Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Antonio, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-61-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has received considerable attention over past twenty years to enhance foreign language teaching and learning. However, few research studies have addressed the use of text, audio, and video-based SCMC to enhance spoken English acquisition and pedagogy. This cross-national study was designed to: (a) examine relationship among the factors which, based on a review of the literature, have been found to influence the adoption of SCMC to improve spoken English acquisition? and (b) identify the salient features of a SCMC system for oral English teaching and learning. To answer the questions, a survey of tutors, interviews of learners, and observations of tutors and learners during the implementation phase were designed. The study found that among the constructs—interactivity, motivation, effectiveness, satisfaction, and technology savvy—some were significantly correlated with each other. The authors proposed a framework for effective implementation of real-time spoken English pedagogy.
Lee, C.Y., Turner, S., Huang, W. & Kessler, G. (2007). Using Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication to Teach Foreign Students Spoken English: An Exploratory Study. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 397-404). San Antonio, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 18, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/24569/.
- Abrams, Z.I. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29, 489-503.
- Abrams, Z.I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167.
- Almeda, M.B., & Rose, K. (2000). Instructor satisfaction in University of California extension's online writing curriculum. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 4 (3), 180-195.
- Beauvois, M.H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication: Technology for improving speaking and writing. In M.D. Bush& R.M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 165-184). Lincolnwood, IL: National
- Chafe, A. (1999). Computer mediated communication in the second language classroom. Retrieved August 11 2006 from http://www.cdli.ca/~achafe/commedlang_html.htm
- Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doll, W.J.; & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Quarterly, 12 (2), 258-275.
- Ellis, P. (1999). Standard bearer: Report on the community college employment standards task force. TESOL Matters.
- Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with asynchronous teaching and learning in the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 4 (3), 245-278.
- Gonzalez-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language Learning& Technology, 1 (2), 55-70.
- Hata, M. (2003). Literature review: Using computer-mediated communication in second language classroom. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 54(3), 115-125.
- Herring, S.C. (1994, June). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. Keynote talk at the annual meeting of American Library Association, Miami, Florida.
- Herring, S.C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffin, H. Hamilton(Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis, 612–634, Oxford, Blackwell.
- Hicks, W.D., & Klimoski, R.J. (1987). Entry into training programs and its effects on raining outcomes: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30 (3), 542-552.
- Hiltz, S.R., Zhang, Y., & Turoff, M. (2001). Studies of effectiveness of learning networks. Presented at the Sloan ALN Workshop (Lake George, NY, Sept. 2001); to appear in JALN.
- Hodas, S. (1993, September 14). Technology refusal and the organizational culture of schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1 (10). Retrieved September 28, 20 06 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v1n10.html
- Honey, M. & Moeller, B. (1990). Teacher’s beliefs and technology interaction: Different values, different understandings. Technical Report, 6, Center for Technology in Education.
- Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
- Kerr, S.T. (1991). Leaver and fulcrum: Educational technology in teachers’ thought and practive. Teachers College Record, 93, 114-36.
- Khamesan, A., & Hammond, N. (2005). Learning effectiveness in on-line collaborative concept mapping via CMC: Comparing different mode of interactions. In P. Kommers& G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005 (pp. 3179-3186). Chesapeake,
- Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the sociogenesis of second language development. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Meskill, G. & Mossop, J. (2003). Technologies use with learners of ESL in New Your State: Preliminary report. Retrieved September 26, 2006 from http: www.albany.edu/lap/Papers/technology%20use.htm
- Murray, D.E. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (3), 397–421.
- Noe, R.A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainer attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497-523.
- Payne, J.S., & Ross, B.M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning& Technology, 9 (3), 35-54.
- Payne, J.S., & Whitney, P.J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20 (1), 7-32.
- Peterson, M. (1997). Language teaching and networking. System, 2 5 (1), 29-37.
- Salaberry, M.R.(1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 15 (1), 5-34.
- Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and natives peakers of Japanese. Language Learning& Technology, 6 (1), 82-99.
- Ushioda, E. (2000). Tandem language learning via e-mail: From motivation to autonomy. ReCALL,12 (2), 121– 128.
- Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24 (1), 1-14.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Synchronous Online Model for Assistance in Remote Elementary Schools English Teachers and Students English Learning in Taiwan—4C Global Model (SMART 4C Global Model)
Cheun-Yeong Lee, ROC Military Academy, Taiwan; Li-Wei Peng, West Liberty University, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (Mar 25, 2013) pp. 2595–2601
Mayumi Shibakawa & Peter Leong, University of Hawaii-Manoa, United States
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011 (Oct 18, 2011) pp. 916–923
A Case Study of Teachers’ Perceptions of Using a Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication System for Spoken English Teaching
Cheun Yeong Lee & Li-Wei Peng, Ohio University, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (Mar 02, 2009) pp. 3313–3320
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact email@example.com.