Home | Background | Respondents | Discussion | Submit Question | Comments


CALL practice in traditional vs. flexible educational settings

Background:  When CALL is used in the current institutional education system, it is usually used peripherally and has to fit into the academic calendar. Some of its advantages such as learner-control and accessibility are not fully utilized. Under the current model, all students start and finish courses at the same time. And, students in the classes follow a homogeneous syllabus.

Research question: If CALL is used to disseminate knowledge and provide resource materials, performance guidance, and dynamic evaluations for learners, in what areas will CALL prove to be effective (or ineffective) under a modified (flexible) academic calendar and system? For instance, within such a system learners can “attend” classes and access resource materials anytime anywhere, receive course credits whenever they demonstrate that they have acquired the required skills or knowledge, and take the next level of course whenever they have completed the previous level of course.

Suggested methodology/comments: Experimental studies comparing different groups of students (e.g., extremely motivated vs. unmotivated students, traditional vs. unconventional students), who follow different academic calendars (traditional vs. flexible), to evaluate their differences (or similarities) in areas such as performance, personal satisfaction, time taken to complete a course/courses.

Contact:  Fenfang Hwu   fhwu@bgnet.bgsu.edu

Reader Comments: --

Post Comments