Modelo de casos de uso del sistema

Looking at the case studies it can be seen that they present pragmatic arguments for using ICT, focusing on the motivation of both teachers and students, access to the online systems and on the technical problems associated with access. To the extent that ICT ‘affordances’ are discussed they seem to concern attributes such as multimedia e.g. Muangsamai (2003), Chen & Wang (2008) and Al-Raway (2006); access anywhere and anytime e.g. McGreal (2009), Al-Oraini et al. (2007), and Mensah et al. (2009); interactivity between both students and teachers/students and students e.g. Muangsamai (2003), Okuyama (2005), Okita (2003), and Chen & Wang (2008); and collaboration e.g. Al-Jarf (2005) and Chen & Wang (2008). This pragmatic view of the contribution of ICT resonates with a review of research into technology in language teaching provided by Chapelle (2007). She suggests that ICT has been seen as allowing enhanced input; a variety of feedback; types of help; and written interaction. Furthermore, she sees much of the research as arguing that ICT provides opportunities for a greater choice over mode of learning and location. However, Chapelle further noted the

This lack of theoretical underpinning is, as noted by Laurillard (2009), a weakness of research into e-learning in general. Indeed, there is some

overlap between Laurillard and Chapelle as both are interested in instructional strategies and conceptions of a learner trying to make sense of a ‘target’ knowledge base. Chapelle is further interested in the implications of ICT for SLA research, for example the opportunities for designing research that will allow the researcher to explore learners’ knowledge of the language and the learning strategies they use.

In discussing SLA Chapelle notes the importance of cognitive interactionist and social-cultural second language acquisition theories as a way of making sense of CALL. She suggests that a number of interventions are based implicitly on cognitive interactionist theory or at least can be interpreted through this theoretical lens. She provides examples of four instructional strategies within examples of CALL: offering help for comprehension of aural input through written L2 support; offering help for comprehension of aural input through written L1 support; offering help for comprehension of written input with multiple supports; offering precise explanatory feedback on errors. To illustrate this in more detail we can take one of Chapelle’s examples: a case study by Nagata (1995). This was conducted at the University of San Francisco using a computer assisted language instruction program which offered instant feedback to students studying a Japanese in an interactive environment. Two types of programs were used for offering feedback in a type of experimental study. One was a so called intelligent CALI programme which gave detailed personalised feedback and the other group used the traditional modified version of the program which offered general feedback. Both used

the same grammar notes for feedback. Results showed that students using the intelligent CALI progressed more than the traditional students due to the fact that they were better able to assess support and they developed better learner sentence production skills.

Chapelle (2007) further discusses Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) in relation to SLA, though here the association with the theory of SLA is less clearly explained. Much seems to fit an interactionist model and aspects of interaction include: negotiation of meaning, negotiated interaction, negotiation strategies, and repair moves. Again taking one of Chapelle’ s examples, Jepson (2005) argues that in his study voice chat generated more repair moves than text chat; clarification requests were the most frequent kind of repair move. (A repair is a conversational move of fixing a problem which is related to negotiation of meaning and negative feedback.)

What is important in this contribution and in more general literature of e- learning (e.g. Laurillard, 2009) is the concern for linking what we do with technology to a theory of learning and of language acquisition. For example many of the case studies considered earlier can be considered as

embodiments of learning theory and of language learning models. For

example some studies seem to embody the principles of cognitive interaction (e.g. Nkhosi, 2009) while Wang (2004) appears to better fit the idea of socio cultural language acquisition.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 General introduction

This chapter describes the methods and methodology used to conduct this case study. Methods are defined as “the range of approaches used in educational research to gather data which are to be used as a basis for inference and interpretation, for explanation and prediction” (Cohen & Manion, 1994:38). Methodology refers to the stance of the researcher towards explaining or understanding the physical or social world. Methodology requires a discussion of how the methods were developed, and the theoretical issues that underpinned the use of the methods in practice. Research methodologies are conventionally polarized into qualitative and quantitative (Feldman, 1997) although mixed-method approaches empower the researcher to “have the best of both worlds” (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2007: 428). This chapter begins (3.2) by outlining a strategic map of the study and (3.3) elaborating on the research questions (see Chapter 1). It then identifies and justifies the methodology and the mixed methods approach used in this study with respect to (3.4) the research design; (3.5) the time schedule of the research activities; (3.6) the instruments used to collect the information, including (3.7) the questionnaire, (3.8) the interviews, (3.9) the observations of online classes. Finally, (3.10) reliability and validity, (3.11) triangulation, and (3.12) the ethical issues are considered.