift from structural to communicative. The shifts in perspectiveson language learning and teaching are parallel to the developments in computertechnology and CALL programs. As technology shifts from the mainframe to thepersonal computer, the roles of computers in language classroom also shift from as a“tutor” to a “stimulative” resource and a “tool.”
  44. 44. 32 Today’s computer has become much more than a tutor, a stimulative or a tool fordeveloping LEP students’ language skills in ESL education. Egbert and Hanson-Smith(1999) indicated that technology provides support for a total environment of secondlanguage learning rather than providing use as a single tool or source of information. It isnow less a question of the role of computers in the language classroom and more aquestion of the role of the language classroom in today’s information technology society(Warschauer & Healey, 1998).Historical Development of CALL Programs for ESL Education Since 1950, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology employed 70 engineers andtechnicians to create the first major Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) project, and thecomputer began to play an important role in education (Phillips, 1983). CALL programscan be grouped under CAI’s collateral branch, and they are the applications of CAI tolanguage learning and teaching. Over the past decade, CALL programs have emerged asa significant teaching and learning instrument for ESL education. The widespread use ofESL software, local area networks, and the Internet has created enormous opportunitiesfor LEP students to enhance their English learning. According to Davies (2007), CALL programs are designed to promote explicit orimplied language learning objectives, and offer support in the acquisition of knowledgeabout language and in the application of that knowledge in discrete and mixed skillactivities. Historically, the development of CALL programs can be roughly categorizedinto three main stages: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL, and IntegrativeCALL. Each stage of development corresponds to a certain level of technology as well asa certain pedagogical approach (Barson & Debski, 1996).
  45. 45. 33 The first stage of CALL program development—Behavioristic CALL, conceivedin the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and ’70s—tended to concentrate on languagelearning through behavioristic stimulus-response approaches. This stage entailedrepetitive language drills and can be referred to as “drill and practice” becauseBehavioristic educators believe that language students can successfully learn their targetlanguages through imitating and repeating pattern drills (Warschauer, 1996).Behavioristic CALL was designed to promote student mastery of a body of rules byindicating to the learner whether or not the language they produced matched that stored inthe computer’s memory (Garrett, 1991). This kind of “wrong-try-again” model requiresthe language learner to input the correct answer before proceeding, provides the languagelearner with positive feedback for correct answers, and does not accept errors as thecorrect answer. Hubbard (1987) indicated the Behaviorist approach to CALL as one that presentsvocabulary and structure appropriate to the learner’s level through pattern reinforcement.It intends to keep the learner’s attention to the task and provides sufficient material formastery and over-learning to occur. Chiquito, Meskill and Renjilian-Burgy (1997) furtherdescribed Behavioristic CALL as an attempt to “transfer existing foreign languagetextbooks to computer-based applications. Students could then essentially use thecomputer to turn pages of the textbook, fill in the blanks in workbook drills, and choosemultiple choice answers to questions” (p. 72). Behavioristic CALL placed the computerin the role of electronic drill master (Backer, 1995), computer-as-tutor (Taylor, 1980) orcomputer-as-magister (Higgens, 1986), and the computer served as a vehicle fordelivering ESL instructional exercise materials to LEP students in this era.
  46. 46. 34 Based on the above contentions, a large number of CALL tutoring systems werecreated during this stage. One of the most sophisticated software programs was thePLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) System. The PLATOSystem that was invented by Donald Bitzer and his team in 1960 at the University ofIllinois included vocabulary drills, brief grammar explanations and drills, and translationtests at various intervals. It enabled students to learn interactively and control their ownlearning pace (Smith & Sherwood, 1976). Until today, many language educators stillbelieve that this kind of repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or evenessential to second language learning (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). In the 1970s and 80s, the second stage of CALL program development, theCommunicative CALL, was founded on the Communicative approach to teaching. In thisstage, linguistic educators felt that the drill-and-practice programs of the previous decadedid not allow enough authentic communication to be of much value. They furtheradvocated that “all CALL courseware and activities should build on intrinsic motivationand should foster interactivity—both learner-computer and learner-learner” (Stevens,1989, p. 31). Krashen’s language acquisition theory (1982) claimed that language is acquiredthrough language input so that language acquisition and language learning are twocompletely separate processes; along with a growth in socio-linguistics, that also led to agreater focus on the role of meaning and communication in language learning. The typesof computer programs using a Communicative approach might still include those of thedrill and practice type. The difference between Communicative CALL and BehavioristicCALL is that students can make choices, manipulate controls, and conduct interactions
  47. 47. 35by themselves and play a more important, involved role within their own CALL programlearning processes (Warschauer, 1996). John Underwood, a main advocate of this new approach, proposed a series of“Premises for Communicative CALL” in 1984. He developed a comprehensive set ofprinciples for Communicative CALL. He argued that such an approach to languageteaching: (a) focuses on communication rather than on the form and avoids drill; (b) teaches grammar implicitly through the lesson rather than explicitly; (c) allows and encourages the student to generate original utterances rather than merely manipulate prefabricated language; (d) does not judge or evaluate everything the student does; (e) avoids telling students they are wrong; (f) does not reward students with congratulatory messages, lights, bells whistles: success is sufficient reward; (g) does not try to be "cute;” (h) uses the target language exclusively; (i) is flexible and avoids having only one response; (j) allows the student to explore the subject matter by providing an environment in which to play with language or manipulate it; (k) creates an environment in which using the target language feels natural; (l) does not try to do anything that a book could do just as well; (m) is fun, attractive, optional, supplementary: students explore, experiment and learn without being evaluated (Underwood, 1984, p. 33).
  48. 48. 36 Fortunately, the functions of computers had developed during this time and hadbecome powerful enough to meet the requirement of Communicative CALL. Theappearance of e-mail, media software, and on-line discussion boards support the claimsof Communicative CALL. In this period, computers played the role of individual learningtutor and became a stimulus and a communicative tool (Levy, 1997). The purpose of thecommunicative CALL activity is not so much to have students discover the right answer,but rather to stimulate students’ discussion, writing, or critical thinking. The dividing linebetween Behavioristic and Communicative CALL involves not only which software isused, but also how the software is put to use by the teacher and students (Warschauer,1996). This second phase of CALL does not distinguish itself totally from the first phase.Instead, it serves as more of a bridge to what could be referred to as the third phase ofCALL. The last stage of CALL program development, Integrative CALL, is the maturestage. In the 1990s, language educators moved away from a cognitive view ofcommunicative language teaching to a socio-cognitive view that emphasizes reallanguage use in a meaningful and authentic context. They started to claim that there is areal world to be experienced, yet the meaning and comprehension of that world isindividualized, and the individual language learners should impress their ownunderstanding on that world (Reiser & Dempsey, 2002). This version of CALL offers awealth of authentic language material that requires a combination of skills, such asreading, writing, listening and speaking. In this integrative CALL, the students learn touse a variety of technological tools in language learning and language use. Instead ofbeing passive recipients of knowledge, students are challenged to construct their own
  49. 49. 37knowledge with guidance from a teacher (Warschauer, 2004). Integrative CALL seeks both to integrate the various skills of language learningand to integrate technology more fully into language teaching (Warschauer & Healey,1998). The multimedia-networked computer provides a range of informational,communicative, and publishing tools that can potentially be available to every languagestudent. Warschauer (1966) indicated that two important elements make up theIntegrative CALL together: One is the multimedia computer, the other is the Internet.These elements have already emerged with the potential to make an enormous impact onlanguage teaching. The ability of multimedia to integrate high quality video and audio with texts andlanguage exercises can provide an environment that is more language-rich than anyprevious technology, and one which can be controlled by the learner. Multimediacomputers allow for a variety of media to be accessed on a single machine, includingtexts, graphics, sound, animation, and video. The use of multimedia enables a student toread, listen, and view through a single program. The Internet can break down the walls ofthe classroom and give access to diverse sources of information and opportunities forgenuine communication. Warschauer further observed that since the advent of localnetworks and the Internet in the early 1990s, the use of computers for authenticcommunication has become widespread in language learning and teaching. Web browsingand authoring, discussion boards, e-mail, and chat rooms are now widely used inlanguage classrooms, and the computer tends to function as a “messenger”communicating information to and from the learners.
  50. 50. 38 To briefly summarize, if the mainframe was the technology of BehavioristicCALL, and the personal computer (PC) was the technology of Communicative CALL,the multimedia networked computer is the technology of Integrative CALL (Warschauer& Healey, 1998). In other words, the development tracks of CALL programs range fromfocusing on individual exercise, to communicating with each other, to combining theadvantages of Behavioristic CALL and Communicative CALL together. Today’s CALLprograms serve as platforms that hold both individual learning and social process ofstudying.Advantages and Disadvantages of CALL Programs for LEP students In the second language acquisition domain, Perrett (1995) indicated that if secondlanguage learners are provided with the opportunities to use language and learningstrategies, and some training or explanation in their application, they can develop theirown learning strategies through exposure to and experience in the second language.Explaining the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs to ESL teachers andLEP students seems to be necessary and useful. Only with careful guidance can ESLteachers and LEP students realize the benefits of current computer technology for secondlanguage acquisition. ESL teachers and LEP students are then able to apply computertechnology appropriately and join those already engaged in computer assisted languagelearning. Certain educators (Jonassen, 1996; Rost, 2002; Salaberry, 1999) indicate thatcurrent computer technology has many advantages for second-language learning.Computer and CALL programs could provide LEP students more independence fromESL classrooms and allow LEP students the opportunity to work on their learning
  51. 51. 39material at any time of the day. Once implemented, it can be expected that the cost forcomputer technology is considerably lower than for face-to-face classroom teaching.When used in conjunction with traditional ESL classroom study, LEP students can studymore independently, leaving the ESL teacher more time to concentrate efforts on thoseparts of second language teaching that are still difficult or impossible to teach using thecomputer, such as pronunciation, work on spoken dialogue, training for essay writing,dictation, and presentation. Lee (2000) further claimed that the reasons ESL teachers and LEP students shouldapply computer technology in ESL instruction include computer and CALL programsthat can: (a) prove practices for students through the experiential learning; (b) offer students more the learning motivation; (c) enhance student achievement; (d) increase authentic materials for study; (e) encourage greater interaction between teachers and students and between students and peers; (f) emphasize the individual needs; (g) regard independence from a single source of information; and (h) enlarge global understanding. Taylor (1980) further expressed the view that computer and CALL programs canbe wonderful stimuli for ESL learning. For example, CALL programs can provide anumber of fun games and communicative activities, reduce the learning stresses andanxieties, and provide repeated lessons as often as necessary for LEP students. These
  52. 52. 40abilities will promote LEP students’ learning motivation. In addition, computertechnology and CALL programs can help LEP students strengthen their linguistic skills,affect their learning attitudes, and build their self-instruction strategies andself-confidence through various communicative and interactive activities. According toan observation by Robertson et al. (1987), the participants who joined CALL programsalso had significantly higher self-esteem ratings than regular second-language students. With the advanced development of computer technology, today’s computers canalready capture, analyze, and present data on a LEP student’s performance during his orher learning process. Observing and monitoring a student’s learning progress are veryimportant because when ESL teachers attempt to assess a LEP student’s progress, theycan obtain essential information about the student’s learning problems and then try tooffer feedback tailored to the student’s learning needs (Taylor & Gitsaki, 2003). CALLprograms and the Internet can provide interdisciplinary and multicultural learningopportunities for LEP students to carry out their independent studies. For example, LEPstudents can get various authentic reading materials either at school or from home byconnecting to the Internet, and those materials can be accessed 24 hours a day (Brandl,2002). With regard to learning interaction, Warschauer (2004) indicated that randomaccess to Web pages would break the linear flow of instruction. By sending E-mail andjoining newsgroups, LEP students can communicate with people they have never metbefore and interact with their own teachers or classmates. Shy or inhibited learners cangreatly benefit from the individualized technology-learning environment. Studiouslearners can benefit because they are able to proceed at their own pace to achieve at

×