6.3.1 Time and the Curriculum

In Chapter 1 of this study, the issue of time was highlighted in relation to traditional schooling and it was noted how TLEs structure learning into short blocks of time, and how, generally, the dynamics of clock and calendar dictate much of the activity. Schools are characterized by a system that divides days into periods, periods into lessons, and lessons into curriculum objectives or outcomes. Time ultimately governs how curriculum material is presented to students and determines the opportunity they have to comprehend and master it. Thus, a curious interplay or dependence is established between the two concepts wherein time is in frequent competition with the curriculum. The curriculum itself, which is often referred to as "prescribed" sets out what may be interpreted metaphorically as a path or course to be followed by the teacher.

Beliefs grouped in this sub-category portray time as a valuable but rare commodity and reveal a preoccupation with being able to complete the curriculum in the given amount of time. These beliefs suggest that teachers feel pressured by external constraints over which they have little or no control. These types of beliefs were also articulated by some of the participants in a study by Honey and Moeller (1990). The authors found that teachers whose classroom practices were more traditional in nature believed that they did not have sufficient time for any additional activities. Beliefs such as "Time is of the essence therefore one is apt to give up before achieving success", or "Our curriculum is overloaded. Therefore one would have to be done at the expense of the other", or "the curriculum is already so jam-packed full of activities, you have to make an effort to fit in an Internet activity usually at the expense of something else" suggest that, to ensure efficient use of time, one must compromise quality. Teachers expressed concerns about consuming time by "surfing aimlessly" or "browsing the web in other areas", waiting for information to be downloaded, translating sites and posting student work on the Internet. These beliefs suggest that such activities do not form an integral part of a learning process that maximizes the potential of OLEs. Instead, these activities appear as add-ons or "something extra that needs to be taught" and which competes for attention with the prescribed curriculum.

The issue of competition with the curriculum lies at the heart of numerous beliefs expressed by participants in this study. In a study on staff development, Collinson (1996) concluded that the teachers who adhered to the behaviorist paradigm worried about being "able to cover everything", and referred to the need to "cover the curriculum". Beliefs that express a concern about not having "the necessary instructional time needed for the completion of the prescribed curriculum" or beliefs which find the program "to be ‘surchargé’ already" may be incompatible with effective use of OLEs. Beliefs such as the following illustrate the tensions that some teachers may perceive as existing between the curriculum on one hand and use of technology on the other: "I’m always pressed to cover all the objectives by June and I’m afraid that I’ll fall behind by taking my students to computer room" or "With such an intense curriculum, to use the Internet one must have appropriate sites to ensure objectives of lessons could be achieved and make maximum use of time". Prawat (1992) argues that teachers' "dichotomous view of the learner and of the curriculum" and their view that the curriculum is "a course to be run" will impede the adoption of a constructivist view of teaching and learning. Teachers’ belief in the need to adhere strictly to the curriculum may may deter them entirely from use of OLEs as suggested by the following belief: "there is too much material to be covered in the curriculum to allow teachers to experiment with the Internet".

Other beliefs in the sub-category reflect teachers’ understandings of how OLEs and the curriculum relate to each other. Teachers referred to how "matching projects/activities with curriculum objectives is sometimes a problem". They indicated that they did not see the "relevance to the curriculum" or that they already "have a very good program to use". Others argued that the curriculum itself and "the activities and lessons suggested are not conducive to Internet usage". Another teacher completed a successful Internet project with her students but then lamented the fact that she did not feel she had met "the objectives of the French curriculum". The implication of such beliefs may be explained by Taylor (1990). He explains that teachers may perceive the curriculum as a real object which is determined by the state and over which they have little control or influence. As a result, he claims, teachers fail to adapt their role to suit local circumstances and, furthermore, adopt the role of manager who is concerned with delivering the syllabus and controlling students’ interactions with it.

In their review of the literature on why teachers resist micro-computers, Hannafin and Savenye (1993) found that some teachers had little faith in the computer's ability to improve learning outcomes. Some of the beliefs in this sub-category support their finding and focus on a lack of purpose or benefit for using OLEs or simply a lack of interest in using it. Other beliefs of this type may emphasize the importance of varying methods and resources and not just focusing on technology as one "method". Beliefs that reflect little faith in the computer's ability to improve learning outcomes refer to use of technology as a passing fad or a tendency to simply jump on the computer bandwagon.

Teachers’ beliefs about learning itself and about what constitutes effective learning situations and resources can also positively or negatively impact on their use of OLEs. One teacher argued, in the case of primary students, using the Internet with them instead of teaching them "sound reading and writing principles" is equal to "putting the cart before the horse". This view suggests that the teacher believes it is more important for the student to interact with the language than it is to communicate and to use language in meaningful and purposeful contexts. This approach can be explained partially by Brown (1980) who argues that limited time and resources in schools favour a more book-oriented approach to language teaching. Beliefs that devalue use of OLEs in the teaching of FSFL may compare use of OLEs with students’ use of books. Some participants in this study argued that, above all, they wanted their students to "enjoy and value a good book". The teaching of FSFL has, in the past, relied to a large degree on use of the text-book. Beliefs that emphasize and value reading as a means to develop language skills may not equate use of technology with language learning except in a peripheral role as an extra resource to be used for enrichment or as an add-on.

An important issue that is brought to light when we consider teachers’ beliefs about the curriculum and use of OLEs is what Becker (1991) refers to as "institutional constraints" and "the regularities in the social structure in which most of [teachers] work". Dwyer et al. (1992) put forth a similar argument when they explain how cultural norms continue to support lecture-based instruction and subject-centered curriculum. Thus, even when innovative teachers try to alter their practices and beliefs, these constraints, regularities and cultural norms can conflict with the teacher’s beliefs. In the following excerpt, one teacher’s beliefs express an explicit criticism of systemic practices: "Our educational system works against these very valuable but time-eating learning projects. There's the "curriculum to cover" - always more than is ever possible even without the extra projects.... It drives me crazy. And as long as teachers are willing to play by those antiquated rules, the nouvelles technologies will remain just that".

Antiquated rules may be synonymous with what Dwyer et al. (1991) refer to as "the principles of 19^th century instruction" that hold teachers "in check" thus preventing them from investigating the potential of modern technology. The teacher’s expression of this concern indicates that she is at a stage where she is questioning existing practices and systemic structures or conventions. These types of beliefs also indicate a conflict between the teacher’s beliefs and the systemic structures in place. Such conflict, while it may represent a necessary stage in the transition towards transforming practices, reminds us that evolving beliefs and practices presents significant challenges even for those who are willing. Conflicts or tensions between teachers’ beliefs were also noted in a study by Collinson (1996) who found differing beliefs about teaching and learning between adherents of behaviorist and constructivist paradigms.

Becker (1991) refers to other obstacles of technology use such as "the circumstances of teaching" which, he posits, can negatively affect teachers’ "more conscious long-range goals". Becker singles out time as "the biggest impediment to better computer use" and to even "modest variations to the routine of direct instruction". The following comments by teachers support his conclusions: "All of potential (sic) for internet is unlimited but like many others there is no time to get on it"; and "There is so much material on the web and so little free-time to access it!". While Becker may emphasize how time and systemic structures impede teachers’ efforts, some teachers themselves may hold different beliefs about what impedes computer use among teachers. For example, while one teacher conceded that "teachers do feel pressured by many factors to cover their curriculum", she nonetheless argued that it was lack of "time-management skills" and "motivation of the teacher" that explained "why teachers don't "fit" anything else in". Another argued that teachers’ lack of time is due to their own lack of commitment. These types of beliefs suggests that the onus is on the teacher and not on the system to change in order to ensure technology integration and as such contradict Becker’s conclusions.

Another teacher expressed a similar belief about teachers’ need to be able to effectively manage their time in order to face the "huge task" of attending to the many responsibilities related to teaching with OLEs. However, she argued that the skills needed to manage time must arise out of a firm commitment to "looking outside the box". In this case, the teacher recognizes the far-reaching effects of using technology and shows an understanding that technology is not simply an add-on, that instead, it is an element which requires teachers to change paradigms and transform practices. While some teachers may be concerned that their colleagues are not changing their beliefs quickly or profoundly enough, Dwyer et al. (1992) argue that the significant demands of the profession of teaching actually force teachers to be pragmatists, to rely on their "deeply-rooted beliefs about schooling". They argue further that these beliefs help them "cope" , "survive the day" and "weather the storm of the demands they face".

In their study of the influence of teachers’ beliefs on computer use, Hannafin and Savenye (1993) found that one of the reasons teachers resist technology is because its use requires increased investment in time and effort. Investing the time may appear futile for some teachers if they feel that, regardless of their efforts, they will have difficulty keeping up with "les trop rapides évolutions informatiques ...". For some teachers, trying to keep up with technological changes is comparable to almost futile attempts similar to aiming at a moving target. Investment of time is portrayed as hardly worthwhile given the need to constantly invest more time in order to catch up with or keep abreast of the changes. Beliefs in the present study suggest that using OLEs requires significantly more preparation time than would be required for traditional classes. Many teachers described not having sufficient preparation time to develop lessons for Internet use or to feel comfortable using OLEs. These beliefs suggest that the teachers who hold them may be at an early stage of use of OLEs. They may well be open to investigating the potential of using OLEs but require release time or extra preparation time. For example, one teacher remarked that while the "potential for internet is unlimited" she had no time in her personal or professional life to devote to its use.

The problem of preparation time may be even more acute at the primary levels or when students are young. However, preparation is not the prime factor that may deter teachers from wanting to use OLEs with children of this age. Teachers’ beliefs on this subject suggest that there is a certain compounding of problems that occur with young children. Their slow typing skills, combined with the demands of working in a second language, combined with pedagogical demands of working with young children, led a number of teachers to conclude as did the following teacher that "Using the internet with young children is not using instructional time wisely". These beliefs suggest that there may be issues related to the teaching of FSFL in OLEs that are particular to the primary grades and which may require further investigation beyond the scope of this study.

Another factor that appears to deter teachers from wanting to use OLEs for the teaching of FSFL is the belief that working online and particularly, using a project-based approach in a second language, is more challenging and "time-consuming" than if students were working in their first language. More time and energy is demanded of the FSFL teacher because of the gap between students’ intellectual and linguistic abilities. This belief suggests that when FSFL students work online, they may need to depend more on their teacher to serve as a "language resource" and to "provide the linguistic help that non-natives need to navigate their way through the Internet". In a previous section of this chapter, the opposite belief was articulated. Teachers argued that use of OLEs made students less intellectually and linguistically dependant on them. The difference between the beliefs may point to a difference in the conception of roles and of learning. Some approaches to teaching accord a more central role to the teacher who constantly monitors what the student is doing, who controls the resources and who provides the explanation and interpretation of the materials with which the student interacts. Beliefs about the need for the teacher to serve as an indispensable language resource when students work online reflect the Audio-Lingual Method according to which the teacher controlled very carefully all the language with which the student came into contact. The aim of linguistic competence meant that errors had to be prevented at all costs, the teacher specified what language the student used and the teacher controlled the learner.

Other beliefs related specifically to language have to do with teachers’ preoccupations with devoting time to ensuring that communication is in French while students work online. Translating sites, checking sites to ensure that they are in French, monitoring to ensure that students are using French constantly: no doubt this preoccupation will lead to time being diverted from other, perhaps more valuable or important pursuits. Such a preoccupation with ensuring that students are always using French is likely a result of the influence of the Direct Method which emphasized communication in the target language. The use of students’ first language is believed to be something which the teacher must guard against because it contravenes the basic tenants of Communicative Language Teaching, immersion methods and the Direct Method. However, as Cummins (1998) argues, a preoccupation with ensuring that students are using French can result in a "transmission-oriented pedagogical approach" that is "less cognitively challenging and creative than many educators would consider appropriate" (p.3). Cummins also found that "when teachers are asked why they do not implement more cooperative learning and project-based strategies they usually indicate a concern that students will use English in these activities". Thus, if teachers believe that they will "lose" time ensuring students use only French while online, they will not only be reluctant to use such strategies or project-based approaches, they may, as well, be reluctant to use OLEs.

We have seen in this section that teachers’ beliefs about time and the curriculum on one hand and use of OLEs on the other appear to be related to sets or systems of other beliefs. A teacher’s beliefs about time may be related to her beliefs about what constitutes effective teaching and what constitutes an effective teacher. These beliefs may in turn be related to or affect beliefs about the curriculum or about second-language learning. For example, if the teacher’s set of beliefs about her role incorporates the metaphor of the teacher as manager, her set of beliefs about teaching will likely emphasize efficiency, production and control, and her set of beliefs about time will likely dictate strict time-management. Her beliefs about the curriculum, if she believes herself to be a manager will reflect the metaphor of the curriculum as a course to be run. Woods (1996) explains how each belief is part of an interwoven network that includes many other beliefs. How teachers view time and the curriculum may dictate other sets of beliefs and likewise, other sets of beliefs may dictate how the teacher views time. Thus, changing teachers’ beliefs about time and the curriculum may necessitate changing whole sets of beliefs that may, on the surface, appear to be unrelated to time and the curriculum. If the teacher believes herself to be a facilitator and learning to be a process of guided discovery and exploration that is driven by the goals of the learner, she may be less concerned with the curriculum and with time constraints. In later sections of this chapter, we will have the opportunity to consider how other sets and systems of beliefs relate to each other and to the issue of time and the curriculum.

Many of the beliefs related to time and the curriculum reported in this section reflect a philosophy that supports the teacher in the role of manager, and emphasize the importance of the product of learning and favour the text book as the primary resource. The beliefs also reflect aspects of the Direct Method and the Audio-Lingual Method. Some of the beliefs portray OLEs as a passing fad or an add-on to, a competitor with, or, an intruder in, the curriculum. OLEs appear to interfere with the time available to the teachers forcing them to hasten their pace and compromise their goals. Frustration, anxiety and feelings of inadequacy characterize teachers’ experiences as they attempt to resolve tensions between the demands of the curriculum on one hand and use of technology on the other. An interesting and important element of the beliefs in this section is their relationship to the systemic conventions and principles of schooling. These conventions and principles appear to serve as obstacles to transformation of teachers’ beliefs and to use of OLEs. Some of the beliefs reported in this sub-category questioned these conventions and principles and reflected a desire to want to transform practices.

In the following section which explores beliefs about training, support and vision, we will observe how the issue of training is related to both time and the curriculum. We will also see instances of ways in which teachers’ beliefs conflict, not necessarily with the systemic beliefs, but instead, with the beliefs of other colleagues.