ASET 2002 conf logo
[ ASET ] [ Proceedings Contents ]

IT and language teaching: Building teacher confidence

Stephen Lock
English Language Centre, Monash University
A relatively new area of second language teaching and learning has been termed CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning). Up until relatively recently, CALL mostly meant word processing and the use of relatively crude, commercially designed software programs. Since then the explosion of the Internet has given teachers and learners an almost unlimited database of authentic materials for study, a vast collection of specialist language learning sites that have been developed by experienced teachers, bulletin boards, email, chat rooms, etc, for the most part free of charge. As well as all this, there are now available new and sophisticated software programs like 'Planet English' and TESS (Tertiary English Study Skills). CALL, as Paramskas points out, in less than four decades has become 'to the delight of some, but to the dismay of others, a vital tool in second language learning' (Paramskas, 1999:13). The dismay Paramskas refers to is clearly palpable in many teachers of ESL (English as a Second Language) when asked to teach CALL and is a major cause for concern for administrators and teacher trainers, not to mention the teachers themselves. This paper begins by describing the modern language classroom in terms of prevailing methodologies and approaches. It goes on to highlight the differences between teaching CALL and regular classroom language teaching that are perhaps the cause of some of the feelings of 'dismay' for many teachers. This is followed by a plan of action that offers practical suggestions to assist the non-specialist and/ or part-time CALL teacher, to gain in confidence and perhaps transform those feelings of dismay into delight.


There is an old proverb that says when examining the leaf of a tree don't forget to notice that the leaf is part of a branch, which is in turn part of a tree, which in turn is part of a forest. This warning about the dangers of specialisation is particularly pertinent in our present times, where the pace of change and the escalating complexity of technology demand the ever-increasing compartmentalisation of knowledge. One relatively recent form of specialisation within TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) is CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning), which as Levy has noted is '...still largely the domain of the CALL enthusiast...' (Levy, 1997:3). However, with the ready availability and low-cost of computers, most language teaching institutions in Australia, at the time of writing, have or have access to at least one computer laboratory, and the expectation is that teachers, who may have little or no experience of computers, will know how to use it. This paper is aimed at those teachers, or those involved in teacher training of CALL.

The de-skilling cycle

Print defines curriculum as 'all the planned learning opportunities offered by the educational institution...' (Print, 1988:9). In any field of knowledge, learning opportunities are likely to be maximised if teachers have specialist knowledge in that field. It is difficult for ESL teachers to gain specialist knowledge[1] in the area of CALL when institutions do not regularly timetable them to teach it, or schedule only one session per week. At my centre there are several teachers, and I am one, who teach most of the CALL classes, however, at certain times of the year, there is a large increase in student numbers, and at these times many more teachers are required to teach CALL.

Some teachers become anxious when they are allocated a CALL class, and seek from those with known expertise in CALL, pre-prepared lesson plans or activities that minimise the role of the teacher, what Johnson (1989:12) calls a 'teacher proof' curriculum. CALL specialists if available, or those who are experienced or skilled in CALL, may not be allocated time in their workload to help colleagues with their lesson planning. This then creates anxiety for those teachers too.

Importantly though, this kind of compensatory spoon-feeding by 'experts', leads to a de-skilling of the role of the teacher, (Pennycook, 1989:610), and combined with the ever-increasing complexity of technology, forms a cycle of dependence that becomes self-perpetuating (see Fig. 1). As Prabhu argues, (Prabhu, 1992:225) ' is naive to think that specialists can formulate a good teaching method and then get teachers to implement it in their classrooms... classroom teaching can improve only to the extent that teachers themselves act as specialists.' Prabhu is referring to the specialist ability that is language teaching, but I would argue that this applies even more so in the further specialisation that is CALL.

Figure 1

Figure 1: The de-skilling cycle

What I think is needed then, is a way to make teachers more comfortable and more confident with teaching CALL without being over prescriptive about exactly what they should do in the classroom. With this end in mind, I first would like to look at how CALL teaching is different from regular ESL classroom teaching. This task is more difficult than it at first seems, as there is wide debate about what constitutes the best approach to regular ESL classroom teaching, therefore it is perhaps necessary to begin by taking a brief look at some of the prevailing approaches to ESL curriculum.

Contemporary approaches to ESL curriculum

Wilkins has argued that syllabus types can be divided into two 'superordinate classes, synthetic and analytic' (Long and Crookes, 1992:28) Synthetic syllabuses require the learner to digest the various components of language and later synthesise them for communication. Analytic syllabuses expose learners to whole chunks of language and require the learner to 'perceive regularities in the input and induce rules ...' (Long and Crookes, 1992:28). Many language learning institutions today advertise themselves as adopting a communicative, learner-centred approach to language teaching and thus fall into the category of the analytic syllabus type. Tudor sums up Richards and Rodgers definition of the 'communicative view of language' as follows (Tudor, 1996:9):
  1. Language is a system of expressing meaning;
  2. The primary function of language is for interaction and communication;
  3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses;
  4. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features, but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.
What this means in the classroom is that a large part of the teacher's role is the facilitation of learning opportunities, (Kumaravadivelu, 1993:82). There is a greater emphasis on pair and group work and the focus of language learning is more on meaning than form. This is often realised by the selection of weekly topics to discuss, read and write about.

A further refinement of the communicative approach has been labelled, 'task'. Defining the idea of task is problematic in that there has been some debate about what the term means exactly[2]. Kumaravadivelu defines it as '...meaning-focused activities in which learners are preoccupied with the process of understanding, extending or conveying meaning and cope with language forms incidentally and as demanded by that process' (Kumaravadivelu, 1993:78).

How is CALL different from other ELT?

The rapid pace of development in computing has meant that any ideas about what exactly CALL is are often quickly out of date. Just nine years ago, Hubbard wrote that '... the pedagogical value of much current software remains questionable ... CALL is still searching to find its place in language teaching' (Hubbard, 1992:39). What he could not have foreseen at that time was the explosion of the development of the Internet. As well as a vast wealth of learning and teaching materials offered for the most part free of charge, there are the communication tools like e-mail, chat, bulletin boards etc. which seem custom made for language learning.

CALL is not a methodology in itself, and there will probably never be a single generally accepted language learning/ teaching methodology in which it could be defined (Legenhausen and Wolff, 1987:5). In fact, there is no reason that teachers should not see the networked computer as just another resource for teaching. For example a planned excursion can now be researched for points of interest and itineraries can be discussed and professionally printed, or a topic can be read about or listened to from a wide range of authentic viewpoints and learner opinions can be exchanged through e-mail or bulletin boards. In a survey of 104 specialist CALL teachers, Levy (Levy, 1997:128) found that the overwhelming majority of teachers identified the role of the computer in language education as being a tool and a complement to classroom work, whilst the least nominated role was as a surrogate teacher. So, if CALL is just a tool like any other classroom resource, why do teachers have a problem with it? Well, there are some significant differences between a regular ESL classroom and the CALL laboratory.

Probably the most important and confronting difference for many teachers, is the need for technical knowledge to access or utilise the language learning resources. Even navigating a web site is not a skill that can be taken for granted, and even in the simple excursion example above there is a need for technical skills that many teachers, or learners for that matter, may not have (eg. copying and pasting between applications, saving files to disk, etc).

A second difference is that of lack of homogeneity of learner abilities. Nunan states that 'one of the greatest problems for the teacher as curriculum developer is having to construct a coherent programme for inappropriately grouped learners', (Nunan, 1988:52). The learners in the CALL class have all been grouped on language ability not computing ability and it is not unusual for a CALL class to contain learners who have little or no experience of computers alongside learners who already have qualifications in information technology.

A third difference is the actual presence of the computer itself. While personal computers have been around for a while now, they are not so familiar, (for many people anyway) that they can be easily ignored. Computers still have a dominating presence that is different from that of other classroom resources like textbooks, whiteboards or overhead projectors. Learners in the CALL laboratory often seem mesmerised by even a static page of text on the computer screens in a way that would not happen with other resources. I will call this the 'awe factor'.

A fourth difference is the potential for distraction. Just to mention a few things, the networked computer can become: a direct communication to relatives and friends, a games console, a stock ticker, a radio in Chinese, a newspaper in Turkish etc. In the regular classroom, there is usually only the teacher and what the teacher wants to focus on. Potential for distraction perhaps arises out of the learners' expectations of CALL. Many learners have perhaps never experienced a CALL class before, or perhaps have had a lazy or inexperienced CALL teacher and consequently have formulated few expectations. A lesson of writing (email) messages in their native language to family and friends is something that the learners themselves would find intolerable if it was deemed a legitimate activity in a regular class, yet I have seen teachers who will allow this in the CALL lab.

The final difference I shall outline in this paper is specific to the situation where non-specialist CALL teachers find themselves only teaching CALL at certain times during the school year, resulting in a lack of continuity. Specialist CALL teachers have the advantage of continuous and extensive experience and investigation into their own teaching. They are therefore in a much better position to identify learner needs and curriculum goals and remedy any mismatch between what is intended and what is actualised. 'Coherence can only be formally demonstrated and mismatch remedied to the extent that the processes and products of decision-making are accessible to investigation' (Johnson, 1989:23). Specialist teachers, because of their greater experience, are also in a better position to assess the pedagogical worth of CALL activities that are not part of the regular classroom repertoire, 'Successful teaching depends to a large extent upon confidence and upon responses atomised by experience' (Johnson, 1989:11).

To summarise, the main differences between CALL and regular classroom teaching are:

  1. Technical knowledge for both teachers and learners;
  2. The awe factor;
  3. Distractions and learner expectations;
  4. Lack of homogeneity of learners' computer literacy levels;
  5. Lack of continuity in CALL teaching for non-specialists.
To reflect upon how CALL is different is a useful exercise, because it also helps to define how CALL is not different. The most important aspect of CALL is still language learning and language teaching. The way learners learn has not changed in the CALL lab, and whatever methodology or approach one subscribes to, it applies equally to teaching CALL. Why do some teachers find CALL teaching such a stressful experience? I would like to suggest that most teachers are competent teachers, and the main problem is a lack of confidence in the CALL classroom and that lack of confidence can be traced to the differences between regular ESL teaching and CALL teaching. I would like now to address each of the differences outlined above, and suggest some ideas that I hope will begin to build some confidence for these teachers and aid them in transferring existing teaching skills to the CALL domain.

Plan of action

Technical knowledge

How much technical knowledge is required? Certainly, the ability to manipulate a mouse and use a keyboard is mandatory. Beyond that one would need as a minimum: a knowledge of file management, an understanding of hyperlinks and navigation systems and some experience of some of the more common programs like word-processors and search engines for example. This level of expertise is not that difficult to attain and there are many short courses one can attend to acquire these basic skills. Having reached this level, I believe any language teacher could at least begin to teach CALL, however as Symes and Preston assert, because of the rapid pace of development of technology, constant re-education and retraining are 'likely to be an inescapable part of everyone's career' (Symes and Preston, 1997:86). While it can be argued that employers should be obligated to provide support for CALL teacher training, the probability at present is that the onus will be on the teacher.

The awe factor

It is difficult to get away from the dominating presence of so many computers lined up like monuments to technology in the CALL laboratory. Even in the title 'Computer Assisted Language Learning', a systemic analysis reveals that 'computer' is placed in Theme position ie. that it is 'given', while 'language' and 'learning' placed in Theme position are what are 'new'! I would like to see a new term for CALL, perhaps one that incorporates the term 'communication technology' instead of computer, but it is perhaps too late for that now.

A suggestion to overcome the awe factor is to break the spell of the computers. Have the learners move away from the terminals from time to time, create discussion groups in another part of the room (if there is space) or even take the learners outside. The need to do this could also be part of a language learning activity. These things might seem obvious things to do, but many teachers, I think, seem to forget everything they know about the psychology of teaching when they walk into the CALL laboratory, perhaps themselves victims of the awe factor.

Distractions and learner expectations

To avoid the kind of distractions in the CALL laboratory mentioned previously, the rules of what constitutes a CALL lesson, and what constitutes appropriate behaviour must be made explicit by the teacher. This can be done as a process of negotiation with the learners, with an explanation of what the goal and the pedagogical value of the lesson are. This is often easier said than done, as the learners tend to arrive at the CALL laboratory in dribs and drabs and immediately begin e-mailing their friends and family in their home countries. Half of the class is usually pre-occupied with this when the teacher begins explaining the lesson ahead.

A tactic that in my experience never fails is to turn the computers or monitors off! To the non-specialist or inexperienced teacher this might seem a drastic action, (the awe factor again). However, the atmosphere of the CALL laboratory will change dramatically into one where the teacher is the centre of attention. This of course is a familiar feeling for every teacher. I would advise doing this several times in every lesson. There also exist network programs that blank out the learners' screens, a very worthwhile investment.


As I pointed out earlier, the specialist CALL teacher has the advantage of experience. They have a greater opportunity and more time to investigate resources both local and on-line. They are also in a better position to accommodate any technical changes to the way the computer laboratory works, or fix common technical problems. Recognising this crucial difference is important because it immediately makes apparent the absurdity of expecting non-specialist teachers to approach the task of CALL in the same way a specialist might. I believe that the best approach for the non-specialist to adopt as much as possible is the same one they take in the regular classroom using a communicative task.

Utilising 'Task' in CALL

A particularly effective approach for non-specialist CALL teachers is the idea of "task", where the 'basis of each lesson is a problem or a task' (Long and Crookes, 1992). A task or series of tasks, begun in the regular classroom can be continued in the CALL lab, using the Internet as a research resource, and a word-processor or website-design software for presentation. An example of the resulting presentation of a student project using this approach, can be seen (and heard) at:

The project's title was 'Turning the Tables' and its aim was for learners to interview some of their teachers, record the interviews and publish the results on the Internet[3]. The learners were placed into small groups and teachers were found who were willing to cooperate. Each teacher nominated a topic from the broad categories of 'travel' and 'hobbies'. The learners were then given time in a CALL class to use the Internet to research their chosen teacher's topic. The groups then met to discuss their research. From this point on the plan of the project was open to continual revision by the learners themselves. This was a deliberate tactic to maintain student involvement, (Richards, 1996:287) as the entire project occupied about 30 hours of classroom time over one month.

In summary, the project involved the following:

CALL LabClassroom
  • Research using the Internet.
  • Analysis of published interviews on the Internet, (both audio and text).
  • Word-processing - timetables, consent forms, formal reports, etc.
  • Web page design - introductory pages, comprehension questions, etc.
  • Role-plays of mock interview situations.
  • Study of question forms - open/ closed, leading, rhetorical, etc.
  • Writing questions to interview classmates.
  • Recording interviews with teachers.
  • Transcription of recordings.
  • Formal reports of the project.

The learners were extremely motivated by the prospect of publishing their work and consequently became very concerned about their accuracy. As Burke asserts, 'Writing for real life audiences provides a real incentive for learners to spend time reworking written texts' (Burke, 1990: 52) and one might add, or preparing for spoken texts.

For other projects I have directed in this vein, see:

ESL Radio:
UFO Stories:


In this paper, I have attempted to address some of the problems faced by the non-specialist teacher when asked to teach CALL. I have suggested that a careful analysis of the differences between CALL and regular classroom teaching may serve to alleviate stress and promote confidence by highlighting the ways that CALL is not different. I have also suggested that a communicative 'task'- based approach could be adopted as a 'way in' to teaching CALL, where a task or tasks begun in the regular classroom are continued in some way in the CALL laboratory. As an example of this approach, I have outlined a project that I completed with my own class, at a time that I myself was teaching mostly regular ESL classes and relatively new to teaching CALL.

Some teachers, it seems, approach CALL with the idea that computers will do the work for them, and indeed, there are some commercially published applications that attempt to be a surrogate teacher. However, even with these programs, the current limitations of computing technology in recognising contextual factors (Levy, 1999:89), is clearly apparent when it comes to tutoring learner output (speaking and writing). We still need teachers and, I believe, will continue to need them, but perhaps only those who are willing and able to embrace new technologies. As communication technology gets smaller and more portable, there will be a greater demand by learners to integrate computers in all areas of the curriculum. It's quite possible that in the not too distant future, a term like 'Computer Assisted Learning' will be as absurd as 'Book Assisted Learning' would be now.


I would like to thank Monash University English Language Centre for allowing me the opportunity to develop my interest in CALL, particularly Renata Chylinski, who was there when I first began teaching CALL and who accepted the role of mentor with generosity and enthusiasm.


  1. 'Specialist knowledge' in CALL can be defined as a sound understanding, usually through extensive experience and research, of pedagogy (language teaching strategies) as applied to CALL. This includes knowledge of what works in the classroom and what does not, current and emerging technologies, and the strengths and weaknesses of published resources (both commercial and public).

  2. It also has its critics. Sheen for example, argues for the necessity of advocates of 'task' to 'demonstrate the greater effectiveness of such an approach over those of a more conventional nature' (Sheen, 1994:127). The flaw in this argument is that no conventional approach can demonstrate superiority either (Nunan, 1988:10), and that what usually happens in the classroom is that teachers adapt, experiment with and change a range of methods and approaches, (Nunan, 1994:783).

  3. Publication could of course, take other forms, eg. cassettes, transcribed magazine articles, etc.


Boomer, Garth (1992). Curriculum composing and evaluating: An invitation to action research'. In G. Boomer, N. Lester, C. Onore and J. Cook (Eds), Negotiating the Curriculum: Educating for the 21st century. Chapter 3. London: The Palmer Press.

Bottomly, Y., Dalton, J. and Corbel, C. (1994). Extracts from chapter 2 'The organisation' and chapter 3 'The innovation' In From proficiencies to competencies: A collaborative approach to curriculum innovation. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.

Burns, A. (1996). Starting all over again: From teaching adults to teaching beginners. In D. Freeman and J. F. Richards (Eds), Teacher learning in language teaching. New York: CUP.

Burton, Jill and Mickan, Peter (1993). Teachers' classroom research: Rhetoric and reality. In J. Edge and K. Richards (Eds), Teachers develop teachers' research: Papers on classroom research and teacher development. Oxford: Heinemann.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 459-480.

Coleman, Hywel (1996). Society and the language classroom. CUP.

Ellis, Rod (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ellis, Rod (1993). The structured syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 91-113.

Fanselow, John F. (1997). Postcard realities. In C. P. Casanave and S. R. Schechter (Eds), On becoming a language educator: Personal essays on professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Freeman D (1996). The "unstudied problem": Research on teacher learning in language teaching. In D. Freeman and J. F. Richards (Eds), Teacher learning in language teaching. New York: CUP.

Freeman, D (1996). Starting anew. In Doing teacher-research: From inquiry to understanding. Chapter 1. Pacific Grove: Heinle and Heinle (and International Thomson Publishing company).

Freeman, Donald (1992). Second language teacher education, emerging discourse, and change in classroom practice. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock and S. Hsia (Eds), Second language teacher education. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Harrison, Ian (1996). Look who's talking now: Listening to voices in curriculum renewal. In K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds), Voices from the language classroom. Chapter 12. New York: CUP

Holliday, Adrian (1994). Curriculum and project design. In Appropriate methodology and social context. Chapter 12. Cambridge: CUP

Hood, Susan (1995). 'From Curriculum to courses: Why do teachers do wht they do? In A. Burns and S. Hood (Eds), Teachers' voices: Exploring course design in a changing curriculum. Chapter 2. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.

Horowitz, Elaine K. and Horowitz, Michael B. (1977). Bridging individual differences: Empathy and communicative competence. In Renate A. Schultz (Ed), Personalizing foreign language instruction: Learning styles and teaching options. Chapter 12. Skokie, Illinois: National Textbook Company.

Hubbard, Philip (1992). A methodological framework for CALL coursework development. In Martha C Pennington and Vance Stevens (Eds), Computers and applied linguistics: An international perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Hudson, R (1992). Extracts from Chapter 1 'What is grammar?'; Chapter 4 'Why teach grammar? and Appendix Grammer in the national curriculum'. In Teaching grammar: A guide for the national curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.

Jackson, P W (1986). The uncertainties of teaching. In The practice of teaching, Chapter 3. Columbia University, New York, Teachers College Press.

Johnson, Robert Keith (1989). A decision-making framework for the coherent language curriculum. In R. K. Johnson (Ed), The second language curriculum. Chapter 1. Cambridge: CUP.

Johnston, Bill and Peterson, Shannon (1994). The program matrix: A conceptual framework for language program. System, 22(1), 63-80.

Jones, Rodney (1998). Using authentic materials in China. In Teaching in action: Case studies from second language classrooms. Chapter 75. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). The name of the task and the task of naming: Methodological aspects of task based pedagogy. In G. Crookes and S. M. Gass (Eds), Tasks in a pedagogical context. Chapter 3. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Legenhausen, L. and Wolff, D. (1987). Computer Assisted Language Learning and Innovative EFL Methodology. Universität Augsberg.

Legutke, M. and Thomas, H. (1991). The modern language classroom: The case of the outmoded paradigm. In Process and experience in the classroom. Chapter 1. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Levy, Mike (1999). Design processes in CALL: Integrating theory, research and evaluation. In Keith Cameron (Ed), CALL Media Design and Applications. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualisation. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Long, Michael H. and Crookes, Graham (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(10), 27-56.

Long, Michael H. (1994). On the advocacy of a task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 781-782.

Louden, W. (1991). Reflection. In Understanding teaching: Continuity and change in teachers' knowledge. Chapter 5. Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press.

Markee, N. (1997). Issues and definitions. In Managing curricular innovation. Chapter 3. New York: Teachers College Press.

McDonough, J. and Shaw, C. (1993). Individualisation, self-access and learner training. In Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher's guide. Chapter 12. Oxford, Blackwell.

Nunan, David (1991). Communication tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 279-295.

Nunan, David (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 133-158.

Nunan, David (1998). Points of departure. In Defining syllabus design. Chapter 2. Oxford: OUP.

Nunan, David (1998). Pre-course planning procedures and Appendix. In The learner centred curriculum. Chapter 4. Cambridge: CUP.

Nunan, David. (1994). A reader reacts...' TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 781-782.

Paramskas, D. M. (1999). The shape of computer-mediated-communication. In Keith Cameron (Ed), CALL Media Design and Applications. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Pennington, Martha C. (1992). Second class or economy? The status of the English language teaching profession in tertiary education. Prospect, 7(3), 7-19.

Pennycook, Alastair (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.

Prabhu, N. S. (1992). The dynamics of the language lesson. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 225-241.

Print, Murray (1998). Introducing curriculum. In Curriculum development and design. Chapter 1. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Rea-Dickinson, Pauline (1994). Evaluation and English language teaching. (State of the Art article). Language Teaching, 27(2), 71-91.

Richards, Jack C. (1996). Teachers' maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 281-296.

Richards, Jack C. (1995). Beyond the textbook: The role of commercial materials in language teaching. RELC Journal, 24(1), 1-14.

Schecter, Sandra R. and Ramirez, Rafael (1992). A teacher-research group in action. In D. Nunan (Ed), Collaborative language learning and teaching. Chapter 10. Cambridge: CUP.

Seedhouse, Paul (1995). Needs analysis and the general English classroom. ELT Journal, 49(1), 59-65.

Sheen, R. (1994). The author responds. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 790-795.

Sheen, Ron (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 127-151.

Symes, C. and Preston, N. (1997). The curriculum and the course of education. In Schools and classrooms: A cultural studies analysis of education. Chapter 5, 2nd edition. Melbourne: Longman.

Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement. Chapter 9. London: Routledge.

Trouw, Noreen (1998). Aboriginal students becoming active learners . In Teaching in action: Case studies from second language classrooms. Chapter 26. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc.

Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness: an overview of trends. In Learner-centredness as language education. Chapter 1. Cambridge CUP

Ulilichny, P. (1996). What's in a methodology? In D. Freeman and J. F. Richards (Eds), Teacher learning in language teaching. New York: CUP.

van Lier, L. (1996). The curriculum as interaction. In Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Chapter 8. New York: Longman.

van Lier, Leo (1994). Some features of a theory of practice. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 6-10.

West, Richard (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. (State of the Art article). Language Teaching, 27(1), 1-19.

White, Ron (1988). Innovation: managing and evaluating. In The ELT curriculum. Chapter 9. Oxford: Blackwell.

Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Skills, abilities and contexts of reality. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 323-333.

Woods, D. (1996). Why study the teacher. In Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Chapter 1. Cambridge: CUP.

Author: Stephen Lock, Monash University English Language Centre. Email:

Please cite as: Lock, S. (2002). IT and language teaching: Building teacher confidence. In S. McNamara and E. Stacey (Eds), Untangling the Web: Establishing Learning Links. Proceedings ASET Conference 2002. Melbourne, 7-10 July.

[ ASET ] [ Proceedings Contents ]
This URL:
Created 18 Aug 2002. Last revision: 18 Aug 2002.
© Australian Society for Educational Technology