1 / 14

Conducting Research on CALL

By: Joy L. Egbert Presented by: Annie Graebner 24 May 2010. Conducting Research on CALL. Overview. Problems to be addressed What, Why, & How of CALL research Three weaknesses of existing studies Suggestions Methods & Issues Conclusion. Problems. CALL research – scattered topics

charla
Download Presentation

Conducting Research on CALL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. By: Joy L. Egbert Presented by: Annie Graebner 24 May 2010 Conducting Research on CALL

  2. Overview • Problems to be addressed • What, Why, & How of CALL research • Three weaknesses of existing studies • Suggestions • Methods & Issues • Conclusion

  3. Problems • CALL research – scattered topics • Missing elements in field – excitement, rigor, and applicability • Lack of coherent understanding • Focused areas of research neglect other questions, methods, perspectives • Inclination to test tech, not theories

  4. What Is CALL Research? • Central focus: language learning • Many contexts – investigation lacking • “C” in CALL – not necessarily desktop computers, can be many technologies • Different tasks – essays, distance comm. • CALL is a “language learning process”

  5. Why Research CALL? • Initial reason vs. more recent view • Allows manipulation of tasks, environments, and outcomes • Tech gives different opportunities • No foundation for researchers & practitioners – experience is good, but rigorous research is also needed.

  6. What & How? • Previous research – tools as focus • Better: are students learning? What, how much, how fast, why, etc. • “Brand new” language (to students), extended time periods & foundation in research about CALL • Quantitative or qualitative? Both!

  7. Criteria for Effective CALL Research(Chapter 2)

  8. Lack of Theoretical Support • Ungrounded conclusions • Generalizations • Ex: German email project • Overlooking disadvantages • Ex: Lynch, Fawcett, and Nicolson (2000) • Examples which address this weakness • Blake (2000), Li (2000)

  9. Lack of Limitations • Does technology really enhance learning? • Need to consider negative sides • Examples of this issue: • Beauvois (1997), Lewin (2000), Motiwalla & Tello (2000), Cifuentes & Shin (2001) • Example which addresses this issue: • Sengupta (2001)

  10. For Discussion • “There seems to be an assumption in many educational settings that the mere presence of technology—or more specifically, computers—implies learning” (p. 13) • Do you think this is a problem?

  11. Technocentrism • Media comparison, instructional comparison, tool analysis • How it's used, rather than that it exists • Take all factors into account! • Don't try to prove that computer-assisted instruction is “better” than non-computer-assisted instruction • Interpret results with theory

  12. Guidelines for Improvement • Link SLA theory • Adopt appropriate research design • Beware technocentrism • Provide evidence • Include discussion of negative aspects

  13. Methods & Issues • Majority so far – quantitative • Mixed methods in a single study • Ask: which gives more accurate answers? • Aforementioned examples of problems – still potentially useful; can still direct future research (direction, ideas, models)

  14. Conclusion • Celebrate positive findings • Be aware of research challenges/pitfalls • Look at well-executed studies • Assumptions influence results! • Analyze data with theory & evidence

More Related