-17-
2014 CALL Conference
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be
ways to create
and participate in com
munities” (Kern, 2006, p.183).
Language
instructors, administrators and learners are able to choose from a dizzying range of
language teaching-specific tools, software and online media that includes a continually
evolving variety of generic web-based tools, communication and social networking media.
Given these dramatic changes in communication technologies and the promising potential
for enhanced language program delivery, researchers are often asked to examine the
‘feasibility’ of integrating CALL approaches into a range of language educational contexts.
I have been involved in a number of these feasibility studies exploring stakeholders’
beliefs and visions of CALL approaches in a range of language teaching contexts.
Stakeholders
have included instructors, learners and administrators in these varied
contexts. Examining the feasibility of CALL integration through diverse stakeholder
perspectives offers a realistic look at how to localize CALL approaches, how to build buy-
in and how to hopefully increase the likelihood of successful program innovation. These
studies have included examining teachers’ beliefs towards the integration of CALL in
college English-as-an-additional language (EAL) programs (Lawrence, 2000; Lawrence,
2001), instructor and learner beliefs towards the use of CALL approaches in core French
language programs across Canada (Turnbull & Lawrence, 2003)
and the integration of
transnational wiki writing projects in post-secondary ESL/EAL contexts (Lawrence, Young,
Owen & Compton, 2009). My most recent research in this area has been leading a
provincially funded study examining instructor, learner and administrator beliefs and
visions of CALL approaches that could be u
sed within Ontario’s Adult, Non
-Credit ESL/EAL
programs (Lawrence, Haque & King, 2013). This study was designed for the purpose of
defining the feasibility of integrating CALL approaches within these largely face-to-face
ESL/EAL programs across Ontario.
These feasibility studies have focused on examining stakeholder beliefs towards CALL,
identifying CALL practices (if available) and visions of CALL
using a range of research
methodologies. I have often employed multi-staged, mixed methods approaches to
examine complex phenomena like beliefs and educational change from varied research
paradigms with unique strengths and weaknesses. I have sometimes adopted case study
approaches to explore the complexity of CALL beliefs and visions within their rich, unique
contexts. Data collection tools have ranged from participant surveys, interviews,
focus
groups, document analysis and observations. Analysis techniques have included both
quantitative and qualitative approaches, data transformation approaches and both
intermethod and intramethod mixing to examine data through complementary
paradigmatic lenses. Working in research teams on most of these studies, we have
applied cross-track analytical approaches (Li, Marquart & Zercher, 2000) to triangulate
findings,
to seek patterns, corroborate and disconfirm data throughout the analysis
procedure. While the research methods have been sound, the major challenge in much of
this CALL feasibility research has been the ‘visioning dilemma’ among our participants,
resulting from the limited exposure many of our participants have had to CALL
approaches. This endemic lack of CALL exposure has often limited participants’
understandings of the potential of CALL, constraining their ability to articulate concrete
visions.
In the recent study I conducted examining the feasibility of
integrating ESL e-learning
programs in Ontario, our participants included instructors, learners and administrators
working in Ontario-funded ESL/EAL programs for newcomers. A key focus of this
research was to define visions of CALL approaches within these contexts, using
participant views and beliefs to help develop these visions. However, the majority of
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
