Action Research a Theoretical Framework
Environmental situation
Data collection: Methods
Data analysis
The next stage
Conclusions
References
Appendixes

Action Research, a Theoretical Framework

Action Research is research carried out by teachers into their own action in the classroom and other related environments.
When we run Action Research, we do it to boost our awareness of what as a matter of fact happens in our classrooms and the role of our action in that process. The objective is to improve our teaching practice and extend our ability to facilitate learning.
research can help us gain a richer understanding of the many interrelated factors involved in learning. It can help us see how the ways we organize learning environments can promote or inhibit growth. In classical-quantitative research the researcher "stands back", A.R. is developed by the teacher, it's a first person research because the researcher is in the context.
K.Lewin defined Action Research as: a kind of research operated by anybody who conducts a project in the school, as a methodology used in education. (Lewin:1946)
The active researcher not only conducts research, but helps to change the context and improves what it's taking place in the classroom.
Action research is concerned with exploring the multiple determinants of actions, interactions and inter-personal relationships in unique contexts. Its aim is to deepen practitioners’ understanding of the complex situations in which they live and work, so that their actions are better informed.
Conducting A.R. means:
• analysing the presuppositions underlying our teaching,
• investigating the validity and efficacy of the content and action of our current practice,
• developing alternative procedures and implementing them in the classroom,
• monitoring and evaluating the outcomes of our educational action.
An A.R. project should focus on a particular area of our teaching, almost any aspect can be focussed on. We may start with a particular problem we wish to solve, or with an area of interest to us about which we would like to find out more. In either case, we need to clarify the area we wish to research. This research area is called project area.
The research project goes through different interconnected and subsequent stages:
STAGE 1: clearly define an area of research which is limited and manageable; this initial idea could come from a problem solving perspective or a problem posing approach
STAGE 2: • combine observation and data collection in order to find out what is actually happening in our teaching environment
• assess what we have discovered and begin to think of ways in which we can improve our practice
STAGE 3: develop action in order to better facilitate learning and work towards our teaching objectives
STAGE 4: monitor and collect data on everything happens during the lessons; that is observation on the action
analyse all the data collected and evaluate the results of what we have done; that is reflection on the data
The stages and the whole A.R. project can have different time span and as a result of our reflection we may develop our research in one of these directions:
image 1

Environmental situation
I have been teaching English as a Foreign language in the Italian primary school since 1993. This is the first year I am teaching, always as a specialista, in two different schools belonging to a Circolo Didattico situated into my hometown boundaries. The whole Circolo is involved in a wider experimentation aiming to implement new teaching strategies and techniques, above all aiming to strengthen the operative and cognitive skills of each student, using new technologies and integrating these into a global child centred curriculum.
My role in my working environment is providing children with effective examples of communicative use of hypermedia, and, slowly, leading them to integrate this experience into their personal learning path. This seems quite easy when having enough technologic resources, but in this case, I have to cope with the lack of electronic equipment and with the slow implementation of a LAN into the Circolo's schools.
The area that challenges me more at the present time: Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI). The "researchable" issues emerged within my peculiar working environment and at the present point of my professional development path, were mainly two:
• How to address and overcome the practical difficulties due to lack of technical equipment;
• Which is the better way to familiarise children with the Internet and the other communicative online tools like E-mail and chatting facilities.
I believe the more manageable one is the first, because the implementation of the online facilities in our Information Technology Laboratory is being slow and elaborate due to practical-technical difficulties of the external technical staff on duty. It seems it will not be ready until June, too further for my A.R. scheduled times.
The first "posed problem" seems to be adequate to this piece of Action Research.

Data collection: Methods
The research methods were chosen above all because this phase should take place possibly without altering the usual teaching-learning routines. This was important because qualitative research, and quantitative, too, should not affect the classroom climate, better improve it, but substantially let the action researcher free to observe classroom dynamics and understand as much as possible about the nature of educational environments.
However, needing more detailed data and being necessary introduce a degree of auto-assessment into the current practice, the data collection methods seem to be suitable to my actual experimentation and to qualitative research, too.
The research will be carried out exploiting the following methods:
• Semi-structured grids for free observation and report
• Structured worksheets / inventories
• Interview
• Running commentary
• Personal diary
The observation and tape recording sessions will be held once a week when the sample class is working in the IT Laboratory, the structured worksheets will be filled by children early finishers in their learning tasks during the remaining two EFL hours.
The class chosen to be "sample class" is the IV full time, because, thanks to the peculiar timetable organisation, with this class I can have an on-site colleague conducting free observation. Once a fortnight, when there's no substitution in other classes to be done, one of these two colleagues of mine can stay with me into the laboratory to help me manage the work and to participate the class life during the workshops.
These colleagues are "inside observers" but, owing to the lack of specific abilities in the IMI practices, sometime need explicit explanation about "what, how and why" we are doing certain activities: it is a current practice for "technology aware" to work as tutors of the other. Moreover both of them aren't English speakers so they don't understand specific L2 utterances, they can only guess meanings by the context and actions performed, that is why their written productions will be in Italian and then translated into English by me: all the recording materials will be bilingual, to adhere to this situation. I negotiated with them the task of filling semi-structured grids soon after having observed the classroom during the IT Laboratory sessions.
The inventory worksheets to be handed out to children are written only in English like all the other materials used in the EFL classrooms and my personal diary.

Free observation and report using semi-structured grids
Observation will be done by two colleagues of mine (curricular full time teachers), one each week according to their working timetable.
The use of this technique fits the research needs because it allows me to concentrate in the management of th ITL sessions and at the same time to have data and information from another point of view.
This method shows, hovever, some limitations not to be understimated: in some cases the teacher that has to be monitored and the children themselves could modify somehow their behaviours according to the presuppositions of the research. This is not our case, because the children and I are used to have ITL sessions with the presence of these two colleagues of mine. Moreover, both have been trained by me to fill in properly the semi-structured grid, above all trying to fit the description into univocal and synthetic definitions.
They have to fill in it all in the Italian language, because the are not English-aware: this allows us to discuss meanings and clarify considerations before submission.
Further comments, then, will be recorded while processing data with colleagues during the planning hours: the report will be oral and only the more manifest outcomes will be used in data triangulation.
(Semi-structured grid to report the free observation: APPENDIX B)
The interplay between mother-foreign language could cause some problems: first of all, my translation could influence their description, because, maybe, I could give voice to MY considerations and beliefs, rather than theirs.
Secondly, having to research in one language and having to write up in another could mainly produce problems of data handling, mostly regarding transparency issues from the point of view both of my colleagues and of the AR evaluators and, eventually, this could cause an overload of information, not to say a duplication.

Giving out children structured worksheets to be handled as inventories and Interview
My students are almost all at a learning FL level which could seriously affect the quality/quantity of data, if I should ultimately decide to gather the total information amount in the English language.
(Inventory structured worksheet: APPENDIX B)
This is the more quantitative method adopted: it is difficult to me detach from the purely quantitative research that has informed my degree work.
This method however seems to fit to the actual research needs, because I have to find a way to anticipate children answers and lead the to convey data in a more objective and checkable way.
Quantitative methods could be considered as an easy and handy way of reducing complexity, above all in the stage of taking note of all the educational variables implied.
Structured worksheets could fail to show all the information needed, owing to their quantitative nature, I am aware of the risk, nevertheless, having to triangulate data with information gathered from more qualitative methods, I believe this is a risk that can be run.
Another pitfall provoked by this research method is the need to expand data gathered, so, in addition to the checklists will be done interviewing of some of the children, to elicit further information that may not have been anticipated by the inventory items.
Some of the children will be interviewed soon after having filled inventories to highlight emerging issues, other children will be interviewed when something interesting and relevant is showed by their inventories, and when, after a first data manipulation, raises the need of more deep considerations and information.
Interviewing can be considered a research tool that allows to gather a bulk of data that could not be inferred by the simply written answers. Paralinguistic features can highlight new ideas and unlike points of view.
The kind of interviewing adopted is a semi-structured one, namely a set of preconceived questions ainimg at eliciting further and more expanded comments from children.
I think that this method needs a careful planning and an attitude of the interviewer to be flexible enough when delivering the questions. This technique could arise some problems all the same, when the environmental situation is confusing and noisy. This could be a problem for us, too, because our interviews will take place during the last minutes of lesson, when children are more free to move, noisily, toward new games and activities.
Children will be left free to give their own answer, with the usual respect for their expressions and ideas. This seems quite easy because this kind of interview is a more structured form of what we usually do in “circles of conversation”, that’s a routine we are used to do each fortnight to share problems, ideas, news and use, possibly, the FL learnt. The only difference is that this time this will be done individually, but always in the children’s right of answering the way he/she prefers.
I need to hand out the children worksheets quite easy to be filled in, and try to maintain the use of English language handling them, then collect more information through interviewing, in their mother tongue, to have an easier flow of information, then translate basic raised issues in order to have organic data to accomplish the analysis.
More complex, therefore, seem to be translation issues concerning data gathered from children, because high is the risk of “putting in their mouth” words they would never use to describe activities, feelings, facts.
Translation problem could probably be the same elicited in the free observation and report (semi-structured grids) method description paragraph.

Running commentary
This commentary will be carried out with the help of tape recordings done placing a tape recorder near the PC and running while children producing multimedia files.
The transcription method (transcription form) aims to keep the commentary as descriptive and handy possible. The recorded cassettes will be always available for a more detailed and focused transcription.
Cons of this method are the impossibility of seeing gestures, facial expressions and other non verbal features performed by the children, however the tone of the voices is clearly understandable.
(Running commentary transcription form: APPENDIX B)
All the data are anonymous and kept into a personal file locked into the IT laboratory cupboard, with all the bureaucratic documents of my actual work: projects, teaching plans, evaluation documents, worksheets, timetables, resources… all these data stay within the bounds of the "transparency and privacy" policy of the school: each one willing to access these information, must provide evident need, produce appropriate query to the secretary staff and have permission by the Head Teacher to pay a copy of the document wanted.
Head Teacher and working teams colleagues are aware of this commitment of mine.

Personal diary entries abstracts
My personal diary is always with me, ready to keep ideas, information, records, memories, not-to-be-forgot , and carrying with it all the feelings and trust of my actual (and previous) work: this year's diary seems to be more untidy, but with lighter and happier content, very introspective, sometimes.
My role within working teams has been agreed since the beginnings of this school year to be a tutor of the colleagues participating to the various multimedia and EFL teaching projects, following the principle of sharing experiences and growing professionally together.
Diary as a research tool, however, bears some limitations: language may be too redundant, data covered by personal feelings rather than showed through objective points of view, some ideas may remain implicit, and all this could affect somehow the triangulation of data.

Data analysis
Organising and triangulating the data gathered during the research period, raised several issues, that could be included into three broad and interconnected research areas the first dealing with the skills trained and abilities developed among the children, the second analysing classroom dynamics, namely the behaviours and the activities performed by the groups during the Information Technology Laboratory sessions, and, last but not least, classroom management in the form of teaching processes and procedures adopted by me to obtain my objectives.
Each ITL session begins the same way: children get into the room and arrange themselves into the given groups, four children sit at the PCs and start to work. Children within groups choose their activity: completing a task or starting a new worksheet, some work in pairs, other carry on tasks individually.
While working in pairs at the PC and within the groups "out" there has been a tacit agreement upon the rules given by me, rules set to maintain a supportive atmosphere but not designed to allow much freedom in the interactions, therefore data show that there hasn't been "pure" co-operative learning.
Inventory sheets collected into APPENDIX D and the whole children's numeric values into APPENDIX E above all regarding items: I enjoyed - I participated - I behaved well, show, like the atmosphere item take from APPENDIX C, good children interaction values and a somehow productive and supportive environment.
Data however seem to fail to fully describe the actual classroom climate, that’s seldom sparkling, always a bit noisy but productive.
During the two sessions of this observation period, all the students managed to fulfil their task within the given time (see APPENDIX E running commentary transcription forms PC activity performance item) showing furthermore to have gained a consistent ability to "read" the computer's instructions in order to use them to check whether their working path has been right or not.
The “official” language of the laboratory is English, as a matter of fact, by analysing data into APPENDIX E (ITL sessions average sheets) and APPENDIX C (observation grids, children's items), it can be argued that there has been a meaningful use of the L2: during ITL sessions children always read and listen in order to understand the messages, speak and write to communicate ideas, feelings, experiences.

Using multimedia may involve an integration of skills (e.g., listening with reading), but it too seldom involves a more important type of integration integrating meaningful and authentic communication into all aspects of the language learning curriculum. (BRIEDLY & KEMBEL, 1989:145).

Five minutes at the PC seem to be not much, but it must be said that all the time-consuming routines (switching on, linking software's icons on the desktop, managing directories,…) have all been organised by me before bringing the classes into the IT Laboratory.
Children are aware of their tasks and truly willing to perform their work (see APPENDIX E I have produced item).
Creating multimedia projects reinforces students’ technology skills and invites students to use a variety of media to express their understanding and work co-operatively It is a process approach to learning, encouraging students to think differently about how they organise and present information. It supports a collaborative writing environment, self-reflection, authentic learning, and use of the computer as a cognitive tool. In addition, multimedia projects provide an effective alternative for assessing student learning and help to prepare students for the real world. (IVERS-BARRON, 1998: 12).

Most of the children, actually, have produced word processing files (.doc) (see APPENDIX E transcription forms 22/4/99 and 29/4/99 PC A).
There are many information technology tools which can assist communication and frequently they permit the learner to develop ideas and engage in a creative process. The most widely used of these tools must be a word processor. (SOMEKH, DAVIS eds., 1997: 17)

Regarding the teaching of English as a foreign language through the use of ITL resources, the research highlights an integration between the activities carried out in class and the IT Laboratory sessions.
Their written productions aren’t creative, it has been only typing exercise, with sometimes use of a redrafting process. The productive-creative phase has been performed during the previous steps of the didactic unit, by gathering information and linguistic tools, communicating with peers by means of structured worksheets including all the vocabulary and structures pertaining the active and passive linguistic skills about the given topic and being a further help to build a suitable text to be typed on the PC (see APPENDIX F worksheets: Identity card/ Answer the questions then ask a friend / Draw the thing your friend can do best / Write about your friend / Guess who… ).
The IT Laboratory sessions, then, represented the catalyst for group discussions, investigations, reflections and problem-solving activities, because at the PC there hs been no time to perform all these processes, children followed preorganised routines, all this due to lack of equipment and to the children themselves, that have still got to get used to the computer skills.
Children have been helped by the "helper pages" (see APPENDIX F helper text - graphic - web page) and some of them asked for teacher's help only after having checked procedures on these lists (see APPENDIX C both sessions item: children asked for teacher's help).
When something has gone wrong (see APPENDIX E PCA group 4 PC B group 2) the children themselves asked me help and advise (see APPENDIX C items Children asked for info - clarification - repeat steps).
The teacher needs to encourage students to experiment and try different options. When a mistake is made, teachers need to emphasise an understanding of what went wrong rather than focus on the creation of a mistake-free product. When students ask for help, teachers have to hold back from telling students the correct answer; Instead, teachers need to ask students to perform the analysis themselves by guiding them through the analysis process.(KOMMERS, GRABINGER, DUNLAP eds.,, 1996: 222)

There has been a commitment with tasks rather than with techniques, children's use of English has certainly been purposeful, task oriented, process oriented, with no useless chatting during both sessions (see APPENDIX C items: children asked for and English used in both sessions).
Let’s consider another point of view. The observer teachers told me not to worry about children's behaviours during IT laboratory sessions, above all when I felt their involvement too slight:
(…) because this is only a springboard to discussions, games, re-telling and remembering when children have some time free, for instance during playtime, to stay and talk about things they really love and enjoy. We watch them rehearse and talk about the files produced, bring out their notebooks and read again and again, while eating, after each computer session and the other days, too. (…) (abstract commentary to observation done after the second ITL session).

In considering the quality of learning with IT tools the most important question seems to be to what extent they change the nature of children’s cognitive engagement with classroom learning tasks. In particular, can computer-mediated tasks provide more authentic learning activities? Much recent work has suggested that a crucial determinant of cognitive learning is the authenticity of the task. Tasks are or are not authentic depending upon whether or not they are supported by and integral to, the learning context. ( … ) To improve the quality of learning there is a need to achieve the best possible match between these two kinds of authenticity: authenticity to the classroom and authenticity to a particular discipline or field of study. ( … ) Despite their limitations, classrooms can be designed to be more (or less) supportive of quality learning. There is a growing body of evidence supporting our aspirations that information technology tools can change the social dynamics of classrooms. (SOMEKH, DAVIS eds., 1997:24)

All this has to deal with a question raised during the two planning hours soon after the starting of the research stage, while talking about ITL sessions influences on children's behaviours with colleagues: what effect the computers would have had on learning interactions and dynamics in the classroom?
Gathered data show good interaction among children in the whole class and within the pairs working at the PCs, too: APPENDIX E running commentary transcription forms items children interaction and comments.
Children worked serenely following the paths given and carrying on the task within the given time, were well organised and ready when came their turn to sit in pairs at the PC, the whole IT Laboratory atmosphere, as stated by both colleagues in the atmosphere item APPENDIX C observation grids has been informed by collaboration, clarity, flexibility, fun, relax, spontaneity, involvement , positive, supportive characteristics.
Only twice there has been deviation from this routine, as shown by APPENDIX D children's inventories 5-8.
Being these crucial pairs, I interviewed children about some problems raising, and about the amount of English used, too. Follow some small abstracts.

Question: Why did you use mostly Italian language when working at the PC?
Answer 1 (ITL session 29/4/99 G4Aa) I had no English words to let C. understand that wasn't our class directory. M. and S. worked before us but their file weren't there. You know, I don't like being messy. Do you think I was right?(…)
Answer 2 (ITL session 29/4/99 G4Ab) I had to answer her, F. didn't know S. had left his file open and the file being Word not Html. You told us to try to solve our problems before asking help, we didn't shout, only spoke in Italian. I wanted let F. remember (…)
Answer 3 (ITL session 29/4/99 G2Bb) G.'s cleverer in English speaking than me but I wanted to be understood: we had to place our files in the new directory (…)

See also APPENDIX E average I spoke in English item.
I started researching because the resources available were exiguous (and still today there isn't Internet connection and requested multimedia resources haven't been purchased) … but I believe, and data gathered could show it probably, that it seems to be an effective strategy to bring into the IT Laboratory the setting I currently give to "classical" classrooms. (see APPENDIX E items observation within groups and pairs at the PC).
(…) nothing happened. They all worked peacefully, typed texts, chose sounds, let the scanner do its slow work, waited their turns and fulfilled the "paper work" tasks at their desks. Is it usual such a behaviour? Carry on tasks, being ready to sit at PC with a classmate? Were they learning something? Were they my "authentic" pupils? Is this teaching style effective?
(Personal diary abstract dated 22/4/99)

All this describes my usual classroom management style:

As with any other curricular unit, planning is an essential part of successful multimedia projects. In addition, limited computer resources may require educators to facilitate several activities at once. This idea is not new; many educators find themselves managing multiple activities in the classroom on a daily basis. (…) During multimedia projects, the only difference is that some students may be working on computers while others are working on computer related activities. The computer provides the students with yet another mode of learning one that provides new insights into organising, synthesising, evaluating, and presenting information. (IVERS-BARRON, 1998: 146).

Regarding this issue, dealing with teaching procedures and classroom management adopted during the ITL sessions by me, useful data come from APPENDIX C observation grids items: teaching behaviours, and from official documents like the lesson plan outline (see APPENDIX F documents). Moreover this research area is strictly bound to the previous issues, because one must consider teacher's behaviours dependent from the actual classroom characteristics.
Careful ethnographic studies suggested that profound changes in classroom dynamics followed the introduction of microcomputers to this delicately balanced environment. For example, researchers such as Sheingold and Hawkins found that regardless of the teacher’s orientation, the use of computers in the classroom tended to result in higher levels of peer interaction and greater student control over their own learning. They also found that there is more student collaboration on computer-based tasks than on other classroom tasks. (PERKINS, SCHWARTZ, MAXWELL EST, STONE WISKE eds., 1995: 271).

From the observation grids (APPENDIX C), containing structured observations carried out by the on- site colleagues, and precisely from the items: MANAGEMENT - TECHNIQUES - ROLES, we could evidently look into the teaching style and procedures that showed a supportive and monitoring mood.
The on-site colleagues found my overall classroom management good, with good degree of attention to children's needs (MANAGEMENT: calm, respect of children's working times controlled, fair; ROLES: model, counsellor, facilitator, monitor, friend; PROXEMICS: eye contact, face expressions, gestures, help position, good turn taking, names, time control, voice variation) and positive attitude to use eliciting techniques (TECHNIQUES: Demonstration, expansion, listening, reformulation, question, correction, example, translation).
No further data came from conversations and discussions had during the planning hours, owing to an
"unaccountable" habit of the colleagues to listen to me rather than asking questions, to observe me and use info obtained to "understand" the way I'm used to work to try to model their own teaching style. Sometimes it's hard trying to be officially a tutor, but officiously and really being an oddball-model. Why they don't show openly what they really think about me? Why when questioned they skate over? (…)
(Personal diary abstract 24/4/99)

The next stage
Which are the next steps to be taken in order to spiral up the just begun Action Research process?
It's true that the two week research period has been too short to elicit all the possible issues raising from time to time while carrying out the whole hypermedia production project, even the time of a single school year it's now clear to be too strict to obtain a suitable production.
First of all it must be said that the further activities to be performed by the children with all the HTML files created must be the discovery and building of their "friendship web" aiming to link all the single web pages into a cohesive hypertext. More data could have come from this further research stage that hasn't been carried out being the end of a particularly turbulent school year.
However the path chosen, namely developing our own multimedia products, arose some considerations and questions to be more deeply investigated, in order to do this I have to go back to my methods sections and change/update methods, to suit these arising issues.
I need, then, to gain more information about the effect the computers would have had on learning interactions and dynamics in the classroom. As seen in the analysis section, the organisation and classroom management given to the ITL session has been more or less the same given during “conventional” EFL lessons of mine. The research tools chosen failed to fully show the atmosphere and the actual dynamics set by the ITL session, probably, using more “visually rich” recording instruments, like video-recorder and, possibly, cameras handled by the observer, the description would have been more close to what really happened. For instance, extended transcriptions, instead of structured grids, could have hilghlighted in a more effective manner the precise occurrence of single behaviours, or, best, the interplay between the various processes and procedures within the global Laboratory. Data seem to be too slight, instead of being numerous and complex to be analysed, namely, data fail to show the effective complexity of the activities performed during the ITL sessions.
Inventories and structured grids then, have been too closely affected by my beliefs and preconceived issues: I believe and work accordingly, that group work and individualised classroom management techniques can allow teachers to transform themselves from being repositories of knowledge to being guides and collaborators with students. Instead of reciting lessons, they can facilitate students gathering and organising information, evaluating it, and deciding how to apply it. With the principal aim to put students in charge of their learning.
Happened all this during the ITL sessions?
There's the need for more careful observations on grouping, too.
Have been the activities challenging? conventional? engaging? accessible?
Teaching with computers rather than teaching about computers has been the right path to be chosen?
I found very challenging doing it all by myself, but at the same time very demanding and I am curious to investigate how given edutainment products could be exploited for educational-linguistic purposes.

Conclusions
The computer-based lessons that have been carried out complemented classroom instruction by having built an interactive use of English through word processing and managing English-speaking software.
The research aimed to investigate upon the skills trained and abilities developed, behaviours and activities performed by the children and on classroom management, namely teaching processes and procedures adopted to optimise outcomes. The action steps that will come after these first research stages, are likely to promote a deeper understanding of the dynamics set by the I.T. techniques to EFL teaching at primary level.
I learned how to ask myself deeper questions about my current practice, above all, how to describe in a more detailed manner the routines, behaviours, activities and procedures that occur during the Information Tecnology Laboratory sessions and in my usual teaching practice. Informaytion tcehnology Laboratory seems to be a brand a new environment in which bring experienced values, beliefs, attitudes about teaching English as a Foreign Language, and, besides, another learning environment capable to stimulate and enhance learner’s cognitive and euristic processes.
Through activities requiring the creation and management of different kinds of files, the learner's understanding of the authentic input has been focused by practical tasks. Children have been stimulated to find a way to use the language in a meaningful learning context that seemed to produce adequate results with little computing power.
Guided practice with the vocabulary and structures of each session not only reinforced linguistic skills, it also modelled effective strategies for understanding and retaining information communicated in English.
Finally, the link between comprehension and production has been established through pre- and post-activities that formed the "topic body" of each didactic unit which led to classroom integrated skills activities.
To sum up the outcomes of this first body of research, it could be stated that the activities performed during the IT Laboratory sessions provided a number of advantages for language learning:
1. created an authentic learning environment, in which the use of language has been purposeful and natural;
2. provided a variety of media that combined reading, writing, speaking and listening skills in an integrated manner;
3. shifted the control of the learning process to the students that could decide in an almost autonomous way the pace and the learning path to follow;
By using the basic software available, information evolved into something to use and learn for a reason rather than a test, IT became immediate, intimate and involving. This approach used task- and project-based activities and aimed at integrating the four skill in the language learning process, all this in strict connection with the development of the learner’s personality as a whole.
I think this body of research could be useful to all the EFL teachers involved in the experimentation of the new technologies applied to ELT, and dealing, like me, with poor technology resources or lack of clear educational frameworks for such experiences.
Let me leave the very conclusions to A. Loveless' words:
Practical, school-based experience for student teachers is very demanding in that students are expected to experience a wide range of classroom situations and teaching strategies. They need to develop their competence in planning, presentation, organisation, management, evaluation, assessment, curriculum knowledge and work with colleagues and parents. They are also expected to develop their personal and professional IT capability in technical familiarity, educational understanding, organisation of resources and groups of children, and observation and evaluation of the quality of children’s experiences. (LOVELESS, 1995:152) .

References
Allwright, D. and Bailey, K.M. (1991) Focus on the Language Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Briedly, W. & Kembel, I.R. (1989). Computers as a Tool in Language Teaching. New York: Ellis Horwood.
Brumfit, C. Phillips, M. Skehan, P. (1985). Computers in English Language Teaching. London: Pergamon Press and British Council.
Byrne D. (1987) Techniques for Classroom Interaction New York:Longman.
Collins, J. Hammond, M. Wellington, J. (1997). Teaching and Learning with Multimedia. London: Routledge.
Druin, A. & Solomon, C. (1996). Designing Multimedia Environments for Children. N.Y.: Wiley and Sons.
Francis, R. (1997) Information technologies in English Languages Teaching. Norwich: School of Modern Languages and European Studies UEA.
Hardisty, D. Windeatt, S. (1989). CALL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ivers, K.S. & Barron, A.E. (1998). Multimedia Projects in Education. Designing Producing and Assessing. Englewood Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.
Kenning, M.M. Kenning, M.J. (1990). Computers and Language Learning: Current Theory and Practice. New York: Ellis Horwood.
Kommers, P. Grabinger, S. Dunlap, J. eds. (1996). Hypermedia Learning Environments. Instructional Design and Integration. Mahwah N.J.: Erlbaum,.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems, Journal of social Issues 2: 4, 46.
Loveless, A. (1995). The Role of I.T. Practical Issues for the Primary Teacher. London: Cassel.
Perkins, D.N. Schwartz, J.L. Maxwell Est, M. Stone Wiske, M. eds. (1995). Software Goes to School . Oxford: OUP.
Somekh, B. & Davis, N. eds. (1997). Using Information technology Effectively in Teaching and Learning. Studies in Pre-Service and In-Service Teacher Education. London: Routledge.
Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics, Computers, and the Language Teacher: a Communicative Approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wajnryb, R. (1992) Classroom Observation Tasks, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Browse all the Projects!

>> Mixed Level Classes << coming soon
>> Classroom Management << coming soon
>> Crosscurricular Perspective << coming soon