WWW at Intercollege: what are the initial training issues?

1. Introduction and research aim

The ‘new’ digital culture has caused significant changes to the ‘traditional’ student-teacher learning environment and relationship. In particular, the rapid growth of features and functions offered by the convergence of various multi-media language applications gives teachers and students new capabilities. Intercollege (www.intercol.edu ), along with many educational institutions around the world[1], is seeking to complement its teaching and learning practices with the innovative use of such ICT features and functions. In 2003 it approved a budget for the development of a modern language resource centre (i.e. a language laboratory) at its Nicosia campus. Some of the Intercollege language laboratory co-ordinator’s[2] general duties and responsibilities include: (1) developing the centre’s capabilities through the introduction of WWW-site lab usage; this might therefore involve getting some feedback from ESOL staff regarding WWW usage in general; (2) assisting, supporting and training ESOL staff.

The aim of this research therefore was to identify, by eliciting questionnaire data, the type of issues that ought to be addressed in initial in-service WWW-related teacher-training sessions; this research aim was felt to be relevant to points (1) and (2) above. The researcher in this pilot study attempted to elicit questionnaire data that related to what ESOL teachers may think about WWW-ESOL usage in general, and to what teachers may think about two chosen WWW-ESOL sites[3].

2. Potential barriers to WWW uptake.

The potential barriers to WWW uptake listed below were chosen not only because they are mentioned in recent literature on barriers to ICT uptake, but also because they were thought to be particularly significant as regards the teacher-training pragmatic and organisational conditions.

2.1 Lack of confidence

Whether or not teachers feel confident about using WWW sites was felt to be an important teacher-training issue in the context of Intercollege teachers because it is believed that some members of staff may not feel confident; ICT literature suggests that lack of confidence is a barrier to WWW uptake. Jones (2004, 3)[4] for instance, holds that a very significant determinant of teachers’ level of engagement in ICT is their level of confidence in using the technology[5]. Furthermore, Jones (ibid) maintains that there is a close relationship between levels of confidence[6] and the amount and quality of training available[7]; it is held by Jones (2004, 3) that inappropriate training styles[8] may result in low levels of confidence and ICT use by teachers and that training courses that lack pedagogical aspects are likely to be unsuccessful[9].

2.2 Lack of time

Lack of time to prepare adequately for WWW lessons[10] was believed to be a significant concern in connection with barriers to WWW uptake at Intercollege. Intercollege ESOL part- timers and full-timers often have many other work commitments and so may not always have enough time to prepare for lessons in their own time. Not having enough time to prepare for WWW lessons also may have implications for the way teachers might be trained and supported in the language-lab environment[11]. Pertaining to lack of time as a barrier to WWW uptake, Jones (2004, 3) maintains that teachers are sometimes unable to use technology to the full because they lack the time needed to fully prepare and research materials for lessons, particularly where this involves online or multimedia content[12]. Furthermore, in an evaluation of the NOF training scheme run by the Scottish Teacher Education Consortium, Kirkwood et al (2000) highlighted the fact that expecting teachers to train in their own time caused a slow uptake in the training.

2.3 Not realising the benefits of WWW usage

Finding out whether Intercollege ESOL teachers actually believed that the use of WWW sites could enhance learning[13] was held to be a valid WWW-uptake research issue. If teachers felt that WWW usage might not enhance language learning, lab usage might decrease, and training sessions initially would have to try ‘to convince’ teachers of the merits of WWW usage. Jones (2004, 4) found that teachers who did not realize the advantages of using technology in their teaching were less likely to make use of ICT. It is recommended in Cox et al (1999) that a teacher-training programme needs to ensure that teachers are made aware of the benefits of using ICT.

2.4 Teacher thinking about WWW usage

Eliciting data appertaining to teachers’ thinking about WWW usage was also thought to be useful, as it might help to indicate which training issues might enhance teachers’ competence and confidence. In addition, Edmonson (2002, 2), with regard to what styles of computer training enhance teachers’ competence and confidence, asserts that knowing the ICT skill level and attitudes (specifically the ideas and anxieties) of staff towards computers, is crucial in designing training that is sympathetic to their needs. Cox et al (2004, 87) appertaining to pedagogical practices of teachers, found that what teachers thought and believed about teaching and learning was directly linked to what they did in the classroom and to the choices they made in selecting how to integrate ICT into their teaching.

2.5 Lack of competence

The writer of this paper distinguishes between the terms ‘confidence’ and ‘competence’, and maintains that as levels of WWW teacher competence are raised, WWW teacher confidence may grow. Lack of WWW competence was as a result deemed to be a barrier to WWW uptake. Jones (2004, 8) also holds that there is a direct relationship between the two terms i.e. he holds (ibid) that a factor that is directly related to teacher confidence levels is teacher competence. In order to achieve high levels of teacher competence in ICT, it is held by Jones (ibid) that there is a need to provide effective training[14]. With regard to training, Cox et al (2004, 84) draws attention to the need to train teachers and states that ‘excellent hardware and software will have no effect on attainment if teachers are not enabled and educated to use these resources appropriately’. Teachers’ perceived need to undergo training may also be indicative of how competent they might feel using WWW materials.

2.6 Lack of experience

Lack of lab experience or WWW experience (or both) was held to be a potential barrier to WWW uptake. Eliciting data pertinent to teachers’ language lab experience and WWW experience was maintained to be significant as it could provide a framework to which other training needs analysis data could be compared[15]. Moreover, the numbers of lab and WWW inexperienced and experienced teachers needed to be quantified to determine the nature of training courses. In particular, it was felt that asking teachers whether their ‘Web’ experiences were positive or negative might assist in gauging the type of training teachers might undergo[16].

2.7 Are the two WWW research sites user friendly?

Even though there are a multitude of well-known ESL sites on the Web, for the purposes of this study only two sites were chosen[17]. The criteria for choosing these sites were: site-reliability[18], language-level appropriacy, activity-comprehensiveness[19], and organisation of the site[20]. It was held that site-reliability, language-level appropriacy, activity-comprehensiveness and/or organisation of activities might to some degree affect the WWW uptake of these sites.

2.8 Other barriers

As this was a ‘pre-lab-usage’ study, some potentially consequential WWW-uptake barriers were not investigated, these were for example: how lack of quality support or training affected WWW uptake; how/whether lack of personal access to ICT facilities influenced uptake; whether any perceived institutional pressure to be ‘seen’ using the language lab had an effect on WWW uptake; how technical faults with hardware or software affected WWW uptake; how age or gender played a role with regard to WWW uptake; how a fear of ‘things going wrong’ affected WWW uptake; how lack of motivation or high work loads affected WWW uptake; how resistance to change influenced uptake. The above issues are all theoretically relevant to WWW-uptake at Intercollege and require further research[21]. A possible barrier or enabler, which is ‘institutional’ specific, might relate to rapport or lack of rapport between the language-lab co-ordinator and other Intercollege ESOL staff. Whether or not, personalities ‘gel’ in training sessions or non-training sessions, is believed to influence WWW uptake.

3. A perceived lack of sound WWW-pedagogy: a possible barrier to WWW-uptake.

In this section, literature is presented that appears to suggest that there is a lack of sound pedagogy for WWW usage. If this is the case, lack of sound pedagogy might also be considered a barrier to WWW uptake, provided that teachers actually feel they require ‘sound pedagogical’ guidance to use each WWW ESOL site. There is, however, some evidence appertaining to the British educational system[22] that suggests that teachers may need to develop sound ICT lesson pedagogies. Cox et al (2004, 5) for instance, hold that teachers may need to develop pedagogies[23] in order to incorporate the use of ICT into their lessons. Moreover, the need to consider teachers’ pedagogies is highlighted in the Cox et al (2004) DfES Report[24]; it is stated (2004, 3-4) that the evidence of the research literature shows that teachers’ pedagogies and pedagogical reasoning influence their use of ICT and thereby pupils’ attainment. Although the term ‘sound WWW pedagogy’ generally appears to be poorly defined in the literature, the assertion itself (i.e. that there is lack of sound WWW pedagogy) may affect to some degree other barriers to WWW uptake (e.g. confidence, attitudes towards WWW usage in general, time to plan and select WWW suitable lesson materials); it also has implications for the type of teacher training that might be carried out in this researcher’s professional context.

With regard to the assertion that there is a lack of sound WWW pedagogy, Wood (1999, 1) for instance, provides an overview of Internet sites that possibly could be useful in the ESOL classroom. He states (ibid) that ‘many pedagogical books, articles, and ‘exhortations’ about the educational significance of the Internet often turn out to be little more than lengthy lists of web page addresses (URLs)’. It is held by Wood (ibid) that ‘what is often missing from the huge array of Internet materials for pedagogic purposes is any clear identification of the new pedagogical opportunities that the Internet offers. Hanson-Smith (2003, 1-11) provides a summary of some of the current practices in ICT classrooms or learning centres. She maintains (ibid) that albeit that much excitement was generated by the use the Internet, the chief failing of multimedia thus far has been the lack of appropriate pedagogy. Kuechler (1996) holds that ‘the use of modern information technology in college teaching should be driven by the pedagogical imagination of the instructor’ and that ‘more toys (more sophisticated hardware) will not necessary make better classes’. LeLoup and Ponterio (2000, 5-6) hold that ultimately it is incumbent upon foreign language teachers to integrate WWW into the curriculum in a pedagogically sound and meaningful way. Brandl (2002, 87-107) asserts that there appears to be little theoretical and empirical research that demonstrates how to make use of Internet reading materials in a sound pedagogical way.

Although there appears to be a ‘consensus’ suggesting that there needs to be more sound WWW pedagogy, no consensus is evident with regard to what factors might comprise ‘sound WWW pedagogy’ or how/if ‘sound WWW pedagogy’ differs from ‘sound non-ICT classroom pedagogy’. This assertion has implications for how or whether questionnaire data can or should be elicited from teachers i.e. it would be difficult to devise questions relating to WWW pedagogy as a potential barrier to WWW uptake, if the term itself needed to be defined and then explained to teachers.

3.1 Planning and selection: two significant components to the perspective on sound WWW pedagogy

Even though it is not the aim of this paper to try to develop and research a working definition of ‘sound WWW pedagogy’, the issues identified by Brandl (2002), Cox et al (2004) and McLoughlin and Oliver (1999) for instance, could (partly) comprise the term (please refer to appendix one for a summary of what these writers feel WWW/ICT pedagogy might comprise). However, taking into account that this is a pre-lab-usage, training-needs study, certain points discussed in appendix one may be more suited to post-lab-usage research[25]. Two WWW pedagogy-related issues that are held to be relevant to this study, and could also become potential barriers to WWW uptake are: (1) do teachers feel they need assistance in using the WWW for planning lessons? (2) Are teachers able to select suitable and engaging WWW materials for their students?

3.2 Planning WWW lessons.

A lot of literature on ICT-related pedagogy emphasizes the importance of planning lessons[26]. Cox et al (2004, 88), for instance, maintain that teachers need to plan how the lessons will proceed and how the ICT resources will be used; furthermore, it is held (Cox ibid) that this might involve a change in classroom practice[27]. Cox et al (2004, 89-91) state that it is important to know how to prepare and plan ICT lessons, which challenge pupils’ understanding and promote reflection and thinking. Also, Cox et al (ibid) hold that planning such lessons should entail knowing which kinds of class organization will be most effective for the learning tasks, e.g. individual/pair/group work or a whole-class presentation. Pacing lessons at a realistic tempo, monitoring progress and maintaining a focus on learning, supporting learning and revision by making available printed and other written resources is also thought to be ‘sine qua non’ elements of planning an ICT lesson (cited in Cox et al 2004, 88). The above points suggest that planning WWW lessons might not be a clear-cut task, and so this could have implications for teacher training at Intercollege.

3.3 Selecting suitable WWW materials

Whether or not teachers are able to select suitable[28] WWW materials is an area of potential training concern for the language lab coordinator. The criteria for selecting WWW materials, in this researcher’s opinion are by no means straightforward. Shulman (1987), for instance, with regard to pedagogical reasoning skills, maintains that teachers should: adapt/fit class material to the characteristics of the pupil, examine the content to be taught, and think of ways that the ideas may be made accessible to pupils[29]. Suitable WWW materials may also be relevant to some of the issues presented in Linn and Hsi's (2000) ‘pragmatic’ list of ICT classroom pedagogical issues, for example, suitable materials may: (1) encourage pupils to investigate personally relevant problems; (2) encourage pupils to listen and learn from each other; (3) partly engage pupils in reflecting on their own progress in understanding English[30].

4 A summary of key research issues

Table one (please refer to appendix two on page 18) attempts to summarise the key research issues by bridging a view from the literature discussed above and a view from the perspectives of Intercollege.

5. A framework for constructing a ‘training analysis’ questionnaire

The questionnaire[31] comprised two sections derived from the nine issues discussed in table one above. Each section[32] had a number of related question items. The two sections[33] within which questions were constructed related to: (1) thinking about WWW teaching (2) the chosen WWW sites. The questionnaire consisted of nineteen questions in total, grouped into the two above-mentioned sections. A full description of how questionnaire items were constructed is presented in appendix three on pages 19-20

6. Data presentation and classification

Out of the 22 questionnaires that were handed out to full-time and part-time members of Intercollege ESOL staff, only 11 questionnaires were collected. 8 out of the 12 questionnaires handed to full-time members of staff had been returned. Whereas only 3 out of the 10 questionnaires handed out to part-time EFL staff had been returned. The reason why so few part-timers responded to the questionnaire is not clear. Moreover, as the sample was so small and none of the teachers chose to remain anonymous, it was clear which teachers had not filled in the questionnaires. However, on an ethical note, no teacher was pressurized to fill in the questionnaire, and teachers had been informed that their anonymity would be guaranteed even if they chose, for whatever reason, not to fill in the questionnaire.

6.1 A presentation and classification of questionnaire feedback

Questionnaire section one

1. With regard to question one, 9 teachers believed that the use of the Internet could enhance foreign language learning ‘a lot’; two teachers (i.e. teacher 3 and 11) felt that the use of the Internet might enhance foreign language learning ‘quite a lot’. The data for question one seems to propound the idea that teachers believed that the use of the Internet could enhance foreign language learning.

2. Feedback to question two is presented in table two below. The high correlation between question one and question two may be indicative of positive attitudes towards WWW usage.

Table two: the degrees to which teachers would like to use WWW in language classes?

	Not at all	A little	Unsure	Quite a lot	A lot
Teacher 1				a
Teacher 2				a
Teacher 3		a
Teacher 4				a
Teacher 5				a
Teacher 6				a
Teacher 7					a
Teacher 8			a
Teacher 9					a
Teacher 10					a
Teacher 11					a

3. As regards the number of teachers that had ever used the Web to teach English, teachers 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 had the opinion that they had, whereas teachers 3, 5, 6 claimed that they had not.

4. Question four was linked to question three, and appertained only to the teachers that had used the Web to teach English. Two teachers (i.e. teachers 1 and 9) stated they had had ‘positive’ experiences using the Web, whereas the others (i.e. teachers 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11) felt they had had ‘mainly positive’ experiences. With regard to questions three and four, the average response, for the 70+% of teachers that had used WWW to teach English, was positive or mainly positive.

5. Question 5 pertained to how experienced teachers felt using a language lab. Teachers 2, 3 and 11 replied with the ‘not at all’ option. Teachers 1, 5, 6, 8, and 10 stated that they had had ‘a little’ lab experience. Teachers 4, 7, 9 stated that they had had ‘quite a lot’ of lab experience. Overall about 70% of teachers were of the opinion that they had had ‘no’ or ‘very little’ lab experience. 30% of teachers held that they had had ‘quite a lot’.

6. The degrees to which teachers thought they would feel confident using WWW-sites in a lab environment are presented in table 3 below. Confidence levels appear to be high for this sample.

Table three: confidence levels using WWW sites

	Not at all	A little	Unsure	Quite a lot	A lot
Teacher 1					a
Teacher 2				a
Teacher 3				a
Teacher 4				a
Teacher 5				a
Teacher 6		a
Teacher 7				a
Teacher 8		a
Teacher 9					a
Teacher 10				a
Teacher 11				a

7. Data regarding the degree to which teachers felt that they might need teacher training on using WWW (i.e. because they did not feel competent using WWW) is presented in table four below. With regard to questions 6 and 7, 80% of teachers felt that they would feel quite confident or very confident using WWW sites in a language lab. The remaining 20% believed that they would feel a little confident using WWW sites in a language lab. Albeit that most of the teachers who felt confident did not feel they needed much training on using WWW sites (i.e. they felt competent), some teachers (i.e. 4, and 7) were not sure whether they needed training using WWW (i.e. they claimed they would feel quite confident in table three, but were not sure whether they would feel competent in table 4). Teachers that did not feel confident however, did not feel competent (i.e. they believed that they needed more training using WWW).

Table four: WWW competence levels

	Not at all	A little	Unsure	Quite a lot	A lot
Teacher 1		a
Teacher 2				a
Teacher 3		a
Teacher 4			a
Teacher 5	a
Teacher 6				a
Teacher 7			a
Teacher 8				a
Teacher 9	a
Teacher 10		a
Teacher 11					a

8. The degrees to which teachers believed that they needed help using the two WWW ESOL sites for planning WWW-based lessons are shown in table 5 below. On the whole, a positive correlation was found between confidence in using WWW sites in a language lab environment and the degree to which teachers thought they needed help using the two research ESOL sites[34]. However, please note that three teachers were unsure.

Table five: degree of training required to plan WWW lessons.

	Not at all	A little	Unsure	Quite a lot	A lot
Teacher 1		a
Teacher 2			a
Teacher 3		a
Teacher 4	a
Teacher 5	a
Teacher 6				a
Teacher 7			a
Teacher 8		a
Teacher 9	a
Teacher 10		a
Teacher 11			a

9. Question 9 concerned how difficult teachers perceived it might be to find time to prepare for lessons using materials from the two WWW ESOL sites reviewed. The results are presented in table six below. With regard to how difficult it might be to find enough time to prepare materials, the responses were mixed. 6 teachers replied with either ‘not difficult at all’ or ‘a little difficult’. Two teachers (i.e. teachers 1 and 7) were ‘unsure’ and three teachers felt it would be a little difficult. Teacher 1, may have felt that way because she was due to give birth within a month; teacher 7, was a mother of two, and also a doctoral candidate. However, more qualitative data is required to establish why some Intercollege teachers feel they may not have enough time to prepare for WWW lessons.

Table Six: difficulties involved in finding enough time to prepare for WWW lessons

	Very difficult	Difficult	Unsure	A little difficult	Not difficult at all.
Teacher 1			a
Teacher 2				a
Teacher 3		a
Teacher 4					a
Teacher 5				a
Teacher 6					a
Teacher 7			a
Teacher 8				a
Teacher 9					a
Teacher 10		a
Teacher 11		a

10. Feedback regarding how difficult teachers thought it might be to select suitable and engaging materials for students is presented below in table seven. Over 50% of teachers thought it would not be difficult at all, or would be a little difficult to select suitable and engaging materials for students. Four teachers were ‘unsure’ and one teacher maintained it would be quite difficult. This comparatively mixed response may suggest that further qualitative research is required to identify the kinds of perceived difficulties teachers may have.

Table Seven: difficulties involved in selecting suitable WWW materials

	Not difficult at all	A little difficult	Unsure	Quite difficult	Very difficult
Teacher 1				a
Teacher 2	a
Teacher 3			a
Teacher 4	a
Teacher 5		a
Teacher 6	a
Teacher 7			a
Teacher 8			a
Teacher 9		a
Teacher 10			a
Teacher 11		a

11. Only four teachers responded to ‘open-ended’ question 11. Teacher one believed matching online materials to Intercollege syllabi would be difficult. Teacher 3 maintained that as there were differences between classes of the same level, too much time would be required to find suitable materials. Teacher 8 held that some writing materials were too country-specific. Teacher 11 held that finding enough time was the main difficulty.

Questionnaire section two

12. Question twelve (i.e. this was an open-ended question) elicited data concerning whether teachers particularly liked something about the two sites. Five teachers responded, the following points were mentioned: vocabulary building activities of both sites; lesson plans; Ohio university listening, reading, grammar activities; on-line English grammar; Ohio University world news section. Only 50% of the teachers responded to question 12. Furthermore, the things that teachers liked varied to some extent.

13-14 Feedback to questions 13 to 14 are presented in table eight.

Table eight: teacher feedback regarding site reliability and organisation

	Reliability of the Ohio University site	Reliability of ESL study lab.	Organisation the of Ohio University site.	Organisation of ESL study Lab
Teacher 1	5	1	4	1
Teacher 2	4	4	4	4
Teacher 3	5	5	4	4
Teacher 4	5	4	5	4
Teacher 5	4	4	4	5
Teacher 6	5	5	5	5
Teacher 7	4	4	3	4
Teacher 8	3	3	4	4
Teacher 9	X	X	X	X
Teacher 10	X	X	X	X
Teacher 11	5	5	5	5

1—very poor 2—poor 3—average 4—good 5—excellent X—no feedback

15. With regard to feedback to questions 15 (i.e. language level appropriateness in terms of writing, speaking, listening reading, grammar, vocabulary and the requirements of your courses the following were noted: (a) teacher 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 did not fill any of these sections in; (b) teachers 8, 9, 10 stated that filling these sections in required too much time; (c) teachers 2, 5 and 11 responded with a ‘3’, ‘4’ or ‘5’ for all of the above categories for both sites; (d) teacher 4 responded with a ‘5’ only to the speaking grammar and vocabulary categories for both labs.

16. Feedback to question 16 (i.e. the comprehensiveness of the sites according to writing, speaking, reading, speaking, listening, vocabulary activities) is as follows: teachers: (a) teacher 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 did not fill any of these sections in; (b) teachers 8, 9, 10 stated that filling these sections in would be too time consuming; (c) teachers 2 and 5 responded with a ‘3’, ‘4’ or ‘5’ for all of the above categories for both sites; (d) teacher 4 responded with a ‘5’ or ‘4’ only to the writing, reading, vocabulary categories for both labs.

17. Only four teachers responded to question 17 (i.e. range of activities for both sites). Responses ranged from 3-5 for both sites. Even though not many teachers responded to questions 13-17[35], the feedback however, that had been elicited, was fairly positive (i.e. none of the teachers were particularly critical of the sites in terms of question 13-17 assessment criteria). Five teachers gave question-19 feedback regarding site-usage problems. Teacher 2 claimed that most of the topics were drawn from American culture/current affairs. Teacher 4 maintained that, as class levels tend to fluctuate from semester to semester, teachers might have to find different materials for students that ‘should be’ at the same level. Teacher 5 asserted that some ‘Ohio’ site materials that had been categorised as being suitable for basic level were actually intermediate level. Teacher 7 held that both sites are skills orientated rather than theme-orientated. This teacher argued that it would be better to choose a topic and then be presented with a choice of suitable WWW materials at appropriate levels. Teacher 8 maintained that both sites had an enormous range of topics/links requiring careful checking by the instructor. Moreover some the sites were held to not lend themselves to independent study, and could be time wasting unless a specific plan was followed. Some question-19 feedback, i.e. was there anything problematic about the sites, appears to suggest that the two research sites might need to be complemented with some other WWW sites. Although this paper does not seek to develop an idea of pedagogy in context, the findings themselves do suggest that teachers are able to critique sites in terms of selecting materials.

7. Discussion and conclusion

In this section, discussion of contextually relevant research findings and a critique of the questionnaire study are intended to provide insights into how professional learning might be supported.

Even though this pilot study may provide some useful ‘leads’ to follow up, the research findings were based on a small questionnaire data sample; this is seen as a research limitation. Furthermore, the validity of questionnaires has been questioned by many; Dornyei, (2001, 207-208) for example provides a summary of the threats to validity, one main issue relates to the assertion that people do not always provide true answers about themselves. Dornyei (ibid.) also holds that some questionnaire participants may provide ‘a good guess’ about what the desirable, acceptable or expected answer is, and some of them will provide this response even if it is not true. The researcher also questions the reliability of some questionnaire data e.g. would teachers really admit that they were not WWW confident/competent? Also, to what degree were questions non-threatening? It is held that interviewing or observing teachers longitudinally would elicit qualitative data, which might be more reliable.

In the study, teachers’ attitudes towards WWW usage seemed to be generally positive, and confidence levels appeared to be high in the data sample. Moreover, as teacher-WWW-experience was relatively high and as teachers were confident and ‘positive’, it is asserted that teachers may be more open to training than inexperienced, unconfident and ‘negative’ teachers. Moreover, as discussed in section 2.3, the language lab co-ordinator may not have to spend time persuading teachers of the benefits of WWW. The comparatively low levels of lab-experience, are thought to be relevant to initial teacher-training sessions; this finding may suggest that Intercollege training courses should incorporate elements of ICT skills training (as recommended in Preston et al 2000, discussed in section 2.5). However, as nearly 80% of teachers believed that they would feel confident in a lab environment, it is held that teachers might be more open to such initial training sessions than unconfident teachers. With regard to the degree to which teachers felt that they might require help using WWW sites, the feedback was fairly mixed; this could mean that training sessions may need to include general WWW training for staff. However, fewer staff thought that they would need to be supported using the 2 WWW sites for planning lessons. This finding does not necessarily contradict what was stated in the literature on the perceived lack of sound WWW pedagogy (discussed in section 3, i.e. providing WWW sites with ‘sound pedagogical advice’ was generally not thought necessary for the teachers in this research). It is possible that teachers: (1) simply do not realise that planning WWW lessons is a complex task; (2) feel they are able to plan WWW lessons in a pedagogically sound way; (3) do not want to admit that they cannot plan WWW lessons (i.e. potentially threatening). It was suggested in section 3.1 (footnote 25) further research is required, in particular through semi-structured interviewing and observation, to establish: (1) whether teachers can actually plan WWW lessons in a ‘pedagogically sound’ way; (2) how teachers plan and realise WWW lessons. This data has implications for teacher training: if teachers feel that they do not need to be helped, should the lab co-ordinator assist them?

The mixed responses appertaining to the difficulty of finding enough time to prepare WWW lessons (this issue was discussed in section 2.2) may be difficult to interpret. Furthermore, the poor questionnaire response rate among part timers and the fact that only four teachers had enough time or wanted to fill in the ‘time-consuming’ questionnaire sections 13 to 17 may suggest that time is a central teacher training issue. In this research most teachers claimed that they would know how to plan WWW lessons, but thought that they would not have enough time to do so. Another potential weakness of the questionnaire pertained to whether teachers were ‘really’ telling the truth about whether they would have enough time to prepare for WWW lessons (i.e. was this a threatening question?); interviewing teachers could provide explanations why some teachers felt time was, or was not, an issue. Feedback regarding the difficulties involved in selecting suitable and engaging materials for students was also mixed. Teacher-training sessions may, therefore, need to offer teachers some advice about where such materials might be found. Feedback to questions 11, 12 and 18 appears to imply that teachers have many ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of the two chosen WWW research sites. Teacher opinions could, as a result, be a useful source of information for a teacher trainer. Also, although feedback regarding site reliability, organisation, language-level appropriateness and comprehensiveness was positive, some open-ended teacher feedback suggested that the two WWW research sites may need to be complemented with other WWW sites. The language lab trainer would consequently have to find other WWW sites for certain teachers.

A number of issues seem to be emerging from the data that have relevance to the future development of the language lab. Issues that could be addressed in initial training sessions could be: (1) are teachers really confident/competent? The data suggests they were but how reliable was the data? (2) Do teachers ‘really’ have enough time to prepare for lessons? (3) Do teachers really have positive attitudes to WWW usage? (4) How much lab training will be enough for the inexperienced staff? Another issue, which could be addressed in initial training sessions, appears to be more long-term, and pertains to what ‘sound WWW pedagogy’ might be; sound pedagogy was held to involve planning and selection, though these processes were maintained to be complex. Two issues therefore might be ‘teased out’ from these findings: (a) once issues (1)-(4) have been addressed in initial training sessions, teacher’ WWW uptake may depend more on developing a sound, and possibly individualised, ‘teacher’ WWW pedagogy, possibly through teacher experimentation; (b) this process may require support, assistance and training from the lab co-ordinator.

By way of conclusion, although it was felt that some questionnaire items may have been threatening and/or unreliable, some issues were identified as being relevant to initial teacher training sessions (i.e. this was the research aim outlined at the outset). However, the issue of helping/encouraging teachers to develop good WWW pedagogies will be challenging for the language lab co-ordinator; but as WWW is a free resource, whereas networked CD’s are extremely expensive, the future development of Intercollege’s language lab may depend more on how WWW is incorporated into ESOL language programmes.

Word Count 5450

8. References

Bradley, G., Russel, G. (1997). Computer experience, school support and computer anxieties.

Educational Psychology, 17 (3), pp 267-284

Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language

curriculum: from teacher to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology: Vol 6, No 3, pp 87-107. Available: http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/brandl/default.html

Cox, M., and Abbott, C. (Eds) (2004). A review if the research literature relating to ICT and

attainment. Coventry, Becta/ London, DfES. Available: http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/ict_pedagogy_summary.pdf

Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T., and Rhodes, V. (2004). ICT

and Pedagogy. DfES/Becta. Available: http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/ict_pedagogy_summary.pdf

Cox, M., Preston, C., Cox, C. (1999). What factors support or prevent teachers from using

ICT in the primary classroom. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. University of Sussex at Brighton. (September 2-5 1999). http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001304.htm

Cuban, L. (1999). The technology puzzle. Educational Week, 18 (43).

http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/43cuban.h18

Dawes, L (2000). The National Grid for Learning and the professional development of

teachers: outcomes of an opportunity for dialogue. PhD Thesis.

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow, Essex: Pearson

Education Ltd.

Edmonson, A. (2002). What styles of computer training enhance teachers’ competence and

confidence to use ICT? DfES/Becta . Available: http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/cpd_edmondson.pdf

Godwin-Jones, B. (1999). Emerging Technologies—Web Metadata. Language

Learning & Technology. Vol 3 No1 July 1999: pp12-16

Graus, J. (1999). An evaluation of the usefulness of the Internet in the EFL classroom.

Master’s Thesis. Available: http://home.plex.nl/~jgraus/thesis/Contents.htm

Guha, S (2000). Are you technically prepared? Teachers’ perspectives on the causes of

comfort or discomfort in using computers at elementary grade teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children Atlanta, GA, November 8-11, 2000.

Hanson-Smith, E. (2003). Technology in the Classroom: Practice and Promise in the 21^st

century. (online). available:

http://www.tesol.org/pubs/catalog/downloadable/hanson-smith-1.html

Jones, Andrew (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by

teachers. Available online at DfES/Becta. Available: http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/barriers.pdf

Kirkwood, M., Van Der Kuyl, T., Parton, N., Grant, R. (2000). The New Opportunities Fund

(NOF) ICT training for teachers’ programme: Designing a powerful online learning environment. Paper presented at the European conference on educational research. Edinburgh, 20-23.

Larner, D., and Timberlake, L. (1995). Teachers with limited computer knowledge: variables

affecting use and hints to increase use. The Curry School of Education, University of Virginia

Lee, D. (1997). Factors influencing the success of computer skills learning among in-service

teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (2), pp 139-141

LeLoup, J., and Ponterio, R. (2000). Enhancing Authentic Language Learning Experiences

through Internet Technology. Digest. Available: www.cal.org/resources/digest/0002enhancing.html

Lin, B, S., and Hsieh, C, T. (2001). Web-based teaching and learner control: a research

review. Computers & education. 37 (3-4): 377-386

McLoughlin, C., and Oliver, R. (1999. Pedagogic roles and dynamics in telematics

environments. In telematics in Education: Trends and Issues. M. Sellinger and J.

Pearson (Eds). 32-50. Oxford, Elsevier Science.

Morrison, S. (2002). Interactive Language Learning on the Web. Digest. Available:

www.cal.org/resources/digest/0212morrison.html

Pina, A., Harris, B. (1993). Increasing teachers’ confidence in using computers for education.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Arizona Educational Research

Organisation (Tucson, AZ, November 1993).

Preston, C. Cox, M., Cox, K. (2000). Teachers as innovators: an evaluation of the motivation

of computer assisted learning, 12 pp 194-204

Ross, J,. Hogaboam-Gray, A.,Hannay, L. (1999). Predictors of teachers’ confidence to

implement computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research.

21(1), pp 75-97

Russel, G,. and Bradley, G. (1997). Teachers’ computer anxiety: implication for professional

development. Education and Information Technologies, 2 (1), pp17-30

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review 57

Snoeyink, R., Ertmer, P. (2001). Thrust into technology: how veteran teachers respond.

Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30 (1), pp 85-111

Somekh, B., and Davies, R. (1991). Towards a pedagogy for information technology. The

Curriculum Journal. 2 (2): 153-170

Veen, W. (1993). The role of beliefs in the use of information technology: implications for

teacher education, or teaching the right thing at the right time. Journal of Information

Technology for Teacher Education, 2 (2), pp 139-153

Wood, Robert. (1999). Thinking About the Internet Pedagogically. Rutgers, The State

University of New Jersey Campus at Camden. (online). Available: http://www.camden.rutgers.edu/%7Ewood/pedagogy.html

Appendix one

Appendix one presents three views of WWW/ICT pedagogy i.e. Brandl (2002), Cox et al (2004) and McLoughlin and Oliver (1999). It is asserted that planning and selection appear to be key components of these definitions.

Brandl (2002, 87-107) attempts to define what factors might determine the design of an Internet-based lesson, these are thought to be: a teacher's pedagogical approach, her/his technological expertise, and the students' language proficiency. Brandl (2002, 87-107) maintains that in light of these factors, the approach to the pedagogical design of successful Internet-based lessons falls along a continuum from being teacher-determined or teacher-facilitated to student-determined. In more detail, lesson designs may distinguish themselves in the following contextual dimensions: (1) the learning resources, that is, the topics and content, text type; (2) the scope of the learning environment, that is, the number of dissimilar sources (sites or links) to be integrated; (3) the learning tasks, that is, the ways in which the learners explore the reading materials, synthesize and assimilate what they have learned; (4) the degree of teacher and learner involvement in determining the areas mentioned above. It is held that Brandl’s (ibid) points (1) and (2) above seem to connote a certain amount of ‘selection’, whereas points (3) and (4) above appear to imply a degree of ‘planning’.

In Cox et al (2004, 11-12), teachers’ pedagogical practices were partly analysed in relation to the following categories: (a) the selection of the ICT resources; (b) the organisation of the ICT resources; (c) the planning of the lesson; (d) the organisation of the lesson, including lesson structure and pupil grouping; (e) teachers’ perceptions of the value of the ICT activity (f) the relationship between the ICT activity and the rest of the teaching activities. Points (a) and (b) could be more ‘selection’ orientated, whereas, points (c), (d) and (f) appear to be slanted more towards ‘planning’.

McLoughlin and Oliver (1999) provide a general framework definition of some important pedagogical roles for teachers working in a technology-supported classroom, these include: setting joint tasks, rotating roles, promoting student self-management, supporting meta-cognition, fostering multiple perspectives and scaffolding learning[36]. These points are held to involve degrees of planning and selection of suitable materials. It is however held that the processes involved in WWW planning and selection, are complex and a potential training concern at Intercollege; some of the complexities are discussed in sections 3.2 and 3.3 below.

Appendix two

Table one, in appendix two attempts to ‘take stock of’ the key research issues by bridging a view from the literature discussed above and from the perspectives of Intercollege.

Table one: some key teacher-training issues to be researched

Issue to be researched	Why is this a training issue?
1. Lack of confidence	If Intercollege teachers do not feel confident they may need more (quality) training (discussed 2.1). In the experience of the researcher however, many Intercollege teachers ‘appear/claim’ to be confident.
2. Lack of time	Lack of time could be an important issue at Intercollege. More training and support may be required for teachers who do not have enough time to prepare for lessons (discussed in 2.2).
3. Not realising the benefits of WWW usage.	Intercollege teachers who do not believe WWW usage can be beneficial and may use the lab less (or not at all). This, therefore, has training implications (discussed in 2.3). Based on anecdotal accounts however, most teachers appear to want to use WWW in lesson time.
4. Teacher thinking about WWW usage.	Finding out about Intercollege WWW/lab-related attitudes is thought to be crucial in designing initial training that is sympathetic to their needs (discussed in 2.4).
5. Lack of competence	If Intercollege teachers do not feel competent using WWW for teaching, they may need general ICT training (discussed in 2.5). Some Intercollege teachers, particularly mature part-timers, have mentioned that they would need help using hardware/software.
6. Lack of experience	Are Intercollege teachers lab experienced? Have teachers ever used WWW to teach? Do they have positive or negative WWW experiences (discussed in 2.6)? This has implications for the type of training teachers will undergo.
7. Are the 2 WWW research sites user friendly?	It is significant to find out what Intercollege staff thinks of these sites. What things would they like/dislike? Would these sites have to be complemented with others (discussed in 2.7)?
8. Help with WWW lesson planning.	Do teachers feel they need help to plan WWW-based lessons (discussed in 3, 3.1)? WWW lesson planning appears to be a complex process that is thought to involve teachers in a personalised from of experimentation. Moreover, what the lab co-ordinator feels is good lesson planning may not necessarily appeal to the ESOL teacher.
9. Difficulty choosing suitable WWW materials.	Teachers may require help to select suitable and engaging WWW materials. However as mentioned in 3.2, selection also is a complex process that may involve teachers ‘learning from their failures’ i.e. experimentation.

Appendix three

Questionnaire section-one: thinking about WWW usage.

Table one, issue four concerned teachers’ thinking about WWW usage. Eliciting data regarding teachers’ thoughts about, and general attitudes towards, WWW-usage might yield some relevant data that could be indicative of the type of training that might be needed.

Questions one and two

Question one related to general attitudes towards WWW-usage in-class. Question one was derived from table one, issue three; question two related to table-one issue four (i.e. attitudes).

1. To what degree do you believe the use of the Internet can enhance foreign language learning?

2. To what degree would you like to use Internet technology in your language classes?

Questions three, four and five

Table one, issue six suggests that eliciting data pertinent to teacher WWW experiences could provide a framework to which other training needs-analysis data might be compared. In particular, it was felt that asking teachers whether their ‘Web’ experiences were positive or negative might help to gauge the type of training teachers might undergo[37]. Questions three, four and five are presented below.

3. Have you ever used Web sites to teach English?

4. If ‘yes’ state whether your experience of using Web sites was positive or negative.

5. How experienced do you feel you are in using a language lab?

Questions six and seven

Question six appertained to table one, issue one, and question seven pertained to table one, issue five.

6. To what degree do you believe you would feel confident using WWW-sites in a language-lab environment?

7. How competent do you feel using WWW in general for teaching purpose (i.e. do you feel you need any training to use WWW for teaching purposes?)?

Questions eight and nine

Question eight related to table one, issue eight (i.e. whether teachers felt they needed help planning WWW lessons). It was felt that asking Intercollege teachers in questionnaire format, whether they could actually plan an Internet-based lesson, or asking teachers searching questions regarding what ‘sound WWW pedagogy’ might comprise, could have been threatening or de-motivating for some teachers. The issue of lack of time was discussed in table one, issue two, and held to be an important teacher training issue.

8. To what degree do you think you would require help using the two WWW ESOL sites you have reviewed for planning WWW-based lessons?

9. Taking into consideration other commitments you might have, realistically, would you have enough time to prepare for lessons using the two WWW ESOL sites you have reviewed?

Questions ten and eleven

These questions related to table-one issue 9. Question eleven was an open-ended question.

10. How difficult do you think it might be, using the two WWW sites provided, to select suitable WWW materials that might be engaging for your students?

11. With regard to question (10), if you think it might be difficult, could you say what the main difficulties might comprise?

Questionnaire section-two: the chosen www-sites.

In section two (i.e. questions 12-19), general teacher feedback[38] was elicited about the two WWW research sites in table format. Such feedback was felt to be germane as regards the duties and responsibilities of the language lab co-ordinator, discussed in section one and also, it related to table-one, issue seven.

Questionnaire section-two, elicited data regarding the following:

· On a scale of 1-5 rank the usefulness of these sites.

· Is there anything you particularly like about these sites Y/N? If ‘yes’, what?

· On a scale of 1 (poor)-5 (excellent) rate the following for each site:

1. Reliability of links (i.e. do they exist? Can you access them?)

2. Organisation of the site (i.e. how easy is it to move around the site?)

3. Appropriateness in terms of language levels[39].

4. Comprehensiveness according to language skill levels[40].

5. Range of activities.

· Is there anything you find problematic about these sites Y/N? If ‘yes’, what?

Appendix four

Questionnaire

You anonymity will be guaranteed if you choose not to fill in this questionnaire.

Dear Colleague! Currently, I am undertaking a study for Bristol University that will attempt to assess the kind of issues that might be relevant to initial teacher training in WWW ESOL-usage in a language lab environment. The data elicited in this study will be used in strict confidence, and all study participant names will be made anonymous to third persons. Your feedback is necessary, as it is hoped that it will help me to make language-lab training more relevant to teacher training needs. For the purposes of this study two WWW sites have been chosen i.e. The University-of-Ohio ESL Student Resource Centre site and ESL Independent Study Lab site. I would be extremely grateful if you could ‘try them out’ and fill in the following questionnaire. The sites are:

1. http://www.ohiou.edu/esl/english/index.html
2. http://www.lclark.edu/%7Ekrauss/toppicks/toppicks.html

Your name. (You may remain anonymous if you wish).

………………………………………………………………………

What course(s) do you teach?

……………………………………………………………………….

Your thinking about WWW usage

Please tick the appropriate boxes

1. To what degree do you believe the use of the Internet can enhance foreign language learning?

Not at all.  A little  Unsure.  Quite a lot  A lot 

2. To what degree would you like to use Internet technology in your language classes?

Not at all.  A little  Unsure.  Quite a lot  A lot 

3. Have you ever used Web sites to teach English? Yes  No 

4. If you replied ‘yes’ to question 3, state whether your experience of using Web sites was:

Positive  Mainly positive  Mainly negative  Negative 

5. How experienced do you feel you are in using a language lab?

Not at all.  A little  Quite a lot  A lot 

6. To what degree do you believe you would feel confident using WWW in a language-lab environment?

Not at all.  A little  Unsure.  Quite a lot  A lot 

7. How competent do you feel using WWW in general for teaching purpose (i.e. do you feel you need any training to use WWW for teaching purposes?)?

Not at all.  A little  Unsure.  Quite a lot  A lot 

8. To what degree do you think you would need help using the two WWW ESOL sites you have reviewed for planning WWW-based lessons?

Not at all.  A little  Unsure.  Quite a lot  A lot 

9. Taking into consideration other commitments you might have, realistically, would you have enough time to prepare for lessons using the two WWW ESOL sites you have reviewed?

Very difficult.  Difficult.  Unsure.  A little difficult  Not difficult at all 

10. How difficult do you think it might be, using the two WWW sites provided, to select suitable WWW materials that might be engaging for your students?

Not at all.  A little  Unsure.  Quite a lot  A lot 

11. With regard to question (10), if you think it might be difficult, could you say what the main difficulties might comprise?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The chosen WWW-sites.

These questions pertain to the chosen 2 WWW-sites.

12. If there is anything you particularly like about these sites, write what it is here.

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

On a scale of 1-5, rate the following below for each site

1=Very poor 2=poor 3=average, 4=good 5=excellent	Ohio university ESL resource site	ESL Independent study Lab site
13. Reliability of links (i.e. do they exist? Can you access them?)
14. Organisation of the site.
15. Language level appropriateness in terms of: a. Writing b. Speaking c. Listening d. Reading e. Grammar f. Vocabulary g. The requirements of your course.	a. b. c. d. e. f. g.	a. b. c. d. e. f. g.
16. Comprehensiveness in terms of: a) writing activities b) speaking activities c) reading activities d) speaking activities e) listening activities f) vocabulary activities	a. b. c. d. e. f.	a. b. c. d. e. f.
17. Range of activities

18. Is there anything you find problematic and/or you don’t like about these sites?

Yes  No 

19. If ‘yes’, what?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Thank you for filling in this questionnaire!

---

[1] On http://wings.buffalo.edu/world-languages/lab/labs.htm online access to 100’s of top American, British and Australian language resource centres is available.

[2] The language lab co-ordinator is the researcher and writer of this paper.

[3] These two sites were chosen for the purposes of this research paper. They are discussed in section 2.7

[4] This Jones 2004-Becta report brought together evidence from a range of sources on the actual and perceived barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. The evidence utilised in this report is from research conducted by a variety of researchers, from several different countries and covers a span of ten years, dating from 1993 to 2003.

[5] Moreover Jones (ibid) asserts that teachers who have little or no confidence in using computers in their work will try to avoid them altogether (also noted in Dawes, 2000; Larner and Timberlake 1995; Russell and Bradley 1997). Lack of confidence could be considered a barrier.

[6] Jones (2004, 3) also maintains that there is a close relationship between levels of confidence and many other issues which themselves can be considered as barriers to ICT. For example, levels of confidence and therefore levels of ICT use are directly affected by the amount of personal access to ICT that a teacher has (also stated in Ross et al 1999, Cox et al 1999, and Guha 2000), the amount of technical support available (also stated in Cuban 1999, Bradley and Russell 1997).

[7] Pina and Harris (1993), and Lee (1997) also found that there was a close relationship between levels of confidence and the amount and quality of training available.

[8] Snoeyink and Ertmer (2001) suggest that the first stage of training should focus on the basic operations of technology and software and once teachers have acquired the basic skills, only then should they move on to pedagogical training. Veen (1993) also suggests that training should be differentiated according to teachers’ experience and skills in using computers. In this way differing amounts of skills training could be delivered according to individual teachers’ needs (noted in Jones 2004, 10). Lack of quality teacher training, might than be seen as a barrier to teacher ICT uptake.

[9] Veen (1993) also found that training courses that lacked pedagogical aspects were likely to be unsuccessful. In a series of case studies carried out by Veen (1993) involving teachers with limited experience or training in the use of computers, the majority of those teachers’ use of computers did not exploit the educational possibilities of information technology.

[10] Please note, that lack of time to undergo training is also a time-related WWW uptake barrier.

[11] Teachers that had less time might need pre-planned materials to be given to them. ‘Less’ might have to be expected from them in training sessions.

[12] Jones (2004, 9) also holds that lack of time for training is a barrier to teacher ICT uptake.

[13] Research evidence suggests that this seems to be the case. For instance, Cox and Abbott et al (2004) undertook a study that revealed evidence of positive effects of specific uses of ICT on pupils' attainment in almost all National Curriculum subjects. Moreover, it is held that there was a strong relationship between attainment and the ways in which ICT was used; where specific use of ICT is closely linked to learning objectives, there is a positive effect on pupils' learning. http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/ict_pedagogy_summary.pdf

[14] Moreover, there is a great deal of literature evidence to suggest that effective training is crucial if teachers are to implement ICT effectively in their teaching (e.g. Kirkwood et al 2000). Preston et al (2000) for example found that training courses need to have an element of ICT skills training.

[15] For instance, would teachers with no lab experience feel confident or competent?

[16] For instance, if the language lab co-ordinator were aware that some teachers had negative experiences, he could be more sensitive in the way he introduced training.

[17] The 2 WWW research sites are: http://www.lclark.edu/%7Ekrauss/toppicks/toppicks.html and http://www.ohiou.edu/esl/english/index.html.

[18] Godwin-Jones (1999, 12-16) draws attention to ‘the tangled web we’ve woven’ i.e. that there are many ‘wonderful sites here today and gone tomorrow’. ‘High reliability’ therefore means that it would be unlikely for the chosen study WWW-site to ‘just’ disappear with no ‘forwarding address’. A reason to limit the number of sites concerns the need to not ‘e-overload’ teachers with a multitude of ‘wonderful’ WWW-TESOL sites.

[19] Godwin-Jones (1999, 12-16) maintains that a troublesome issue with WWW-usage is locating desirable Web sites that are appropriate in terms of language level, media format, interest and reliable information. LeLoup and Ponterio (2001, 4-10), with regard ESOL Web sites, maintain that ‘finding the shining nuggets hidden among all the pebbles can represent a daunting challenge to the experienced surfer, let alone the techno-newbie’. Moreover, Morrison (2002) maintains that most teachers have time constraints with regard to ICT skills development. The ‘Appropriacy/comprehensiveness’ criteria therefore imply that it is important for the site to provide a comprehensive range of relevant materials at appropriate Intercollege levels for staff; in this way, staff would not have to spend/waste a lot of time searching for suitable sites.

[20] 10 Graus (1999, 56, http://home.plex.nl/~jgraus/thesis/Contents.htm ) refers to the SCAD checklist (Source evaluation, Content, Access, Design) for evaluating Internet sites. Although these terms are not used in this paper, clearly the ‘design’ or ‘organisation’ of the site is a relevant factor to consider. The Ohio University site and the ESL independent study lab are, in this researcher’s opinion, extremely user-friendly and thematically well organised.

[21] A longitudinal and qualitative case study might yield some pertinent findings.

[22] Whether this finding applies to Intercollege as well needs further research.

[23] I.e. Cox et al (2004, 5) maintain that it is not yet clear from the research literature whether technology is being used as a servant to reinforce existing teaching approaches or as a partner to change the way teachers and pupils interact with each other and with the tasks.

[24] The report on (http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/ict_pedagogy_summary.pdf) was an investigation of the research evidence relating to ICT pedagogy. The study was commissioned by the ‘British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta)’ on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). It was part of the ICT and Attainment project, and investigated the effects of ICT pedagogy on attainment. It based its evidence on existing published research literature (i.e. 350 publications) and a small set of cases studies in schools. The advanced and or integrated uses of ICT was identified. The study involved collecting data, including quantitative surveys and statistical publications, qualitative or case-study (the 26 primary and secondary teachers who participated in these four-month case studies either were already identified by the ImpaCT2 team or engaged in the DfES Best Practice Research Fellowship scheme) data and previously published meta-analyses, from various sources. (Cox et al 2004, 8-11). Cox et al (ibid) maintain that the existing ICT literature on ICT pedagogy was reviewed to identify aspects of the way in which ICT is used and the actions of teachers that can help to ensure that ICT will have some chance of having an impact on attainment. ImpaCT2 was a major study carried out between 1999 and 2002 involving 60 schools in England. It was one of the most comprehensive investigations into the impact of ICT on educational attainment so far conducted in the UK. It was commissioned by Becta on behalf of the DfES. (Comber et al., 2002, Harrison et al., 2002; Somekh et al., 2002).

[25] Furthermore, the writer of this paper maintains that a combination of observation of what Intercollege teachers actually do in class, with interviews about what teachers think about WWW-pedagogy, might help to develop an ‘a posteriori’ definition of what good WWW-pedagogy might be.

[26] One possible consequence of not planning lessons might be teachers may not be as able to supervise and guide. Cox et al (2004, 88) assert that in instances where teachers provide limited supervision and guidance there are often periods of unproductive ICT classroom activity.

[27] Somekh and Davies (1991, the Palm project) view the teacher’s role not as ‘an organiser of learning activities’, but as one of a ‘shaper of quality learning experiences’.

[28] Cox et al (2004, 88) hold that the selection of suitable WWW-materials have many beneficial implications for pupils, among others, suitable www materials: (1) enable them to challenge their preconceptions; (2) give them the means of providing more powerful explanations of concepts discussed in a course; (3) help them develop better reasoning strategies; (4) develop their confidence in their ability to communicate their knowledge to others; (5) help them achieve more autonomy in their learning; (6) help them relate their learning in a wider context. Cox et al (ibid), however, warn that all the evidence presented in their report suggests that such benefits are dependent upon the way in which the teacher selects and organizes the ICT resources and how they integrate this use into other activities in the class and beyond.

[29] An element that influences WWW selection could be how ‘learning-effective’ a site is perceived to be i.e. teachers should, at least in theory, prefer sites that they feel improve learning. Shulman’s (1987), for example, model of pedagogy recommends assessing the effectiveness of teaching/learning through the assessment of pupils.

[30] This could be done, for example, by downloading a TESOL test activity from one of a multitude of online TESOL sites.

[31] The questionnaire is presented in appendix four.

[32] There may be some semantic overlap between sections, which might mean that some question items may justifiably appear in more than one section.

[33] ‘Introduction’, ‘personal data’ and ‘thank you’ sections were also included, but were not discussed in this paper. Moreover, as this is a short paper, the following were not discussed in detail: (1) the advantages and disadvantages of the questionnaire as a means of data elicitation; (2) problems associated with questionnaire question construction e.g. ‘pros and cons’ of questions that are ‘specific’, ‘closed’, ’open’, ‘measuring intensity’, ‘ranked’, ‘scaled’; (3) the things that might be considered both threatening and non-threatening to teachers e.g. asking teachers how they would plan a WWW lesson might be threatening to those who were not sure or had no experience of WWW usage; observing or interviewing staff might be a more ‘non-threatening’ way of eliciting such data. At first sight, many of the concern-related questions may appear to be ‘leading’ questions, please note, that this weakness is avoided in the way these questions are scaled (e.g. with a ‘not at all’ option).

[34] Teacher 8 however, believed that he/she would not feel confident using WWW sites in a lab, but felt that he/she would not require help to use the 2 WWW sites for planning lessons.

[35] Some teachers suggested that filling in these sections was too time consuming.

[36] Even though this research is not focussed on pedagogy, analysing what pedagogies teachers actually use in an ICT environment could provide new perspectives on what ICT pedagogy might comprise.

[37] For instance, if the language lab co-ordinator were aware that some teachers had negative experiences, he could be more sensitive in the way he introduced training.

[38] Some of these questions were based partly on the Becta (2002) questionnaire [available on http://www.ictadvice.org.uk]. Some of the questions were open-ended. These questions are presented in the questionnaire in Appendix 4.

[39] This question was ‘unpacked’ into 5 sub-questions in the questionnaire.

[40] This question was ‘unpacked’ into 5 sub-questions in the questionnaire.