Proving IT Works
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v20i2.219-226Keywords:
Assessment, Instructional Technology, Evaluation Parameters, Curriculum, Pedagogical GoalsAbstract
This paper deals with the assessment of the effects of instructional technology (IT) on the foreign language curriculum. It is intended to serve two purposes. First, it offers a general background to the evaluation of IT, which is essential knowledge for anyone involved in the integration of IT into their courses. Second, it seeks to provide a clearer understanding of the evaluation parameters that need to be taken into consideration when establishing the infrastructure for the on-going assessment of IT. While giving due consideration to evaluating the effectiveness of CALL on learning outcomes, it is proposed that we need to take a broader view of the assessment of IT, one which goes beyond its defensive justification and promotion. In particular, it is argued that we need to move away from a technocentric assessment of IT to one which focuses on how IT contributes to realizing our pedagogical goals and objectives.
References
Chapelle, C., & Jamieson J. (1991) Internal and external validity issues in research on CALL effectiveness. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer Assisted Language Learning and Testing: Research Issues and Practice (pp. 37-60). New York: Newbury House.
Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445-459.
Clark, R. (1984). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42 (2), 21-29.
Dunkel, P. (1987). The effectiveness literature on CAI/CALL and computing: Implications of the research for limited English proficiency learners. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 367-372.
Dunkel, P. (1991). The effectiveness research on computer aided instruction and computer assisted language learning. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer Assisted Language Learning and Testing: Research Issues and Practice (pp. 5-36). New York: Newbury House.
Levy, M. (2001). Coherence and direction in CALL research: Comparative designs. In K. Cameron (Ed.), CALL—The challenge of change, proceedings of the 2001 Exeter CALL conference (pp. 5-13). Exeter: Elm Bank Publications.
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticisms vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16, 22-30.
Pederson, K. M. (1987). Research on CALL. In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 99-132). Lincolnwood, IL. National Textbook Company.
Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Available: www.nea.org/ he/abouthe/diseddif.pdf
Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition and learning. Washington DC: JosseyBass.
Schramm, W. (1977). Big media, little media. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Vinsonhaler, J., & Bass, R. (1972). A summary of ten major studies on CAI drill and practice. Educational Technology, 12, 9-32.
