• “Utopia or chaos? The impact of technology on language teaching” by Randall Davis
• “Guidelines for Internet-based teaching” by Christopher Alexander

http://www.esl-lab.com, http://www.ezslang.com

rdavis @ esl-lab.com

Introduction

Over the past several decades, technology has become a fixture in many homes around the world, and its influence has permeated into all facets of our lives, including educational settings. Such penetration has been hailed by many as the wave of the future in which language instruction will be driven by new advances in computers, the Internet, and mobile technologies. However, how we go about integrating technology into our classrooms can have a huge impact on whether a technologically-driven classroom succeeds or fails, even with low-tech solutions.

So, where lies the praise or blame for the success or failure of technology? Will a Utopian view of pedagogically-sound teaching prevail in our classrooms, or will teachers soon abandon high-tech gadgets and return more to traditional materials? Because the use the Internet has become so widespread, this article will focus attention on that medium, starting with some historical perspective on computers and then suggest a few practical ideas to improving successful integration of the Internet and language teaching.

Identifying the role of technology in education

For the past several decades, a great deal of debate has raged on about the pedagogical worth of computers in the classroom. On the one hand, computer and software companies often provide mostly anecdotal evidence as to the usefulness of technology in language instruction, stating heightened student motivation and more engaging learning. However, a number of researchers have suggested that while technology has grown leaps and bounds, teachers’ use of it often remains very antiquated, limited to simple writing assignments and Internet searches (Cuban, 2001; MacDonald, 2004; Oppenheimer, 1997, 2003). Some have suggested that this has been due, in part, to educators’ limited vision of the role of technology in language instruction. In fact, Garrett (1991, p. 75) pointed this out when she stated that “the use of the computer does not constitute a method” and it is only a “medium in which a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented.” Although this statement was made a number of years ago, its premise still applies to our learning environments today, especially in light of the fact that there is a growing disparity between technology and effective classroom implementation of it.

In other words, coming to the false conclusion that computers will do things better and faster for us without our intervention is at the center of this issue. Schrum (2000, para 3), an associate professor in the department of instructional technology at the University of Georgia, describes the historical dilemma well:

We're all familiar with the extravagant promises of technology: It will make our students smarter -- and it will do it faster and cheaper than ever before. Moreover, the promise suggests, this miracle will occur almost by osmosis. We need only place a computer in a room, stand back, and watch the magic take place. If only life were that simple and learning that easy!

Those of us who remember the 1980s, when computers were first making their way into our classrooms, probably also remember a great deal of bad software. As educators, we were unfamiliar with the technology and uncertain about its possibilities. So we stepped back and let software developers, hardware vendors, and other technicians define not only what we could buy but also how those products would be used. In many ways, the technology drove the educational process. And guess what? It didn't work very well!

So where does this leave us? Obviously, program administrators need to rethink specific, realistic goals for what the Internet can and cannot do to help students reach curricula objectives, and then actively support teachers in the process through in-service training. As for teachers, we need to think beyond the box and determine, step-by-step, what technology can do for us to support – not supplant – our teaching goals. Fortunately, educators can be very chameleonic with the right tools and training, and can adapt their teaching styles to new situations.

In the field of language education, a great deal of emphasis now focuses on online learning, and it is touted as the great liberator by freeing students and teachers to accomplish learning in new and exciting ways. Personally, I am sold on the benefits of online teaching and learning from both a pedagogical and technical standpoint (i.e., anywhere, anytime learning, collaboration with worldwide partners, access to native-speaking content, etc.). However, as pointed out earlier, a great deal of the success and failure of any technology rests in sound teaching practices.

Keeping all of this in mind, the next section of this paper will address some basic considerations when working with the Internet in order to maximize learning outcomes.

Understanding the Internet

First, we must understand better how the Internet works ourselves. Although the Internet may appear to be an easy concept to grasp, it can be a very unfriendly jungle out there. In simple terms, the Internet is the telecommunication and computer systems that are linked together, just like a great complex water system. Some of it is new, with big wide robust pipes (high-speed connections); other parts are obsolete, narrow, and even leaking. Some pipes can handle a large volume of water; others are clogged, and flowing through this pipe system is the content – the files (documents, audio files, graphics, etc.) – that are being requested around the globe. Such a scenario can result in Internet congestion, and going online might be just as rewarding as sucking molasses through a thin straw.

At that point, Internet “rage” sets in, and students (after waiting an astronomically-long 2 seconds) click the stop button in their browser and complain to the teacher that the site does not work. Falconer, a psychologist at Dundee University, has suggested that “feelings of stress and frustration arise when the gap between our expectations and actual experience on the internet is ever widening" (as cited in BBC News, 2004, para 8). The phenomenon is indicative of the world we live as pointed out by Telewest  (2002, para 3):

With our growing 'needed-to-be-done-yesterday' attitude, patience is no longer a virtue when it comes to getting what we want in a hurry. It was our addiction to living high-speed lifestyles that sparked the onslaught of road-rage and air-rage, but it is today's widespread desire for a life on the internet fast-lane . . .

The end result of these experiences is that teachers and students often remove websites from study lists, when in fact the sites might work just fine. At the same time, there are times when a website really might not be working (e.g., the site is undergoing maintenance, the website owner has closed the site, etc.). Just remember that there are many factors that affect our ability to use the Internet.

Sifting through Internet content

Now, it is time to make the plunge into the somewhat murky and complex world of the Internet. This online playground is home to an extremely vast collection of information, but sifting through it effectively is a more challenging task than we lead students to believe. In fact, just telling students to go to the Internet to search for something is akin to, as several authors put it, “trying to get a drink of water from a gushing fire hydrant” (Warschauer, Shetzer, & Meloni, 2000, p. 85). In other words, the Internet is an almost measureless repository of great content, but it also contains an equal amount of junk, and sifting through this large collection can be daunting. Unfortunately, students latch on to whatever first appears on their screens, whether it is accurate or not.

This is often a quandary for teachers who realize that they need to help students learn to critically examine information on the Internet in terms of credibility, authority, citation, timeliness, and accuracy. Back in the days before the Internet, students’ main ally was the library, and searching through volumes on the shelves was just the norm. Unfortunately, because of the free and mostly-unadjudicated nature of the Internet, anyone can self-publish without being held to a high standard of professionalism. Furthermore, students these days have been raised in an online world, and thus, they often do not realize what careful research is all about. With the complex and daunting prospect of analyzing so much content, students tend to gravitate to what is easiest irrespective of quality. With all these challenges, teachers should bare the responsibility of helping students combine both the massive and easily-accessible Internet with conventional research techniques.

Installing needed Internet applications

Besides the issues of questionable authority with online content, Internet users need to be aware that some websites require special additional software (e.g., media players) to be installed to access certain files including audio and video. Having developed multimedia websites since 1997, I cannot count the number of times I have received terse messages from visitors, simply stating: “I can’t hear audio.” Nothing more. No further elaboration. That is it. Therefore, identifying the issue is very problematic, and both website developers and teachers who introduce these sites share the responsibility for educating students.

First, from a developer’s standpoint, instructions on the site should be very clear in terms of letting visitors know what they need to do to listen to or watch the online content. Having an Audio Help page or information for first-time visitors can be extremely important. Furthermore, you should identify your audience and determine the market penetration of the file format you are planning to use (e.g., RealMedia, Windows Media, QuickTime, etc.). In other words, you would not want to use a media format that only ten percent of the world can play unless you only were trying to reach that narrow niche. At the same time, teachers equally shoulder the responsibility for verifying whether their computer labs have such media players installed and if their students can easily download and install the player on their home computers if needed. You will always see a mixed bag of results without teachers’ active involvement.

Determining learning outcomes

Even if students have background knowledge on the Internet with the needed applications installed on their computers, they still need guidance on the learning objectives and outcomes for online content. As suggested in Schrum’s quote earlier in this paper, some administrators and teachers unfortunately presume that learning with computers will “occur almost by osmosis,” and I have witnessed this firsthand in my visits to labs in a number countries around the world. In the end, without specific pedagogical practices driving the use of technology, computers are often relegated to a secondary or non-existent role and are often abandoned. At that point, debate ensues on the side of administrators and teachers as to why the lab has failed. However, Warschauer (1996) pinpointed both the cause and the solution that is still very much applicable:

As with the audio language lab 'revolution' of 40 years ago, those who expect to get magnificent results simply from the purchase of expensive and elaborate systems will likely be disappointed. But those who put computer technology to use in the service of good pedagogy will undoubtedly find ways to enrich their educational program and the learning opportunities of their students

Thus, with reference to the use of the Internet, rather than allowing technology to drive classroom instruction, teachers must clearly identify specific objectives, procedures, and assessment techniques for using online resources. As with all good teaching, teachers must develop a plan of action for using the Internet. We cannot send our students off without specific goals in mind, training on how to use the sites, procedures on how to accomplish the tasks, and an explanation on how students will be evaluated for the activity.

Testing websites yourself

Many teachers lament dissatisfaction with the Internet (and computers in general) in such a way that you might conclude that having technical problems is an inherent part of technology. However, most frustration from using technology does not come from the technology itself, but from inadequate training on how to use it. Too often, teachers tell students to visit a website without confirming its objectives, checking instructions on how to navigate it, determining whether the site performs equally well for all browsers, computer platforms, and Internet connection speeds, and reviewing whether students need additional applications or plug-ins to use the online content. Never assume that just because the site works well in your university’s computer lab with a high speed connection, students will have the same experience from a dialup connection on their computer at home.

Conclusion

Without a doubt, technology has revolutionized society in many places around the globe, including how language instruction is taught and delivered. In particular, the Internet has become a conduit where people can learn, share, and collaborate in ways not possible years before. However, a great deal of the success comes from preparing students to interact and learn in this online environment. Never make the assumption that students know what they are doing because there is a huge difference between computer know-how and critical thinking, particularly when it comes to academic research that some of our students need.

Finally, for all our great technological advances, teachers still risk reducing their use of computers to simple tasks that do not maximize its pedagogical potential, particularly with regards to the Internet. In other words, we should ask ourselves if it is possible to extend our normal teaching far beyond simple, monotonous tasks at the computer. That is not to say that elements of past methods that cannot or should not be adopted. In fact, many learning tasks can be accomplished with simple chalk, a blackboard, and a tape recorder. However, although teaching and language-learning theory has evolved during the past 50 years or so, our ability to adapt our teaching styles in line with new technologies has not progressed as quickly. If teachers focus on simple basic ideas as presented in this article, our new, refocused approach to teaching will propel us a long way to making technology and the Internet a more rewarding partner in the teaching and learning process.

References

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Tchnology since 1920. Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Garret, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal 75(1), 74-101.

MacDonald, G. J. (2004). Contrarian finding: Computers are a drag on learning. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from the World Wide Web, http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1206/p11s01-legn.html.

Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly 280 (1), 45-62.

Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning can be Saved. New York: Random House.

Schrum, L. (2000). Technology as a tool to support instruction. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from the World Wide Web, http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech/tech004.shtml.

Telewest.co.uk. (2002). Internet rage sweeps the UK. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from the World Wide Web, http://www.telewest.co.uk/ourcompany/
pressreleases/internetragesweepstheuk.html.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.) Multimedia Language Teaching, 3-20. Tokyo: Logos International. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from the World Wide Web, http://www.gse.uci.edu/faculty/markw/call.html.

GUIDELINES FOR INTERNET-BASED TEACHING

By Christopher Alexander

Intercollege,

Nicosia, Cyprus

alexander.c @ intercollege.ac.cy

Abstract

This paper presents clear pedagogical guidelines for using the Internet in TESOL by drawing on the key findings of a case study carried out in 2004-5 at Intercollege (http://www.intercollege.ac.cy/) Nicosia, Cyprus. The case study described how ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) teachers endeavoured to utilize the Internet in their language classes in an ICT (Information and Communications Technology) language laboratory.

1. Introduction

In this paper I will discuss some key background literature on the Internet (section 2) and outline the methods’ orientation of this case-study research (section 3). A sample of teacher interview data in section 4 provides evidence of the way teacher attitudes changed negatively during the study. In section 5 I assert that lack of sound pedagogy was the principal reason why teachers’ attitudes changed and in section 6 I provide some practical pedagogical guidelines for teachers wishing to use the Internet. Examples of how these guidelines might be operationalised are presented in section 7.

2. Background literature

The Internet being mainly a free resource is increasingly being used in TESOL, and the exponential growth of ESOL websites is, I suppose, a testament to how important the Internet has become. Yet realising the potential of this exciting and constantly expanding medium is not a straightforward undertaking.

There seems to be disagreement in the literature regarding the effectiveness of the Internet. Appertaining to the effectiveness of the Internet, a lot of contemporary Internet-germane literature appears to be advancing the claim that Internet-use is advantageous for learning. Frey (2002: 1-4) for instance states that the Internet is awash with activities that offer many new ways of teaching and learning, and asserts that even the most Luddite of university scholars now realise the potential applications of technology. By means of illustration Morrison (2002: 1-7) holds that the wealth of information available on the Web affords teachers and learners access to language learning resources like never before. John de Szendeffy (1998: 1-4) holds the belief that “no matter what you think of the World Wide Web as a teaching resource, it will play a grand role in the education of your students”.

There is, however, a growing research consensus that appears somewhat sceptical apropos Internet classroom usage. Warschauer (2003: 1-2) has the opinion that the introduction of computers, “the flashy or gleaming new machine in the classroom”, and the Internet in the eyes of its supporters has represented the pinnacle of modernity yet the bold promises made by its proponents were very often followed by erratic and disappointing diffusion. In addition, Warschauer (2003: 1-2) holds the belief that there has certainly been no shortage of bold claims about how computers will revolutionise the classroom, transforming the teacher from the stereotypic cliché, “sage on the stage” to the new and equally hackneyed “guide on the side”. Moreover Warschauer (2003: 1-2) asserts that there is a ‘belief’ that learners will become ‘autonomous’ and ‘goal-directed’, classrooms will become centres of “collaborative and critical” inquiry, and technology will have finally transformed schools to match the needs of the information society.

 A lot of Internet-relevant literature also asserts that there is lack of sound Internet pedagogy (the word appears to be used in a method-of-teaching sense). Wood (1999: 1) for instance, provides an overview of Internet sites that could be helpful in the ESOL classroom. He deems that a preponderance 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 (1999: 1) 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”. Wood, in my opinion, appears to be bringing forward the idea that there is a lack of advice on how to use such Internet sites. Kuechler (1996) and LeLoup and Ponterio (2000), however, appear to be postulating that teachers using the Web have to make use of their skills/knowledge. The implication being that this is demanding and may not necessarily lead to higher levels of learning and teaching. 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 necessarily make better classes”. LeLoup and Ponterio (2000: 5-6) hold that ultimately it is incumbent upon foreign language teachers to integrate the Internet into the curriculum in a pedagogically sound and meaningful way. 

3. About the case study

The global research aim of the case study was to describe and interpret the key issues six Intercollege ESOL teachers faced over a five-to-seven-month period using the Internet. The global research aim also had two associated strands: firstly, to analyse how and/or why such issues affected teacher awareness of using the Internet and secondly, to determine how such issues might be addressed. In this research it was the teacher who was the focus of the study, and the purpose was to analyse qualitatively through semi-structured interviews carried out at one-to-two-month intervals how teacher awareness changed. Other data were also used to inform teacher interviews; these data were derived from a student questionnaire, follow-up structured student interviews, a teacher-student classroom observation, a semi-structured interview with the Head of the Languages Department and sample of teachers’ Internet lessons. As this research was a case study within an interpretative paradigm, it was held that the research paradigm would suggest discovering and interpreting the personal stories.

The issues that were addressed in the data analysis were grounded in the research data. Data were collected comprehensively with an open mind, and as the study progressed data were continually examined for patterns. Key themes were ascertained from the data first and then a link was established, if possible, with issues discussed in the literature. Moreover, no assumption was made that data would pertain conveniently to one issue; rather, it was held that some data might correlate to several issues. In order to identify key hypotheses to be analysed further, an analysis of how teacher opinion changed during the interview period was undertaken. A key theme that emerged during the study and discernible in all the data was teachers becoming increasingly alive to the implications of certain drawbacks of Internet-ESOL lab use. Teachers in their first interview had initially appeared mainly positive about Internet use, however as interviews progressed they seemed to have more jaundiced attitudes. Initial teacher enthusiasm about using the Internet resonated with literature on the attractions of Internet as a teaching resource, as exemplified in, Frey (2002: 1-4), Morrison (2002 1-7). Yet, the heightened teacher awareness regarding perceived drawbacks of using the Internet in subsequent interviews (i.e. attitudinal changes) applied to literature on scepticism about Internet use e.g. Warschauer (2003: 1-2). 

4. Sample of interview data

The data sample below provides an example of teacher attitudinal change. The transcript code below comprises three parts: (1) interviewee teacher number (T1 to T6); (2) semi-structured interview number (1 to 4); (3) interview question number (numbers ranged from 1 to 30). The italics followed by a transcript code are the actual words used by the teacher.

4.1. Teacher one sample data

The way negative student comments about lab-lessons presented in the account below had changed T1’s ostensibly enthusiastic initial outlook to a more critical and less animated stance, point to what T1 had been doing in the lab (i.e. her Internet lesson pedagogy) may have militated against her students’ language-learning expectations. This hypothesis resonates with Laurillard (2002: 202). Asserted lack of appreciation from students for the time T1 had put into preparing lessons also may have raised critical awareness.

In her first interview, which was undertaken a few weeks after using the lab for the first time, T1 seemed to be ‘ablaze’ with enthusiasm about using the Internet. For instance, she stated that she had felt the lab was a very good alternative to traditional face-to-face teaching, especially at the end of the semester (T1/1/06). She held that she loves using the lab (T1/1/09) and said that she was very excited about using it (T1/1/09). She ‘pontificated’ that the variety of Internet exercises available can help to address students’ different learning styles (T1/1/10) and that her students enjoyed using the lab (T1/1/12). Moreover, she seemed to be ‘selling out’ as a ‘traditional’ ESOL teacher when she deliberated over the benefits of using the lab in comparison to the then ‘seemingly passé’ non-ICT classroom. For example she expressed the view that: instead of me giving the exercises out, the Web sites do it. They are given the answers. It builds up autonomous learning; they don’t need the teacher. We teachers are so vain we want to be the ones that transmit knowledge (T1/1/11-13). She also mentioned using the Internet helped her to teach her students language and computer skills i.e. things that they are going to use for the rest of their lives (T1/1/08). However, approximately two months later in interview 2, there was a feeling that the ‘novelty factor’ might have been ‘wearing off’ and that her students had appeared critical of Internet lesson materials i.e. she changed tact: The first time it was exciting for them, now some of them say that they feel the teacher is lazy because they are doing the work and the teacher sits and monitors them, they don’t realise that I have spent three to four hours preparing the lesson (T1/02/07).

In interview 3, about two months after interview 2, there was more qualitative negative feedback. This was epitomised in T1’s third interview i.e. when asked what kind of feedback she had been getting from her students regarding her lessons, she responded: Some of my students are especially outspoken, they feel it’s a waste of time (T1/3/01). By interview 4 (i.e. carried out about one month after interview 3), T1 stated, with regard to the twenty percent of students who stated in the questionnaire that they had liked using the Internet a little or not at all, that: maybe they don’t like using the computer for language learning, it’s a huge percentage, so it would affect me, I would tend to use it less (T1/4/02).

5. What caused raised awareness of the drawbacks of Internet?

Teachers’ Internet lessons and observation data provided a precious data source that enabled me to assert that pedagogical development lies at the heart of Internet use. In this context it implies incorporating elements of traditional non-ICT and ICT teaching i.e. using the Internet as a ‘tool’ for learning. Moreover it is my interpretation that teachers’ inability to use more appropriate Internet pedagogy was the most likely cause of teacher perceived student rejection, teacher hesitancy regarding being able to measure student improvement and teacher raised awareness of the drawbacks of Internet usage.

6. Discussion

Below I present some hands-on practical guidelines derived from the case study for teachers wishing to use the Internet (possibly in an ICT language lab) and then give some lesson examples of how these guidelines could be observed.

6.1. Have clear lesson aims and then look for suitable sites: don’t get caught in the Web

Have aims that are perspicuously reflected in lesson materials; not stating lesson aims might be confusing for students. Even though, this may, at first sight appear obvious advice to any teacher, teachers preparing Internet lessons may lose sight of this seemingly fundamental TESOL lesson-planning principle. This could be a consequence and drawback of using the Internet. Also, consider to what degree your lesson aims determine the sites chosen and to what extent lesson sites have determined lesson aims. With regard to the latter, a weakness of this approach is that unsuitable sites may be used as a basis for determining lesson aims and teachers may lose sight of how to inextricably link sites to course content. 

6.2. Explain to students how their Internet lesson will relate to their course in general: don’t lose sight of this fundamental TESOL principle

Teachers should tangibly relate Internet lesson materials to college exams/tests; in this way teachers might be more able to measure attainment. This guideline is particularly important if teachers intend to use the Internet regularly. A possible outcome of not perceiving a higher rate of language acquisition is it increases teachers’ awareness of the drawbacks of using the ESOL Internet. Moreover, students may want to see a clear connection between what they do in their Internet lessons and on what they will be tested. Also, relate the Internet lesson to the course in general. Windeatt et al. (2002: 11) for instance hold, with regard to post-Internet-lesson-lab work, that ‘anything done in the computer room should be transferable back to the normal classroom’. Moreover, Windeatt et al. maintain (2002: 11) that students should have something physical to take away with them so that they have a record for follow-up work or end-of-course revision.   Students therefore may need hard-copy lesson handouts as well as electronic-version handouts to accompany their Internet use.

6.3. Use technology to reinforce existing practice: students want a teacher to teach them, they don’t want a guide on the side

Technology should be used in a way that reinforces existing non-ICT practice i.e. the teacher should remain the teacher and not become just the facilitator. Moreover, why should teachers relinquish their age-old role? Internet lessons that have the highest potential for learning are probably where teachers have a planned amalgam of non-ICT and ICT roles, and students have timed chunks of autonomous ICT study. The content of the non-ICT part of the lesson should relate clearly to the ICT part. Introducing autonomous learning without addressing the learning experience and expectations of students may lead to a degree of student resistance i.e. students may expect to be taught traditionally, and so may not identify with being autonomous learners. Furthermore, relying wholly on interactive, self-correcting ESOL Internet activities may lead to a compromise of teachers’ control/regulation of the lesson i.e. maybe students expect to be controlled/monitored by the teacher and not the Internet. 

Another argument for combining traditional with ICT, is the possibility of unreliable Internet connection i.e. this may rationalise the need to incorporate non-ICT elements in lessons. If there is no or very slow Internet (site) connection, the teacher would not have to cancel the lesson, she could concentrate on the non-ICT lesson elements. Finally, a lot of ESOL Internet activities seem to be narrowing the foreign language curriculum to mainly grammar and vocabulary practice. However, the main drive of non-Internet related foreign language curricula is to broaden the scope of activity by engaging with communication and intercultural learning. This was a strong argument to consider combining ICT and non-ICT teaching. Combing ICT with non-ICT is in accord with Albaugh (1997 stated in Jones 2004: 17) who attaches weight to teachers tending to “adopt a new technology when that technology helps them to do what they are currently doing better”.

6.4. Choose suitable sites level-wise and topic-wise: if you’re not critical of the site content, your students will be critical

Finding suitable course-relevant Internet lesson sites can be a difficult undertaking. Godwin-Jones (1999: 12-16) for instance holds the opinion that a troublesome issue with Internet-use is locating desirable websites that are appropriate in terms of language level, media format, interest and reliable information. Furthermore, it will be very time consuming to search/choose suitable lesson sites and prepare lesson handouts in Word or PowerPoint format. Teachers should always pre-screen sites sufficiently well to prepare pro-actively for student questions, and if necessary teach something. This also suggests that teachers should not relinquish their traditional deliverer-of-content role. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of ESOL-publisher editorial support i.e. there is a dearth of appropriately pre-screened textbook-complementary ESOL-Internet exercises. Also, try to find sites with comparable vocabulary to which the students have been exposed in their non-ICT classes. One drawback of some interactive sites is that students may not be doing them properly e.g. students can find the answer to sites without reading anything. Windeatt et al. (2000: 10) state referring to Internet usage, that in some cases, before beginning an activity on the computer, it will be necessary to pre-teach vocabulary, or a specific function or structure. Long lists of ESOL resources do not seem to help teachers much. This suggests that teachers require more than just categorised hand-picked Internet lists or lists of well-known ESOL homepages; teachers need effective pedagogical guidance on how to use the Internet materials.

6.5. How many sites should an Internet lesson have? How much time should a student spend on each site? Find the balance 

Timing and sequencing of Internet-site materials is an important and complex lesson-planning issue. 

• Do not rely on one lesson site just in case it does not work; use several reliable sites.
• Do not use too many sites; this encourages students to rush through the sites working less conscientiously. Having fewer sites and more teacher interaction (i.e. more non-ICT teaching) might lead to better teacher control over the regulation of learning.
• Beware of ELT-game sites; students will be drawn to game sites when they should be doing other tasks. 
• Have a set of core Internet exercises for weaker students and additional exercises for students that finish earlier. Even though teachers have to devise ways of dealing with less able students in the non-ICT classroom, teachers may need more time to pre-screen and organise Internet materials so as to know which sites should be core for all students to cover, and which ones ought to be additional for more able students.  

7. Practical application of guidelines

Sharing teacher lesson materials may be an efficacious way to reduce long-term training and support; in accord with Boshuizen and Wopereis (2003, 149), Potter and Mellar (2000, 35), Coles et al. (2000, 173). This also suggests that an ancillary role of a lab-coordinator should embrace monitoring teacher innovation and circulating effectual lesson plans to other teachers. Therefore an innovative example of how the above guidelines might be operationalised is available on http://www.englishlab.intercol.edu/internetlessons/  (click ‘an example of sound Internet pedagogy’). Seven Internet lessons are also available on the site below NB these lessons are suitable for approximately beginner to lower-intermediate level. These lessons were written by Katarzyna Rysiewicz from Intercollege (http://www.englishlab.intercol.edu/internetlessons/).

Conclusion 

As our understanding of how to use the Internet gets better, and more research findings are disseminated, the way we use it will improve. Internet use therefore may lead to enhanced learning, and this would fundamentally rationalise its use and future development. Moreover, it is doubtful that the use of the Internet in TESOL will be a ‘passing fad’: it is highly likely that things will get better i.e. technology use will improve as technological innovations worldwide are made. This would necessitate and vindicate a more committed approach from schools or colleges who may not be able to achieve learning/financial targets without it.

References

Albaugh, P. (1997). The role of skepticism in preparing teachers for the use of technology. 'Education for community': A Town and Gown Discussion Panel. Westerville, OH, January 26, 1997.

Boshuizen, A., and Wopereis, H. (2003). Pedagogy of training in information and communications technology for teachers and beyond. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12 (1): 151-161.

Coles, L., Richardson, A., and Tuson, J (2000). Integrating Information and Communications Technology in professional practice: An analysis of teachers’ needs based on a survey of primary and secondary teachers in Scottish schools. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9 (2), 1-16.

De Szendeffy, J. (1998) Is the Web ready for TESL?. Available at http://www.bu.edu/celop/mll/call/web-tesl.html.

Frey, F. (2000). Investigating moral intensity with the World Wide Web: A look at participant reactions and a comparison of methods. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32 (3): 423-431.

Godwin-Jones, B. (1999). Emerging technologies - Web metadata. Language Learning and Technology. 3 (1), 12-16.

Jones, Andrew (2004). A Review of the Research Literature on Barriers to the Uptake of ICT by Teachers. Available online at DfES/BECTA, http://www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/barriers.pdf.

Kuechler, M.  (1996). The possibilities are endless, only the pedagogical imagination of the instructor is the limit. Available at http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/socio/facpaper/ers-mk2.htm.

Morrison, S. (2002). Interactive language learning on the Web. ERIC Digest EDO-FL-02-12. Available at www.cal.org/resources/digest/0212morrison.html.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching. London: RoutledgeFarmer.

LeLoup, J., and Ponterio, R. (2000). Enhancing authentic language learning experiences through Internet technology. ERIC Digest EDO-FL-00-02. Available at www.cal.org/resources/digest/0002enhancing.html.

Potter, J. and Mellar, H. (2000). Identifying teachers’ Internet training needs. Journal of Information for Teacher Education. 9 (1): 2000.

Warschauer (2003).  The Allures and Illusions of Modernity: Technology and Educational Reform in Egypt. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (38). Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n38/.

Wood, Robert. (1999). Thinking about the Internet pedagogically. Rutgers, The State

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

Windeatt, S., Hardisty, D., and Eastment, D. (2002). The Internet. Oxford: OUP.