6.3.2 Training, Support and Vision

Singhal (1997) highlights some of the challenges to use of the Internet in language teaching and cites lack of training and familiarity on part of teachers as an important challenge. Dwyer et al. (1992) refer to teachers as pragmatists or individuals who must survive the day and weather the storm of the demands they face. Kagan (1992) characterizes the classroom similarly when she describes it as a place of great uncertainty and unpredictability. Teachers derive security from knowing that things are going well and from being able to identify and solve problems. What both sets of authors tell us is that teachers rely on having a sense of certainty and security in order to cope with the demands in their environment. Part of that security comes from knowing the answers to questions, knowing more than the students and from being in control of the tools and materials of their trade. One individual noted in relation to teachers: "We all tend more or less to be "perfect" and want our lessons to be adequate". Thus, when faced with new tools, materials or pedagogies such as OLEs, some teachers will rely on and expect training and support that will provide them with the security and confidence they need in order to "weather the storm".

Understanding this aspect of TLEs and the way in which teachers respond to it can help clarify some of the beliefs in this section. The beliefs that are considered in this sub-category reflect a high degree of discomfort, concern, uncertainty and insecurity. Teachers’ strong emotions expressed in the context of these beliefs remind us that beliefs have an affective as well as a cognitive component. The beliefs do not convey a sense of comfort, control or security. Instead, they convey strong emotions which suggest that, faced with the new environments, teachers do not believe they can "weather the storm". Beliefs such as "we are completely helpless", "many adults are petrified of this stuff", "(teachers) feel intimidated", "j’ai peur d’amener mes etudiants au centre des ressources", "I don’t feel comfortable enough", all convey the insecurity which some teachers experience while working with OLEs. Bracewell et al. (1998) provide an explanation for teachers’ reaction to use of OLEs. They describe the classroom as "a place where order prevails" and posit that the introduction of information and communication technologies into schools creates a zone of uncertainty for teachers.

Singhal (1997) focuses specifically on the foreign-language teacher in her explanation of teachers’ fear of using new technologies. She argues that "foreign language teachers are especially anxiety prone to computers since they often have little experience with computers". The expression of anxiety is certainly evident in teachers’ comments presented above. One of the study’s participants nonetheless provided some support for Singhal’s view of the foreign-language teacher by suggesting that these teachers were perhaps more at risk in their use of OLEs given their pedagogical isolation: "Internet, c'est d'un seul coup pour des profs étrangers souvent beaucoup plus isolés et limités dans leurs pratiques de classe qu'on ne croit, quelque chose d'infiniment ouvert et qui donne le vertige".

Many of the beliefs attribute teachers’ inability or helplessness to the fact that their preservice training did not include use of OLEs. Others also point out that they rely on how they themselves learned "which did not include the Interent (sic)" or that they "tend to rely on the tried and true". These beliefs confirm the conclusions of Becker (1991) who argues that teaching practices are a result of teachers’ own schooling, training and experience as teachers. These beliefs indicate the extent to which teachers may be dependent on previous experiences to guide them in the use of new tools and practices. Yet, their previous practices and experiences are of little use to them as they venture into the new domain of online learning. In a study of English as a second-language teachers, Johnson (1994) found that teachers’ beliefs were largely based on images from their formal language learning experiences and that these beliefs may have been responsible for the teachers’ ineffectual teaching practices. While some teachers in the study criticized their own teacher-directed instructional practices, they felt unable to alter their practices due to a lack of alternative images of teachers and teaching. LeLoup’s (1995) longitudinal study of the evolution of beliefs of preservice language teachers explains the problems related to teachers’ reliance on the way in which they learned. She argues that such reliance can result in teachers having misconceptions about language learning which could impact on their success as teachers.

There is also a belief among some that training must be "provided" as opposed to the teacher taking responsibility for gaining the experience and knowledge independently through experimentation and exploration. The following individual argues that if the teacher is expected to learn new skills then she must be provided with some release time: "I am extremely frustrated as a teacher because inservice in these areas is not provided. If I am expected to do it along with everything else I do outside of the many extra hours I work at home, then I say no!" In this case, learning how to use OLEs is seen as an added burden to which the teacher is not receptive.

A number of beliefs were expressed in the context of this study that suggest that anxiety about using OLEs in the teaching of French can relate to fears of knowing less than students. These types of beliefs revolve around teachers feeling that if they are not comfortable with the technology or if they know less than the students then they cannot use technology with the students. These beliefs support the conclusions of Hannafin and Savenye (1993). In their summary of the literature on why teachers do not use computers, the authors found that frustration in learning how to use the computer causes some teachers to give up early. More importantly, they found that teachers resisted using computers because they were afraid of losing control over students or of "looking stupid" in front of the class.

Teachers’ beliefs also centered around the types of training that should be offered. Beliefs on this subject varied extensively. One type of training that was highlighted and that would be specific to second-language teachers is "knowledge of the computer terminology in French". One teacher argued that, without this training, high school teachers "would find it extremely difficult to teach computer-related skills in French" and other teachers "who are used to following a text book" would feel threatened when they go on the Internet and "encounter texts cold - with no chance to look up new words". This belief reminds us that teachers may need training that helps them transition from a text-book mode with its accompanying pedagogies to a mode of online learning which de-emphasizes or decenters the teacher’s role from one who must interpret texts for students to one who works alongside the learner in a process of knowledge exploration and construction.

Technical training that would instruct teachers in ways "to fix things" is one aspect on which efforts might be focused. Many other teachers focused less on the need to know the technical aspects and more on the need to know about content that they can use in their classes. Beliefs expressed in this study indicate that teachers want to know what sites and activities to access, what the objectives of using the sites are, which sites are appropriate and available and which ones fit with the prescribed curriculum. Knowledge of sites, their objectives and how they fit with the prescribed curriculum may provide teachers with opportunities to add to the resources they have and to provide students access to more authentic resources. However, such knowledge will not likely assist them in changing their roles or in providing more control to students to ensure knowledge construction. Another teacher described needing someone to help her find what she was looking for on the Internet which she likened to "a huge resource centre full of partially catlogued (sic) books". If teachers believe that OLEs are little more than repositories of content then their use of OLEs may be limited to this conception. Training can indeed assist her with searching techniques to find resources, however, such training will not allow her to take advantage of the potential of OLEs which goes beyond their value as a repository of content.

Training may need to begin, for some or many teachers, at the very basic but essential level of helping teachers to understand the value of OLEs and their role in education. Such training can emphasize the capacity of OLEs to support transformation of practices to change paradigms, to alter roles and responsibilities and to reconceptualize the entire learning process. Some teachers indicated that they did not use the Internet because they did not see any benefit coming from it, that they were "not aware of its value in improving learning", that they did not have "a reason to go online" or needed to decide why they were using the Internet with their classes. Another indicated that she had trouble coming up with ideas for projects. It may be that, while some teachers have a basic sense of ways in which they can use OLEs such as for project-based learning, they are not sure exactly how to proceed. Training may help them understand and explore the relationship between OLEs and the curriculum. Although some teachers appeared to recognize the value of OLEs, they explained that they did not know how to incorporate them into their teaching. Another expressed the need for training in order to transform online material into "matériel didactique".

Garrett (1991) reminds us that the computer does not constitute a method in itself rather it is a medium or an environment in which a wide variety of methods, approaches or pedagogical philosophies may be implemented. Garrett’s argument was supported by one of the participants in the study who indicated that "without staff development time (which means $), we will continue to teach in the same old way, tinkling with machinery but never really redefining how we teach". This belief recognizes the role that training must play in assisting teachers to adopt new philosophies, methods and approaches. However, some of the beliefs expressed in this study argue that present efforts at training are placing too much emphasis on the technical aspects and not enough on helping teachers to adopt new pedagogical approaches. One participant used the concept of technological illusion to describe tendencies to see technology as an end in itself which can solve all problems but which does not provide the necessary pedagogical support. Another criticized a similar tendency to "sur-valoriser la technique" and "a en faire un passage oblige" while at the same time overlooking the new paradigms and possibilities for technology use. The participant criticized the purely technological vision which results in extensive training on the technical aspects without appropriate pedagogical accompaniment. This belief reminds us of the importance of having a vision for training that goes beyond knowing how to use the tool. It emphasizes the importance of focusing on why we are using technology and not on how we use it. This belief is also reflected in Papert’s (1987) argument which cautions against technocentric thinking or "the tendency to give centrality to a technical object such as a computer"(p.23).

In spite of the strength of this argument, others will argue with equal force that technical training must come first before any emphasis is placed on pedagogical aspects. One belief expressed is that we must be up-front and honest with teachers that the technical aspects are not easy and that they demand significant attention and effort. Otherwise "... on crée des gens mal à l'aise avec les nouveaux outils qui n'osent avouer leurs peurs parce qu'il faut être moderne et connecté." Such training can reassure teachers from the beginning. Another participant argued along the same lines when she expressed the belief that "Il faut un minimum de maîtrise de l'outil pour aborder les questions d'ordre didactique". What do these conflicting beliefs tell us? On one hand they tell us that the needs in terms of training will vary widely. On the other hand they tell us that the perceptions about where the needs lie will also vary. They also suggest that training will necessarily follow a linear model whereby pedagogical training will be preceded by technical training or vice versa. While no literature on the approach to training was explored in this study, beliefs presented in this section suggest that training may need to follow more of a model that integrates technical and pedagogical aspects in varying degrees at varying times depending on the needs of the trainee. As teachers progress in either of technical or pedagogical aspects, they may need to revisit one or the other aspects so that training in each becomes parallel.

Not surprisingly, in terms of teachers needing support, beliefs were expressed that criticized lack of support from administrators and for trouble-shooting. Some of the beliefs emphasize the isolation experienced by teachers and express a frustration with systemic structures. The beliefs suggest that there is a conflict between these structures and the beliefs that support change. Technical support is also highlighted as an essential need without which "teachers lose interest". Other beliefs referred to the pace at which technology changes and how this pace can intensify the need for support and training. These types of beliefs indicate that, while the teachers are willing to change and want to evolve their practices, they feel held in check by lack of support.

Although beliefs were expressed about the importance of support from administrators and technical support, many of the participants in this study were more concerned about a different type of support that they felt was lacking: that which comes from fellow teachers. Mentoring between teachers was described as needed but lacking. As well, teachers described needing "to fuel the excitement with other teachers" to share enthusiasm and a "sense of adventure and excitement" in order to provide the necessary motivation "to put forth the extra time and effort that Internet projects require". The issue of motivation was raised in relation to students’ use of OLEs. Yet, these beliefs suggest that motivation can also play a role in teachers’ willingness to use technology. In the case of students, it was noted that they are motivated by use of technology. In the case of teachers, it would appear that they require the motivation in order to use it and that this motivation can come from their colleagues.

The role played by colleagues in influencing teachers’ use of OLEs was expressed in other beliefs. In this sense, what other teachers believe or what teachers believe their colleagues believe is important to them in terms of their willingness to innovate and experiment with new technologies and pedagogies. Some teachers in this study indicated that their beliefs were unlike those of their colleagues. They also implied that their colleagues do not necessarily appreciate or understand the new approach that they are taking in their use of technology. Pajares (1992) reminds us that beliefs serve an important purpose in helping individuals to identify with each another, to form groups and social systems and to share values. An implicit approval or endorsement from colleagues may be necessary for some teachers to feel secure in their use of new technologies and pedagogies. Wide variance among the systems of beliefs of different teachers from within a similar group is not uncommon (Bussis, Chittenden, Armel, 1976). However, the variance may be a hindering factor in terms of allowing for a change in practices.

Factors that may support and sustain change are also highlighted by teachers’ beliefs. In relation to the issue of training, one participant argued that "...on ne peut pas changer brusquement les mentalités". This participant also remarked that "A chaque fois qu'un nouvel outil fait son apparition dans la classe de langues...les mêmes discours messianiques reviennent...". Such beliefs are complex in the sense that, while they recognize the importance of change, they suggest that the power of new technologies to bring about such change is limited. These types of beliefs also suggest that we may be relying too much on the power of technology to bring about change. Others argue that bringing about change through use of technology would involve facing insurmountable obstacles that would involve far more than simply training teachers. One teacher noted in this regard: "If we accept that the majority of education will be conducted by means of the internet, then we're going to have to start from the bottom up, demolishing ivory towers and slaughtering sacred cows on the way." This belief overlooks the fact that, while use of OLEs can assist in bringing about change in practices, this does not mean that all or the majority of education will be conducted via the Internet. Teachers may not have a sense of the role that the Internet or OLEs can play in learning and may be lacking in a vision for where use of such technologies may be heading. Without this understanding of the role and without the vision, training is unlikely to assist teachers to take full advantage of the potential of OLEs.

Teachers appear to hold different beliefs about the kind of training necessary. Many of the beliefs indicated indirectly, that, even if they did receive the training they thought they needed, teachers would still not be able to transform their practices through use of OLEs because they lacked an understanding of the role of OLEs and lacked, as well, any vision for their use. Beliefs about what type of training was required, and how this training should be conducted revealed that there was considerable disagreement but that, also, teachers were perhaps unaware of their own needs and how these needs could best be satisfied. Beliefs in this section remind us as well, that teachers rely on and shape their understandings and beliefs on past practices and experiences.

Anxiety, frustration, fear, insecurity: these are the results of teachers lack of training in, understanding of and support for use of OLEs. However, although training will undoubtedly provide teachers with technical skills needed to manoeuver in such environments, it will likely not provide them with the sense of security they experience in the traditional classroom. OLEs are unlikely to provide the consistency, stability and sameness which characterizes the traditional, offtimes unchanging environment of the classroom. Teaching and learning with OLEs may require teachers to be more intrepid, to need less security and to derive satisfaction from handing over some of the responsibility and control to students. It may require them to accommodate their beliefs and to develop an understanding of and appreciation for the characteristics of online environments particularly those that distinguish them from traditional environments.

Teachers may also need to reconceptualize their role to incorporate that of the teacher-as-learner. The fact that their preservice training and practical experience did not prepare them for online learning may not pose a threat to the teacher who also sees herself as a learner who must constantly explore new approaches, techniques and ideas. Training in use of the Internet in learning can also provide teachers with opportunities to rethink their role and to reflect on learning and the role technology can play. Although teachers may feel that they could make better use of the Internet in their teaching if they had technical training, in many cases, pedagogical training may provide them with a greater amount of security and comfort in working in OLEs.

In the previous section, we encountered beliefs that were in conflict with systemic practices and structures. In this section, once again, we encounter beliefs that are in conflict. In this case, the conflict is between teachers’ beliefs and those of colleagues. The disorientation and frustration evident in the clash between teachers’ beliefs is evidence of what Woods (1996) refers to as deconstruction of beliefs. Dwyer et al. (1991) argue that "teachers' beliefs may be best modified while they are in the thick of change, taking risks and facing uncertainty". Thus, the frustration and uncertainty experienced and expressed by these teachers may represent a normal part of the process of accommodating one’s beliefs to suit the types of learning supported by OLEs.