Relation of learner type and success: CALL vs. non-CALL environments

Background:   “Price/performance” comparisons on the effectives of various types of CALL for academic learners involve specific conditions.  CALL research for determining the effectives of various products and procedures must be placed into particular contexts, which also must be defined.  Such circumspect studies have never been done to my knowledge, although the necessary contexts could be elaborated in the cases of research by Adair-Hauck, Youngs, et al.

Research question:   Which kind(s) of CALL used by the various types of Myers-Briggs learners in which academic structures for how long and with which frequency at which level of language learning for ages 15-18 and 18-23 in particular with instructors of various ranges of definable effectiveness under those previous conditions yields no significant difference or better in speaking, listening, reading, writing and cultural proficiencies compared to no-CALL use with the same amount of time commitment by the instructor in actual classroom teaching and by students in their time on task?  I would like to see the Myers-Briggs learner types extended to Howard Gardner’s eventually.

Suggested methodology/comments:  Consider both in-class teaching with CALL as well as independent (homework) type use.  Possibly select various methods and approaches for the complementary classroom teaching with or without CALL and baseline CALL method in the software as defined or alluded to by Omaggio Hadley in Teaching Language in Context and by John W. Oller, Jr., in Methods That Work (1983 & 1993).

Contact: Dr. Joel Goldfield   joel@cs.fairfield.edu

Reader Comments: --