6.3.3 Access and Equipment

Various researchers have identified lack of access and equipment as representing a challenge to use of OLEs. Singhal (1997) found that busy lines, slow access to information and technical glitches can lead to frustration. Costs related to training, as well as on-line costs of using a provider are issues that may interfere with implementing technology in schools, especially in schools that have little funding. Singhal also found that rural and inner-city schools, already hard-pressed to provide Internet access, may find it less affordable. In a literature review, Bracewell, et al. (1998) found that classrooms with substantial access to computers linked to the Internet represent the exception. Warschauer (1997b) notes that malfunctioning software and/or hardware as well as unavailable labs may thwart students’ and teachers’ most well-intended efforts. Honey and Moeller’s (1990) study of teachers' thinking related to how and why they use or do not use technology in their teaching observed that a group of teachers whose practices were student-centered would have liked to use computers in their teaching but did not because of either lack of equipment or scheduling problems in the computer lab. Beliefs reported in this section support the findings of these researchers.

Beliefs related to online access revolved around connections being too slow, too expensive (in the case of European participants) or simply, unavailable. Some beliefs indicated a dependence on access at school in order to "prepare lessons" or to use OLEs for the teaching of FSFL. These beliefs suggest that, in some cases, teachers may expect that, if they are going to use technology, the equipment and online time must be provided by the school and not the teacher. Another belief implied that the value of OLEs did not outweigh their usefulness and that, therefore, most teachers would not bother to use them. All these beliefs point to the fact, that for early users or new users of OLEs, school’s provision of equipment to teachers may be a determining factor in their use. This need may not be as prevalent as teachers become more accustomed to using the technology.

Issues related to reliability of equipment and of access appear to be very important to teachers. Teachers noted that they did not have enough computers "in working order", that "all sorts of things go wrong", and that "half the time, all the computers are not up and running". These beliefs may relate to a low tolerance for unpredictable occurrences and a need for certainty and security in the teaching process. Teachers also described frustrations with sites being "overloaded" particularly when they had prepared lessons requiring all students to access the same site at one time. Others resorted to use of "webwhacking programs ....to simulate web navigation of one site" and to allow more control over access to sites. Pedagogies that emphasize whole group instruction and that would, for example, require use of the same site by all students, may indeed result in more frustrations for the teacher. Some sites or servers may not be designed to provide simultaneous access to a large number of users and may "crash" thus thwarting the well- intentioned and well-prepared efforts of the teacher. In some cases, online technologies may actually work against some whole group techniques. Beliefs that favour an approach which ensures each student is on the same page at the same time may not be well supported by OLEs.

Teachers may also be frustrated if they favour having students work individually or in isolation. Backer (1995) noted that a problem with CALL was its underlying "assumption that one student would work at each computerized work station". This assumption required "computer hardware well beyond the financial means of most language learning facilities". Furthermore, it resulted in the physical and psychological isolation of students (Ibid.). A belief expressed frequently by some participants in this study was that one computer per child was required for effective use of OLEs. Such beliefs suggest that teachers may be privileging a pedagogy that does not emphasize collaboration, group work or knowledge sharing. Using a student-centered approach, groups of students could be involved in different activities, some working in groups around a computer while others work in groups around a table all the while with the teacher circulating from group to group.

In order for teachers to use an approach whereby students work one at a time on individual computers they require a computer lab. Some participants in this study described lab access as being "critical". One teacher noted that "....it is unrealistic to think you can get twenty-five kids through a project without a computer lab..." If teachers believe, like this teacher, that a computer lab with one student per computer is a prerequisite to project-based approaches to online learning, then few are likely to adopt such an approach since, as researchers at the beginning of this section indicated, few schools are equipped in this way. Furthermore, such beliefs may reinforce and give credibility to approaches that encourage students to work independently and not collaboratively. Many teachers described having labs in their schools but felt frustrated by the fact that language courses did not have access to them. Language classes are described as being "low on the priority pole" with preference being given to "business, math tech ed.". These beliefs were also articulated by Singhal (1997) who concluded that, for the most part, computers in schools are used for business or computer science courses. Although use of computer labs may not be a prerequisite to effective use of OLEs, if, indeed, these labs are generally not available to language classes, teachers’ beliefs may be influenced. It is possible that institutional practices which favour use of labs by business, math and science classes may reinforce those beliefs that do not associate use of OLEs with learning languages and, thus, teachers may be less likely to see a value in their use.

In their ACOT study of computer use by teachers, Dwyer et al. (1992) identified five developmental phases through which their research subjects passed as their beliefs and practices evolve from a traditional, text-based curriculum to more constructivist approaches. Their initial stage, the entry stage, provides some explanation for the beliefs reported in this section. This initial stage, which involves rewiring and rearrangement of classrooms is characterized by problems related to resource management, personal frustration and preoccupations with the technology itself. As teachers progress in their use of technology, they begin to focus more on issues related to instruction and learning.

In the following section, the challenges identified by teachers relate, not to teachers, but to students. Ironically, the concern in this section instead of being with lack of access, is with too much access. Teachers’ beliefs about controlling students in the vast, boundless, open, uncensored world of the Internet leads some to conclude that they would prefer to limit students’ access.