Jay's PhD Dissertation Defense

7/28/2019 Jay's PhD Dissertation Defense

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jays-phd-dissertation-defense 1/61

The Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Language Learning

Programs for Enhancing EnglishLearning among Students of Limited

English Proficiency

A Dissertation Defense

by

Cheng-Chieh Lai

October 06, 2008Chair: 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 theeffectiveness of Computer Assisted LanguageLearning (CALL) programs on English as aSecond Language (ESL) education for diverseEnglish language learners and instructors

to provide the results as a reference to

educational leaders and administrators whoare considering the use of CALL programs fortheir English instruction programs.



Conceptual Framework

Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989)

Perceived

Usefulness

Perceived

Ease of Use

Attitude

Toward use

Behavioral

Intention

To use



Conceptual Framework (cont.)

Theory of Customer Value

(Woodruff & Gardial, 1996)

Attributes

of the product

Results

after usingNeeds and wants

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 currentESL instruction?

5. What are the second language learningefficiency expectations of LEP students andESL instructors utilizing CALL programs?



Ho1~Ho5:

There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceivedUsefulness of CALL programs for enhancing their English learningamong (between) their

Ho6~Ho10:

There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived

Ease of Use of CALL programs for enhancing their English learningamong (between) their

Native languages.

Age groups.

Genders.

Previous educational levels.

Previous technology experiences.

Native languages.

Age groups.

Genders.

Previous educational levels.

Previous technology experiences.

Null Hypotheses



Significance of the Study

May provide educational leaders and administratorsa view of the problems associated with current uses of technology in ESL education

May present an assessment tool that educationalleaders and administrators may use to determine thedegree to which technology investments are effective within specific populations

May encourage ESL instructors to adopt CALLprograms as a viable educational alternative andinspire students to promote language abilitiesthrough the application of CALL programs



Research Methods

A combination of Quantitative and

Qualitative research methods wasutilized 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 thedifference between LEP students’ individual backgrounds and their“Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” perceptions of CALL programs.



Research Methods (cont.)

Qualitative

Nine interview questions based on the Customer Value Theory were asked during the interviews inorder 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 educationalinstitutions in the Houston area of Texas during summer

semester of 2008

Participated School Frequency Percent

University of Houston (Main campus,UH)

213 64.7

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

OthersSpeakingGroup

Vietnamese 21 6.4

Arabic 28 8.5

Bambara 2 .6

Gujarati 2 .6

Turkish 7 2.1

Russian 9 2.7

Portugues 5 1.5

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

Under20 years

old

21-30 years

old

31-40 years

old

41-50 years

old

51-60 years

old

Above60 years

old

HoustonCommunity College

1 17 28 13 3 1

University of Houston 71 125 15 1

ChineseCommunity Center

3 9 10 9 12



Participants’ Genders &Educational Levels

1435

90

160

29

1

0

50

100

150

200

Elementary

school

Secondary

school

High school College or

university

Postgraduate Missing

147

180

20

0

50

100

150

200

Male Female Missing



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-faceinterviews.

Participated School Instructors Students

University of Houston (Main campus)4 3

Houston Community College3 4

Chinese Community Center0 6

Total7 13



Research Instrument Validity

A. The construct validity : based on Twoprevious 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

Six Statement N Mean Std. Deviation

Using computers and the Internet in my English learning can enable me to achievea higher English level more quickly 324 3.81 1.080

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

Using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room can provide memore opportunities for communicating and interacting with my ESL teachers andpeers

324 3.82 1.110

Using the computer learning software and the Internet's World Wide Web canhelp me get more ESL learning resources and materials to enhance my Englishlearning

324 3.87 1.059

Using the computer learning software and the Internet's World Wide Web canexpose 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 forfulfilling my ESL learning goals 324 3.86 .990

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

.926 .926 6

Perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs

The result showed that this instrument is reliable.



Research Instrument Reliability

Six Statement N Mean Std. Deviation

I am willing to study English with the computer because I find that itis easy to get the computer to do whatever I want it to do, wheneverand wherever I choose

318 3.57 1.184

It is easy for me to use the computer software, such as Word,PowerPoint, and Multimedia, as tools for showing my Englishlearning progress

318 3.66 1.068

I have no problem using email, electronic discussion board, oronline chat-room to communicate and interact with my ESLteachers and peers

318 375 1.063

When I use the computer learning software and the Internet’s World Wide Web, I find that it is easy to gain the ESL learningresources and materials what I need them.

318 3.75 9.76

I find that it is easy for me to learn more basic knowledge of Englishand American culture through the computer and the Internet 318 3.64 1.022

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

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items

.914 .916 6

Perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs

The result showed that this instrument is reliable.



Major FindingsResearch Question One

What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived usefulness of CALL programs for English learning?

Independent Variable:

Dependent Variable:

Sum of the scale scores relating to the “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning.

Personal factors

Native LanguageGender

Age group

Educational level

Technology Experience



Major FindingsResearch Question One (cont.)

Null Hypothesis One

There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing Englishlearning among their native language backgrounds as measured by

TAM in CALL Questionnaire.

The null hypothesis was rejected.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

BetweenGroups

823.220 4 205.805 7.487 .000*

WithinGroups 8493.748 309 27.488

Total 9316.968 313

* p < 0.05




To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test was conducted

(I) Native Languages (J) Native Languages Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Others SpeakingGroup

Chinese SpeakingGroup -3.161(*) .804 .004

Spanish SpeakingGroup -3.903(*) .820 .000

French SpeakingGroup -2.083 .963 .324

Korean SpeakingGroup -.013 1.251 1.000

* p < 0.05



English learner’s native language was a factor that yielded a significant difference in LEP students’perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs forenhancing English learning

Three reasons may contribute to the result:

1. Digital Divide (International Telecommunication Union, 2003)

2. Levels of English Proficiency

3. Translation Versions

DiscussionNull Hypothesis One

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/ict-oi/2007/material/table1.html

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/ict-oi/2007/index.html

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/ict-oi/2007/index.html

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/ict-oi/2007/material/table1.html



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 cangain more opportunities to increase their individual computerliteracy skills (International Telecommunication Union, 2003).

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

Lower level of English proficiency students were enthusiasticabout the CALL environment; higher level of Englishproficiency students need more significant learning inputs andmight be difficult to perceive an improvement through regularCALL programs for their English skills (Hayes & Hicks, 2004)

Related Literature Support




Null Hypothesis ThreeThere is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing Englishlearning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, amongdifferent age groups.


BetweenGroups 639.943 5 127.989 4.528 .001*

Within Groups8649.173 306 28.265

Total9289.115 311

* p < 0.05





To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test was conducted.However, there were no the mean difference between each age groupand a p value shown in Scheffe test.

A Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was conducted.

The result yielded a significant difference between the following pairsof age groups:

1. “under 20 years old” and “31 to 40 years old” age groups ( p = .002)

2. “under 20 years old” and “41 to 50 years old” age groups ( p = .002)3. “21 to 30 years old” and “31 to 40 years old” age groups ( p =.001)

4. “21 to 30 years old” and “41 to 50 years old” age groups ( p =.002)



LEP student’s age range was a factor that causedsignificant differences toward students’ “Usefulness”perceptions when using CALL 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 hadto 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.

DiscussionNull Hypothesis Three



The age difference could not be regarded as an influentialfactor affecting older adults engaging in Web-searchingactivities…….. If we can provide more trainings and

opportunities to older adults, older adults may overcomethe age difference and enjoy the benefits of computertechnologies more than younger users (Kubeck, Miller– Albrecht, & Murphy, 1999) .





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 theirgenders (previous educational levels, and previous technology experiences).

* p < 0.05

the p value is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure toreject Null Hypotheses Two, Four, and Five .


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


Between Groups 13.716 4 3.429 .111 .978

Within Groups 9086.214 295 30.801



Major FindingsResearch Question Two

What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived ease of use of CALL programs for English learning?

Independent Variable:

Dependent Variable:

Sum of the scale scores relating to the “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning.

personal factors

Native LanguageGender

Age groups

Educational level




Major FindingsResearch Question Two (cont.)

Null Hypothesis Six

There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing Englishlearning among their native language backgrounds as measured by

TAM in CALL Questionnaire.


* p < 0.05


BetweenGroups

286.232 4 71.558 2.546 .040

Within Groups 8544.254 304 28.106

Total 8830.485 308




To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test was conducted

(I) Native Languages (J) Native Languages Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Chinese SpeakingGroup

Spanish SpeakingGroup

1.474 .847 .554

French SpeakingGroup

1.701 .984 .560

Korean Speaking

Group 1.952 1.273 .671

Others SpeakingGroup

2.564(*) .821 .047

* p < 0.05



English learner’s native language was a factor that yielded significantly differences in “Ease of Use” of CALLprograms

Two reasons may contribute to the result:

1. Digital Divide

2. Language Version of CALL programs

DiscussionNull Hypothesis Six



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 instructorpointed out that Asian students are often good at computertechnology. Their countries usually have more technology infrastructure, so they can get more technology exerciseopportunities.

The transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledgefrom the first language to the second language is arequisite learning process for LEP students (O’Malley &Chamot,1990) .

Related Literature &Qualitative Interview Support

M j Fi di




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 ( agegroups, previous educational levels, and previous technology experiences).

* p < 0.05

the p value is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure toreject Null Hypotheses Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten .


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


Between Groups 111.673 4 27.918 .974 .422

Within Groups 8308.443 290 28.650



Major FindingsResearch Question Three

What are the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs inactual ESL teaching and learning?

CALL programs have a positive influence on their ESL teaching andlearning.

Major Advantages:

1. Increase access to authentic materials for teaching and learning English

2. Provide more opportunities for practice through experiential learning

3. Offer more varied learning situations that enhance learning motivationand achievement.

LEP students: more online interactive opportunities; more learningresources.

ESL instructors: prefer the traditional face-to-face interactions. Focus onevaluation and record students’ learning progresses.



Major FindingsResearch Question Three (cont.)

Major Disadvantage

ESL instructors:

1. may not totally align with beginning level English learners’needs;

2. may reduce English learners’ opportunities to explore otherlearning resources; and

3. may increase the teaching and learning loads

LEP students: over-use of CALL programs may influencetheir spelling ability . The spell-correcting function of CALLprograms may help to recheck their writing, but it may prevent them from learning to spell.




“The use of the computer does not constitute a method.Rather, it is a medium in which a variety of methods,approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may beimplemented” (Garrett, 1991, p. 75).

No matter what many functions CALL programs provide,they are still no more than media for teaching andlearning. The effectiveness of CALL programs does notlie in the medium alone but in how the programs areused and the quality of personal teaching and guidancethat accompany them.



Major FindingsResearch Question Four What is the role of CALL programs in current 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 usingtechnology to enhance their learning.

Students who have rich technology experiences often spendmore than ten hours per day for using the computer and theInternet.



Major FindingsResearch Question Four (cont.)

Most Important Role of CALL programs

0 2 4 6 8 10

Tutor

Tool

Tutee

No comment

Student

Instructor

j i di



Major FindingsResearch 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. CALLprograms should follow and satisfy English learners’ needs.




Computers play various roles that deeply impact ESLteaching and learning methods (Warschauer & Kern,2000; Wiazowski, 2002)

The theoretical framework underlying CALL programs is very difficult to define because CALL programs exist inso many different forms. The specific role of CALLprograms often depends upon different needs anddifferent situations (Kemmis, Atkin, & Wright, 1977;Higgins, 1988, Taylor, 1980).



Major FindingsResearch Question Five

What are the second-language learning efficiencyexpectations of LEP students and ESL instructorsutilizing CALL programs?

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

enough for ESL education.

Four LEP students: CALL programs are not perfectenough to meet their learning needs. (For example:Translation Function)



Major FindingsResearch Question Five (cont.)

English skills can be improved effectively

A. The variety of CALL programs permits different users to addressdifferent learning goals and produce different learning results.

B. Because there are no solid guidelines and standards, some instructors andstudents become confused with the functions and abilities of current CALLprogram.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Listening

Reading

Writing

Speaking

No comment

Student

Instructor



Major FindingsResearch Question Five (cont.)

Expectations of future CALL programs:

1. The price of computer, CALL software, and Internetconnection should be reduced

2.The future CALL programs should be easier to use

“To beginning level learners, computers or CALLprograms are difficult to operate sometimes”

3. Should have more human intelligence to understandlearners’ needs and can give students correct feedback immediately




Software of CALL programs is still imperfect, and theirfunctions are limited. Due to the limitations of computer’s artificial intelligence, current computertechnology is unable to deal with learner’s unexpected

learning problems and response immediately as teachersdo (Warschauer, 1996).

The reasons for the computer’s inability to interacteffectively 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 havedistinct learning habits and attitudes toward the use of technology for enhancing English learning. It is importantthat educational leaders and ESL instructors pay greater

attention to students’ personal factors and their learningneeds.

When investments in CALL programs are made, it isimportant that the CALL programs be useful and easy to

use for all populations served. Failure to evaluate CALLapplications continuously and to make improvements inthe development and deployment of CALL software canresult in non-use or ineffective use.



Conclusion (cont.)

Lack of technology knowledge is a major barrier to realizethe advantages of CALL programs. Educational leadersand administrators should face the problem and developtechnology training plans to ensure that all ESL 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 andstudent’s perceptions of the roles of CALL programs willfurther influence their decisions on how to apply CALLprograms in their language teaching and learning.



Conclusion (cont.)

To overcome the price problem and ensure each studenthas the equal opportunity to get CALL programs forenhancing their English Learning, educational leadersand administrators may have to negotiate with computer

producing factories and software companies to reduce theselling 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 designmore appropriate CALL programs for ESL teaching andlearning.



Recommendationsfor Further Study

A study could be conducted at the state level or national level. A study could be conducted that focused on the same student’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 pedagogiesassociated with CALL programs.

A study could be conducted of the curriculum design associated with CALL programs.

A study could be conducted of the students’ learningachievements associated with CALL programs.



Recommendationsfor Further Study (cont.)

A study could be conducted to address different learninggoals that produces different results.

A study could be conducted to focus on more humanintelligence of CALL programs to understand the 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 willsupport more effective and efficient systems for purchasingand maintaining CALL applications that will assist Englishteaching and learning.



Recommendationsfor Further Study (cont.)

A study could be conducted on how educational leaders andadministrators can develop and implement training plansto ensure that all ESL teachers and students have theknowledge and skills to apply computer technology in their

teaching and learning. A study could be conducted about the role of computer

technology within the context of the second languageinstruction.

A study could be conducted that specifically focuses on thethree major barriers: price, artificial intelligence, and easeto use.

A study could be conducted on ways technology has becomea powerful force in education.



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: BlackWellBusiness.

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 tocover 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 YouFor joining in my presentation

Documents

Jay's PhD Dissertation Defense