Apply to USF Now | Graduate Admissions | Events & Workshops | Giving to the Office of Graduate Studies

Graduate Course Proposal Form Submission Detail - FLE7700

Edit function not enabled for this course.


Current Status: Approved by SCNS - 2016-07-01
Campus: Tampa
Submission Type: New
Course Change Information (for course changes only):
Comments: Returned to faculty for revision on 10/12/15: Repeatable (No); Obj/LO; Description revision; Online percentages info. Ready fo GC. GC Appd. To USF Sys 4/21/16; to SCNS after 4/28/16. Appd Eff 7/1/16


  1. Department and Contact Information

    Tracking Number Date & Time Submitted
    5218 2015-04-12
     
    Department College Budget Account Number
    Teaching and Learning (T&L) ED 0171400
     
    Contact Person Phone Email
    Deoksoon Kim 8139743353 deoksoonk@usf.edu

  2. Course Information

    Prefix Number Full Title
    FLE 7700 Applications of Technology in Second Language Acquisition

    Is the course title variable? Y
    Is a permit required for registration? N
    Are the credit hours variable? N
    Is this course repeatable? N
    If repeatable, how many times? 0

    Credit Hours Section Type Grading Option
    3 D - Discussion (Primarily) R - Regular
     
    Abbreviated Title (30 characters maximum)
    Apps of Tech in SLA
     
    Course Online? Percentage Online
    C - Face-to-face (0% online) 0

    Prerequisites

    None

    Corequisites

    None

    Course Description

    This course introduces key approaches to computer-assisted language learning (CALL). Students learn about pedagogical approaches and assessment in CALL. Students share ideas on blogs and in class discussions, and design and execute a pilot study.


  3. Justification

    A. Please briefly explain why it is necessary and/or desirable to add this course.

    Replacing Selected Topics with Permanent number; already listed in program

    B. What is the need or demand for this course? (Indicate if this course is part of a required sequence in the major.) What other programs would this course service?

    This is a core course for the TESLA (formerly SLA/IT , SLATE) program. TESLA doctoral students must take this course to complete their program of studies, but the course has only been offered as a special-topics course. The program of studies form for TESLA is attached. 2. This course will serve a central role in preparing TESLA students by familiarizing them with the application of technology in second language acquisition. They will not only understand learning theories and the application of instructional technology in SLA, but will also learn about the interface between theories and practices in teaching and learning. This course will cover the fundamental theories and practices involving technology in language learning and teaching, so students will be able to develop their own theoretical framework to support their ongoing research, scholarship, and teaching.

    C. Has this course been offered as Selected Topics/Experimental Topics course? If yes, how many times?

    Yes, 3 or more times

    D. What qualifications for training and/or experience are necessary to teach this course? (List minimum qualifications for the instructor.)

    A terminal degree (doctoral degree) is required to teach this course.


  4. Other Course Information

    A. Objectives

    1. Identify CALL’s historical foundations and link these to current approaches.

    2. Identify current trends in CALL, exploring current sources on CALL, including books, journals, and Internet resources.

    3. Discuss current theories, models, and issues in foreign- and second-language education and teacher education, both online and in person.

    4. Discuss pedagogical choices in CALL activities.

    5. Identify a list of technology resources for the foreign- or second-language classroom to be used as a training workshop for teachers or graduate teaching assistants.

    6. Develop a detailed understanding of the relevant literature in the field of technology in foreign- and second-language K–16 education, as well as in the preparation of teachers who can infuse technology into their curriculum content areas.

    7. Discuss contributions and limitations of various approaches to CALL research.

    8. Discuss the problem statement for research projects and develop a review of the literature or a pilot study on a topic of interest related to the field of technology applications in foreign- and second-language education.

    B. Learning Outcomes

    1. Students will learn CALL’s historical foundations and link these to current approaches.

    2. Students will learn current trends in CALL, exploring current sources on CALL including books, journals, and Internet resources.

    3. Students will learn current theories, models, and issues in foreign- and second-language education and teacher education, both online and in person.

    4. Students will complete pedagogical choices in CALL activities.

    5. Students will compile a list of technology resources for the foreign- or second-language classroom to be used as a training workshop for teachers or graduate teaching assistants.

    6. Students will gain a detailed understanding of the relevant literature in the field of technology in foreign- and second-language K–16 education, as well as in the preparation of teachers who can infuse technology into their curriculum content areas.

    7. Students will comprehend contributions and limitations of various approaches to CALL research.

    8. Students will generate the problem statement for research projects and will develop a review of the literature or a pilot study on a topic of interest related to the field of technology applications in foreign- and second-language education.

    C. Major Topics

    Introduction to CALL/History of CALL; theoretical perspectives in CALL; Overview of CALL pedagogy options and issues; Reading and listening; Speaking and Writing; Vocabulary & Grammar; Pragmatics & Culture; CALL evaluation; Instructional technology in teacher education; CALL description; CALL materials; Instructional technology in language learning and teaching; digital ethnography and critical reflection.

    D. Textbooks

    Jones, R. H., Chik, A., & Hafner, C. (2015). Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age. Routledge.

    This text critically examines fundamental research on and theories of CALL in SLA. It expands studies of SLA in an informed and interdisciplinary fashion to anthropology and cultural studies. It also provides important predictions about the future of technology in SLA research.

    E. Course Readings, Online Resources, and Other Purchases

    Abrams, Z. I. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29(4), 489-503.

    Aust, R., et al. (1993). The use of hyper-reference and conventional dictionaries. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(4), 63-73.

    Belz, J. A. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL,13(2), 213-231.

    Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68-117.

    Belz, J.A., Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: the case of address forms. Language Learning, 53(4), 591-648.

    Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136.

    Bohlke, O. (2003). A comparison of students' participation levels by group size and language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 67-87.

    Borrás I., & Lafayette, R. C. (1994). Effects of multimedia courseware subtitling on the speaking performance of college students of French. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 61-75.

    Braine, G. (1997). Beyond word processing: networked computers in ESL writing classes. Computers and Composition, 14(1), 45-58.

    Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher- to student-centered materials. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 87-107.

    Brett, P. (2000). Developing cross-cultural competence in business through multimedia courseware. ReCALL Journal, 12(2), 196-208.

    Burston, J. (2001). Computer-based grammar checker and self-monitoring. CALICO Journal, 18(3), 499-515.

    Cahill, D., & Catanzaro, D (1997). Teaching first-year Spanish on-line. CALICO Journal, 14(2-4), 97-114.

    Cartez-Enriquez, N., Rodriguez, M.I.S., & Quintana, L.R. (2004). Electronic texts or learning through textbooks: an experimental study. ReCALL, 16(2), 539-554.

    Chapelle, C. A., & Lui, H-M. (2007). Theory and research: Investigation of “authentic” CALL tasks. In Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). CALL Environments, 2nd Edition, (pp. 111-130). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

    Chapelle, C.A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. (Chapter 4)

    Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1-2.

    Chapelle, C.A. (in press). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL Research. In Petrie, G. (Ed.) Research perspectives on CALL. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

    Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 2 (1), 22 34.

    Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid French and Spanish courses: an overview of language online. CALICO Journal, 24(1), 115-145.

    Chenoweth, N. A., & Murday, K. (2003). Measuring student learning in an online French course. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 285-314.

    Chun, D. (2006). CALL technologies for L2 reading. In L. Ducate and N. Arnold, (eds.) Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching, (pp. 69-98). CALICO: San Marcos, TX.

    Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 1, 17-31.

    Coniam, D., & Wong, R. (2004). Internet Relay Chat as a tool in the autonomous development of ESL learners' English language ability: An exploratory study. System, 32(3), 321-335.

    Cribb, V. M. (2000). Machine translation: The alternative for the 21st Century? TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 560-569.

    de Graaff, R. (1997). The Experanto Experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249-276.

    De la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study of the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 47-81.

    Doughty, C .J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50-80.

    Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31(3), 349-365.

    Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Essex, England: Pearson/Longman, (Chapter 12).

    Egbert, J. and Petrie, G. (Eds.) 2005: Research perspectives on CALL. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, (Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7).

    Felix, U., & Lawson, M. (1996). Developing German writing skills by way of Timbuktu: A pilot study comparing computer-based and conventional teaching. ReCALL, 8(1), 12-19.

    Fernandez-Garcia, M., & Arbelaiz, A. M. (2003). Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL,15(1), 113-136.

    Fiori, M. L. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 567-602.

    Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 67-86.

    Garcia, M. R., & Arias, F. V. (2000). A comparative study in motivation and learning through print-oriented and computer-oriented tests. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4-5), 457-465.

    Gaskell, D. & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32, 301-319.

    Heift, T., & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and intelligence in computer-assisted language learning. Routledge, Chapter 2.

    Herron, C. A., York, H., Cole, S. P., & Linden, P. (1998). A comparison study of student retention of foreign language video: Declarative versus interrogative advance organizer. The Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 237-247.

    Hong, W. (1997). Multimedia computer-assisted reading in business Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 335-344.

    Jamieson, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (forthcoming). Evaluation of CALL Materials. [Coursepack at Copyworks]

    Jamieson, J., Chapelle, C.A., & Preiss, S. (2004). Putting Principles into Practice. ReCALL Journal, 16(2), 396-415.

    Johns, T. (1994). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Odlin (Ed.) Perspectives on pedagogical grammar, (pp. 293-313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Jones, L. C. (2006). Listening comprehension in multimedia environments. In L. Ducate and N. Arnold, (eds.). Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching, (pp. 99-125). CALICO: San Marcos, TX.

    Jones, L. C. & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia annotations. Modern Language Journal, 86, 546-561.

    Kang, S.-H. (1995). The effects of a context-embedded approach to second-language vocabulary learning. System, 23(1), 43-55.

    Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy, (Eds.) Teacher education in CALL, (pp. 22-42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Kramsch, C., A'Ness, F., Lam, W. S. E. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in the computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning and Technology, 4 (2), 78-104.

    Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3), 102-120.

    Lam, F. S., & Pennington, M. C. (1995). The computer vs. the pen: a comparative study of word processing in a Hong Kong secondary classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8(1), 75-92.

    Lam, W.S E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457-482.

    Lamy, M-N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). "Reflective conversation" in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43-61.

    Leffa, V. J. (1992). Making foreign language texts comprehensible for beginners: an experiment with an electronic glossary. System, 20(1), 63-73.

    Levine, A., Ferenz, O., & Reves, T. (1999). A computer-mediated curriculum in the EFL academic writing class. ReCALL, 11(1), 72-79.

    Levy, M. (2007). Culture,culture learning, and new technologies: Towards a pedagogical framework. Language Learning and Technology, 11(2), 104-127.

    Levy, M. and Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Liou, H., Wang, S.H., & Hung-Yeh. Y. (1992). Can grammatical CALL help EFL writing instruction? CALICO, 10 (1), 23-44.

    Liou, H. (1997). The impact of www texts on EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(5), 455-478.

    McEnery, T., Baker, J. P., & Wilson, A. (1995). A statistical analysis of corpus based computer vs. traditional human teaching methods of part of speech analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8(2-3), 259-274.

    Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77 (3), 330-339.

    Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research approach. Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 75-87.

    O’Dowd, R. (2000). Intercultural learning via videoconferencing: a pilot exchange project. ReCALL, 12(1), 49-61.

    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.

    Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern, (Eds.). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice, (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., and Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36.

    Price, K. (2007). Afterword: The future in now. Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

    Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5-27.

    Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. Routledge: New York, Chapter 2.

    Smith, B. Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 365-398.

    Spelman, M. D. (2002). GLOBECORP: simulation versus tradition. Simulation & Gaming, 33(3), 376-394.

    Susser, B. (2001). A defense of checklists for courseware evaluation. ReCALL, 13(2), 261-276.

    Stenson, N., Downing, B., Smith, J., & Smith, K. (1992). The effectiveness of computer-assisted pronunciation training. CALICO, 9(4), 5-19.

    Taniguchi, M., & Abberton, E. (1999). Effect of interactive visual feedback on the improvement of English intonation of Japanese EFL learners. Speech, Hearing and Language, 11, 76-89.

    Teichert, H. U. (1985). Computer-assisted instruction in beginning college German: An experiment. CALICO, 2(3), 18-43.

    Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38-67.

    Thorne, S. L., & Payne, S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 371-398.

    Torlakovic, E., & Deugo, D. (2004). Application of a CALL system in the acquisition of adverbs in English. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(2), 203-235.

    Tozcu, A., & Coady, J. (2004). Successful learning of frequent vocabulary through CALL also benefits reading comprehension and speed. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(5), 473-495.

    Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated versus face-to-face discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 110-138.

    Vinther, J. (2004). Can parsers be a legitimate pedagogical tool? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(3 - 4), 267-288.

    Warner, C. N. (2004). It’s just a game, Right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 69-87.

    Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental, and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 757-761.

    White, C. (1995). Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning: research findings. System, 23(2), 207-221.

    Zhao, Y. (1997). The effects of listeners’ control of speech rate on second language comprehension. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 49-68.

    Recent books on Technology and Second Language Learning

    These are some of the books that you might consider for your book review, but there are other ones that are not on the list.

    Butler-Pascoe, M. E., & Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Technology and teaching English language learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Chambers, A. & Davies, G. (Eds.) (2001). ICT and language learning: A European perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

    Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.) (2006). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues, 2nd Edition. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

    Felix, U. (Ed.) (2003). Language learning online: Towards best practice. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

    Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer. (This one is not exclusively about CALL).

    Lewis, P. (Ed.) (2002). The changing face of CALL: A Japanese perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

    TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), Special-Topic Issue: TESOL in the 21st Century.

    Windeatt, S., Hardisty, D., & Eastment, D. (2000). The Internet and ELT. Oxford, UK: The British Council

    Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.) (2000). Network based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Additional Supplementary Reading

    Akyel, A., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced

    learners of English. System, 37(1), 136‐152.

    Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the

    conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT‐TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154‐168.

    Anson, C. M., & Miller‐Cochran, S. K. (2009). Contrails of Learning: Using New

    Technologies for Vertical Knowledge‐building. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 38‐48. Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Droumeva, M. (2009). What the body knows: Exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. Interacting

    with Computers, 21(1‐2), 66‐75.

    Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland‐Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C.,

    et al. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi‐institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4), 133‐136.

    Auer, P. (2009). On‐line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language.

    Language Sciences, 31(1), 1‐13.

    Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S.‐L. (2009). Measuring self‐

    regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1‐6.

    Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to

    technology integration. Computers & Education, 52(2), 353‐364.

    Buck, A. M. (2008). The Invisible Interface: MS Word in the Writing Center. Computers

    and Composition, 25(4), 396‐415.

    Buda, R. (2009). Learning‐testing process in classroom: An empirical simulation model.

    Computers & Education, 52(1), 177‐187.

    Carle, A. C., Jaffee, D., & Miller, D. (2009). Engaging college science students and

    changing academic achievement with technology: A quasi‐experimental preliminary investigation. Computers & Education, 52(2), 376‐380.

    Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition.

    Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapelle, C. A., & Douglas, D. (2006). Assessing language through computer technology.

    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chen, C.‐M., & Chen, M.‐C. (2009). Mobile formative assessment tool based on data

    mining techniques for supporting web‐based learning. Computers & Education, 52(1),

    256‐273.

    Chen, N.‐S., Wei, C.‐W., Wu, K.‐T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and

    peer assessment on online learners' reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52(2), 95-107.

    Chiu, C.‐F., & Lee, G. C. (2009). A video lecture and lab‐based approach for learning of

    image processing concepts. Computers & Education, 52(2), 313‐323.

    Chou, S.‐W., & Min, H.‐T. (2009). The impact of media on collaborative learning in virtual

    settings: The perspective of social construction. Computers & Education, 52(2), 417‐431. Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from

    the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141‐146.

    Dadas, C. E. (2008). Inventing the Election: Civic Participation and Presidential

    Candidates' Websites. Computers and Composition, 25(4), 416‐431.

    De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and evaluation of

    a virtual campus on Second Life: The case of SecondDMI. Computers & Education,

    52(1), 220‐233.

    Ding, N. (2009). Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer‐

    supported collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 52(2), 509‐

    519.

    Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). What lies beyond effectiveness and efficiency?

    Adventure learning design. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4), 137‐144. Eyman, D., Sheffield, S., & DeVoss, D. N. (2009). Developing Sustainable Research

    Networks in Graduate Education. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 49‐57.

    Freitas, S. d., & Neumann, T. (2009). The use of 'exploratory learning' for supporting

    immersive learning in virtual environments. Computers & Education, 52(2), 343‐352. Fu, F.‐L., Su, R.‐C., & Yu, S.‐C. (2009). EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners'

    enjoyment of e‐learning games. Computers & Education, 52(1), 101‐112.

    Grabe, M., Flannery, K., & Christopherson, K. (2008). Voluntary use of online study

    questions as a function of previous minimal use requirements and learner aptitude. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4), 145‐151.

    Graupner, M., Nickoson‐Massey, L., & Blair, K. (2009). Remediating Knowledge‐Making

    Spaces in the Graduate Curriculum: Developing and Sustaining Multimodal Teaching and Research. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 13‐23.

    Hadjithoma, C., & Karagiorgi, Y. (2009). The use of ICT in primary schools within

    emerging communities of implementation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 83‐91. Harper, K. A., & DeWaters, J. (2008). A Quest for website accessibility in higher

    education institutions. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4), 160‐164.

    Helle, K. R., & Hokanson, B. (2009). Between 2: Tango as interactive design. Interacting

    with Computers, 21(1‐2), 125‐132.

    Hernandez, B., Jimenez, J., & Jose Martin, M. (2009). The impact of self‐efficacy, ease of use

    and usefulness on e‐purchasing: An analysis of experienced e‐shoppers. Interacting with Computers, 21(1‐2), 146‐156.

    Holzinger, A., Kickmeier‐Rust, M. D., Wassertheurer, S., & Hessinger, M. (2009). Learning

    performance with interactive simulations in medical education: Lessons learned from results of learning complex physiological models with the HAEMOdynamics SIMulator. Computers & Education, 52(2), 292‐301.

    Hornecker, E., & Dünser, A. (2009). Of pages and paddles: Children's expectations and

    mistaken interactions with physical‐digital tools. Interacting with Computers, 21(1‐2),

    Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers &

    Education, 52(1), 78‐82.

    Huang, H.‐c., Chern, C.‐l., & Lin, C.‐c. (2009). EFL learners' use of online reading

    strategies and comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Computers & Education,

    52(1), 13‐26.

    Huang, Y.‐M., Lin, Y.‐T., & Cheng, S.‐C. (2009). An adaptive testing system for supporting

    versatile educational assessment. Computers & Education, 52(1), 53‐67.

    Jang, S.‐J. (2009). Exploration of secondary students' creativity by integrating web‐based technology into an innovative science curriculum. Computers & Education, 52(1), 247‐

    255.

    Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., Torres, F., Dormido, S., Esquembre, F., & Reinoso, O. (2009).

    Real‐time collaboration of virtual laboratories through the Internet. Computers & Education, 52(1), 126‐140.

    Jones, S., Johnson‐Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Pérez, F. S. (2008). Academic work, the

    Internet and U.S. college students. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4), 165‐177.

    Källkvist, M., Gomez, S., Andersson, H., & Lush, D. (2009). Personalised virtual learning

    spaces to support undergraduates in producing research reports: Two case studies. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 35‐44.

    Karpova, E., Correia, A.‐P., & Baran, E. (2009). Learn to use and use to learn: Technology in

    virtual collaboration experience. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 45‐52. Khatchatourov, A., Castet, J., Florens, J.‐L., Luciani, A., & Lenay, C. (2009). Integrating

    tactile and force feedback for highly dynamic tasks: Technological, experimental and epistemological aspects. Interacting with Computers, 21(1‐2), 26‐37.

    Knievel, M., & Sheridan‐Rabideau, M. P. (2009). Articulating "Responsivity" in Context: Re‐

    making the M.A. in Composition and Rhetoric for the Electronic Age. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 24‐37.

    Kong, S. C., & Li, K. M. (2009). Collaboration between school and parents to foster

    information literacy: Learning in the information society. Computers & Education, 52(2),

    275‐282.

    Korakakis, G., Pavlatou, E. A., Palyvos, J. A., & Spyrellis, N. (2009). 3D visualization types

    in multimedia applications for science learning: A case study for 8th grade students in Greece. Computers & Education, 52(2), 390‐401.

    Kwon, S. Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2009). The comparative effect of individually‐constructed vs.

    collaboratively‐constructed computer‐based concept maps. Computers & Education,

    52(2), 365‐375.

    Lau, S.‐H., & Woods, P. C. (2009). Understanding the behavior changes in belief and

    attitude among experienced and inexperienced learning object users. Computers & Education, 52(2), 333‐342.

    Lazzari, M. (2009). Creative use of podcasting in higher education and its effect on

    competitive agency. Computers & Education, 52(1), 27‐34.

    Lee, M. J. W., Miller, C., & Newnham, L. (2009). Podcasting syndication services and university students: Why don't they subscribe? The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 53‐59.

    Leijen, Ä., Lam, I., Wildschut, L., Robert‐Jan Simons, P., & Admiraal, W. (2009).

    Streaming video to enhance students' reflection in dance education. Computers & Education, 52(1), 169‐176.

    Li, Y. (2009). How the cell phone became the most important interactive communication

    medium in today's China. Technology in Society, 31(1), 53‐55.

    Limniou, M., Papadopoulos, N., & Whitehead, C. (2009). Integration of simulation into

    pre‐laboratory chemical course: Computer cluster versus WebCT. Computers & Education, 52(1), 45‐52.

    Lin, C.‐H., Yang, H.‐L., & Liou, D.‐Y. (2009). The impact of corporate social responsibility

    on financial performance: Evidence from business in Taiwan. Technology in Society,

    31(1), 56‐63.

    Lin, F.‐R., Hsieh, L.‐S., & Chuang, F.‐T. (2009). Discovering genres of online discussion

    threads via text mining. Computers & Education, 52(2), 481‐495.

    Lin, Q. (2008). Preservice teachers' learning experiences of constructing e‐portfolios

    online. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4), 194‐200.

    Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with Wikis: Toward a Networked Pedagogy. Computers

    and Composition, 25(4), 432‐448.

    Madden, M., Chung, P. W. H., & Dawson, C. W. (2009). Cartoons beyond clipart: A

    computer tool for storyboarding and storywriting. Computers & Education, 52(1), 188‐

    200.

    Martín‐Blas, T., & Serrano‐Fernández, A. (2009). The role of new technologies in the

    learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in Physics. Computers & Education, 52(1),

    35‐44.

    McGill, T. J., & Klobas, J. E. (2009). A task‐technology fit view of learning management

    system impact. Computers & Education, 52(2), 496‐508.

    Meyer, K. A. (2008). The "virtual face" of institutions: Why legislators and other outsiders view higher education as aloof. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4),

    178‐185.

    Montero‐Fleta, B., Montesinos‐López, A., Pérez‐Sabater, C., & Turney, E. (2009). Computer

    mediated communication and informalization of discourse: The influence of culture and subject matter. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 770‐779.

    Muller, E., & Doloreux, D. (2009). What we should know about knowledge‐intensive

    business services. Technology in Society, 31(1), 64‐72.

    Ng, W., & Nicholas, H. (2009). Introducing pocket PCs in schools: Attitudes and beliefs in

    the first year. Computers & Education, 52(2), 470‐480.

    Nichols, A. J., & Levy, Y. (2009). Empirical assessment of college student‐athletes'

    persistence in e‐learning courses: A case study of a U.S. National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) institution. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 14‐25.

    Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., McFarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009).

    Technology as small group face‐to‐face Collaborative Scaffolding. Computers & Education,52(1), 147‐153.

    Osterlund, K., & Robson, K. (2009). The impact of ICT on work‐life experiences among

    university Teaching Assistants. Computers & Education, 52(2), 432‐437.

    Owston, R., Wideman, H., Murphy, J., & Lupshenyuk, D. (2008). Blended teacher

    professional development: A synthesis of three program evaluations. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4), 201‐210.

    Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital Game‐Based Learning in high school Computer Science

    education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1‐12.

    Patriarcheas, K., & Xenos, M. (2009). Modelling of distance education forum: Formal

    languages as interpretation methodology of messages in asynchronous text‐based discussion. Computers & Education, 52(2), 438‐448.

    Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., Terwel, J., & van den Eeden, P. (2009). Effects on

    participation of an experimental CSCL‐programme to support elaboration: Do all students benefit? Computers & Education, 52(1), 113‐125.

    Ramduny‐Ellis, D., Dix, A., Gill, S., & Hare, J. (2009). Physicality and interaction.

    Interacting with Computers, 21(1‐2), 64‐65.

    Rooij, S. W. v. (2009). Scaffolding project‐based learning with the project management

    body of knowledge (PMBOK®). Computers & Education, 52(1), 210‐219.

    Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., Baker, J. D., & Grooms, L. D. (2009). Development of an

    instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 7‐13.

    Rueda, U., Arruarte, A., Elorriaga, J. A., & Herrán, E. (2009). Learning the attachment

    theory with the CM‐ED concept map editor. Computers & Education, 52(2), 460‐469. Sabolic, D. (2009). Telecommunications reform in Croatia. Technology in Society, 31(1), 100‐110.

    Shaw, R. S., Chen, C. C., Harris, A. L., & Huang, H.‐J. (2009). The impact of information

    richness on information security awareness training effectiveness. Computers & Education, 52(1), 92‐100.

    Shin, D.‐S., & Cimasko, T. (2008). Multimodal Composition in a College ESL Class: New

    Tools, Traditional Norms. Computers and Composition, 25(4), 376‐395.

    Sinclair, S., & Wanderley, M. M. (2009). A run‐time programmable simulator to enable

    multi‐modal interaction with rigid‐body systems. Interacting with Computers, 21(1‐2), 54‐63.

    Smith, G. G., Gerretson, H., Olkun, S., Yuan, Y., Dogbey, J., & Erdem, A. (2009). Stills, not

    full motion, for interactive spatial training: American, Turkish and Taiwanese female

    pre‐ service teachers learn spatial visualization. Computers & Education, 52(1), 201‐209. Smith, G. G.,

    Heindel, A. J., & Torres‐Ayala, A. T. (2008). E‐learning commodity or community:

    Disciplinary differences between online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4), 152‐159.

    Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre‐service

    teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302‐312.

    Terrell, S. R. (2008). Introduction to the special section of the AERA education and the

    World Wide Web special interest group (EdWeb/SIG). The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4), 131‐132.

    Treadaway, C. (2009). Translating experience. Interacting with Computers, 21(1‐2), 88‐

    94.

    Tüzün, H., Yilmaz‐Soylu, M., Karakus, T., Inal, Y., & KizIlkaya, G. (2009). The effects of

    computer games on primary school students' achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers & Education, 52(1), 68‐77.

    Uzunboylu, H., Cavus, N., & Ercag, E. (2009). Using mobile learning to increase

    environmental awareness. Computers & Education, 52(2), 381‐389.

    Varona, J., Jaume‐i‐Capó, A., Gonzŕlez, J., & Perales, F. J. (2009). Toward natural

    interaction through visual recognition of body gestures in real‐time. Interacting with Computers, 21(1‐2), 3‐10.

    Verstegen, D. M. L., Barnard, Y. F., & Pilot, A. (2009). Designing needs statements in a

    systematic iterative way. Computers & Education, 52(2), 324‐332.

    Visell, Y. (2009). Tactile sensory substitution: Models for enaction in HCI. Interacting

    with Computers, 21(1‐2), 38‐53.

    Walraven, A., Brand‐Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2009). How students evaluate

    information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52(1), 234‐246.

    Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students'

    performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3‐4), 186‐193.

    Yao, X., Watanabe, C., & Li, Y. (2009). Institutional structure of sustainable development

    in BRICs: Focusing on ICT utilization. Technology in Society, 31(1), 9‐28.

    Yusuf, S. (2009). From creativity to innovation. Technology in Society, 31(1), 1‐8.

    F. Student Expectations/Requirements and Grading Policy

    ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING

    Each assignment and its contribution to the course grade are as follows:

    o Find, summarize, and present to the class a CALL activity (5% of the grade).

    o Actively lead a discussion: Select three articles on the topic, present a summary of these articles, create discussion questions and activities, and facilitate class discussion (20%).

    o Write a review of a book about CALL and present it to the class (10%).

    o Main project:

    o Option 1: Write a literature review paper reporting on an issue in CALL and present it to the class (35%).

    o Option 2: Conduct a pilot study using a CALL activity that you have developed or adapted, and present the results to the class (35%).

    o Minimum of 10 blog entries on an area of CALL; ongoing (20%). each group will decide the topic of the blogs and facilitate the blogs.

    o Attendance/participation (10%).

    Assignments, Grade Distribution, and Grading Scale

    Assignments Deadlines Grade Distribution

    Discussion Leader

    Three articles 20%

    Blogs 10%

    Attendance & Participation 20%

    Research Paper: Review of Literature

    Or Pilot Study 35%

    Book Review 10%

    A CALL activity 5%

    Grading Scale:

    Above 100=A+ 94-100=A 90-93=A-

    88-89=B+ 84-87=B 80-83=B-

    78-79=C+ 74-77=C 70-73=C-

    68-69=D+ 64-67=D 60-63=D-

    0-59: F

    G. Assignments, Exams and Tests

    Assignment Description:

    Students *cannot* submit assignments previously submitted for other classes. All work

    *must be original* in order to be considered for course credit. Non‐original work will receive *zero points*. In addition, plagiarism is penalized according to university policies. Please submit all assignments in hard copy, stapled, with no binders, covers, or folders unless indicated. Assignments that do not follow the instructions will not be graded.

    Discussion Leader and Online Group Discussions:

    On the first day of the semester, you will sign up to be the discussion leader for the topics covered on the course calendar on a specific date. Discussion leaders are responsible for coordinating group discussions, summarizing these discussions, and posting a summary on Blackboard (Discussion Board). Each student will be a discussion leader at least once during the semester.

    Group members will keep a “Credit Log” to be submitted on TBA. This will be a “Discussion Group” submission. All group members will be accountable for their work., Group members will also submit an individual self and peer evaluation on TBA.

    CALL Activity:

    List of Technology Resources & Training Workshop: You will list three technology resources (preferably free software) to be used in the foreign-language classroom. For each of these three resources, include a description of the product, applications, location for the links, etc. You will select one of these resources and prepare a training workshop. (The training workshop has to be ready to be presented at a conference, at an in-service day in a Tampa Bay school district, or at one of the SLAQ meetings. You will present this both in a narrative format (handout, Word document) as well as using the presentational software of your choice. Due TBA

    Main project:

    Option 1: Review of Literature: You will complete a thorough yet focused literature review on a topic of your choice from the list of course topics. Your database search and reading should be comprehensive, but your literature review should be concise. It is suggested that you look at literature reviews in relevant journals as models for your own writing. Literature reviews should not exceed 12 pages and should cite a minimum of 25 peer‐reviewed sources. Follow the 6th Edition of the APA Style Manual. If you intend to submit this review for publication in a scholarly journal, you are welcome to format your paper according to the conventions of that journal. In that case, please attach a copy of the journal’s guidelines for submissions. This is an individual project. You will present it to your classmates during the last week of classes. A rubric for paper evaluation and journal expectations for publication are provided on Blackboard. See Assignments/Research Paper‐Review of Literature (or Pilot Study) on Blackboard for rubrics, guidelines, and other supporting materials. Due TBA

    Option 2: A Pilot Study:

    Conduct a pilot study using a CALL activity that you have developed or adapted, and present results to the class. Due TBA. Guidelines for a pilot study will be posted on Canvas with rubrics, guidelines, and other supporting materials.

    Participation in online discussion (blog):

    Share interpretations and reactions to readings, opinions, analysis, synthesis, critiques, and other materials. Each blog entry should be more than 400 words and discuss the topic insightfully. At least five blog entries are required.

    Book Review (Pair or individual work):

    Write a book review of a recent CALL book (1,000–1,500 words) and give a class presentation about the book that you read. You should choose this book during the first two weeks of the semester and get it approved by January 28. The book review and presentation to the class are due TBA.

    Attendance and Participation: This course is based on sociocultural theory, so interaction is the most vital method of learning and sharing. Two or more absences will result in a failing grade.

    H. Attendance Policy

    Course Attendance at First Class Meeting – Policy for Graduate Students: For structured courses, 6000 and above, the College/Campus Dean will set the first-day class attendance requirement. Check with the College for specific information. This policy is not applicable to courses in the following categories: Educational Outreach, Open University (TV), FEEDS Program, Community Experiential Learning (CEL), Cooperative Education Training, and courses that do not have regularly scheduled meeting days/times (such as, directed reading/research or study, individual research, thesis, dissertation, internship, practica, etc.). Students are responsible for dropping undesired courses in these categories by the 5th day of classes to avoid fee liability and academic penalty. (See USF Regulation – Registration - 4.0101,

    http://usfweb2.usf.edu/usfgc/ogc%20web/currentreg.htm)

    Attendance Policy for the Observance of Religious Days by Students: In accordance with Sections 1006.53 and 1001.74(10)(g) Florida Statutes and Board of Governors Regulation 6C-6.0115, the University of South Florida (University/USF) has established the following policy regarding religious observances: (http://usfweb2.usf.edu/usfgc/gc_pp/acadaf/gc10-045.htm)

    In the event of an emergency, it may be necessary for USF to suspend normal operations. During this time, USF may opt to continue delivery of instruction through methods that include but are not limited to: Blackboard, Elluminate, Skype, and email messaging and/or an alternate schedule. It’s the responsibility of the student to monitor Blackboard site for each class for course specific communication, and the main USF, College, and department websites, emails, and MoBull messages for important general information.

    I. Policy on Make-up Work

    Make-up Policy on Missed Work: Any late work will be evaluated and the overall course grade will be lowered by one-half a letter (e.g. from A to A-). Any late work will not be accepted more than one week past the due date. The university policy on academic integrity and plagiarism will be followed. Academic Dishonesty: “Plagiarism is defined as "literary theft" and consists of the unattributed quotation of the exact words of a published text or the unattributed borrowing of original ideas by paraphrase from a published text. On written papers for which the student employs information gathered from books, articles, or oral sources, each direct quotation, as well as ideas and facts that are not generally known to the public-at-large, must be attributed to its author by means of the appropriate citation procedure. Citations may be made in footnotes or within the body of the text. Plagiarism also consists of passing off as one's own, segments or the total of another person's work.” “Punishment for academic dishonesty will depend on the seriousness of the offense and may include receipt of an "F" with a numerical value of zero on the item submitted, and the "F" shall be used to determine the final course grade. It is the option of the instructor to assign the student a grade of "F" of "FF" (the latter indicating dishonesty) in the course.” Detection of Plagiarism: It is very important to state in your syllabus that you plan to submit student assignments to SafeAssignment.com in order to detect plagiarism. This will give you the legal right to submit student assignments to SafeAssignment.com. If you pan to submit assignments to Safe Assignment, use the statement below: The University of South Florida has an account with an automated plagiarism detection service which allows instructors to submit student assignments to be checked for plagiarism. I reserve the right to 1) request that assignments be submitted to me as electronic files and 2) electronically submit to SafeAssignment.com, or 3) ask students to submit their assignments to SafeAssignment.com through myUSF. Assignments are compared automatically with a database of journal articles, web articles, and previously submitted papers. The instructor receives a report showing exactly how a student's paper was plagiarized. Web Portal Information: Every newly enrolled USF student receives an official USF e-mail account that ends with "mail.acomp.usf.edu." Every official USF correspondence to students will be sent to that account. Go to the Academic Computing website and select the link "Activating a Student E-mail Account" for detailed information. Information about the USF Web Portal can be found at: http://www.acomp.usf.edu/portal.htm. ADA Statement: “Students with disabilities are responsible for registering with the Office of Student Disabilities Services in order to receive special accommodations and services. Please notify the instructor during the first week of classes if a reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed for this course. A letter from the USF Disability Services Office must accompany this request.” USF Policy on Religious Observances: “Students who anticipate the necessity of being absent from class due to the observation of a major religious observance must provide notice of the date(s) to the instructor, in writing, by the second class meeting.”

    J. Program This Course Supports

    Ph.D. in Technology Education Second Language Acquisition (formerly SLA/IT)


  5. Course Concurrence Information



- if you have questions about any of these fields, please contact chinescobb@grad.usf.edu or joe@grad.usf.edu.