Dr. David E. Herrington, PhD Dissertation Chair for CHENG-CHIEH LAI, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System, 2008. Committee Members: Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dr. Camille Gibson, Dr. Tyrone Tanner, Dr. Pamela T. Barber Freeman

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

Copyright by
CHENG-CHIEH LAI
December 2008
All Rights Reserved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
between means of ESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness”
Subscale………………………………………..........................................108
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

10.2 LSD Post Hoc of ANOVA Analysis in ESL Age Groups and the TAM
in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale ………… …….………………….…….111
between and among Group Means of ESL Educational Level on the
TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale …….…………………………….112
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
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
between Means of ESL Gender on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness”
Subscale……………………………………..….........................................118
between and among Group Means of ESL Age Groups on the TAM in
CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale……………………….………………… 119
on the TAM in CALL “Usefulness” Subscale……..….………………… 120
on the TAM in CALL “Ease of Use” Subscale……….………………… 120
19 Frequency of Advantages of CALL Programs for ESL Teaching and
Learning ……………………………………..……………………………125
xi

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

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

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,

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,

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

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

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,

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.

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

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.

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.
“Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by

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.
“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.
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.
of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning, as measured by TAM
in CALL Questionnaire, among different technology experience groups.

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.

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,

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).

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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 &

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,

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)

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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).

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

43
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). Blin (1999) indicated that computer technology with that degree of intelligence do
not exist, and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. Today’s computer
technology and CALL programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive.
Computer engineers, CALL program designers, and ESL educators still have to put more
effort into developing and improving computer technology in order to increase the quality
of CALL programs in the future.
Roles of CALL Programs in ESL Classrooms
Although computers have been used for second language teaching and learning
for five decades, the role of the computer within the context of the second language
instruction is still debated. The development of computers and networks has shaped new
second language teaching and learning paradigms, making computers the new medium of
local and global communication through asynchronous and synchronous
computer-mediated communication (CMC); as well as a source of authentic material
through globally linked hypertext and hypermedia in the World Wide Web (Warschauer &
Kern, 2000). The functions of computers range from mere typewriter tasks to
sophisticated presentations, and from simulated talks with programs to long-distance
chatting via Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or forums (Wiazowski, 2002).
As many ESL schools and institutions begin to include computer systems in their
ESL instructional programs, identifying what role the computer plays in the curricula and
lesson plans is important because the knowledge of the impact of the computer has
increased. This knowledge is a result of an understanding of the relationship between

44
technology and language learning. By clarifying and investigating what roles the
computer might have, ESL leaders and teachers can better understand how computer
technology is best implemented in their ESL classrooms for enhancing teaching and
assisting learning.
Computers actually play various roles and deeply impact ESL teaching and
learning methods. The theoretical framework underlying CALL programs is very difficult
to define because CALL programs exist in so many forms. In general, linguistic educators
recognize that there are three main theories of learning and roles for the computer in
CALL programs. The three major theorists are Stephen Kemmis, John Higgins and
Robert Taylor.
The first theory regarding the role of computers was proposed by Kemmis, Atkin
and Wright (1977). They analyzed computer use in terms of experience of learner and set
up a classification system for CALL programs consisting of four paradigms:
(a) Instructional CALL: This paradigm is based on Skinner’s (1969) behaviorist
perspective. The computer instructs the learner, who is given opportunities to
practice tasks and is then provided with feedback from the program. Drill and
practice programs would serve as a good example of this type of CALL
program.
(b) Revelatory CALL: This paradigm is based on the discovery learning ideas of
Bruner (1960) and simulations are an example. This paradigm allows learners
to use their notions of second language to manipulate virtual worlds
simulating the real world.

45
(c) Conjectural CALL: This paradigm is based on constructivist theories and
includes modeling and Artificial Intelligence packages for computer science
applications learning. This paradigm emphasizes that language students
should build, model, or manipulate ideas and concepts in order to test
conjectured hypotheses.
(d) Emancipatory CALL: This paradigm contains aspects of the other
paradigms. This student-centered paradigm is based on the idea that computer
software and programs can be a labor saving device (Kemmis, Atkin, &
Wright, 1977, p. 26).
The second theory regarding the role of computers was proposed by Higgins
(1988). Higgins first made a distinction between the role of the teacher as a “Magister” or
a “Pedagogue.” He then extends this distinction to different approaches to computer use
in language learning and teaching. In his view, the Magister role of the CALL program is
any activity in which the computer evaluates student performance and, like the traditional
schoolmaster, dictates the order in which learning is expected to occur. It initiates and
controls the interaction, directs the learning process, and controls the sequence and the
level of difficulty. This is similar to Kemmis’s Instructional CALL.
Higgins stated that the Pedagogue role of CALL programs is to respond and serve.
Pedagogue includes all those activities, such as games, simulations, access to tools and
look-up tables of information, in which the computer was providing services similar to
those provided by a slave—much like the Pedagogue in ancient Rome who escorted rich
children to school. In this CALL paradigm students can decide what they want to learn,
how they want to learn, and in what order. The users are in control and call on particular

46
functions when they need CALL programs. This category encompasses Kemmis’ other
three categories. Higgins’ Magister-Pedagogue dichotomy has strongly influenced CALL
software development over the past decades. The main force of this argument was that
while language learners probably need both Magister and Pedagogue during the course of
their learning, the computer performs more effectively as Pedagogue and the human more
effectively as Magister.
The third theory regarding the role of computers was proposed by Taylor (1980).
Taylor proposed a tripartite conceptualization of CALL programs for assisting students’
language learning which includes the “Tutor,” “Tool,” and “Tutee;” and each kind of role
of CALL program depends on different needs and situations. Taylor described these roles
as follows:
To function as a tutor, the computer presents some subject material, the student
responds, the computer evaluates the response and from the results of the
evaluation, determines what to present next. At its least computers keep complete
records of each student being tutored…To function as a tool, the computer needs
only some useful capability programmed into it such as statistical analysis, super
calculation, or word processing. The learner can then use it to help them in a
variety of subjects…To use the computer as tutee is to tutor the computer; for that,
the student or teacher doing the tutoring must learn to program, to talk to the
computer in a language that it understands (p.3).
In Taylor’s view, when the computer plays as a “Tutor,” the computer presents
the material, assesses the student’s response, and then determines the next activity while
simultaneously keeping a record of the student’s performance. This is similar to

47
Higgins’s Magister role and Kemmis’s Instructional CALL. In the role of “Tool,” some
capacity of the computer is used by the student to achieve a specific task and the
computer amplifies the student’s ability to address academic tasks. In the role of “Tutee,”
the teacher or student must tutor the computer. In order to do this, they must learn the
programming language and then use the programming language to instruct the computer
to perform certain tasks.
No matter what roles computers have, the teacher is a key variable in CALL
program implementation and effectiveness. With the rapid development of computer
technology and CALL programs, a teacher’s role in an ESL classroom has changed. With
regard to infusing technology into teaching, teachers have become more involved in the
process of the creation of classroom materials, rather than being the consumers of
syllabuses and textbooks. Teachers are naturally creative and want to be able to modify
the materials to better suit their learners’ needs. They have also become managers and
facilitators of classroom activities (Motteram, 1997).
Lewis indicated (1986) that the roles of computers are determined by teachers’
attitudes. For example, computers play the role of “tutor” when they are used directly by
teachers to guide students to autonomous learning. In this way, CALL programs can
temporarily replace the teachers’ functions. By contrast, the role of CALL programs
would be just as a “tool” if teachers viewed computers as an instrument. Teachers are still
the leaders of the classroom and should control students’ learning progress. Teachers can
also view CALL programs as the “cooperator” and share their teaching activities or
complete some difficult learning tasks. Teachers can manage students’ interaction with
CALL programs. The computer becomes a supplementary instrument.

Dr. David E. Herrington, PhD Dissertation Chair for CHENG-CHIEH LAI, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System, 2008. Committee Members: Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dr. Camille Gibson, Dr. Tyrone Tanner, Dr. Pamela T. Barber Freeman

Dr. David E. Herrington, PhD Dissertation Chair for CHENG-CHIEH LAI, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System, 2008. Committee Members: Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dr. Camille Gibson, Dr. Tyrone Tanner, Dr. Pamela T. Barber Freeman

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Dr. David E. Herrington, PhD Dissertation Chair for CHENG-CHIEH LAI, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System, 2008. Committee Members: Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dr. Camille Gibson, Dr. Tyrone Tanner, Dr. Pamela T. Barber Freeman

Similaire à Dr. David E. Herrington, PhD Dissertation Chair for CHENG-CHIEH LAI, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System, 2008. Committee Members: Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dr. Camille Gibson, Dr. Tyrone Tanner, Dr. Pamela T. Barber Freeman (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Dr. David E. Herrington, PhD Dissertation Chair for CHENG-CHIEH LAI, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System, 2008. Committee Members: Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dr. Camille Gibson, Dr. Tyrone Tanner, Dr. Pamela T. Barber Freeman