Dr. David E. Herrington, Dissertation Chair for Cheng Chieh Lai, PhD Dissertation Defense PPT.

The Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Language Learning

Programs for Enhancing English Learning among Students of Limited English Proficiency

A Dissertation Defenseby

Cheng-Chieh LaiOctober 06, 2008

Chair: David E. Herrington, Ph.D.

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)

Dissertation Defense Format

1. Background of the Problems2. Purpose of the Study3. Conceptual Framework4. Research Questions 5. Significance of the Study6. Research Methods7. Major Findings and Literature Support8. Conclusion9. Recommendations for Further Study

Background of the Problems Foreign students contribute about $13.5 billion to the U.S. eco

nomy 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 teachi

ng and learning, where the computer is used to assist the presentation, reinforcement, and assessment of the learning material (Davies, 2002).

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.

Conceptual Framework

Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989)

Perceived Usefulness

Perceived Ease of Use

Attitude Toward use

Behavioral IntentionTo use

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 toPurchase and Use

Research Question

Quantitative1. 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?

Research Question (cont.)

Qualitative3. 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?

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

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

Research Methods

A combination of Quantitative and Qualitative research methods was utilized for the study

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.

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

Subjects of the StudyQuantitative 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

Participants’ Native Languages

Native Language Group Frequency PercentValid 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

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

Participants’ Genders & Educational Levels

1435

90

160

291

0

50

100

150

200

Elementaryschool

Secondaryschool

High school College oruniversity

Postgraduate Missing

147180

20

0

50

100

150

200

Male Female Missing

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

Subjects of the StudyQualitative 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

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)

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.

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.

Major FindingsResearch 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

Major FindingsResearch 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


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 -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

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 Proficiency3. Translation Versions

Discussion Null Hypothesis One

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

Major FindingsResearch 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

Total9289.115 311

* p < 0.05



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)

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 Proficiency3. 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

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) .



Null Hypotheses Two, Four, and FiveThere 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 .


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


Between Groups 13.716 4 3.429 .111 .978

Within Groups 9086.214 295 30.801

Major FindingsResearch 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


Major FindingsResearch 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.


*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


To further examine the differences, a Scheffe test was conducted

(I) Native Languages (J) Native LanguagesMean 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


2.564(*) .821 .047

*p < 0.05

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

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


Null Hypotheses Seven, Eight, Nine, and TenThere 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 .


Gender Between Groups 25.067 1 25.067 .898 .344Within Groups 8766.056 314 27.917 Age Group

Between Groups 219.161 5 43.832 1.559 .172Within Groups 8464.501 301 28.121

Educational Level Between Groups 128.724 4 32.181 1.143 .336Within Groups 8782.702 312 28.150 Technology Experience

Between Groups 111.673 4 27.918 .974 .422Within Groups 8308.443 290 28.650

Major FindingsResearch 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

English2. Provide more opportunities for practice through experiential

learning3. 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.

Major FindingsResearch 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; and3. 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.


“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.

Major FindingsResearch 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.

Major FindingsResearch Question Four (cont.)Most Important Role of CALL programs

0 2 4 6 8 10

Tutor

Tool

Tutee

No comment

Student

Instructor

Major FindingsResearch Question Four (cont.)“Tool” role:1. vary their teaching and learning paths2. provide more interactive activities3. 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.


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).

Major FindingsResearch 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)

Major FindingsResearch 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

StudentInstructor

Major FindingsResearch 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


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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.html

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.

References (cont.)Hayes, B. E., & Hicks, S. K. (2004). Speaking in the CALL environment. Proceedin

gs 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.

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.

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.

謝謝謝謝！！(xie xie)

Thank YouFor joining in my presentation

Date post:	14-Jan-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	will1945
View:	204 times
Download:	4 times