THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING

PROGRAMS FOR ENHANCING ENGLISH LEARNING AMONG STUDENTS OF

     ...
Copyright by

CHENG-CHIEH LAI

  December 2008

All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT


  The Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Language Learning Programs for Enhancing

            English Learning...
disadvantages of CALL programs, the roles of CALL programs, and the expectations of

future CALL programs from both studen...
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

       I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. David E.

Herrington, whose exp...
TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                       ...
ESL Instructional Types in the United States .......................................20

                  ESL Education fo...
Instrumentation ...............................................................................................86

       ...
Research Question One........................................................................145

                    Rese...
LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                                 Page

1       Descri...
10.2   LSD Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM
       in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale ………… …….………………….…...
Figure                                                                                   Page

1        Composition of Par...
CHAPTER I

                                    INTRODUCTION


       The increasing number of non-English or limited Engli...
2

       Davies (2002) defined CALL programs as an approach to language teaching and

learning where the computer is used...
3

presentation software, email packages, and Web browsers; the other type is software

applications designed specifically...
4

LEP students’ ages, genders, and previous technology experiences may also sway their

attitudes and expectations of CAL...
5

left in CALL? These questions are frequently raised in traditional language learning

environments (Lee, 2000; Resier &...
6

knowledge and skills that may increase the learning loads of LEP students. If LEP

students do not value CALL programs,...
7

additional research conducted from both LEP students’ and instructors’ perspectives will

be useful for ESL leaders and...
8

                                 Conceptual Framework

       The conceptual framework of the study was based on the Te...
9

easy to use will determine the effectiveness of CALL programs directly. Based on this

concept, the TAM was adopted as ...
10

                                   Research Questions

       The research questions guiding the study were:

Quantita...
11

     TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among different age groups.

Ho4: There is no statistically significant difference in ...
12

                                Significance of the Study

       The roles and responsibilities of educational leader...
13

                                 Limitations of the Study

       The first limitation of the study is the way in whic...
14

reinforcement and assessment of the learning material (Davies, 2002).

Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)--Computer-a...
15

Technology Acceptance Model--Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an information

systems theory that models how users...
CHAPTER II

                               REVIEW OF LITERATURE


                                         Overview

     ...
17

educational technology leadership for integrating CALL programs into ESL education are

reviewed. The third section re...
18

acquiring enough basic English abilities and basic American social skills to survive in

their new society. On the oth...
19

English at home rose from 14% in 1990 to more than 19% (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005).

Since more than 23 million indivi...
20

and trained ESL educators and specialists working in public schools based on guidelines

issued by the federal governm...
21

decreases as students become more proficient in English. This ESL model is often used

either at the elementary or sec...
22

5. Sheltered English Immersion Program

       A Sheltered English Immersion Program is an instructional approach used...
23

Stewner-Manzanares, 1985).

        All of the above models are commonly used in current ESL education in the

United ...
24

with 1,591,525, followed by Texas (684,007), Florida (299,346), New York (203,583),

Illinois (192,764), and Arizona (...
25

       On the other hand, CALP -- referred to as school language, academic language, or

the language of academic deco...
26

this transition stage because ESL instruction can serve as a short-term transitional bridge

to mainstream English cou...
27

       As noted by August and Hakuta (1997), LEP students are at a higher risk than

most other students to fail in sc...
28

       ESL programs have become the fastest growing segment in federally funded adult

education programs in past deca...
29

the barriers for LEP adults to participate in ESL programs included limited time, money,

childcare, and transportatio...
30

Well-designed ESL programs can effectively counteract these risks by teaching

immigrant adults English while helping ...
31

             The Relationship between CALL Programs and ESL Education

       When the first computer was invented in ...
32

       Today’s computer has become much more than a tutor, a stimulative or a tool for

developing LEP students’ langu...
33

       The first stage of CALL program development—Behavioristic CALL, conceived

in the 1950s and implemented in the ...
34

       Based on the above contentions, a large number of CALL tutoring systems were

created during this stage. One of...
35

by themselves and play a more important, involved role within their own CALL program

learning processes (Warschauer, ...
36

        Fortunately, the functions of computers had developed during this time and had

become powerful enough to meet...
37

knowledge with guidance from a teacher (Warschauer, 2004).

       Integrative CALL seeks both to integrate the variou...
38

       To briefly summarize, if the mainframe was the technology of Behavioristic

CALL, and the personal computer (PC...
39

material at any time of the day. Once implemented, it can be expected that the cost for

computer technology is consid...
40

abilities will promote LEP students’ learning motivation. In addition, computer

technology and CALL programs can help...
41

higher levels. Many concepts and cognitions are abstract and difficult to express through

language and the language t...
42

unfair educational conditions for lower socio-economic schools and students. Expensive

hardware and software become l...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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

8,991 views

Published on

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

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

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
8,991
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
161
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR ENHANCING ENGLISH LEARNING AMONG STUDENTS OF LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY A Dissertation by CHENG-CHIEH LAI Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies Prairie View A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 2008 Major Subject: Educational Leadership
  2. 2. Copyright by CHENG-CHIEH LAI December 2008 All 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 the effectiveness of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) programs on English as a Second Language (ESL) education for diverse Limited English Proficiency (LEP) learners and instructors and to provide the results as a reference to educational leaders and administrators who are considering the use of ESL for their English instruction programs. A combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was utilized to collect and analyze data. A questionnaire modified from Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model theory (1989) was used to collect the quantitative data. The sample of the quantitative study consisted of 329 LEP students taking ESL courses and CALL programs in college level schools or adult educational institutions in the Houston area of Texas during the summer semester of 2008. Descriptive statistics and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine the influence of ESL students’ individual backgrounds on their perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs. Qualitative interviews and observations were conducted to identify the advantages and iii
  4. 4. disadvantages of CALL programs, the roles of CALL programs, and the expectations of future CALL programs from both students’ and instructors’ viewpoints. The qualitative interviews included seven ESL instructors and thirteen LEP students. The findings of the study indicate that the student’s native language and age may be regarded as factors that influenced the student’s perceived “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of CALL programs. The advantages of current CALL programs not only provide instructors and students more teaching and learning resources, but also vary their teaching and learning methods. Through the qualitative interviews, the roles of CALL programs are varied in each instructor’s and student’s opinions. Different instructors and students have reasons to use CALL programs in different area, as a tool, a tutor, and a tutee to meet their individual needs. Price, artificial intelligence, and ease of use are three major concerns of future CALL programs by ESL instructors and LEP students. The study is significant in that it provides valuable data for educational leaders and administrators that may use in determining the extent to which technology investments are effective within specific populations of English language learners. The assessment results can also be used to recommend changes in technology utilization and software applications so that CALL programs can be updated and improved. iv
  5. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. David E. Herrington, whose expertise, understanding, and patience, added considerably to my graduate experience. I appreciate his vast knowledge and skill in many areas and his assistance. I would like to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Pamela Barber- Freeman, Dr. Williams A. Kritsonis, Dr. Tyrone Tanner, and Dr. Camille Gibson for the assistance they provided at all levels of the research project. Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents, my young brother, and my friends Julie Williams and Dr. Kuo for their supports. v
  6. 6. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ vi LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES..............................................................................x CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1 Introduction........................................................................................................1 Background of the Problem ...............................................................................4 Statement of the Problem...................................................................................6 Purpose of the Study .........................................................................................7 Conceptual Framework .....................................................................................8 Research Questions .........................................................................................10 Null Hypotheses ..............................................................................................10 Significance of the Study ................................................................................12 Assumptions ....................................................................................................12 Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................13 Definition of Terms .........................................................................................13 Organization of the Study ................................................................................15 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................16 Overview .........................................................................................................16 The Relationship between ESL Learners and ESL Programs ........................17 ESL Population and ESL Policy ...........................................................18 vi
  7. 7. ESL Instructional Types in the United States .......................................20 ESL Education for ESL Children .........................................................23 ESL Education for ESL Adults .............................................................27 The Relationship between CALL Programs and ESL Education ...................31 Historical Development of CALL Programs for ESL Education .........32 Advantages and Disadvantages of CALL Programs for ESL Learners ...................................................................................38 Roles of CALL Programs in ESL Classrooms .....................................43 Technology Leadership for Integrating Technology in ESL Education ..................................................................................48 The Relationship between ESL learners’ Backgrounds, ESL, and Technology Learning ..........................................................................................................59 Native Languages ..................................................................................61 Genders .................................................................................................66 Ages ......................................................................................................70 Previous Educational Backgrounds ......................................................73 Summary .........................................................................................................77 CHAPTER III. METHOD ..........................................................................................78 Research Questions..........................................................................................78 Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................79 Research Method .............................................................................................81 Research Design...............................................................................................83 Subjects of the Study .......................................................................................85 vii
  8. 8. Instrumentation ...............................................................................................86 Validity ............................................................................................................88 Reliability.........................................................................................................89 Procedures........................................................................................................90 Data Collection and Recording .......................................................................91 Confidentiality .................................................................................................92 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................92 Summary .........................................................................................................93 CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .....................................................................95 Research Questions..........................................................................................95 Quantitative Research Data Analysis...............................................................96 Characteristics of the Quantitative Research Sample ...........................96 Research Question One .......................................................................102 Research Question Two ......................................................................113 Qualitative Research Data Analysis...............................................................121 Characteristics of the Qualitative Research Sample ...........................121 Research Question Three ....................................................................122 Research Question Four ......................................................................129 Research Question Five ......................................................................135 Summary .......................................................................................................139 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDTIONS ......141 Summary ........................................................................................................142 Demographic Data ...............................................................................143 viii
  9. 9. Research Question One........................................................................145 Research Question Two .......................................................................150 Research Question Three .....................................................................154 Research Question Four.......................................................................156 Research Question Five .......................................................................157 Conclusions....................................................................................................159 Contributions to the Literature.......................................................................162 Recommendations..........................................................................................162 Recommendations for Educational Leaders and Administrators.........162 Recommendations for Second Language Instructors ..........................164 Recommendations for Second Language Learners..............................165 Recommendations for Further Study .............................................................165 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................168 APPENDIXES ...........................................................................................................198 Appendix A Survey Instruments....................................................................199 Appendix B Interview Questions...................................................................221 Appendix C Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval .............................223 Appendix D Permission Letters .....................................................................225 Appendix E Translation Certificate ...............................................................229 VITA ..........................................................................................................................231 ix
  10. 10. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by School ........................97 2 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by School and Age Group ………………………………………………………….................98 3 Descriptive Statistics for Participative Sample by Native Language Group……………………………………………………….....................100 4 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by School Location and Previous Educational Level………………………………………….......101 5 Descriptive Statistics for Sample Population by Previous Technology Experiences………………………………………………………………102 6 Means of Six Statements for ESL Participants Perceived “Usefulness” of CALL Programs for English Learning ……………………………….104 7 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for ESL Students Perceive “Usefulness” of CALL Programs for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL …………………………………………………………..105 8 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Native Language Groups on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……….…………………........106 8.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …………….....................106 9 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between means of ESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale………………………………………..........................................108 10 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Age Groups on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……………………….……………………109 10.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …….…………………………….109 x
  11. 11. 10.2 LSD Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale ………… …….………………….…….111 11 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Educational Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …….…………………………….112 12 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …….……………….…….113 13 Means of Six Statements Contributing to ESL Participants Perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL Programs for English Learning……...................114 13.1 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for ESL Students Perceive “Ease of Use” of CALL Programs for Enhancing English Learning as Measure by TAM in CALL……………………………………....................................115 14 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Native Language on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……………………………….................116 14.1 Scheffe Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Native Language Groups and the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale….………….………… 117 15 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between Means of ESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……………………………………..….........................................118 16 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Age Groups on the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale……………………….………………… 119 17 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……..….………………… 120 18 One-way ANOVA to Test the Statistical Significance of Differences between and among Group Means of ESL Technology Experience Level on the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale……….………………… 120 19 Frequency of Advantages of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning ……………………………………..……………………………125 xi
  12. 12. Figure Page 1 Composition of Participative Sample by Age Group ............................... 98 2 Composition of Participative Sample by Gender.......................................99 3 Composition of Participative Sample by Previous Educational Level......101 4 Frequency of Disadvantages of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning……………………………………………………….................129 5 Frequency of the Best Roles of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and Learning………………………………………………………………….132 6 Frequency of English Skills Can Be Improved Effectively When Using CALL Programs for ESL Learning………………………………………137 xii
  13. 13. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The increasing number of non-English or limited English speaking persons in the United States makes it critical that educational leaders and school administrators assist these persons to acquire English skills toward developing fully functioning members of the society. Educational programs that focus on the teaching of English to Limited English Proficiency (LEP) individuals employ a variety of methods including both traditional and non-traditional approaches. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is an area within applied linguistics and second language acquisition. It includes all kinds of language learning activities utilizing computer technology for assisting the learning process. With the increased advancement of computer technology, CALL has been regarded as an important solution to the problem of assisting in the delivery of quality English as a Second Language (ESL) pedagogy (Egbert, 2005). A Nation at Risk, published in 1983, recommended computer literacy as one of the five “new basics” to schooling, and The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994) offered a national vision and strategy to infuse technology and technology planning into all educational programs. Since then, schools with LEP students have begun to value the significance of educational technology and CALL programs and have made dramatic improvements in their technological capability and infrastructure (Dickard, 2003). Although the U.S. Congress has spent billions of dollars to help schools increase access to online learning opportunities and the computer has now become increasingly commonplace in ESL classrooms, research on the effectiveness of using CALL programs in ESL instruction has lagged behind technology’s growth. 1
  14. 14. 2 Davies (2002) defined CALL programs as an approach to language teaching and learning where the computer is used to assist the presentation, reinforcement and assessment of the learning material. The purpose of CALL programs is to offer language learners resources and experiences that will provide instruction and practice to their target language, as well as cultural information necessary to develop a full understanding of the language they are studying (Stroud, 1998). The origins of CALL programs can be traced back to the 1960s where they were confined mainly to universities’ large mainframe computers. The famous PLATO (Programmed Logic Automated Teaching Operations) project was initiated at the University of Illinois during this period. The PLATO project used custom software running on Control Data Corporation equipment to serve thousands of remote terminals simultaneously. It established an important landmark in the early development of CALL programs (Marty, 1981). After the late 1970s, the arrival of the personal computer (PC) brought computing within reach of a wider audience and resulted in a virtual boom in the development of CALL programs. Over the past 30 years, the historical development of CALL programs can be roughly categorized in three stages: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL, and Integrative CALL. Each stage corresponds to a certain level of technology and a certain linguistic pedagogical approach (Waschauer, 1996). CALL programs encompass several different applications in language acquisition teaching and learning. These applications can be categorized into two distinct types: one involves the use of general software applications such as word processors, text analysis,
  15. 15. 3 presentation software, email packages, and Web browsers; the other type is software applications designed specifically to promote language learning. CALL programs are effective with a variety of LEP students and give them a number of advantages, such as ease and flexibility of use, control over pacing and sequencing of learning, individualization, privacy, and immediate feedback (Askov, Maclay, & Meenan, 1987; Kulik, Kulik, & Shwalb, 1986). Other researchers also supported this statement and indicated that the use of CALL programs has a positive effect on the achievement levels of LEP students (Arnold & Ducate, 2005; Egbert, Paulus, & Nakamichi, 2002; Fotos & Browne, 2003). Although CALL programs seem to have many benefits for ESL instruction, several questions exist regarding their practical application. As pointed out by Garrett (1991), “the use of the computer does not constitute a method. Rather, it is a medium in which a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented” (p. 75). No matter what impressive functions CALL programs have, they are a mere medium of language instruction and learning. The effectiveness of CALL programs depends on how they are put to use. CALL programs need support from educational leaders, school administrators, and ESL instructors to guide students in using computer technologies in the most effective way. Students’ personal backgrounds and their learning attitudes may play a vital role in the success of CALL programs. LEP students have distinct characteristics and different needs in their learning processes. Students are typically new to American culture, as well as to its language. Their cultural backgrounds and previous educational attainment may influence their English learning progress (Rice & Stavrianos, 1995). On the other hand,
  16. 16. 4 LEP students’ ages, genders, and previous technology experiences may also sway their attitudes and expectations of CALL programs in their English learning (McGroarty, 1993). Each of these individual factors should be considered when educational leaders and administrators engage in CALL program design, instructional practice, and assessment. The application of CALL programs in ESL pedagogy is a new approach compared with traditional ESL instruction, and some functions of CALL programs are still under intense debate among researchers and learners (Salaberry, 1999). Instructional technology has now become critical in supporting 21st century learning environments. Appropriate technology use can be very beneficial in increasing educational productivity (Byrom & Bingham, 2001; Clements & Sarama, 2003). In helping students benefit from the rapidly evolving development of computer technology, educational leaders and school administrators must not only evaluate and supervise the effectiveness of CALL programs, but also provide informed, creative, and transformative leadership to integrate this technological change into ESL education. Background of the Problem With the escalating worldwide development of computer technology, CALL programs have become part of the fabric of current ESL educational practice (Samuel, 2005). Educators and researchers are still discussing how to apply CALL programs to ESL education system and debating the following questions: What kind of role should CALL programs play in current ESL instruction? How effective are CALL programs? How worthwhile is it to spend time and money on them? Can they replace the existing pedagogy? How might they change the role of teachers? Is there any untapped potential
  17. 17. 5 left in CALL? These questions are frequently raised in traditional language learning environments (Lee, 2000; Resier & Dempsey 2002; & Roblyer, 2003). People hope to benefit from effective learning methods through the computer technology, but they also doubt its potential. It is the responsibility of educational leaders and school administrators to address these concerns. Each school expends large amounts of funds to provide technology training for teachers. National and state standards require teachers to integrate technology into their teaching (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2001). Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2002 showed that only 27% of in-service teachers felt confident enough to prepare and integrate educational technology into their courses, and only 45% of teachers often used computer-learning programs to enhance their teaching (NCES, 2004). These data may provide an explanation of the attitudes held by some instructors who still resist adoption of computer technology in classrooms. The infusion of computer technology into educational learning activities is still not as well developed as would be desired. Educational leaders and school administrators must assess the reasons that lead to the phenomenon of technology resistance. Such knowledge could assist instructors in overcoming their fears and low skill levels. Finally, diverse LEP students have different needs and preferred learning methods in their English learning processes. Although educators (Roberts, 2004; Warschauer, 2001) asserted that CALL programs can be a motivating tool that enhances LEP students’ learning interest, CALL programs are intended to make learning more effective rather than easier. In utilizing CALL programs in learning, students must learn basic technology
  18. 18. 6 knowledge and skills that may increase the learning loads of LEP students. If LEP students do not value CALL programs, or reject using the computer altogether, CALL programs become irrelevant. Statement of the Problem Each year more than 1.8 million immigrants arrive in the United States, but 60% of recent arrivals had limited English proficiency (Camarota, 2005). This situation has been a powerful force shaping the United States’ population and ethnic composition. It has brought a number of unpredicted impacts on the American culture, economy, and education system. To solve this crisis, educational leaders and school administrators began to pay attention to CALL programs and regard them as an effective remedy to the problem of assisting non-English immigrants in acquiring English skills. Pervious research findings indicated that CALL programs can increase the efficacy of English learning, enhance self-directed learning, and provide a meaningful practice environment for LEP students (Beauvious, 1998; Cunningham, 1998). LEP students often come from different countries and have diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds; their genders, ages, educational levels, and previous technology experiences are dissimilar. Whether all LEP students can accept this technological pedagogy and gain the learning benefits from CALL programs based on their varying backgrounds will be a significant issue for educational leaders, school administrators, and ESL educators. In addition, debate continues regarding the role that computers play in the ESL classrooms. Students’ and instructors’ expectations of CALL programs in their linguistic teaching and learning may result in different outcomes. To get the best results from CALL programs and determine their effectiveness in current ESL programs,
  19. 19. 7 additional research conducted from both LEP students’ and instructors’ perspectives will be useful for ESL leaders and educators in improving ESL pedagogy. This study’s focus is the general application of CALL programs in the Houston area of Texas. Different factors contributing to the level of computer technology acceptance of ELL students from diverse personal backgrounds were investigated. The study further explored the expectations of instructors and learners regarding the role of modern technology in their ESL classrooms. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of CALL programs on ESL education for diverse English language learners and instructors and to provide the results as a reference to educational leaders and administrators who are considering the use of ESL for their English instruction programs. Four factors were examined and explored in the study: 1. The relationship between LEP students’ personal backgrounds and their perceptions of learning English with CALL programs. 2. The strengths and limitations of CALL programs that are used to support LEP students. 3. The role of CALL programs in ESL learning environments and their relationship with ESL instructors and LEP students. 4. The expectations of ESL instructors and LEP students regarding future CALL programs development.
  20. 20. 8 Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework of the study was based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and the Theory of Customer Value (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996). According to Davis, the TAM is an information system theory that models how users come to accept and use new technology. It asserts that when users are presented with a new software package, two major psychological perceptions may influence their attitudes and behavioral intentions toward accepting, valuing, and using the software package: one is “Perceived Usefulness” (PU), and the other is “Perceived Ease-of-Use” (PEOU). Davis defined PU as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance”, and PEOU is “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort” (p.320). Davis further indicated that perceived usefulness was significantly correlated with self-reported current usage and self-predicted future usage, and perceived ease of use was also significantly correlated with current usage and future usage. Abundant empirical studies in user technology acceptance literature (Pavlou, 2003; Shih, 2004; Wang, Hsu, & Fang, 2005) have also shown that PU and PEOU can predict a user’s acceptance and actual usage of a technology system. Knowing the determinants of these predictors can have strong implications for ESL leaders, CALL designers, and trainers, enabling them to better strategize their resources and emphases. No matter how schools spend money on their technology infrastructure and how educators declare that CALL programs are conducive to ESL pedagogy, students’ learning perceptions as to whether CALL programs are useful or
  21. 21. 9 easy to use will determine the effectiveness of CALL programs directly. Based on this concept, the TAM was adopted as a model for investigating LEP students’ perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use of CALL programs for their English learning in the quantitative part of the study. On the other hand, the software of CALL programs is still a commercial product. No matter how many functions CALL software has, it must satisfy the needs of users. According to the Theory of Customer Value which was built by Woodruff and Gardial in 1996, they claimed that customer value includes not only examining the attributes of the product and results after using, but further exploring the real needs and wants of the customers. In examining the effectiveness of CALL programs and improving CALL programs in the future, communicating with LEP students and instructors about their values concerning CALL programs is needed because communication with customers is the key in influencing users’ decisions of why, when, and what to buy, and use of the products (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996). As Woodruff and Gardial noted, measuring customer value is rooted in the use of qualitative data-gathering techniques. The aim of the study was to use the Theory of Customer Value as the conceptual framework in the qualitative part of the study. Interviews were conducted to understand the viewpoints of perceived advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs, the roles and functions of CALL programs in ESL education, and the expectations of future CALL programs from both LEP students and instructors.
  22. 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 digital technology age. This study was conducted to ascertain what CALL attributes affect ESL instruction and discuss how educational leaders integrate CALL programs to improve ESL teaching and learning. The study investigated the roles and functions of CALL programs in ESL pedagogies for ESL instructors and students. Results of the study may encourage ESL instructors to adopt CALL programs as a viable educational alternative and inspire LEP students to promote their language abilities through the application of CALL programs. The study examined LEP students’ perceptions of “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” of learning English with CALL programs. Results of the study may provide educational leaders and ESL program administrators a view of the problems associated with current uses of technology in ESL education so they can improve future ESL instruction and CALL programs. Assumptions The following assumptions were made: 1. The quality of responses to inquiry questions is dependent on the honesty and sincerity of the respondents. 2. The interpretation of the data collected accurately reflects the intentions of the subjects providing the data.
  25. 25. 13 Limitations of the Study The first limitation of the study is the way in which the survey was constructed. It is possible that the survey created by the researcher did not include all measures associated with good instructional practices. If this occurs, the results may be influenced. The second limitation of the study is that the accuracy of the data may not hold true when new technologies and CALL programs are developed. The data gathered for this study represent the opinions, expertise, and experience of respondents during a specific period in time. The ability of computers continues to evolve rapidly. The third limitation of the study is that the research area only focused on the use of CALL programs in the English language learning environment. CALL programs have been developed and used in different language learning categories for decades. The results of the study may not be applied to other second language learning environments. The fourth limitation of the study is the research was limited to a population of students and instructors in ESL education with CALL programs of the Houston area of Texas during the summer semester of 2008. The population was further reduced by the fact that not all institutions of ESL programs could have been sampled. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in order to present a consistent and standardized approach for interpretation of terms used in the study: Attitude--Attitude is a summary construct that represents an individual’s overall feelings toward or evaluation of an object (Bohner & Wanke, 2002). Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)--An approach to language teaching and learning, where the computer and the Internet is used to assist the presentation,
  26. 26. 14 reinforcement and assessment of the learning material (Davies, 2002). Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)--Computer-assisted instruction is an instructional method that incorporates the use of computers into an overall teaching strategy; it is an interactive instructional technique in which a computer is used to present instructional material, monitor learning, and select additional instructional material in accordance with individual learner needs (Turner, 1990). Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Learner--The federal definition of LEP learner is one whose native language is a language other than English; who comes from a region where English is not dominant; or whose difficulty using English reduces his or her ability to learn in U.S. classrooms or participate fully in society. Other terms commonly found in the literature include language minority students, limited English proficient (LEP), English as a second language (ESL), and culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) (Batalova, 2006). English as Second Language (ESL) program--A program of techniques, methodology and special curriculum designed to teach LEP students English language skills, which may include listening, speaking, reading, writing, study skills, content vocabulary, and cultural orientation. ESL instruction is usually in English with little use of native language (U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1992). Language proficiency--Refers to the degree to which the student exhibits control over the use of language, including the measurement of expressive and receptive language skills in the areas of phonology, syntax, vocabulary, and semantics and including the areas of pragmatics or language use within various domains or social circumstances (U. S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2007).
  27. 27. 15 Technology Acceptance Model--Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an information systems theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. The model suggests that when users are presented with a new software package, a number of factors influence their decision about how and when they will use it (Adams, Nelson, & Todd, 1992). Organization of the Study The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter I contains an introduction, background of the problem, statement of the problem, research questions, purpose of the study, conceptual framework, significance of the study, assumptions, delimitations and limitations, and definition of terms. Chapter II provides a review of related literature in support of the research study. The methods for the study, which includes the research design, population and samples, instrumentation, and the collection of data are described in Chapter III. Chapter IV presents the findings of the study in relation to the research questions. A summary of the study with conclusions and recommendations for further study is in Chapter V.
  28. 28. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Overview Language learning in the 21st Century presents both unparalleled opportunities and extraordinary challenges, many of which are the direct result of computer technology (Ostendorf, Shriberg, & Stolcke, 2005). Educational leaders and administrators must be aware of these new constraints and opportunities and develop applicable leadership to deal with this digital change (Carmen & Haefner, 2002). There are now more than 35 million immigrants, both legal and illegal, living in the United States, including over 20 million who speak English less than “very well” (U. S. Census Bureau, 2000). Determining the effectiveness of CALL programs and then redesigning more appropriate ESL curricula to help LEP students achieve proficiency in English is an inevitable responsibility of educational leaders and administrators in this digital age. The focus of this literature review is on the interrelationship among LEP students, ESL education, and CALL programs. Three sections are presented in this chapter. The first section explores the relationship between LEP students and ESL instruction. This section describes the change of the LEP population and recent changes to ESL policies within the American education community. It provides an introduction about popular types of ESL instruction in the United States, and discusses the benefits of ESL education for LEP children and adults. The second section refers to the relationship between computer technologies and ESL education. The historical development of CALL programs with ESL pedagogy, the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs for LEP students, the roles of CALL programs in ESL classrooms, and methods for applying 16
  29. 29. 17 educational technology leadership for integrating CALL programs into ESL education are reviewed. The third section reports the relationship between LEP students’ backgrounds, second language acquisition, and learning through technology. LEP students’ native languages, ages, genders, and prior education levels are presented as factors that may influence LEP students’ English language and technology learning processes based on previous studies. The Relationship between LEP students and ESL Programs The United States is the third most populous country in the world, with a population of 300 million. From the year 2000 to 2005, the total national population has grown by nearly three million people every year, and one-third of this growth is a result of immigration. Every 31 seconds a new immigrant enters this country with the intent to stay (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005). Immigration has been a powerful force shaping the United States’ population counts and ethnic composition. Although the issue of immigration has become a topic of concern in national discussions about the American society, a consistent point of agreement in the often-contentious debate over immigration is that learning English is essential for successful integration into American life (Gonzalez, 2007). There is a supply-demand relationship between immigrants and ESL instruction. As First (1988) pointed out, immigrants often enter the United States with cultural scripts modeled on the material and social environments of their homelands. “Their behavior norms stem from lives they are no longer living but cannot forget. To survive, they must integrate old scripts with their new environment” (p. 205). ESL education can supplies immigrants the opportunity to integrate their cultural scripts and previous knowledge for
  30. 30. 18 acquiring enough basic English abilities and basic American social skills to survive in their new society. On the other hand, the fast-growing immigrant population is causing increased demand for ESL instruction. For example, the New Haven Adult School in San Francisco used to conduct only four classes two times a day. Currently, the program offers nine classes in the morning, two in the afternoon, and nine at night for serving the growing ESL immigrant population (Tucker, 2006). LEP Population and ESL Policy According to Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994), the LEP student is one whose native language is a language other than English; who comes from a region where English is not dominant; who has sufficient difficulty in speaking, reading, writing or understanding the English language; or whose difficulties may deny such an individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English, or to participate fully in American society (U. S. House of Representatives, 1994). Over the last two decades, the United States has experienced a great influx of migrants, immigrants, refugees, and international students. Most of them are non-native English speakers and their English skills are not sufficient to deal with the demands of their daily lives. Data from the U. S. Census Bureau (2006) indicated that the foreign-born residents of the United States increased from 19.8 million in 1990 to 35.7 million in 2005. Additionally, the number of English Language Learners (ELLs) who were born in the United States has also increased from approximately one third of the LEP population in 1991-1992 (Fleischman & Hopstock, 1993) to 64% of the whole LEP population in 2006 (Batalova, 2006). The total percentage of Americans speaking a language other than
  31. 31. 19 English at home rose from 14% in 1990 to more than 19% (U. S. Census Bureau, 2005). Since more than 23 million individuals speak English less than “very well” and the LEP population continues to increase year after year, finding ways to meet the demands of ESL education to help this LEP population achieve English proficiency is an urgent issue. Providing ESL education for LEP students is the responsibility of every school district and educational leader. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) mandated that individuals in the United States could not be discriminated against based on race, color, or national origin in any program that receives federal funding. This law decreed that public schools could not deny the benefits of an education to students based on national origin, which was extended to English proficiency (Retzak, 2003). The United States Congress enacted the Equal Education Opportunities Act in 1974 that made explicit interpretations regarding what states and school districts must do to enable English language learners to participate meaningfully in educational programs (Hernandez, 1997). Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act (1994) further ruled that state education agencies and local school districts should put federal funds to good use implementing supplemental instructional programs for LEP students (U. S. Department of Education, 1994). Recently, The No Child Left Behind Act, passed in 2001, reiterated that LEP students’ language proficiency and academic achievement should be assessed in order to provide equal educational opportunities to LEP students. The law mandated an accountability system for ESL language and academic growth. To ensure that LEP students are being taught by appropriately qualified educators, educational authorities should establish and require unique credentialing procedures and programs for qualified
  32. 32. 20 and trained ESL educators and specialists working in public schools based on guidelines issued by the federal government (Abedi, 2004). ESL Instructional Types in the United States According to the New York City Department of Education (2007), the definition of ESL instruction is an academic discipline designed to allow LEP students to acquire English language proficiencies across the major skill areas of listening, speaking, reading, writing, and critical thinking in a systematic and spiraling fashion. It is also a focal point for the introduction and reinforcement of the concepts of cross-cultural or multicultural understanding and social responsibility. ESL instruction plays a major role in affording LEP students the opportunity to acquire the English proficiency and the academic, cognitive, and cultural knowledge they need to become active participants in society. Different LEP students have different needs for English learning based on their cultural and educational backgrounds. There are several different ESL program models designed and implemented for LEP students, and each specific model a school district adopts and implements may depend on the composition of the student population, individual student characteristics, district resources, and the community’s preferences. The following is a brief description of seven popular ESL programs in the Untied States: 1. Dual Language Immersion Program The Dual Language Immersion Program (or Bilingual Program) is a carefully planned instructional program where two languages are used in ESL classrooms, such as Spanish and English or Chinese and English. In this model, LEP students are instructed in academic subject areas in their native language while simultaneously being taught to speak, read, and write English. The amount of instruction delivered in the native language
  33. 33. 21 decreases as students become more proficient in English. This ESL model is often used either at the elementary or secondary level (Seelye & Navarro, 1977). 2. Content-Based English as a Second Language Program This approach makes use of instructional materials, learning tasks, and classroom techniques from academic content areas as the vehicle for developing language, content, cognitive, and study skills. English is used as the medium of instruction for LEP students in this model (U. S. Department of Education, 2007). 3. Newcomer Program The Newcomer Program is a separate, relatively self-contained educational intervention program designed to meet the academic and transitional needs of newly arrived students. This model offers intensive ESL instruction and an introduction to U. S. cultural and educational practices for a student initially identified as LEP to acquire the necessary skills for achieving academic success in an English-speaking world as quickly as possible (Friedlander, 1991). 4. Pull-Out Program This is a program model in which a paraprofessional or tutor pulls LEP students, often either a small group or single individuals, from the regular or mainstream classrooms for special instruction in English as a second language. Schools without a large LEP population often adopt this model to serve their LEP students who need remedial work in learning the English language (Baker, 2000).
  34. 34. 22 5. Sheltered English Immersion Program A Sheltered English Immersion Program is an instructional approach used to make academic instruction in English understandable to LEP students. This program model asks LEP students to study the same curriculum with their native English-speaking peers, and teachers employ ESL methods to make instruction comprehensible. In the sheltered classroom, teachers often use physical activities, visual aids, and the environment to teach vocabulary for concept development in mathematics, science, social studies, and other subjects (Chamot & Stewner-Manzanares, 1985). 6. Structured English Immersion Program The goal of this program is the acquisition of English language skills so that LEP students can succeed in the English-only mainstream classroom. Instruction is entirely in English. LEP students are thrown into the general education classroom and therefore immersed in English. Content area instruction is based on the notion of “comprehensible input,” in which the teacher uses only the vocabulary and structures that can be understood by students (Ramirez, 1986). 7. High Intensity Language Training Program The High Intensity Language Training Program is designed to provide the most productive language learning experience in the shortest possible time. In this ESL model, LEP students are grouped for a significant portion of the school day. Students receive intensive training in ESL, usually for three hours a day in the first year of instruction, less in succeeding years. Placement of students into regular classrooms is accomplished on a subject-by-subject basis and usually includes initial mainstreaming into linguistically undemanding classes such as music, physical education, and art (Chamot &
  35. 35. 23 Stewner-Manzanares, 1985). All of the above models are commonly used in current ESL education in the United States. Some models provide varying degrees of support in the LEP students’ native language, while others preserve and build upon the LEP students’ native language skills as they learn English. Although there may be reasons to claim the superiority of one ESL program model over another in certain situations, a variety of ESL programs can be effective. Indeed, different approaches are necessary because of the great diversity of conditions faced by schools and the varying experiences of LEP students with literacy and schooling in their first language (August & Hakuta, 1997). The best choice should be made at the local level after careful consideration of the needs of the LEP students involved and the resources available (Collier, 1992). No matter which model is used, the learning outcomes still depend on many other factors, such as LEP students’ personal backgrounds, the frequency of learning opportunities to speak English in the family and community, and whether or not a qualified ESL teacher instructs the class (Garcia, 1991). ESL Education for LEP Children Based on state reported data, the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA, 2006) indicated that more than 5.1 million LEP children were enrolled in public schools from pre-kindergarten to grade 12 for the 2004-2005 school year in the United States. The number represents approximately 10.5% of total public school student enrollment, and a 56.2% increase over the reported 1994–1995 total public school LEP student enrollment. Among the states, California enrolled the largest number of public school LEP students,
  36. 36. 24 with 1,591,525, followed by Texas (684,007), Florida (299,346), New York (203,583), Illinois (192,764), and Arizona (155,789). With the growing number of LEP students, determining how to help these students to overcome English language, academic English, and study skills problems is a challenge for all ESL leaders and teachers. The academic achievement of LEP students has long been a major national educational concern. LEP students often encounter a variety of difficulties in achieving academic success in schools. These difficulties may be related to language, educational background, socioeconomic status, psychological trauma, or any combination of these factors (Anstrom, 1997). To assist LEP students in gaining higher level academic achievement, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) suggested that before LEP students are able to achieve in the regular classroom, they should be able to use English as a tool for learning subject matter. Cummins (1996) further theorized that there are two kinds of English proficiency that LEP students must learn. The first is Basic Interpersonal Conversational Skills (BICS) and the other proficiency is Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). BICS is the kind of language used in face-to-face communication. It is language needed for social interaction. This is sometimes called playground language, everyday language, social language, or surface fluency (Cummins, 1996). BICS English is characterized as context-embedded because contextual cues are available to both speaker and listener involved in the conversation, and it is cognitively undemanding. LEP students can easily recount orally what happened to them personally without difficulty once they attain fluency. The ability of social language can usually be developed within the first two years of arrival in an English-speaking setting (Collier, 1995)
  37. 37. 25 On the other hand, CALP -- referred to as school language, academic language, or the language of academic decontextualized situations -- is the kind of language needed to learn new information, think in more abstract ways, and carry out more cognitively demanding communicative tasks required by the core curriculum (Cummins, 1996). This dimension of language is transferable across languages. Collier and Thomas (1989) indicated that the process of learning academic language requires much more time than needed to learn language for interacting on a social level with English speakers. Unlike BICS learning, CALP English used in context academic learning demands high cognition from LEP students. This language proficiency, necessary for learning academic content, is often a long-term undertaking and may require five to eight years or longer, depending on the age and prior educational background of the LEP student (Collier, 1995). ESL instruction provides LEP students with opportunities to develop their basic interpersonal communicative skills and to develop their cognitive academic language proficiency through the specially designed academic instruction in English (Cummins, 1996). Educators (Wang, 1996; Wright & Kuehn, 1998) agree that low proficiency in academic language will cause LEP students to fail their academic studies. LEP students can often become proficient in communication skills within a short time after their arrival in the United States, but their social language is still not adequate for academic learning. If an LEP student is too quickly mainstreamed into the regular classroom, he or she will inevitably encounter many difficulties understanding and completing schoolwork in the more cognitively demanding language needed for successful performance in academic subjects (Short & Spanos, 1989). ESL education is very important for LEP students in
  38. 38. 26 this transition stage because ESL instruction can serve as a short-term transitional bridge to mainstream English courses (Alanis, 2000). The transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledge from the first language to the second language is essential for LEP students. Hakuta (1990) stated that native language proficiency is a strong indicator of the second language development because the level of proficiency in the first language has a direct influence on the development of proficiency in the second language. The lack of continuing first language development will inhibit the levels of second language proficiency and cognitive academic growth. O’Malley and Chamot’s study (1990) of 64 Spanish and 34 Russian students showed that beginning- to intermediate-level LEP students often use transfer strategies in their English language learning. This means that the transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledge from the first language to the second language is a requisite learning process for LEP students. Collier (1995) stated that LEP students who are schooled in a second language for part or all of the school day typically do reasonably well in the early years of schooling, especially kindergarten through second or third grade. From fourth grade through middle school and high school, when the academic and cognitive demands of the curriculum increase rapidly with each succeeding year, students with little or no academic and cognitive development in their first language do less and less well as they move into the upper grades. On the contrary, students who have spent four to seven years in a quality ESL or bilingual program can get better academic achievement and can outperform monolingually schooled students in the upper grades (Thomas & Collier, 2002).
  39. 39. 27 As noted by August and Hakuta (1997), LEP students are at a higher risk than most other students to fail in schools. The average dropout rate for LEP students is four times the average dropout rate for normal students (Slavin & Madden, 1999). A report, Bilingual Education: Cause or Cure? released by the Texas Educational Excellence Project (TEEP, 2005) also pointed out that there is a link between education programs geared toward LEP students and Latino student dropout rates. As the number of LEP students served by either ESL or bilingual education programs increase, Latino dropout rates decrease. This means that high Latino dropout rates are at least, in part, a result of not addressing the language needs of certain students within the Latino student population. Taking this fact into consideration, it is extremely necessary for LEP students to have ESL education programs available to them. In order to effectively instruct LEP students, school leaders and educators must be equipped to respond to the sociocultural, cognitive, and linguistic needs of diverse LEP students and value the importance of ESL programs. ESL Education for LEP Adults According to the U. S. Census Bureau (2006), one in five working-age adults between 18 and 65 years old in the United States speak a language other than English at home. Cities such as Los Angeles and New York have roughly three-quarters and two-thirds of their respective immigrant adult populations identified as limited English proficiency (Capps, Fix, & Ku, 2002). Due to the high rates of immigration and because of the importance of helping these LEP immigrants, there is an increasing number of ESL classes and materials designed for LEP adults to promote English proficiency.
  40. 40. 28 ESL programs have become the fastest growing segment in federally funded adult education programs in past decades. The U. S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Division of Adult Education and Literacy (2005) indicated that a total of about 1.2 million (1,172,569) adults were enrolled in state-administered ESL or English Literacy programs during 2003-2004. Adult English language learners now account for at least one-half of the total adult education population. The reasons for LEP adults participating in adult ESL classes include wanting to: 1) learn English to communicate in their everyday lives; 2) become a citizen of the United States; 3) get a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED) certificate; 4) acquire skills needed to advance to higher education programs; 5) acquire skills to help their children succeed in school; and especially 6) get a job or pursue better employment (Skilton-Sylvester & Carlo, 1998). English speaking ability is crucial for LEP adults because it opens the door to jobs that yield family-sustaining wages and allows LEP adults to communicate with their neighbors, their children’s teachers, health care providers, and others with whom they must interact in their daily life. English skills are a prerequisite to passing the U. S. citizenship examination. An urban institute study conducted by Fix, Passel, and Kenneth (2003) found that 60% of legal immigrants who were eligible to become citizens but had not done so were limited English proficiency. LEP adults are hesitant to attend ESL classes for many reasons. LEP adults are trying to acquire a new language and a new culture. They are working, managing their households, and raising their children. These challenges often present significant obstacles to learning. The National Center for Education Statistics (1995) indicated that
  41. 41. 29 the barriers for LEP adults to participate in ESL programs included limited time, money, childcare, and transportation, and lack of knowledge about appropriate programs in their local area. The National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL, 2004) surveyed community leaders and educators in Washington communities with recent rapid growth in numbers of immigrant families and the respondents also identified similar challenges. Analysis of data from the U. S. Census Bureau (2000) revealed there is a positive relation between earnings and English language ability. The lower a person’s English literacy level, the more likely the individual is to be struggling economically, often living below the poverty line. About 62% of low-wage immigrant workers in America are LEP (U. S. Census Bureau, 2006). These adults with poor English skills are often unemployed or trapped in low-paying jobs that provide no benefits and offer little opportunity for promotion (Greenberg, Macias, Rhodes, & Chan, 2001). ESL Programs can help LEP adults to improve their English language skills and thereby reduce this economic disparity. Research conducted by Mora (2003) found that learning to speak English fluently results in a 76% jump in earnings for immigrants with more than twelve years of education, compared to a 4% increase for workers with fewer than eight years of education. Martinez and Wang (2005) emphasized that limited English proficiency places barriers not only against labor force participation and in regard to the community as a whole. Limited English proficiency may isolate immigrant families from the larger community, preventing them from interacting with American-born neighbors, engaging in civic life, and becoming integrated into their new community. Lack of English fluency will undermine parents’ ability to guide, protect, and educate their children.
  42. 42. 30 Well-designed ESL programs can effectively counteract these risks by teaching immigrant adults English while helping to bolster their children’s early language development and school readiness. Through ESL learning and training, parents can become their child’s first teacher by engaging in activities to improve literacy skills. Most LEP adults recognize the importance of good English skills to their success due to the high economic and social value of English acquisition and therefore they are highly motivated to learn English. As a result of limited government funding, demand far exceeds the supply of ESL classes (Tucker, 2006). An Adult Student Waiting List Survey by the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education (NCSDAE, 2006) showed that 40 out of 43 states reporting confirmed that LEP students were on waiting lists in their states. In New York City, where the ESL need is estimated to include one million individuals, only 41,347 adults were able to enroll in 2005 because of limited availability. Most adult ESL programs no longer keep waiting lists because of the extreme demand, but instead use lotteries in which at least three of four individuals are turned away. Some ESL adult learners must wait several years to receive ESL services. To solve this serious problem, it is essential for educational leaders and educators to pay more attention to ESL education. ESL immigrants’ growing numbers and their pivotal role in the future of the United States create a compelling demographic, social, and economic imperative for providing ESL immigrants more opportunities to improve their English skills (Martinez & Wang, 2005). Investments in ESL education for LEP adults will raise LEP adults’ earnings and improve their social and economic situations in the future. Investments in ESL education can reduce rates of poverty and lower rates of public benefits use.
  43. 43. 31 The Relationship between CALL Programs and ESL Education When the first computer was invented in 1942, a new era of technology began. The original goal of the computer was to help scientists dealing with difficult tasks that were unable to be solved by humans (Cuban, 2001). As technology improved over the decades the capabilities of computers became more powerful. Computer applications have been gradually adopted and widely used by every discipline, especially in educational curriculum and language learning fields. According to Muir-Herzig (2004), modern computer technology and its assisted language learning programs in the language classroom is widely believed to help reshape both the content and processes of language education and help teachers promote a constructive class environment. CALL programs have changed the ideas of language educators and learners all over the world (Snell, 1999). Warschauer and Kern (2000) pointed out, CALL methodology has been greatly influenced throughout its history by the overall methodology that has characterized second language teaching and learning at various points of its development. In their opinion, there are three theoretical perspectives in second language learning: the structural, cognitive and socio-cognitive perspectives. The change in language teaching is more of a complex overlapping of the three movements than a polar shift from structural to communicative. The shifts in perspectives on language learning and teaching are parallel to the developments in computer technology and CALL programs. As technology shifts from the mainframe to the personal computer, the roles of computers in language classroom also shift from as a “tutor” to a “stimulative” resource and a “tool.”
  44. 44. 32 Today’s computer has become much more than a tutor, a stimulative or a tool for developing LEP students’ language skills in ESL education. Egbert and Hanson-Smith (1999) indicated that technology provides support for a total environment of second language learning rather than providing use as a single tool or source of information. It is now less a question of the role of computers in the language classroom and more a question of the role of the language classroom in today’s information technology society (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). Historical Development of CALL Programs for ESL Education Since 1950, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology employed 70 engineers and technicians to create the first major Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) project, and the computer began to play an important role in education (Phillips, 1983). CALL programs can be grouped under CAI’s collateral branch, and they are the applications of CAI to language learning and teaching. Over the past decade, CALL programs have emerged as a significant teaching and learning instrument for ESL education. The widespread use of ESL software, local area networks, and the Internet has created enormous opportunities for LEP students to enhance their English learning. According to Davies (2007), CALL programs are designed to promote explicit or implied language learning objectives, and offer support in the acquisition of knowledge about language and in the application of that knowledge in discrete and mixed skill activities. Historically, the development of CALL programs can be roughly categorized into three main stages: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL, and Integrative CALL. Each stage of development corresponds to a certain level of technology as well as a certain pedagogical approach (Barson & Debski, 1996).
  45. 45. 33 The first stage of CALL program development—Behavioristic CALL, conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and ’70s—tended to concentrate on language learning through behavioristic stimulus-response approaches. This stage entailed repetitive language drills and can be referred to as “drill and practice” because Behavioristic educators believe that language students can successfully learn their target languages through imitating and repeating pattern drills (Warschauer, 1996). Behavioristic CALL was designed to promote student mastery of a body of rules by indicating to the learner whether or not the language they produced matched that stored in the computer’s memory (Garrett, 1991). This kind of “wrong-try-again” model requires the language learner to input the correct answer before proceeding, provides the language learner with positive feedback for correct answers, and does not accept errors as the correct answer. Hubbard (1987) indicated the Behaviorist approach to CALL as one that presents vocabulary and structure appropriate to the learner’s level through pattern reinforcement. It intends to keep the learner’s attention to the task and provides sufficient material for mastery and over-learning to occur. Chiquito, Meskill and Renjilian-Burgy (1997) further described Behavioristic CALL as an attempt to “transfer existing foreign language textbooks to computer-based applications. Students could then essentially use the computer to turn pages of the textbook, fill in the blanks in workbook drills, and choose multiple choice answers to questions” (p. 72). Behavioristic CALL placed the computer in the role of electronic drill master (Backer, 1995), computer-as-tutor (Taylor, 1980) or computer-as-magister (Higgens, 1986), and the computer served as a vehicle for delivering ESL instructional exercise materials to LEP students in this era.
  46. 46. 34 Based on the above contentions, a large number of CALL tutoring systems were created during this stage. One of the most sophisticated software programs was the PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) System. The PLATO System that was invented by Donald Bitzer and his team in 1960 at the University of Illinois included vocabulary drills, brief grammar explanations and drills, and translation tests at various intervals. It enabled students to learn interactively and control their own learning pace (Smith & Sherwood, 1976). Until today, many language educators still believe that this kind of repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or even essential to second language learning (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). In the 1970s and 80s, the second stage of CALL program development, the Communicative CALL, was founded on the Communicative approach to teaching. In this stage, linguistic educators felt that the drill-and-practice programs of the previous decade did not allow enough authentic communication to be of much value. They further advocated that “all CALL courseware and activities should build on intrinsic motivation and should foster interactivity—both learner-computer and learner-learner” (Stevens, 1989, p. 31). Krashen’s language acquisition theory (1982) claimed that language is acquired through language input so that language acquisition and language learning are two completely separate processes; along with a growth in socio-linguistics, that also led to a greater focus on the role of meaning and communication in language learning. The types of computer programs using a Communicative approach might still include those of the drill and practice type. The difference between Communicative CALL and Behavioristic CALL is that students can make choices, manipulate controls, and conduct interactions
  47. 47. 35 by themselves and play a more important, involved role within their own CALL program learning processes (Warschauer, 1996). John Underwood, a main advocate of this new approach, proposed a series of “Premises for Communicative CALL” in 1984. He developed a comprehensive set of principles for Communicative CALL. He argued that such an approach to language teaching: (a) focuses on communication rather than on the form and avoids drill; (b) teaches grammar implicitly through the lesson rather than explicitly; (c) allows and encourages the student to generate original utterances rather than merely manipulate prefabricated language; (d) does not judge or evaluate everything the student does; (e) avoids telling students they are wrong; (f) does not reward students with congratulatory messages, lights, bells whistles: success is sufficient reward; (g) does not try to be "cute;” (h) uses the target language exclusively; (i) is flexible and avoids having only one response; (j) allows the student to explore the subject matter by providing an environment in which to play with language or manipulate it; (k) creates an environment in which using the target language feels natural; (l) does not try to do anything that a book could do just as well; (m) is fun, attractive, optional, supplementary: students explore, experiment and learn without being evaluated (Underwood, 1984, p. 33).
  48. 48. 36 Fortunately, the functions of computers had developed during this time and had become powerful enough to meet the requirement of Communicative CALL. The appearance of e-mail, media software, and on-line discussion boards support the claims of Communicative CALL. In this period, computers played the role of individual learning tutor and became a stimulus and a communicative tool (Levy, 1997). The purpose of the communicative CALL activity is not so much to have students discover the right answer, but rather to stimulate students’ discussion, writing, or critical thinking. The dividing line between Behavioristic and Communicative CALL involves not only which software is used, but also how the software is put to use by the teacher and students (Warschauer, 1996). This second phase of CALL does not distinguish itself totally from the first phase. Instead, it serves as more of a bridge to what could be referred to as the third phase of CALL. The last stage of CALL program development, Integrative CALL, is the mature stage. In the 1990s, language educators moved away from a cognitive view of communicative language teaching to a socio-cognitive view that emphasizes real language use in a meaningful and authentic context. They started to claim that there is a real world to be experienced, yet the meaning and comprehension of that world is individualized, and the individual language learners should impress their own understanding on that world (Reiser & Dempsey, 2002). This version of CALL offers a wealth of authentic language material that requires a combination of skills, such as reading, writing, listening and speaking. In this integrative CALL, the students learn to use a variety of technological tools in language learning and language use. Instead of being passive recipients of knowledge, students are challenged to construct their own
  49. 49. 37 knowledge with guidance from a teacher (Warschauer, 2004). Integrative CALL seeks both to integrate the various skills of language learning and to integrate technology more fully into language teaching (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). The multimedia-networked computer provides a range of informational, communicative, and publishing tools that can potentially be available to every language student. Warschauer (1966) indicated that two important elements make up the Integrative CALL together: One is the multimedia computer, the other is the Internet. These elements have already emerged with the potential to make an enormous impact on language teaching. The ability of multimedia to integrate high quality video and audio with texts and language exercises can provide an environment that is more language-rich than any previous technology, and one which can be controlled by the learner. Multimedia computers allow for a variety of media to be accessed on a single machine, including texts, graphics, sound, animation, and video. The use of multimedia enables a student to read, listen, and view through a single program. The Internet can break down the walls of the classroom and give access to diverse sources of information and opportunities for genuine communication. Warschauer further observed that since the advent of local networks and the Internet in the early 1990s, the use of computers for authentic communication has become widespread in language learning and teaching. Web browsing and authoring, discussion boards, e-mail, and chat rooms are now widely used in language classrooms, and the computer tends to function as a “messenger” communicating information to and from the learners.
  50. 50. 38 To briefly summarize, if the mainframe was the technology of Behavioristic CALL, and the personal computer (PC) was the technology of Communicative CALL, the multimedia networked computer is the technology of Integrative CALL (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). In other words, the development tracks of CALL programs range from focusing on individual exercise, to communicating with each other, to combining the advantages of Behavioristic CALL and Communicative CALL together. Today’s CALL programs serve as platforms that hold both individual learning and social process of studying. Advantages and Disadvantages of CALL Programs for LEP students In the second language acquisition domain, Perrett (1995) indicated that if second language learners are provided with the opportunities to use language and learning strategies, and some training or explanation in their application, they can develop their own learning strategies through exposure to and experience in the second language. Explaining the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs to ESL teachers and LEP students seems to be necessary and useful. Only with careful guidance can ESL teachers and LEP students realize the benefits of current computer technology for second language acquisition. ESL teachers and LEP students are then able to apply computer technology appropriately and join those already engaged in computer assisted language learning. Certain educators (Jonassen, 1996; Rost, 2002; Salaberry, 1999) indicate that current computer technology has many advantages for second-language learning. Computer and CALL programs could provide LEP students more independence from ESL classrooms and allow LEP students the opportunity to work on their learning
  51. 51. 39 material at any time of the day. Once implemented, it can be expected that the cost for computer technology is considerably lower than for face-to-face classroom teaching. When used in conjunction with traditional ESL classroom study, LEP students can study more independently, leaving the ESL teacher more time to concentrate efforts on those parts of second language teaching that are still difficult or impossible to teach using the computer, such as pronunciation, work on spoken dialogue, training for essay writing, dictation, and presentation. Lee (2000) further claimed that the reasons ESL teachers and LEP students should apply computer technology in ESL instruction include computer and CALL programs that can: (a) prove practices for students through the experiential learning; (b) offer students more the learning motivation; (c) enhance student achievement; (d) increase authentic materials for study; (e) encourage greater interaction between teachers and students and between students and peers; (f) emphasize the individual needs; (g) regard independence from a single source of information; and (h) enlarge global understanding. Taylor (1980) further expressed the view that computer and CALL programs can be wonderful stimuli for ESL learning. For example, CALL programs can provide a number of fun games and communicative activities, reduce the learning stresses and anxieties, and provide repeated lessons as often as necessary for LEP students. These
  52. 52. 40 abilities will promote LEP students’ learning motivation. In addition, computer technology and CALL programs can help LEP students strengthen their linguistic skills, affect their learning attitudes, and build their self-instruction strategies and self-confidence through various communicative and interactive activities. According to an observation by Robertson et al. (1987), the participants who joined CALL programs also had significantly higher self-esteem ratings than regular second-language students. With the advanced development of computer technology, today’s computers can already capture, analyze, and present data on a LEP student’s performance during his or her learning process. Observing and monitoring a student’s learning progress are very important because when ESL teachers attempt to assess a LEP student’s progress, they can obtain essential information about the student’s learning problems and then try to offer feedback tailored to the student’s learning needs (Taylor & Gitsaki, 2003). CALL programs and the Internet can provide interdisciplinary and multicultural learning opportunities for LEP students to carry out their independent studies. For example, LEP students can get various authentic reading materials either at school or from home by connecting to the Internet, and those materials can be accessed 24 hours a day (Brandl, 2002). With regard to learning interaction, Warschauer (2004) indicated that random access to Web pages would break the linear flow of instruction. By sending E-mail and joining newsgroups, LEP students can communicate with people they have never met before and interact with their own teachers or classmates. Shy or inhibited learners can greatly benefit from the individualized technology-learning environment. Studious learners can benefit because they are able to proceed at their own pace to achieve at
  53. 53. 41 higher levels. Many concepts and cognitions are abstract and difficult to express through language and the language teaching field. It seems that computers can make up for this difficulty by using the image showing on the screen. Kozma (1991) stated that interactive visual media that computers provide seem to have a unique instructional capability for topics that involve social situations or problem solving, such as interpersonal solving, foreign language or second language learning. Cognitive theorists and humanists have pointed out that practice experience is an important factor for learning. Experiential theory educators believe that learning is about making sense of information, extracting meaning, and relating information to everyday life. They believe that learning is about understanding the world through reinterpreting knowledge (Ormrod, 1999). When computer technology combines with the Internet, it creates a channel for students to obtain a huge amount of human experience and it guides students to enter the “Global Community.” As a result, students can extend their personal views, thoughts, and experiences and learn to live in the real world. They become the creators not just the receivers of knowledge. In addition, since the way information is presented is not linear, second language learners can still develop thinking skills and choose what to explore (Lee, 2000). Although there are many advantages to computer use, the application of current computer technology has its limitations and disadvantages. Gips, DiMattia, and Gips (2004) indicated that the first disadvantage of computers and assisted language learning programs is that they will increase educational costs and harm the equity of education. If computers become a new basic requirement for students to purchase, schools with limited budgets and low-income students may not be able to afford a computer. This will cause
  54. 54. 42 unfair educational conditions for lower socio-economic schools and students. Expensive hardware and software become large obligations for schools and parents. The second disadvantage of computer technology is that it is necessary for both ESL teachers and LEP students to have basic technology knowledge before they apply computer technology to assist ESL teaching and learning. No student can utilize a computer if he or she lacks training in the uses of computer technology. Unfortunately, most ESL teachers today do not have sufficient technological training to guide their students in exploring computers and assisted language learning programs. The benefits of computer technology for those LEP students who are not familiar with computers are inexistent (Roblyer, 2003). The third disadvantage is that the software of CALL programs is still imperfect. Current computer technology mainly addresses reading, listening, and writing skills. Even though some speaking programs have been developed recently, their functions are still limited. Warschauer (1996) indicated that a good speaking training program should ideally be able to understand a user’s “spoken” input and evaluate it not just for correctness but also for “appropriateness.” It should be able to diagnose a student’s problems with pronunciation, syntax, or usage, and then it should be able to intelligently decide among a range of options. The fourth disadvantage is that computers and CALL programs had not been able to handle unexpected situations until now. Indeed, each LEP student’s learning situation is different and ever changing. Due to the limitations of computers’ artificial intelligence, computer technology is unable to deal with a learner’s unexpected learning problems and it is unable to respond to the learner’s question as immediately as teachers do. The

×