University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The implementation of online learning for ESL programs: factors and perspectives

(USC Thesis Other)

The implementation of online learning for ESL programs: factors and perspectives

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ONLINE LEARNING FOR ESL PROGRAMS:
FACTORS AND PERSPECTIVES

by

ShengChieh Peng

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2010

Copyright 2010 ShengChieh Peng

ii

Acknowledgements
I would like to give my sincere thanks to my dissertation committee, Dr. Guilbert C.
Hentschke, Dr. Julietta Shakhbagova, Dr. David C. Dwyer, and Dr. Melora Sundt. With a
special thanks to my editor Emily Wright and all the participants in this study. Most
importantly, I would like to thank my parents for their love and support.

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

List of Tables

Abstract

Chapter One: Introduction
Background of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
Research Questions
Purpose of the Study
Overview of the Proposed Method
Identifying target language programs
Purposeful sampling
Literature review
Designing interview protocols
Conducting the interviews
Synthesizing and analyzing research data
Significance of the Study
Limitations
Definition of Terms

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Two Introduction
Historical Overview of Language Learning Theories and Online
Instruction
Second language acquisition
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Online language instruction
Innovation Theories
Disruptive innovation theory
ii

vi

vii

1
1
6
9
10
11
11
11
12
13
13
13
13
15
16

18
18

19
19
22
26
34
34

iv

Innovation adoption process and conditions
Perspectives Envisioned by ESL Program Directors and Teachers
The importance of teacher perspectives
Teacher attitudes
The goals of the school and teacher attitudes
Teacher training
Chapter Two Conclusion

Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology
Chapter Three Introduction
Research Questions
Research Assumptions
Methodology
Sampling strategy
Target ESL programs
Data collection
Instrumentation
Data analysis
Interview questions and their relation to research questions
Limitations and Delimitations
Validity, Reliability, and Credibility

Chapter Four: Research Findings
Chapter Four Introduction
Presentation of Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents
Research Questions and Associated Assumptions
Findings Applicable to Research Questions
School 1
School 2
School 3
School 4
School 5
Chapter Four Conclusion
40
44
44
45
48
51
54

57
57
58
58
60
61
66
69
66
73
74
78
79

81
81
83
88
89
92
98
106
116
123
133

v

Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications
Chapter Five Introduction
Summary of the Study
Key Findings
Discussion
Discussion of Research Question One
Other fostering factors
Factors that inhibit the development of online courses
Discussion of Research Question Two
Implications
Practical and theoretical implications for Research Question One
Practical and theoretical implications for Research Question Two
Recommendations
Future Research

References

Appendices
Appendix A: Program Director Interview Protocol
Appendix B: ESL Teachers Interview Protocol

137
137
137
140
145
145
149
151
152
158
158
160
163
164

167

175
178

vi

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Interview Questions and Their Relation to Research Questions 75

Table 4.1: Instructor Information for School 1 84

Table 4.2: Instructor Information for School 2 85

Table 4.3: Instructor Information for School 3 86

Table 4.4: Instructor Information for School 4 86

Table 4.5: Instructor Information for School 5 87

Table 4.6: Factors/Conditions that Fostered or Inhibited the Development
and Implementation of Blended/Online Courses at School 3 114

Table 4.7: Factors/Conditions that Fostered or Inhabited the Development and
Implementation of Blended/Online Courses in School 4 122

Table 4.8: Factors/Conditions that Foster or Inhibited the Development and
Implementation of Blended/Online Courses at school 5 131

Table 4.9: Synthesized factors and conditions of all five ESL programs 134

Table 4.10: Internal Consensus of the 5 ESL programs 136

vii

Abstract
As attention to using online technology is increasing in the field of ESL education,
this research aimed to investigate (1) factors that foster or inhibit the development and
implementation of online courses, and (2) extent to which the perspectives of program
directors and ESL teachers affect online ESL education. In this qualitative research, five
programs that are in different levels of implementation of online courses were examined.
Participants included the five programs directors and 39 ESL instructors.
The findings showed that factors such as instructors’ ability and availability, their
knowledge and experience, the lack of human and technical support from the school, and
concerns about the quality of online courses inhibited the implementation of online ESL
courses. On the other hand, factors such as the incentive to satisfy student needs, reach a
wider audience, increase enrollment, and respond to pressure from administration and
policies set by the school fostered the implementation of online courses. A detailed
presentation of the factors is included.
Regarding the second research question, a pattern could not be found that showed a
direct association between the internal consensus and the actual implementation of online
courses. This suggests that the role of internal consensus in the innovation adoption

viii

process needs to be further examined. Discussion and implications of the findings, and
recommendation for future research are also included.

1

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Background of the Problem
Distance education or online learning has been defined in many ways (Moore &
Kearsley, 1996; Williams, Paprock, & Covington, 1999; Parsad, Lewis, & Tice, 2008). In
their study focused on postsecondary education, Parsad and Lewis, for example, define
distance education as a ―formal education process in which the student and instructor are
not in the same place‖ (p. 1). The instruction may be synchronous or asynchronous; it
may involve communication through the use of video, audio, or computer technologies.
White (2003) states that the term online learning has emerged to refer specifically to
teaching and learning that include the use of Internet technologies for learning and
teaching. Learners use the online environment not only to access information, but also to
interact and collaborate with other online participants within the course. Moore and
Kearsely(1996) give a precise definition to distance learning: ―Distance education is
planned learning that normally occurs in a different place from teaching and as a result
requires special techniques of course design, special instructional techniques, special

2

methods of communication by electronic and other technology, as well as special
organizational and administrative arrangements‖ (p.2). According to Moore, Director of
The American Center for the Study of Distance Education, Pennsylvania State University,
there are three areas that need to be discussed in online learning: the technology, the
instruction, and the administration.
The last decade has witnessed an enormous expansion in online learning. The
National Center for Educational Statistics (Parsad, Lewis, & Tice, 2008) reports that
during the 2006-2007 academic year, 66% percent of 2-year and 4-year Title IV
degree-granting postsecondary institutions offered online, hybrid/blended (combined
online components with traditional, face-to-face components), or other distance education
courses for any level or audience. In addition, 65% of the institutions offered
college-level credit-granting distance education courses, and 23% of the institutions offer
noncredit distance education courses. Distance education courses account for an
estimated 12.2 million enrollments. Additionally, the sixth annual report on the state of
online learning in U.S. higher education by Sloan Consortium (Allen & Seaman, 2008)
indicates that the number of students taking at least one online course grew from 1.6

3

million in the Fall of 2002 to 3.94 million in the Fall of 2007. This represents a
compound annual growth rate of 19.7%. The same pattern of online learning is observed
in K-12 schools. Picciano and Seaman (2009) report the extent and nature of online
learning and indicate that in 2007-2008, three quarters of the responding public school
districts offered online/blended courses; in which 1,030,000 K-12 students were engaged
in online courses. This represents a 47% increase since 2005-2006.
Online learning has grown greatly in popularity in almost all disciplines. A survey of
the pattern of online offerings (Allen & Seaman, 2008) shows equal penetration rates in
disciplines such as psychology, social science, history, computer and information
sciences, education, health professions and its related sciences, liberal arts/sciences,
general studies, humanities, and business. However, data about online learning in the
field of language learning are scarce in major surveys.
Although statistics overlook the use of online learning in the field of language
learning and its development in online education, Warschauer’s study (2002) maintains
that some language programs in university-led or private organizations that provide
intensive language instruction for the purpose of learning a second language do offer

4

online courses in addition to face-to-face classroom instruction. He states that this
phenomenon is especially noticeable for English language instruction in North American
settings compared to language instruction in developing countries. According to
Warschauer (2002), the development of online technology in English as a Second
Language (ESL) instruction is growing rapidly.
Additionally, based on the researcher’s personal observations from attending the
California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (CATESOL) conferences
over the past several years (2006-2010), topics related to online ESL instruction are
drawing more and more attention. For example, the 2009 and 2010 CATESOL
conference highlighted new frontiers in digital technology and its applications in
language teaching by hosting fairs under the title of Electronic Village and discussing
topics including the Internet, distance learning, and educational software (California
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 2009). It might be tentatively
concluded that the field of ESL teaching is becoming more cognizant of the importance
of online technologies than other disciplines are.
The development of technology has had a great impact on thinking and practice in

5

language education (White, 2003). Among these technologies, Computer-Mediated
Communication (CMC), any communicative transaction that occurs through the use of
two or more networked computers (McQuail, 2005), and Information and
Communication Technology (ICT), all technologies with a capacity to disseminate
information and/or manipulate communication such as phones and CD/DVD, and PCs
and the Internet, are the most influential. For example, the use of emails, Internet
resources, and online chatting systems provide learners with opportunities to practice the
target language outside of the classroom. Through the use of ICT and CMC technologies,
participants are able to interact with each other and with the teachers regardless of
distance and time constraints (Shen et al., 2008; Akyol & Garrison, 2008). Especially in
language education, the online/virtual environment is seen as time-, place-, and
cost-effective by ESL educators in addition to allowing learning to be tailored to fit the
diverse needs of many language learners (Warschauer, 2000). These advantages make it
very appealing for administrators of language programs to adopt/develop blended or full
online ESL courses for the purpose of increasing student numbers and reducing long term
costs, especially when many of the target students for these language programs are

6

international ESL learners. Moreover, language schools faced a decline in student
numbers in 2003/2004 due to reasons such as the threat of terrorism and economic
concerns (Institute of International Education, 2006). Developing online education as an
alternative to traditional language instruction provides ways to respond to these
challenges.
Although online technologies are implemented in some ESL programs, technologies
do not guarantee student learning itself (Waschauer, 2007). According to Warschauer
(2007), the adoption of online technologies will be influential only in conjunction with
other social and economic factors. Factors such as the need for an interactive learning
environment and for economic efficiency are important. In addition, the perspectives of
program directors and those of teachers who are responsible for planning and
implementing course offerings both play a critical role in developing online ESL courses.
Statement of the Problem
Accordingly, it seems that the field of ESL education has a general interest in
developing online ESL courses, and the development of online ESL education seems to
have many advantages. However, in the spring of 2009, when a research of current

7

offerings of online ESL courses among 55 language schools certified by the American
Association of Intensive English Programs (AAIEP) in California was done, the
researcher found that only five ESL schools offered some form of (blended/full) online
ESL courses. The majority of the schools were still providing traditional courses, i.e.
courses with no online technologies. The aforementioned data testifies to the fact that
online education in ESL instruction is not yet widespread.
In an investigation of the barriers to widespread adoption of online education in
general regardless of school size and types, Allen and Seamen (2006) report that 63.6%
of academic leaders agree that ―Students need more discipline to succeed in online
courses‖ (p.18 ). According to their data, approximately one third of the academic leaders
believe that it would take instructors more time and effort to teach online courses.
Moreover, approximately one fourth of academic leaders agree that ―online education
costs more to develop and deliver‖ and that online instruction is not supported by
instructors (p.18). This report provides valuable information about the general
perspectives of what might be the inhibiting factors in the adoption of online education.
However, teacher perspectives were not included, nor were any data or evidence

8

specifically about barriers to ESL education provided.
According to Mitchell and Geva-May (2009), there has been great acceptance of
online learning by school leaders in higher education. However, the increase in teacher
acceptance lags behind. They state that the gap has affected the spread of online learning.
In addition, school leaders often misunderstand the teachers’ perspectives due to many
false assumptions about teachers and their way of thinking in the process of innovation
implementation (Fullan & Stiegelbaue, 1991). Popkewitz (2000) also maintains that
program leaders usually assume that teachers would share the same beliefs and feel the
same need for change while in fact there is a gap in the two attitudes. Studies of
educational change (Fullan & Stiegelbaue ,1991; Popkewitz, 2000) have attributed the
failure of school reform to misunderstandings and miscommunications between program
leaders and teachers. Therefore, giving program leaders (administrators) and teachers an
opportunity to share ideas and opinions on the implementation of online courses in ESL
programs is pertinent to the implementation of online education.
Finally, studies of online learning (Allen & Seaman, 2006; Blin & Munro, 2008;
Allen & Seaman, 2008; Mitchell & Geva-May, 2009) are mainly devoted to education in

9

general whereas research that would focus specifically on ESL online learning is scarce.
This might be explained by the fact that language learning is different from learning in
other disciplines (e.g., history, mathematics, etc) in that it is more skill-based as opposed
to content-based (Fitzpatrick & Davies, 2003). This lack of research suggests a need to
study the current state of ESL online learning, and specifically to investigate ESL
programs that recruit adult ESL learners.
Research Questions
This study addresses the following research questions:
1. From the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers, what factors or
conditions tend to foster or inhibit the development and implementation of online
courses associated with ESL programs?
2. To what extent do the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers affect
online ESL education?
These two questions shaped the structure of the entire study, allowing the researcher
to focus on the two interrelated concepts in the design of the interview protocols.

10

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this empirical research is to contribute knowledge on issues related
to online ESL education and its future implementation. The study provides an overview
of the current state of online learning in the field of ESL education. By interviewing both
program directors and ESL teachers, this research aims to identify factors that impact the
development and implementation of online ESL courses. In addition, this study aims to
identify the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers on the issues related to
online ESL education. The main tasks of this study are (1) to record subjects’ statements,
(2) to classify statements into meaningful categories, (3) to find emerging patterns of
implementation, and (4) to identify trends and perspectives, if any. A qualitative research
methodology was used in this study. As Patton (2002) maintains, applied qualitative
research is significant in bringing insights and experiences into solid recommendations
since they emerge from close examination of the problem involved in the course of the
fieldwork. This study can assist researchers and educators in better understanding the
issues in online learning implementation with a special focus on ESL education.

11

Overview of the Proposed Method
In order to answer the research questions, several steps have to be taken.
Identifying target language programs.
The first research question aims to investigate factors or conditions that tend to
foster or retard the development and implementation of online ESL courses. In order to
answer this question, the current state of actual implementation of online courses in the
language programs was identified. Specifically, for ESL programs that are already
offering online courses, the interview questions focused on the reasons online courses are
implemented. On the other hand, for programs that were not yet implementing blended or
full online courses, the investigation focuses more on what inhibited the implementation.
Purposeful sampling.
After identifying the state of ESL programs, five programs that were at different
phases of implementation were chosen purposefully as target programs. Again, this study
focuses on ESL programs that recruit adult ESL learners. The samples include ESL
programs that had already implemented online courses as well as programs in different
stages of implementation all the way down to those programs that had not yet

12

implemented online courses. This is essential because the study aims to look for factors
that both foster and inhibit implementation. An initial contact with the ESL programs and
interviewees was made to be sure that both kinds of ESL programs are included.
Literature review.
To fulfill the purpose of the study, a better understanding of certain areas of research
is important and is reported in Chapter Two. First of all, research related to the
development of language learning theory and online ESL instruction provides a basic
historical overview. These areas of study help researchers to understand how online ESL
education is developed and why implementing online courses is important. Second, the
concepts of disruptive innovation and theories of innovation adoption are reviewed.
These areas of study explain how and why Research Question One was formed. These
areas of study also shaped the design of the interview questions. Third, studies of
program directors’ and teachers’ perspectives toward online ESL instruction were
examined. These areas of research explain how Research Question Two is formed and
why internal agreement is important in the process of innovation adoption.

13

Designing interview protocols.
Based on the literature review, interview questions were carefully designed in order
to answer the research questions. The interview protocols were examined by ESL
professionals to make sure each research question was properly addressed.
Conducting the interviews.
The actual interviews were conducted in the Fall of 2009. All five program directors
and approximately 40 ESL teachers were interviewed. The interview data were
transcribed for analysis.
Synthesizing and analyzing research data.
The data were examined and assigned to meaningful categories. A special focus was
put on finding emerging patterns of implementation and identifying divergent and
convergent perspectives. Discussions, implications, and suggestions of future studies
were provided in this stage.
Significance of the Study
The first research question aims to identify factors or conditions that facilitate or
inhibit the implementation of online ESL courses by interviewing the program directors,

14

administrators, and ESL teachers. When factors that foster or inhibit ESL programs’
implementation of online courses were found consistent in most of interviewees, these
factors were then synthesized into a list. Knowledge of these attributes affects ESL
programs in many ways. For example, ESL educators could use these factors to assess
and self-examine progress in creating or implementing online courses. This knowledge
helps ESL educators to understand why some ESL programs are using online learning
components while others are not. Knowing the factors that inhibit ESL programs from
implementing online courses can also help ESL educators understand what they might
encounter in the process of developing blended or full online courses. However, if these
factors happen to be inconsistent and situational, this might imply that future studies
should focus on finding patterns and relationships between ESL program type and online
learning implementation.
The second research question is aimed at finding out to what extent the perspectives
of program directors and ESL teachers agree with or contradict each other in relation to
online ESL education. In other words, this question focuses on finding patterns of
internal agreement between program directors and among ESL teachers that would lead

15

to success in the implementation of online ESL courses. If the present study finds that
consensus between program leads and among teachers fosters online learning, it means
that internal consensus plays a critical role in promoting online courses. If not, then
consensus may not be as important an issue as currently thought.
In addition, the analysis and comparison of both perspectives can be valuable in a
number of ways. For example, if perspectives among program leaders and ESL teachers
vary, identifying these areas of contradiction helps scholars and practitioners to better
understand and improve collaborative communication between these two groups.
Moreover, the generalization of teachers’ perspectives might indicate the kind of support
they need from the administration if online courses are to be implemented in the future.
The findings prepare language programs to adopt online ESL courses and initiate
discussions between program leads and ESL teachers.
Limitations
This study is limited in several ways. First of all, due to time constraints, out of the
hundreds of language programs in the U.S. (AAIEP data), only five that are located in
California were included in this study. These five ESL programs are affiliated schools of

16

universities or colleges that recruit adult ESL learners. Private for-profit ESL language
schools (such as Kaplan, Inc.) were not included. Because of the limited scope of the
study, only five program directors and approximately 40 ESL teachers were interviewed.
This makes up only a small percentage of programs in the ESL field. Therefore, the
participant’s perspectives might not be representative and cannot be generalized to all
types of ESL programs.
Definition of Terms
Distance education/online learning: ―distance education is planned learning that
normally occurs in a different place from teaching and as a result requires special
techniques of course design, special instructional techniques, special methods of
communication through electronic and other technology, as well as special organizational
and administrative arrangements‖ (Moore and Kearsely, 1996, p.2).
Traditional course learning: courses with no online technology - content is delivered
in writing or orally in a classroom setting, with a teacher and students present in the
classroom.

17

Web facilitated course: a course that uses web-based technology to facilitate what is
essentially a face-to-face course. It may use a course management system (CMS) or web
pages to post the syllabus and assignments.
Blended/hybrid course: a course that blends online and face-to-face delivery. A
substantial proportion of the content is delivered online. It typically uses online
discussions, and typically has a reduced number of face-to-face meetings.
Online course: a course where most or all of the content is delivered online.
Typically, it has no face-to-face meetings.
English language learners: students with a primary language other than English who
have a limited range of speaking, reading, writing, and listening skills in English (US
Department of Education, 2007, p. 1)
English as a Foreign Language: English language learning in countries where
English is the main language, and the student's own native language (first language) is
not English. EFL may refer to learners for whom English is their third or fourth language.
Program Leads/ Program Director: the chief academic officers who have the primary
responsibility for the planning of the course offerings.

18

CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
Chapter Two Introduction
The expansion in online learning opportunities has drawn the attention of educators,
including those in the field of ESL education. In practice, however, the development and
implementation of online ESL courses is not yet widespread. In order to fully understand
the context of the research questions guiding this study, it is necessary to review the
research in several key areas. First, research related to the development of language
learning theory and online ESL instruction provides a basic historical perspective on the
topic. These areas of study will shed light on how online ESL education is being
developed and why the implementation of online ESL courses is becoming a necessity.
Second, the concept of disruptive innovation, the stages of the innovation adoption
process, and the conditions that lead to successful implementation will be reviewed.
These areas of study will explain how Research Question One was formed. Furthermore,
they inform the design of the interview questions. Third, research on the perspectives
toward online ESL instruction viewed by ESL program directors and teachers will be

19

examined. These areas of research will explain how Research Question Two was formed
and why internal agreement between program directors and among teachers is important
in the process of innovation adoption.
Historical Overview of Language Learning Theories and Online Instruction
Second language acquisition.
Current theories of second language acquisition (SLA) are based on years of
research and synthesis from different perspectives. In the early research on SLA,
Behaviorism (Thorndike, 1932; Skinner, 1957) viewed language learning as a result of an
individual’s ability to develop habits of the mind. Based on this assumption, language
instruction was focused on stimulus and response activities such as grammar drills, rules,
and repetition. Behaviorist theories emphasized the importance of environment in that it
provides the stimuli and the learners give the responses; further, learners comprehend or
produce certain aspects of language, then the environment provides the reward.
In the late 1950s, Nativists opened a new trend in SLA research. They argued that
children have innate, language-specific abilities that facilitate and constrain language
learning. Chomsky (1959), for that matter, maintained that there is an internal language

20

faculty in human minds which allows them to learn and manipulate language. In other
words, human beings are born with a built-in device of some kind that predisposes them
to acquire language. This, in his opinion, explains why children can gain mastery of their
native language in a short time despite the highly abstract nature of the rules of language.
Nativists have contributed to our understanding of how language develops and functions.
In this era, Chomsky and other Nativists helped educators understand that a child’s
language is a legitimate system in its own right (Brown, 2000). SLA research was then
turned to the focus on the learner.
From the 1980s to the early 2000s, constructivism dominated SLA studies and
viewed human beings as having the innate capacity to develop logical thinking.
Constructivists such as Piaget and Vygotsky influenced modern language study
enormously (Brown, 2000). They assumed that the conditions for learning language are
similar to conditions that are necessary for any kind of learning. Children learn through
relating meanings of what is said to particular objects or events in the environment.
Therefore, learning without meaning such as using drills and teaching rules will not be

21

effective. Language learning will be effective only when students construct knowledge
from their experiences or in a meaningful context.
Many teaching methods are influenced by constructivism. The Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) approach, for example, has been one of the most influential
approaches in ESL instruction. The proponents of CLT view language learning as both
acquiring the knowledge of the structures and forms of language and as meaningful
communicative interaction with the language and social contexts associated with the
language in different communicative settings. In addition, the role of the instructor in CLT
is quite different from other approaches: the teacher serves more as a facilitator who
allows students to be in charge of their own learning. Therefore, multimedia and CMC can
be an ideal way to teach language using CLT. The latter, in particular, allows realistic
simulations for communicative situations (Blake, 2007). In fact, as technology and the
Internet were introduced to language classrooms, SLA theories moved to a new direction:
computer assisted language learning (CALL).

22

Computer Assisted Language Learning.
Similar to CLT, CALL puts a strong emphasis on student-centered instruction that
allows learners to use their own interactive lessons. Literally, the development of CALL
as a form of computer-based assisted learning is closely associated with the development
of technology. In an overview of how CALL has been used in language teaching,
Warchauer (1996) and Warschauer and Healey (1998) identify three phases of CALL.
The first phase of CALL, the so-called Behavioristic CALL, focused on drills and practice
activities. Computer was used simply as machinery for delivering instructional materials.
However, the rejection of this behaviorist approach during the 80s and the development
of personal computers set the stage for the second phase of CALL, Communicative CALL.
It was focused on using language as a medium to achieve a certain purpose (i.e. shopping,
applying for a job, etc) of learning (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). Thus, meaningful
CALL activities such as skill practice and language games evolved. The computer was
not only machinery, but also served as a stimulus that motivated student discussion and
critical thinking. In addition, the computer was seen as a tool that empowers students to

23

better use the target language, for example, through the use of word processors and
spelling/grammar checkers.
As multimedia technology and the Internet became more widely used during the late
90s, educators in the field of ESL/EFL began to use CALL in instruction in a more
integrating way than they had before. In addition, the growing popularity of hypermedia
(links of multimedia resources) helped to foster the third phase of CALL: Integrative
CALL (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). Integrative CALL put an emphasis on authentic
learning environments, self-paced learning, and resourceful support from the technology
that benefited both language instruction and learning. Warschauer’s three phases of
CALL echo both the development of SLA and the development of technology.
Bax (2003) asserts that most of the language software produced today is still of a
relatively restricted nature. We have a long way to go before we achieve a truly
integrated stage. Further, Chambers and Bax (2006) examine the use of CALL in two
language schools and come to the conclusion that factors such as logistics, stakeholders’
conceptions, knowledge and abilities, syllabus and software integration, as well as
training are very critical in achieving widespread adoption of computer technology in a

24

language teaching context. They proclaim that the future of CALL is a state in which
computers are fully integrated into pedagogy.
Nevertheless, some researchers (Pennington, 2004; Levy & Stockwell, 2006)
assume that the development of CALL has reached its limits; therefore, they have turned
their focus to other educational innovations. Pennington (2004), for example, states that
attention within education is now turned to topics such as connectivity, the Internet,
globalization, and information. According to her observation, many of the ongoing
developments in CALL and instruction are rapidly losing attention in the field. In contrast,
Information Technology (IT), ―the study, design, development, implementation, support
or management of computer-based information systems, particularly software
applications and computer hardware‖ (Information Technology Association of America,
NA), has attracted increased attention. Although some areas of CALL, such as
applications of technology to the teaching of pronunciation, are still in great demand with
program developers; in fact, the focus on IT is seen to have more potential in the field of
ESL instruction (Pennington, 2004).

25

In Europe, the discussion of CALL has evolved into the discussion of ―information
and communication technology and foreign language teaching and foreign language
learning‖ with a focus on the role computers play in enabling teachers and students of
language to communicate with one another across the globe (Fitzpatrick & Davies, 2003).
According to Fitzpatrick and Davies’ (2003) observations, the future use of ICT in
foreign language teaching and foreign language learning will play an increasingly
important role as the new media become increasingly integrated into everyday life.
Christensen et al. (2008) further assert that advances in technology and increased
user-friendly products will break down resistance to ICT use in and outside the classroom.
They further predict that present attention to technology will fade, giving way to an
emphasis on improved pedagogy which will facilitate learning (Fitzpatrick & Davies,
2003). Christensen et al. (2008) attempt to predict that there will be a shift from passive
consumption of ready-made programs to independent tailor-made content programs for
specific groups of learners.
The previous analysis demonstrates that the development of SLA theories and
CALL tend to go along with the development of technology. According to the

26

development of CALL, one can infer that future ESL education will focus on developing
effective pedagogies by adopting computer technology in the language teaching context.
Moreover, it will be more student-centric (Christensen et al., 2008) for each type of
learner. Therefore, it can be assumed that developing or adopting blended/online courses
will benefit ESL programs. In the next section, current research on online language
education will be reviewed.
Online language instruction.
Online language instruction exists in several forms. First of all, it is web-based
education that uses the Internet and communication technologies. This form of
instructional method ranges from using the Internet as a research tool to taking online
classes. In some instances, the Internet is also used to supplement instruction, as in the
use of a website to communicate information to students enrolled in a face-to-face class.
In addition, the Internet allows for complete online language courses as well as
hybrid/blended courses that combine online components with traditional, face-to-face
components (White, 2003).

27

Some research has explored the effectiveness of online discussion in general
(Peterson & Slotta, 2009; Burgess, 2009). In an analysis of students’ performance in a
graduate course taught online, Peterson and Slotta (2009) report that the online forum
provided an interactive format for an in-depth discussion of different topics and issues.
These discussions also helped students to develop interactions with their peers and the
instructor. Moreover, the instructor in this study reported on the pedagogical advantages
of online teaching, such as increased accessibility to all students’ ideas about the topics
and greater opportunities for all students to fully participate in the discussion. Burgess
(2009) also reports implementing WebCT tools in her Developmental Studies in Reading
class, such as the discussion board and chat room, which can enhance critical thinking
and motivation to read. These online tools noticeably improved the students’ critical
thinking skills and reading engagement.
In their research on ESL education, Zhang et al. (2007) used online discussion
forums to assist a traditional English class of 54 senior high school ESL learners. The
researchers found that online discussion forums did influence students’ English writing
skills and provoked critical thinking in face-to-face discussions in a blended setting.

28

However, it did not improve the students’ performance in reading, grammar, or
vocabulary. Also, instructor interventions were found to have a positive impact on the
students’ attitudes toward online discussion and promoted their critical thinking in online
discussion. Echoing Zhang et al.’s (2007) study, Thomas (2002) also asserts that online
discussion forums can provide an environment for promoting critical and higher order
thinking. Further, he explains that some of the reasons for these results are that
asynchronous text-based communication provides ELLs more time (1) to understand each
other’s ideas, (2) to think and create their own responses, and (3) to edit and revise their
postings, which is especially critical for language learning.
Al-Jarf (2002) conducted an interesting study of two groups of freshman students in
ESL writing courses. In this study, the control group took the writing course in a
face-to-face context, and the experimental group used a Blackboard online course from
home. Word processing (for grammar and spelling check) was used in both groups. The
result showed that, as a result of web-based instruction, the online group made more
progress in writing and communication skills and made fewer errors. Reynard (2003) also
found that ESL learners benefited from the interactive, self-directed and self-authoring

29

potential of the technology when the Internet was used as an instructional tool in ESL
distance learning.
Similar to the study of online discussion technology is the study conducted by
Dekhinet (2008) of online enhanced corrective feedback for ELLs. He analyzed an online
conversation between native speaker tutors and nonnative speaker learners. According to
his observations, the learners produced as many posts as their tutors in quantity. Although
the learners appeared to produce more elaborated turns, very few of them initiated topics
or requested clarification. He also reports the use of this peer tutoring technique as highly
significant in raising learners’ awareness of the problems they have in their
interlanguages (a language system that English language learners produce in the process
of learning a language, which usually contains many errors). This indicates that the
interaction between NS tutors and ESL learners in an online environment does assist the
learners in comparing and reconstructing their posts.
In a related study Tuzi (2001) investigated the impact of online feedback (from both
peers and the instructor) on intermediate/advanced level ESL college students’ writing.
Each student produced three essays with at least two revisions after they received

30

feedback from their peers and instructor. The ESL learners emphasized the benefits of
electronic feedback regarding its impact on revision, as well as its provision of detailed
comments and the decreased writing pressure that is fostered.
The effectiveness of online technology in an EFL setting is described in a number of
EFL studies (Sheh and Cifuentes, 2000; Schuetze, 2008). Shih and Cifuentes (2000)
report a telecommunications project in which Taiwanese EFL learners practiced English
and discussed cultural issues with U.S. pre-service teachers. In this study, authenticity
was perceived to be the most valuable feature in distance EFL learning. Because it was
not cost-effective for an EFL setting in terms of finding teachers and materials in
American cultural topics, using online technology was a good way to provide authentic
resources. In a study of online EFL activities that was set up between a Canadian
university and a German university, Schuetze (2008) found that students were engaged in
the online dialogue and they were asking ―wh-questions‖ (i.e. what, when, why, where,
who), sharing personal experiences, giving examples, and finding material that was not
provided in the program. Online technologies provided these EFL learners opportunities
to practice the target language outside of the classroom.

31

University-led ESL programs usually aim to assist students in achieving both
mastery of basic interpersonal communication skills and mastery of cognitive-academic
language. However, few ESL students are observed to achieve high levels of
cognitive-academic language. In a study of university-run language programs, Carey and
Crittenden (2000) assert that language programs lack the sustained concentration of
interactive time to help learners achieve academic level language proficiency while
negotiating meaning in the target language (p.2). The researchers attributed the cause of
such problems to limited resource allocation and limited practice time for learners to
interact on topics of mutual interest. They suggested that online discussion, especially
student-initiated interactive second language communication, can supplement traditional
courses and university-level ESL courses. In their study on an asynchronous discussion
board, students actively negotiated the meaning of extensive resources and readings in a
second language (p.13). This student-centered approach was found to be effective
because as the experiment showed, online discussion allowed ESL students to engage in
intelligent discussion on topics that are of high interest. In addition, it reduced ESL
student’s anxiety and embarrassment, and the asynchronous nature of online discussion

32

allowed ESL learners to assimilate the academic input, to mentally process the input, and
then to compose output after thinking.
The analysis of the specialist literature shows that online technologies facilitate
students’ writing and communication skills (Zhang et al, 2007; Al-Jarf, 2002). In some
cases, online technologies provoke critical thinking (Thomas, 2002; Burgess, 2009) and
reduce English language learners’ anxiety, writing pressure, and embarrassment (Tuzi,
2001; Carey & Crittenden, 2000). In addition, learners make fewer errors (Al-Jarf, 2002).
Online technologies provide interactive activities (Reynard , 2003; Peterson & Slotta,
2009), allow access to authentic materials that enhance learners’ knowledge about
topics like American culture (Shih & Cifuentes, 2000), and help raise learners’ awareness
of their own language problems (Dekhinet, 2008).
In traditional ESL classrooms, most often, face-to-face discussions tend to require
prompt reactions, which give ESL learners less time to produce output and to think
critically (Zhang et al., 2007). On the other hand, online asynchronous discussion
provides a promising alternative, allowing ESL learners practice English and interact
with their peers at their own pace. However, many of the studies presented in this section

33

focus more on learners’ writing skills. As Warschauer (1996) suggested, online ESL
learning can be used widely and effectively in all four skills (listening, speaking, reading
and writing). One of the aims of the present study was to find out if online ESL learning
can be used to enhance all of the aforementioned skills. In addition, while research on
online ESL learning mainly focuses on asynchronous discussion (discussion boards and
forums), this study also investigated whether online technology was being used in other
forms of instruction, especially in ESL programs that were already implementing
full-online ESL courses. The interviews included questions aimed at revealing what was
being implemented. This will add valuable information to the previous studies in online
ESL education. As Christensen et al. (2008, p.81) assert, cramming new technologies into
existing contexts will not lead to successful student-centric learning. Succeeding with
disruptive innovations is not an easy task. The next section reviews research on
innovation theories.

34

Innovation Theories
Disruptive innovation theory.
Christensen (1997) has done some of the most significant research on innovation.
He examines the influence of technology on big companies and introduces the concept of
disruptive technology in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma. The book is designed to
describe how new technologies cause companies to fail in business settings. Further, he
and his colleagues extend the concept of ―disruptive innovation‖ to the field of education.
Disruptive Innovation Theory (Christensen et al., 2008) suggests that, historically, almost
every organization that had failed or was replaced by another organization could sense
the disruption coming while they were continuously improving products and services.
However, while they (usually industry leaders) were bending their efforts toward
―sustaining innovations,‖ they left themselves open for disruptive innovations form other
firms to defeat them.
Christensen et al.’s Disrupting Class (2008) provides educators a framework to
discuss school reform, because the current situation in education fits well with
Christensen et al.’s assumptions. Take language education as an example. Many language

35

programs realize the potential impact of online technology. However, the increasing
number of students in language schools and programs in the U.S. (Language Travel
Magazine, 2007) inhibits school reform and the implementation of online technologies.
Disruptive Innovation Theory raises the awareness of school leaders and program
directors. In addition, it allows them to foresee the need for school reform before their
organization is replaced by new low-cost disruptive innovations, such as online language
software which targets traditional non-consumers (i.e. learners who cannot afford the
tuition and living expenses for a language education in a foreign country).
Christensen et al.’s (2008) Disruptive Innovation Theory has been supported by
researchers in the ESL/EFL field. Warschauer (2000) pointed out that IT will impact the
way learners interact, access, and share information as greatly as the Gutenberg printing
revolution did five centuries ago. By analyzing the changing role of English as an
international language and the changing demand for English speakers, he predicts that the
increasing number of heretofore non-consumers will increase demand for distance
language education. John and Wheeler (2008) also state that from a manufacturing point
of view, new technologies will become more efficient, the costs will be reduced, and the

36

human resources department will be supportive of their development. In addition, as
more people use the technologies, newer, smarter, and cheaper online ESL courses will
be developed. Therefore, traditional ESL programs are now facing pressure caused by an
ever growing demand for the use of online technologies.
However, it is difficult for teachers within a language school or program to pursue
change (i.e. introduce new technologies) because the more effort they put into current
instructional methods, the less they will think change is necessary or possible (Warchauer,
2000). Christensen et al. (2008) also assume that successful school reform usually occurs
outside of the existing formal organization, for example, by setting up a separate
department for online education. In other words, instead of having the original ESL
department execute online ESL courses, a new department (i.e. online ESL department)
should be formed for the implementation. This means that leaders of an organization
must consider such strategies when implementing innovation technologies. Therefore, it
was important to address this issue (i.e. how an implementation plan was developed)
when interviewing program directors.

37

In addition, successful school reform requires more than ―cramming‖ technologies
into the current practice of the language school or program. By implementing online
technologies in schools, Christensen et al. (2008) mean using computers as the primary
instructional mechanism that will help students learn in ways that are customized to their
needs. Based on this statement, this study examined at both program leaders’ and ESL
teachers’ perspectives to see if they achieved some consensus regarding how to satisfy
student needs.
Although there is general agreement among researchers that school reform is
imperative, warnings about the reform process provide valuable insights to the discussion.
For example, Warschauer (2007) asserts that commercialized language courses (i.e.
language learning software) pose dangers to the learners, if language schools/programs
use cheaper alternatives for student-teacher communication while quality personal
interaction is still expensive. That is, instead of having students interact face-to-face with
teachers, some ESL programs use commercialized ESL software to practice English only
for the purpose of minimizing expenses (teacher-student interaction). This happens quite
often when traditional language programs try to implement computer-based software in

38

supplemental courses in a program without careful examination of its quality. Although
Christensen et al. (2008) would argue that these commercialized language courses are
―better than nothing‖ for learners who have no other choices, in contrast to this opinion,
Warschauer (2007) warns that from an educational perspective, poorly designed
programs can demotivate ESL learners. Therefore, one of the aims of the present study
was to determine factors of success or failure in the implementation of the target ESL
programs. A study by Blin and Munro (2007) attempts to find out why schools are
resistant to educational innovation and create barriers to pedagogical transformation.
They conclude that no significant impact on teaching practices and current
implementations of virtual learning environments exist. They attribute the absence of
significant disruption both to the lack of transformation of teaching practice, teacher
training and developmental programs for teachers. Even when there was a training
program, a mismatch between the object of the training sessions and the actual needs of
the instructors was observed. In addition, lack of appropriate tool-related and task-related
competencies for both the teachers and students, and the lack of social and cultural
context within the school were also identified to be the problems in implementing online

39

learning (p.488). These attributions provide directions for qualitative research to further
investigate why such resistance exists.
In sum, with the rapid development of technology, together with globalization
(White, 2007) and user demand changes (Warschauer, 2000), awareness of the need for
instructional changes increases. Christensen et al.’s (2008) Disruptive Innovation Theory
provides a framework for educators to communicate issues related to online education
implementation. Like Christensen et al. (2008), Blin and Munro (2007) also feature
factors (lack of transformation of teaching practice and lack of teacher training) that
create obstacles in implementing educational innovation in higher education. Their
conclusion agrees with that of Christensen et al. There is a need for further studies on
issues related to online education, especially in the field of ESL education. Therefore, it
is important to consider how and why new technologies are adopted and what factors
facilitate educational innovation.
The next section will review theories of innovation diffusion and conditions of
successful implementation.

40

Innovation adoption process and conditions.
Ely (1999) maintains that if we knew what types of resistance to innovation
adoption exist, perhaps we could design strategies to combat them. In addition, reasons
for successful efforts on the process of implementing educational innovation facilitate
future exploration (Ely, 1999). Understanding the factors that foster and create obstacles
to the implementation of online technologies is significant. This statement is supported
by John and Wheeler (2008) who argue that managing the process of technological
change is a key survival skill teachers must acquire as they are involved in the learning
organization’s reform process. Pennington’s study (2004) accords with this statement
emphasizing the teachers’ roles; since teachers are the major players in the use of
technologies, their understanding of factors related to online implementation of online
technologies is essential.
A detailed analysis of innovation process is done in Rogers’ (1995) research. He
proposes a five-stage innovation decision process which helps educators understand how
an individual adopts an innovation. It is a process through which an individual passes
from first knowledge of an innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation

41

and use of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision. In Rogers’ study, an
innovation can be an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or
other unit of adoption. This is how teachers, in Rogers’ viewpoint adopt, online
instruction as an education innovation.
In the first stage, the knowledge stage, adopters recall information, comprehend
messages, and gain knowledge or skills for effective adoption of innovation. In the
second stage, the persuasion stage, adopters discuss new behaviors or skills with others.
They accept the message and form a positive image of the message and innovation.
Hence, they support the innovative behaviors or skills. In the third stage, the decision
stage, adopters intend to seek additional information about the innovation. In the fourth
stage, the implementation stage, adopters acquire additional information about the
innovation and use the innovation on a regular basis persistently. In the fifth stage, the
confirmation stage, the adopters recognize the benefits of using the innovation, integrate
the innovation into ongoing routines, and promote the innovation to others (Rogers, 1995,
p.162). This five-stage framework will be critical when analyzing the interview data in

42

the present research. It will help to identify the teachers’ attitudes toward online
education and to further discuss their perspectives toward implementing online learning.
Another comprehensive study devoted to the innovation process was done by Ely
(1999). He identifies eight conditions that appear to facilitate the implementation of
education technology innovations:
(1) Dissatisfaction with the status quo: The change often based on an emotional
factor; usually comes from the leaders of an organization.
(2) Existence of knowledge and skills: existence of the knowledge and skills are
those required by the users (i.e. teachers and students) of the innovation.
(3) Availability of resources: this refers to the resources (i.e. software, hardware)
that are required to make implementation work.
(4) Availability of time: this refers to the time for acquiring knowledge and skills,
planning, and reflection.
(5) Rewards or incentives exist: this refers to the stimulus that moves people to
action.

43

(6) Participation: this refers to individuals who are involved in the activities such as
decision making and communication in the implementation process.
(7) Commitment: this refers to strong support from the organization.
(8) Leadership: this refers to the executive leadership that can help with the
implementation.
In spite of the fact that the field of ESL education is not mentioned in Ely’s research,
the above-described factors are supported by studies in many educational settings (p.5).
As Fitzpatrick and Davies (2003) assert, foreign language as a subject area is different
from most other subject areas (i.e. math, history, etc), because is it a more skill-based as
well as knowledge-based subject. Therefore, these factors should be examined further in
the field of ESL education regarding the implementation of online learning. In addition,
other factors that might influence the implementation of online ESL courses in particular
should also be identified.
In conclusion, studies of the innovation adoption process help educators understand
how individuals react to the implementation process. In addition, conditions that foster
the implementation of educational innovation provide a framework for future exploration

44

in ESL settings. The analysis of the specialist literature has raised a number of questions:
Can the principles and conditions of implementing educational innovations be
generalized to the implementation of online ESL courses? What strategies should
educators design to overcome the obstacles to implementation? What are those obstacles?
Finding those factors or conditions that tend to foster or inhibit developing and
implementing online courses for ESL programs is a focus of this research.
Perspectives Envisioned by ESL Program Directors and Teachers
The importance of teacher perspectives.
In the early 1990s, researchers became aware of technology and what it might bring
to the field of education. Among the discussions related to integrating technologies in
education, Fullan and Stiegelbaue (1991) and Fulkerth (1992) were the first to focus on
teachers as the change agents. Fullan and Stiegelbaue (1991) state that legislators and
administrators often misunderstand teachers’ perspectives on change. They assert that it
was due to many incorrect assumptions (i.e. assuming teachers are capable of using
certain technology) about the teachers and their way of thinking in the process of
innovation implementation. Popkewitz (2000) also states that leaders of organizations

45

usually assume that teaching faculties would share similar beliefs and similar needs for
change as they do while in fact, this is not the case.
Fulkerth (1992) further argues that the most important element is school reform is
not innovation itself; rather, it is the beliefs and practices of the people who are affected
by innovations. Similar to the above statement, Mcgrail (2005) states that the potential
for technologies cannot be achieved by technologies themselves; technologies are only
part of educational change. Teachers are the key in the change process, and need to be
seen as change agents who can transform their practices through the use of technologies.
Thus, studies of educational change (Fullan & Stiegelbaue ,1991; Fulkerth, 1992;
Popkewitz, 2000) attribute failure of the implementation of educational innovations to
misunderstandings between school and program directors and teachers.
Teacher attitudes.
It is important to understand what factors influence the formation of teacher attitudes.
Based on expectancy-value theory, Wozney et al. (2006) investigated teacher attitudes,
personal and setting characteristics and current computer technology practices among 764
elementary and secondary teachers. They found that expectancy of success and perceived

46

value were the most important factors in identifying the use of technologies among
teachers. In addition, perceived cost of technology was also important in motivating
teachers to use technology in their classrooms.
Another way of determining factors that influence teacher attitudes is to ask why
teachers are reluctant to use technologies in their teaching. Peck, Cuban, and Kirpatrick
(2002) distinguish two factors that still make ESL teachers reluctant to integrate
computer technologies into their practices: teachers are not convinced that technologies
would help teaching/learning a foreign/second language, and, from their point of view,
the main teaching goal is producing higher graduation performance rates and improving
scores on standardized tests, but not technology integration. In other words, teacher
attitudes toward online technologies are influenced by two important factors- the
usefulness and the necessity of the technologies. ChanLin (2007) used a
questionnaire-based survey which focused on environmental, personal, social, and
curricular factors. She came to a conclusion that the perceived importance and
manageability of the technologies caused uncertainty among teachers. In other words,
teachers who recognize the importance of improving their teaching skills and teachers

47

who possess technology literacy are more likely to implement technologies in their
teaching.
Another research (John and Wheeler, 2008) devoted to teacher attitude found that
the decisions English teachers made about using technologies in their classrooms were
influenced by their beliefs about learners and learning activities in specific subject matter
areas and the degree of control over the social context of the learning environment.
Furthermore, these beliefs were shaped to a great degree by the social context of the
settings in which they were teaching. John and Wheeler (2008) added that perceptions of
relevancy, transparency and ease of use are also important factors that influence teacher
attitudes toward technology use. They also indicated that the support that comes from the
school’s administration, strong leadership, training, and modeling were critical if they
were to see clear link between innovation and practice.
In summary, teacher attitudes toward technology are influenced by a number of
factors, such as expectancy of success; perceived value; perceived cost of technologies;
perceived usefulness; perceived importance; and perceptions of relevancy, transparency,
and ease of use. Moreover, manageability of the technology, beliefs about learners and

48

learning activities, and degree of control over the social context of the learning
environment also impact the adoption of online components in instruction. In addition,
teacher attitudes are also influenced by the support that comes from the school’s
administration, leadership, training, and modeling. These factors were examined further
examined and included in the interview questions for this study. In the next section, the
relationship between the goals of the school and teacher attitudes will be discussed.
The goals of the school and teacher attitudes.
Mcgrail’s (2005) study of middle and high school English teachers’ perspectives
toward technology use showed that teachers were willing to accept change as long as they
were convinced that the change would benefit teaching and improve students’
performance. However, Mcgrail found that leaders of learning organizations often pushed
for technology only because they thought it was the ultimate goal in any educational
context. Teachers, on the other hand, resisted their program directors’ push for
technology. A gap between the leaders’ perceived vision of the school and teachers’
perceptions toward technology was observed (p.10). Similarly, Vodanovich and
Piotrowski (2005) found that teachers who have a positive attitude and the ability to

49

integrate technologies effectively can be deterred from doing so by barriers such as lack
of communication with administrators. Both of these studies highlight the importance of
the consensus between teachers and school leaders.
Cuban (2001) observed that the decisions about the types of technology to be placed
in the Silicon Valley school system were often based on stakeholders’ and administrators’
interests rather than on teachers’ assessment of their true value or need in their
instructional context. As a result, teachers frequently obtained machines, software, and
professional training that had little to do with what they wanted for their students or for
themselves. This study demonstrated how the implication of new technology can fail
when there is no internal consensus or solid strategies proposed by school leaders, or
proper training programs for ESL teachers.
Christensen et al. (2008) also mention the role of the school leaders and propose that
school leaders need to identify two kinds of agreement if consensus is to be forged in the
process of school reform: ―the extent to which people agree on what they want‖; and ―the
extent to which people agree on cause and effect (p. 183)‖. That is, teachers’ personal

50

beliefs and perceived effectiveness of the adoption of online ESL program must be
identified.
Christensen et al. (2008) further suggest that leaders could use strategies accordingly
once the two have been identified. In their view point, power tools such as fiat, force,
coercion, and threats are great strategies when employees share little consensus on either
kind of agreement. Also they emphasize the importance of management tools such as
training, standard operating procedures, and measurement systems. These management
tools become useful when employees do not agree on what they want. Accordingly,
Christensen et al. single out two other tools: leadership tools and cultural tools.
Leadership tools such as charisma and vision statements are effective when employees
share little agreement on cause and effect. Culture tools such as forming strong
organizational culture can facilitate the organization’s preservation of the status quo
when employees share strong consensus on both kind of agreement.
Christensen et al.’s recommendations imply the importance of identifying teachers’
attitude before implementing educational innovations and planning training programs for
it. Therefore, in this study of online ESL programs, interview questions address issues

51

such as internal consensus and leadership strategies. In the following section, studies
related to teacher training will be reviewed.
Teacher training.
Many studies (Mcgrail, 2005; ChanLin, 2007; Gorder, 2008) have highlighted the
importance of providing training to the teachers during the implementation process. A
comprehensive training that addresses teachers’ needs is the key for successful
implementation (Goder, 2008). Studies that investigate higher education and the field of
ESL education are included in this section.
Vodanovich and Piotrowski (2005) surveyed 87 instructors in a university and found
an overall positive view of using the Internet for instructional purposes and the Internet as
an effective teaching tool. However, the research displayed that some schools did not
have formal training in using technologies. Moreover, McGgrail (2005) reviewed studies
related to English teachers’ perspectives on technologies in the classroom and reported
that most English teachers lacked professional training in integrating technologies into
their classroom practices.

52

Teachers’ ability to use technology influences the implementation of educational
innovations in their instruction (ChanLin, 2007; Son, 2002). Thus, many researchers
focus their studies on teacher preparation programs. For example, Son (2002) suggests
that online discussions are useful for CALL teacher training as they provide language
teachers with practical experience with CMC and communication channels for sharing
ideas, comments, questions, and resources with their fellow teachers. In addition,
ChanLin (2007) suggests that there is a need to prepare educators to understand the
importance of cognitive abilities that they lack in the use of technologies, and show them
ways of developing long-term technology literacy. In order to get teachers trained, the
development of skills and positive attitudes toward the application of computer
technologies is essential (p.53). Similarly, Vodanovich and Piotrowski (2005) find it
critical to develop training programs. They attach great importance to flexible curricula,
efforts towards systematic planning, and time management.
In a web-based survey of 108 graduates of Teaching English to speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL) programs, Kessler (2007) reported that TESOL professionals appear
to be confident about CALL, but they are not confident when creating CALL-based

53

materials. In addition, they are less confident when making decisions regarding the
integration of CALL, particularly in addressing oral skills. They also reported a lack of
CALL-related preparation in teacher training programs. According to the study, ESL
teachers get information about technologies for language teaching mostly from informal
sources or self-study, but not from formal instruction. This suggests that formal teacher
preparation programs for language teachers neglect to practically equip teachers with
technology related knowledge and skills-- tools teachers need to enter today’s
technologically advanced language classrooms (Kessler, 2006).
Gorder (2008) maintains that in reality, informal or formal professional conference
presentations and workshops might have a powerful influence on teachers’ attitudes
toward using technologies in language education. However, ESL programs cannot rely
upon such contingent and unpredictable systems of professional development. Therefore,
in order to adequately address the changing needs of language teaching professionals,
training programs must be developed within schools based on the individual needs of
each ESL teacher. Gorder (2008) adds that professional development opportunities are

54

important not only in helping teachers, but also in bringing teachers together to discuss and
share ideas for integrating technology in their classroom (p.74).
For the purpose of this study, the researcher included interview questions to both
program directors and ESL teachers regarding what training programs were provided (for
ESL programs that already had online ESL courses) during the implementation of online
ESL education. More specifically, this research aims to investigate the need of ESL
teachers in the course of the online implementation process. Also, the study focuses on
finding out if any support is provided by the ESL program leaders.
Chapter Two Conclusion
If implementing student-centered approaches to learning is the goal for all learning
organizations, both teachers and the program director, should integrate online
technologies and other educational innovations in order to achieve this goal (Wozney et
al., 2006; Christensen et al., 2008). The historical review of SLA theories indicates that
the development of language instruction usually parallels the development of technology.
As the research on CALL declined, online technology and resources were perceived to be
more relevant for the future of ESL education and as a solution to student-centered

55

learning problems (Fitzpatrick & Davies, 2003; Pennington, 2004; Christensen et al.,
2008).
From the studies of the rise and decline of business models (Christensen, 1998; John
& Wheeler, 2008), educators now are aware of the need to prepare themselves for the
impact of online education and improve their instructional methods. However, in practice,
little change has occurred (Blin & Munro, 2007). In the process of innovation adoption
regarding online learning, education organizations and individuals tend to follow certain
patterns (Rogers, 1995; Mandinach & Cline, 1994; Pennington, 2004). In addition, Ely
(1999) implies that identifying factors or conditions that tend to foster or retard the
development and implementation of online courses is beneficial.
Understanding the perspectives of the program directors and teachers as innovation
adopters is essential to the success of implementing online technologies (John & Wheeler,
2008). In addition, without internal consensus between program director and teachers, the
implementation of educational innovation may fail (Fullan & Stiegelbaue ,1991; Fulkerth,
1992; Popkewitz, 2000; Christensen et al., 2008). Teacher training is critical in the

56

process of implementing educational innovation (Vodanovich & Piotrowski, 2005;
Kessler, 2007; Gorder, 2008).
The studies of SLA, CALL and online ESL instruction provide knowledge for
readers to better understand the development of ESL teaching. Further, the discussion of
disruptive innovations and the adoption process and conditions that facilitate successful
innovation implementation provide a framework for examining ESL teachers’ and
program directors’ perspectives toward online education. These studies also helped the
researcher form interview questions. Moreover, the discussion of program directors’ and
teachers’ perspectives explains why the study focuses on program directors and ESL
teachers as target participants, and why their perspectives toward online ESL instruction
are critical for the success of the implementation of online ESL courses.

57

CHAPTER THREE
Research Design and Methodology
Chapter Three Introduction
The development of technology and the popularity of online learning have had an
impact on educational practices in all disciplines. ESL educators have also noticed both
the changes and the opportunities that online learning brings to the field. Convenience
and flexibility are the advantages in online learning (Marks, Sibley & Arbaugh, 2005).
These qualities are very important when students have other commitments (i.e. job,
family, etc) in their lives. However, in reality, only a small number of ESL programs in
California actually offer blended or full online courses. Therefore, factors and conditions
that foster or inhibit the development and implementation of online ESL programs and
courses need to be researched.
Concomitantly, different attitudes and perspectives toward online learning between
the program directors and ESL teachers can lead to the failure of implementing blended
or full online courses (Fullan & Stiegelbaue ,1991; Fulkerth, 1992; Popkewitz, 2000;
Christensen et al., 2008). It is possible that ESL teachers may be more concerned with the

58

effectiveness and the quality of online instruction than they are attracting more students
to their program. However, directors of ESL programs may envision the global impact
(White, 2007) of online learning and an enormous growth of student recruitment.
Therefore, the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers in regards to online
education are the key to understanding the implementation of online education.
This chapter describes the design, sampling, data collection, and data analysis
methods used in the course of this study. The goal of this study is to address two major
questions.
Research Questions
1. From the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers, what factors or
conditions tend to foster or inhibit the development and implementation of
online courses associated with ESL programs?
2. To what extent do the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers affect
online ESL education?
Research Assumptions
Based on the literature review and research questions, this study assumed:

59

1. Factors or conditions that tend to foster the development and implementation of
online ESL courses would reflect what Ely (1999) has identified in his study. In
other words, the eight conditions that appeared to facilitate the implementation
of education technology innovations would apply to ESL programs as well.
2. Language learning is different from other subject matters in general (Fitzpatrick
& Davies, 2003). Other factors (i.e. pedagogical factors) than Ely’s were
expected to be found through interviews.
3. Due to the fact that target learners for ESL programs are different from students
in other types of educational organizations and schools, factors such as
globalization (White, 2007) and learner demands for change (Warschauer, 2000)
were expected to be found through interviews.
4. In the literature review of teacher attitudes, the researcher summarized factors
that might influence teachers’ attitude toward the implementation of educational
innovations. These factors were expected to influence or inhibit the
implementation of online ESL courses for ESL teachers.

60

5. According to Mcgrail (2005), Vodanovich and Piotrowski (2005), and
Christensen et al. (2008), internal consensus between program director and
teachers is essential in the process of implementing educational innovations.
Higher internal agreement was expected to be present in programs that already
had online ESL programs, as compared to those that had not yet implemented
online ESL courses.
Methodology
The research questions aim to identify factors and perspectives on issues related to
the implementation of online ESL education. To address these research questions, a
qualitative research methodology was used. According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005),
qualitative research methodology provides an appropriate framework to examine
unknown variables and perspectives (p.4). In addition, this research aims to help
educators understand why online ESL education is not yet widespread. Creswell (1994)
suggests that qualitative research methodology is also effective for exploring this
phenomenon. The qualitative design of this study has utilized ―inductive analysis‖ as a
framework for identifying patterns, themes, and interrelationships in the data.

61

Additionally, due to the nature of the qualitative method, the researcher is the
instrument of measure for the study (Patton, 2002). Therefore, the credibility and validity
of the study depend on the skill, competence, and rigor of the researcher in conducting
the fieldwork (Patton, 2002). Great care was taken to ensure that the methods and
questions used in the interviews measure what they are supposed to measure. In addition,
interview questions were emailed to program directors in advance to ensure the questions
were relevant, proper, and would not offend any interviewees.
Accordingly, the interview questions were based on the literature review and
carefully designed without being bias or taking any sides. The interview questions were
in-depth, open-ended questions. Further, data was collected and transcribed into texts.
The data was organized into readable narrative descriptions.
Sampling strategy.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2008), California makes up about 12% of the
entire U.S. population. It has the scale and size to address ESL issues more formally.
Also, California is reported to have the most English learners in the United States.
Approximately 25% of the K-12 California population consists of English learners (Hong,

62

2008). Moreover, Frodesen (2005) reports that the populations of English learners in
California’s postsecondary institutions are very diverse and have differing needs.
Likewise, the population of ESL learners in California’s colleges and universities is
constantly increasing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). California has been at the forefront of
identifying the special needs of the English language learner population. That is why ESL
programs in California were chosen for the study.
However, in order to control the quality of the target ESL program, among hundreds
of language schools that offer ESL programs in California, only a sample of those,
certified by the American Association of Intensive English Programs (AAIEP), were
selected. A search engine on the AAIEP website was used to narrow down the number of
schools to be investigated. The AAIEP website provides information about quality
English language programs for international students attempting to study English in the
USA. Nearly 300 AAIEP members offer intensive English language programs located in
university and college settings or city centers across the USA.
The English language programs offered by AAIEP members are of the highest
quality, since all member programs are accredited by the Accrediting Council for

63

Continuing Education and Training (ACCET), by the Connecticut Education Association
(CEA), or operate under the governance of regionally accredited colleges or universities.
In a search of the AAIEP database in the summer of 2009, 55 schools offer ESL
programs in California that were certified by AAIEP. Among these 55 ESL programs,
five offered some form of online ESL courses: American Language Center (ALC) at the
University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) extension, the University of California,
Irvine (UCI) extension, Studies in American Language (SAL) at San Jose State
University (SJSU), the English Language Program at National University (launched in
Fall 2009), and the ESL Department at City College of San Francisco (CCSF). Later,
these five ESL programs were further examined to see if they turned out to be appropriate
for the current study.
Moreover, a search of ESL programs in major U.S. universities and colleges that are
not on the AAIEP list was conducted. These schools include Stanford University, the
University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), the University of Southern California
(USC), the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), Pasadena City College (PCC),
and Santa Monica College (SMC). These schools were chosen for their reputation in ESL

64

education and taking into account professional recommendations. Through emails and
phone calls to the schools, the researcher found that USC and Stanford University do not
offer any form of blended or full online courses so far. In this context, it was found that
the English Language and International Programs at UCSC Extension used to collaborate
with AmEnglish, a private company that offered online pronunciation, idioms, and
writing courses. However, the UCSC extension does not run its English Language
International Program anymore due to human resources problems. Three ESL programs
were identified to offer online ESL courses: Summer English Language Institute at UC
Berkeley, the Languages Department at PCC, and the ESL department at SMC.
In summary, it was found that the following eight language schools offer online ESL
courses: 1. ALC at UCLA extension, 2. UCI extension, 3. SAL at SJSU, 4. the English
Language Program at National University, and 5. the ESL Department at CCSF, 6.
Summer English Language Institute at UC Berkeley, 7. the Languages department at PCC,
and 8. the ESL department of SMC.
For the purpose of this study, schools that already offered online ESL courses and
schools that had not yet implemented or developed any online courses so far were

65

included. A variety of perspectives from these different settings could better reveal issues
related to the fostering and inhibiting online education. The basic principle of the
sampling strategy was to identify ESL programs that would address the needs of the
interviews and research questions.
Therefore, among the eight programs that offer online ESL courses, some were
recognized as unsuitable for the study. For example, the Summer English Language
Institute of UC Berkeley did offer a few online courses. However, these constituted a
very small part of their program. Also, they were summer-only programs; they did not
function in the Fall, and their instructors were not on site. Therefore, UCB was excluded
from the study.
After making inquiries about all the programs that offer online ESL courses, three
programs that offered some kind of online courses were selected for the study. For
confidentiality reasons, the names of the schools will be coded as School 3, School 4, and
School 5. Also, all the names of the participants are pseudonyms. These ESL programs
not only offered year-round ESL courses, but they had seen a considerable growth in
online courses. After contacting the program directors and some teachers at these schools,

66

an agreement to schedule interview in Fall 2009 was made. In the later section, these ESL
programs will be described in detail.
Target ESL programs.
1. School 3
The university where School 3 is located currently offers a wide range of degree
programs, continuing higher education, certificate programs, ESL programs, and so on. It
is the ESL program that is in charge of all face-to-face, blended, and online ESL courses.
In summer 2009, the blended/full online courses offered by School 3 were:
1. Advanced English as a Second Language (Blended)
2. Writing for Business and Practical Purposes: ESL (Blended)
3. High-Intermediate English as a Second Language (Blended)
4. AIEP Online TOEFL Preparation Course: High-Intermediate/Advanced (online)
5. Business Writing for Non-Native Speakers (Online)
2. School 4
The Virtual Campus of School 4, School4Online, offered online education for
students who may not be able to attend courses due to time and location constraints.

67

School4Online offered courses in many disciplines each semester and School 4 offered
eight online ESL courses and 18 other face-to-face ESL courses that focus on different
ESL skills (Multi-Skills and Writing, Oral Skills, Grammar, Reading and Vocabulary) in
the summer of 2009. The eight online ESL courses were:
1. Using Verb Tense (8 weeks)
2. Pronunciation and Spelling: Vowel and Consonant sounds (12 weeks)
3. Advanced Grammar Workshop 1 (12 weeks)
4. Advanced Grammar Workshop 2 (12 weeks)
5. Academic Reading and Study Skills (12 weeks)
6. Academic Vocabulary Skills (12 weeks)
7. The Noun System and Articles (8 weeks)
8. Sentence Structure and Punctuation (8 weeks)
3. School 5
School 5 was chosen for several reasons. First of all, faculty members and
instructors at School 5 participated and presented papers at four professional workshops
on topics related to online ESL learning at the 2009 annual conference of California

68

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (CATESOL). This testifies to the
fact that School 5 is one of the leading ESL programs in educational innovation. Inquiry
through e-mail found that School 5 used to offer full online courses but for some reason
stopped offering them. It was very beneficial for this study to include School 5 and
understand their journey of adopting online education. In spite of the fact that the school
does not conduct full-online format classes now, many of their teachers include online
components to support face-to-face classes. In addition, School 5 does use a lot of online
tools in their IEP program. The school has a computer lab and a full-time educational
technology specialist.
Additionally, this study also investigated language schools that do not offer
blended/online ESL courses. Language programs that did not have any form of online
instruction and language programs that were planning to offer online courses were
included. Among them were School 1 and School 2. On the one hand, School 1 aims to
help ELLs, at beginning through advanced levels, succeed in the university classroom and
in everyday life using a limited number of online components. On the other hand, School
2 provides English language courses that ensure academic and professional success for

69

ELLs at the university. According to the program director of School 2, the program is
striving to implement blended/online courses. In fact, some of the teachers are using
online discussions (Blackboard) in their instruction.
In conclusion, five ESL programs in California were studied in this dissertation.
Again, for confidentiality reasons, they are coded as School1, School 2, School 3, School
4, and School 5. Also, all the names of the participants are pseudonyms.
Data collection.
Initial contacts with the ESL programs were via emails and phone calls. Program
directors and teachers at the target schools were informed about the background and the
purpose of the study. Their willingness to participate helped the planning and scheduling
of the interviews. Interviews were scheduled at a date and time convenient for the
participants. After contacting the participants, emails and a list of sample question were
provided to make sure all questions were relevant and proper. In addition, each
interviewee was informed of the focus of this study and assured of its confidentiality.
After the research proposal was approved by the dissertation committee in July, the
interviews were conducted in the Fall of 2009.

70

The actual interview conversations were digitally recorded. Each interview lasted
approximately 25 minutes on average. The shortest one was 16 minutes and the longest
one was about 43 minutes. During the course of the interview, information provided by
the interviewee was recorded for data decoding and then saved in a secured laptop
afterwards. At the end of the interview, the interviewees were thanked and asked about
the possibility of a follow up email in order to clarify issues that might arise during the
process of data analysis. The collected data were then considered complete.
Originally, the researcher planned to conduct all the interviews in person. However,
some participants were not available for an interview for reasons such as overseas
domicile (online instructors) or scheduling problems. Therefore, for these participants,
questionnaires were used instead. To sum up, 7 questionnaires and 38 in-person
interviews were conducted during the Fall of 2009.
Instrumentation.
For the purpose of the study, two instruments were used: (a) general interview guide
protocol for program directors and (b) general interview guide protocol for the same
ESL teachers (See appendix A and B). The general interview guide for directors and

71

ESL teachers contained research questions that focused on their perspectives toward
online instruction in the five selected ESL programs. It was assumed that a certain
degree of flexibility might be required depending on how advanced each school was in
the implementation of online ESL courses. Moreover, the conversational and situational
nature of the interview guide facilitated developing questions sequentially and
simultaneously deciding which information needs should be pursued in greater depth
(Patton, 2002).
The protocol of the interview (see appendix A) was designed to explore the
perspectives that program directors envisage in relation to the focus of both research
questions. The interview questions were designed based on earlier studies and the review
of related literature. The issues dealt with in the interview questions aimed to identify
factors and conditions the school fosters or inhibits to develop or implement online ESL
courses. The time frame of this interview was approximately 25 minutes.
The second instrument was an interview protocol that aimed to explore ESL teachers’
perspectives toward online ESL education (see appendix B). Similar to the Program

72

Director Interview Protocol, the interview questions were based on the literature review.
The time frame of this interview was approximately 20 minutes.
As shown in Appendix A, the interview questions are divided into two parts. Part
one of the Program Director Interview Protocol aims to identify factors and conditions
affecting the implementation of online ESL courses. It was also be used to identify the
current state of each online ESL setting (i.e., online ESL courses are currently offered).
Part two of the Program Director Protocol aims to investigate program directors’
perspectives toward online ESL learning, their interaction with ESL teachers, and the
kind of support offered by the ESL program.
ESL teacher perspectives toward online instruction were collected through their
responses to the ESL Teacher Interview Protocol. Teacher responses were then compared
with those of the program directors. Similar questions were posed to both the program
directors and ESL teachers (see Appendix B).
In the literature, Christensen et al. (2008) assert that leaders need to identify two
dimensions of agreement if consensus is to be forged in the process of innovation
adoption: ―the extent to which people agree on what they want‖; and ―the extent to which

73

people agree on cause and effect (p. 183)‖. In this context, interview question 5 (What is
it that you want to achieve in terms of online ESL instruction?) and question 7 (What is
your personal attitude toward developing ESL online education?) were used to identify
―the extent to which ESL teacher agree on what they want‖; and question 6 (How
was/were the online ESL course/courses developed/implemented in your school?), 8
(What is it that you want to achieve in terms of online ESL instruction?), and 12 (Why do
you think the school should develop/adopt online ESL courses?) were used to identify
―the extent to which people agree on cause and effect‖.
Data analysis.
The Interview data from program directors and ESL teachers were transcribed into
text. Then, the data were organized into readable narrative descriptions.
HyperRESEARCH (a research analysis software that enables researchers to input texts
and to code, retrieve, and identify themes and patterns in the data) was used to facilitate
the qualitative analysis of the interview data. The following table (table 3.1) explains how
research questions are aligned with interview questions. Most interview questions from

74

the Program Director Interview Protocol (PDIP) were addressed to ESL teachers as well,
thus facilitating an objective comparison and analysis.
Interview questions and their relation to research questions.
The following table (Table 3.1) demonstrated how research questions can be
answered by interview questions. The interview questions showed in the left column
were designed to answer Research Question One: what factors or conditions tend to
foster or retard developing and implementing online courses associated with ESL
programs? And the interview questions showed in the right column were designed to
answer Research Question Two: To what extent do the perspectives of program directors
and ESL teachers agree with or contradict the issues related to online ESL education?

75

Table 3.1:
Interview Questions and Their Relation to Research Questions
Research Question One Research Question Two
 What makes (or does not make) your
program develop/implement online
ESL courses?(PDIP, Q3)
 Why do you think your school
develop/implement online ESL course?
(ETIP, Q8)
 When did the program first
adopt/implement online ESL courses
and what is it the program wants to
achieve in terms of online education?
(PDIP, Q4)
 How were the online courses
developed? (Was there a separate
team?) (PDIP, Q5)
 Many researchers think that online
language courses can never replace
face-to-face instruction. Do you agree
with this statement? (ETPI, Q12)
 In your opinion, are there things that
would be irreplaceable? (ETPI, Q13)

 What are the program goals in terms of
adopting/implementing online courses?
(PDIP, Q2)
 What goals were set to adopting online
components in your instructions?
(ETIP, Q2)
 What is it that you want to achieve in
terms of online ESL instruction?
(ETIP, Q5)
 What is your personal opinion about
the development of ESL online
education? (PDIP, Q6)
 What is your personal attitude toward
developing of ESL online education?
(ETIP,Q6)
 What goals were set to adopting online
components in your instructions?
(ETIP, Q6)
 Who teaches online ESL courses in
your program? Are these specially
hired teachers or teachers who have
been familiar with teaching the ESL
courses? Why?(PDIP, Q7)
 How was/were online ESL
course/courses developed/implemented
in your school? (ETIP, Q4)

76

Table 3.1, Continued
Research Question One Research Question Two

 What is the ESL teacher attitude toward
online ESL courses in your school?
(PDIP, Q9)
 What is your personal opinion about the
development of ESL online
education?(ETIP, Q7)
 When teaching an ESL online course,
do you feel any satisfaction, are you
nervous or indifferent? Why? (ETIP,
Q9)
 What kind of general support does the
program provide for ESL teachers?
(PDIP, Q10)
 How does the program support you in
teaching ESL online courses? (ETIP, 11)
 If you were a program lead, what would
you do to better prepare ESL teachers
for implementing online ESL courses in
teaching? (ETIP, Q14)
Note: PDIP: Program Director Interview Protocol (See Appendix A); ETIP: ESL Teachers Interview
Protocol (See Appendix B)
To answer Research Question One, interview responses that address this question
(PDIP Q#3, 4, and 5; ETIP Q#4, 8, 12, and 13) were inserted into the HyperRESEARCH
software. The software assisted the process of synthesizing the data. Followed the
procedures suggested by HyperRESEARCH, factors and conditions associated with the
implementation of online courses were identified. The responses then were labeled into

77

two categories: (1) factors that foster the implementation of online ESL courses and (2)
factors that inhibit the implementation. A cross-program analysis is also provided in the
findings section.
To answer Research Question Two, interview responses that address this question
(PDIP Q# 2, 6, 7, 9, 10; ETIP Q#2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and14) were inserted into the
HyperRESEARCH software. The interview data from each ESL program were discussed
independently in order to compare perspectives articulated by program directors and ESL
teachers. By doing this, levels of internal consensus could be identified. All five ESL
programs were compared with each other to see if they demonstrate a pattern and to
determine how internal consensus is related to the implementation of online ESL courses.
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005), data analysis procedure should follow
certain guidelines (p, 150):
1. Organizing the data by breaking down large bodies of text into smaller units in the
form of sentences or individual words.

78

2. Perusing the entire data set several times to get an idea of what it contains as a whole.
In the course of this process, the researcher should take notes that would suggest
possible categories or interpretations.
3. Identifying general categories or themes, and perhaps subcategories or subthemes as
well, and then classifying each piece of data accordingly.
HyperRESEACH software basically allowed the researcher to follow the strategies
suggested above. The data were then integrated and summarized (Leedy and Ormrod
(2005). Propositions that describe relationships between the categories and an
organizational scheme of the data are offered in the findings section.
Limitations and Delimitations
Due to this study’s design, there are various limitations to the study. First of all, ESL
programs in California are not necessarily representative of all U.S. ESL programs. The
researcher’s sample of California ESL programs may not be representative of all
California ESL programs. Due to time and other constraints, out of eight language
schools that offer online ESL courses in California, only three participated in this study.
Moreover, considering the busy schedule of the program directors and ESL teachers, the

79

interview time was controlled to be within 30 minutes. Another limitation is that only a
limited number of questions could be asked. There could have been ideas that were not
explored and could have been significant factors. In addition, there was no way to verify
whether interviewees were being truthful about their reasons for favoring or not favoring
online instruction. The information that the researcher have about instructors’
instructional practices was self-reported, not observed by the researcher, so there is no
guarantee that they implement technology in exactly the way that they report they do.
This study did not involve private test preparation centers, such as Kaplan, Inc.,
although some of them do offer some form of online ESL courses. This study limited
itself to university- or college-led programs that recruit adult ESL learners. Additionally,
English language teaching (as opposed to the teaching of other languages), was the
subject of this research. Therefore, findings cannot necessarily be generalized to the
teaching of other languages.
Validity, Reliability, and Credibility
Before the interviews were actually conducted, the researcher consulted with and
reviewed the interview questions with ESL experts. As the credibility of qualitative

80

methods hinges to a great extent on the skill, competence, and rigor of the researcher
(Patton, 2002), the researcher paid attention to all the details in the process of data
collection. The researcher undergoes trainings in qualitative methods by taking courses
(Inquiry Methods I and II, USC Ed.D.). Moreover, the investigation of teacher
perspectives toward online ESL courses has face validity (Patton, 2002, p. 20) for the
teachers who work directly with ESL learners. The interviews were conducted in five
different settings. The diversity of perspectives from different program leaders and ESL
teachers belonging to different language schools increased the validity of this study.

81

CHAPTER FOUR
Research Findings
Chapter Four Introduction
The interviews and surveys were conducted in the Fall of 2009. In this section,
research findings were analyzed based on the interviews and surveys of 39 ESL
instructors and five program directors. The overall response rates were 100% (5/5) for the
directors, and 60% for the ESL instructors (39/65).
In terms of Research Question One, rich data were collected regarding the factors
and conditions that foster or inhibit the development of blended/online courses in ESL
programs. The researcher was able to list and organize the factors and conditions
accordingly. Since the goals and the culture of the ESL program were found to be critical
in the process of adopting educational innovations, the background of the school and the
ESL program will be described in detail in the presentation section below. Their current
implementation of online technology will also be described due to the fact that some
courses were added or dropped in the Fall of 2009. In addition, a list or a table has been

82

included after the presentation of the findings in each program. These tables will facilitate
discussion in the next chapter.
In terms of Research Question Two, the extent to which people agreed on what they
want and the extent to which they agreed on cause and effect were able to be determined
for each ESL program. In addition, the program with broad consensus was also the one
that was in a more advanced stage of innovation adoption. However, a pattern could not
be found among the ESL programs. The role of internal consensus in the innovation
adoption process needs to be further discussed.
The findings are presented and organized in an order based on the level of
implementation of online courses of each ESL program. For example, School 1, which
used very limited online components, is the first to be discussed, and School 4, which had
the most full online courses, is the fourth to be discussed. School 5 is the last to be
discussed because they had had online courses in the past but did not have any at the time
that the interviews were conducted. Their journey in the innovation adoption process was
worth examining. In addition, basic information about the participants is included.

83

Presentation of Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents
Four program directors and one administrator (School 4) in charge of the blended/
online courses participated in the current study. In addition, 39 instructors from 5
different ESL programs were participants in this study. The following tables outline
characteristics of the instructors. Information about their name, gender, and what skills
(listening, speaking, reading, and writing) or courses (pronunciation, TOEFL preparation,
etc.) they were teaching are provided. Note that all the names of the participants are
fictitious. In addition, their current usage of online technology, kind of course
management system (Blackboard/Wikipedia/Moodle), and kind of online activity are
included if information was available. Grouping the instructors by ESL programs made it
obvious that each ESL program was in a different stage of implementing online courses.

84

Table 4.1:
Instructor Information for School 1
Participant Gender Years in
teaching
ESL/current
program
Courses/skills Level of implementation
Kim F 10/5 S/ R/ W F2F w/online
Lovel F 30/4 L/ S/ R/ W F2F W/o online, F2F w/
online (video sharing)
Pricilla F 30/4 L/ S/ R/ W F2F w/o online, F2F w/
online (video sharing)
Steve M 9/4.5 L/ S/ R/ W F2F w/o online, F2F w/
online (video sharing, peer
editing)
All names are fictitious, p=part-time, f=full-time, L=listening, S=speaking, R=reading, W=writing, F2F=face to face

85

Table 4.2:
Instructor Information for School 2
Participant Gender Years in
teaching
ESL/current
program
Courses/skills Level of implementation
Barry M 22/8 S/ W F2F w/ online (Blackboard,
video clips)
Cynthia F 10/5 S/ W F2F w/ online (Blackboard)
Eric M 17/p5,f2 S/ W F2F w/ online
James M 17/7 W F2F
Kim F 10/4 S/ W F2F w/online (Blackboard)
Sharon F 23/6 S/ dissertation W F2F w/online (Blackboard,
Audacity pronunciation
software)
Vicky F 14/6 W/ P F2F w/ online (Blackboard)
Zsu F 5/2 individual consultation of
ITAs
F2F w/online
All names are fictitious, p=part-time, f=full-time, S=speaking, W=writing, P=Pronunciation, F2F=face to face

86

Table 4.3:
Instructor Information for School 3
Participant Gender Years in
teaching
ESL/current
program
Courses/skills Level of implementation
Adam M 22/18 L/communication/ G/ P F2F w/ online, B
Bella F 30/25 L/ S/ R/ W F2F w/ online
Bob M 31/18 R F2F w/o online
David M 15/2 business English F2F w/ online (Blackboard)
Kyle M 23/20 L/ S/ R/ W F2F w/ online, F online
Mike M 35/ p29,f4 R/ W/ G F2F w/ online
Shelley F 13/3 R/ W/ P/ G F2F w/o online
Mark M 33/8 P B (Blackboard)
Synthia F 15/6 business English/ L, S and
P/ academic English
B (Blackboard for lecture
delivery and group forum
chatting)
Judy F 30/30 G and W F2F w/ online (websites)
James M 17/9 Business W F online
All names are fictitious, p=part-time, f=full-time, L=listening, S=speaking, R=reading, W=writing, P=Pronunciation,
G=grammar, F online = Full Online, B=blended, F2F=face to face

Table 4.4:
Instructor Information for School 4
Participant Gender Years in teaching
ESL/current
program
Courses/skills Level of
implementation
Janet F 22/6 G/ G and editing B, F online
Keith M 3 R/ study skills B, F online
Melody F 25/5 G/ vocabulary F online
All names are fictitious, R=reading, G=grammar, F online = Full Online, B=blended

87

Table 4.5:
Instructor Information for School 5
Participant gender years in
teaching
ESL/current
program
courses/skills level of implementation

Young F 3/3 S/ W F2F w/ online
Ann F 34/12 R/ advanced G F2F w/ online
Ben M 9/p5, 2f W/ G/ American culture/
TOEFL R
F2F w/ online (Wikipedia)
Cassie F None L/ W F2F w/ online (Wikipedia)
Chris M 11/4 S/ R/ W F2F w/ online (Wikipedia)
Jaime F 12/10 W/ P/ G F2F w/ online, full online
Julie F 12/6 S F2F w/ online
Kelly F 12/6 S/ P F2F w/ online (Wikipedia)
Kim F 15/9 R/ history/ G F2F w/ online (Wikipedia
and other websites)
Laura F 13/4 S/ W F2F W/ online (online
journal)
Mari F 15 S/ R/ W F2F
Sarah F 5/2.5 L/ S/ R/ TOEFL prep F2F W/ online (Moodle,
Wikipedia)
Ursula F 9/8 R F2F w/ online (video clips)
All names are fictitious, p=part-time, f=full-time, L=listening, S=speaking, R=reading, W=writing, P=Pronunciation,
G=grammar, F2F=face to face
According to the above tables, current implementation of blended and full online
courses is still limited and the number of courses was small compared to the number of
face-to-face courses. In fact, some ESL programs (i.e. School 3 and School 4) are in a
more advanced stage of implementing online courses than others (i.e. School 1 and

88

School 2). Generally speaking, most ESL teachers used online components in their
teaching but in limited ways. In addition, some teachers still used very traditional
teaching methods involving no use of online technology. Moreover, neither gender nor
seniority was correlated to the level of implementation of online technology.
Research Questions and Associated Assumptions
Again, the research questions are:
1. From the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers, what factors or
conditions tend to foster or inhibit the development and implementation of online
courses associated with ESL programs?
2. To what extent do the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers affect
online ESL education?
Based on the literature review and research questions, this study assumed that
factors or conditions that tend to foster the development and implementation of online
ESL courses would reflect what Ely (1999) has identified in his study. Other factors (i.e.
pedagogical factors) than Ely’s were expected to be found through interviews. In addition,
factors such as globalization (White, 2007) and learner demands for change (Warschauer,

89

2000) were expected to be found through interviews. Moreover, factors that might
influence teachers’ attitude toward the implementation of educational innovations were
expected to influence or inhibit the implementation of online ESL courses for ESL
teachers. Furthermore, higher internal agreements are expected to be present in programs
that already had online ESL programs, compared to those had not yet implemented online
ESL courses.
Findings Applicable to Research Questions
In terms of Research Question One, examining the data according to the level of
implementation of online ESL courses revealed that inhibiting factors could be found in
all five ESL programs. Inhibiting factors such as instructors’ abilities and availability,
their knowledge and experience, the lack of human and technical support, and concerns
about the quality of online courses were generally found in all five programs. On the
other hand, fostering factors could only be found in ESL programs that were offering or
had offered blended/online courses. Fostering factors such as the incentive to satisfy
student needs, reach a wider audience, increase enrollment, and pressure from

90

administration and related policies set by the school were generally found in these ESL
programs. A detailed presentation of the findings is included in the next section.
The second research question was aimed at finding out to what extent the
perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers agree with or contradict each other in
relation to online ESL education. In other words, this question focused on finding
patterns of internal agreement between program directors and among ESL teachers that
would lead to the success of the implementation of online ESL courses.
Christensen et al. (2008) maintain that two dimensions of agreement must be
identified if consensus is to be forged in the process of school reform: ―the extent to
which people agree on what they want‖; and ―the extent to which people agree on cause
and effect ―(p. 183). More specifically, to find what people want in an organization, it is
important to identify the results they seek from their participation in the program, what
their values and priorities are, and which trade-offs they are willing to make to achieve
those results. On the other hand, to find if people agree on cause and effect in an
organization, it is important to identify which actions will lead to the desired result. In
other words, strong agreement on cause and effect implies a shared view of the processes

91

that should be used to get the outcomes of interest. For example, strong agreement on
cause and effect is usually found in programs with common understanding among ESL
instructors that they have to go through a training process to be qualified as an online
instructor.
Unfortunately, patterns were not found between the five target programs to show the
importance of internal consensus in the implementation process. However, a detailed
explanation of the findings for Research Question Two is still valuable. The findings will
facilitate the discussion section in chapter five.
In this section, interview data that address the two research questions are presented.
Again, data for each of the five ESL programs are presented in a logical order. The two
ESL programs that were not yet offering blended/online courses are presented first. After
that, it is the two ESL programs that offered blended/online courses. Last, it is the
program that had offered online courses. Therefore, findings drawn from School 1 are the
first to be presented due to the fact that they used the least online components. After the
findings for Research Question One are presented, findings for Research Question Two
follow.

92

School 1.
In this ESL program, one interview with the program director and three interviews
with full-time instructors were conducted. One feedback questionnaire was collected
from a full-time instructor. The response rate for the full time instructors was 80% (4/5).
The university where School 1 is located is one of the most prestigious private
research universities in the United States. Its ESL program, School 1, offers intensive
English courses for English learners from all over the world. Their goal is to give
students every opportunity to experience university life and American culture. Instruction
at School 1 is designed to help students succeed in the university classroom and in their
everyday lives. At the time of this study, School 1 offered only face-to-face instruction.
Although online components were used in some of their courses, they were
comparatively limited.
Findings for Research Question One.
The director’s perception of online education was found to be a key factor that
hindered the development of blended/ full online courses at School 1. According to the
interview responses the director did not believe that language instruction can be delivered

93

adequately online. The director emphasized the importance of experiencing American
culture and the university environment for the students. In addition, the director’s attitude
toward technology and online education was relatively conservative. The director’s
perspective toward online ESL education influenced the implementation of online
courses and the goals of the program.
Although the director understood that capitalism guides the market and was aware of
the pressure to deliver blended/full online courses, she had a lot of concerns about
implementing blended/online courses at School 1. First of all, she was concerned about
the quality of the blended/online courses. She stated that if the school could ensure the
quality of the implementation, she would be on board. Moreover, she maintained that
there were some elements in language teaching that cannot be replicated in an online
environment. For example, she doubted that online ESL courses would be as effective for
the lower lever learners because they needed more hands-on and face-to-face instruction.
She also explained that the real interaction between human beings, the affective and
kinesthetic elements of face-to-face instruction, the feeling of pressure and frustration,

94

the interactive joy of language learning, and the cultural aspects of classroom learning are
something that an online environment has yet to duplicate.
It is essential to consider the learner’s purpose for studying in the implementation of
blended/online ESL courses for a language program like this. School 1, as a year round
IEP program, attracts a diverse international audience. Also, certain graduate level
international students at the university are required to take classes School 1 offers to
improve their language skills. Since it is important to prepare these students to function
like mainstream university students in the campus environment, the nature of online
education seems to contradict such learning purposes. The director stated that the student
market has not demanded blended/ full online ESL courses in School 1:
I do think that it is a way of connecting to a broader audience, a broader student body,
but I’m not sure that [School 1] wants to do that. I do think that an intensive program
is different, you know, we have, usually the students in an intensive program like
ours…They want results quickly, right? And they want to feel rewarded by seeing
their improvement quickly…
On the other hand, instructors expressed that a lack of resources was the main reason
why blended/full online courses were not implemented at School 1. They maintained that
the School 1 had neither the human nor the technological resources to have an

95

exclusively online program. Lack of access to technology in the classroom and lack of
time to develop materials hindered the development of online education.
Most instructors held doubts about the effectiveness of full online ESL courses. Full
online ESL courses were considered to lack spontaneity and flexibility when so much of
language learning has to do with immediate response. For example, one instructor stated,
―Students will raise a question that’s not programmed, and this creates a stimulating
learning atmosphere, and the online programs tend to be, well let’s call it planned and
predictable.‖ Online education was perceived to be inflexible when a level of negotiation
is necessary in language classrooms.
The instructors’ experiences in using online technology as well as their knowledge
of online education affected the implementation of online technology in their instruction.
Compared to other ESL programs, instructors expressed more often that they were not
technically savvy or they had not yet explored the use of online technology.
The instructors also thought that the purpose of learning a language is different from
that of other subject areas; it is to communicate. Some activities in language classrooms
such as peer interaction and teacher-student interaction, and the connection between the

96

teacher and the student that motivates the learning would not be the same in an online
environment. In addition, the pressure to participate was thought to be stronger to be in a
face-to-face course conducted in real time than in a online course.
Certainly eye contact is going to be harder for them to maintain that notion when it’s
like a screen with sixteen people sort of in little thumbnail view on the screen, so it
makes it less personal.
Similarly to the director of the program, the instructors considered the immersion in the
environment (university campus) and having cultural contacts with native speakers by
living in that country to be very valuable.
The following list gives a summary of the factors that inhibited School 1 in
developing and implementing blended/ online courses. It is clear that only inhibiting
factors were found in this ESL program.
To sum up, factors/conditions that inhibit the development and implementation of
online courses in School 1 are:
1. conservative attitude toward online ESL education of the director
2. concerns about the quality of blended/online courses (i.e. spontaneity, flexibility,
interaction)
3. lack of demands (of blended/online courses) from the student

97

4. lack of human and technological resources
5. no access to technology
6. no time to develop
7. limited experience and knowledge of the instructors regarding online ESL
education
Findings for Research Question Two.
Regarding Research Question Two, as mentioned, School 1 currently offers only
face-to-face instruction. Although online components were used in some of their courses,
their use was very limited. The director of School 1 believed that there are certain parts of
language that must be conveyed human-to-human. The campus experience was also
perceived to be very important in language learning. Although she felt the market
pressure and a trend that leans toward distance learning, producing a quality education
package was her main concern.
But in terms of, you know, being pressured solely by the market, every faculty
member I know has basically the same value, and that is, the level, the standard of
the education comes first, and whatever market forces are out there, that will come
second.

98

It was found that instructors lacked the resources, support, training, and technical
expertise that they would need to develop blended/online courses. Also, perceived
usefulness (it was more effective to be with the students), and perceptions of relevancy
(because they are an IEP) where technology was concerned were also found to be very
low in this program. The instructors generally agreed with the director in regard to not
adopting or developing online courses. Blended courses made more sense to most
instructors. It might be the nature of the IEP program or the culture of this particular
program that formed this consensus.
Therefore, it was found that the director and faculty agreed on what they wanted.
Their values and priorities were similar. Although the perceived value of developing
blended/online courses was comparatively low, the internal agreement was high. It was
found that the instructors needed more support and training than they currently had.
Therefore, it was found that School 1 had weak agreement on cause and effect.
School 2.
The other language program at the same university is School 2. For this ESL
program, one interview with the program director and eight interviews with full-time

99

instructors were conducted. The response rate for the full time instructors was 67%
(8/12).
School 2 has been providing English language instruction, assessment, and resources
to support the academic and professional success of non-native speakers of English
pursuing a degree at the university. School 2 offers English language courses for those
students who want to improve their English as well as those who are required by the
university to take English classes as a result of taking the International Student English
Exam. Different from other ESL programs, School 2 does not recruit students. School 2 is
also responsible for testing and providing English language instruction for the university's
international teaching assistants. Blackboard, a course management system, and some
online components were used in the courses that School 2 provided. However, there were
no blended/ full online ESL courses in particular.
Findings for Research Question One.
The main reason why School 2 did not develop or implement blended/full online ESL
courses was because the focus of the program has moved more and more towards working
with students in a one-on-one setting as much as possible. Individualized attention was

100

found as one of the main qualities of School 2. Although it was the focus of the program
that hindered the development of online courses, it is questionable whether individualized
attention contradicts the implementation of online instruction.
As mentioned earlier, student recruitment was not School 2’s main responsibility.
Top-down pressure was not observed in this particular language program. The university
did not mandate School 2 in developing any blended/ full online courses. In fact, School 2
received positive feedback from the school. In addition, the President of the school valued
the residential campus experience for its students; the concepts of online education seemed
to contradict this value. Comprehensively speaking, at the time of this study, the university
was still at the incipient stages with the development of online courses in the education
department. Therefore, absence of top-down pressure was found to be a unique condition
that hindered the development of blended/ full online courses at School 2.
The director of the program was found to be a key factor in the development of online
courses regarding his experience and expertise. Although the director was very
open-minded toward educational innovations, his personal experience in learning a foreign
language influenced his definition of effective learning. He stated that he was at the level of

101

curiosity, and not wanting to have a closed mind regarding the development of online ESL
courses. In addition, he maintained that the affective, social, and interpersonal aspects of
language learning are very difficult to duplicate in an online environment.
The instructors had several concerns about online ESL education. These concerns
can be interpreted as the factors that hindered the development of online ESL courses.
Classroom dynamics were perceived to be the most troublesome area if online courses
were to be implemented at School 2. Language learning was generally viewed to be very
different from other subject areas in that it is more student-centered and interactive. Peer
interaction and teacher-student interaction were viewed as elements that are not easily
duplicated in an online environment. Some other elements in language learning that were
not replicable included: situational context (context that is given to use through
non-lingual means through para-lingual expressions), body language, physical and
emotional reactions and responses, the spontaneity (spontaneous interaction with people
and spontaneous interplay between students), and the role of the teacher. For example, an
instructor stated that ―the interaction is really important, so without the classroom to kind

102

of push them out to do it, I don’t see how they would be motivated to do it. They could
just stay in their own little clique.‖
Cultural context was mentioned by most instructors to be difficult to replicate online.
The university experience, campus experience, human experience and educational
experience would be different if a language course were taken online. So much of what is
contained in a communicative message and communicative competence is the ability to
react according to the expectations of the listener; therefore, learning to adapt
conversational style to the cultural context was perceived to be difficult in an online
environment. In addition, students miss the much richer environment of immediate social
communication, social discourse, emphatic communication, natural interaction, human
contact, and authentic English context in face-to-face instruction.
Accountability was also critical in the development of online education. Currently,
there is no guarantee that the students are doing their own work if courses are taught
online. Technology that allows instructors to verify who is taking an online exam is not
yet available. The monitoring issue is also critical in a language classroom. In addition,
the teachers could not image how to monitor students’ conversations in an online

103

environment. Accountability issues, therefore, hindered the development of online ESL
courses.
The instructors were also found to be so occupied with their current work-load that
they did not have time to do more. Developing online courses was perceived to be very
time-consuming. Some instructors expressed that online education was not their expertise.
Online courses were not a focus in teaching at School 2, rather, the instructors were quite
satisfied with their work performance. Health concerns were also a factor. One of the
instructors stated:
…I mean as I get older, looking at a computer screen for a very long time, or just
even my hands, like the carpal tunnel…just keeping up with e-mail and stuff like that
tends to be enough for me, and I’ve been trying to give more online feedback to
papers, like track changes, insert comments, all of this, but I find after three or four
papers my hands start to hurt or my eyes are getting tired, and I think, well, you know,
paper based, write it and give it back, in a lot of ways is just healthier.
Time, ability and health concerns of the instructors were then factors that hindered the
development of online courses in this program.
Similar to School 1, only inhibiting factors can be found in School 2 data. This was
due to the fact that both programs did not offer any blended/online courses. The
following list gives a summary of factors.

104

To sum up, the factors/conditions that inhibited the development and
implementation of online courses at School 2 are:
1. focus of program goal was providing individualized attention
2. lack of pressure from school administration to implement online courses
3. director’s lack of familiarity with online education
4. concerns about classroom dynamics
5. concerns about online instruction lacking cultural context
6. concerns about accountability
7. availability, ability, and health concerns of instructors
Findings for Research Question Two.
Unlike School 1, School 2 had access to the Blackboard course management system.
Therefore, online components were used in most courses that School 2 provided. However,
no blended/online courses were offered by School 2. The director stated that School 2 did
not implement online instruction because their priority was to provide individualized
attention. Therefore, the perception of relevancy for adopting online courses was low for

105

the instructors. However, the instructors expressed that they believed using online
technology actually assists individualized, customized attention in their teaching.
Generally speaking, both the director and the instructors at School 2 were at the
preliminary level in the process of adopting blended/online education. Especially toward
the implementation of blended courses, many of them expressed the willingness to try as
long as proper support and training were provided. The perceived importance of
implementing online courses was low for the director because there was neither
recruitment pressure nor top-down pressure from the school. Many of the instructors also
expressed that they are satisfied with the current teaching methodology. Both parties
agreed that many elements in language learning cannot be replicated in an online
environment. Generally speaking, people agreed on what they wanted at School 2.
School 2 was supportive of the teachers regarding the use of Blackboard. Trainings
and support were provided by the school. However, training for implementing online
courses had not yet been offered at School 2. While most instructors expressed
willingness to be trained as blended/online instructors, some did not answer related

106

interview questions due to lack of knowledge about blended/online courses. It was
difficult to determine if the people in School 2 agree on cause and effect.
School 3.
The university where School 3 is located offers certificate programs, undergraduate
degree-credit and continuing education credits. School 3 offers intensive English
language instruction for international participants and local residents who want to learn
English for business, fun, or further study. In addition, the university has its own Distance
Learning department which provides support and training to instructors at School 3.
Currently, School 3 offers face-to-face, blended, and full online ESL courses. In the
summer and the winter, the blended/full online courses are added or subtracted
accordingly. For example, there is a blended course open only in summer and winter
called Discover Los Angeles. For Fall 2009, the blended and full online courses were:
1. High-Intermediate English as a Second Language (Blended)
2. Advanced English as a Second Language (Blended)
3. Writing for Business and Practical Purposes (Blended)
4. Listening, Speaking, and Pronunciation (online)

107

5. Preparing for the TOEFL iBT (online)
6. Business Writing for Non-Native Speakers (online)
Among these courses, #6 had been in place for 7 years, #5 had been in place for one
year, and #4 was new that semester. At School 3, the administrator who was in charge of
all the blended/full online courses and eight other instructors were interviewed. Also,
three questionnaires were distributed during the data collection process. Note that one of
the interviews was conducted at School 2 because the instructor works for both School 2
as a face-to-face instructor and School 3 as a full online instructor. The response rate for
the full time instructors in this program was 85% (11/13).
Findings for Research Question One.
To reach a very wide audience and increase student enrollment was found to be the
main reason that School 3 developed online courses. Especially for its intensive English
program, School 3 experienced an enrollment downturn after the 911 tragedy in 2001.
Their enrollment was also impacted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
epidemic in 2002. The administrator stated:
I hate to make it so simple, but it was 9/11 because that just shocked everyone here,
because our business had been booming, and then all of a sudden we had no control
over it, as happened with SARS, and that’s happened this summer with swine

108

flu…this summer, swine flu caused people to just cancel—a lot of agents just don’t
trust that we’re going to continue, so they just cancelled programs.
School 3’s original impetus was to serve the regional population, and at the time of
this study they were starting slowly to reach overseas and create some courses online.
This might also solve the commute problem for many local students who battle Los
Angeles traffic.
An emphasis on satisfying student needs was found to be another factor that fostered
the development of online ESL courses at School 3. The need came especially from the
alumni who had returned to their home countries. Some alumni wanted to keep practicing
their English, particularly their listening, speaking, and pronunciation skills. This specific
type of online course started in the Fall of 2009.
After the university bought a license to Blackboard, a mandate came down to each
department which required them to use Blackboard and develop some blended/full online
courses. Part of their institutional strategic plan was to take some regular courses and
make them blended/full online. The ESL program was considered very vulnerable if they
did not offer online courses since most of the students were international students.
Therefore, the implementation of online technology at the school, the availability of

109

resources, and top-down pressure were the conditions and factors that fostered the
development of blended/online courses at School 3.
The instructors at School 3 provided valuable insight for this study since School 3
offered both face-to-face and blended/full online courses. Factors that both fostered and
hindered the development of blended/full online ESL courses were found in the interview
data. It was very interesting when the blended/full online instructors talked about their
experience in teaching these courses regarding the pros and cons. Generally speaking, the
implementation of blended ESL courses was supported by the instructors because most
instructors had positive attitudes toward web enhancement or using online components in
their classrooms. They found that technology added an important dimension to their
instruction.
Top-down influence (school policy) was found as a key factor that affected the
implementation of blended/full online courses at School 3 since all blended/full online
courses were mandated by School 3. Once the school decided to make certain classes
blended/online, the instructors were then asked if they were interested in teaching the

110

courses. Blackboard training was required before teaching blended/online courses at
School 3. In addition, the university provided all kinds of support to the instructors.
The perceived conveniences and advantages of using online technology were found
to be the key factors that fostered the development of blended/online courses. Instructors
were able to approach the students on their own time. Also, it saved them time because
they did not have to drive to work. Instructors were motivated by the rich resources that
online technology could bring to their classes. Students with different learning styles
could be served by using online resources. One of the instructors stated:
…to accommodate a variety of learning styles, because a lot of students are very
visually oriented, versus auditory oriented, so I try to hit on all the learning styles
and accommodate the mix of styles that are represented in my class because there are
always a mix of styles.
Instructor participation in professional conferences also fostered the implementation
of blended/online courses. In those conferences, instructors learned about the latest
teaching methods and tools. Instructors were able to keep up with the innovations in the
ESL field. Student expectations were also a factor that fostered the implementation of
blended/full online courses. A lot of instructors sensed that this generation is very much
media-oriented and technologically savvy. For example, an instructor stated that ―I need

111

to keep up with that because I’m catering to an audience that’s paying good money for
my instruction and they expect the latest methods.‖
According to the instructors’ observations, students were motivated and empowered
by the use of online components in the blended courses. In the use of the NING website,
an online social medium, students were able to blog, chat, and upload photos and videos.
For example:
…that specific thing is very much reflected in the popularity of Facebook right now,
and the students really, really get into it and really, really are empowered and enjoy
doing their assignments and putting up, and you know, it’s an inspiring class and
medium to them, more than just writing.
I think an online component, in addition, is excellent, not instead of, parallel to, for
those who can attend, who can have classroom instruction. For those who can’t, it is
better than not having any instruction, but it needs to be followed by some kind of
face-to-face usage
Some instructors who had taught blended courses had very positive attitudes toward
developing full online courses and believed that eventually online education will fully
replace face-to-face instruction once people become comfortable with the medium. Other
instructors (both face-to-face and blended/full online) expressed their concerns about full
online ESL education. These concerns were interpreted as some factors that hindered the
development of online ESL courses at School 3.

112

Interaction and social experience were the most mentioned concerns. Social
connections and learning communities were perceived to be difficult to build naturally in
an online environment. One instructor stated:
…interaction between two students that is a teachable moment and you can take that
and you can expand that into something that the class can benefit from. …and I just,
yeah, I don’t think that that can happen online.
Another instructor added:
I think that language instruction, which has such a large cultural component to it, it’s
not isolated from the culture that the language represents, it’s not a math class that
you can teach in its isolation across cultures. I think the face-to-face experience with
a native speaker is crucial.
Immediacy, spontaneity and flexibility were also thought to be unachievable in an
online environment. In a face-to-face classroom, the immediate correction and alteration
of material to suit student interest and engagement are crucial. The instructors also
believed that it would be more difficult to encourage and motivate the students online.
Monitoring the interaction and student learning were also perceived to be difficult
online. ―…it is hard to monitor student interaction and easy to lose sight of some of them.
Some just do not participate on the same level as others.‖
Based on their experience of developing blended/online courses, teachers perceived
these courses to be very time-consuming and to lack rewards. The work load increased

113

when teachers provided feedback and corrections. The rewards for creating online
courses were inadequate. One instructor expressed that ―I don’t do it anymore, too much
work…didn’t get paid enough to do this all the time.‖ Another instructor added:
The resources, not only the software/hardware of technology, it is the development
hours become the hugest part of the absolute dominant part of the expense there.
There was doubt if they get a return on that investment. It costs money, not just for
the hardware, but it costs money for software, for training of teachers, and release
time away from students to actually develop things and to implement, compile it, to
evaluate, to revise it, and so forth and so on, the fact of the matter is it’s hugely
expensive, and nobody realizes the costs until they’re actually into it too far.
Access and availability of resources were found as factors that hindered the
development of blended/ online courses. Students did not have equal access (not
everyone had a laptop and there were only two computer labs at School 3), so the
instructors could not expect students to have access to computers or to the lab on an equal
basis. In fact, the entire School 3 teaching staff shared six computers. One of the
instructors added, ―Personally, I’m limited because I don’t have time or resources outside
of the class to manage it very well. It’s not really feasible for me to do too much online.‖
Privacy and proprietary rights were perceived as problematic in the development of
blended/online courses because the law has not yet clarified who owns the online course

114

content. For example, one instructor expressed his concerns that ―…the law is not clear in
a lot of cases. Nobody’s giving me royalties for the class that I put online.‖
To sum up, both factors that foster and inhibit the development of online courses
were found in this program. This might be due to the fact that School 3 offered face to
face, blended, and online courses. The following table separates the findings into two
categories (foster and inhibit). The categorization will be discussed in the next chapter.

Table 4.6: Factors/Conditions that Fostered or Inhibited the Development and
Implementation of Blended/Online Courses School 3
Fostering factors Inhibiting factors
 the incentive to reach a wider audience
and increase enrollment
 satisfying student needs
 the implementation of online
technology of the school
 the availabilities of resources
 top-down pressure
 convenience and advantages of using
online technology
 participation in professional
conferences
 student expectations
 lack of interaction and social
experience of the students (online
courses)
 lack of immediacy, spontaneity and
flexibility (online courses)
 unable to monitor the interaction
 time-consuming for developing online
courses
 lack of reward for the instructors
 no access to the computers and
unavailability of resources for the
face-to-face instructors
 lack of privacy of the online
environment
 unclear proprietary rights for
developing online courses

115

Findings for Research Question Two.
The administrator of School 3 had experience in promoting blended/online courses
in her previous job; therefore, she had high expectations for the success of the
blended/online courses. It was found that the instructors had support coming from the
school’s administration and training. School 3 had human support from the Distance
Learning Department of the university if the instructors encountered technical problems.
Also, School 3 provided Blackboard training for the instructors, and an online course
called How to Teach Online Courses was provided by the university.
The instructors’ attitudes toward the implementation of blended courses were
generally positive. Although some were dubious about full-online ESL courses, they
were not forced to teach these courses. The instructors who taught blended/online courses
were asked before they actually took the job. However, two former instructors who
taught blended courses had expressed negative views toward blended/online courses. The
increase of the workload, lack of reward for time spent, and lack of clarity surrounding
proprietary rights were their main complaints. The perceived value of online instruction

116

was low for some instructors. There was no consensus amongst instructors about their
technology needs.
Because School 3 had experience in offering blended/online courses, the support and
training available to instructors were found to be comprehensive. However, considering
complaints from the instructors who previously had taught blended/online courses, there
was only moderate agreement on cause and effect at School 3. A shared view of the
processes that should be used to get the outcomes of interest (offer more online courses)
could not be found in School 3.
School 4.
The college where School 4 is located is one of the leading community colleges
among California's 106 community colleges. This college is reputable for its high rate of
students transferring to the University of California, University of Southern California
and other four-year universities. The school designed School4Online, the Virtual Campus
of the college, for students interested in pursuing their education over the internet. School
4 provided face-to-face courses, as well as blended/ full online ESL courses for students
all over the world. At the time of this study, School 4 offered a variety of blended/ full

117

online courses (pronunciation, grammar, reading and study skills, and vocabulary). Five
instructors, including the program director herself, were teaching these blended/online
classes. The response rate for the online instructors was 80% (4/5, two interviews, one
questionnaire from the director, and another questionnaire from an online instructor).
Findings for Research Question One.
School 4 initiated the blended/ full online ESL courses for several reasons. The need
for an alternative solution was one of the reasons why School 4 developed the online
courses. The parking situation at the college is horrendous. Lack of classroom space on
campus was also identified as one of the problems they had encountered. School 4 felt
that students would want to take advantage of online classes without worrying about the
parking and it would solve the problem of where to house the classes. Also, they sensed
that the students are more and more accustomed to communicating online.
Blended/online courses would serve that technologically savvy population and students
all over the world. They wanted to attract students who are not in the local area and
students who might want to take one of the ESL classes even though they might not be
interested in taking any other classes at the college or pursuing a degree. School 4 aimed

118

to increase enrollment, increase convenience for their students and maintain a robust
schedule of course offerings.
In terms of support, the college offered School 4 many opportunities for workshops
related to the development of online classes. The eCollege, the CMS that the college used,
provided webinars and a support desk if there were questions. In fact, the college had a
group of paid ―mentors‖ who would, if requested, work with a first-time online course
developer in the creation of his/her course. Also, online instructors helped each other. A
comprehensive support system for the instructors was found in this program.
Self-development was one of the important factors that encouraged the instructors to
develop blended/online courses. It was the challenge of using a relatively new tool and
adapting it to the needs of the students that motivated the instructors in School 4 to teach
these courses. The instructors found it interesting and fun to teach online courses. Some
instructors even expressed that the experience of teaching online courses helped their
on-ground class because they saw how those online resources could be adopted in their
face-to-face classrooms.

119

Student needs became evident as a factor when initiating the online classes. The
teachers in the ESL department sensed that students who had responsibilities outside of
school would benefit from online courses. The trend of using technology was also found
to be crucial in the development of online courses. The instructors stated that they
thought the students would not be well-served if opportunities to use online learning were
not provided.
…because in the future, the classes are going to be using those tools, and if they’re
not familiar with them, they’re going to be left out… there are some really good
resources online,…they [the students] feel cheated if they have a course where
they’re just handed a workbook,…
The support and the resources were also essential. The instructor stated that the chair
of School 4 was very supportive when the idea of developing an online grammar class
was first mentioned by one of the instructors. In addition, the school supported instructors
through all kinds of workshops and technical support. Moreover, the ESL instructors had
meetings a few times a year in which they shared ideas and discussed problems in
teaching. Anybody who was new at teaching online classes would be helped by
experienced teachers. In addition, the teachers enrolled in each other’s classes to learn
from each other, and the college paid for the mentoring.

120

Therefore, the top-down policy and pressure from the school were crucial factors
that fostered the development of online courses. As the college has always perceived
itself as cutting edge and on the forefront of educational innovation, the president of the
school really pushed the development of online education (School4Online) a few years
ago. For School 4, the goal has always been to increase enrollment and facilitate student
learning. Developing online ESL courses matched with the goals of the school.
The existence of key enthusiastic individuals on campus also fostered the
development of the online courses. To have knowledgeable enthusiastic individuals and
people who were excited about and positive toward online education can be contagious
and get others excited about it. A few key leaders or individuals across campus in
different departments provided the motivation for others. In addition, the supportive
environment and openness to learn from other departments were also important.
According to interview data, the instructors also had some concerns about online
courses. These concerns were interpreted as the factors that inhibited the development of
online courses. Test security and quality control were the two main concerns that School
4 expressed. Cheating was a huge issue since some of the credits were transferable. There

121

was no way to ensure that online students were actually doing their own work. Instructors
also worried about the lack of standardized quality control, though the college was
making progress in that area by having an Academic Senate Joint Distance Education
Committee that attempted to oversee the process. In addition, there were no standards for
qualified online instructors to teach those classes.
Similar to School 3, both factors that foster and inhibit the development of online
courses were found in School 4. However, factors that inhibited the development of
online courses were fewer in comparison. This might have been due to the fact that a
stronger internal consensus was found in this program. A discussion of internal consensus
will be extended in the next section.

122

Table 4.7:
Factors/Conditions that Fostered or Inhabited the Development and Implementation of
Blended/Online Courses in School 4
Fostering factors Inhibiting factors
 alternative solution (for parking
situation and lack of classroom space
on campus)
 satisfying student needs
 increasing enrollment
 increasing convenience for the students
and having robust schedule of course
offering
 self-development
 having comprehensive support
(technology, human, school policy)
 top-down policy and pressure from the
school for developing online courses
 having enthusiastic individuals on
campus (to use technology)
 lack of test security (online courses)
 lack of standardized quality control
(online courses)
Findings for Research Question Two.
According to the program director, teachers here perceived online courses as a very
positive addition to the program. There were several rules if a full online class were to be
offered. First of all, the only instructors allowed to teach the ESL classes online were
those who had taught the course on-ground. After that, the class had to be taught in the
computer lab once weekly and/or as a hybrid. Also, instructors must have proven
themselves to be technologically capable and up-to-date on methods of teaching online.

123

All online instructors met every semester in order to discuss any problems and share new
ideas. Finally, the instructors were encouraged to ―enroll‖ in each other’s courses to
ensure standardization and uniformity.
The instructors who taught online courses also expressed that they received support
from the school and leaders of the school, as well as the instructors in other departments.
They also benefited from trainings and modeling from their colleagues. It was also found
that they had similar beliefs about online ESL education. For example, the instructors
agreed that certain skills in language learning are more suitable than other skills in an
online environment. In addition, they understand that strict training is needed for them to
be qualified as an online instructor. People not only agreed on what they want; they also
agreed on cause and effect in School 4. The internal consensus was found to be very
strong.
School 5.
In this program, one interview with the program director, five interviews with the
full-time teaching staff, and eight interviews with the hourly teaching staff were
conducted. The response rate for the full time instructors was 63% (5/8). The response

124

rate for the hourly teaching staff was 36% (8/22). An interview with the Technology
Support Coordinator was also included.
The university where School 5 is located is a major, comprehensive public
university located in the heart of Silicon Valley. The university is the oldest state
university in California; its distinctive character has been forged by its long history, by its
location, and by its vision – a blend of the old and the new, of the traditional and the
innovative. Its intensive English program, School 5, is also proud of its location, vision,
and the use of technology in their classrooms. School 5 offers high quality English
language programs, cultural experiences, and support services to international students,
professionals, and visitors at the university who want to develop communication skills
and strategies for success in a global community. School 5 also worked with universities
overseas (China, Korea, and Japan) and designed short-term programs for them. About
80% of their courses have some online component.
Findings for Research Question One.
Very interestingly, School 5 had several opportunities to develop online courses.
However, at the time of this study, School 5 did not offer any blended/full online courses.

125

School 5 had had requests from schools in China to put together lessons for them so that
they would have online components. After discussion, School 5 found that it would not
be cost effective if they created a high quality video for them since a lot of online
resources could be found on the internet easily with cheaper cost. Websites such as
EnglishCentral.com allowed students to watch all kinds of video clips, play back the clips,
and even be the characters in a TV episode. Although School 5 had had requests from
China, these projects were never carried out.
Several years ago, a few fully online ESL courses (TOEFL preparation, online
pronunciation, and writing) were developed at School 5. For multiple reasons, the courses
did not work out as well as School 5 has hoped they would. These reasons were
perceived to be the factors that inhibited the development of online ESL courses. First of
all, marketing issues were critical in the development of online ESL courses at School 5.
They found that their regular clientele was not interested in an online course and that the
students actually wanted face-to-face instruction. School 5 then tried to reach out to
students overseas who could not come to the U.S.; however, they were not particularly
interested either. It was the local people who had other duties that were interested in the

126

online courses. Student enrollment in these courses was low, with only four enrolled in
the online writing course. Therefore, the course was more like a tutorial course for the
students. ―I think we just have not found the market for fully online classes yet, to know
what to make for them,‖ said the online instructor.
Second, according to the instructor, it was difficult to maintain the course since
self-motivation was one of the prerequisites for success in an online class. Due to the fact
that students were too busy, the course did not turn out the way they planned. How to
manage the course effectively became an issue for School 5. Course management, then,
was another factor that hindered the development of online courses.
Third, it was found to be very difficult to offer online courses that were competitive
with those offered by private, for profit programs. There were many organizations
creating online classes for profit, like English Town and Global English, that could create
courses more cheaply than School 5 could. They found that they would be ―pricing
[themselves] out‖ if online courses were to be developed at School 5. An instructor who
had taught the online courses stated,―…because we were having dedicated teachers,
having to cover creation costs and hiring a teacher who is generally probably more

127

qualified than what some of the corporations would be hiring. Our courses had to be more
expensive.‖
Competitive ability was found to be another factor that inhibited the development
of online courses in ESL programs. As a matter of fact, it was difficult for School 5 to
compete with those fancy websites with many course options and lower fees.
Fourth, the technology issue (technical difficulties) was also found to be a factor that
hindered the development of online courses. An instructor talked about the problems she
had encountered:
There are always difficulties, you know, the technology’s not perfect and you don’t
always know what the person on the other end is seeing, to know when they have
problems, troubleshooting. Again, that’s a reason why our completely online classes
didn’t work that well because we don’t have a 24 hour service line if something goes
wrong.
Moreover, the director pointed out a realistic problem in the development of online
courses for ESL programs which is that the I-20 visa requires 18 hours of face-to-face
instruction every week for international students. That means anything online has to be
beyond that requirement. Therefore, legal issues hindered the development of online
courses for IEPs if they targeted international students.

128

As 80% of the courses at School 5 had some online component, most instructors
also had very positive attitudes toward the use of online technology in their teaching. For
example, many of them expressed that it made their job easier and it was fun adopting
some online components in their teaching. It was also found that all the classrooms in
School 5 were equipped if online technology were to be used in the instruction. A few
years ago, an Instructional Technology Coordinator was hired in order to improve the
learning environment and help instructors to adopt the use of technology in their courses.
Moreover, instructors who had experience in adopting online components shared what
they had learned with their colleagues regularly. Therefore, a positive attitude toward the
use of online technology, human and technology support, and peer influence were
perceived to be some important factors that fostered the development of blended/online
courses.
According to the interviews with the instructors, it was found that students who
came to School 5 were very technology savvy in general. It might be the location and
culture of the university that attracted a certain kind of student population. School culture
was an important factor.

129

Like instructors in other ESL programs, instructors at School 5 also expressed their
concerns about the development of full online ESL courses. Elements that they felt
difficult to replicate in an online environment included interaction and feedback, cultural
experience, peer influence, peer work, peer correction, interactive activities (games), and
the negotiation of meaning in the classroom. For example:
…so the spontaneity of the interaction is also lost, so, yeah, the charisma of the
teacher gets lost through that, a lot of the interaction gets lost in the online
environment.
Another instructor added, ―part of learning a language is engaging with the culture and
meeting with native speakers and other students who are there, so that’s part of the fun.‖
Yet another instructor added, ―You can’t replicate a cultural experience online.‖
Also, the connection between student and teacher, the intimacy, and the feeling of
trust were perceived to be important in language learning for the ESL instructors:
I think that intimacy of that somehow makes the learner more open to suggestion and
somehow value more the input of either his or her peer or the instructor. It’s hard to
imagine how you can establish the intimacy and the ability to let one’s guard down
and be open to criticism in an anonymous situation, but it could be that people of
your generation are able to do that. I, myself, cannot because I didn’t grow up that
way…the best classroom reduces that feeling of vulnerability and when the person’s
guard is down that’s when the learning takes place. And a case could probably be
made for that in other disciplines as well. I’m not sure you can have a Socratic
dialogue about anything without a certain sense of community…

130

Another instructor added: ―I still think that some kind of physical camaraderie contributes
to the amount of intellectual spontaneity that can take place in that situation.‖
A lack of successful examples was mentioned in the interviews several times.
Especially when many ESL instructors went to professional conferences such as TESOL
and CATESOL regularly, there were no successful examples of full online courses for
them to look up to. For example,
…so from my point of view, unless I see something really, really great and
outstanding that will come as a result, I probably wouldn’t spend that much time on
it…there hasn’t been a program that has been able to do this successfully and we can
look at them and go ah, let’s do that, you know.
Different from the previous programs, more factors that inhibited the development of
online courses were found at School 5. This might have been due to the fact that School 5
used to offer online courses but not anymore. The ESL instructors were able to reflect on
their experiences and to express their opinions toward the implementation of online
courses in the interview. Table 4.8 summarizes the findings.

131

Table 4.8:
Factors/Conditions that Foster or Inhibited the Development and Implementation of
Blended/Online Courses at School 5:
Fostering factors Inhibiting factors
 positive attitude toward the use of
online technology among the
instructors
 human and technical support
 peer influence
 not cost effective to develop online
courses
 marketing issues
 course management issues
 no competitive ability (cannot
compete with other ESL learning
websites)
 technology issues
 legal issue (I-20)
 concerns about classroom dynamic
(the connection between student
and teacher, the intimacy, and the
feeling of trust)
 lack of successful examples in ESL
field
Findings for Research Question Two.
As 80% of the courses had some online components, most instructors at School 5
had positive attitudes toward blended ESL courses. Many instructors found the
Wikimedia course management system easy to use. Also, it was found that the instructors
were able to manage the technology with the support of the Technology Support
Coordinator. Some instructors who used a lot of online components shared their
experiences and presented in internal workshops. School 5 also encouraged the

132

instructors to attend or even present at professional conferences. A comprehensive
support system was observed at School 5. In fact, all teaching faculty expressed their
satisfaction with the support they received from School 5.
Although the director was enthusiastic about the use of technology, she had an
interesting perspective:
We make a lot of resources available, but one of the teachers who’s very involved
feels that we should make it a requirement, and we’re not to that point yet, and partly
it’s because we believe that in our goal of preparing students for university work,
they are going to have a lot of different kinds of classes, a lot of different kinds of
professors, and they are going to have professors out there who still use…
mimeograph or something
As some instructors expressed the reluctance to use online technology and a
preference for tradition teaching methodology, the perceived usefulness, perceived
importance, perceptions of relevancy and the perceived ease of using online technology
varied among instructors. In addition, manageability of the technology and beliefs about
learners and learning activities also varied by instructor. People at School 5 did not agree
on what they wanted. Also, moderate agreement on cause and effect was found at School
5. For example, the director talked about the ESL instructors’ attitudes toward using
online technologies: ―Some of them are gung-ho; they couldn’t live without it. And

133

some of them are using it and gradually getting used to it, and some of them still don’t
want to know.‖
Chapter Four Conclusion
According to the interviews and questionnaires of the directors and instructors of the
target ESL programs, factors and conditions that fostered or inhibited the implementation
of blended/online ESL courses were identified individually. By synthesizing all five ESL
programs, factors and conditions that fostered or inhibited the implementation of
blended/online ESL courses were organized comprehensively as demonstrated below.

134

Table 4.9:
Synthesized factors and conditions of all five ESL programs
Fostering factors Inhibiting factors
 the student:
sensed student needs
satisfying student needs
increasing convenience for the
students
student expectations
 the instructors:
positive attitude toward the use of
online technology
experienced instructors
instructors noticed the convenience
and advantages of using online
technology
 top-down pressure
school policy
pressure from the school
 resources and support:
the availability of resources
comprehensive support
(technology, human, and policy)
an actual implementation of online
courses in the school (non ESL
courses)
 participation in professional
conferences
 the incentive to reach a wider
audience and increase enrollment
 alternative solution for parking
situation
 the student:
purpose of the learners was to
receive face to face instruction
 the instructors:
ability, availability, experience,
knowledge, physical condition
lack of time to develop
lack of reward
unclear proprietary rights
 no top-down pressure
 resource and support:
lack of human and technical
resources
no access to the computers
no access to online technology
 lack of successful examples in ESL
field
 leader’s conservative perception
about online ESL
 leader’s experience and expertise
 marketing issues
 not cost effective
 no competitive ability (cannot
compete with other websites)
 the focus of the program
 legal issues (I-20)
 course management issues
 technology issues
 accountability (Test security)

135

Table 4.9, Continued
Fostering factors Inhibiting factors
 lack of classroom space on campus
 having robust schedule of course
offering
 having enthusiastic individuals on
campus,
 peer influence

 the concerns about online courses:
lack of quality control
lack of immediacy, spontaneity,
flexibility, interaction, and privacy
quality concern
unable to monitor the interaction
 time-consuming in developing
blended/ online courses
 classroom dynamics (lack of the
connection between student and
teacher, intimacy, and the feeling of
trust)
 lack of cultural context
 lack of social experience for the
students
The level of internal consensus in each ESL program was determined based on the
findings for Research Question Two. As table 4.10 demonstrated, School 4 offered the
most online ESL courses and this program also happened to be the one with the broadest
internal consensus. Although disagreements were found among the instructors in School
3, blended/online courses were quite successful in this particular program. Therefore,
patterns could not be found among programs that were in different levels of innovation
adoption. It would be inaccurate to conclude that internal consensus plays a critical role

136

in promoting online courses based on the current data. Possible explanations will be
discussed in the next chapter.

Table 4.10:
Internal Consensus of the 5 ESL programs
ESL program Current
implementation
People agree
on what they
want
People agree
on cause and
effect
Internal
consensus
School 1 none strong weak X
School 2 none strong not identified X
School 3 blended and
full online
weak moderate X
School 4 blended and
full online
strong strong strong
School 5 none (had
online)
weak moderate X
Note: ―X‖ indicates pattern was not found
In this chapter, research findings were presented individually in each target program
and then synthesized across programs. Tables and lists related to the research questions
were also included. In the next chapter, the implications of the findings of this research
will be discussed.

137

CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion and Implications
Chapter Five Introduction
In this chapter, an executive summary of the study and a summary of the key
findings linked to the research questions are given. The discussion of the study is based
on the key findings in conjunction with the studies in the literature review. An emphasis
is put on Ely’s (1999), Christensen et al.’s (2008), and Rogers’s (1995) research. In
addition, a discussion of support, non-support assumptions is included. Moreover,
practical and theoretical implications for each research question are proposed. Last but
not least, suggestions for future research are also made.
Summary of the Study
Based on the ESL studies (Warschauer, 2002; White, 2003) mentioned in the review
of literature and interviews conducted in this study, many ESL program directors show
general interest in developing or implementing blended/online ESL courses. ESL
teachers and major reports (Means et al., 2009) also indicate that students of this digital
generation have few problems adjusting to the educational opportunities available online.

138

However, a widespread implementation of blended/online courses was not found in the
field of ESL education. Moreover, studies related to educational change (Fullan &
Stiegelbaue, 1991; Popkewitz, 2000; Mitchell and Geva-May, 2009) have identified
discordant opinions between organizational leaders and teachers to be the main cause of
the failure of organizational reform. Therefore, a qualitative research methodology was
used in this study in order to answer two research questions:
1. From the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers, what factors or
conditions tend to foster or inhibit the development and implementation of online
courses associated with ESL programs?
2. To what extent do the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers affect
online ESL education?
The review of literature was the basis for the study as well as for the design of the
interview questions. First of all, the historical review of the development of language
learning and online instruction shed light on how blended/online ESL education was
being developed and why the implementation of blended/online courses was becoming
popular. In fact, some studies (Bax, 2003; Chambers and Bax, 2006) pointed out that

139

logistics, stakeholders’ conceptions, knowledge and abilities, syllabus and software
integration, as well as training are critical in achieving widespread adoption of computer
technology in a language teaching context. Second of all, the concepts of disruptive
innovation, the stages of innovation adoption process, and conditions that lead to
successful implementation were reviewed. These areas of study explained why it is
important to find factors or conditions that tend to foster or inhibit the development and
implementation of online courses. In fact, findings in these studies (Ely, 1999; Blin and
Munro, 2007) predict findings in the current study. More details will be discussed in the
discussion section. Third, research on the perspectives of ESL program directors and
teachers toward online ESL instruction was examined. These areas of study explained
why investigating program directors’ and ESL teachers’ perspectives toward online ESL
instruction are important.
Five ESL programs that were in different stages of implementing online courses
were chosen in order to answer the two research questions. Research findings were
analyzed based on 34 interviews and five questionnaires of a total of 39 ESL instructors,
and four interviews and one questionnaire of a total of five program directors. The overall

140

response rates were 60% for the ESL instructors (39/65), and 100% (5/5) for the
directors.
Key Findings
By synthesizing the findings for Research Question One, similar factors for both
foster and inhibit the development of online ESL courses were found across ESL
programs. Although some factors are situational and unique for certain ESL programs,
they can be generalized as common factors. For example, lack of classroom space and
lack of parking were found to be a fostering factor for School 4 to offer online courses.
This foster factor can be generalized and interpreted as an alternative solution for other
ESL programs if similar administrative problems occur. For example, online courses
were an alternative solution for the students at School 3 when the SARS epidemic
occurred in 2002.
Therefore, factors or conditions that tend to foster the development and
implementation of online courses associated with ESL programs were identified. First of
all, the incentives to satisfy student needs and to increase their convenience were found to
be important foster factors. Usually, the director of the program could sense student

141

needs and the expectations they have for blended/online courses. Also, the incentive to
reach a wider audience, increase enrollment, and having robust schedule of course
offerings is also critical. In addition, online courses were found to be the alternative
solutions for problems such as lack of classroom space on campus, infectious disease
(SARS), and terroristic attacks (9/11).
Second, ESL teachers’ positive attitudes toward the use of online technology also
foster the implementation. Very often, a number of experienced instructors and
instructors who noticed the convenience and advantages of using online technology could
be found in programs that offered blended/online courses. Participation in professional
conferences is also critical. Furthermore, having enthusiastic individuals on campus and
peer influence also positively relates to the implementation of blended/online courses.
Third, pressure from administration (school, department, etc.) and related policy set
by the school also fosters the development of online courses. Comprehensive support,
availability of resources, and related supportive policy are also important. Interestingly,
the actual implementation of online courses in the greater university (i.e. School4Online,

142

and the Distance Learning Department of the university where School 3 is located) also
correlated to the implementation of blended/online courses in IEPs.
On the other hand, factors and conditions that inhibit the development or
implementation of online courses were also identified. First of all, the majority of the
learners who study in IEPs still want to receive face to face instruction. Marketing issues
such as ―it was not cost effective‖ and ―it was difficult to compete with other ESL
learning websites‖ hinder the development of online courses. Many ESL programs
consider offering face-to-face instruction as their main concern. In addition, legal issues
such as the requirements for the I-20 Visa inhibit the development of online courses.
Second, the instructors’ abilities, availability, experience, knowledge, and physical
health also hinder the development of online courses. Many instructors expressed that
they lack the time necessary to develop online courses, and there are few rewards for
doing so. In addition, lack of human and technological resources －for example, limited
access to computers and online technology －also inhibits the development of online
courses. Many instructors are in such a preliminary stage of implementation that they
want to see successful examples in the ESL field before taking any action. The

143

development of blended/online courses is perceived to be time-consuming for the
teachers. In addition, some instructors expressed their concerns about the proprietary
rights if blended/online courses are to be designed by them.
Third, program directors’ experience and expertise sometimes negatively influence
the implementation of online courses. A more conservative perception of the directors
about online ESL education was found in the programs that do not yet offer online
courses. Moreover, there is usually a lack of top-down pressure for those programs.
Fourth, technology issues are critical in developing online courses. For example,
online instructors expressed that it is difficult to manage traditional courses when they
have to teach online courses and solve the students’ technical problems at the same time.
In addition, accountability issues such as concerns about test security also hinder the
development of online courses.
Finally, concerns about the quality of online courses also inhibit their development.
Example include the lack of quality control for online courses; lack of immediacy,
spontaneity, flexibility, interaction, and privacy; and teachers’ inability to monitor
student interaction in online courses. Both the program directors and ESL instructors

144

expressed that it would be difficult to replicate the classroom dynamics present in the
face-to-face setting in an online environment. In terms of classroom dynamics, the lack of
connection between student and teacher, lack of intimacy, lack of the feeling of trust, lack
of cultural context, and the lack of social experience are perceived to be difficult to
replicate in online language teaching.
By synthesizing the findings for Research Question Two, a level of internal
consensus could be identified. First of all, School 4 offers the most online ESL courses
and also happens to be the program with the broadest internal consensus. Second, it was
identified that the director and faculty agree on what they want at School 1. Both parties
agree that developing blended courses make more sense to them. However, they have
weak agreement on cause and effect. Third, people agree on what they want at School 2.
Unfortunately, the level of agreement on cause and effect could not be identified. Fourth,
weak agreement on what they want and moderate agreement on the cause and effect were
found at School 3 and School 5.

145

Discussion
This section includes discussion of the fostering factors, inhibiting factors, and last,
Research Question Two. Discussion about support and non-support assumptions is also
included. Most importantly, the discussion will reflect on studies mentioned in literature
review and what the researcher has learned.
Discussion of Research Question One.
The findings for Research Question One generally support the proposed assumptions.
First of all, factors or conditions that tend to foster the development and implementation
of online ESL courses reflect what Ely (1999) has identified in his study. Seven out of the
proposed eight conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology
innovations also apply to the target ESL programs.
1. Dissatisfaction with the status quo.
ESL programs that offer blended/online courses tend to be dissatisfied with the
status quo. For example, School 4 encountered problems in terms of parking and
classroom space. School 3 struggled with decreased student enrollment. As a result, the
leaders of these organizations tried to implement blended/online courses.

146

2. Existence of knowledge and skills.
Not only is this generation of students technically savvy, but the instructors in ESL
programs that offer online courses are also skilled and knowledgeable about technology.
The knowledge and skills are usually learned with the support of the school. Sometimes
the instructors receive information from professional conferences such as the workshops
provided by CATESOL or TESOL.
3. Availability of resources.
The resources (software, hardware, and human and technological training) that are
required to make the implementation work were found in the programs that offer online
courses. For example, both School 3 and School 5 have salaried technicians on site to
support their instructors. Trainings and workshops are also offered by the programs.
4. Availability of time.
As instructors complain about the time-consuming nature of developing online ESL
courses, programs that offer online courses usually have a set of supportive policies to
prepare their instructors. For example, School 4 requires their instructors to teach the
online courses first on-ground, and then the class has to be taught in the computer lab

147

once weekly and/or as a hybrid. Only when the instructors have proven themselves to be
technologically capable and up-to-date on methods of teaching online can they teach the
online courses. In addition, all online instructors meet every semester in order to discuss
problems and share new ideas. Finally, the instructors are encouraged to ―enroll‖ in each
other’s courses to ensure standardization and uniformity. School 4 has a group of paid
―mentors‖ who will, if requested, work with a first-time online course developer in the
creation of his/her course. With such supportive policies, instructors have more time for
acquiring knowledge and skills, planning, and reflection.
6. Participation.
Instructors play important roles in the implementation of online courses. For
example, it was one of the instructors in School 4 who first asked the program chair if she
could try to teach a hybrid course. The instructors are involved in activities such as
decision making, giving suggestions, and communication during the implementation
process. It was suggested by the same instructor to have online courses in the lab before
they put courses online. She maintained that it would help the instructors to see what

148

students are struggling with and to know what their concerns are before they have the
courses fully online.
7. Commitment.
As commitment refers to the support from the organization, comprehensive and
strong support can be found in the programs that offer blended/online courses. For
example, both School 3 and School 5 provide human and technical support for their
instructors. Training and supportive school policies can also be found in these programs.
For example, School 5 not only offers workshops regularly, but they also pay for
professional development (i.e. attending CATESOL conferences).
8. Leadership.
The executive leadership that can help the implementation can be found in the
programs that offer blended/online courses. For example, the president of the college that
contains School 4 strongly supports the development of online courses in their program.
Program directors’ positive attitudes also helped the implementation. Sometimes
top-down pressure was found in the programs that offer blended/online courses.
Reasonable pressure can positively influence the implementation of these courses.

149

Interestingly, in non-support of the assumptions, the fifth condition proposed by Ely
(1999) could not be found in the target programs. That is, rewards act as stimuli that
move people to action were not found in all five ESL programs. This indicates that a
reward system may not exist in the field of ESL education regarding developing and
maintaining blended/online courses. In fact, some online instructors complained about
how it was very time consuming to develop and maintain such courses. They felt that it
was not worth the effort to spend extra working hours at home providing feedback
without being paid accordingly. The ESL program administrators should take these
complains into consideration when planning such courses. Practical implications of the
presence of these factors will be discussed later.
Other fostering factors.
As assumed, other factors and conditions that foster the development of online
education were found in this study. For example, since most language learners are
international students, it makes a lot of sense for the ESL programs to attract an
international audience by offering blended/online courses. For example, School 5
designed online orientation programs as well as online videos to prepare international

150

students before arriving on campus. The videos basically guide them through the
application process and teach them how to fill out the required forms. In fact, School 5
tried to reach an international audience, particularly students in Asian countries, for their
online courses. Targeting the global market and increasing convenience for the
international students is a unique fostering factor for the IEPs in developing
blended/online courses.
However, different from the assumptions of this study, major changes in learners’
demand for online courses were not found in the IEPs. According to the program
directors and ESL teachers, most international students still want to take face-to-face
courses. Although many ESL learners were identified to be technically savvy, having
cultural experience and interacting with native speakers were their main purpose for
participating in IEPs. What these programs lack is a comprehensive marketing plan
targeting a totally different student population if online courses are to be their future
focus. Christensen et al. (2008) would suggest the ESL programs target the traditional
non-consumers. Theoretical implications will be discussed later.

151

Factors that inhibit the development of online courses.
Based on the findings of the factors that inhibit the development of online courses,
ESL instructors and program directors expressed their concerns toward online courses. In
terms of language teaching, most of them believe that many elements in face-to-face
instructions cannot be replicated in an online environment. As assumed, their attitudes
toward online technology do influence the implementation of online courses. Parallel to
the previous studies (Wozney et al., 2006; Peck, Cuban, and Kirpatrick, 2002; ChanLin,
2007) discussed in the literature review, teachers’ negative perceived value, perceived
usefulness, perceived cost of the technology, perception of relevancy, ability to manage
the technology, beliefs about learners and learning activities, and the degree of control
over the social context of the learning environment influence and inhibit the
implementation of online courses. In fact, ESL instructors’ concerns about the quality of
online courses (i.e. lack of immediacy, spontaneity, flexibility, interaction, and test
security, etc) can be very valuable to software designers, online course designers, and
school administrators. Practical implications will be discussed later.

152

Moreover, as only the hours of face-to-face instruction that a student receives are
counted toward the 18 hour per week requirement for the I-20 Visa, the U.S. government
should take special considerations and reduce required hours if students are taking
qualified blended/online courses. This also means that a standard for quality control of
the blended/online courses must be established. An increase in availability of online
courses will require supportive government policies as well as supportive school and
program policies. In fact, many supportive policies and actions were observed in the ESL
programs that offer blended courses. For example, commented positively on the policy of
paid mentors for the new online instructors, the policy of school-funded professional
development, and the hiring of technical coordinators on site. This also reflects the
previous study (John and Wheeler, 2008) in the literature review regarding the
importance of having support from the school’s administration in the form of, leadership,
training, and modeling.
Discussion of Research Question Two.
It was found that School 4 offers the most online ESL courses, was also the one with
the broadest internal consensus; however, an inference could not be made by stating that

153

internal consensus between program director and among instructors is essential in the
process of implementing educational innovations. For example, although the instructors
at School 3 had different opinions about the development of blended/online courses, the
implementation of blended/online courses has been quite successful in this particular
program. In addition, although the directors and many ESL instructors had very positive
attitudes toward blended courses, no such courses were offered at School 2. Therefore,
internal consensus may not be as important an issue in the development of blended/online
courses in ESL programs. However, this does not mean that the identification of internal
consensus was not important in the implementation process. Christensen et al. (2008)
suggests that directors of programs could use strategies according to the level of
consensus to achieve their goals. Theoretical implications are described in the next
section.
Based on the interview data, most ESL instructors have very positive attitudes toward
using online technology in their current classrooms while a great deal of discord has arisen
for full online courses. Blended courses made a lot more sense to the instructors because
they seem to embrace the advantages of using online technologies and still keep the

154

valuable elements of face-to-face instruction. However, Christensen et al. (2008) argue
that cramming new technologies into the existing structure does not lead to successful
implementation. A school should allow the disruptive technology to take root in a ―new
model‖ and allow that to grow and change how the school operates (p.12).
If ESL educators agree that every student learns in a different way and every student
has different learning needs, providing customized courses would be the ultimate goal for
ESL education. In fact, though the director of School 2 stated that the focus of the
program has changed to providing individualized attention to the learners, this does not
necessarily contradict the idea of implementation of online courses. Christensen et al.
(2008) suggest that ―to introduce customization, schools need to move away from the
monolithic instruction of batches of students toward a modular, student-centric
approaches using software as an important delivery vehicle‖ (p.10). Moreover, they
propose that the disruptive transition from teacher-delivered to software-delivered
instruction usually proceeds in two stages.
The first stage is called computer-based learning. In this stage, the software will
seem to offer the same material to all students; however, not in as monolithic a way as in

155

the traditional classroom. It will try to satisfy different learning needs. For example, some
software accommodates learning pace of the students, and some allows students to adjust
difficulty level. In this stage, the software will still be proprietary and relatively
expensive to develop. Therefore, it will not replace the original method. However, it does
not mean that there is no market for computer-based learning. In many places and under
many circumstances, computer-based learning would be better than having nothing at all.
For example, it would be a wonderful alternative for people who cannot make it to the
campus (p.91).
The second stage of student-centric technology is that in which software has been
developed that can help students learn in a manner that is consistent with their learning
style and needs. ―Whereas computer-based learning is disruptive relative to the
monolithic mode of teacher-led instruction, student-centric technology is disruptive
relative to personal tutors‖ (p. 92). Based on their research, like all disruptions,
student-centric technology will be affordable, convenient, and simple for many more
students to learn in ways that match their needs. In addition, they maintain that success

156

with disruptive innovations always originates at the simplest end of the market, typically
competing against non-consumption.
To reflect on the relationship between the Disruptive Innovation Theory
(Christensen et al., 2008) and the current study, the ESL programs that do not yet offer
online courses may have some misconceptions about the implementation of online
courses. In the first place, the directors are right about the goals of the learners (to receive
face-to-face instruction, to have a cultural experience, and to interact with native
speakers). This is the reason why they do not feel it necessity to implement online
courses. However, according to Christensen et al. (2008), the purpose of implementing
such courses is to attract the traditional non-consumers. These programs are aware of the
needs of their current students, but not of their potential students, the non-consumers.
On the other hand, ESL programs that already offer blended/online programs
(School 3 and School 4) or have offered them in the past (School 5) have tried to reach
the traditional non-consumers. The original consumers for all of the ESL programs were
students who could make it to the campus. Some programs also tried to reach the
traditional non-consumers, those who could not travel to campus. For example, School 4

157

tried to reach former students who had returned to their home countries and students
residing in the U.S. whose home or work responsibilities prevented them from traveling
to campus. School 5 also attempted to reach people overseas and local working people
who could not make time in their schedules to attend face-to-face classes; School 3 tried
to reach alumni, overseas students and students who had difficulty commuting to campus
because of distance or traffic.
According to Christensen et al. (2008), implementing more online components
in the current instruction would be a ―sustaining innovation‖ (p.46) that would
drive the ESL programs forward and give them stable profit, while offering
blended/online courses would be the real disruptive innovation. Instead of
sustaining the traditional system, the implementation of blended/online courses
disrupts ESL programs by bringing to the market a product or service that is actually
of a lower quality than what ESL programs have traditionally offered. Because it is not as
good, the existing students cannot use it. But by making the product affordable and
simple to use in the future, blended/online courses would be beneficial for learners
who are unable to join the face-to-face courses.

158

Most importantly, Christensen et al. (2008) suggest that what constitutes quality
and improvement in this new system is different from what quality and improvement
mean in traditional instruction. There should be different standard and evaluation
system. Therefore, the program directors and ESL instructors should not worry too
much about the quality issues for blended/online courses. Note that implementation
is a process, and the quality of such courses will get better and better in the future as
the program designers keep improving their products and the technologies get better
and easier for them to use.
Implications
Practical and theoretical implications for Research Question One.
Knowledge of the contributions regarding the fostering factors can be useful in
many ways. First of all, program directors could use these factors and conditions to
reflect on the current state of their programs. For example, if ESL program directors
encounter similar problems, such as lack of classroom space and needed alternative
solutions, the factors and their impact would serve as examples in the decision making
process. This knowledge can also help ESL educators to understand why some ESL

159

programs are using online learning while others are not. As Rogers (1995) proposed in
his five-stage innovation decision process, gaining knowledge, skills, and information,
and then comprehending messages is very important in the initial stage.
The factors that inhibit ESL programs from implementing online courses also help
ESL educators understand what problems they might encounter in the implementation
process. For example, it was common in many ESL programs to have a lack of human
and technological resources. Therefore, providing such resources to the instructors before
the actually implementation would be necessary. Same strategies could also be applied to
solve problems such as lack of support and lack of successful examples.
During the interview process, some online instructors had complaints about
developing and implementing online courses. These complaints, such as lack of rewards
and course management issues need to be taken seriously. For example, a school should
not ask its instructors to provide technical support to the students while teaching the
courses is their main job. It is better that the ESL program have someone in charge of all
the technical issues. In addition, all kinds of supportive policies mentioned in this study
could be applied to programs that have yet to offer online courses.

160

Moreover, the data can help software developers and course designers for online
courses better understand the concerns of ESL educators. They can improve the courses
based on the opinions the instructors have. In other words, the developers of
blended/online ESL courses must take these concerns into consideration in the designing
process. For example, they should look for ways to solve issues such as lack of
immediacy, spontaneity, flexibility, and interaction in the online language learning
environment. Only when these problems can be solved will it be possible to ensure the
quality of blended/online ESL courses. In addition, test security has been a huge issue for
School 4. They did not feel comfortable putting their credit transferrable classes online
because there was no way to prevent students from cheating. This is also an area that
needs to be improved.
Practical and theoretical implications for Research Question Two.
The second research question aimed to find out to what extent the perspectives of
program directors and among ESL teachers agree with or contradict each other in relation
to online ESL education. As a matter of fact, the level of internal consensus was
identified in each ESL program in the current study. Although no patterns could be found

161

in these programs to prove it is important to have internal consensus in the
implementation process, the data is valuable in many ways. For example, the areas of
contradiction can help program directors to better understand ESL instructors’ concerns.
Also, the study identified areas that need to be improved to enhance collaborative
communication between administrators and teachers. In fact, interview data reconfirmed
findings of the studies (Vodanovich and Piotrowski, 2005; McGgrail, 2005; Kessler,
2006; Gorder, 2008) in the literature review. That is, many ESL instructors pointed out
the importance of having professional training and comprehensive support in the
implementation process.
Since the level of internal consensus was identified in each ESL program, it is
recommended by Christensen et al. (2008) that leaders use strategies adapted to level of
consensus accordingly in the implementation process. For example, in programs like
School 4 where people have the broadest internal consensus (people have a deep
consensus on priorities as well as what actions they need to take to achieve these
priorities), the director could use cultural tools such as ritual, folklore, and democracy to
maintain the current state as they continue to offer more and more online courses. To be

162

more specific, the director could make the implementation of online courses part of the
culture of their ESL program. By doing this, they will be able to preserve the status quo.
Different tools of cooperation should be used in different organizations based on the
consensus level. For example, results-oriented tools (leadership tools) such as charisma,
salesmanship, and role modeling would be suitable for ESL programs like School 1 and
School 2 where there is high consensus about what employees want but they do not know
how to start developing online courses. Program directors could use these tools to
motivate the instructors to do what they need to do while the instructors might lack
knowledge about online technology.
For programs like School 3 and School 5 where people have weak agreement on
what they want and moderate agreement on cause and effect, providing training would be
the best management tool for the program directors to use. For instance, these instructors
(face-to-face, blended, and full online) come to work for the program for different
reasons, but if they understand that implementing blended/online courses will result in
courses that satisfy all student needs, they will cooperate and be willing to receive
trainings. Moreover, Christensen et al. (2008) propose tools such as ―separation‖ when

163

there is strong conflict between the two groups; and power tools when the internal
consensus is very low. The directors of the program must recognize the situation they are
in and then select the cooperation tools that will work the most effectively.
Recommendations
Reflecting on the Disruptive Innovation Theory, Christensen et al. (2008) maintain
that cramming technology into classrooms to sustain and improve the way the program
already runs will not lead to successful implementation. This could explain why School 5
failed to continue offering online courses as they focused more on implementing online
components in face-to-face instruction. This reconfirmed Christensen et al.’s (2008)
argument about cramming. Using computers in this way will never allow schools to
migrate to a student-centric classroom.
In the same vein with Christensen et al.’s (2008) suggestion, the researcher agrees
that each ESL program should have one person in charge of the implementation if online
courses were to be implemented. This would be similar to the way School 3 currently
operates its blended/online courses. That is, the director of blended/online courses does
not interfere with the operation of face-to-face courses; instead, her sole job is to run the

164

blended/online courses and take whatever steps are necessary to bring in online courses
that the students might find useful. In addition, the director helps the learners gain access
to and find the courses they need.
―This very well might look like a school within a school, but it will help give schools the
organizational space they need to facilitate the disruption to move to student-centric
learning‖ (Christensen et al., 2008, p. 227).
Future Research
Generally speaking, most ESL programs have yet to fully understand why
implementing online courses is important; they are not aware of the link between
student-centric classrooms and the development of online courses. A lack of the
knowledge about organizational change and innovation adoption could be the reason why
some directors think providing individualized attention contradicts the implementation of
online courses. Many ESL educators are still in a very preliminary stage of the so called
―innovation decision process‖ (Rogers, 1995).
Therefore, a closer look at ESL programs that have successfully implemented online
courses is needed. For example, researchers can investigate what strategies the program

165

directors use to encourage the instructors, how they promote the online courses, how they
reach the traditional non-consumers. Studies like this will help the field of ESL education
better understand the implementation process. These studies will also help move the ESL
programs to the second stage of the innovation decision process, the persuasion stage,
which will facilitate discussion about new behaviors. As predicted by Rogers (1995),
ESL educators will accept the message and form a positive image of the message about
the innovation. Hence, they will support the innovative behaviors and move on to the
next stages.
As Rogers (1995) explains, the innovation decision process is a process through
which people pass from first knowledge of an innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject,
to implementation and use of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision. The
current study reveals that many instructors and some program directors still hesitate in
making decisions. Future research should focus on how these hesitations can be removed.
This study presented interview data from five target ESL programs in California. A
larger scale investigation of more ESL programs would increase the validity of studies
like this. Also, the researcher interviewed both program directors and ESL instructors.

166

However, ESL learners’ perspectives were not included. Future research can include
students’ opinions and increase the depth of studies on online ESL education.

167

References
Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. G. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time
in an online course: understanding the progression and integration of social,
cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network,
12(3-4), 3-22.
Al-Jarf, R. (2002). Effect of online learning on struggling ESL college writers. National
Educational Computer Conference: San Antonio
Allen, I.E., & Seamen, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United
States. Sloan Consortium. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from
http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/making_the_grade.pdf.
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: online education in the United States
2008. The Sloan Consortium. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved May 25,
2009, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf
Bax, S. (2003). CALL – past, present and future. System, 31, 13-28.
Blake, J. R. (2007). New trends in using technology in the language curriculum. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 76-97.
Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn't technology disrupted academics' teaching
practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory.
Computers & Education, 50, 475-490.
Brown, H. G. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman, Inc.
Burgess, M. L. (2009). Using WebCT as a supplemental tool to enhance critical thinking
and engagement among developmental reading students. Journal of College Reading
and Learning, 39(2), 9-33.

168

California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language (2009). Whole Learner
Whole Teacher: 40
th
Annual State Conference.
Carey, S. & Crittenden, E. (2000). Using technology to foster authentic communication
for second language students. Retrieved May 12, 2009 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/
80/16/a4/90.pdf
Chambers, A. & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: towards normalization. System, 34,
465-479.
ChanLin, L. J. (2007). Perceived Importance and Manageability of Teachers toward the
Factors of Integrating Computer Technology into Classrooms. Innovations in
Education & Teaching International, 44(1), 45-55.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B.F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26-58.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C., & Horn, M. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Dekhinet, R. (2008). Online enhanced corrective feedback as a peer tutoring technique
for ESL learners in Higher Education. Computer Assisted Language Learning 21
(5), 409-425.

169

Ely, D. P. (1999). New perspectives on the implementation of educational technology
innovations. Paper delivered at the Association for Educational Communications
and Technology Annual Conference, Houston, TX.
Fitzpatrick, A. & Davies, G. (eds.). (2003). The impact of information and
communications technologies on the teaching of foreign languages and on the
role of teachers of foreign languages. EC Directorate General of Education and
Culture. Retrieved on April 1, 2009 from www.icc-europe.com
Frodesen, J. (2005). Cluster V Language: ESL. IMPAC Annual Report. Retrieved April 1,
2009 from
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Q8IafXox02UJ:www.cal-impac.org/Languag
e/ESL_Annual05.doc+California+ESL+population&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Education Change. New
York: Teacher College Press
Fulkerth, B. (1992). Computer romance? Those were the days. The Quarterly of the
National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy,
14(2), 1-8.
Gorder, L. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration
in the classroom. Delta PiEpsilon Journal, 50 (2), 63-76
Hong, S. (2008). Thinking of Teaching ESL in a California K-12 public school setting?
SFSU M.A. TESOL Conference. Retrieved April 3, 2009 from
http://www.sfsu.edu/~matesol/conferences/spring2008/assets/Sarah1.pdf
Information Technology Association of America (n.d.). Definition of Information
Technology. Retrieved April 1
st
, 2010, from
http://www.techamerica.org/publications-standards
Institute of International Education (2006). Report on international education. Retrieved
May 5, 2009, from http://www.opendoors.iienetwork.org/

170

John, P. D., & Wheeler, S. (2008). The digital classroom: Harnessing the power of
technology for the future of learning and teaching. London: David
Fulton/Routledge.
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. John
Benjamins: Amsterdam.
Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward
technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 173-188.
Leedy P. D., & Ormrod J. E. (2005). Practical Research (8th Ed.). Pearson Education
N.J.
Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL Dimensions: Options and Issues in
Computer-Assisted Language Learning. N.J.
Maeroff, G. (2003). A classroom of one: How online learning is changing our schools
and colleges. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mandinch, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1994). Classroom Dynamics: Implementing a
technology based learning environment. Hillside, NJ
Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). A structural equation model of
predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29 (4),
531-563.
Mcgrail, E. (2005). Teachers, technology, and change: English teachers’ perspectives.
Journal of Technology Education, 13 (1), 5-24.
McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory (5th ed.). London: Sage.
Means, B., Toyama,Y., Murphy. R., Bakia, M., and Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of
Evidence-based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-analysis and Review of
Online-learning Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

171

Mitchell, B. Geva-May, I. (2009) Attitude affecting online learning implementation in
higher education institutions. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 71-78.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont,
California. Wadsworth.
Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Tice, P. (2008) Distance Education at Degree-Granting
Postsecondary Institutions: 2006–07. National Center of Education Statistics.
Retrieved April 25, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA
Pennington, M. C. (2004). Cycles of Innovation in the adoption of information
technology: A view for language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
17, 7-33.
Reynard, R. (2003). Internet-based ESL for distance adult students – a framework for
dynamic language learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, (60)2,
123-142.
Peck, C., Cuban, L., & Kirpatrick, K. (2002). Techno-promoter dreams, student realities.
Pho Delta Kappan, 83(6), 472-480.
Peterson, S. S. & Slotta, J. (2009). Saying yes to online learning: a first-time experience
teaching an online graduate course in literacy education. Literacy Research and
Instruction, (48)2, 120-136.
Picciano, A. G. & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 Online Learning: A 2008 Follow-up of the
Survey of U.S. School District Administrators. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/k-12_online_learning_200
8.pdf

172

Popkewitz, T. (2000). Reform as the social administration of the child: the globalization
of knowledge and power. Burbules, N & Torres, C. (Eds.). Globalization and
Educational Policy. 157-186.
Roger, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation (4
th
ed.). N.Y.: Free Press
Schuetze, Ulf. (2008). Online collaboration in SLA: what students really do?
ACLA/CAAL Annual Conference.
Shen, D., Nuankhieo, P., Huang, X., Amelung, C., and Laffey, J. (2008) Using social
network analysis to understand community in an online learning environment.
Journal of Education Computing Research, 39(1), 17-36.
Shih, Y-C. D., & Cifuentes, L. (2000). Online ESL learning: An authentic contact. In S.
Young, J. Greer, H. Maurer, & Y. Chee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International
Conferences on Computers in Education 2000, 1255-1262.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online
discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351-366.
Thorndike, E. (1932). The Fundamental of Learning. N.Y. Teacher College Press
Tuzi, F. (2001). E-feedback’s Impact on ESL writers’ revisions. Retrieved June 5, 2009
from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp
?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED463651&ERICExtSearch_Sea
rchType_0=no&accno=ED463651
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). State and County QuickFacts. Retrieved July 5, 2009 from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

173

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). English Language Learners. What Works
Clearinghouse Topic Report. Retrieved May 5, 2009 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp
?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED497628&ERICExtSearch_Sea
rchType_0=no&accno=ED497628
Vodanovich, S., & Piotrowski, C. (2005). Faculty attitudes toward web-based instruction
may not be enough: Limited use and obstacles to implementation. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 33(3), 309-318.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second
language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
Warschauer, M. & Healey, D. (1998). Computer and language learning: an overview.
Language Teaching, 31. 57-71
Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 511-535.
Warschauer, M. (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language
education. TESOL Quarterly, 36(3), 453-475.
Warschauer,M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1(1),
41-49.
White, C. (2003). Language Learning and Distance Education. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
White, C. (2006). Distance Learning of foreign language. Language Teaching, 39,
247-264.
White, C. (2007). Focus on the language learner in an era of globalization: Tensions,
positions and practices in technology-mediated language teaching. Language
teaching, 40(4), 321-326.

174

Williams, M.L., Paprock, K., & Covington, B. (1999). Distance Learning. The essential
guide. London: sage.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop
computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional
culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer
technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 14 (1), 173-207.
Zhang, T., Gao, T., Ring, G. & Zhang, W. (2007). Using online discussion forums to
assist a traditional English class. International Journal of E-learning. (6)4, 623-643.

175

Appendix A
Program Director Interview Protocol
Introduction
Owing to the development of modern technologies, online learning is getting more
and more popular. A number of language schools (including yours) have adopted this
educational innovation. The purpose of this interview is to identify the current goals of
your school and the director’s perspective toward online language learning that address
my dissertation research questions. This interview should take approximately 30 minutes.
I want to assure you that this interview is for the dissertation research only. All
information provided by you will be confidential. The interview will be digitally recorded
in order to have an accurate record of our conversation. Would that be okay?
Do you have any questions before we begin the interview?
Sample interview questions.
Part1: Regards to the implementation of online ESL courses.
1. What kind of online ESL courses does the school offer? (online, blended,
face-to-face)

176

2. What are the program goals as regards adopting/implementing online courses, (if
any)?
3. What are some factors that encourage the school to develop/implement online
ESL courses?
4. When did the program first adopt/implement online ESL courses and what does
the program want to achieve introducing online education?
5. How were the online courses developed in your school? (Was there a separate
team to develop them?)
6. What is the school’s perspective toward developing ESL online education?
Part 2: Regards to ESL teachers
7. Are the instructors newly hired teachers or teachers who are familiar with online
ESL teaching?
8. If the teachers were specially hired, was it done because no one else could teach?
If the school used its own resources, what was actually done to render help to
these teachers?

177

9. Generally speaking, what feedback has the school obtain about teachers’ attitudes
toward online ESL education?
10. What kind of general support does the program provide for ESL teachers?

178

Appendix B
ESL Teachers Interview Protocol
1. What is your understanding of the online ESL courses in this school?
2. What goals were set to adopting online components in your instructions?
3. What makes you teach online ESL course?
4. How was/were the online ESL course/courses developed/implemented in your
school?
5. What is it that you want to achieve in terms of online ESL instruction?
6. What is your personal attitude toward developing of ESL online education?
7. (Opinion and values questions)What would you like to see happen for the ESL
program in terms of the development of online ESL courses?
8. Why do you think the school develop/adopt online ESL course?
9. When using an ESL online course, do you feel any satisfaction, are you nervous or
indifferent? Why?
10. How does the program support you in teaching ESL online courses?

179

11. Many researchers think that online language courses can never replace face-to-face
instruction. Do you agree with this statement?
12. In your opinion, are there things that would be irreplaceable?
13. If you were a program lead, what would you do to better prepare ESL teachers for
implementing online ESL courses in teaching?
14. (Final/closing question)That covers the things I wanted to ask, anything you care to
add?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract As attention to using online technology is increasing in the field of ESL education, this research aimed to investigate (1) factors that foster or inhibit the development and implementation of online courses, and (2) extent to which the perspectives of program directors and ESL teachers affect online ESL education. In this qualitative research, five programs that are in different levels of implementation of online courses were examined. Participants included the five programs directors and 39 ESL instructors.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Organizational leadership and institutional factors related to the implementation of online educational programming in California community colleges

PDF

The perceptions of principals towards proprietary online teacher credential programs and their effect on hiring

PDF

The effects of online courses for student success in basic skills mathematics classes at California community colleges

PDF

Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

PDF

Implementing field-based online graduate professional programs: a promising practice study

PDF

Recruiting and hiring online learning teachers for online high schools

PDF

Blended learning: developing flexibility in education through internal innovation

PDF

Supporting faculty for successful online instruction: factors for effective onboarding and professional development

PDF

Cyber-harassment in higher education: online learning environments

PDF

Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education

PDF

A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study

PDF

Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors

PDF

School-to-work programs in urban districts in the state of California: a leadership perspective

PDF

A study of online project-based learning with Gambassa: crossroads of informal contracting and cloud management systems

PDF

Financial stability and sustainability in online education: a study of promising practice

PDF

The effect of reading proficiency on student success in online credit recovery programs

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

Asynchronous online education and introductory statistics: The role of learner characteristics

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

Asset Metadata

Creator Peng, ShengChieh (author)

Core Title The implementation of online learning for ESL programs: factors and perspectives

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/05/2010

Defense Date 06/23/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag disruptive innovation,ESL programs,implementing factors,OAI-PMH Harvest,online English,online ESL,online ESL courses

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Dwyer, David C. (committee member), Shakhbagova, Julietta (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email jim060480@hotmail.com,jim5437@yahoo.com.tw

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3301

Unique identifier UC1327028

Identifier etd-Peng-3959 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-371435 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3301 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Peng-3959.pdf

Dmrecord 371435

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Peng, ShengChieh

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu