On this site: Conference 1999 Home Page, Accepted Abstracts; Call for Papers; Hotel Accommodation, Conference Schedule.

Deakin University,  http://www.deakin.edu.au

Introduction

'If technology is to be used by students, then teachers must possess the confidence, understanding, and skills to effectively incorporate technology into their teaching practices. This will only occur by providing adequate training and development of teachers'.

(Brand 1998, p. 13)

CALL is exploding into the language teaching world as quickly as the technology of computers is erupting on the world. Some teachers are enthused by its potential whilst others approach it with trepidation. The importance of the teacher as a primary factor in the provision of successful CALL is generally accepted as essential The use of CALL requires teachers who are not only competent with the programs being used but who are also aware of the pedagogical and curricular reasons for using them. Good programs, alone, can not bring about successful learning without proficient guidance from teachers aware of why and what they are doing. However teacher training at all levels is struggling to keep up with the advances in CALL and technology resulting in a lack of effectively trained CALL teachers causing under use and misuse of this potentially powerful innovative tool for promoting language learning. 'According to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment the lack of teacher training is one of the greatest roadblocks to integrating technology into a school's curriculum' (Brand 1998, p. 10). Teachers are often required to use CALL because of student expectations and school policy, yet are not familiar or confident in its use. Consequently, while some teachers interested in the use of computers, try to develop a range of innovative activities others remain locked in the limited use of a few tried and tested activities or see the computer as 'free time to allow students unrestricted access to the Internet' (Trickel & Liljegren 1998). This research project looked at one aspect of teacher training, namely in service professional development, and at how it can be used to overcome problems in the use of CALL at a teaching institution arising primarily from a lack of teacher knowledge in its use. 'For them to use the technology more, teachers have to be convinced that teaching and learning literacy will be more effective after the introduction of computers' (Snyder 1996, p. 342).

The broad aims of this project included the personal professional development of teachers in the use of CALL and the improvement of the quality of teaching in the computer lab at a college level. The project aimed to educate teachers in the use of CALL and enhance the quality of the use of CALL in the college, which would also benefit the students by providing them with more interesting and effective teaching. Through the use of a collaborative action research, the project aimed to find practical and effective methods to conduct in house staff development to enhance teachers' knowledge and expertise in the use of CALL. It was hypothesised this would assist in solidifying teachers' current use of CALL and expand the variety and effectiveness of the activities that were used in the CALL lab. The project aimed to look at the most effective ways to help teachers keep abreast of the ever changing and increasingly becoming significant use of CALL in TESOL through in house and on the job professional development.

Research Methodology

The project is being carried out as an in house collaborative action research project in staff development on the use of Computer Assisted Language Learning among seven teachers. The project was an essentially qualitative one which followed an action research based methodology as espoused by Kemmis and McTaggart in 'The Action Research Planner' (1988, Deakin University Press). This involved cycles of planning followed by action and observation, which finished with reflection, which led into the next cycle. Data was collected and an action plan was devised and implemented. Data collection continued throughout and the progress of the action plan was modified according to the progress of the project. The project was collaborative and the feedback from the participants was essential input for the data collection and modifications of the action plan. This study fell into hybrid methodology of a case study because it charted the progress and development of the teachers participating in the project. The project lasted thirteen weeks with a mid project interview at week eight.

Project Context

The setting for the project was Australian Pacific College, a medium sized TESOL college located in Sydney, Australia. The students are mostly young adults in Australia to learn English for various reasons, ranging from continuing further study in Australia and career advancement to simply learning for interest and to communicate with Australians. Students come from a variety of Asian countries such as Japan, Korea, Thailand, China, Indonesia and Bangla Desh as well as some European countries such as Russia, France, and the Czech and Slovak Republics.

The college has 8 computers networked with an Internet connection running Windows 95, MS Word and Netscape. They have some ESL software on CD s (Australian based such as English on CD, Issues in English and AMES Click into English) and other CD based software (such as Carmen Sandiego where in the World and Ecoquest 1 & 2) . The policy for the school is that every class uses the CALL lab for at least one lesson of 80 minutes per week. Teachers pick up what to do by themselves except for some limited informal training on the use of the ESL CD Roms, which for some provides the bulk of what they do with CALL. A couple teachers, myself included, experiment with other activities including the use of the Internet. This project was aimed to broaden the range of activities that other teachers use in the CALL lab.

Literature Review

Levy (1997, pp. 231-232) in the conclusion to his thorough book on CALL observed from his survey of the industry that 'teacher-related factors were the most important in determining the success of CALL materials development'. He goes on to point out how the teacher is responsible for the materials chosen, their presentation and how they are used by the student. Finally he says that for the success of CALL and CALL materials 'substantial support must be given to the language teacher, who must be acknowledged as a key contributing factor'.

Rosen (1997), in her paper charting the history of the use of CALL at the Monash University English Language Centre in Melbourne, comments that the developments they experienced were not unique and were reflected in the literature by other 'early advocates' of the use of CALL. Relevant issues from Rosen (pp. 275-276) include:

-Ideas of using the technology are ahead of actual ability of trained teachers

-Training is largely ad hoc

-Much of the implementation is done by teachers not really equipped to teach using the technology

-Problem of ambivalent responses from teachers

-Teachers learning as they go with some mentoring and team teaching

Not only are these issues central to the need for studies such as this in enhancing CALL staff development, but the last issue supports the methods used as well. Mentoring was a key part used in the enhancing of CALL knowledge in this study of staff development. The use of mentoring, where the more experienced and knowledgeable CALL teachers, including myself, will be helping the less knowledgeable, is also supported by Brand (1997, p. 11) who suggests exactly this approach in training teachers for technology by peer tutoring involving pairing a novice and experienced mentor teacher.

Garton's (1992) study on the implementation of CALL at the University of Queensland, although not action research based, provided insights and pointers for this project. It mentions that the issue of CALL methodology appeared one of the most worrying areas for teachers. This issue on the importance of methodology, and its integration with CALL as just one part of the overall curriculum, is widely seen as a basis for successful CALL. Their project began with intensive workshops, introducing the issues involved, followed by a system where the 'trainee' CALL teacher observed computer based lessons in action over a period of time in order to conduct these same classes in the future. This approach (p. 6) is recommended for teachers who have little or no prior knowledge in CALL and a similar method was used in this project by such teachers unfamiliar with the use of computers.

Newman (1999) writes about the failure of traditional methods of teacher development (lectures and workshops) when applied to professional development in the use of technology and how a three week course she ran for this purpose tried to use a collaborative approach with the participants. She cites the failure with the traditional methods, as partially responsible for the less than optimal use of technology in the classroom. Merely showing teachers about technology in 'one day in service sessions or courses offering nifty tips' with 'scripted sessions' result in the 'tools being "taught" in a vacumn' with no opportunity to explore how they might be useful for engaging in some kind of classroom investigation'. McKenzie (1991, p.2) writes how 'workshops often give teachers inadequate opportunity to practice new skills and offer little ongoing support. Hence there is frequently negligible transfer of the new skills from the workshops to the classroom'. This project achieved quite the opposite to this description of workshops because all the activities demonstrated in the mentoring sessions were applied to the classroom by the participants, usually within a week with ongoing support provided as required.

Brand (1998) identifies key elements in training teachers for instructional use of technology, gleaned from his review of research on the subject, that provide a foundation for this project. These include:

-Providing sufficient time for teachers to learn to use the technology effectively

-Taking into account individual differences, supplementing strengths and being sensitive to each teacher's expertise and experience

-Flexibility in content and opportunities

-Support from someone, experienced both in the technology and its use in the curriculum, who can coordinate and guide others in its use

-An environment of collaborative learning with peer coaching and modeling

-Support, recognition and incentives for teachers' commitment to the use of computers

-Ongoing and sustained training and development

-Linking technology to educational objectives and the curriculum

-Engaging the teachers intellectually and professionally

-Encouragement from administration in the technological development of teachers by scheduling time for practice, observation and meetings

Brogan (1997) provides a report on the use of action research in a study about the introduction of on-line use at the TESOL department at Deakin University in which teacher development in CALL was a central issue. Action research was used because it is 'an evolving, process-oriented approach to investigation' which was considered to suit the task which began at a base of relative ignorance and would lead to questions for further investigation that would later require even further refinement. My choice of the use of action research for this project was driven by this same principle in the flexibility of action research which, with its cyclic approach, can adapt to the questions and problems that arise in the course of a project. Staff training was found to be a key issue in the experience at Deakin University and because of issues that arose it was 'slow and developmental'. The key difficulty is referred to as 'fleshware' and concerns the need for training in using technology to focus on how humans are not components of the computer but should be considered as its 'drivers', 'people who are the users, not the used'. Issues for teacher training pointed to in the article, which were of value for this study, included the 'demystification of any new technologies'. The computer is 'a prosthetic not a panacea' and there remains a need and importance for human contact in the use of CALL, to ensure its use is 'grounded in reality, and not allowed to proceed down irrelevant paths set up by the learning technology itself'.

A potential problem in providing teacher education in CALL, identified in the literature, is the teachers' level of technological knowledge coming into the training. This is distinct from their knowledge of using technology for teaching, which is the aim of the training. Pilus (p. 9) in his study of the use of CALL in Malaysia found that half the teachers in the study had little or no knowledge about using computers. He suggests (p. 10) that this is not uncommon among teachers and is therefore a significant issue for planning CALL education. Skills such as 'basic keyboard competence seems to be the preliminary requirement before the teachers can embark on CALL'. He recommends that teachers need to have training in basic keyboarding and word processing before learning to implement CALL and that this will enrich their experience by promoting confidence and independence in using the computer. This problem was anticipated and experienced in this project as some of the potential participant teachers had basic computer knowledge, and needed to learn some basic computer skills and Internet training before being able to move on to CALL. On the other hand others were already computer literate and using a degree of CALL in their teaching.

The Participants

The participants are all TESOL teachers, aged 25 to 55, of varying ESL experience (new to 5 years) and varying computer expertise (experienced to total novice). Internet knowledge was good for 3 moderate for 2 and novice level for the remaining 2. Some of the participants were already using CALL (4) to varying degrees whilst others are beginning to use CALL (3) with their classes in the course of the project. The research was undertaken in addition to the participants and researcher completing their regular weekly teaching loads. Observation lessons and participants CALL lessons were incorporated into some of these lessons but all training and mentoring sessions were in addition to the already busy teachers' schedule.

The Procedure

The participants received input into a variety of different CALL activities, through one on one mentoring and class observation. Over this period each teacher received input and taught (or observed) from seven to sixteen lessons on CALL using a variety of activities ranging from ESL and other CD Rom based software to different activities using the Internet. The general procedure was for the researcher to choose an activity new to the teacher that fit into the weekly theme or curriculum for their class, and preview it with the participants in one to one sessions on the computer. Usually the participants would then spend further time and preview the activity, on their own, immediately after or at a later stage prior to their using the activity with their class. In some cases the participant would observe the researcher teaching the lesson but often due to a combination of scheduling problems and necessity concerns this part was dropped. Teacher observations were arranged by one class doing a test or other such activity, which allowed the class to be unsupervised for part of the lesson, thereby facilitating the teacher to go to the observations in the computer room. Finally the participant would use that activity with their class on their own. If necessary in addition to the diary and questionnaire feedback, a follow up session with the researcher was organised. By the end of the project with some participants the mentoring stage became more of just an information exchange, whilst for others less familiar with the computer, observations and/or repeated mentoring sessions needed to continue throughout the project.

Participants were asked to complete lesson evaluation questionnaires at the end of their lessons (see Appendix B), fill out an observation checklist during classroom observations (see Appendix C) and to participate in interviews about their CALL lessons. In addition they were asked to keep a research diary throughout the course of the project and to record all their reflections involving the project and CALL (See Appendix A). These questionnaires and diaries were significant in promoting reflection from the participant teachers in their learning and teaching of CALL. The researcher also kept a research diary. Pre project and end of project questionnaires, along with a mid project interview, were other forms of the data collection. The project was collaborative between the participants and myself and the action plan was modified according to the progress of the project in the manner of an Action Research based project. The teacher development cycle that evolved around the introduction of a new CALL activity revolved around the concepts of mentor, practice, observe, teach and reflect but was varied according to the individual needs of the different participants.

Findings and Recommendations

Whilst I had intended to try some form of group training with the participants the overall trend of the project pointed led to abandoning this idea for the opposite direction which was more consideration on the particular needs of each individual participant. Teachers have varied knowledge about computers and CALL and different strengths and weaknesses in both their teaching and learning styles. One on one mentoring is able to concentrate on this and give the appropriate help to each individual. One major factor in the project was the level of computer knowledge, which inhibited some participants from learning a greater variety of CALL activities. They need more time to learn about CALL. One on one mentoring has advantage over group training in dealing with the individual needs of the teacher. To this end three modified forms developed of the teacher development cycle for the introduction of a CALL activity built around the ideas of mentoring, practice, observation, teaching and reflection. One to one mentoring combined with allowing time for teachers' hands on practice and reflection on the use of CALL are key features of this method that differentiate it from some other methods used in CALL teacher education. With the building of expertise and confidence in CALL the observation stage can become less necessary and the mentoring can turn into a sharing and exchange of ideas.

Time is always a problem in action research projects carried out by classroom teachers conducting research on their own teaching and it was no surprise that it was an issue in this project. Time is really the key issue not only for the project, but also for a teacher to learn and explore different activities in CALL (especially with the Internet). When shown some activities the participants were keen to try them out, to explore them further and to modify them for their own needs and this was only limited by the time available for them to do this. As they developed in computer experience and confidence just making teachers aware of ideas became enough. The participants are interested in continuing their development in the use of CALL and should be encouraged to continue this on their own outside of the project. The natural follow on to the project is to establish a forum and common shared resources for teachers to pool and share ideas on the use of CALL. Several participants suggested moves in this direction. We intend to do this at our College as a follow up to the project. I have already completed the first step by establishing a set of common resource folders with general information on CALL, as well as notes and lesson plans on all the CALL lessons and activities that were used throughout the project. Of course another method to encourage staff development in CALL is to try and alleviate the problem of time by providing paid time or time off contact teaching for training and mentoring, but unfortunately in this day and age of tight budgets many institutions are not prepared to do this.

Technical expertise is required in using CALL, along with lesson preparation (the same as for any lesson). Lessons went wrong for teachers for two main reasons - either lack of preparation or some technical difficulties. The first is preventable whilst the second is not (but can be prepared for so it can be minimised). Technical problems were very disheartening for the teacher but are a reality. This question of computer expertise was anticipated and goes in tandem with the problems of lack of time to build up this expertise. Lack of computer expertise leads to lack of confidence as well as disruption even embarrassment to the teacher conducting a lesson. Whilst the teachers already computer literate and familiar with some use of CALL were quicker to be able to use the activities demonstrated to them, those less computer literate were not so confident in trying them out. Time was required to build on their computer skills for them to obtain the confidence to carry out the CALL lessons. However it must be remembered that even the most technically literate teacher can have technical problems such as the Internet dropping out or a web page intended for use being suddenly unavailable. Flexibility and knowledge about how to handle such situations are vital for conducting CALL lessons. Another alternative, preferred if possible but not always available, is being able to call on a technical minded person when these things happen to help recover the situation.

Simply learning an activity in CALL is not enough without knowing how to integrate it into the general teaching program and use it to the best advantage of the students to promote maximum learning. The issue of integration into the curriculum was from the beginning considered a central question in CALL. A surprise result of the project was the extent to which all teachers, especially the new to CALL ones, picked up the features of CALL recommended for effective CALL in the Literature Review. They found CALL to be of benefit to their classes because of its student centredness, removing them from the center of the lesson and into the role of a facilitator, allowing students to work at their own pace and in some cases on their own areas of interest or weakness. As most CALL activities were carried out with students in pairs the participants also grasped the communicative benefits of CALL in providing opportunities for real purposeful communication between the pairs when carrying out the CALL activity. Teachers need to be shown more than just an activity but how use the activity to promote learning in their students. Reflection, as encouraged in this project, on practice also promotes this type of understanding. On the other hand common methods of teacher development in technology, such as group workshops, isolated demonstrations of programs and even external training courses, may teach the mechanics of the technology involved in a program, but usually do not touch on the best way to use the activity or how to integrate it into the curriculum for the benefit of the students. The methods used in this project, revolving around the concept of mentor, practice, observe, teach and reflect within the teachers' own teaching situation proved successful for helping teachers to grasp some of these important concepts in the use of CALL.

1. Having had no previous experience of CALL, the project has helped enormously by indicating what is available for ESL teaching; how I as teacher can be less pivotal during lessons, putting onus on students (and the computer).' (A)
2. It has shown me the wealth of resources available in CALL - mostly through the net.
3. It has shown me how CALL can/should fit into a language teaching program. (B)
4. Extended my repertoire of activities to use a little. (C)
5. I now have the confidence to conduct a CALL lesson
6. I now know how to implement a certain number of CALL lessons. (I was unable to do this before becoming involved in the project). (D)
7. It has extended my variety of programs used.
8. It has introduced me to the Internet. I know I will progress from this.
9. One lesson was not really enough though time tabling prohibited anything else
10. My mentor was very patient and helpful and did not make me feel useless. I needed that encouragement. (E)
11. It's given me more variety and ideas in CALL lessons. (H)
12. It has shown me different programs to use for CALL and given me a desire to look further into things on the Internet to use as part of my lessons. This would be more relevant for higher level classes. (M)

'Teachers have to realise that computers are not used in the classes just because they are sophisticated or state of the art. Computers cannot perform magical tasks and they are not substituting for the teachers. Computers have to be treated like other teaching aids thus, appropriate training in this aspect is crucial'

(Pilus, p. 10)

CALL is becoming a prerequisite to obtaining a job in the TESOL industry. There is clearly a need for CALL teacher education especially on the front line of implementation at the institutional level, where in-service staff development is the natural way to provide such appropriate training. The key to staff development in CALL is not isolated demonstration of software, but individualised introduction to activities that allow the recipient support and time to assimilate the activity into their teaching practice. The instruction needs to focus not only on the mechanics of the technology but on the integration of the use of CALL into the curriculum to help the students' learning and stress the importance of the teacher in establishing 'effective' CALL. The teacher development cycle used in this project of mentor, practice, observe, teach and reflect has been successful in promoting teacher development in improved CALL methodology. Action research, which is widely supported as a tool for staff development and teachers' researching their working situations, has been useful for investigating its success.

This project was of immediate benefit to the teachers involved by expanding their use of CALL both in quantity and quality. The participants not only expanded the activities they could do with CALL but better understood how to use them for the advantage of their students. It will also be of benefit to the other teachers in the college because lessons learned from the project will be used for further staff development programs. Furthermore the participants will share the lessons learned with the other teachers in the college creating a spiral effect of CALL development. On an institutional level the project helped to improve the quality of teaching in the college, as well as to help solve the dilemma of how to provide training in the use of CALL which the college has invested in and promotes as essential for use in the college. Students were also recipients of benefits from this project as they were able to receive more interesting, varied and professional teaching.

The problems experienced by teachers and the college that were investigated here, are not unique but are also being experienced by other TESOL teachers and colleges through out Australia and the world. In line with the broad principles of Action Research it is hoped that the findings of this project will be disseminated to the wider TESOL community. A first step was taken in this regard with the presentation on the project at this conference in Hong Kong.

Current notions of teacher training in technology use-that it should focus on technology-need to be drastically altered if teachers are to successfully integrate technology into their curriculum. Beyond teaching how to boot up machines…..training should have an instructional focus, guiding teachers to think first about their curriculum, their students and finally, how to integrate technology to help students master curriculum goals. (Persky 1990, p. 37)

 

Appendix A- Guidelines for the writing of the participants diary pasted on the front page of each diary.

The Aim To create a record of your experiences in the project, to summarise what you learn and to chart your progress, thoughts and feelings about your teaching and the project.

How? Please complete the diary regularly after every CALL lesson with your class, any CALL lesson you observe, every training session and every interview. Supplement this at other times after any related discussions (formal or informal) or any time you feel you have something relevant to the project to add.

What should they contain? Observations, feelings, reactions, interpretations, reflections, ideas and explanations

-details of what you do

-details of your planning

-questions that arise

-frustrations and problems you experience

-observations and reflections on the lessons and activities as well as strategies used.

-implications for your teaching

-flashes of understanding

-future plans and enhancements to your lessons

Why? Diary studies provide a mechanism to explore your practice. They can help to focus your thoughts and reactions to the project stimulating greater reflection on its progress. While they provide me the researcher with a valuable source of data to observe the progress of the project and also to compare its development with different participants, they also empower you to research your own practices by sharing your experiences with your peers.

Some Suggestions Your diary will essentially go back and forth between description and interpretation/analysis. It is important to include both. Common pitfalls are either to neglect detailed description of what went on at the expense of much analysis or conversely just to describe what went on without much analysis at all.

-You could use different colour pens for each or you could divide the page in half or even use one page for the description and the facing page for its associated analysis. The latter method can allow for analysis of a particular description to be matched up outside of the regular sequential time diary, which often happens with insights to a particular event coming at a later stage

Final Word Ask your self these questions when you write-

-Describe what you do with no judgement

-Why do you do it?

-Should you continue to do it?

-What changes will you make?

-please write legibly and coherently for me to follow

(adapted from Hughes 1996, Halbach 1999 & Farrell 1998)

Appendix B - Questionnaire for completion by participants after teaching a CALL lesson. (size modified from original)

Teacher Lesson Evaluation Form

Please tick ( Ö ) the box or write in your answer as required

Code Date

Class EAP / U Int / Int / Pre Int / Elem / Beg

1, Which of these did you use today?

Internet – email WWW Netscape Other __________________

Software Program/CD (Write in name____________________)

2. How many times have you used this program?

One two a few many

3. Explain the briefly activities that you did on the computer

• In which areas did this program improve your students' English ?

Put a '0' for planned and /or 'X' if achieved

	very well	well	a little	not at all	not relevant
vocabulary
grammar
writing
pronunciation
reading
listening
communication with partner
spelling
research
critical thinking
other

• What difficulties did you experience with the lesson
• What changes would you make to the lesson next time?

(adapted from Brown 1998)

Appendix C - Questionnaire for completion by participants observing a CALL lesson taught by another teacher. (size modified from original)

Observation Checklist

Code: Date:

Activity:

Indicators		High-------------------Low
		4	3	2	1	0
1.	Class atmosphere was positive.
2.	The class understood what was wanted.
3.	Every student was involved.
4.	All students were interested in the lesson.
5.	Material and activities were appropriate.
6.	All instructions were clear.
7.	Student groupings were appropriate.
8.	The activity is interactive. It provides students to learn from resources including each other.
9.	The student is involved in planning the activity, setting goals, choosing tasks, developing assessments.
10.	The tasks are authentic, pertaining to the real world.
11.	The tasks are challenging but not frustrating.
12.	The tasks integrate skills.
13.	Learning is measured through performance.
14.	Learning is measured as part of the activity itself.
15.	Assessment is part of the instruction.
16.	The lesson is linked to the curriculum.
17.	The teacher is a facilitator - stimulates and monitors discussion.
18.	The teacher models, mediates, explains, redirects the focus when necessary and provides options.
19.	There was teacher skill in the lesson organisation
20.	There was general communication

21. What is the role of the teacher in this activity?

22. What is the primary skill or focus of this activity?
23. What is the purpose of this activity?

(particular language skill/ grammatical point/ function/ other)

24. What are the considerations for the groupings of students in this activity?

(nationality/gender/computer knowledge/personality/English ability)

25. What type of assessment is there in this activity?
26. Any other comments about this lesson!

(adapted from Nunan 1988 & Skowron 1998)

References

Brand, G. A. (1998), 'What Research Says: Training Teachers for Using Technology', Journal of Staff Development, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 10-13.

Brogan, M. (1997), 'Getting Post Graduate TESOL Students and Staff to the Starting (On-) Line', 2nd Annual TCC Online Conference, Kapi'olani Community College, Hawaii, <http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc_conf97/pres/brogan.html>.

Farrell, T. S. (1998), 'ESL/EFL Teacher Development through Journal Writing'. RELC Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 92-109.

Garton, J. E. (1992), 'Starting CALL', ON-CALL, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-7.

Halbach, A. (1999), 'Using trainee diaries to evaluate a teacher training course', ELT Journal, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 183-189.

Hughes, I. (1996), 'How to Keep a Research Diary', Action Research Electronic Reader, <http://www.beh.cchs.usyd.edu.au/~arow/Reader/rdiary.htm>

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R, (1988). The Action Research Planner, 3rd edn. Deakin University, Victoria.

Levy, M. (1997), Computer Assisted Language Learning: Concept and Conceptualization, OUP, Oxford.

McKenzie, J. (1991), 'Traditional Staff Development - A Dismal Track Record', From Now On, vol. 1, no. 4, pp.1-2, <http://www.fno.org /fnoapr91.html >

Newman, J. M. (1999), 'Following the Yellow Brick Road', to be published in Phi Delta Kappan, 1999/2000, <http://users.andara.com/~Jnewman/ybr2.html>

Persky, S. E. (1990), 'What Contributes to Teacher Development in Technology?', Educational Technology, April 1990, pp. 34-38.

Pilus, Z. (1995), 'Teachers' interest in CALL and their levels of computer literacy: some implications', ON-CALL, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 8-11.

Rosen, R. (1997). 'Computers in ESL: How the global community entered our language centre - a case study', Proceedings 10th EA Conference, Brisbane, Elicos Association, pp. 275-286.

Skowron, J. (1998), 'A Tool for Engaging Teachers in Change', Journal of Self Development, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 40-44.

Snyder, I. (1996), Integrating computers into the literacy curriculum: More difficult than we first imagined', The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, vol.19, no. 4, pp. 330-344.

Trickel, K. & Liljegren, K. (1998), 'Using Multimedia Computers Effectively in the ESL Classroom', 1998 Southeast Regional TESOL Conference, Louisville, <http://grove.ufl.edu/~ktrickel/setesol/>