The George Washington University- GSEHD
Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) & Educational Technology Leadership (ETL)
Paradigms of Instruction and Assessment  - TRED 330
Instructor: Dr. Natalie Milman
Fall 2010
Nada's ESL Island

Paradigms of Instruction and Assessment
Research Review
Nada M. Salem

1) Technology use by SL/FL teachers
2) Effects of technology use on ELL students’ achievement
3) Technology-based strategies teachers can use with ELL students
4) Technology use for ELL’s in specific subject areas (such as math or science)
5) Online learning or hybrid?
Standards Based Language Instruction via Social Media?

Purpose/Problem /Research Question(s)
Data Sources 
(research design/method)
of Study
Tech Tools
1. del Puerto, F., & Gamboa, E. (2009). The Evaluation of Computer-Mediated Technology by Second Language Teachers: Collaboration and Interaction in CALL. Educational Media International, 46(2), 137-152. Technology use by SL/FL teachers

Communicative approach or LL which primarily focuses on what the language is used for (Tomlin, 1990), and with
social and cultural contructivist views of LL, which claim that LL takes place incidentally
when learners interact and construct social practices (Block, 2003)


information about SL teachers' use and needs of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as related to language learning (LL).

Pb: not much benefit has been attained from the considerable investment made in technology
(Carnevale, 2004) and claim that teachers should be faster to adopt technology
and, most importantly, to make productive use of it (Gratton, 1998). Rakes and Casey
(2002), for instance, emphasised the fact that many instructors remain uncomfortable
with the use of computers, not taking any advantage of ICTs. 

those instructors who
have adopted technology often limit their use to basic tools such as PowerPoint, web
search or posting materials online. Besides, he metioned a previous study (Zemsky &
Massy, 2004) which proved that some technological applications, namely electronic
interaction, lag far behind other internet-based applications. These findings led their
authors to conclude that the experience with e-learning had been disappointing.(p. 139)

Very recent research (Kessler, 2006, 2007) indicates
that language teachers’ main source of CALL-related knowledge happens to be
informal or self-study and that formal teacher preparation programmes seem to be
defective in providing teachers with the CALL-related skills they need for the implementation
of computer-mediated LL. 

Most language instructors confess that they are
dissatisfied with CALL training, probably owing to the outdated nature of the technology
employed in most teacher training courses (Egbert et al., 2002). From these
studies it follows that language teachers will not exploit all the opportunities offered
by technology if they keep on relying upon informal methods of preparation. Moreover,
Kessler (2006, p. 180) discovered that neither informal nor formal training had
prepared the 108 language teachers of his sample to effectively perform those
activities “related to the rather significant language instruction aspect of speaking,
suggesting that this is an area that may require more attention”. It is also argued that
this situation necessarily calls for a revision of teacher training programmes, which
must include an updated CALL component so as to adequately address today’s
technologically advanced language classroom.
(p. 140)

questionnaire administered within the COVCELL (Cohort-Oriented Virtual Campus
for Effective Language Learning) project ( to 166 participants. This
European project, supported by the Minerva Action of the European Union, is based
on a constructivist cohort-supported, task-based approach to LL (Chapelle, 2003), that
is, it defends that learning is more effective when there is a community of students who
interact, collaborate in projects and share the learning experience. Given the fact that
most current online learning management systems lack a proper implementation of this
collaborative dimension, the COVCELL project addresses the need for a web-based
environment in which learners can effectively interact and collaborate amongst themselves
and with teachers in the process of LL. 

were given the option of filling out the questionnaire in any of the official languages
of the COVCELL project (Basque, English, German, Icelandic, Italian and Spanish).
In order to make sure that the questionnaires in the six different languages were indeed
the same instrument, the original version was worked upon only in English and agreed
by all the COVCELL members in Italy, Iceland, Germany and Spain. Then, the very
same project members who reached that agreement translated the English version to
the pertaining national languages in each country.(p. 142)


web-based questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of eight items, three of which referred to: (1) their
frequency of computer use in class and for other purposes; (2) their experience – both
as learners and teachers – with computer use in onsite and online courses; and (3) what
they use computers for in their language teaching. The other five items elicited tutors’
opinions about issues such as: (1) which teaching methods are most effective; (2) which
learning scenarios are enhanced by computers; (3) which learning scenarios they would
like to run on computers; (4) which problems they would face in transferring these
learning scenarios online; and (5) which of the functionalities offered by computer
learning management systems they would like to use in their language teaching.

teachers were asked to report on how often they used computers on the basis of
a five-point Likert scale whose extreme poles were labelled “never” (one point) and
“on a daily basis” (five points)

166 second language teachers 

A total of 166 language teachers (95 females and 71 males) filled in the survey in
any of the official languages of the COVCELL project – English (67), Icelandic (30),
Spanish (28), Basque (23), German (11) and Italian (7). As for their age, Table 1
displays the sample distribution according to this variable.
When it came to the distribution of countries, the majority of teachers (124) were
working in a country associated with the COVCELL project (57 teachers in Spain, 47
teachers in Iceland, 10 teachers in Italy and 10 teachers in Germany) whereas the
remainder informants (42) were doing so in other places (Australia, Brazil, China,
Greece, The Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sweden,
Turkey, USA and UK). As far as the languages they were teaching, English (94) was
the most common second language, followed by Basque (20), Spanish (14), German
(14) and French (9) at a large distance. Other second languages (13) were Chinese,
Danish, Arabic, Icelandic, Finnish, Japanese, Russian, Indonesian and Yoruba. Additionally,
most instructors (136) were teaching in communities where the taught
language had a foreign language status whereas the rest of them (30) did so in naturalistic
environments. As for the institutions in which informants were teaching, most
respondents were doing so in places aimed at adult learners (95) or secondary education
students (60), whereas very few teachers were working with young children (3).

although teachers believe that second language acquisition is primarily driven by social interaction, they seldom use computers as a means to foster collaboration or interaction. ICTs are thought to be very helpful in individual learning scenarios but not for the interactive dimension of LL. Very few teachers incorporate interaction-oriented digital tools in their language teaching, probably due to their self-acknowledged deficient training in ICTs.   instructors stated that they would like to introduce new interaction tools in their computer-aided courses, which clearly shows the need for both teachers' training in ICT and the technological development of proper interactive functionalities. record players, tape
and casette recorders, television, video, and computers (mainly PowerPoint, web
search or posting materials online, email)

internet-based realtime
technology (e.g. text chat, audio chat, video chat)

web-based bulletin board discussions 

asynchronous online discussions

online assessment

exposure to video files

“discussion boards”, “chats”, “creation of audio files”, “creation of
Weblogs”, “creation of Web site”, “participation in Weblogs”, “creation of video
files”, “video conferencing”).

Open Source
MOODLE Learning Management System (e.g. chat, whiteboard, audio-video
conferencing, audio recording for evaluation, etc.) for language study and teaching.

(Moodle version 1.0 released in August 2002)

interactive functionalities (forum, wiki), especially synchronous
ones (text chat, interactive whiteboard, audio chat, video chat),


Study # 1:

The idea that technology substituted teachers is outdated today, as it is widely
acknowledged that teachers become an indispensable component in CALL. As stated
by Jones (2001), the entire success of CALL depends on learner training and supervision
and, obviously, teachers are those who are in charge of both these tasks. It is not
surprising, then, that “the lack of involvement of language teaching professionals”
(Burston, 1996, p. 33; also see Galusha, 1997) has been reported to be one of the
reasons for the failure of CALL. Moreover, the role of the teacher remains particularly
strong in internet-based technology. As far as personal uses of the internet are
concerned, some authors (Jones, 2001; Sussex, 1998) point out that, due to the lack of
structure of the web, learners may get confused or misled when searching for information,
which results in more responsibility on the teacher. Additionally, the role of
teachers is also far from being minimal in the case of computer-mediated communication,
no matter whether interaction is synchronous or asynchronous. (p. 139)

Benefits on Internet:
Learners’ autonomy and self-pace learning have been suggested as
some of the advantages of Web-based instruction (Cowan, 1995). Particularly in the
case of synchronous communication technologies, which have definitely facilitated
the exposure to oral and visual interaction (Wang, 2004), great potential is envisaged
for LL. Kramarski and Feldman (2000), for instance, proved that the internet environment
contributed significantly to students’ motivation towards the study of the foreign
language. Recent studies on the use of interaction-oriented electronic tools provide
evidence of the learning opportunities of distance education. Nunan (1999), for
example, investigated students’ assessment of an eight week course in which webmediated
chats were utilised and concluded that the bulk of online student-centred
interaction that had occurred led to learners’ development of a discourse similar to
face-to-face communication discourse. He also pointed out that the “opportunities to
interact through chat lines provide students with a sense of belonging to a community
of scholars and learners” (Nunan, 1999, p. 70). Similarly, McInnerney and
Roberts (2004) advocated that “by utilising synchronous chat rooms, a sense of social
presence develops that often leads to a greater sense of community”. Along the same
lines, Kamshi-Stein (2000) conducted an investigation on web-based bulletin board
discussions as compared to face-to-face discussions and discovered that the former
contributed to a substantial increase in students’ participation and to a higher degree
of collaboration and peer support. In another study on asynchronous online discussions,
Son (2002) investigated the evaluation of a 15 week distance course and found
that students thought that computer-based instruction had contributed to effective
communication and exchange of ideas as well as having facilitated group interaction,
collaborative learning and peer support. (pp. 139-140)

barriers to the use of educational technology:
lack of administrative support for distance learning (Egbert et al., 2002), lack of money
(Lam, 2000), threat to tenure and human resource staffing (Evans, 1998), need for a
change in the teaching style (Galusha, 1997), teachers’ age (Arnold, 2007), lack of
time for preparation, implementation and evaluation (Jones, 2001), lack of time for
searching for appropriate materials (Lam, 2000), lack of CALL training (Kessler,
2007), lack of experience with or confidence in computer skills (Egbert et al., 2002),
lack of knowledge about teaching L2 with computers (Lam, 2000), lack of resources
or access to computers, software or multimedia material (Moore, Morales, & Carel,
1998), inadequacy for students’ needs (Lam, 2000).

Why included?
Purpose/Problem /Research Question(s)
Data Sources
Study Implications/ Study “Type”/NOTES

TC = Teacher Candidate
DPT = Digital Teaching Portfolio (aka electronic portfolio)
T = Teacher
PD = Professional Development
TE= Teacher Educators
ICT= Information and Communication Technologies
CALL= Computer Assisted Language Learning