Docstoc

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

Document Sample
Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair for Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense PPT Powered By Docstoc
					   The Effectiveness of Computer
    Assisted Language Learning
  Programs for Enhancing English
Learning among Students of Limited
        English Proficiency
     A Dissertation Defense
                by
        Cheng-Chieh Lai
        October 06, 2008
Chair: David E. Herrington, Ph.D.
Committee Members

                David E. Herrington, Ph.D.
                  ( Dissertation Chair)

Pamela Barber-Freeman, Ph.D. William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.
        (Member)                     (Member)


    Camille Gibson, Ph.D.        Tyrone Tanner, Ed.D.
        (Member)                       (Member)
Dissertation Defense Format
1.   Background of the Problems
2.   Purpose of the Study
3.   Conceptual Framework
4.   Research Questions
5.   Significance of the Study
6.   Research Methods
7.   Major Findings and Literature Support
8.   Conclusion
9.   Recommendations for Further Study
Background of the Problems
   Foreign students contribute about $13.5 billion to the U.S. economy
    each year through their tuition and fees and living expenses.

   Every 31 seconds a new immigrant enters USA, but 60% are
    Limited English Proficiency (LEP) (Camarota, 2005).
   47 million people speak language other than English, and 23 million
    people speak English less than “very well” (U. S. Census Bureau,
    2005).

   CALL programs has become a new solution for ESL education.
   Definition of CALL programs: An approach to language teaching
    and learning, where the computer is used to assist the presentation,
    reinforcement, and assessment of the learning material (Davies,
    2002).
Purpose of the Study
   to gain a comprehensive understanding of the
    effectiveness of Computer Assisted Language
    Learning (CALL) programs on English as a
    Second Language (ESL) education for diverse
    English language learners and instructors
   to provide the results as a reference to
    educational leaders and administrators who
    are considering the use of CALL programs for
    their English instruction programs.
Conceptual Framework
   Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989)

                  Perceived
                  Usefulness


                                            Behavioral
                                Attitude     Intention
                               Toward use     To use



                  Perceived
                 Ease of Use
Conceptual Framework (cont.)
   Theory of Customer Value
    (Woodruff & Gardial, 1996)

      Attributes            Results        Needs and wants
    of the product        after using      of the customers




                     Customer Value
                           Intention to
                        Purchase and Use
Research Question
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?
Research Question (cont.)
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
Ho1~Ho5:
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived
Usefulness of CALL programs for enhancing their English learning
among (between) their Native languages.
                          Age groups.
                          Genders.
                          Previous educational levels.
                          Previous technology experiences.
Ho6~Ho10:
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived
Ease of Use of CALL programs for enhancing their English learning
among (between) their Native languages.
                          Age groups.
                          Genders.
                          Previous educational levels.
                          Previous technology experiences.
Significance of the Study
   May provide educational leaders and administrators
    a view of the problems associated with current uses of
    technology in ESL education
   May present an assessment tool that educational
    leaders and administrators may use to determine the
    degree to which technology investments are effective
    within specific populations
   May encourage ESL instructors to adopt CALL
    programs as a viable educational alternative and
    inspire students to promote language abilities
    through the application of CALL programs
Research Methods


   A combination of Quantitative and
    Qualitative research methods was
    utilized for the study
Research Methods (cont.)
Quantitative
   TAM in CALL Questionnaire was modified from Davis’ Technology
    Acceptance Model
   Six language translation versions: English, Spanish, French,
    Korean, Traditional Chinese, and Simplified Chinese.
   The response scale was a 5-point Likert scale which assigned numerical values
    for each response:
    Strongly Agree = 5       Agree = 4             Neutral = 3
    Disagree = 2             Strongly Disagree = 1

   Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic data
   One-way ANOVA statistical method was employed to examine the
    difference between LEP students’ individual backgrounds and their
    “Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” perceptions of CALL programs.
Research Methods (cont.)
Qualitative
    Nine interview questions based on the Customer
     Value Theory were asked during the interviews in
     order to identify:
1.   Advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs
2.   Roles of CALL programs in actual ESL classrooms
3.   Expectations for future CALL programs

    Data analysis included coding, generating categories,
     and writing interview summaries
Subjects of the Study
Quantitative
    329 LEP students taking ESL courses and using CALL
     programs in college level schools or adult educational
     institutions in the Houston area of Texas during summer
     semester of 2008
    Participated School                   Frequency     Percent
    University of Houston (Main campus,
                                                213        64.7
    UH)
    Houston Community College (HCC)              67        20.4
    Chinese Community Center (CCC)              49         14.9
    Texas Southern University                    0             0
    Rice University                              0             0
    Total                                      329        100.0
Participants’ Native Languages
    Native Language Group                           Frequency   Percent
Valid     Chinese Speaking Group                           84       25.5
          Spanish Speaking Group                           78       23.7
          French Speaking Group                            46       14.0
          Korean Speaking Group                            23        7.0
          Others         Vietnamese                        21        6.4
          Speaking
          Group          Arabic                            28        8.5
                         Bambara                            2         .6
                         Gujarati                           2         .6
                         Turkish                            7        2.1
                         Russian                            9        2.7
                         Portugues                          5        1.5
                         Kazakh                             3         .9
                         Tajik                              2         .6
                         Thai                               2         .6
                         Gorane                             2         .6
                         Hindi                              1         .3
                         Japanese                           1         .3
                         Indian                             1         .3
                         Farsi                              1         .3
                         English                            2         .6
                                      Super-total          89       27.1
          Total                                           320       97.3
Missing   System                                           9*        2.7
Total                                                     329      100.0
Participants’ Age Groups

              Under     21-30       31-40       41-50       51-60        Above
             20 years   years       years       years       years       60 years
               old       old         old         old         old          old
Houston
Community
                    1      17          28          13               3          1
College

University
of Houston        71      125          15               1
Chinese
Community
                                3           9      10               9        12
Center
Participants’ Genders &
Educational Levels
 200                              180
               147
 150

 100

 50                                                      20
  0
            Male                 Female             Missing


200
                                                   160
150
                                        90
100

 50                     35                                        29
          14
                                                                               1
  0
       Elementary    Secondary    High school   College or    Postgraduate   Missing
         school        school                   university
Participants’ Technology Experiences


                                 Frequency   Percent
  Valid     Under 1 year               27        8.2
            1-3 years                  50       15.2
            4-6 years                  69       21.0
            7-9 years                  56       17.0
            More than 10 years        104       31.6
            Total                     306       93.0
  Missing   System                     23*       7.0
  Total                               329      100.0
Subjects of the Study
Qualitative
 Twenty participants joined in the face-to-face
  interviews.

 Participated School                   Instructors   Students
 University of Houston (Main campus)
                                                4           3

 Houston Community College
                                                3           4

 Chinese Community Center
                                                0           6

 Total
                                                7          13
Research Instrument Validity
A. The construct validity: based on Two
   previous theories.
   1. Technology Acceptance model
   2. Customer Value Theory
B. The content validity: checked by a panel of
   experts.
   1. Dissertation chair
   2. One ESL instructors (HISD)
   3. One EFL assistant professor (Taiwan)
 Research Instrument Reliability
Perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs
                                  Six Statement                                        N       Mean       Std. Deviation
Using computers and the Internet in my English learning can enable me to achieve
a higher English level more quickly                                                   324          3.81           1.080

Using the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, can
improve my English learning performance                                               323          3.76           1.036

Using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room can provide me
more opportunities for communicating and interacting with my ESL teachers and         324          3.82           1.110
peers
Using the computer learning software and the Internet's World Wide Web can
help me get more ESL learning resources and materials to enhance my English           324          3.87           1.059
learning
Using the computer learning software and the Internet's World Wide Web can
expose me to the American culture as well as learning English                         324          3.77           1.081

I believe that computer technologies and ESL learning software are useful for
fulfilling my ESL learning goals                                                      324          3.86            .990



          Cronbach's Alpha                          Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items             N of Items
                        .926                                                                .926                      6


The    result showed that this instrument is reliable.
Research Instrument Reliability
Perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs
                             Six Statement                                      N       Mean       Std. Deviation
I am willing to study English with the computer because I find that it
is easy to get the computer to do whatever I want it to do, whenever           318          3.57           1.184
and wherever I choose
It is easy for me to use the computer software, such as Word,
PowerPoint, and Multimedia, as tools for showing my English                    318          3.66           1.068
learning progress
I have no problem using email, electronic discussion board, or
online chat-room to communicate and interact with my ESL                       318          375            1.063
teachers and peers
When I use the computer learning software and the Internet’s
World Wide Web, I find that it is easy to gain the ESL learning                318          3.75            9.76
resources and materials what I need them.
I find that it is easy for me to learn more basic knowledge of English
and American culture through the computer and the Internet                     318          3.64           1.022

I believe that operating the computer and using computer assisted
language learning programs is easy                                             318          3.80            .993



         Cronbach's Alpha                    Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items             N of Items
                     .914                                                            .916                      6


The   result showed that this instrument is reliable.
Major Findings
Research Question One
   What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived
    usefulness of CALL programs for English learning?
   Independent Variable:
                              Native Language
                              Gender
     Personal factors         Age group
                              Educational level
                              Technology Experience
   Dependent Variable:
    Sum of the scale scores relating to the “Usefulness” of
    CALL programs for enhancing English learning.
Major Findings
Research Question One (cont.)
   Null Hypothesis One
    There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’
    perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English
    learning among their native language backgrounds as measured by
    TAM in CALL Questionnaire.

                    Sum of Squares    df   Mean Square      F     Sig.
    Between
                          823.220     4        205.805   7.487   .000*
    Groups
    Within
                         8493.748    309        27.488
    Groups
    Total                9316.968    313

    *p < 0.05
     The null hypothesis was rejected.
Major Findings
Research Question One (cont.)

    To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test
     was conducted
(I) Native Languages   (J) Native Languages   Mean Difference (I-J)   Std. Error    Sig.


Others Speaking        Chinese Speaking
Group                  Group                              -3.161(*)        .804     .004

                       Spanish Speaking
                       Group                              -3.903(*)        .820     .000

                       French Speaking
                       Group                                -2.083         .963     .324

                       Korean Speaking
                       Group                                 -.013        1.251    1.000

    *p < 0.05
Discussion
Null Hypothesis One
   English learner’s native language was a factor that
    yielded a significant difference in LEP students’
    perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for
    enhancing English learning

  Three reasons may contribute to the result:
1. Digital Divide (International Telecommunication Union, 2003)
2. Levels of English Proficiency
3. Translation Versions
Related Literature Support
   A student who lives in a higher Digital Access Index (DAI)
    scoring country may have more opportunities to get the
    benefits of computer technologies and the Internet, and can
    gain more opportunities to increase their individual computer
    literacy skills (International Telecommunication Union, 2003).

   Students of varying levels of English proficiency in English do
    have differing perceptions of the use of technology (Doll, 2007).

   Lower level of English proficiency students were enthusiastic
    about the CALL environment; higher level of English
    proficiency students need more significant learning inputs and
    might be difficult to perceive an improvement through regular
    CALL programs for their English skills (Hayes & Hicks, 2004)
Major Findings
Research Question One (cont.)
    Null Hypothesis Three
     There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’
     perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English
     learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among
     different age groups.

                    Sum of Squares    df   Mean Square       F     Sig.
    Between
    Groups                 639.943     5        127.989   4.528   .001*

    Within Groups
                          8649.173   306         28.265

    Total
                          9289.115   311

    * p < 0.05

    The null hypothesis was rejected.
Major Findings
Research Question One (cont.)
   To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test was conducted.
    However, there were no the mean difference between each age group
    and a p value shown in Scheffe test.
   A Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was conducted.

   The result yielded a significant difference between the following pairs
    of age groups:
1. “under 20 years old” and “31 to 40 years old” age groups (p = .002)
2. “under 20 years old” and “41 to 50 years old” age groups (p = .002)
3. “21 to 30 years old” and “31 to 40 years old” age groups (p =.001)
4. “21 to 30 years old” and “41 to 50 years old” age groups (p =.002)
Discussion
Null Hypothesis Three
  LEP student’s age range was a factor that caused
   significant differences toward students’ “Usefulness”
   perceptions when using CALL programs
Three reasons may contribute to the result:
1. Generations
2. Levels of English Proficiency
3. Duties
   According to the qualitative interviews, the older students had
    to spend more time on their jobs and household duties. They
    had very little time for English study or computer use at home.
    This might account for some of the difference in “Usefulness”
    scores between age groups.
Related Literature Support

   The age difference could not be regarded as an influential
    factor affecting older adults engaging in Web-searching
    activities…….. If we can provide more trainings and
    opportunities to older adults, older adults may overcome
    the age difference and enjoy the benefits of computer
    technologies more than younger users (Kubeck, Miller–
    Albrecht, & Murphy, 1999) .
    Major Findings
    Research Question One (cont.)
 Null Hypotheses Two, Four, and Five
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived
“Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among their
genders (previous educational levels, and previous technology experiences).
                                Sum of Squares    df    Mean Square        F     Sig.
 Gender
 Between Groups                         50.731     1         50.731     1.734    .189
 Within Groups                        9334.092   319         29.260
 Educational Level
 Between Groups                        159.058     4         39.765     1.355    .249
 Within Groups                        9301.218   317         29.341
 Technology Experience
 Between Groups                         13.716     4          3.429      .111    .978
 Within Groups                        9086.214   295         30.801
 * p < 0.05
the p value is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to
reject Null Hypotheses Two, Four, and Five .
Major Findings
Research Question Two
   What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived
    ease of use of CALL programs for English learning?
   Independent Variable:
                              Native Language
                              Gender
     personal factors         Age groups
                              Educational level
                              Technology Experience
   Dependent Variable:
    Sum of the scale scores relating to the “Ease of Use” of
    CALL programs for enhancing English learning.
Major Findings
Research Question Two (cont.)
    Null Hypothesis Six
     There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’
     perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English
     learning among their native language backgrounds as measured by
     TAM in CALL Questionnaire.

                    Sum of Squares    df      Mean Square       F    Sig.
    Between
                           286.232        4         71.558   2.546   .040
    Groups
    Within Groups         8544.254   304            28.106

    Total                 8830.485   308
    *p < 0.05
      The null hypothesis was rejected.
Major Findings
Research Question Two (cont.)

   To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test
    was conducted

(I) Native Languages   (J) Native Languages   Mean Difference (I-J)   Std. Error   Sig.
Chinese Speaking       Spanish Speaking
                                                            1.474          .847    .554
Group                  Group
                       French Speaking
                                                            1.701          .984    .560
                       Group
                       Korean Speaking
                                                            1.952         1.273    .671
                       Group
                       Others Speaking
                                                          2.564(*)         .821    .047
                       Group

*p < 0.05
 Discussion
 Null Hypothesis Six
 English learner’s native language was a factor that
  yielded significantly differences in “Ease of Use” of CALL
  programs

 Two reasons may contribute to the result:
1. Digital Divide
2. Language Version of CALL programs
Related Literature &
Qualitative Interview Support
 Student’s native language and culture background may
  influence his or her perception regarding the use of
  computer technology for enhancing their learning (Zoe &
  DiMartino, 2000).
 Through the qualitative interview, one ESL instructor
  pointed out that Asian students are often good at computer
  technology. Their countries usually have more technology
  infrastructure, so they can get more technology exercise
  opportunities.
 The transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledge
  from the first language to the second language is a
  requisite learning process for LEP students (O’Malley &
  Chamot,1990) .
    Major Findings
    Research Question Two (cont.)
 Null Hypotheses Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease of
Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among their genders ( age
groups, previous educational levels, and previous technology experiences).
                                Sum of Squares    df    Mean Square       F     Sig.
Gender
Between Groups                       25.067        1        25.067     .898    .344
Within Groups                      8766.056      314        27.917
Age Group
Between Groups                      219.161        5        43.832    1.559    .172
Within Groups                      8464.501      301        28.121
Educational Level
Between Groups                      128.724        4        32.181    1.143    .336
Within Groups                      8782.702      312        28.150
Technology Experience
Between Groups                      111.673        4        27.918     .974    .422
Within Groups                      8308.443      290        28.650
* p < 0.05
the p value is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to
reject Null Hypotheses Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten .
 Major Findings
 Research Question Three
 What are the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs in
   actual ESL teaching and learning?
 CALL programs have a positive influence on their ESL teaching and
   learning.
Major Advantages:
1. Increase access to authentic materials for teaching and learning English
2. Provide more opportunities for practice through experiential learning
3. Offer more varied learning situations that enhance learning motivation
   and achievement.
 LEP students: more online interactive opportunities; more learning
   resources.

  ESL instructors: prefer the traditional face-to-face interactions. Focus on
  evaluation and record students’ learning progresses.
 Major Findings
 Research Question Three (cont.)
Major Disadvantage
 ESL instructors:
1. may not totally align with beginning level English learners’
   needs;
2. may reduce English learners’ opportunities to explore other
   learning resources; and
3. may increase the teaching and learning loads

 LEP students: over-use of CALL programs may influence
  their spelling ability. The spell-correcting function of CALL
  programs may help to recheck their writing, but it may
  prevent them from learning to spell.
Related Literature Support
   “The use of the computer does not constitute a method.
    Rather, it is a medium in which a variety of methods,
    approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be
    implemented” (Garrett, 1991, p. 75).

   No matter what many functions CALL programs provide,
    they are still no more than media for teaching and
    learning. The effectiveness of CALL programs does not
    lie in the medium alone but in how the programs are
    used and the quality of personal teaching and guidance
    that accompany them.
Major Findings
Research Question Four
 What is the role of CALL programs in current ESL
  instructions?
Time spent on CALL programs:
 ESL instructors: 1. the length of the semester
                   2. the content of textbook

   LEP students: technology experience backgrounds
    Without technology background or with little technology
    knowledge, students spend little time or none on using
    technology to enhance their learning.
    Students who have rich technology experiences often spend
    more than ten hours per day for using the computer and the
    Internet.
Major Findings
Research Question Four (cont.)
Most Important Role of CALL programs


    No comment


         Tutee
                                            Student
                                            Instructor
          Tool

         Tutor

                 0   2   4   6     8   10
Major Findings
Research Question Four (cont.)
“Tool” role:
1. vary their teaching and learning paths
2. provide more interactive activities
3. facilitate the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

“Tutor” role:
 CALL programs can offer reading, vocabulary, and other kinds of
  practice to evaluate students’ works and keep their records.

“Tutee” role:
 Each student has individual learning needs and the computer is not

  able to adapt to different learning styles of the student. CALL
  programs should follow and satisfy English learners’ needs.
Related Literature Support
   Computers play various roles that deeply impact ESL
    teaching and learning methods (Warschauer & Kern,
    2000; Wiazowski, 2002)

   The theoretical framework underlying CALL programs is
    very difficult to define because CALL programs exist in
    so many different forms. The specific role of CALL
    programs often depends upon different needs and
    different situations (Kemmis, Atkin, & Wright, 1977;
    Higgins, 1988, Taylor, 1980).
Major Findings
Research Question Five
   What are the second-language learning efficiency
    expectations of LEP students and ESL instructors
    utilizing CALL programs?

Satisfaction of current CALL
 All ESL instructors: Current CALL programs are good

  enough for ESL education.
 Four LEP students: CALL programs are not perfect

  enough to meet their learning needs. (For example:
  Translation Function)
Major Findings
Research Question Five (cont.)
English skills can be improved effectively
       No comment

          Speaking
                                                                     Student
           Writing                                                   Instructor


           Reading

          Listening

                      0   1      2      3      4       5      6



A. The variety of CALL programs permits different users to address
   different learning goals and produce different learning results.
B. Because there are no solid guidelines and standards, some instructors and
   students become confused with the functions and abilities of current CALL
   program.
Major Findings
Research Question Five (cont.)
Expectations of future CALL programs:
1. The price of computer, CALL software, and Internet
   connection should be reduced

2.The future CALL programs should be easier to use
  “To beginning level learners, computers or CALL
  programs are difficult to operate sometimes”

3. Should have more human intelligence to understand
  learners’ needs and can give students correct feedback
  immediately
Related Literature Support
   Software of CALL programs is still imperfect, and their
    functions are limited. Due to the limitations of
    computer’s artificial intelligence, current computer
    technology is unable to deal with learner’s unexpected
    learning problems and response immediately as teachers
    do (Warschauer, 1996).
   The reasons for the computer’s inability to interact
    effectively can be traced back to a fundamental difference
    in the way humans and computers utilize information
    (Dent, 2001).
Conclusion
   LEP students come from different countries and have
    distinct learning habits and attitudes toward the use of
    technology for enhancing English learning. It is important
    that educational leaders and ESL instructors pay greater
    attention to students’ personal factors and their learning
    needs.
   When investments in CALL programs are made, it is
    important that the CALL programs be useful and easy to
    use for all populations served. Failure to evaluate CALL
    applications continuously and to make improvements in
    the development and deployment of CALL software can
    result in non-use or ineffective use.
Conclusion (cont.)
   Lack of technology knowledge is a major barrier to realize
    the advantages of CALL programs. Educational leaders
    and administrators should face the problem and develop
    technology training plans to ensure that all ESL teachers
    and LEP students have the knowledge and skills to apply
    CALL programs in their teaching and learning.

   To identify what role CALL programs played in the
    classroom is important because each instructor’s and
    student’s perceptions of the roles of CALL programs will
    further influence their decisions on how to apply CALL
    programs in their language teaching and learning.
Conclusion (cont.)
   To overcome the price problem and ensure each student
    has the equal opportunity to get CALL programs for
    enhancing their English Learning, educational leaders
    and administrators may have to negotiate with computer
    producing factories and software companies to reduce the
    selling prices of computers and CALL software.

   To improve the artificial intelligence and the ease of use
    problems, educational leaders and administrators may
    have to communicate with software designers to design
    more appropriate CALL programs for ESL teaching and
    learning.
Recommendations
for Further Study
   A study could be conducted at the state level or national level.
   A study could be conducted that focused on the same student’s
    English level.
   A study could be conducted that focused on specific software of
    CALL program.
   A study could be conducted of the student’s learning style
    associated with CALL programs.
   A study could be conducted of the effectiveness of pedagogies
    associated with CALL programs.
   A study could be conducted of the curriculum design associated
    with CALL programs.
   A study could be conducted of the students’ learning
    achievements associated with CALL programs.
Recommendations
for Further Study (cont.)
   A study could be conducted to address different learning
    goals that produces different results.
   A study could be conducted to focus on more human
    intelligence of CALL programs to understand the language
    learners’ needs.
   A study could be conducted on personal factors related to
    students’ learning needs and personal circumstances.
   A study could be conducted on how educational leaders and
    administrators can develop policies and strategies that will
    support more effective and efficient systems for purchasing
    and maintaining CALL applications that will assist English
    teaching and learning.
Recommendations
for Further Study (cont.)
   A study could be conducted on how educational leaders and
    administrators can develop and implement training plans
    to ensure that all ESL teachers and students have the
    knowledge and skills to apply computer technology in their
    teaching and learning.
   A study could be conducted about the role of computer
    technology within the context of the second language
    instruction.
   A study could be conducted that specifically focuses on the
    three major barriers: price, artificial intelligence, and ease
    to use.
   A study could be conducted on ways technology has become
    a powerful force in education.
References
Camarota, S. A. (2005). Immigrants at mid-decade: A snapshot of America's
  foreign-born population in 2005. Report released by the Center for
  Immigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank that supports lower
  levels of immigration. Retrieved on June 30, 2006, from
  http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.html
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
  acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
Dent, C. (2001). Studer: classification v. categorization. Retrieved June 28,
  2006, from
  http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/cdent/fiaarts/docs/1005018884:23962.
  html
Doll, J. J. (2007). Using English language learner perceptions of technology to
  your advantage. Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, June 2007,
  4(6). Retrieved July 30, 2008, from
  http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jun_07/article03.htm
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: trends and
  issues. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 74-101.
 References (cont.)
Hayes, B. E., & Hicks, S. K. (2004). Speaking in the CALL environment.
   Proceedings of CLaSIC 2004, シンガポール国立大学言語研究センター/Pac
   CALL 2004抄録(CD-ROM), pp. 954-961. Retrieved August, 27, 2008, from
   http://www.paccall.org/2004/2004proceedings_papers/hayes.pdf
International Telecommunication Union. (ITU, 2003). Digital Access Index: World’s
   first global ICT ranking- education and affordability key to boosting new
   technology adoption. Press release 19 November 2003, Geneva. Retrieved
   August, 11, 2007, from
   http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2003/30.html
Kubeck, J. E., Miller-Albrecht, S. A. & Murphy, M. D. (1999). Finding information on
   the World Wide Web: exploring older adults’ exploration. Educational
   Gerontology, 25(2), 167-83.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Computer and Internet use by
   children and adolescents in 2001: Statistical analysis report. Retrieved March 02,
   2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004014.pdf
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
   acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
References (cont.)
U. S. Census Bureau. (2005). Language spoken at home. Washington, DC: U. S.
   Census Bureau. Retrieved July, 28, 2007, from http://factfinder.census.gov/
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction.
   Retrieved March 12, 2006, from http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/call.html
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (eds.) (2000). Network-based language teaching:
   Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiazowski, J. (2002). Computer-assisted language learning as a bridge to social
   inclusion of blind learners in mainstream schooling. Retrieved July 17, 2007,
   from http://www.icevi.org/publications/ICEVI-WC2002/papers/01-topic/
Woodruff, R. B. & Gardial, S. F. (1996). Know your customer: New approaches
   to understanding customer value and satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: BlackWell
   Business.
Zoe, L. R., & DiMartino, D. (2000). Cultural diversity and end user searching: An
   analysis by gender and language background. Research Strategies, 17(4),
   291-305.
Note
“In Katy ISD, there are approximately 70 different
languages represented by the thousands of students
that attend classes in the district. [Katy ISD has]
received a special waiver from the state allowing it to
cover several other languages in its program including
Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic, and Korean.”

Bradley, D.(2008, October 1). District becoming more diversified. Katy
Times 95 (78), 1, 3.
         謝謝!!
          (xie xie)


    Thank You
For joining in my presentation

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair for Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense PPT. Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Committee Member