226

References

Academic Board, The University of Melbourne (2011). Guidelines for evaluating teaching and learning in coursework programs . Available http://about.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/861161/intro_guidelines.pdf

Alkin, M. C. (2011). Evaluation essentials from A to Z . New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Anderson, V., McKenzie, M., Allan, S., Hill, T., McLean, S., Kayira, J., & Butcher, K. (2015). Participatory action research as pedagogy: Investigating social and ecological justice learning within a teacher education program. Teaching Education, 26 (2), 179–195.

Angelo, T. A. (2000). Transforming departments into productive learning commu-nities. In A. F. Lucas & Associates (Eds.) Leading academic change: Essential roles for departmental chairs (pp. 74–89). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2015). Contextualized views of practices and competen-cies in CALL teacher education research. Language Learning & Technology, 19 (1), 1–9.

Australian Qualifications Framework. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.aqf.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/AQF-2nd-Edition-January-2013.pdf

Aydin, S. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions about the use of computers in EFL teaching and learning: The case of Turkey. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 214–233.

Barrie, S. C. (2004). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education Research & Development, 23 (3), 261–275.

Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by generic attributes of gradu-ates. Higher Education, 51 (2), 215–241.

Barrie, S. C., & Ginns, P. (2007). The linking of institutional performance indica-tors to improvements in teaching in classrooms. Quality in Higher Education, 13 (3), 275–286.

Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2014). Transversing the vertical case study: Methodological approaches to studies of educational policy-as-practice. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 45 (2), 131–147.

Bax, S. (2003). CALL – Past, present and future. System, 31 (1), 13–28. Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in

language education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1 (2), 1–15.

Bechger, T., Kuijper, H., & Maris, G. (2009). Standard setting in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: The case of the state examination of Dutch as a second language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6 (2), 126–150.

Bense, K. (2014). Languages aren’t as important here: German migrant teachers’ experiences in Australian language classes. Australian Educational Researcher, 41 (4), 485–497.

Bernhardt, E. B. (2006). Student Learning Outcomes as Professional Development and Public Relations. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (4), 588–590.

References 227

Birckbichler, D., (Ed.). (2006). Evaluating foreign language programs: Content, context, change . Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Bowden, J., Hart, G., King, B., Trigwell, K., & Watts, O. (2000). Generic capabili-ties of ATN university graduates. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9 (2), 27–40.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101.

Brooks, F. B., & Darhower, M. A. (2014). It takes a department! A study of the culture of proficiency in three successful foreign language teacher education programs. Foreign Language Annals, 47 (4), 592–613.

Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2011). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Brown, J. D. (1997). Designing surveys for language programs. In D. Nunan & D. Griffee (Eds.), Classroom teachers and classroom research (pp. 55–70). Tokyo, Japan: Japan Association for Language Teaching.

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. D. (2014). The future of world Englishes in language testing. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11 (1), 5–26.

Brown, S. (2015). Using focus groups in naturally occurring settings. Qualitative Research Journal, 15 (1), 86–97.

Bryson, J. M., Patton, M. Q., & Bowman, R. A. (2011). Working with evalua-tion stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34 (1), 1–12.

Buchbinder, E. (2011). Beyond checking: Experiences of the validation interview. Qualitative Social Work, 10 (1), 106–122.

Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2013). Authenticity in CALL: Three domains of ‘realness’. ReCALL, 25 (2), 272–285.

Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & López Pérez, M. V. (2014). Evaluation of a blended learning language course: Students’ perceptions of appropriateness for the development of skills and language areas. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (6), 509–527.

Carbonell, K. B., Dailey-Hebert, A., & Gijselaers, W. (2013). Unleashing the crea-tive potential of faculty to create blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 18 , 29–37.

Cárdenas-Claros, M. S., & Gruba, P. A. (2010). Bridging CALL & HCI: Input from participatory design. CALICO Journal, 27 (3), 576–591.

Cárdenas-Claros, M. S., & Oyanedel, M. (2015, in press). Teachers’ implicit theories and use of ICTs in the language classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1–19.

Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1992). Getting around the Task–Artifact cycle: How to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 10 (2), 181–212.

Caulley, D. N. (1983). Document analysis in program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 6 (1), 19–29.

Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (Eds.). (2010). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

228 References

Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalization. System, 34 , 465–479.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improve-ment in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (3), 267–296.

Chapelle, C. A. (2001a). Computer applications in second language acquisition: foun-dations for teaching, testing and research . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chapelle, C. A. (2001b). Innovative language learning: Achieving the vision. ReCALL, 13 (1), 3–14.

Chapelle, C. A. (2007). Challenges in the evaluation of innovation: Observations from technology research. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1 (1), 30–45.

Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 741–753.

Chapelle, C. A. (2010). The spread of computer-assisted language learning. Language Teaching, 43 (1), 66–74.

Chapelle, C. A. (2014). Arguments for technology and language learning. Keynote presentation at the EUROCALL 2014 Conference . Groningen, Netherlands.

Chapelle, C. A., Cotos, E., & Lee, J. (2015). Validity arguments for diagnostic assess-ment using automated writing evaluation. Language Testing, 32 (3), 385–405.

Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. M. (Eds.) (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language TM . New York, NY: Routledge.

Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument-based approach to validity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29 (1), 3–13.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualita-tive analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chen, H.-J. H. (2011). Developing and evaluating a web-based collocation retrieval tool for EFL students and teachers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 59–76.

Cheng, L., & Sun, Y. (2015). Interpreting the impact of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test on second language students within an argument-based validation framework. Language Assessment Quarterly, 12 (1), 50–66.

Coffey, A. (2014). Analysing documents. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 367–380). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Colpaert, J. (2013). Sustainability and challenges in CALL. Keynote presentation at the 2013 WorldCALL Conference. Glasgow, UK.

Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: An exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL, 23 (3), 218–232.

Compton, L. K. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills, roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22 (1), 73–99.

Conrad, K. B. (1996). CALL–Non-English L2 instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 16 , 158–181.

Cooper, B., & Brna, P. (2000). Classroom conundrums: The use of a participant design methodology. Educational Technology & Society, 3 (3), 85–100.

References 229

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dang, T. K. A., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Le, T. T. T. (2013). The impacts of globalisa-tion on EFL teacher education through English as a medium of instruction: An example from Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14 (1), 52–72.

Dassier, J. L., Kawamura, H., & Costner, K. (2006). Using focus groups effec-tively. In D. Birckbichler (Ed.), Evaluating foreign language programs (pp. 63–79). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Davies, G., Otto, S. E. K. & Rüschoff, B. (2012). Historical perspectives on CALL. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer, M. (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 19–38). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Davis, J. M. (2011). Using surveys for understanding and improving foreign language programs. (NetWork #61) [PDF document]. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaiʻi, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Retrieved from http://schol-arspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/14549

Davis, J. M., Sinicrope, C., & Watanabe, Y. (2009). College foreign language program evaluation: Current practice, future directions. In J. M. Norris, J. McE. Davis, C. Sinicrope, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education (pp. 209–226). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaiʻi, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Deerajviset, P., & Harbon, L. (2014). E-learning in EFL education in Thailand’s higher education: The role for lecturers making it work. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 9 , 37–63.

DelliCarpini, M. (2012). Building computer technology skills in TESOL teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 16 (2), 14–23.

Dervin, F. (2014). Exploring ‘new’ interculturality online. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14 (2), 191–206.

DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2011). Participant observation: A guide for field-workers (2 nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Díaz Larenas, C., Alarcón Hernández, P., Vásquez Neira, A., Pradel Suárez, B., & Ortiz Navarrete, M. (2013). Beliefs of Chilean university English teachers: Uncovering their role in the teaching and learning process. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 15 (2), 85–97.

Doody, O., & Noonan, M. (2013). Preparing and conducting interviews to collect data. Nurse Researcher, 20 (5), 28–32.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing . New York, NY: Routledge.

Dumitrescu, V. M. (2014). Effective web 2.0 technologies for second-language teaching and learning. eLearning & Software for Education , 3 , 148–155.

Dunkel, P. (1991). The effectiveness research on computer-assisted instruction and computer-assisted language learning. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 5–36). New York, NY: Newbury House.

Edasawa, Y., & Kabata, K. (2007). An ethnographic study of a key-pal project: Learning a foreign language through bilingual communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20 (3), 189–207.

Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2013). Factors influencing university research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (5), 774–792.

230 References

Egbert, J. E. (Ed.). (2010). CALL in limited technology contexts . San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

Ellis, L., & Wilson, R. (2014). Professors in class on time? Check. The Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved from https://shar.es/1sgPr5

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 25–39.

Espinoza, Ó., & González, E. (2013). Accreditation in higher education in Chile: Results and consequences. Quality Assurance in Education, 21 (1), 20–38.

Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Farrell, K., Devlin, M., & James, R. (2007). Nine principles guiding teaching and learning: The framework for a first-class teaching and learning environment. Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/resources_teach/framework_teach/docs/9principles.pdf

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Foster, R. (1996). Observational research. In R. Sapsford, & V. Jupp (Eds.), Data collection and analysis (pp. 57–93). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Gardner, M., & Hammett, R. (2014). Living action research in course design: Centering participatory and social justice principles and practices. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 15 (3), 5–21.

Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revis-ited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93 , 719–740.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its trans-formative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7 , 95–105.

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies. Internet and Higher Education, 18 , 24–28.

Gebhard, J. G., & Oprandy, R. (1999). Language teaching awareness: A guide to exploring beliefs and practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gleason, J. (2013). An interpretive argument for blended course design. Foreign Language Annals, 46 (4), 588–609.

Gleason, J. (2014). ‘It helps me get closer to their writing experience’ Classroom ethnography and the role of technology in third-year FL courses. System, 47 , 125–138.

Global Learning by Design: Project overview. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www1.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=edmwtkmujf6bz

Goedegebuure, L., & Schoen, M. (2014). Key challenges for tertiary education policy and research – An Australian perspective. Studies in Higher Education , 39 (8), 1381–1392.

Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2015). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, Fall 2013. Modern Language

References 231

Association of America. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/pdf/2013_enroll-ment_survey.pdf

Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (1), 70–105.

Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institu-tional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education , 18 , 4–14.

Grants and Projects, Office of Teaching and Learning (2014). Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/grants-and-projects

Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: A generic framework for learning analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (3), 42–57.

Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effec-tiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25 (2), 165–198.

Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems, 55 (2), 173–193.

Gruba, P. (2006). Playing the videotext: A media literacy perspective on video-mediated L2 listening. Language Learning and Technology, 10 (2), 77–92.

Gruba, P., & Hinkelman, D. (2012). Blending technologies in second language class-rooms. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gruba, P. (2014). New media in language assessments In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 995–1012) . London, UK: John Wiley.

Gugiu, P. C., & Rodríguez-Campos, L. (2007). Semi-structured interview protocol for constructing logic models. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30 (4), 339–350.

Hafner, C. A. (2014). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching: Students’ digital video projects as multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly, 48 (4), 655–685.

Harman, G., Hayden, M., & Pham, T. (2010). Higher education in Vietnam: Reform, challenges and priorities. In G. Harman, M. Hayden, & T. Pham (Eds.), Reforming higher education in Viet Nam (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Springer.

Healey, D., Hegelheimer, V., Hubbard, P., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2008). TESOL Technology Standards Framework. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Hegelheimer, V., & Chapelle, C. A. (2000). Methodological issues in research on learner-computer interactions in CALL. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 41–59.

Henry, G. T., & Mark, M. M. (2003). Toward an agenda for research on evaluation. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (pp. 69–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hinkelman, D., & Gruba, P. (2012). Power within blended language learning programs in Japan. Language Learning & Technology, 16 (2), 46–64.

Hora, M., Oleson, A., & Ferrare, J. (2013). Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) User’s Manual. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm – A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational-behavior. Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, 17 , 71–114.

232 References

Hubbard, P. L. (2011). Evaluation of courseware and websites. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Present and future promises of call: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (Chapter 13). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

Hung, S. T. A. (2012). A washback study on e-portfolio assessment in an English as a Foreign Language teacher preparation program. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25 (1), 21–36.

Hyatt, D. (2013). The critical policy discourse analysis frame: Helping doctoral students engage with the educational policy analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 18 (8), 833–845.

International Student Services. (2015). International Student Data, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Spring 2015 . Retrieved from http://www.hawaii.edu/issmanoa/pages/about-us.php

Institute of International Education. (2014). Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange . Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors

James, N., & Buscher, J. (2009). Online interviewing . London, UK: Sage Publications. James, R., Krause, K-L., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first year experience in Australian

universities: Findings from 1994 – 2009 . Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/experience/docs/FYE_Report_1994_to_2009.pdf

Janesick, V. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvizations and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 379–400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jansen, K. J., Corley, K. G., & Jansen, B. J. (2007). E-survey methodology. In R. A. Reynolds, R. Woods, & J. D. Baker (Eds.), Handbook of research on electronic surveys and measurements (pp. 1–8). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Johnson, K., Greenseid, L. O., Toal, S. A., King, J. A., Lawrenz, F., & Volkov, B. (2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30 (3), 377–410.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition . Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Chrismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Merrill Prentice Hall.

Jones, C. (2007). Designing for practice: Practising design in the social sciences (Chapter 13). In H. S. Beetham (Ed.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age (pp. 166–179). London, UK: Routledge.

Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding Digital Literacies . Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

Joy, E. H., & Garcia, F. E. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-significant-difference findings. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4 (1), 33–39.

Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2011). Researching design practices and design cognition: Contexts, experiences and pedagogical knowledge-in-pieces. Learning, Media and Technology, 36 (2), 129–149.

Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2013). Focus groups: From structured interviews to collective conversations . New York, NY: Routledge.

Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennen (Ed.), Educational measurement (4 th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: Praeger.

References 233

Kane, M. (2010). Validity and fairness. Language Testing, 27 (2), 177–182. Kane, M. (2012). Validating score interpretations and uses: Messick Lecture,

Language Testing Research Colloquium, Cambridge, April 2010. Language Testing, 29 (1), 3–17.

Kawamura, H. (2006). Program evaluation as ethnography. In D. Birckbichler (Ed.), Evaluating foreign language programs (pp. 15–28). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Kennedy, C., & Levy, M. (2009). Sustainability and computer-assisted language learning: factors for success in a context of change. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22 (5), 445–463.

Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21 (3), 269–282.

Kezar, A. (2013). Departmental cultures and non-tenure-track faculty: Willingness, capacity, and opportunity to perform at four-year institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 84 (2), 153–188.

Kiely, R. (2006). Evaluation, innovation, and ownership in language programs. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (4), 597–601.

Kiely, R. (2009). Small answers to the big question: Learning from language programme evaluation. Language Teaching Research, 13 (1), 99–116.

Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program evaluation in language education , Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2009). Evaluation and learning in language programmes. In K. Knapp & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 663–694). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kimble, C., Hildreth, P. M., & Bourdon, I. (2008). Communities of practice: Creating learning environments for educators. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Koelsch, L. E. (2013). Reconceptualizing the member check interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12 (1), 168–179.

Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98 , 296–311.

Kress, G. (2013). Recognizing learning: A perspective from a social semiotic theory of multimodality. Multilingualism and Multimodality: Current Challenges for Educational Studies, 2 , 119–140.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements in technology for teaching and learning? The Internet and Higher Education, 15 (4), 247–254.

Laborda, J. G. (2009). Using webquests for oral communication in English as a foreign language for Tourism Studies. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12 (1), 258–270.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and class-room learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2011). Classroom observation: Desirable condi-tions established by teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34 (4), 449–463.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies . New York, NY: Routledge.

234 References

Le, H. (2014). Vietnamese higher education in the context of globaliza-tion: Qualitative or quantitative targets? The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 13 (1), 17–29.

Leakey, J. (2011). Evaluating computer-assisted language learning: An integrated approach to effectiveness research in CALL . Oxford, UK: Peter Lang.

Learning and Teaching, University of Melbourne. (2015). Melbourne graduates . Retrieved from http://learningandteaching.unimelb.edu.au/curriculum/graduates

Lee, L., & Markey, A. (2014). A study of learners’ perceptions of online intercul-tural exchange through Web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 26 (3), 281–297.

Lee, H., & Winke, P. (2013). The differences among three-, four-, and five-option-item formats in the context of a high-stakes English-language listening test. Language Testing, 30 (1), 99–123.

Leibowitz, B., Bozalek, V., Schalkwyk, S., & Winberg, C. (2015). Institutional context matters: The professional development of academics as teachers in South African higher education. Higher Education, 69 (2), 315–330.

Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL Dimensions: Options and Issues in Computer-Assisted Language Learning . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Levy, M. (2007). Research and technological innovation in CALL. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1 (1), 180–190.

Li, Z. (2013). The issues of construct definition and assessment authenticity in video-based listening comprehension tests: Using an argument-based valida-tion approach. International Journal of Language Studies, 7 (2), 61–82.

Liamputtong, P. (2010). Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). The interface between macro and micro-level language policy and the place of language pedagogies. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 9 (2), 118–129.

Liddicoat, A., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A., & Kohler, M. (2003). Report on intercul-tural language learning. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.

Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National policy on languages . Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Lo Bianco, J. (2014). Domesticating the foreign: Globalization’s effects on the place/s of languages. The Modern Language Journal, 98 (1), 312–325.

Lo Bianco, J., & Wickert, R. (2002). Australian policy activism in language and literacy . Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.

Lockee, B. B., Burton, J. K., & Cross, L. H. (1999). No comparison: Distance educa-tion finds a new use for ‘No significant difference’. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47 (3), 33–42.

Loewen, S., Lavolette, E., Spino, L. A., Papi, M., Schmidtke, J., Sterling, S., & Wolff, D. (2014). Statistical literacy among applied linguists and second language acquisition researchers. TESOL Quarterly, 48 (2), 360–388.

Lohnes Watulak, S. (2012). ‘I’m not a computer person’: Negotiating participation in academic Discourses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (1), 109–118.

López, D. A., Rojas, M. J., López, B. A., & López, D. C. (2015). Chilean universities and institutional quality assurance processes. Quality Assurance in Education, 23 (2), 166–183.

Lotherington, H. (2007). Authentic language in digital environments. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 109–127). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

References 235

Lotherington, H., & Jenson, J. (2011). Teaching multimodal and digital literacy in L2 settings: New literacies, new basics, new pedagogies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 , 226–246.

Luckin, R. (2013). Handbook of design in educational technology . New York, NY: Routledge.

Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, B. K. (2000). Evaluating a project-oriented CALL innovation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13 (4–5), 417–440.

Lynch, B. K. (2003). Language assessment and programme evaluation . Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

MacKeogh, K., & Fox, S. (2009). Strategies for embedding e-learning in traditional universities: Drivers and barriers. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7 (2), 147–154.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2006). Second language research: Methodology and design . Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

Marenzi, I. (2014). Multiliteracies and e-learning2.0. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang Education.

Mårtensson, K., Roxå, T., & Stensaker, B. (2014). From quality assurance to quality practices: An investigation of strong microcultures in teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (4), 534–545.

Massey, O. T. (2011). A proposed model for the analysis and interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34 (1), 21–28.

McMurry, B. L. (2012). Evaluation in Computer-Assisted Language Learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Brigham Young University, Hawai‘i, HI.

Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miliszewska, I., & Sztendur, E. M. (2012). Australian transnational education programmes in South East Asia: Student satisfaction with the learning environ-ment. Australian Universities’ Review, 54 (2), 12–21.

Millis, B. J. (1992). Conducting effective peer classroom observations. In D. H. Wulff & J. D., Nyquist (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (Vol. 11, pp.189–201). Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

Ministerio de Educación (2014). Estándares orientadores para carreras de pedagogía en Inglés . Santiago de Chile: Universidad Alberto Hurtado.

Mobasheri, A. (2014). The role of professional teacher associations in technology standards implementation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Melbourne, Australia.

Morris, M. (2006). Addressing the challenges of program evaluation: One depart-ment’s experience after two years. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (4), 585–588.

Müller, M. J. (2003) Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In A. Sears and J. A. Jacko (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Development process (pp. 165–186). New York, NY: CRC Press.

Murray, D. (2007). Creating a technology-rich English language learning envi-ronment. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 747–762). New York, NY: Springer.

236 References

Myezwa, H., Stewart, A., & Solomon, P. (2013). Micro, meso and macro issues emerging from focus group discussions: Contributions to a physiotherapy HIV curriculum. African Journal of Health Professions Education, 5 (2), 56–62.

Niemiec, M., & Otte, G. (2010). An administrator’s guide to the whys and hows of blended learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1 , 115–126.

Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of assessing student learning outcomes in college foreign language programs. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (4), 576–583.

Norris, J. M. (2008). Validity evaluation in language assessment . New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Norris, J. M. (2009). Introduction to the volume. In J. M. Norris, J. McE. Davis, C. Sinicrope, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education (pp. 1–4). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaiʻi, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Norris, J. M., Davis, J. M., Sinicrope, C., & Watanabe, Y. (Eds.). (2009). Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaiʻi, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Norris, J. M., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Program evaluation. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

O’Dowd, R. (2015). Supporting in-service language educators in learning to telecollaborate. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 63–82.

Office for Learning & Teaching, Australian Government. (2014). 2015 Innovation and development grants: Programme information and application instructions; Version 2.0 . Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/2015%20I%2526D%20Grants%20Programme%20Application%20Instructions%20v4.pdf

Oller, J. W. (2012). Grounding the argument-based framework for validating score interpretations and uses. Language Testing, 29 (1), 29–36.

Our strategy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.rmit.edu.vn/our-strategy Owen, G. T. (2014). Qualitative methods in higher education policy analysis:

Using interviews and document analysis. Qualitative Report, 19 (26), 1–19. Owen, J. M. (2007). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches (3rd ed.). New York,

NY: Guilford Press. Owens, T. (2012). Hitting the nail on the head: The importance of specific staff

development for effective blended learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49 (4), 389–400.

Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achieve-ment in a university blended learning strategic initiative. Internet and Higher Education, 18 , 38–46.

Oxford, R. L., & Jung, S.-H. (2006). National guidelines for technology integration in TESOL programs: Factors affecting (non)implementation. In M. A. Kassen, K. Murphy-Judy, R. Z. Lavine, & M. Peters (Eds.), Preparing and developing tech-nology-proficient L2 teachers (pp. 23–48). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.

Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (Eds.). (2010). Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics . London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1972). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University, Centre for Research in the Educational Sciences.

References 237

Patton, M. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 311–319.

Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use . New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pearce, G., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Duda, J. L. (2013). The development of synchronous text-based instant messaging as an online interviewing tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17 (6), 677–692.

Pearce, J., & Kennedy, G. (2014). Learning & teaching initiative grants, 2012 – 2013: A review . Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/rec_publications/UOM_LTI_Report_2014.pdf

Phakiti, A. (2014). Experimental research methods in language learning . London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Phillips, R., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Evaluating e-learning: Guiding research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of counseling psychology, 52 (2), 137–145.

Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75 , 185–195.

Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2015, in press). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology.

Posavac, E. J. (2011). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (8 th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

Prior, L. (2008). Documents and action. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social research methods (pp. 479–493). London, UK: Sage Publications.

PUCV (2013). Reporte de sostenibilidad 2013 . Rectoría . Valparaíso, Chile, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso: 170.

QSR International. (2014). Nvivo 10.0 Computer Software. Quiroz, J. S. (2012). Estándares TIC para la Formación inicial Docente: Una

política pública en el contexto chileno. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 20 , 1–36.

Ramírez-Correa, P., Peña-Vinces, J. C., & Alfaro-Pérez, J. (2012). Evaluating the efficiency of the higher education system in emerging economies: Empirical evidences from Chilean universities. African Journal of Business Management, 6 (4), 1441–1448.

Rea-Dickins, P., & Germaine, K. P. (1998). The price of everything and value of nothing: Trends in language program evaluation. In P. Rea-Dickins & K. P. Germaine (Eds.), Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching: Building bridges (pp. 3–19). London, UK: Longman.

238 References

Reedy, K., Parker, J., Huckle, N., & Goodfellow, R. (2015). Digital and information literacy framework . The Open University, UK. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/libraryservices/pages/dilframework/

Ruhe, V., & Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Evaluation in distance education and e-learning: The unfolding model . New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Russell, J., Greenhalgh, T., & Kushner, S. (2015). Case study evaluation: Past, present and future challenges . Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Ryan, K. E., Gandha, T., Culbertson, M. J., & Carlson, C. (2014). Focus group evidence: Implications for design and analysis. American Journal of Evaluation, 35 (3), 328–345.

Ryan, S. (2012). Academic Zombies: A Failure of Resistance or a Means of Survival? Australian Universities’ Review, 54 (2), 3–11.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers . London, UK: Sage Publications.

Salter, D. J., & Prosser, M. (2013). Cases on quality teaching practices in higher educa-tion. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Sawada, D., Piburn, M.D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102 (6), 245–253.

Scarino, A. (2014). Situating the challenges in current languages education policy in Australia – Unlearning monolingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11 (3), 289–306.

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation (AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evalution, No. 1). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2009). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom . London, UK: Macmillan.

Shelton, C. (2014). ‘Virtually mandatory’: A survey of how discipline and insti-tutional commitment shape university lecturers’ perceptions of technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (4), 748–759.

Shively, R. L. (2010). From the virtual world to the real world: A model of prag-matics instruction for study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 43 (1), 105–137.

Shohamy, E. (2013). The discourse of language testing as a tool for shaping national, global and transnational identities. Language and Intercultural Communication, 13 (2), 225–236.

Smith, M., Jones, F., Gilbert, S., & Wieman, C. (2013). The classroom observa-tion protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to charac-terize university STEM classroom practices. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12 (4), 618–627.

Sole, C. R. I., Calic, J., & Neijmann, D. (2010). A social and self-reflective approach to MALL. ReCALL, 22 , 39–52.

Spector, J. M. (2014). Program evaluation. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 195–200). New York, NY: Springer.

Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. J., (Eds.) (2014). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology . New York, NY: Springer.

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2015). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

References 239

Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19 (2), 105–120.

Stockwell, G. (2012). Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

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

Tai, S.-J. D. (2015). From TPACK-in-Action workshops to classrooms: CALL competency developed and integrated. Language Learning & Technology, 19 (1), 139–164.

Talmy, S., & Richards, K. (2011). Theorizing Qualitative Research Interviews in Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 1–5.

Taylor-Leech, K., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). Macro-language planning for multilin-gual education: Focus on programmes and provision. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15 (4), 353–360.

The University of Melbourne. (2014). Growing Esteem 2014: A discussion paper . Retrieved from http://growingesteem.unimelb.edu.au/documents/UoM_Growing_Esteem_2014_GreenPaper.pdf

Thomas, M. E. (2011). Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technology, and the new literacies . New York, NY: Routledge.

Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.) (2012). Contemporary compu-ter-assisted language learning . New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Tomlinson, B., & Whittaker, C., (Eds.). (2013). Blended learning in English language teaching: Course design and implementation . London, UK: British Council.

Toomey, R. (2001). Information and Communication Technology for Teaching and Learning . (Schooling Issues Digest 2). Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. (2015). English Language Institute. [Brochure]. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.

Uzuner-Smith, S., & Englander, K. (2015). Exposing ideology within university policies: A critical discourse analysis of faculty hiring, promotion and remu-neration practices. Journal of Education Policy, 30 (1), 62–85.

Vietnam tops global list of international university campuses. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.rmit.edu.vn/news/vietnam-tops-global-list-international-university-campuses

Wagner, E. (2010). Survey research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 22–38). New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Walker, A., & White, G. (2013). Technology enhanced language learning: Connecting theory and practice . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Wallace, L., & Young, J. (2010). Implementing blended learning: Policy implica-tions for universities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13 (4), 1–13.

Walton, M. (2014). Applying complexity theory: A review to inform evaluation design. Evaluation and Program Planning, 45 , 119–126.

240 References

Walvoord, B. E., Carey, A. K., Smith, H. L., Soled, S. W., Way, P. K., & Zorn, D. (2000). Academic departments: How they work, how they change . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wang, Y., Han, X., & Yang, J. (2015). Revisiting the blended learning literature: Using a complex adaptive systems framework. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (2), 380–393.

Watanabe, Y., Norris, J., & Gonzalez-Lloret, M. (2009). Identifying and responding to evaluation needs in college foreign language programs. In J. M. Norris, J. McE. Davis, C. Sinicrope, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Towards useful program evalu-ation in college foreign language education (pp. 5–56). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Wehner, A. K., Gump, A. W., & Downey, S. (2011). The effects of Second Life on the motivation of undergraduate students learning a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24 (3), 277–289.

Weiss, I., Pasley, J., Smith P., Banilower, E., & Heck, D. (2003). Looking Inside the Classroom: A Study of K–12 Mathematics and Science Education in the United States . Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Welch, A. (2010). Internationalisation of Vietnamese higher education: Retrospect and prospect. In G. Harman, M. Hayden, & T. Pham (Eds.), Reforming higher education in Viet Nam (pp. 197–213). New York, NY: Springer.

Welch, A. (2011). Higher education in Southeast Asia: Blurring borders, changing balance . New York, NY: Routledge.

Welch, A. (2013). Different paths, one goal: Southeast Asia as knowledge society. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33 (2), 197–211.

Winslett, G. (2014). Resisting innovation talk in higher education teaching and learning. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 35 (2), 163–176.

Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and inter-pretation . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Xi, X. (2008). Methods of test validation. In E. Shohamy, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language testing and assessment (2 nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 177–196). New York, NY: Springer.

Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32 (2), 199–225.

Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media & Society, 13 (5), 788–806.

Zeni, J. (2001). A guide to ethical decision making for insider research. In J. Zeni (Ed.), Ethical issues in practitioner research (pp. 153–165). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO, 21 (1), 7–27.

Zhao, Y., & Lei, J. (2009). New technology. In G. Sykes, B. Scheinder, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research (pp. 671–693). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

Ziguras, C. (2001). Educational technology in transnational higher education in South East Asia: The cultural politics of flexible learning. Educational Technology & Society, 4 (4), 8–18.

241

Adams Becker, S., 221Alarcón Hernández, P., 50Alfaro-Pérez, J., 108Alkin, M. C., 11, 168, 169, 176Allan, S.,75Anderson, T., 4Anderson, V., 75Angelo, T., 84Arenas, T., 50Arnold, N., 88, 92, 222

Banilower, E., 60Barrett, B., 3Barrie, S., 90, 204Bartlett, L., 31, 32Bax, S., 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 21, 24, 29, 44,

61, 66, 84, 154, 216Bechger, T., 194Benford, R., 60Bense, K., 195Bernhardt, E., 194Birckbichler, D., 14, 136Bishop, M., 4Bourdon, I., 74Bowden, J., 204Bowen, G. A., 94, 96, 97, 98,

146, 150Bowles, A. R., 43Bowman, R. A., 21, 26, 49Bozalek, V., 92Braun, V., 177, 178Brna, P., 77, 78Brown, A., 50, 52Brown, J. D., 28, 56, 145, 149Brown, S., 82Bryson, J., 21, 26, 42,

49, 91Buchbinder, E., 102, 103Buendgens-Kosten, J., 36Bueno-Alastuey, M., 217Burton, J. K., 36Buscher, J., 102

Calic, J., 9Carbonell, K. B., 181Cárdenas-Claros, M., 28, 72, 77, 78,

93, 105, 109, 213, 214, 219Carlson, C., 82Carroll, J. M., 77, 220Casey, M. A., 81, 82Caulley, D. N., 96, 97Cennamo, K. S., 86Chambers, A., 2, 3, 5, 10, 21, 29, 216Chandler, J., 149Chapelle, C. A., 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21,

25, 26, 28, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44, 66, 119, 141, 142, 169, 190, 198, 199, 207, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219

Charmaz, K., 149Chen, H.-J. H., 37Cheng, M., 33Chrismond, D., 114Clarke, V., 177, 178Coffey, A., 96, 99Colpaert, J., 105Comas-Quinn, A., 105Compton, L., 105Conrad, B., 36Cooper, B., 77, 78, 79Costner, K., 81Cotos, E., 9, 10, 33, 141, 198, 199,

215, 217, 218Creswell, J., 59, 61Cross, L. H., 36Culbertson, M. J., 82

Dailey-Hebert, A., 181Dang, T. K. A., 87Darhower, M. A., 67, 84Dassier, J. L., 81Davies, G., 1Davis, J. M., 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 56,

74, 109, 137, 224Deerajviset, P., 87Dellicarpini, M., 52

Name Index

242 Name Index

Dervin, F., 37Devlin, M., 206Dewalt, B. R., 76Dewalt, K. M., 76Díaz Larenas, C., 50Dimitriadis, G., 81, 83Doody, O., 177Dörnyei, Z., 55, 56, 58, 61, 116Downey, S., 36Drachsler, H., 222Ducate, L., 88, 92, 222Duda, J. L., 102Dumitrescu, V. M., 71Dunkel, P., 36

Edasawa, Y., 9Edgar, F., 65Egbert, J., 91, 92Elen, J., 4Ellis, L., 67Englander, K., 92Enright, M. K., 8, 21, 33, 34, 141, 215Ertmer, P. A., 86, 105Espinoza, O., 107, 108Esterberg, K. G., 56, 61Estrada, V., 221

Farrell, K., 206Ferrare, J., 60Fitzpatrick, J. L., 11Foster, R., 117Fox, S., 209Frank, V. M., 43Freeman, A., 221Freynik, S., 43

Gandha, T., 82Garcia, F. E., 36Gardner, M., 75Garrett, N., 2, 4, 67Garrison, D., 4, 11, 169, 181Gass, S. M., 54, 58, 61Geare, A., 65Gebhard, J. G., 59Germaine, K. P., 133Gijselaers, W., 181Gilbert, S., 60Ginns, P., 90, 204Gleason, J., 8, 9, 10, 24, 215, 218, 219

Goedegebuure, D., 194, 209Goldberg, D., 136Golonka, E. M., 43, 50, 131, 161, 211Gonzalez, E., 107, 108González-Lloret, M., 17Goodfellow, R., 221Goodyear, P., 27Graham, C. R., 5, 6, 7, 10, 169, 183,

184, 221Green, T. D., 50, 52Greenhalgh, T., 11Greller, W., 222Grgurovic, M., 36Grimble, R., 170Gruba, P., 3, 4, 10, 21, 22, 24, 26,

29, 37, 38, 44, 47, 48, 49, 61, 66, 68, 72, 75, 77, 78, 91, 93, 105, 114, 115, 118, 119, 140, 171, 176, 181, 188, 189, 190, 192, 214, 216, 219, 220

Gugiu, P. C., 5Gump, A.W., 36

Hafner, C. A., 3Hamilton, D., 12Hammett, R., 75Han, X., 222Harbon, L. J., 87Harrison, J. B., 5, 169, 221Hayden, M., 165Healey, D., 66, 92Heck, D., 60Hegelheimer, V., 219Henry, G. T., 223, 224Hildreth, P. M., 74Hinkelman, D., 3, 4, 10, 21, 24, 26,

29, 37, 38, 44, 47, 48, 49, 61, 66, 68, 72, 75, 78, 92, 93, 105, 114, 115, 118, 119, 140, 171, 176, 181, 188, 189, 190, 192, 216, 219, 220

Hora, M. O. A., 60House, R., 27Howland, J., 114Hubbard, P., 8Huberman, A. M., 61, 64, 78, 176,

178, 187, 200Huckle, N., 221Hung, S. T. A., 89Hyatt, D., 99

Name Index 243

Ioannou-Georgiou, S., 66, 92

James, N., 102James, R., 205, 206Jamieson, J. M., 8, 21, 33, 34, 141, 215Janesick, V., 57Jansen, B. J., 57Jansen, K. J., 57Jennings, C., 205Jenson, J., 3, 10, 22, 36Johnson, K., 224Johnson, L., 221, 222Jonassen, D. H., 114Jones, C., 27Jones, F., 60Jones, R. H., 3Joy, E. H., 36Jung, S. H., 2, 10, 83, 87, 93, 216

Kabata, K., 9Kali, Y., 27Kamberelis, G., 81, 83Kane, M., 21, 32, 34, 35, 39, 41, 44,

119, 142Kanuka, H., 11Kawamura, H., 31, 65, 74, 77, 81, 82,

84, 220Kennedy, C., 193Kennedy, G., 4, 207, 209Kessler, G., 52, 105Kezar, A., 65, 67, 70Kiely, R., 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,

21, 45, 47, 109, 218, 224Kimble, C., 74King, J., 204Knobel, M., 36Koelsch, L. E., 102, 202Kramsch, C., 22, 28Krause, K.-L., 205Kress, G., 22, 89Krueger, R. A., 81, 82Kuijper, H., 194Kukulska-Hulme, A., 92Kushner, S., 11

Laborda, J. G., 47Lankshear, C., 36Lasagabaster, D., 59Laurillard, D., 47

Le, H., 165Le, T. T. T., 87Leakey, J., 9, 38Lee, H., 10, 149Lee, J., 9, 33, 141, 198, 199, 215, 217,

218Lee, L., 37Lei, J., 87, 206Leibowitz, B., 92Levy, M., 1, 8, 9, 193Li, Z., 215, 218Liamputtong, P., 82Liddicoat, A. J., 88, 89, 93, 100, 101,

195, 206Lo Bianco, J., 86, 195Lockee, B. B., 36Loewen, S., 22, 55Lohnes Watulak, S., 50Looney, D., 136López, B. A., 107, 108López, D. A., 107, 108López, D. C., 107, 108López Perez, M., 217Lotherington, H., 3, 10, 22, 36Luckin, R., 4Lusin, N., 136Lynch, B. K., 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22,

25, 61, 67, 76, 77, 84, 146, 169, 202, 216, 217

MacKeogh, K., 209Mackey, A., 54, 58, 61Marenzi, I., 3Maris, G., 194Mark, M. M., 223, 224Markauskaite, L., 27Markey, A., 37Marra, R., 114Martensson, K., 67, 74, 83Massey, O. T., 83McMurry, B. R., 8McNaught, C., 4Merrill, M. D., 4Mertens, D. M., 5, 11 12, 14, 73Miles, M. B., 61, 64, 78, 99, 101, 176,

178, 187, 200Miliszewska, I., 165Millis, B. J., 59, 60Mobasheri, A., 89

244 Name Index

Morris, M., 16Müller, M. J., 59Murray, D., 50, 157Murtha, S., 182Myezwa, H., 27

Neijmann, D., 9Nguyen, H. T. M., 87Niemiec, M., 169, 181, 183Noonan, M., 177Norris, J. M., 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 90,

92, 137

O’Dowd, R., 37Oller, J. W., 33, 34Oprandy, R., 59Ortiz Navarrete, M., 50Otte, G., 169, 181, 183Otto, S. E. K., 1Owen, G. T., 99Owen, J. M., 12, 13, 14, 69, 74, 77, 81,

169, 171, 189, 198Owens, T., 105Owston, R., 182Oxford, R. L., 2, 10, 83, 87, 93, 216Oyanedel, M., 28, 72, 93, 105, 109

Paltridge, B., 61Parker, J., 221Parlett, M., 12Pasley, J., 60Patton, M. Q., 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23,

24, 25, 26, 32, 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 49, 54, 61, 69, 72, 74, 81, 101, 117, 118, 131, 135, 169, 176, 187, 189, 218, 223

Pearce, G., 102Pearce, J., 207, 209Peña-Vinces, J. C., 108Phakiti, A., 61, 145Pham, T., 165Phillips, R., 4, 5, 81, 219Plakans, L., 52, 105Polkinghorne, D., 58Porter, V. V., 6, 7, 10, 169, 183, 184Posavac, E. J., 11, 12Pradel, B., 50Prior, L., 98, 99Prosser, M., 93

Quiroz, J. S., 133

Ramírez-Correa, P., 108Rea-Dickins, P., 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20,

45, 47, 109, 133, 224Reedy, K., 221Reinders, H., 1, 52, 216Richards, K., 58Richardson, D. L., 43Rodriguez-Campos, L., 5Rojas, M. J., 108, 109Ross, J. D., 86Rosson, M. B., 77, 220Rousseau, D. M., 27Roxa, T., 67Ruhe, V., 4, 38, 41Russell, J., 11Ryan, K. E., 82Ryan, S., 194

Saldaña, J., 61, 64, 78, 149, 200Salter, D. J., 93Sanders, J. R., 11Sawada, D., 60Scarino, A., 195Schalkwyk, S., 92Schoen, M., 194, 209Scriven, M., 12Shamdasani, P. N., 81, 82Sharma, P., 3Shelley, M. C., 36Shelton, C., 70Shively, R. L., 9Shohamy, E., 89, 92Sierra, J. M., 59Sinicrope, C., 14, 17, 18, 21, 137, 224Smith, M., 60Sole, C. R. I., 9Solomon, P., 27Spector, J. M., 4, 5Spring, K. A., 6, 169Stensaker, B., 67Stewart, A., 27Stewart, D. W., 81, 82Stockwell, G., 1, 8, 193Stringer, E. T., 79Sun, Y., 33Susser, B., 7, 8Sztendur, E. M., 165

Name Index 245

Taguchi, T., 56, 57Tai, S. J. D., 222Talmy, S., 58Taylor-Leech, K., 195Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., 102Thomas, M. E., 1, 2, 37, 52, 216Thomas-Hunt, M., 27Tomlinson, B., 3, 216Toomey, R., 114Toulmin, S. E., 34

Uzuner-Smith, S., 92

Vasquez Neira, A., 50Vaughan, N. D., 11, 27, 169, 181Vavrus, F., 31, 32

Wagner, E., 56, 57Walker, A., 1Wallace, L., 169Walton, M., 223Wang, Y. P., 222, 223Warschauer, M., 1, 216Watanabe, Y., 14, 17, 18, 21, 137, 224Wehner, A. K., 36Weiss, I., 60

Welch, A., 165Welch, K. R., 6, 169Whittaker, C., 3, 216Wickert, C. K., 195Wieman, C., 60Wilson, A. T., 5, 11, 12,

14, 73Wilson, R., 67Winberg, C., 92Winke, P., 149Winslett, G., 70, 92, 194, 204Wolcott, H. F., 149Woodfield, W., 5, 169, 221Worthen, B. R., 11

Xi, X., 35

York, D., 182Youn, S. J., 33Young, J., 169

Zappavigna, N., 79Zeni, J., 74Zhao, Y., 4Ziguras, C., 182Zumbo, B. D., 4, 38, 41

246

Subject Index

Academic English Program, 165–6action research, 14, 22–4, 32, 44, 55,

61, 62, 64stages of, 75

alignment, see considerationsappropriateness, see considerationsargument

evaluation as, 33, 35–8appraising, 39, 42–3, 44, 131–2,

161–2, 187–8, 211interpretive, 8, 9, 10, 34–5, 119,

141, 215planning an, 39–41, 44, 48–52,

69–74, 90–4, 109–12, 139–45, 168–73, 197–8

presenting an, 42, 44, 119–31, 150–61, 184–7, 207–11

structure of, 40, 49–52, 73–4, 93–4, 110–12, 141–5, 172–5, 198–9

validity, 8–10, 34–5, 43, 119, 215–16

see also argument-based approach; evidence

argument-based approachbenefits of, 38, 133, 163, 190,

211–12, 215–18challenges of, 132, 218–20stages of, 39, 44see also argument

assumptions, 34–5, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 71, 82, 93, 109, 111–12, 119–20, 129, 130, 135, 141, 142–5, 150, 151, 160, 161, 162, 171, 173–5, 185–6, 197–9, 207–9, 211, 214, 215

definition of, 71see also argument, structure of

backing, see evidenceblended language learning, 1–4

see also considerations; levelsblended language program evaluation,

see argument-based approach;

considerations; evaluation; language program evaluation; levels

future directions for, 220–4broader implication, see claims

case studiesAustralia, 192–212Chile, 105–34USA, 135–63Vietnam, 164–91

claimsbroader implication, 40, 51, 52, 73,

94, 110, 142, 162, 172, 186, 215, 218

data collection, 40, 51, 52, 73, 94, 110, 131, 142, 161, 172, 184–5, 187

findings, 40, 51, 52, 73, 94, 110, 131, 142, 162, 172, 185, 187–8

program improvement, 40, 51, 73, 94, 110, 142, 162, 172, 186

rationale, 40, 51, 73, 94, 110, 132, 142, 162, 172, 186, 188

see also argument, structure ofcomplexity theory, 222–3Computer-Assisted Language Learning

(CALL), 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19, 35, 38, 47, 66, 133, 216

considerationsacross levels, 29–32alignment, 221appropriateness, 10, 30–3, 49, 51,

72, 78, 93, 184, 185, 215, 219–20multimodality, 10, 30–3, 33, 49,

51–2, 72, 78, 93, 105, 114, 117, 185, 215, 219–21

purpose, 10, 30–3, 49, 51, 72, 78, 93, 185, 192, 199, 201, 208, 215, 219

sustainability, 10, 30–3, 49, 72, 78, 93, 140, 141, 157–9, 184–5, 192, 199, 201, 206, 208, 215, 219, 221

content analysis, 98, 150see also documents

Subject Index 247

data collection, 41–2, 55–61, 95–6, 116–17, 145–8, 177–8, 200–1

claim, see claimsdigital literacy, 3, 47, 66, 80,

93, 221discourse analysis, 99, 201, 207, 208,

210documents, 96–101

analysis of, 96, 100–1, 103, 117–18, 129, 146, 150, 161–2, 197

functions of, 97types of, 98

domain definition, see inferences

English Language Institute, 137–9

English Language Teaching Program, 105–7

ethical considerations, 41, 53–5, 61–2, 74–5, 95–6, 145, 173, 176, 198, 200, 208, 214, 222

evaluationdevelopmental, 13–14, 22–5, 32, 35,

44, 72, 74, 223inference, see inferenceslevels of, see macro level; meso

level; micro levelprogram, 10–19, 107–9,

136–7research on, 224see also argument; argument-based

approachevaluators

external, 12, 15, 70internal, 54, 76role of, 11, 12, 76responsibilities of, 5, 41, 53–4

evidencegathering, 41–2, 44, 52–64, 74–83,

95–103, 113–19, 145–50, 173–84, 198–207

see also argument-based approach, stages of

explanation, see inferences

findings, see claimsfocal questions, 39, 44, 49, 69, 140,

142, 151, 156, 171focus groups, 79–83

grounds, 34, 39, 51, 141, 184see also argument, structure of;

target domain

inferencesdomain definition, 40, 112, 119–20,

131, 141, 144, 150–1, 161, 175, 184–5, 187, 199, 207–8

evaluation, 40, 112, 120, 131, 141–2, 144, 151, 161–2, 175, 185, 187–8, 199, 208–9

explanation, 40, 111, 129–30, 132, 142, 143, 160, 162, 174, 185–6, 188, 199, 209, 211

ramification, 40, 111, 130–1, 132, 142, 143, 162, 174, 186–7, 199, 210–11, 218, 219

utilization, 40, 111, 130, 132, 142, 143, 161, 162, 174, 186, 199, 209–10, 211, 218

see also argument, structure ofinstruments, see data collectioninterpretive argument, see argumentinterviews

analysis of, 17, 87, 148–50, 156, 178–9

definition of, 57online, 96, 101–2, 147semi-structured, 58, 117, 118, 145,

147, 176–7structured, 58unstructured, 58

language program evaluation, 14–19challenges of, 20planning stage of, 25see also evaluation

learning management system, 50, 107, 123, 153, 157

levels, see macro level; meso level; micro level

overview of, 26–32

macro levelcase study, 192–212evaluation, 85–104

meso levelcase studies, 135–63, 164–91evaluation, 65–84

248 Subject Index

micro levelcase study, 105–34evaluation, 46–64

Modern Language Programs, 195–7multimodality, see considerations

normalization, 2–4, 9, 10, 19, 154, 216NVivo, 118, 119, 149

observationsbias in, 53classroom, 54, 59–61, 117, 118–19,

122, 129, 131participant, 59, 74–6schedules for, 60, 61, 117

participatory design, 58, 65, 73, 74, 77–9

policiesAustralian, 195analysis of, 94, 99, 100–1, 196–7,

207, 209types of, 88–9

program improvement, see claimspurpose, see considerations

qualitative analysis, 61–4quantitative analysis, 36questionnaires, 55–7, 116–17, 118,

124, 127, 129, 131

ramification, see inferencesrationale, see claimsrebuttals, 34, 43, 44, 131, 136, 161–3,

187–8resources

availability of, 57, 111–12, 120, 129, 207

lack of, 17, 83, 120, 121, 123, 129, 156–7, 216–17

stakeholderstypes of, 5, 26, 140, 169–71working with, 25–6, 28, 32, 33, 39,

41, 42, 44, 48–9, 69, 73, 91, 101, 102

standards, 66–7, 86, 89, 92, 98, 108–9, 133–4, 194, 204

sustainability, see considerationssurveys, see interviews; questionnaires

target domain, 40, 51, 52, 73, 93, 110, 131, 141, 142, 161, 172, 184, 187

see also argument, structure of; grounds

technologydimensions of, 47–8, 61, 119educational, 1, 4, 5, 20, 35, 48, 68,

77, 81, 85, 87, 92, 93, 94, 103, 166, 167, 170, 171, 187, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 221, 222

evaluation of, 4–10new, 5, 9, 24, 36, 80, 87,

88, 221technology integration, 2, 7, 10, 19,

47, 93, 209advantages of, 16, 38, 75, 97, 102,

123, 158, 180, 189challenges of, 87, 132, 158, 213

thematic analysis, 98, 118, 131, 144, 150, 161, 175, 177, 178, 179, 185, 186, 187, 188

see also documentstriangulation, 53, 78, 97, 103, 146,

187

universityof Hawaiʻi, 134–63of Melbourne, 192–212Pontificia Universidad Católica de

Valparaíso, 105–33Royal Melbourne Institute of

Technology, 164–91see also case studies

utilization, see inferences

validity argument, see argument

warrants, 34–5, 39, 41, 44, 110–12, 119, 120, 129, 130, 142–5, 150, 151, 160, 161, 173–5, 185, 186, 187, 188, 198–9, 207, 208, 209, 218

see also argument, structure of