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

1. The Effectiveness of Computer
Assisted Language Learning
Programs for Enhancing English
Learning among Students of Limited
English Proficiency
A Dissertation Defense
by
Cheng-Chieh Lai
October 06, 2008
Chair: David E. Herrington, Ph.D.

2. Committee Members
David E. Herrington, Ph.D.
( Dissertation Chair)
Pamela Barber-Freeman, Ph.D. William Allan Kritsonis,
Ph.D.
(Member) (Member)
Camille Gibson, Ph.D. Tyrone Tanner, Ed.D.
(Member) (Member)

3. Dissertation Defense
Format
1. Background of the Problems
2. Purpose of the Study
3. Conceptual Framework
4. Research Questions
5. Significance of the Study
6. Research Methods
7. Major Findings and Literature Support
8. Conclusion
9. Recommendations for Further Study

4. Background of the Problems
 Foreign students contribute about $13.5 billion to the U.S. economy
each year through their tuition and fees and living expenses.
 Every 31 seconds a new immigrant enters USA, but 60% are
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) (Camarota, 2005).
 47 million people speak language other than English, and 23 million
people speak English less than “very well” (U. S. Census Bureau,
2005).
 CALL programs has become a new solution for ESL education.
 Definition of CALL programs: An approach to language teaching
and learning, where the computer is used to assist the presentation,
reinforcement, and assessment of the learning material (Davies,
2002).

5. Purpose of the Study
 to gain a comprehensive understanding of the
effectiveness of Computer Assisted Language
Learning (CALL) programs on English as a
Second Language (ESL) education for diverse
English language learners and instructors
 to provide the results as a reference to
educational leaders and administrators who
are considering the use of CALL programs for
their English instruction programs.

6. Conceptual Framework
 Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989)
Perceived
Usefulness
Perceived
Ease of Use
Attitude
Toward use
Behavioral
Intention
To use

7. Conceptual Framework (cont.)
 Theory of Customer Value
(Woodruff & Gardial, 1996)
Attributes
of the product
Results
after using
Needs and wants
of the customers
Customer Value
Intention to
Purchase and Use

8. Research Question
Quantitative
1. What personal factors influence LEP students’
perceived usefulness of CALL programs for
English learning?
2. What personal factors influence LEP students’
perceived ease of use of CALL programs for
English learning?

9. Research Question (cont.)
Qualitative
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of
CALL programs in actual ESL teaching and
learning?
4. What is the role of CALL programs in current
ESL instruction?
5. What are the second language learning
efficiency expectations of LEP students and
ESL instructors utilizing CALL programs?

10.  Ho1~Ho5:Ho1~Ho5:
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived
Usefulness of CALL programs for enhancing their English learning
among (between) their
 Ho6~Ho10:Ho6~Ho10:
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived
Ease of Use of CALL programs for enhancing their English learning
among (between) their
Native languages.
Age groups.
Genders.
Previous educational levels.
Previous technology
experiences.
Native languages.
Age groups.
Genders.
Previous educational levels.
Previous technology
experiences.
Null Hypotheses

11. Significance of the Study
 May provide educational leaders and administrators
a view of the problems associated with current uses of
technology in ESL education
 May present an assessment tool that educational
leaders and administrators may use to determine the
degree to which technology investments are effective
within specific populations
 May encourage ESL instructors to adopt CALL
programs as a viable educational alternative and
inspire students to promote language abilities
through the application of CALL programs

12. Research Methods
 A combination of Quantitative and
Qualitative research methods was
utilized for the study

13. Research Methods (cont.)
Quantitative
 TAM in CALL Questionnaire was modified from Davis’ Technology
Acceptance Model
 Six language translation versions: English, Spanish, French,
Korean, Traditional Chinese, and Simplified Chinese.
 The response scale was a 5-point Likert scale which assigned numerical values
for each response:
Strongly Agree = 5 Agree = 4 Neutral = 3
Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1
 Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic data
 One-way ANOVA statistical method was employed to examine the
difference between LEP students’ individual backgrounds and their
“Usefulness” and “Ease of Use” perceptions of CALL programs.

14. Research Methods (cont.)
Qualitative
 Nine interview questions based on the Customer
Value Theory were asked during the interviews in
order to identify:
1. Advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs
2. Roles of CALL programs in actual ESL classrooms
3. Expectations for future CALL programs
 Data analysis included coding, generating categories,
and writing interview summaries

15. Subjects of the Study
Quantitative
 329 LEP students taking ESL courses and using CALL
programs in college level schools or adult educational
institutions in the Houston area of Texas during summer
semester of 2008
Participated School Frequency Percent
University of Houston (Main campus,
UH)
213 64.7
Houston Community College (HCC) 67 20.4
Chinese Community Center (CCC) 49 14.9
Texas Southern University 0 0
Rice University 0 0
Total 329 100.0

16. Participants’ Native Languages
Native Language Group Frequency Percent
Valid Chinese Speaking Group 84 25.5
Spanish Speaking Group 78 23.7
French Speaking Group 46 14.0
Korean Speaking Group 23 7.0
Others
Speaking
Group
Vietnamese 21 6.4
Arabic 28 8.5
Bambara 2 .6
Gujarati 2 .6
Turkish 7 2.1
Russian 9 2.7
Portugues 5 1.5
Kazakh 3 .9
Tajik 2 .6
Thai 2 .6
Gorane 2 .6
Hindi 1 .3
Japanese 1 .3
Indian 1 .3
Farsi 1 .3
English 2 .6
Super-total 89 27.1
Total 320 97.3
Missing System 9* 2.7
Total 329 100.0

17. Participants’ Age Groups
Under
20 years
old
21-30
years
old
31-40
years
old
41-50
years
old
51-60
years
old
Above 60
years old
Houston
Community
College
1 17 28 13 3 1
University
of Houston 71 125 15 1
Chinese
Community
Center
3 9 10 9 12

18. Participants’ Genders &
Educational Levels
14
35
90
160
29
1
0
50
100
150
200
Elementary
school
Secondary
school
High school Collegeor
university
Postgraduate Missing
147
180
20
0
50
100
150
200
Male Female Missing

19. Participants’ Technology Experiences
Frequency Percent
Valid Under 1 year 27 8.2
1-3 years 50 15.2
4-6 years 69 21.0
7-9 years 56 17.0
More than 10 years 104 31.6
Total 306 93.0
Missing System 23* 7.0
Total 329 100.0

20. Subjects of the Study
Qualitative
 Twenty participants joined in the face-to-face
interviews.
Participated School Instructors Students
University of Houston (Main campus)
4 3
Houston Community College
3 4
Chinese Community Center
0 6
Total
7 13

21. Research Instrument Validity
A. The construct validity: based on Two
previous theories.
1. Technology Acceptance model
2. Customer Value Theory
B. The content validity: checked by a panel of
experts.
1. Dissertation chair
2. One ESL instructors (HISD)
3. One EFL assistant professor (Taiwan)

22. Research Instrument Reliability
Six Statement N Mean Std. Deviation
Using computers and the Internet in my English learning can enable me to achieve
a higher English level more quickly 324 3.81 1.080
Using the computer software, such as Word, PowerPoint, and Multimedia, can
improve my English learning performance 323 3.76 1.036
Using email, electronic discussion board, or online chat-room can provide me
more opportunities for communicating and interacting with my ESL teachers and
peers
324 3.82 1.110
Using the computer learning software and the Internet's World Wide Web can
help me get more ESL learning resources and materials to enhance my English
learning
324 3.87 1.059
Using the computer learning software and the Internet's World Wide Web can
expose me to the American culture as well as learning English 324 3.77 1.081
I believe that computer technologies and ESL learning software are useful for
fulfilling my ESL learning goals 324 3.86 .990
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.926 .926 6
Perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs
The result showed that this instrument is reliable.

23. Research Instrument Reliability
Six Statement N Mean Std. Deviation
I am willing to study English with the computer because I find that it
is easy to get the computer to do whatever I want it to do, whenever
and wherever I choose
318 3.57 1.184
It is easy for me to use the computer software, such as Word,
PowerPoint, and Multimedia, as tools for showing my English
learning progress
318 3.66 1.068
I have no problem using email, electronic discussion board, or
online chat-room to communicate and interact with my ESL
teachers and peers
318 375 1.063
When I use the computer learning software and the Internet’s
World Wide Web, I find that it is easy to gain the ESL learning
resources and materials what I need them.
318 3.75 9.76
I find that it is easy for me to learn more basic knowledge of English
and American culture through the computer and the Internet 318 3.64 1.022
I believe that operating the computer and using computer assisted
language learning programs is easy 318 3.80 .993
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.914 .916 6
Perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs
The result showed that this instrument is reliable.

24. Major Findings
Research Question One
 What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived
usefulness of CALL programs for English learning?
 Independent Variable:
 Dependent Variable:
Sum of the scale scores relating to the “Usefulness” of
CALL programs for enhancing English learning.
Personal factors
Native Language
Gender
Age group
Educational level
Technology Experience

25. Major Findings
Research Question One (cont.)
 Null Hypothesis One
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’
perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English
learning among their native language backgrounds as measured by
TAM in CALL Questionnaire.
The null hypothesis was rejected.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
823.220 4 205.805 7.487 .000*
Within
Groups
8493.748 309 27.488
Total 9316.968 313
*p < 0.05

26. Major Findings
Research Question One (cont.)
 To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test
was conducted
(I) Native Languages (J) Native Languages Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Others Speaking
Group
Chinese Speaking
Group -3.161(*) .804 .004
Spanish Speaking
Group -3.903(*) .820 .000
French Speaking
Group -2.083 .963 .324
Korean Speaking
Group -.013 1.251 1.000
*p < 0.05

27.  English learner’s native language was a factor that
yielded a significant difference in LEP students’
perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for
enhancing English learning
 Three reasons may contribute to the result:
1. Digital Divide (International Telecommunication Union, 2003)
2. Levels of English Proficiency
3. Translation Versions
Discussion
Null Hypothesis One

28.  A student who lives in a higher Digital Access Index (DAI)
scoring country may have more opportunities to get the
benefits of computer technologies and the Internet, and can
gain more opportunities to increase their individual computer
literacy skills (International Telecommunication Union, 2003).
 Students of varying levels of English proficiency in English do
have differing perceptions of the use of technology (Doll,
2007).
 Lower level of English proficiency students were enthusiastic
about the CALL environment; higher level of English
proficiency students need more significant learning inputs and
might be difficult to perceive an improvement through regular
CALL programs for their English skills (Hayes & Hicks, 2004)
Related Literature Support

29. Major Findings
Research Question One (cont.)
 Null Hypothesis Three
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’
perceived “Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English
learning, as measured by TAM in CALL Questionnaire, among
different age groups.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
Groups 639.943 5 127.989 4.528 .001*
Within Groups
8649.173 306 28.265
Total
9289.115 311
* p < 0.05
The null hypothesis was rejected.

30. Major Findings
Research Question One (cont.)
 To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test was conducted.
However, there were no the mean difference between each age group
and a p value shown in Scheffe test.
 A Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was conducted.
 The result yielded a significant difference between the following pairs
of age groups:
1. “under 20 years old” and “31 to 40 years old” age groups (p = .002)
2. “under 20 years old” and “41 to 50 years old” age groups (p = .002)
3. “21 to 30 years old” and “31 to 40 years old” age groups (p =.001)
4. “21 to 30 years old” and “41 to 50 years old” age groups (p =.002)

31.  LEP student’s age range was a factor that caused
significant differences toward students’ “Usefulness”
perceptions when using CALL programs
Three reasons may contribute to the result:
1. Generations
2. Levels of English Proficiency
3. Duties
 According to the qualitative interviews, the older students had
to spend more time on their jobs and household duties. They
had very little time for English study or computer use at home.
This might account for some of the difference in “Usefulness”
scores between age groups.
Discussion
Null Hypothesis Three

32.  The age difference could not be regarded as an influential
factor affecting older adults engaging in Web-searching
activities…….. If we can provide more trainings and
opportunities to older adults, older adults may overcome
the age difference and enjoy the benefits of computer
technologies more than younger users (Kubeck, Miller–
Albrecht, & Murphy, 1999) .
Related Literature Support

33. Major Findings
Research Question One (cont.)
 Null Hypotheses Two, Four, and Five
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived
“Usefulness” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among their
genders (previous educational levels, and previous technology experiences).
* p < 0.05
the p value is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to
reject Null Hypotheses Two, Four, and Five .
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Gender
Between Groups 50.731 1 50.731 1.734 .189
Within Groups 9334.092 319 29.260
Educational Level
Between Groups 159.058 4 39.765 1.355 .249
Within Groups 9301.218 317 29.341
Technology Experience
Between Groups 13.716 4 3.429 .111 .978
Within Groups 9086.214 295 30.801

34. Major Findings
Research Question Two
 What personal factors influence LEP students’ perceived
ease of use of CALL programs for English learning?
 Independent Variable:
 Dependent Variable:
Sum of the scale scores relating to the “Ease of Use” of
CALL programs for enhancing English learning.
personal factors
Native Language
Gender
Age groups
Educational level
Technology Experience

35. Major Findings
Research Question Two (cont.)
 Null Hypothesis Six
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’
perceived “Ease of Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English
learning among their native language backgrounds as measured by
TAM in CALL Questionnaire.
The null hypothesis was rejected.
*p < 0.05
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
286.232 4 71.558 2.546 .040
Within Groups 8544.254 304 28.106
Total 8830.485 308

36. Major Findings
Research Question Two (cont.)
 To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test
was conducted
(I) Native Languages (J) Native Languages
Mean Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
Chinese Speaking
Group
Spanish Speaking
Group
1.474 .847 .554
French Speaking
Group
1.701 .984 .560
Korean Speaking
Group
1.952 1.273 .671
Others Speaking
Group
2.564(*) .821 .047
*p < 0.05

37.  English learner’s native language was a factor that
yielded significantly differences in “Ease of Use” of CALL
programs
 Two reasons may contribute to the result:
1. Digital Divide
2. Language Version of CALL programs
Discussion
Null Hypothesis Six

38.  Student’s native language and culture background may
influence his or her perception regarding the use of
computer technology for enhancing their learning (Zoe &
DiMartino, 2000).
 Through the qualitative interview, one ESL instructor
pointed out that Asian students are often good at computer
technology. Their countries usually have more technology
infrastructure, so they can get more technology exercise
opportunities.
 The transfer of prior linguistic and cognitive knowledge
from the first language to the second language is a
requisite learning process for LEP students (O’Malley &
Chamot,1990) .
Related Literature &
Qualitative Interview Support

39. Major Findings
Research Question Two (cont.)
 Null Hypotheses Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten
There is no statistically significant difference in LEP students’ perceived “Ease of
Use” of CALL programs for enhancing English learning among their genders ( age
groups, previous educational levels, and previous technology experiences).
* p < 0.05
the p value is greater than the criterion p value of .05 which indicates a failure to
reject Null Hypotheses Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten .
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Gender
Between Groups 25.067 1 25.067 .898 .344
Within Groups 8766.056 314 27.917
Age Group
Between Groups 219.161 5 43.832 1.559 .172
Within Groups 8464.501 301 28.121
Educational Level
Between Groups 128.724 4 32.181 1.143 .336
Within Groups 8782.702 312 28.150
Technology Experience
Between Groups 111.673 4 27.918 .974 .422
Within Groups 8308.443 290 28.650

40. Major Findings
Research Question Three
 What are the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs in
actual ESL teaching and learning?
 CALL programs have a positive influence on their ESL teaching and
learning.
Major Advantages:
1. Increase access to authentic materials for teaching and learning English
2. Provide more opportunities for practice through experiential learning
3. Offer more varied learning situations that enhance learning motivation
and achievement.
 LEP students: more online interactive opportunities; more learning
resources.
ESL instructors: prefer the traditional face-to-face interactions. Focus on
evaluation and record students’ learning progresses.

41. Major Findings
Research Question Three (cont.)
Major Disadvantage
 ESL instructors:
1. may not totally align with beginning level English learners’
needs;
2. may reduce English learners’ opportunities to explore other
learning resources; and
3. may increase the teaching and learning loads
 LEP students: over-use of CALL programs may influence
their spelling ability. The spell-correcting function of CALL
programs may help to recheck their writing, but it may
prevent them from learning to spell.

42. Related Literature Support
 “The use of the computer does not constitute a method.
Rather, it is a medium in which a variety of methods,
approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be
implemented” (Garrett, 1991, p. 75).
 No matter what many functions CALL programs provide,
they are still no more than media for teaching and
learning. The effectiveness of CALL programs does not
lie in the medium alone but in how the programs are
used and the quality of personal teaching and guidance
that accompany them.

43. Major Findings
Research Question Four
 What is the role of CALL programs in current ESL
instructions?
Time spent on CALL programs:
 ESL instructors: 1. the length of the semester
2. the content of textbook
 LEP students: technology experience backgrounds
Without technology background or with little technology
knowledge, students spend little time or none on using
technology to enhance their learning.
Students who have rich technology experiences often spend
more than ten hours per day for using the computer and the
Internet.

44. Major Findings
Research Question Four (cont.)
Most Important Role of CALL programs
0 2 4 6 8 10
Tutor
Tool
Tutee
No comment
Student
Instructor

45. Major Findings
Research Question Four (cont.)
“Tool” role:
1. vary their teaching and learning paths
2. provide more interactive activities
3. facilitate the effectiveness of teaching and learning.
“Tutor” role:
 CALL programs can offer reading, vocabulary, and other kinds of
practice to evaluate students’ works and keep their records.
“Tutee” role:
 Each student has individual learning needs and the computer is not
able to adapt to different learning styles of the student. CALL
programs should follow and satisfy English learners’ needs.

46. Related Literature Support
 Computers play various roles that deeply impact ESL
teaching and learning methods (Warschauer & Kern,
2000; Wiazowski, 2002)
 The theoretical framework underlying CALL programs is
very difficult to define because CALL programs exist in
so many different forms. The specific role of CALL
programs often depends upon different needs and
different situations (Kemmis, Atkin, & Wright, 1977;
Higgins, 1988, Taylor, 1980).

47. Major Findings
Research Question Five
 What are the second-language learning efficiency
expectations of LEP students and ESL instructors
utilizing CALL programs?
Satisfaction of current CALL
 All ESL instructors: Current CALL programs are good
enough for ESL education.
 Four LEP students: CALL programs are not perfect
enough to meet their learning needs. (For example:
Translation Function)

48. Major Findings
Research Question Five (cont.)
English skills can be improved effectively
A. The variety of CALL programs permits different users to address
different learning goals and produce different learning results.
B. Because there are no solid guidelines and standards, some instructors and
students become confused with the functions and abilities of current CALL
program.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
No comment
Student
Instructor

49. Major Findings
Research Question Five (cont.)
Expectations of future CALL programs:
1. The price of computer, CALL software, and Internet
connection should be reduced
2. The future CALL programs should be easier to use
“To beginning level learners, computers or CALL
programs are difficult to operate sometimes”
3. Should have more human intelligence to understand
learners’ needs and can give students correct feedback
immediately

50. Related Literature Support
 Software of CALL programs is still imperfect, and their
functions are limited. Due to the limitations of
computer’s artificial intelligence, current computer
technology is unable to deal with learner’s unexpected
learning problems and response immediately as teachers
do (Warschauer, 1996).
 The reasons for the computer’s inability to interact
effectively can be traced back to a fundamental
difference in the way humans and computers utilize
information (Dent, 2001).

51. Conclusion
 LEP students come from different countries and have
distinct learning habits and attitudes toward the use of
technology for enhancing English learning. It is important
that educational leaders and ESL instructors pay greater
attention to students’ personal factors and their learning
needs.
 When investments in CALL programs are made, it is
important that the CALL programs be useful and easy to
use for all populations served. Failure to evaluate CALL
applications continuously and to make improvements in
the development and deployment of CALL software can
result in non-use or ineffective use.

52. Conclusion (cont.)
 Lack of technology knowledge is a major barrier to realize
the advantages of CALL programs. Educational leaders
and administrators should face the problem and develop
technology training plans to ensure that all ESL teachers
and LEP students have the knowledge and skills to apply
CALL programs in their teaching and learning.
 To identify what role CALL programs played in the
classroom is important because each instructor’s and
student’s perceptions of the roles of CALL programs will
further influence their decisions on how to apply CALL
programs in their language teaching and learning.

53. Conclusion (cont.)
 To overcome the price problem and ensure each student
has the equal opportunity to get CALL programs for
enhancing their English Learning, educational leaders
and administrators may have to negotiate with computer
producing factories and software companies to reduce the
selling prices of computers and CALL software.
 To improve the artificial intelligence and the ease of use
problems, educational leaders and administrators may
have to communicate with software designers to design
more appropriate CALL programs for ESL teaching and
learning.

54. Recommendations
for Further Study
 A study could be conducted at the state level or national level.
 A study could be conducted that focused on the same student’s
English level.
 A study could be conducted that focused on specific software of
CALL program.
 A study could be conducted of the student’s learning style
associated with CALL programs.
 A study could be conducted of the effectiveness of pedagogies
associated with CALL programs.
 A study could be conducted of the curriculum design associated
with CALL programs.
 A study could be conducted of the students’ learning
achievements associated with CALL programs.

55. Recommendations
for Further Study (cont.)
 A study could be conducted to address different learning
goals that produces different results.
 A study could be conducted to focus on more human
intelligence of CALL programs to understand the language
learners’ needs.
 A study could be conducted on personal factors related to
students’ learning needs and personal circumstances.
 A study could be conducted on how educational leaders and
administrators can develop policies and strategies that will
support more effective and efficient systems for purchasing
and maintaining CALL applications that will assist English
teaching and learning.

56. Recommendations
for Further Study (cont.)
 A study could be conducted on how educational leaders and
administrators can develop and implement training plans
to ensure that all ESL teachers and students have the
knowledge and skills to apply computer technology in their
teaching and learning.
 A study could be conducted about the role of computer
technology within the context of the second language
instruction.
 A study could be conducted that specifically focuses on the
three major barriers: price, artificial intelligence, and ease
to use.
 A study could be conducted on ways technology has become
a powerful force in education.

57. References
Camarota, S. A. (2005). Immigrants at mid-decade: A snapshot of America's
foreign-born population in 2005. Report released by the Center for
Immigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank that supports lower
levels of immigration. Retrieved on June 30, 2006, from
http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.html
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
Dent, C. (2001). Studer: classification v. categorization. Retrieved June 28,
2006, from
http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/cdent/fiaarts/docs/1005018884:23962.h
tml
Doll, J. J. (2007). Using English language learner perceptions of technology to
your advantage. Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, June 2007,
4(6). Retrieved July 30, 2008, from
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jun_07/article03.htm
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: trends and
issues. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 74-101.

58. References (cont.)
Hayes, B. E., & Hicks, S. K. (2004). Speaking in the CALL environment.
Proceedings of CLaSIC 2004, シンガポール国立大学言語研究センター /Pac
CALL 2004 抄録 (CD-ROM), pp. 954-961. Retrieved August, 27, 2008, from
http://www.paccall.org/2004/2004proceedings_papers/hayes.pdf
International Telecommunication Union. (ITU, 2003). Digital Access Index: World’s
first global ICT ranking- education and affordability key to boosting new
technology adoption. Press release 19 November 2003, Geneva. Retrieved
August, 11, 2007, from
http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2003/30.html
Kubeck, J. E., Miller-Albrecht, S. A. & Murphy, M. D. (1999). Finding information on
the World Wide Web: exploring older adults’ exploration. Educational
Gerontology, 25(2), 167-83.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Computer and Internet use by
children and adolescents in 2001: Statistical analysis report. Retrieved March
02, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004014.pdf
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

59. References (cont.)
U. S. Census Bureau. (2005). Language spoken at home. Washington, DC: U. S.
Census Bureau. Retrieved July, 28, 2007, from http://factfinder.census.gov/
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction.
Retrieved March 12, 2006, from http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/call.html
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (eds.) (2000). Network-based language teaching:
Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiazowski, J. (2002). Computer-assisted language learning as a bridge to social
inclusion of blind learners in mainstream schooling. Retrieved July 17, 2007,
from http://www.icevi.org/publications/ICEVI-WC2002/papers/01-topic/
Woodruff, R. B. & Gardial, S. F. (1996). Know your customer: New approaches
to understanding customer value and satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: BlackWell
Business.
Zoe, L. R., & DiMartino, D. (2000). Cultural diversity and end user searching: An
analysis by gender and language background. Research Strategies, 17(4),
291-305.

60. Note
“In Katy ISD, there are approximately 70 different
languages represented by the thousands of students
that attend classes in the district. [Katy ISD has]
received a special waiver from the state allowing it to
cover several other languages in its program including
Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic, and Korean.”
Bradley, D.(2008, October 1). District becoming more diversified. Katy
Times 95 (78), 1, 3.

61. 謝謝謝謝！！
(xie xie)
Thank You
For joining in my presentation