英語老師在以省思為基礎的電腦輔助語言教學工作坊中之專業成長研究

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語研究所博士論文. Doctoral Dissertation Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 英語老師在以省思為基礎的電腦輔助語言教學工作坊中之專業成長研究 A Study on English Teachers’Professional Development in a Reflection-Based Computer Assisted Language Learning Workshop. 指導教授：程玉秀博士、林至誠博士 Advisors: Dr. Yuh-show Cheng and Dr. Chih-cheng Lin. 研究生：曾俊傑 Jun-jie Jack Tseng. 中華民國九十七年六月 June 2008.

(2) 中文摘要過去很多研究都著重在教師對一般語言教學的認知，比較少注意到他們學習電腦來教學這方面的認知。因此，本研究希望能夠對這方面的研究文獻有所貢獻，其目的在於探索語言教師在參加以省思為基礎的電腦輔助語言教學(Computer Assisted Language Learning; CALL)教師成長計畫之後，他們的省思力、信念，以及科技教學學科知識 (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge)的發展。有四位在職英語老師最後成為本研究的研究對象，因為他們成功地完成了為期十二週的電腦輔助語言教學(CALL)教師成長工作坊，在這期間他們必須每週透過討論區來省思回應一個資訊融入教學的問題，以及在工作坊結束前寫出一份教案。研究者收集所有十二週的回應省思文章，根據修訂過的 Bloom 的分類等級表(the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy scale)，來評量老師們的省思力發展；並且以這些回應省思，加上訪談記錄，利用質性資料分析的方式來找出老師們對 CALL 的信念；最後分析老師們的教案以及刺激回憶法的文字稿來統整出他們的科技教學學科知識。研究結果顯示，四位老師們的省思力大致上都有所提升。在工作坊初期，老師們只能夠瞭解科技在教學上的意義，以及應用科技於特定的教學情境中；但是在工作坊後期，老師們則都進步到能夠分析一些 CALL 的實務，進而以理論概念來評鑑這些實務。在教師信念方面，發現四位老師對 CALL 持有一些共通與正面的信念：CALL 可以協助老師激發學生的學習動機以及發展學生的自主學習；現成的 CALL 資源可以讓學生有機會接觸到真實與可理解的語言輸入，以及使用目標語；數位教材編輯軟體可以幫助老師們（一）更有效率地管理傳統的視聽教材、（二）強化語言輸入、（三）提供學生練習目標語的機會。除此之外，四位老師們都有一個共同的信念，亦即老師可以在 CALL 的環境下扮演各式角色：課前的 CALL 教材設計者與評鑑者，課堂中主導大部分教學活動的舞台主角，課後將自己的角色邊緣化，由電腦（指網路和家教式的 CALL 光碟軟體）扮演知識提供者的角色。對比之下，他們相信學生可以是主動決定者，自主選取學習資源；相信學生可以是一位自我學習的評鑑者。最後，所有四位老師都認為，有限. i.

(3) 的硬體設備以及製作與維護數位教材所耗費的龐大時間會阻礙 CALL 實務的發展。至於四位老師的科技教學學科知識，雖然還是有一些不同，不過大致上他們都瞭解如何融入資訊在英語教學情境中。他們知道電腦，尤其是 PowerPoint、Hot Potatoes 和網路（用來搜尋補充教材），可以有效地呈現文法與字彙；他們也知道，這樣的教學組合，可以運用一些教學策略來強化：引出（elicitation）、概念處理（concept processing）、遊戲（game）、家教式活動（tutorial）、反覆練習（drill-and-practice）等。最後，老師們的科技教學學科知識也包含對教學實務上情境束縛的瞭解，認為學生接觸電腦受到侷限，以及老師們自己低落的資訊能力，都會對實務教學有所影響。本研究所發展的 CALL 教師成長計畫似乎對四位老師的專業成長有所貢獻，分別是強化批判思考科技與教學的關連、發展正面的 CALL 信念、以及擴增科技融入教學的知識。基於以上研究發現，本研究對師資培育提出一些教學啟示以供參考，而且也對未來的研究提出建議，特別是研究設計與工作坊設計。. ii.

(4) ABSTRACT Much research has been conducted on teachers’cognitions in the context of general language teaching, but relatively few studies have centered on the cognitions involved in teachers’learning to teach language with the computer. The present study thus hoped to bridge a gap of existing research on language teachers’cognitions. Specifically, this study aimed to inquire into the development of English teachers’reflectivity, beliefs about Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) of integrating technology into teaching in a reflection-based CALL teacher development (CALLTD) program. Successfully completing a 12-week CALLTD workshop in which they were required to submit weekly reflection entries and a CALL lesson plan, four in- service English teachers constituted the ultimate subjects of the study. All of their reflection entries were evaluated for their critical levels according to the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy scale. Together with individual interview transcriptions, those reflection entries were also qualitatively analyzed to identify their beliefs about CALL. The lesson plans and individual stimulated recall transcriptions were analyzed to identify their TPCK. It was found that the four teachers’reflectivity was overall on the increase. At the beginning of the workshop, their reflections were mostly rated as the levels of understanding pedagogical significance associated with technology and applying technologies to particular contexts. Toward the end of the workshop, their reflections were promoted to the levels of viewing CALL practices with analytical thoughts and evaluating them with theoretical concepts. The four teachers were also found to hold some common and positive beliefs about CALL: CALL could help teachers motivate students and develop their autonomy in learning; ready-made CALL resources could expose students to authentic and comprehensible linguistic input and provide them with opportunities to use the target language; authoring programs could facilitate teachers to (1) manage traditional audio/video teaching materials more efficiently, (2) enhance linguistic input, and (3) offer students opportunities to practice the target language. In addition, the teachers had a common belief that teachers played varied roles in CALL environment s: a designer and an evaluator of CALL materials before class, an actor in charge of most events and activities during class, and a peripheral role after class when the computer (i.e. the web and the tutor-based CALL CD-ROM titles) becomes a knowledge provider. In contrast, students were believed to play the roles of active decision makers in selecting learning resources and self-evaluators of their learning. Finally, the four teachers believed that CALL practices might be discouraged by limited access to hardware facilities and a need to invest a large amount of time in authoring and maintaining CALL materials. iii.

(5) With regard to the four teachers’ TPCK, they revealed a general, though somewhat different, understanding of technology integration in EFL teaching contexts. They understood that the computer, particularly PowerPoint, Hot Potatoes, and the Internet (used to search for supplementary learning materials), could effectively present grammar and vocabulary. To their knowledge, the combination of the target content and technologies could be supported by such instructional strategies as elicitation, concept processing, game, tutorial, and drill-and-practice. Lastly, the teachers’TPCK also entailed an understanding of contextual constraints on CALL practices, that is, students’limited access to computers and the teachers’ restricted information competency. The CALLTD program developed in this study seemed to have contributed to the four teachers’professional development, in terms of enhancing critical thinking on the connection between technology and pedagogy, developing positive beliefs about CALL, and expanding knowledge of integrating technology into teaching. Based on the findings of this study, implications for teacher education are offered. Suggestions are also made fo r future studies with regard to design of research and setting up of a workshop.. iv.

(6) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. I owe a great deal to many people who have been helpful and supportive in completing this dissertation. Without them, the birth of this work may not be possible. First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my esteemed advisors, Dr. Yuh-show Cheng and Dr. Chih-cheng Lin, for their eminently helpful advice on everything from the methodological design to the writing process. I have greatly benefited from them, for not only have they guided me to develop and organize this dissertation they have also enlightened me to enter research world. I am sure I should model myself on them for their dedication and commitment in research and teaching. I would also like to offer my sincere thanks to my committee members— Dr. Hsien-chin Liou, and Dr. Meei- ling Liaw, Dr. Chiou- lan Chern, Dr. Hao-jan Chen— for they have contributed insightful and critical comments and suggestions to this dissertation. Their remarks have made the dissertation better. My appreciation goes to Dr. Chiou- lan Chern, who assisted in initiating the workshop of the study at English Language Training Center of National Taiwan Normal University and recruiting English teachers to participate in it. Special gratitude is also extended to Mr. Kai-pei Chang for his technical expertise in creating and maintaining the website for the study, Dr. Hsin-chou Huang for helping with rating the participating teachers’reflection entries, and Ms. Shu- li Lai for examining the appropriateness of the questionnaire (though not analyzed eventually due to the small number of the participating teachers). I am thankful to all the participating in-service English teachers, especially the four target teachers, since they completed all the tasks required for the study— the sources of research data. Without their participation, the study could not be cond ucted. I am deeply indebted to my parents and my oldest sister for their continuous support and encouragement throughout the years as a doctoral student. Also, I am grateful to my parents- in- law, who have been concerned about my doctoral study. And finally, my heartfelt appreciation goes to my wife Lih-chen Liu, who has taken responsibility for looking after our little children and taking care of most household chores during my doctoral study. With her constant help, I could fully concentrate on my stud y. With her full understanding and endless patience, I could pursue my career goal— completing a doctoral study. Thus, I dedicate this dissertation to my supportive wife, Lih-chen Liu.. v.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… x List of Figures … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… .xi List of Flow Charts … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .....xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1 Background of the Study....................................................................................................2 The Significance of the Study............................................................................................4 Research Questions ............................................................................................................8 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 11 The Computer in Language Education ............................................................................ 11 CALL History .......................................................................................................... 11 CALL Environments ................................................................................................14 Underlying Frameworks ..................................................................................14 CALL Design ...................................................................................................17 CALL Evaluation.............................................................................................21 Reflective Approach to Teacher Development Program..................................................25 The Emergence of Reflection-Based Teacher Development Program ....................25 The Role of Reflective Practice in Teacher Development Program ........................28 Reflective Procedures ..............................................................................................31 Online Learning Community of Practice .................................................................34 Teachers’ Beliefs ..............................................................................................................39 The Difference Between Teachers’ Beliefs and Their Knowledge ..........................39 Beliefs About General Advantages of CALL Instruction........................................41 Beliefs About the Roles of the Computer in CALL Practices .................................43 Beliefs About the Roles of the Teacher and Students in CALL Practices ...............46 The Relationship Between Teachers’ Beliefs and Their Practices ...........................48 Teachers’ Knowledge .......................................................................................................51 Historical Development of Research on Teachers’ Knowledge ...............................51 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge .....................................................56 Emergence and Significance of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge .......................................................................................................56 The Interplay Between Pedagogical Knowledge and Technological Knowledge ..........................................................................................................................60 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................64 vi.

(8) Research Setting...............................................................................................................64 The Participants................................................................................................................68 The Researcher’s Multiple Roles .....................................................................................71 The CALL Teacher Development Program .....................................................................72 Pilot Workshop .........................................................................................................72 Present workshop .....................................................................................................74 Data Collection ................................................................................................................82 Forum Discussion ....................................................................................................83 Interview ..................................................................................................................83 Lesson Planning .......................................................................................................84 Stimulated Recall .....................................................................................................84 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................85 Analysis of Data on the Teachers’ Reflectivity Development .................................86 Analysis of Data on the Teachers’ Beliefs ...............................................................90 Analysis of Data on the Teachers’ TPCK.................................................................91 Summary of Data Sources for Each Research Question..........................................92 CHAPTER FOUR: THE TEACHERS AND THEIR REFLECTIVITY DEVELOPMENT ..93 Results ..............................................................................................................................93 Background Information About the Teachers ..........................................................93 Academic Background .....................................................................................93 Teaching Background ......................................................................................96 The Teachers’ Conceptions About the Goals of English Teaching ..................97 Motivations for Participating in the Workshop ................................................99 Summary........................................................................................................100 Development of the Teachers’ Reflectivity............................................................101 Growth of the Teachers’ Reflectivity.............................................................101 The Teachers’ Thoughts on the Reflective Practice .......................................103 Summary................................................................................................................106 Discussion and Implications ..........................................................................................107 The Contribution of Discussion Forum .................................................................107 The Contribution of the Teacher Educator.............................................................109 CHAPTER FIVE: THE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS .................................................................. 112 Results ............................................................................................................................ 112 Functions of General CALL .................................................................................. 112 Motivating Students ....................................................................................... 113 Developing Students’Independence in Learning .......................................... 114 vii.

(9) Advantages of Exploiting Ready-Made CALL Resources .................................... 115 Exposing Students to More Authentic and Comprehensible Input ................ 116 Providing Students With More Opportunities to Produce Linguistic Output 118 Benefits of Utilizing Self-Authored CALL Materials ...........................................120 Saving Time in Managing Audio/Video Materials ........................................121 Enhancing Linguistic Input ............................................................................122 Providing Students With More Opportunities to Produce Linguistic Output 125 Roles of the Teacher and Students in CALL Environments ..................................127 The Teacher....................................................................................................127 The Students...................................................................................................131 Obstacles in CALL Practices .................................................................................133 Limited Access to Hardware Facilities ..........................................................133 A Vast Investment of Time ............................................................................135 Summary................................................................................................................137 Discussion and Implications ..........................................................................................142 Beliefs Related to Instructional Contexts ..............................................................142 The Functions of CALL.................................................................................142 Obstacles in CALL Practices .........................................................................145 Beliefs Related to Instruction.................................................................................149 Enhancing Students’ Comprehension of the Target Items and Concepts.......149 Increasing Students’Production of the Target Language ...............................150 Beliefs Related to Human’s Agency in CALL environments ................................152 The Roles of Teachers ....................................................................................152 The Roles of the Students ..............................................................................155 CHAPTER SIX: THE TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE ......................................................................................................................157 Results ............................................................................................................................157 The Subject Matter Chosen to be Taught with the Computer ................................157 The Technologies Selected to Support Teaching ...................................................161 What Technologies Could be Useful..............................................................161 When and How Technologies Could be Integrated........................................162 Where Technologies Could be Utilized .........................................................168 Why Particular Technologies Could be Useful ..............................................169 The Teaching Strategies Employed to Facilitate Teaching ....................................170 Elicitation.......................................................................................................170 Concept processing ........................................................................................173 Game ..............................................................................................................175 viii.

(10) Tutorial...........................................................................................................176 Drill-and-practice ...........................................................................................178 Contextual Constraints ...........................................................................................179 Students’ Restricted Access to the Computer.................................................179 Teachers’ Limited Information Competency .................................................181 Summary................................................................................................................182 Discussion and Implications ..........................................................................................186 The Teachers’ Understanding of Particular Language Components Suitable for CALL Tasks ...........................................................................................................187 The Teachers’ Preference for Particular Technologies...........................................189 The Teachers’ Knowledge About Teaching Strategies Facilitated by the Computer ................................................................................................................................191 The Relationship Between Teaching Strategies and the Roles of the Computer ........................................................................................................................191 Enhancing and Sustaining Existing Teaching Strategies With Technology...194 Reasons for the Employment of Certain Teaching Strategies........................196 Individual Teachers’ Orientations to Language Teaching Associated with Technology.............................................................................................................197 CHAPTER SEVEN : CONCLUSION....................................................................................201 Findings of the Study.....................................................................................................201 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research .........................................................204 On Research Design...............................................................................................204 On Workshop Setting .............................................................................................206 On the Role of the Researcher ...............................................................................208 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................208 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................210 Appendix A: 同意書 .............................................................................................................234 Appendix B: Consent Form ...................................................................................................235 Appendix C: 電腦輔助英語教學工作坊滿意度調查 .........................................................236 Appendix D: Questionnaire Survey on Teachers’ Satisfaction with the Computer Assisted English Teaching Workshop.............................................................................238 Appendix E: Interview Outline ..............................................................................................241 Appendix F: Marked Input Supported by PowerPoint ..........................................................242. ix.

(11) List of Tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17.. The Classification of Computer’s Roles in CALL Environments… … … … … … … 44 Information About the Teachers Participating in the Workshop … … ...… … … … ..70 Course Syllabus of the CALLTD Workshop...… … … … … … … … … … … … … … .76 Weekly Discussion Prompts… … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … … … … … … … 77 Categories of Reflectivity Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Process… ..87 Summary of Data Sources for Each Research Question… … … … … … … … … ......92 Academic Background Information About the Four Teachers… … … … … … .....… 94 Teaching Background Information About the Four Teachers… … … … … … ..… … 97 The Four Teachers’ Goals of English Teaching… … … … … … … … … … … … ..… ..98 The Levels of the Four Teachers’Reflectivity Over the Course of the Workshop.102 Beliefs That Emerged From Discussion Forum Entries and Interviews… … … … 139 Beliefs Held by the Teachers… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..141 Source of the CALL Lessons … ..… … … … … … … … … … … … ...… … ...… … … 158 Language Content Targeted in the Lesson Plans… … … … … … … … … … … … ...158 Particular Technologies Planned in Teaching… … … … … … … … … … … … … … .162 TPCK That Emerged From Lesson Plans and Stimulated Recall… … … … … … ..185 TPCK Held by the Four Teachers… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..185. x.

(12) List of Figures Figure 1. The components of technological pedagogical content knowledge… … … … … … .58 Figure 2. The homepage of the online learning community of practice… … … … … … … … ..65 Figure 3. The four teachers’curves of reflectivity development during the workshop… … .103 Figure 4. Fanny’s PowerPoint slide presenting tag questions… … … … … … … … … … … ...163 Figure 5. Shirley’s PowerPoint slide presenting past-tense regular verbs… … … … … … … 163 Figure 6. Teresa’s PowerPoint slide illustrating a story about her pet dog… … … … … … ...164 Figure 7. The printable crossword game provided by John’s ESL Community… … … … … .165 Figure 8. The snapshot of Hot Potatoes exercise authored by Fanny… … … … … … … … ...166 Figure 9. The snapshot of a printable worksheet available on the Internet… … … … … … ...167 Figure 10. Shirley’s PowerPoint slide presenting past-tense exercises… … … … … ..… … ...171 Figure 11. Shirley’s PowerPoint slide presenting regular verbs in past tense… … … … … ...173 Figure 12. Teresa’s PowerPoint slide illustrating her pet dog on a snowfield… … … … … ...174 Figure 13. Students’ PowerPoint slide illustrating “diligent” with an image… … … … … … 175 Figure 14. Word search puzzle without answers from John's ESL Community… … … … … .175 Figure 15. Word search puzzle with answers from John's ESL Community… … … … … … ..176 Figure 16. A snapshot of Animated Grammar website… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..177. xi.

(13) List of Flow Charts Flow Chart 1. The Timeline for the Workshop Syllabus… … … … … … … … … … … … … ...82 Flow Chart 2. The Timeline for Data Collection… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...85. xii.

(14) CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION In 2000, a survey administered to 2,965 elementary and high school teachers in Taiwan regarding their information literacy found out that one out of five teachers used the computer or the Internet in his or her teaching (Lee, 2000). While the computer was mostly utilized in producing test sheets (62%), preparing for the lessons (57.5%), tallying scores (53.9%) and giving assignments (43.1%), it was less applied to teaching activities (19.9%). This survey showed that the teachers might lack an ability to integrate the computer into their teaching despite the fact that the computer became more available at school. The researcher of the present study was curious about why the percentage of teachers who would incorporate computer technology into the curriculum was so low. Was there any way to overcome this problem? This question prompted him to conduct a study that investigated the process of learning to teach with the computer among teachers. In the following are Background of the Study, Significance of the Study, and Research Questions. Background of the Study introduces the context where the possibilities of using computers in language learning are presented and where the use of computers in language education is promoted in educational institutes and agencies. In this context, teachers’ pedagogical expertise would determine the success of computer supported language teaching. However, some teachers may be in practice unable to relate the computer to their teaching contexts. Thereby, Significance of the Study is presented with a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) teacher development program that intended to solve some problems encountered by teachers in the process of learning to teach with the computer. This section will also address what the present study can contribute to related fields. Finally, the section on Research Questions specifically identifies what the present study attempted to investigate on the part of teachers with regard to their teacher development in CALL.. 1.

(15) Background of the Study. Educational practice has undergone massive changes recently with the advent of the computer and the Internet. Language teaching and learning are no exception. Based on the results of their investigations of the computer in language education, many CALL scholars and researchers, such as Beatty (2003b), Butler-Pascoe and Wiburg (2003), Chapelle (2001b, 2003), Egbert (2005), Egbert and Hanson-Smith (1999), Felix (2003c), Fotos and Browne (2004), Levy (1997b), and Warschauer and Kern (2000), have claimed that CALL can be effective in promoting both learners’ fluency and accuracy in the target language and their communicative competence. Among others, Egbert and Hanson-Smith (1999) maintain that language learning and teaching can be supported in CALL environments which foster eight aspects of Communicative Language Teaching such as interaction, authentic audience, authentic tasks, opportunities for exposure and production, time and feedback, learning style and motivation, atmosphere, and control. In particular, language learners can use the target language to solve a problem or complete a task by communicating with authentic audience around the world over the Internet. They can receive and produce the target language in unrehearsed contexts for the purpose of developing communicative competence (Butler-Pascoe & Wiburg, 2003). In addition, the computer can provide the students with opportunities to arouse their cultural awareness, develop their social identity in the target community, and raise their interest in the target culture so that they would be willing to communicate in the target language. Moving beyond acquiring linguistic knowledge, language learners can proceed to acknowledge the target culture as well. Language learners may eventually exercise their agency in “fulfilling a meaningful purpose for a real audience,” an ultimate goal of language learning claimed by Warschauer (2004, p. 23). Thereby, the purpose of learning a language is not just to acquire its linguistic system but to use it to have a real impact on the world. With such an increasing acknowledgment of the advantages and 2.

(16) benefits of CALL, teachers seem to begin to place more positive values on computer technologies in their instructions. Currently in Taiwan, the application of computer technologies is being encouraged in the educational systems. The computer is brought into the classroom. The installments of computer hardware and software are becoming common at school. This technology-enhanced instructional tendency is reflected in the implementation of the Nine-year Integrated Curriculum Guide (in Chinese, 九年一貫課程綱要) initiated a decade ago in Taiwan. One of the six major issues designated in the curriculum involves Information Education, according to which teachers are encouraged to take advantage of information communication and technology (ICT) to promote instructional innovations (Wen & Wang, 2003). In addition, General Blueprint of Information Education for Elementary and High Schools (in Chinese, 中小學資訊教育總藍圖) specified by the Ministry of Education (2001) explicitly states that teachers are first and foremost required to be equipped with information literacy. This plan suggests that the use of the computer in instruction should account for twenty percent of all teaching time per week for each teacher. With computer technologies promoted in these educational policies, the teachers with low computer literacy may need to expedite their professional development in integrating the computer into their instruction in order to meet various possible demands from the students, parents, school institutes, and educational agencies. As discussed previously, the potentials of the computer in enhancing language learning are acknowledged in CALL literature and the use of the computer in language education is being promoted by educational institutions and agencies. However, the success of technology-enhanced language learning is not merely determined by the support of computer hardware and software. A CALL lesson is actually driven more by pedagogy than by technology. Pedagogy lies in the teacher rather than the computer. It is the teacher who plays a pivotal role in the achievement of learning goals in a CALL lesson. In particular, teachers’ 3.

(17) knowledge about CALL is found to be associated with the effectiveness of the computer in helping learners acquire the target language (Fox, 1991). If teachers fail to possess sufficient knowledge about technology as well as pedagogy, CALL activities will be ill-designed (Fox, 1991). To equip themselves with knowledge about CALL, teachers can participate in CALL training courses or workshops. Therefore, the present study attempted to develop a CALL teacher development (CALLTD) program. In light of the fact that some teachers may still resist using the computer to teach in class if they are unable to see the relevance of the knowledge and skills they gain in a CALLTD program to the contexts in which they teach, this CALLTD program was designed to help teachers not only acquire knowledge and skills about CALL but also develop competence in evaluating their own teaching needs and in connecting what they learned in the present program to their individual teaching contexts. Moreover, a reflective approach was adopted to develop the program because critical reflection is believed to “raise teachers’awareness about teaching, enable deeper understanding, trigger positive change, and make oneself prone to change ” (Liou, 2000, p. 13).. The Significance of the Study. With an increasing popularity of teacher education research on EFL/ESL, the study took a particular interest in in-service English teachers who learned to teach with the computer. What makes this study significant is that it attempted to design a CALLTD program that dealt with some of the inadequacies in previous CALLTD programs and then examined the professional development of the teachers participating in the program. To illustrate the significance of the present CALLTD program, the problems of previous CALLTD programs are identified below, followed by solutions offered in the present study. First of all, although the importance of reflective practices in the process of professional. 4.

(18) development has been highly recognized by teacher educators (Laboskey, 1994; Moon, 1999; Richards & Farrell, 2005; Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Wallace, 1991), few CALL programs incorporate reflective practices, not to mention measures that are aimed to ensure critical reflection, which is believed to be a key to successful development of teachers’practical knowledge (Akbari, 2007; Francis, 1995; Griffin, 2003). To address this problem, this study developed a CALLTD program that promoted critical reflections by encouraging teachers to attend to and furthermore articulate their thoughts on CALL publicly posted on the discussion forum of an online learning environment. Secondly, few CALLTD programs consider practices that promote the articulation of teachers’beliefs despite their potential benefits. Previous research has indicated that if teachers’tacit beliefs are made explicit, teachers may be more able to make use of the computer to its full advantage in language teaching (Davies, 2000; Kim, 2001). They would be more conscious of the roles of the computer and the teacher in a particular teaching context, consequently employing appropriate teaching strategies in a CALL lesson. To this end, the participants of this study were encouraged to articulate their beliefs through an online discussion forum. The articulation of teachers’beliefs was triggered by the teacher educator’s input such as technical support and pedagogical help. Thirdly, a gap between learning to use the computer and learning to teach with the computer often exists in programs related to CALL. Teachers that attended these programs may consequently hesitate to use the computer in their instruction (Chang, 2003b; Kim, 2001). One of the reasons underlying this problem is that the courses in these programs are usually instructed by teachers specializing in ICT rather than pedagogy (Zhu & Xia, 2003). Computer technology is thus taught as a kind of subject matter knowledge rather than pedagogical knowledge. Little attention is paid to integrating the computer into the instruction. Such programs may help some teachers become excellent end users of some computer applications. However, they would probably puzzle over the integration of 5.

(19) computer technology into the curriculum. This problem suggests that teachers need more opportunities to think about how to integrate technologies into their instructions. When they explore technologies in authentic teaching situations (Egbert, 2006; Egbert, Paulus, & Nakamichi, 2002; Herrington & Oliver, 1999; Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2003; Owen, n.d.; Rosaen & Bird, 2003; Slaouti & Motteram, 2006), they can perceive the connection of the tasks to the real work of teaching and develop a sense of ownership of the tasks towards professional goals (Rosaen & Bird, 2003). Therefore, in the present study, the participating teachers were offered opportunities to think about ways of applying the computer to language teaching and learning. They were guided to reflect on how and why they integrated the computer into the teaching in a particular teaching context. These reflective opportunities were expected to help develop the teachers’proficiency in using the computer to teach in their individual classrooms. Another significance of the present study is to bridge a gap of existing research on teacher education in CALL. In fact, research on teacher education in CALL has received increasing attent ion in language education because teachers are thought of as a key to the realization of claimed educational potentials. In 2002, Language Learning & Technology published a special issue on technology and teacher education (Zhao & Tella, 2002), followed by two monographs, namely Teacher Education in CALL (Hubbard & Levy, 2006) and Preparing and Developing Technology-proficient L2 Teachers (Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy, & Peters, 2007). This line of research was mostly concerned with the contents and procedures of CALLTD programs, particularly the type of the programs evaluated as effective by language teachers, national curriculum standards proposed for the design of the programs, specific authentic situated contexts suggested by the programs to facilitate teachers to integrate technology into teaching, and technologies adopted by the programs to help teachers learn about CALL. Relatively little is known about how teachers conceptualize technology as a teaching aid for their practices. As Zhao and Tella (2002), the editors of the aforementioned 6.

(20) special issue of Language Learning & Technology, pointed out, subsequent research on teacher education in CALL can investigate teachers’cognitive processes of technology integration. Thereby, the present study aimed to shed some light on English teachers’beliefs about CALL and their technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) of integrating the computer into teaching. In addition to teacher education in CALL, this study may also contribute to research on second language teachers’ beliefs. Many studies have been conducted on teachers’beliefs in the field of non-technology-supported second language education. Most of these studies examined teachers’beliefs about the instruction of different language skills (Chang, 2003a; Farrell, 1999a; Hsieh, 2005; Hsu, 2004; Lai, 2004; Wu, 1999); some others investigated their beliefs about Communicative Language Teaching (Chang, 2000; Liao, 2003; Lin, 2002), learners (Karabenick & Noda, 2004), learning (Peacock, 2001), and classroom assessment (Lu, 2003). There has been limited research on teachers’beliefs about language teaching in CALL environments. The present study set out to unlock in-service English teachers’beliefs about the use of ICT in language education. Its findings could thus enrich the literature on language teachers’beliefs. Moreover, a clearer understanding of what in-service English teachers in Taiwan perceive and conceptua lize CALL may, in turn, contribute to developing prospective CALLTD programs that can take into account teachers’thoughts and ideas and better satisfy their needs. Another aspect of language teachers’cognition that has obtained limited attention involves teachers’knowledge about technology integration into instruction, specifically TPCK. Especially with the proliferation of computers in classrooms and increasing access to the Internet, an increasing number of language teachers have started learning to teach with the computer. However, little is known about their TPCK of integrating technology into teaching. As Mishra and Koehler (2005) note, the success of technology integration lies in teachers as designers of technology, pedagogy, and content. There was a need to conduct 7.

(21) research on how teachers’ TPCK informs their design of CALL lessons. An understanding of teachers’TPCK may help unravel the mystery regarding teachers’creativity in technology integration; teacher educators can thereby design a CALLTD program to enhance such creativity in language lesson design.. Research Questions. In addition to designing a CALLTD program that addressed several problems of previous programs, the present study also aimed to examine in-service English teachers’professional development in learning to teach English with the computer. Specifically, over the course of the study, investigations were made on the teachers’development of reflectivity, which is a key to the success of teacher development (Richards & Lockhart, 1996). Also, this study examined what was revealed in their beliefs about CALL. Lastly, this research addressed their TPCK in order to understand how the present program helped teachers utilize particular technological tools to transform subject matter knowledge (here English language knowledge) into “forms that are pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to the variations in ability and background presented by the students” (Shulman, 1987, p. 15). The three research questions are detailed in the following: 1. To what extent could the English teachers participating in the present CALLTD program develop critical reflections on CALL? Research (e.g., Bartlett, 1990; Gebhard, 1999; Moon, 1999; Richards & Lockhart, 1996) has indicated that teacher development can be promoted through reflective practice. This study investigated the extent to which these participants could critically reflect as they learned to teach with the computer in the present CALLTD program that incorporated reflective practice in a web-based learning environment where they could engage in professional discourse with their peers and the teacher educator through a discussion forum.. 8.

(22) The results were expected to provide some insights into the question of how a reflective approach to the CALLTD program could help the teachers develop their reflectivity. 2. What were the participating English teachers’beliefs about CALL at the end of the CALLTD program? Many studies have found that teachers’ beliefs would impact on their teaching practices (e.g., Bailey, 1992; Freeman, 1990; Golombek, 1998; Richards, Gallo, & Renandya, 2001). Teachers’beliefs about CALL may also determine the way a CALL lesson is designed. For example, if teachers perceive the computer as a tutor, they would probably approach an English lesson with drill- and-practice exercises provided by the computer. In light of the importance of teachers’beliefs in designing teaching practices, this study explored the participating teachers’beliefs about CALL at the end of the present CALLTD program. The focus was on the teachers’beliefs about four aspects of teaching suggested by Schwab (1978): the roles of the students and the teacher, the instruction, and the contexts. 3. What was the participating English teachers’TPCK of integrating technology into teaching at the end of the CALLTD program? Because the development of knowledge about the integration of the computer into the curriculum is usually one of the objectives of all CALLTD programs, this study was also interested in understanding the participating teachers’ TPCK at the end of the program. To achieve this understanding, the ways the participating teachers used the computer to represent and formulate the materials of a particular English lesson were examined. Specifically, the teachers’TPCK was inspected in four aspects according to Koehler and Mishra’s (2005b; 2006) framework for TPCK: (1) the subject matter chosen to be taught through the computer, (2) the technologies selected to support their teaching, (3) the teaching strategies employed to facilitate their teaching, and (4) contextual constraints that might mediate the selection of content, technology, and pedagogy. Examinations of this sort may contribute to a better understanding of how a CALL lesson is approached and designed and, more importantly, how 9.

(23) a CALLTD program, like this one, could help teachers apply the technological knowledge and skills learned in the program to their own teaching contexts. To address these research questions, the researcher needs to equip himself with theoretical frameworks and related research in this regard. Thus, Chapter Two will review related literature that laid the researcher’s background knowledge for the current research project.. 10.

(24) CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter deals with literature review for this study. The first section will present theories and empirical studies on the computer in language education, specifically discussing CALL history as well as CALL environments. The second section will review studies on a reflective approach to teacher development programs. The third section will discuss teachers’ beliefs about CALL. The last section will review literature associated with teachers’ knowledge, particularly TPCK.. The Computer in Language Education. This sub-section will address CALL history and describe the roles of the computer as well as their contributions to language education from 1960s to the present. The sub-section that follows will discuss CALL environment s. With underlying theoretical frameworks presented first, this sub-section will further review studies on CALL design and CALL evaluation, two essential competencies language teachers should develop as CALL practitioners.. CALL History. CALL has a history of over 30 years. Research has documented the perspectives, the characteristics, and the possibilities of CALL in the three decades (Bax, 2003; Beatty, 2003a; Chapelle, 2001c; Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Levy, 1997a). In general terms, historical development of CALL can roughly correspond with technological innovations (Chapelle, 2001c; Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Levy, 1997a). CALL history is usually categorized into three phases. The first stage ranges from 1960s to 1970s with the introduction of mainframe computer. The second stage refers to CALL in the 1980s when powerful multimedia 11.

(25) computer was used. The current stage starts in 1990s when the Internet becomes popular. CALL development is also affected by approaches to language teaching and learning. In the 1960s and 1970s, pedagogical principles of CALL centered on behaviorist/audio-lingual paradigm as the computer provided learners with grammatical explanations and particular feedback about their responses. Drill- and-practice exercises prevailed in this period. In the 1980s, the focus was more on using forms than on learning forms. Learners were encouraged to use the language for communicative purposes rather than master linguistic knowledge. At this point, the computer was used to recognize learners’ input and ge nerate responses in return. ‘Meaningful’conversations were created in a simulated environment between the computer and the learner. Another type of task in this period was text reconstruction, which required learners to complete a text by filling certain words that were previously deleted on a fixed-ratio basis. Through this task, learners would learn to communicate with the computer so as to construct a meaningful text. From the 1990s to the present, with the advent of the Internet, CALL activities are no longer limited to interactions with the computer or other students in class, allowing learners to negotiate meaning via the target language with their counterparts in other areas of the world. That is, they learn language via computer- mediated communication (CMC), which can occur distantly and asynchronously (Cummins & Sayers, 1995). Greater emphasis is placed on language use in authentic social contexts where teachers can adopt task-based, project-based, and content-based approaches to language teaching. Among the previous accounts of CALL history, Chapelle (2001a) paid great attention to second language acquisition (SLA). In particular, the second stage was specified from the perspective of SLA. By the end of the 1980s, SLA researchers argued that learners need to notice and interact with linguistic input in order to acquire the target language (e.g., Doughty & Pica, 1986; Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Moreover, they insisted that linguistic interaction and language development be empirically evaluated. The shifted perspective on SLA began to influence research on CALL. Emphasis was placed on form- focused instruction. In particular, 12.

(26) computer-based text reconstruction was employed to provide learners with an opportunity to notice the form and designed in a way to support evaluations of learners’acquisition of particular linguistic items and structures. The benefits of computer-assisted form- focused instruction were supported in some studies. For example, Doughty (1991) found that learners receiving salient input performed better on a grammatical test than those who were exposed to normal input. Similarly, Lomicka (1998) conducted a study on whether multimedia reading software enhanced reading comprehension and found that computerized reading with full glossing might help learners engage in a deeper level of text comprehension. The current CALLTD program thus emphasized form- focused instruction enhanced with technologies. Specifically, the participating teachers were made aware of the importance of form- focused instruction in language teaching as they learned to design and author CALL materials. The distinction among the three phases is somewhat ambiguous since no pedagogies can absolutely correspond to each phase that features particular technological innovations. In fact, Bax (2003) pointed out that Warschauer ’s (1996) classification of the historical stages into behavioristic, communicative, and integrative was questionable. He firstly argued: “If they are historical phases, how is it that all three coexist together today? ” (p. 16). Besides, he challenged defining the second phase as a communicative stage because the computer as tool in this stage was used more for the manipulations and analyses of linguistic input, such as word processing, spelling and grammar checking, and concordancing, than for the communication in the target language. Finally, he thought it misleading to call the third stage as an integrative phase, which was defined by Warschauer (1996) as developing language skills in learning environments integrated with hypermedia and the Internet. If this stage involved integrating learners in authentic language environments and integrating language skills (e.g. reading, listening, speaking, writing, etc.) in CALL projects, Bax (2003) argued, “how can we accept the suggestion that these are not communicative but ‘integrative ’” (p. 19)? 13.

(27) To solve the problem of stage classification, Bax proposed his categorization of CALL history: Restricted CALL (1960s-1980s), Open CALL (1980s-the present), and Integrated CALL (in the future). He argued that this classification was less confusing and could fit into the historical progression of CALL software, approach, and practice. Restricted CALL involved learning theories, CALL software and activities, teachers’role, and feedback in a limited and disconnected fashion. Compared with Restricted CALL, Open CALL is more open with regard to the varieties of software, feedback given to students, and teachers’role. This is the stage where we are stand ing. Lastly, Integrated CALL is an aim that CALL researchers and practitioners are pursuing. This stage will come when the computer is taken for granted not only in everyday life but also in educational contexts and is hardly recognized as a technological artifact. CALL development has not come to this stage. However, in the future to come, when the era of Integrated CALL comes and the computer becomes an ordinary teaching aid, teachers may be more willing to incorporate it into their daily teaching practices.. CALL Environments. This section is concerned with the affordances of CALL environments for language teachers. It consists of three parts. The first part will deal with theoretical frameworks underlying CALL environments. The second part will discuss CALL design while the last part, CALL evaluation. Underlying Frameworks CALL environments first appeared as the title of Egbert and Hanson-Smith’s (1999) edited book on CALL research and practice in 1999. All authors of this book view CALL environments as an integrated learning environment and “conceive of technology as support for a total environment for learning rather than as a single tool or a source of information”. 14.

(28) (Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 1999, p. ix). As the two editors suggest, CALL environments can provide eight learning conditions which are formed as main sections of the book: Interaction; Authentic Audience; Authentic Task; Opportunities for Exposure and Production; Time/Feedback; Intentional Cognition, Learning Styles, and Motivation; Atmosphere; and Control. It seems that the computer can generate many forms of language teaching and learning in pursuit of the development of communicative competence. Since then, many books on CALL have been published to address the potentials of computer technologies in language learning and teaching (e.g., Beatty, 2003; Butler-Pascoe & Wiburg, 2003; Chapelle, 2003; Egbert, 2005; Levy & Stockwell, 2006; Warschauer, Shetzer, & Meloni, 2000). They all try to address what the computer can provide to teachers and students as well as how and why technologies can contribute to language teaching and learning. In addition, many of the authors identify related theories as the foundation of CALL environments. Among others, comprehensible input and constructivism are particularly elaborated to support CALL environments in Beatty’s (2003b) book as well as Levy and Stockwell’s (2006) book. The two theoretical constructs were adopted to explain the process of SLA: receiving linguistic input, engaging in interactions, and producing linguistic output. Such combination of theories and practices laid the groundwork for designing the syllabus of the present CALLTD program. The above concepts would be introduced to the participating teachers when they learned to take advantage of a variety of CALL resources to facilitate their teaching. Comprehensible input is originally advocated by Krashen (1983), who claims that SLA takes place when learners are able to understand the target linguistic input which is just a little bit higher than their current linguistic level. Ellis (1985) points out, “access to comprehens ible input may be a necessary condition for acquisition to take place” (p. 295). Based on this idea, Beatty (2003b) argues that linguistic input can be made more comprehensible with the aid of computer technology and the comprehensible input can be made readily available to learners via computer network. In the stage of receiving linguistic 15.

(29) input, multimedia can provide meaningful contexts to students for improving their comprehension. That is, the target input can be made more comprehensible by extra- linguistic clues such as sound, image, animation and video. For example, a reading passage annotated by multimedia could be much better comprehended than a text-only reading article, for multimedia could stimulate learners’conceptions of the target vocabulary items (e.g., Labrie, 2000; Plass, Chun, Mayer, & Leutner, 1998; Yoshii & Flaitz, 2002) and arouse their background knowledge about a particular topic (Collins, Hammond, & Wellington, 1997). In particular, Chun and Plass (1997) found that multimodal instructional materia ls supported by multimedia could facilitate individual learners to acquire vocabulary words and activate prior knowledge through integrating verbal and visual information. Due to its importance in SLA, the concept of computer-enhanced comprehensible input was introduced to the participating teachers of the present study. To ensure appropriate difficulty of the input for the learners, as noted by Beatty (2003b), the teachers were advised to offer help to their students in choosing the target linguistic input. This practice can be treated as developing learners’autonomy (Benson, 2001). Another theoretical construct is constructivism, which advocates a humanistic approach to learning. Central to this framework is the idea that old knowledge and experiences can facilitate the construction of new concepts. Constructivism purports that learners should go beyond the memorizations of information, developing individualized conceptions based on prior knowledge and experiences. The role of learners is underlined in the learning process. This theory is particularly stressed in a special issue of the TESOL Journal entitled Constructing Meaning With Computers in 2002. The authors of that issue argued that learners should play an active role in constructing linguistic knowledge through collaborative tasks by means of technologies because they are no longer passive recipients of teacher- imparted knowledge in CALL environments. As opposed to behavioris ts adopting repetitive drills that are criticized for being boring 16.

(30) and demotivating for learners (Beatty, 2003b), constructivists “motivate learning by leading students to experience the individual and subjective satisfaction inherent in solving a problem that is seen and chosen as one’s own, ” as commented by Shin and Wastell (2001, p. 519). The motivating learning process needs the teacher’s involvement in filtering overwhelming language data and designing authentic activities that entail negotiation and collaboration (Healey & Klinghammer, 2002). Constructivism cannot be discussed without referring to social learning theory. According to Vygotsky (1978), social learning takes place intrapsychologically and interpsychologically. That is, human learning would happen not only inside the individuals but also between people. For example, children can develop knowledge and skills through apprenticeship and advance themselves through interactions with the teacher or peers. This kind of learning is supported by zone of proximal development (ZPD), which suggests that learners can receive scaffolding from more capable individuals while participating in collaborative tasks. Applied to CALL, social learning theory is especially supportive of CMC tasks. Warchauer (2005) pointed out that constructivists, more specifically social learning proponents, would provide learners with opportunities to incorporate their peers’ linguistic chunks and furthermore refine their writing in CMC activities. CALL Design CALL design refers to the aspect of language teachers’competency in developing computer-based materials, tasks, or projects with the purpose of promoting teaching effectiveness. CALL design can be viewed from exercise design to course design in scope. In his article devoted to the investigation of CALL design in the literature, Levy (2002) found that more tha n half of the journal articles and book chapters published in 1999 dealt with CALL design, which was roughly categorized into five dimensions: Design as a principled approach to CALL, Design of an artifact, Design of CALL materials, Design of an online course, and Design as it relates to other aspects of CALL (p. 60). Catching the attention of 17.

(31) CALL researchers and practitioners, CALL design has been examined from various perspectives. The results from this line of research may provide the foundation for teacher education aimed for innovating language teaching and learning with technology. Levy and Stockwell (2006) made a very comprehensive introduction to CALL design in their recent book entitled CALL Dimensions by describing major approaches to CALL design embodied in empirical studies as well as discussing central themes and issues emerging from the process of transforming CALL design into CALL practices. They stated that CALL design varies with the point of departure. CALL design can be driven by particular theories or primary concepts associated with SLA. In the following, Hubbard’s (1996) and Chappell’s (2001b, 2003) views on CALL design will be presented. Hubbard (1996) proposed a CALL methodological framework consisting of three modules: development module, implementation module, and evaluation module. The development module is concerned with CALL design at three levels, namely approach, design, and procedure. In the stage of approach, CALL designers or developers have to ensure design criteria that derive from linguistic assumptions and learning assumptions made for the target learners. In the stage of design, they need to take into account language difficulty, program difficulty, and content, all of which would be shaped by learner profiles and syllabus as well. To produce a completed courseware, CALL designers would also consider the actual layout of the courseware and the type of activity. Such a methodological module can help designers move from theoretical constructs and pedagogical principles to practical CALL artifacts (e.g., a website, CD-ROM, or software program) (Levy & Stockwell, 2006). Chapelle (2001b, 2003) argued that the design of CALL tasks and environments should take into account the input that learners are exposed to, the interactions that the computer provides, and the output that learners can produce. First of all, form- focused input should be stressed in developing CALL materials. As research has revealed that L2 learners might be 18.

(32) able to develop their grammatical competence if their attention is drawn to salient linguistic forms (Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990; Skehan, 1998), language teachers should expose their students to more enhanced input achieved through input salience, input modification, and input elaboration (Chapelle, 2001b, 2003). Then, CALL design needs to take care of interaction. The computer is argued to be able to engage learners in three levels of interaction, i.e. interpersonal interaction, learner-computer interaction, and intrapersonal interaction. More specifically, L2 learners can engage in more interactions by negotiating meaning with others over the network, receiving linguistic help via hyperlinks, and undertaking mental processing of enhanced linguistic forms delivered from the computer. Lastly, CALL design should provide learners with opportunities to produce the target language. CALL environments are believed to be able to afford learners a wealth of opportunities to produce comprehensible output and co-construct meaning. That is, they have more time to plan and correct their speech and writing and to receive interlocutors’ linguistic help. In a word, CALL design should focus on both form and meaning in terms of SLA. By doing so, the computer seems to be advantageous to language learners with regard to acquiring grammatical knowledge and developing communicative competence in the end. The two design frameworks proposed by Hubbard and Chapelle respectively are central to understanding the process and focus of CALL design in general. While Hubbard addressed the methodological aspect of design, Chapelle drew on SLA theories to design CALL tasks. Hubbard’s model provided a very clear procedure of developing CALL software so that teachers can easily orient themselves to the methodology of creating CALL applications. However, little has been said about SLA in Hubbard’s framework. Chapelle’s framework can complement Hubbard’s by highlighting the importance of instructed SLA in CALL design. In fact, Chapelle (1998) has suggested several conditions for ideal language learning such as input saliency, opportunities for interaction, and learner focus on communication. In the same vein, Skehan (2003) expressed his ideas on the relationship among form, tasks, and 19.

(33) technology. He maintained that learners should be exposed to the target language as much as possible and their attention should be drawn to its linguistic features. Mere exposure would not lead to successful language learning. At this moment, the teacher can support students with a range of software materials when they are overwhelmed by a multitude of unstructured input, i.e. authentic materials on the Internet. Also, Kazeroni (2006) noted that focus-on- form is one of the task dimensions language teachers can consider in their CALL design. Students can probably benefit from explicit explanations of grammar rules as well as subsequently from meaningful communication tasks. Such tasks can be appropriately supported by technologies like chatrooms and discussion forums. As discussed above, Hubbard’s framework is methodology-based while Chapelle’s framework, theory-driven. The two major models can serve language teachers and researchers with different approaches to CALL design. For example, Hubbard’s framework was adapted by Trinder (2003), who created an Online English Mentor (OEM) project, in which multimedia materials were designed to complement and supplement the learning environment and the course materials of Business English face-to-face cla sses. He approached the project by drawing on general language learning assumptions as well as pedagogical principles such as satisfying individual learners’learning styles. With such underlying learning assumptions, the OEM project provided language learners of different linguistic levels with flexible materials targeted at language skills and areas like reading, vocabulary, listening, and grammar. All of the materials were built on a single platform in which the Internet rather than CD-ROM was used as a vehicle for content delivery. With reference to Hubbard’s methodological framework, the project was eventually designed and conducted in actual instructional setting. With respect to theory-driven CALL design, Gonzalez-Lloret (2003) created an Internet-based CALL activity for Spanish called En Busca de Esmeraldas based on Chapelle's (1998) proposals for developing multimedia materials and tasks grounded in SLA 20.

(34) research. The network-based activities featured 3-D simulation through which learners engaged in a series of tasks that offered salient input, interaction opportunities, and outputs to promote learner autonomy. The theory-supported CALL design was to foster meaning communication and negotiation among learners. CALL Evaluation In CALL environments, evaluation is concerned with whether technologies can successfully help learners acquire the target language. A large number of evaluative studies have been conducted to assess the value and effectiveness of CALL materials and applications in language teaching and learning. Research of this sort usually focuses on “Did it work?” questions rather than “Why did it work?” questions (Levy & Stockwell, 2006, p. 42). CALL evaluation is central to CALL research and practice. Levy and Stockwell (2006) in their latest book wrote a chapter giving a comprehensive introduction to CALL evaluation. They particularly described various approaches to software evaluation illustrated with empirical studies and discussed the strengths and limitations of evaluation approaches and frameworks. In addition, CALL evaluation was also discussed in Fotos and Browne’s (2004) edited book New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms, which suggested criteria and procedures for the evaluation of CALL software and ESL/EFL websites (Reeder et al., 2004; Susser & Robb, 2004). This issue is elaborated more in the following. As Reeder et al. (2004) pointed out, there were two main approaches to software evaluation: introspective evaluation and empirical evaluation. Introspective evaluation involves one-shot assessment through checklists and review while empirical evaluation refers to an on-going process that requires learners to actually use the materials for some time in a particular situation. Perhaps the checklist is the most common form of evaluation (Levy & Stockwell, 2006). This tool can inform language teachers of a wide range of evaluating elements suggested for a sound evaluation, thereby assisting them with the initial selection of 21.