evaluating current and potential use of internet-based activities

Online for all?

Evaluating current and potential use of

Internet-based activities for AMEP students

Chris Corbel

Terry Taylor

National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research

Published by theNational Centre for English Language Teaching and ResearchMacquarie University, Sydney NSW 2109for the AMEP Research Centre with the support of the Adult Migrant English Program,Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Corbel, Chris, 1951–.Online for all: evaluating current and potential use ofInternet-based activities for AMEP students.

Bibliography.ISBN 1 86408 878 8.

1. Adult Migrant English Program (Australia). 2. English language – Computer-assisted instruction for foreign speakers. 3. Internet in education. I. Taylor, Terry, 1953–. II. National Centre for English Language Teachingand Research (Australia). III. Title.

428.002854678

© Commonwealth of Australia 2003

The AMEP Research Centre is a consortium of the National Centre for English LanguageTeaching and Research (NCELTR) at Macquarie University in Sydney, and the NationalInstitute for Education at La Trobe University in Melbourne. The Research Centre wasestablished in January 2000 and is funded by the Commonwealth Department ofImmigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

Copyright

This book is sold subject to the conditions that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise,be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consentin any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without asimilar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Production Supervisor: Kris ClarkeDTP: Lingo ProductionsPrinted by: Centatime Pty Ltd

iii

ContentsAcronyms............................................................................................................................................................................iv

Executive summary ...................................................................................................................................................v

Chapter 1Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................1

Chapter 2The Internet and ESL learning ......................................................................................................................5

Chapter 3Internet sites used in the AMEP ..................................................................................................................9

Chapter 4Attitudes to Internet sites................................................................................................................................13

Chapter 5Reasons for learner difficulties...................................................................................................................25

Chapter 6Meeting learner needs .........................................................................................................................................31

Chapter 7Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................................37

References .......................................................................................................................................................................41

AppendixesAppendix A: Summary of methodology...............................................................................................44

Appendix B: The Provider Survey ............................................................................................................45

Appendix C: The Learner Survey..............................................................................................................48

Appendix D: Learner Focus Groups......................................................................................................54

Appendix E: Teacher Focus Groups......................................................................................................58

iv Online for all?

AcronymsAMEP Adult Migrant English Program

AMES Adult Migrant Education Service

ARMS AMEP Reporting and Management System

ASPLR Australian Second Language Proficiency Rating

CSWE Certificate of Spoken and Written English

DIMA Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

ELT English Language Teaching

ESL English as a second language

ILC Independent Learning Centre

IT Instructional technology

LI First language

NCELTR National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research

Virtual ILC Virtual Independent Learning Centre

Executive summary v

Executive summaryOnline for all? is the report of a project that was based on the first of sixstrategies identified in the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP)Information Technology Strategy — ‘Carry out a research program thatinvestigates the relationship between Instructional Technology (IT) andAMEP client groups’.

The goals of this project were to:

• identify categories of Internet tasks

• identify groups of learners with recognised strengths and weaknesseswith particular task types

• analyse reasons for difficulties experienced by some learner groups

• make recommendations for effective future practice.

The project found that there is a wide range of web resources in use withinEnglish Language Teaching (ELT) worldwide. However, within the AMEPeight categories of Internet websites or features predominate: email, siteswith grammar activities for English as a Second Language (ESL) students,Australian news sites, using search engines, the Virtual IndependentLearning Centre (sponsored by the Department of Immigration andMulticultural Affairs (DIMA) in 1999), news in the learners’ first language,career information sites, and chat sites. A significant project finding wasthat learners use the Internet as much for settlement purposes — that is,keeping up with personal information using their first language (L1), or forlooking for jobs, as they do for curriculum needs, such as language learning.

Internet use is greatest among learners with higher education back-grounds, and with higher language proficiency. There was no indicationthat other learner characteristics, such as age, gender or country of origin,had a significant effect on usage. Learners gave three main reasons for lowInternet use: a lack of Internet skills that would enable them to use themedium efficiently, a lack of English skills that would enable them tounderstand the content, and a lack of awareness of useful sites.

The report presents a series of immediate practical steps that can be takento address these needs. It also reiterates and expands on the recommen-dations of the AMEP Instructional Technology Strategy concerning trainingand resources.

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Rationale

The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) is keenlyaware of the changes in instructional technology and their possible impactson teaching and learning in the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP).The Department has a history of commissioning research on the implica-tions of technological change for the AMEP whether for teachers, learnersor both. Examples of publications resulting from such research includeNew technology and curriculum design (Anderton and Nicholson 1995); The computing practices of language and literacy teachers (Corbel 1996);Current practice in the use of telematics to support distance learners in theAMEP (Nicholson 1997).

In 1997 DIMA commissioned the Instructional Technology Strategy for theAdult Migrant English Program (Corbel 1998). The National Centre forEnglish Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR), on behalf of DIMA,then commissioned this project to facilitate research and developmentwork in the use of instructional technology in the AMEP over the comingtwo years. Its rationale was that the advent of new technology would havea profound influence on the planning and delivery of the AMEP in thefuture. It would also affect the way in which materials development andteacher professional development are carried out. The importance accordedto the current and future role of technology in the AMEP was reflected in the1997 Special Project proposals, where AMEP providers and NCELTR identi-fied a wide range of areas for proposed project activity. These included:

• the use of multimedia resources to support the AMEP curriculum

• the use of online technology as a means of facilitating NCELTR’s delivery of teacher professional development

• the use of learning resources and the delivery of language and literacyprograms via the Internet

• the use of computer technology by learners for specific classroom purposes.

Based on a literature review, a survey and discussions with focus groupmembers, a six-part strategy was recommended in the Report, as set outbelow:

• Carry out a research program that investigates the relationshipbetween IT and AMEP client groups.

• Establish a set of best practice standards in delivery and infrastructurebased on the research and current DIMA/provider relationships.

• Establish a set of computing competencies relating to IT (instructionaltechnology) that reflect the needs of the program, providers and staff.

• Ensure provision of a coherent set of training options based on com-puting competencies, using a range of delivery mechanisms that reflectteacher needs and reflect best practice.

• Ensure the provision of timely, flexible resources for teachers andlearners, linked to the Certificates of Spoken and Written English (CSWE).

• Establish an AMEP website to keep all AMEP stakeholders informed ofstrategy implementation.

The present report is the outcome of the first of these strategies.

Project goals

NCELTR funded this project on behalf of DIMA to further research the useof Internet-mediated resources by AMEP.

AMEP providers are currently using Internet-mediated teaching and learn-ing to different extents and in a variety of ways. Internet-mediated tasksare, in some instances, fully integrated into the teaching program and, inothers, peripheral to the main course content and delivery. So that AMEPproviders could plan for future research into and use of Internet-mediatedteaching and learning, it was seen to be useful to identify issues, informedby both providers and learners, which could assist in the development of astrategy for the use of Internet-mediated resources.

The principal purpose of the project was to evaluate current and potentialuse of Internet resources and Internet-mediated learning activities forAMEP students. Project objectives were to:

• identify categories of Internet tasks

• identify groups of learners with recognised strengths and weaknesseswith particular Internet task types

• analyse reasons for difficulties experienced by some learner groups

• make recommendations for effective future practice.

Key terms

The project brief uses the terms Internet-mediated resources, activities andtasks. It also talks about task types. During the course of this study itbecame clear that there was a necessary distinction to be made betweenresources — that is, the websites themselves and their content, and theactivities and tasks learners undertook at those sites. These activities mayor may not have been directed or influenced by the teacher or by the con-tents of the site itself. Since the goal of the project was related most of allto the fact that learners were using a new medium (the Internet), ratherthan the tasks they were doing, the authors have focused most strongly ontypes of Internet sites used by students rather than types of activities or

2 Online for all?

tasks carried out while they are there. An additional reason for thisapproach is that gathering data on what learners actually do was a farmore complex task than project resources allowed for.

Therefore throughout the report the terms sites and categories of sites areused to relate to what the brief described as resources. A site may be considered as the collection of web pages directly attached to a particularweb address.

Methodology

In order to meet project goals the following methodology was adopted. (Theprocess is summarised in Appendix A.)

Desk survey

To identify the range of Internet sites used by ESL learners generally, a desksurvey of Internet sites was conducted. The search identified broad cate-gories of sites. The authors subsequently used these categories to informthe process of analysing sites reported in the Provider Survey (below).

AMEP Reporting and Management System survey

In order to identify potential groups of learners with strengths and weak-nesses in using the Internet, the learner variables used by the AMEPReporting and Management System (ARMS) to identify AMEP learner typeswere reviewed. These variables include gender, age, country of origin, firstlanguage, education and language proficiency. They became the basis ofdescriptions of learner type used in analysing the Learner Survey (see below).

Provider Survey

A survey of AMEP providers was undertaken to identify the types of sitesthat AMEP learners use most frequently, or are most likely to want to use.The survey asked the providers to identify exactly which sites learners wereusing and to provide some feedback on these sites in terms of frequency ofuse, popularity, learning outcomes, required language level, required com-puter skills, learning strategies and cost effectiveness. AMEP providers inall states were sent the survey through members of the VirtualIndependent Learning Centre (Virtual ILC) network because their primaryfocus is the use and development of Internet-mediated learning resources.The network members were considered to be well positioned to be aware oflearners’ Internet use. (The survey instrument and results appear inAppendix B.)

Learner Survey

Learners across the AMEP were surveyed in order to identify their attitudesand access to Internet sites. They were asked to rate categories of sitesestablished from the data collected in the Provider Survey, indicatingawareness of the Internet sites, frequency of access and degree of difficulty

Chapter 1 Introduction 3

in their use. The survey was designed to identify Internet sites being usedby AMEP learners and to provide data on actual usage by different learnertypes. The Learner Survey was posted on the Adult Migrant EducationService (AMES) website and, again, providers were notified via establishednetworks. The target group was AMEP learners across Australia. (TheLearner Survey and results are included in Appendix C.)

Data analysis

The data collected in the Learner Survey was analysed for patterns ofaccess and attitudes to the Internet sites by different learner types. Theoutcome of this stage of the project was the identification of the relation-ship between particular learner types and categories of Internet sites.

Learner Focus Groups

Four focus groups of learners were organised in Melbourne to identify andanalyse the reasons for difficulties experienced by some learner types.Participants in the groups were shown examples of the different categoriesof Internet sites surveyed in the Learner Survey and asked to discuss theirreasons for difficulty using sites in these categories. (The Focus Groupmaterials, and some key findings, appear in Appendix D.)

Teacher Focus Groups

In the final stage of the project two teacher focus groups were convened,one in Sydney and one in Melbourne, to discuss the findings from theLearner Survey and the learner focus groups and to make recommenda-tions for effective future practice. (The methodology is summarised inAppendix E.)

4 Online for all?

Chapter 2

The Internet and ESLlearning

Internet usage outside Australia

Over the past few years there has been a steady stream of statistics con-cerning increases in Internet access. In March 1998 IDC Research reported69 million Internet users. In June 1998 Matrix Information and DirectoryServices (MIDS) reported 102 million. In December 1998 CommerceNetreported 120.54 million users. In February 1999, Computer IndustryAlmanac, Inc. reported that there are 147 million Internet users. InFebruary 1999, CyberAtlas reported that there are 148 million usersaccessing the Internet. In March 1999, NUA Internet Surveys reported thatthere are 163.25 million users accessing the Internet worldwide, up from151 million users accessing the Internet in January. In April 1999,Computer Economics reported that there are going to be an estimated 77 million children accessing the Internet by 2005 (Headcount 2002).

In Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that total Internetaccess from all locations rose by 53 per cent in the year to May 1999, with5.5 million Australians logging on (Gilchrist 1999).

There is an awareness that access is not equally distributed between countries. The eight top source countries for participants in the AMEP in1998 are listed below together with computer ownership/Internet usageinformation for each country.

Total number of AMEP clients in 1998: 34 089.

• People’s Republic of China: In November 1998, Nikkei BP AsiaBizTechreported that there are 1.5 million registered Internet users in China.The number is expected to reach 5 million users by December 1999.Chinese computer users will comprise an important consumer force inthe near future.

• Vietnam: In December 1998, AsiaBizTech reported that there are15 000 people online in Vietnam. The country officially connected tothe Internet in November of 1997, and had 6000 subscribers in the firstsix months.

• Former Yugoslavia including Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia: In May1999, NUA Internet Surveys reported that there are 10 000 usersaccessing the Internet in Croatia. This number represents only 2 percent of the population, yet the local Internet users seem active. Nearlyevery Croatian newspaper now has an Internet presence.

Chapter 2 The Internet and ESL learning 5

6 Online for all?

• Iraq: Not available.

• USSR: In March 1999, NUA Internet Surveys reported that there are1.3 million households online in Russia. The study, ‘Web-Vector’, foundthat in 1998, 5.3 million Russian households had home PCs and onein every four of those had Internet access, representing a total of 1.3 million households with Net access.

• Lebanon: Not available.

• Turkey: Not available.

• Taiwan: In March 1999, NUA Internet Surveys reported that there are3 011 000 people online in Taiwan (Headcount 2002).

There is an emerging awareness that Internet access splits along lines ofincome, race, gender and ethnicity within countries.

Even in high-use countries such as Australia, Britain and the UnitedStates, a limited segment of the population has home computers andtheir use at work is often limited to data entry or word processing. Thepoor, minorities, and non-fluent English speakers are less likely to havecomputers available, whether at home, at work or at school.

Computer technology is not readily available to the poor or the under-educated — its distribution mirrors socioeconomic patterns both withinand across countries. In fact, the estimated 147 million online users represent only 3% of the world’s population. Even the most optimisticestimates of 300 million online by 2005 will mean a very small percent-age of the world’s population is online. Many of our students, whetherimmigrants or indigenous students, or EFL students in other countries donot have access to this technology that is driving the future. Or live incountries where electrical power is erratic or paper scarce. When weenthusiastically set up listserves or discuss computer-mediated learning,we need to be aware of who is left out of this so-called revolution. (Murray 1999)

Increasingly this gap is being called a ‘digital divide’. A recent conferencecalled to address the issue summarised the situation:

Information tools, such as the personal computer and the Internet, areincreasingly critical to economic success and personal advancement. Inearly July, the National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration issued a report, Falling Through the Net: Defining theDigital Divide, that found a growing gap between those with access tothese tools and those without. As information technology plays an ever-increasing role in Americans’ economic and social lives, the prospect thatsome will be left behind in the information age can have serious repercussions. The digital divide threatens to impede the health of our communities, development of a skilled workforce, and the economicwelfare of our nation. (National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration 2002)

Earlier research (Corbel 1996, 1998) found that within the AMEP there isdisparity among providers in their provision of Internet access and among

teachers and learners in their opportunities to take advantage of onlinelearning. But, given an assumed equality of access within an individualprovider, are all AMEP clients equally able to make use of the opportuni-ties offered by the Internet to extend their learning? The purpose of thisproject was to identify what, if any, barriers stood in the way of learners’effective Internet usage, and what groups, if any, were at particular risk ofbeing on the wrong side of the ‘digital divide’ while under the auspices ofthe AMEP.

Internet access by AMEP learners

Before examining attitudes to individual Internet sites, the authors found ituseful to examine the broad context of Internet access by AMEP learners. Thefollowing is based on the results of the Learner Survey, Learner Focus Groupdiscussions, Teacher Focus Group discussions and on follow-up contact withsome providers not represented in the Teacher Focus Groups.

Different providers in the different states have quite different levels ofaccess to Internet resources. Where providers are well resourced with com-puting equipment and Internet access students may have more than fivehours access per week. Some of this involves formal tuition in class timeand some involves additional hours of self-access in an IndependentLearning Centre (ILC) or library. This out of class time, and the Internetsites accessed by students, may or may not be linked to the students’course requirements. In follow-up discussions both teachers and learnersreported that out of class Internet access time was used both for personal,non-ESL, purposes and for language learning purposes.

Other providers have Internet access on a limited number of computersand therefore learner access is limited by the available resources. This isan issue for providers and learners as the majority of learners either do nothave, or do not use the Internet at home. Most learner access to Internet-mediated resources takes place at the provider and the larger part of thataccess is in class time with their teacher. Data collected in the LearnerSurvey shows that 141 (84%) of the 168 learners who responded to the sur-vey access Internet resources in class time. Of these, 68 (40%) use theInternet in the ILC and 38 (23%) also have access at home.

Several providers felt access to Internet-mediated resources was a matterfor concern during phone follow-up on the surveys and at Teacher FocusGroups. The relationship between DIMA and providers means that theresponsibility for hardware and upgrades lies increasingly with theproviders. This has created a situation where the range of hardware andInternet access available to AMEP students differs from provider toprovider. Providers with limited computing resources and limited Internetaccess expressed concern at the lack of equity.

In formal class time Internet resources are used for ESL and generalInformation Technology purposes. CSWE tasks conducted as class activities include use of the Virtual ILC, email (for writing short notes and mes-sages, etc) and ESL sites for grammar support activities. Learners also usesearch engines to research information to use in written and/or oral reports.

Chapter 2 The Internet and ESL learning 7

To facilitate access to the sites used in class, learners are given instructionin basic Internet skills — browsers, navigating web pages and sites, emailand searching. The type and amount of Internet instruction depends on thelevel of the class, the program, the suitability of Internet sites for the par-ticular class/program and the teacher’s own skills. It also depends on thecomputing and Internet resources available at the provider.

Policy and practice for access to Internet-mediated resources in ILCs andlibraries differ from provider to provider. In some cases students have freeaccess to any computing resources available in the ILC/library, includingInternet access. Where there are adequate computers to accommodate allstudents wanting to use them, access time may be limited only by openinghours. Follow-up with those who had responded to the survey, and at laterTeacher Focus Groups and Learner Focus Groups, supports the surveyfindings that learners with free access to Internet resources most oftenaccess Internet services such as email, first language news and searchengines. In some ILCs Internet access to these services is restricted by theimposition of a time limit on free access. At the end of the specified timestudents are directed to other specifically ESL-focused tasks, which may ormay not be Internet-mediated.

8 Online for all?

Chapter 3

Internet sites used inthe AMEP

Categories of Internet sites used in ESL

Prior to investigating the types of Internet sites most commonly used in theAMEP, and learners’ usage of them, it was necessary to identify the typesof sites that are available. A search of ESL sites on the Internet was under-taken using three broad techniques as shown below:

• Searching on ESL through AskJeeves, a metasearch engine with widecoverage of other search engines.

• Following the ESL Loop, a well-established collection of ESL sites.

• Following links from a key AMEP source, the NCELTR website.

All three techniques returned sites that offered a range of learning activities, with many appearing in all three searches. Many sites were notdirectly aimed at ESL learners. Two sites were of particular relevance becausethey provided an extensive categorisation of other site types. The first site,TESL/TEFL/TESOL/ESL/EFL/ESOL Links (Activities for ESL students 2002),provided the following categories of sites (plus numbers of entries).

Chapter 3 Internet sites used in the AMEP 9

Daily Study (6) — pages whichchange every day

Dictionaries and ReferenceMaterials (43)

Free Lessons (13)

Games (216) — also puzzlesand other fun activities

Grammar and English Usage(100)

Help (4)

Idioms and Slang (23) — alsophrasal verbs

Internet (11)

Listening (44)

Online Textbooks (3)

Penpals and Communicatingwith Others (34) — also chatsand web-based message boards

Pronunciation (43)

Reading (39) — things to read,literature

Quizzes (1301)

Schools (281)

Speaking (11)

Student Projects (35)

Tests (16) — TOEFL, TOEIC, etc

Vocabulary (34)

Writing (53)

Unsorted (20)

However, while this list is useful in showing what is available, it does not indicate what teachers and learners consider useful. A second site,NETEACH-L (Sites Neteachers Thought Were Cool) (TESOL 2002), providedthe following categories of sites.

10 Online for all?

Articles and Papers

Bilingualism

Books — Paper Printed

Business English

CALL Authoring

CALL Information

Collaborative Projects

Computer and InternetTutorials

Conferences

Cultural Issues

Current Events

Distance Education

EFL Links Collections

Email Mailing Lists andPenpals

English for Special Purposes

Environmental Issues

Evaluating Web Resources

Grammar

Handouts/Materials forTeachers

Holidays

Idioms and Slang

Info on Jobs/Professions/Careers

Institutes and Organisations

Job Opportunities andInformation

Language Teaching/LearningTheory

Listening

Literature

Members

Miscellaneous

MOO Information

Online Courses and OnlineLearning

Online Research

Other Languages

Other Useful Sites for Students

Projects by Students

Publications

Science-Related

Search Engines and SearchStrategies

Software

Song Lyrics

Spelling

Sports

Study Programs/Training forTeachers

Study Programs for Students

TOEFL and Testing

Virus

Vocabulary

Web-Based Course —Authoring Software

Web-Based Instruction

Web Page Creation

Website Updating

Women’s Issues

Writing

There is an extensive range of site categories of interest to teachers. Whilemany of these sites are clearly designed for ESL learners, a large numberof the sites listed, those providing professional development and teachingresources, would seem relevant to teachers’ rather than learners’ needs.

Categories of Internet sites used within the AMEP

To find which Internet sites AMEP learners use the Provider Survey askedteachers to list those Internet sites used by their students. The 25 teacherswho responded included classroom teachers, ILC teachers, Virtual ILC topicmoderators and Educational Computing representatives. The participantsin the survey were instructed to include all sites, not only ESL-specificsites, and to include all Internet access by learners, not only that whichtakes place during class time and under teacher supervision. They werealso asked to rate each site on a scale of high, medium or low usage.

Although providers were not asked to report on how the learners accessedthe sites — through bookmarks, icons or hyperlinks — follow-up by phoneand in person established that in many cases ESL-specific sites are book-marked or linked to local web pages. Some other categories of sites mayalso be available to learners through bookmarks or links. Anecdotal evi-dence collected during the project indicates that some learners bookmarktheir favourite sites on individual computers, but these bookmarked sitesare not widely available to other learners.

Sites identified in the Provider Survey were analysed into broad categories.This was done by looking at the individual sites reported by teachers, and,informed by the categories identified from the desk survey, placing theminto categories of sites. Eight categories of Internet sites in use within theAMEP could be clearly identified. These were:

• Email

• ESL Grammar Sites

• Australian News

• Search Engines

• Virtual ILC

• First Language News

• Career Information

• Chat.

It is noteworthy that only two of the eight categories are related to ESL-specific sites — ESL Grammar and the Virtual ILC. (Addresses of theindividual sites grouped into categories are in Appendix B.)

Chapter 3 Internet sites used in the AMEP 11

Chapter 4

Attitudes to Internet sites

Teacher views on site categories

In the Provider Survey teachers were asked to rate the Internet sitesaccessed by their AMEP learners according to: extent of use, required language proficiency levels, required learning strategies, required computer/Internet skills, learning outcomes, perceived cost effectiveness,and popularity with learners. A common rating system was used for all ele-ments of each Internet category — high, medium, low.

Extent of use

A summary of responses to the survey question that asked providers toassess the extent of use of the sites is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Extent of use as assessed by teachers (N = 25)

High Medium Low

Email 62% 19% 19%

First Language News 25% 56% 19%

Search Engines 60% 30% 10%

Australian News 35% 41% 24%

Career Information 10% 70% 20%

Virtual ILC 42% 42% 16%

ESL Grammar 29% 42% 29%

Chat 20% 60% 20%

Figure 1 provides an overview of learner access to the categories of Internetsites identified as most frequently used in the Provider Survey.

Figure 1: Most frequently used categories of Internet sites

Chapter 4 Attitudes to Internet sites 13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12High

Medium

Low

ChatCareer Information

1st Language

News

Virtual ILC

SearchAustralian News

Grammar for

ESL Students

Email

Categories of Internet sites

Num

ber

of p

rovi

ders

The site categories are organised from most frequently used to least fre-quently used according to responses recording a high rate of access. Forexample, nearly half of the 25 responses to the Provider Survey rankedEmail high in terms of extent of use. Career Information and Chat receiveda high frequency of use ranking from only one provider each.

The picture of Internet usage that emerges from the Provider Survey showsthat three of the four most frequently used categories of sites are non-ESLcategories. While some sites in these categories may be used by teachersfor ESL teaching purposes the sites themselves are not specifically set upto teach ESL and can be used by learners for purposes other than learn-ing English.

For example, in follow-up discussions and at Teacher Focus Groups, someteachers described how they use email as part of their course delivery withsome learners. However, this does not account for the high levels of usage ofemail reported in both the Provider Survey and later in the Learner Survey.

The only exception to the non-ESL sites in the top four of the ProviderSurvey was ESL Grammar. However, the data include a small number ofproviders reporting use of ESL Grammar sites only. This may give an inflat-ed value to the ESL Grammar category. And, while this may reflect Internetuse by particular groups of learners at particular providers, it is not whollyconsistent with the data collected from the majority of providers whoresponded to the Provider Survey. Neither is it wholly consistent with theinformation collected from learners in the Learner Survey.

Required language proficiency

A summary of responses to the survey question that asked providers toassess the level of language proficiency required to use the sites is shownin Table 2 below.

Table 2: Required language skill level as assessed by teachers (N = 25)

High Medium Low

Email 13% 74% 13%





Virtual ILC 4.5% 91% 4.5%


Chat 0% 100% 0%

Most of the sites rated most useful in terms of learning outcomes were alsothose assessed by teachers as requiring a high level of English languageskill. The Australian News and Career Information categories were gener-ally rated as requiring a high level of English (76% and 60% of responses),with ESL Grammar, Search Engines, Chat, Virtual ILC and Email being

14 Online for all?


rated next most difficult. First Language News was the only category con-sistently rated as needing only low level English language skill (88%).

Required learning strategies

A summary of responses to the survey question that asked providers toassess the level of learning skills and strategies required to use the sites isshown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Required learning strategies as assessed by teachers (N = 25)

High Medium Low

Email 19% 56% 25%







Chat 0% 67% 33%

Most teachers assessed Search Engines as the category of sites requiringhighly developed learning strategies (37% high, 63% medium). FirstLanguage News was rated as requiring a low level of learning strategies by67% of teachers.

Required computer/Internet skills

Table 4 below shows a summary of responses to the survey question thatasked providers to assess the level of computing and Internet skillsrequired to use the sites.

Table 4: Required computer/Internet skills level as assessed byteachers (N = 25)

High Medium Low

Email 12% 50% 38%







Chat 0% 60% 40%

Again Australian News and Career Information were rated as requiring ahigher level of skill. Teachers assessed that these categories required medium computing skills — 88% (Australian News) and 100% (Career

Information). ESL Grammar sites, including the Virtual ILC, and SearchEngines were also rated as requiring good computing skills. Email and Chatwere rated as requiring low to medium computing skills. However, whileEmail received the second highest number of low ratings in terms of levelof computing skill (38%), it received the second highest number of highratings (13%). The ESL Grammar category was the one rated by moreteachers as requiring a high level of computing skills (19%).

Language proficiency, learning strategies and computing skills— overall degree of difficulty

In terms of required language skills, learning strategies and computingskills, ESL Grammar, Career Information and Australian News, SearchEngines and the Virtual ILC were rated as requiring a higher level of skill— that is, they were generally rated as more difficult types of sites.

Learning outcomes

A summary of responses to the survey question that asked providers toassess the learning outcomes achieved by use of the sites is shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Learning outcomes as assessed by teachers (N = 25)

High Medium Low

Email 12% 50% 38%







Chat 0% 60% 40%

Teachers also assessed ESL Grammar, Career Information, AustralianNews, Searching and the Virtual ILC as being most effective in achievinglearning outcomes, although only a very small number of teachers ratedany Internet sites as highly effective in terms of learning outcomes. Sitesthat can be directly linked to the CSWE were rated as most useful in termsof learning outcomes — ESL Grammar (19% — high), Search Engines (10%— high), Career Information, Australian News and the Virtual ILC.

Perceived cost effectiveness

Table 6 gives a summary of responses to the survey question that askedproviders to assess the cost effectiveness of use of the sites.

16 Online for all?

Table 6: Perceived cost effectiveness as assessed by teachers (N = 25)

High Medium Low

Email 6% 38% 56%







Chat 0% 100% 0%

Tasks that can be directly linked to the CSWE were rated highly cost effective. The Virtual ILC was rated highly cost effective by 70% of teachers,followed by ESL Grammar (33%) and Career Information (30%). SearchEngines, Email and First Language News were considered not cost effectiveby over 50% of teachers.

Popularity

Table 7 below gives a summary of responses to the survey question thatasked providers to assess the popularity of the sites.

Table 7: Popularity with learners as assessed by teachers (N = 25)

High Medium Low

Email 88% 6% 6%







Chat 20% 60% 20%

Email and First Language News were rated as highly popular, by 88% and80% of teachers respectively. Least popular task types included some ofthose that teachers rated as more difficult in terms of computing skills —Search Engines, Australian News and ESL Grammar.

General learner views on site categories

The Learner Survey was directed to AMEP learners asking them to ratethe categories of Internet sites established from data collected in theProvider Survey.


18 Online for all?

There were 168 responses to the Learner Survey. Follow-up by phoneestablished that lack of access — limited access to computers, limitedInternet access, or, in some cases, no Internet access at all — were the reasons for the small number of responses from some states.

Learners were asked to rate the eight categories of sites identified in theProvider Survey — Email, First Language News, Search Engines, AustralianNews, Career Information, Virtual ILC, ESL Grammar sites and Chat —using one of the seven possible responses:

1 don’t like using the Internet

2 have never heard of this

3 have heard of this but haven’t used it

4 have used this and don’t like it

5 use this but find it difficult to use

6 use this and find it easy to use

7 use this often and like it a lot.

Initial analysis of the data provided an overview of general Internet accessby all learners. All 168 responses to the Learner Survey are summarised inTable 8 below. The total in column 5 (Total 1, 2 & 3) gives the total per-centage of students who have never used sites in this category. The total incolumn 10 (Total 6 & 7) gives the total percentage of students who use sitesin this category often and find them easy to use.

Learner access and attitude to Internet sites

Data from the Learner Survey were analysed to identify the Internet sitesmost frequently used by learners and to look at the sites in terms of easeand difficulty of use. The order of most frequently used Internet sites

Table 8: Summary of learner responses on Internet use from Learner Survey

1 2 3 Total 4 5 6 7 Totaldon’t like have have 1, 2 & 3 have use this use this use this 6 & 7using the never heard of used this but find and find often Internet heard of this but and it it easy and like

this never don’t difficult to use it a lotused it like it to use

Email 2% 9% 11% 22% 1% 16% 27% 35% 62%

Search Engines 4% 16% 14% 34% 2% 12% 30% 22% 52%

First Language News 1% 17% 21% 39% 1% 13% 20% 27% 47%

Virtual ILC 1% 18% 14% 33% 5% 17% 35% 11% 46%

Australian News 3% 20% 18% 41% 2% 15% 32% 10% 42%

Chat 4% 25% 32% 61% 4% 8% 16% 12% 28%

ESL Grammar 1% 36% 21% 58% 3% 12% 15% 13% 28%

ESL Quizzes 1% 47% 16% 64% 6% 7% 19% 3% 22%

Career Information 4% 39% 31% 74% 2% 9% 10% 5% 15%

according to responses 6 and 7 reported in the Learner Survey (see Table8) differs significantly from that data collected in the Provider Survey, asshown below (Table 9).

Table 9: Most frequently used Internet sites as ranked by teachersand learners

Teacher Ranking Learner Ranking

1 Email 1 Email

2 ESL Grammar 2 Search Engines

3 Australian News 3 First Language News

4 Search Engines 4 Virtual ILC

5 Virtual ILC 5 Australian News

6 First Language News 6 Chat

7 Career Information 7 ESL Grammar*

8 Chat 8 ESL Quizzes*

9 Career Information

* ESL Grammar sites reported in the Provider Survey included a significant number of ESL Quiz

sites. It seemed possible that there could be a sub-category of ESL Quiz sites that are more pop-

ular with and used more frequently by learners than other ESL Grammar sites. To investigate

this possibility ESL Grammar and ESL Quizzes were presented as separate categories in the

Learner Survey. The results of the Learner Survey, however, show that learner ratings do not dif-

ferentiate significantly between ESL Grammar and ESL Quiz sites.

In other respects, too, the results of the Learner Survey differ from datacollected in the Provider Survey in which teachers were asked to assesseach category of sites in terms of required language proficiency levels,required computer/Internet skills, required learning strategies, as well asextent of use and popularity with learners. While, in broad terms those sitesrated most difficult by teachers are also rated difficult by learners, learn-ers tend to rate sites such as Email and Search Engines as easier to usethan do teachers.

Sites rated difficult by learners

The Learner Survey shows that ESL Grammar sites, Career Informationand Australian News, which teachers rated as more difficult types of sitesrequiring a higher level of language skills, computing skills and learningstrategies, are used less often by learners.

The data collected in the Learner Survey also confirm that the use of ESLsites is not as high as indicated in the Provider Survey, with around 60%of learners responding that they had never used ESL Grammar sites.

Sites rated easy by learners

Email, Search Engines and First Language News are the categories of sitesmost frequently used by learners. These sites are also rated as being easi-est to use by the largest numbers of learners.


In the Provider Survey First Language News was the only category con-sistently rated as needing low level English language skill — by 88% ofteachers. It was also rated as requiring a low level of learning strategies by67% of teachers. The majority of teachers, 65%, rated this type of site asrequiring a medium level of computing skill.

While over 60% of learners rated Email as easy to use, it was rated asrequiring a medium level of language skill, computing skill and learningstrategies by the majority of teachers.

Teachers generally rated Search Engines as being more difficult to use interms of learning strategies and as requiring a medium level of languageand computing skill. In contrast, 52% of student responses indicated thatthey find Search Engines easy to use.

Views on site categories by learner type

In the Learner Survey, which asked learners to rate the categories ofInternet sites identified from the Provider Survey, learners were also askedto provide details that would allow analysis of data by learner types. TheAMEP Reporting and Management System (ARMS) identifies learners bygender, date of birth, date of arrival, date of registration, country of birth,language, years of education and language proficiency. Through theLearner Survey data relating to the ARMS categories — age, gender, coun-try of origin, years of education and language proficiency — was collectedas these categories seemed most potentially relevant.

Language proficiency, learning strategies and computing skills emerged assignificant factors in the Provider Survey. Therefore it seemed appropriateto focus the analysis on the most relevant variables: language proficiencyand level of education. As well as the significance accorded them in theProvider Survey, these two variables are the basic variables used for cur-riculum purposes, that is, to organise learning activities and to assignlearners to them.

Years of education and language proficiency are used in the AMEP as anindicator of learning strategies and skills and are used to place learnersappropriately in classes. Depending on level of language proficiency, learn-ers are identified as CSWE III (ASLPR 1+ to 2), CSWE II (ASLPR 1- to 1) andCSWE I (ASLPR 0 to 0+). Bands are used to describe level of education.Band C usually indicates that the learner has completed secondary educa-tion and has commenced or completed tertiary education. Band B learnershave received secondary education. Band A learners have received some orno formal primary education.

In this report the AMEP learner types described above are referred to byCSWE level — III, II, I, and by Band — C, B, A. So, the categories IIIC, IIIB,IIIA, IIC, IIB, IIA, IC, IB and IA are used to describe the range of learnertypes. Table 10 provides an overview of the learner types.

20 Online for all?

Table 10: Overview of learner types

BandCSWE Level C B A

1+ to 2 1+ to 2 1+ to 2 III tertiary secondary primary

education education education

1- to 1 1- to 1 1- to 1 II tertiary secondary primary


0 to 0+ 0 to 0+ 0 to 0+

I tertiary secondary primary


Provider Managers and Computing Coordinators were asked to direct theLearner Survey to classroom teachers and self-access staff involved withlearners using the Internet. They were asked to include Internet use incomputer labs, ILCs, in class time and out of class time. On this basis, andthe basis of follow up by phone with Provider Managers and Coordinators,the figures in Table 11 below can be taken to represent trends in Internetusage by AMEP learners. Initial analysis provided an overview of the rateof participation by different learner types. While these figures are not con-clusive, as the survey was not conducted in a controlled environment, theygive some indication of which AMEP learner types are using the Internet.

Table 11: CSWE Level and Band and number of responses*

IIIC 63 IIC 39 IC 7

IIIB 23 IIB 12 IB 1

IIIA 14 IIA 9 IA 0

100 60 8

* The learner responses are in Appendix C.

The responses indicate that:

• learners with a higher level of language proficiency are more fre-quent users of Internet-mediated activities.

This is made quite clear when the absolute number of responses from eachCSWE level is seen within the framework of recent trends in registrations/enrolments in the AMEP as shown in Table 12 below.

Table 12: Number of responses to Learner Survey compared withnumber of AMEP enrolments by CSWE level

Responses to AMEP registration/enrolments Learner Survey for 1997 and 1998

CSWE III 59% 11%

CSWE II 36% 20%

CSWE I 5% 60%


There were 100 responses from CSWE III, 60 from CSWE II and 8 fromCSWE I while, of the settlers who registered/enrolled in the AMEP in 1997and 1998, 11% were assessed as CSWE III, 20% as CSWE II and 60% asCSWE I (DIMA 2000).

So while the majority of settlers (60%) were assessed as CSWE I, responsesto the survey from CSWE I students make up less than 5% of the total andwhile only 11% of settlers were assessed as CSWE III, this group accountsfor 59% of the responses.

• at any level of language proficiency, learners with a higher level ofeducation are the most frequent users of the Internet.

The data collected in the Learner Survey were analysed further accordingto the AMEP learner categories identified earlier in the project. A numberof responses to the Learner Survey were received from learner types IIIC,IIIB, IIIA, IIC, IIB, IIA and IC. There was only one response in the IB category,and none in the IA category. At all CSWE levels Band C learners representthe highest number of Internet users. There were more responses (39) fromIIC learners than from IIIB learners (23).

When analysed by learner type the data were consistent with the generaltrends in Internet access by AMEP students described above. The datademonstrated consistently that, at any level of language proficiency, learn-ers with a higher level of education are the most frequent users of theInternet, that they are more likely to be aware of the different types of sitesavailable, that they are more likely to have tried sites they have heard of,and that they find Internet-mediated activities easier to use than do otherlearners. It also demonstrates that learners with a higher level of languageproficiency are more frequent Internet users and are able to navigate theInternet environment more easily.

Learners with lower levels of education and learners with a lower level oflanguage proficiency can be identified as having more difficulty with usingInternet-mediated activities.

From the information collected in the Learner Survey the authors extractedthe data relating to the two possible responses that indicate that studentsfind Internet sites in general easy to use. The figures refer to all eight cat-egories of sites surveyed and give a broad picture, in terms of learner types,of how frequently the students in each learner type category respondedthat they found Internet sites easy to use and/or used the sites often. Thetwo sets of responses isolated were:

6 – use this and find it easy to use and7 – use this often and like it a lot.

The results presented in the following list show that students with higherlevels of language proficiency and higher levels of education respondedmore frequently that they find Internet sites easy to use and use themoften, supporting conclusions drawn from the evidence of actual numbersof responses to the Learner Survey. The significance of band (level of education) is clearly shown by the position of the IIIA category in the following list.

22 Online for all?

Learner Percentage of Type ratings 6 and 7

IIIC 50%

IIIB 40%

IIC 34%

IIB 29%

IIIA 25%

IIA 22%

IC 2%

To summarise, learners with lower levels of education and learners with alower level of language proficiency find it more difficult to use Internet-mediated activities. CSWE I, CSWE IIA, IIB and CSWE IIIA students wereidentified as those with most difficulty. Categories of sites most difficult touse include ESL Grammar sites, Career Information and Chat. However,the majority of the learner types identified as having difficulties found allInternet-mediated activities difficult.


Chapter 5 Reasons for learner difficulties 25

Chapter 5

Reasons for learnerdifficulties

General Internet use

In order to identify and analyse the reasons for difficulties experienced bysome learner types, four focus groups of learners were organised inMelbourne. The groups were made up of 17 CSWE III learners and 41CSWE II learners. The focus was on learners at CSWE II level as this is thegroup that indicated greater difficulty with or an inability to access theInternet in earlier stages of the project. A group of CSWE III learners wasincluded so as to allow for a comparison of responses.

The four focus groups included a range of learner types, but unfortunate-ly it proved difficult to find IIIA type learners who were able to take part ina focus group. This was largely due to the fact that there are smaller num-bers of this type of learner in the AMEP. Learner types represented were IIIC — 12, IIIB — 5, IIC — 25, IIB — 13, IIA — 3. Participants in the groupsobserved the use of the different categories of Internet sites surveyed in theLearner Survey and discussed their reasons for difficulty using these sites.(The proforma used in the discussions is in Appendix D.)

Before looking at the specific categories of sites — Email, First LanguageNews, Search Engines, Australian News, Career Information, Virtual ILC,ESL Grammar and Chat — learners in each of the focus groups wereasked to make a general assessment of how easy it was for them to usethe Internet. Possible responses were very easy, quite easy, difficult andvery difficult.

While just over 40% of the CSWE III learners in the Learner Focus Groupsreported finding it quite easy to use the Internet, only 15% of CSWE IIlearners reported the same. Over 50% of learners at both CSWE levelsreported that using the Internet was difficult, but only 6% of CSWE IIIlearners, as compared to 27% of CSWE II learners, found it very difficult —see Table 13.

Table 13: Responses from CSWE III and CSWE II learners onease/difficulty with Internet use

Very Easy Quite Easy Difficult Very Difficult Total

IIIC 0 6 5 1 12

IIIB 0 1 4 0 5

IIIA no data no data no data no data 0

0 7 9 1 17

41% 53% 6% 100%

IIC 0 4 13 8 25

IIB 0 2 8 3 13

IIA 0 0 3 0 3

0 6 24 11 41

15% 58% 27% 100%

If we look at the Learner Focus Group results in terms of easy (very easyand quite easy) and difficult (difficult and very difficult) the variations aremore obvious. Of CSWE III learners, 59% reported finding the Internet difficult to use. More than 85% of CSWE II learners gave the sameresponse. And 41% of CSWE III learners responded that using the Internetwas easy, as compared to only 15% of CSWE II learners. The LearnerFocus Group data is presented in percentages in Table 14 below.

Table 14: Learner Focus Group data in percentages


IIIC 0% 50% 42% 8% 100%

IIIB 0% 20% 80% 0% 100%

IIIA 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

IIC 0% 16% 52% 32% 100%

IIB 0% 15% 62% 23% 100%

IIA 0% 0% 100% 0% 100%

A comparison of the Learner Focus Group rating of easy with the data collated from all 168 responses to the Learner Survey and reported in theprevious section shows a similar distribution of attitudes to the degree ofdifficulty or ease learners experience in using Internet sites — see Table 15.

26 Online for all?


Table 15: Percentage of learners in the different learner typescategories who report finding Internet sites easy to use

Overall Survey Group Learner Focus Groups

IIIC 50% IIIC 50%

IIIB 40% IIIB 20%

IIC 34% IIC 16%

IIB 29% IIB 15%

IIIA 25% IIIA no data

IIA 22% IIA 0%

IC 2% IC no data

Learners in the Learner Focus Groups were asked why they had difficultyusing the Internet. Responses were consistent across all the groups andcan be summarised as follows:

1 No-one has ever shown them how to use the Internet. They don’tknow what to do.

2 They lack English language skills and are unable to understand thelanguage.

3 They are unaware of useful sites and where to find them. They wantaccess to useful content.

Learners generally felt that if they were taught how to use Internet-mediated activities, if they were directed to appropriate content and if theywere given assistance with the language they would be able to use therange of site categories surveyed.

During the four focus groups the participating learners were shown exam-ples from the categories of sites, all of which except First Language Newscould be accessed using links on a local web page. After the process hadbeen demonstrated the majority of participants were able to access sites bychoosing and clicking on an appropriate link on the page. That some wereable to suggest what they would need to do to access further informationfrom that site, when this involved clicking on links, supports, at least inpart, the learners’ claim that, if they were taught how to access Internetresources, they could use them.

The degree of interest in the web page of links was high, again supportingthe learners’ response that they want access to useful content, but do notknow what is available or where to find it.

Learners in the focus groups were asked what would help make it easier touse Internet sites. Their responses are summarised in Table 16.

28 Online for all?28 Online for all?

Table 16: Learners’ responses to question ‘What would make iteasier for you to use Internet sites?’

Is this available at your Centre?What would help? N = 139 Yes No

Lessons in using the Internet 45 10 35

Someone to help with the Internet 33 30 3

Someone to help with the English 31 29 2

Someone to help with the computer 30 29 1

Clearly learners would like specific, focused lessons in using the Internet.As reported in the previous section the majority of learners said that theydid not use Internet-mediated activities because no-one had ever shownthem how. They also said they would like to learn. As indicated by theresponses, most felt that actual lessons would help them most. In about25% of cases learners have access to Internet lessons, but in 75% of casesthere are no Internet lessons available.

Difficulties with certain sites

Learners in the focus groups were shown an example of a site from eachcategory. The groups discussed the tasks and then participants were askedwhether or not they used each type of site, and to rate each one as easy ordifficult. The findings are given in Table 17 below.

Table 17: Internet resources and types of sites

Do you use this?

Yes No Easy Difficult

Email 20 34% 38 66% 15 26% 29 50%

First Language News 19 33% 39 67% 35 60% 20 34%

Search Engines 12 21% 46 79% 10 17% 35 60%

Australian News 11 19% 47 81% 8 14% 38 66%

Career Information 9 16% 49 84% 9 16% 38 66%

Virtual ILC 16 28% 42 72% 10 17% 34 59%

ESL Grammar 4 7% 54 93% 7 12% 33 57%

Chat 3 5% 55 95% 5 9% 31 53%

Not all participants in the focus groups responded to the easy or difficultpart of the question. The data are quite complex to analyse in detail becauseof the different ways questions were interpreted. For example, responses inthe difficult column include those who responded Yes, but find it difficult touse this task type and also some of those who responded No, because it istoo difficult. Responses to First Language News indicate that many studentsthink it is easy to use, but don’t use it.

To summarise, the responses to the questions asked at the Learner FocusGroups support data gathered at other stages of the project. The majority


of CSWE II and some CSWE III learners responded that they find the sitesdifficult to use because they do not have the required Internet skills orrequired level of language proficiency. Email and First Language News arereported to be used most frequently and to be the least difficult to use.Australian News and Career Information and ESL Grammar sites are usedthe least frequently and are rated as difficult to use.

Note that learners do not necessarily use the sites that they report to beeasy to use, for example, First Language News. The data also show that,even though they find some sites difficult to use, some learners will continueto use them.

Chapter 6 Meeting learner needs 31

Chapter 6

Meeting learner needsTeacher Focus Groups were convened in order to discuss the findings fromthe survey and the Learner Focus Groups, to identify the issues and to pro-pose ways of meeting learners’ needs. There were two Teacher FocusGroups — one in Melbourne and the other in Sydney.

The Melbourne Focus Group was made up of eight Educational ComputingRepresentatives — teachers involved in computing support and training atcentre level — and other teachers involved with students using Internetresources in AMES centres across Melbourne. There were also eight par-ticipants in the Sydney Focus Group. These represented multimedia coordinators and teachers from a range of AMEP providers.

The focus groups were presented with the findings from all previous stagesof the project:

• the categories of Internet sites most frequently used by AMEP studentsas established from responses to the Provider Survey

• the AMEP learner types who have difficulty using Internet sites, estab-lished from responses to the Learner Survey

• the reasons learners gave for difficulty using Internet sites during theLearner Focus Group meetings.

The Teacher Focus Groups discussed these findings, and other issuesrelated to the use of Internet-mediated activities with AMEP learners. BothTeacher Focus Groups proposed ways to meet learner needs. They alsoraised other issues in relation to Internet use and AMEP learners. The out-comes of these discussions are summarised as follows under the headingsthat emerged during the discussions — Why? What? When? and How?.

Why do we use the Internet with AMEP learners?

The sites teachers rate as most frequently used are not necessarily thosethat learners claim to use most frequently. The Provider Survey gives evidence that teachers consider Internet sites that can be used for lan-guage learning purposes to be most valuable. However, the learners’ focusis not always primarily language learning, and is often directed to non-ESLservices such as those used for communication and information gathering.The learners’ interest in using sites such as email can be used as a motivation for learners to acquire computing and Internet skills as well aslanguage skills that will facilitate access to a range of Internet sites. InTeacher Focus Groups discussions the reasons for learners to use theInternet were grouped into three areas — settlement, motivation to learnEnglish and developing study and employment skills.

32 Online for all?32 Online for all?

Settlement

A significant issue to emerge is that Internet use has become a part of theAMEP settlement process. The large number of humanitarian migrantsusing email and first language news would support this finding. The recentexample of the refugees from Kosovo shows that even without previouscomputer literacy, motivated clients can master the skills of computer literacy very rapidly.

Motivation to learn English

Internet Skills — learners are generally highly motivated to acquire Internetskills. As instruction at AMEP providers will largely, if not entirely, be inEnglish, learners are motivated by the dual outcomes — Internet skills andimproved language proficiency. There are competency-related tasks andskills that can be taught using the Internet as the medium or focus oflessons.

ESL activities online — again, learners can be highly motivated to engage inESL activities using the medium of the Internet.

Study and employment skills

Computer literacy — to a great extent literacy today equals computer liter-acy. Teachers in the focus groups noted that a high proportion of positionsin the employment marketplace now require good computing skills.Increasingly internal and external office communication is conducted byemail and much professional and academic information and research isposted on websites.

Learners develop independent learning skills and strategies linked toCSWE competencies I and II. They also develop research skills — for further study and work purposes.

L1 sites — can be accessed for content, which learners can then translateand use as models for writing tasks. This helps with vocabulary and otherlanguage skills such as report planning and structuring.

Employment focus — for learners with an employment focus, access toInternet skills and Internet resources can be extremely valuable in termsof job skills, job searching and information on job descriptions in theAustralian employment environment.

What Internet skills should we teach AMEPlearners?

Both focus groups of teachers began by discussing what ‘the Internet’ and‘using the Internet’ means. Participants identified different types of service— email, chat, web — which make up the Internet, and also defined theInternet in more general terms as:


• a communication tool

• a resource (with the advantage of being visual)

• entertainment

• a ‘garbage dump’ where finding good content can be ‘like digginggarbage with a spoon’ when what you need is a shovel.

Learners need to have different types of skills to use the various servicesprovided by the Internet and to access the different categories of sites avail-able to them. What Internet skills to teach learners was discussed in thecontext of giving access skills to the whole Internet (bearing in mind the‘garbage dump’ analogy and that learners do not always have the necessarylanguage to critically evaluate content) or focusing learners’ access skills oncontent which teachers think is useful.

The focus groups proposed that Internet skills should be taught in the con-text of the broader curriculum — that is, embedded in a language-learningcontext. Steps to this could be:

• Start with browser skills — teach the technology in a language-learningcontext.

• Lower levels can be taught how to navigate a page if the site is accessedby the teacher prior to the lesson. A teacher can select an appropriatesite for learners to use and display this site on all computers that willbe used by the group of learners. This allows for a high degree ofteacher control over content and the category of site used and elimi-nates the need for learners to go through all the steps of opening abrowser and entering an address. By choosing the site carefully theteacher can begin to show learners how to navigate a web page in a con-text that is not too complex in terms of language or function.

• Teach Internet skills which students are motivated to learn (for life pur-poses or language learning purposes). As the instruction and practiceis in English students will learn English that has a specific purpose/function for them.

When should we introduce Internet skills andresources to AMEP learners?

The discussion at the Teacher Focus Groups and the resulting proposalsaccord with needs and wants as expressed by students at the LearnerFocus Groups. CSWE II and III students involved in the Learner FocusGroups want to be taught how to access Internet sites, want a teacher tohelp and want to be directed to suitable and useful content. The TeacherFocus Groups’ proposals are set out in Table 18.

34 Online for all?

Table 18: Proposals to teach CSWE students how to use the Internet

CSWE I

Teach basic computing skills not Internet skills. Low languageskills make it difficult to use Internet-mediated activities,especially if learners do not have command of basic keyboard andmouse skills and are not familiar with the general computingenvironment — toolbars, menus, etc.

Introduce learners to basic Internet skills with specific teacherdirection, for example how to navigate a page if the site is accessedby the teacher prior to the lesson, use L1 sites to prepare for usingtasks in English — such as email.

CSWE II

Use a range of categories of sites with learners, appropriate totheir course requirements and needs. Teacher provides instructionand support as necessary while learners are accessing theactivities.

Provide easy means of independent access to useful sites for exitlevel learners — those about to commence CSWE III. Access couldbe via bookmarks, Personal Toolbar or web page of links. Teacheravailable to assist as necessary.

CSWE III

Provide easy means of independent access to useful sites forlearners. Access could be via bookmarks, Personal Toolbar or webpage of links. Teacher available to assist as necessary. Learnersmay start to explore other sites.

Allow exit level learners full access. Learners have autonomy toselect Internet-mediated activities and use them independently.

How can we introduce Internet skills andresources to AMEP learners?

Many learners who do not use Internet sites indicate that they do not havethe necessary skills to access Internet-mediated activities and do not knowwhere or how to find useful content on the Internet.

This raises two issues — assisting learners to acquire the necessary com-puting/Internet skills and local arrangements for learner Internet access.

Learner skills

The stages set out in the previous section provide a framework for anapproach to assisting learners to acquire the skills necessary to accessInternet-mediated activities. A further consideration is teachers’ level ofskill in using Internet-mediated activities with their students. Anecdotalevidence collected during the project, from discussions at Teacher andLearner Focus Groups and from follow-up phone discussions with a rangeof providers, suggests that a large number of teachers in the AMEP do nothave the computing/Internet skills necessary to assist learners withInternet-mediated activities. Evidence from the Provider and the Learner

ASLPR 0

ASLPR 0+

ASLPR 1-/1+

ASLPR 1+

ASLPR 1+

ASLPR 2/2+


Surveys shows that the sites some teachers consider difficult are notalways considered difficult by learners.

A practical example from one of the Learner Focus Groups supports thisevidence and suggests there is a need to upgrade teachers’ computing/Internet skills.

On the request of a class teacher during one of the Learner Focus Groupmeetings learners were given instruction in getting and using an emailaddress (Hotmail). The group consisted of 20 learners who had just com-pleted CSWE II and had ASLPRs ranging from 1 to 2. Of this group, 80%had not used the Internet before. They knew about email, but did not haveaddresses and had not used it. After approximately an hour’s instruction,18 of the 20 learners had successfully registered a Hotmail address andused it to communicate with others in the group. Follow up with theteacher established that the learners were successfully using email, butthat the teacher was not, and requested further instruction and support.

Providers may need to consider implementing a program of teacher train-ing to upgrade teachers’ computing/Internet skills, especially in relation tousing Internet-mediated activities with learners.

Learner awareness

Learner Focus Group members consistently claimed that they did notknow where to find useful content on the Internet. When these groups wereshown a pilot Student Intranet Page that has links to a range of ESL sites,dictionaries, news sites, search engines, etc there was a high degree ofinterest and enthusiasm.

The Learner Survey gives evidence of the numbers of learners who havenever heard of many of the categories of sites or who have heard of them,but not used them — see Table 19 below.

Table 19: Learners’ responses to use of the Internet and specificsites

don’t like have heard of using the have never this but neverInternet heard of this used it Total

Email 2% 9% 11% 22%

Search Engines 4% 16% 14% 34%

First Language News 1% 17% 21% 39%

Virtual ILC 1% 18% 14% 33%

Australian News 3% 20% 18% 41%

Chat 4% 25% 32% 61%

ESL Grammar 1% 36% 21% 58%

ESL Quizzes 1% 47% 16% 64%

Career Information 4% 39% 31% 74%

36 Online for all?

Learners can have relatively easy access to useful Internet content in arange of ways. These local initiatives can range from something as simpleas a list of site addresses on a wall chart to the more sophisticatedapproach of a web page of links.

• Addresses: wall charts of site addresses and address directories specif-ically produced for local learners can be a useful aid. However, thelearners need to be able to enter addresses accurately, need to be ableto recognise the address they want, and, if time is limited, can wastemuch of it typing in the addresses.

• Bookmarks: bookmarking useful sites gives learners a means of quickand easy access without having to type in addresses. The organisationand maintenance of bookmarks requires that the computing coordina-tor or Internet facilitator dedicate time regularly to maintaining thebookmarks.

• Personal Toolbar buttons: significant and frequently used sites can beassigned to the Personal Toolbar. This gives learners immediate accessto the site with one mouse click. However, this mode of access can onlybe used for a small number of sites, limited by the amount of spaceavailable on the Personal Toolbar.

• Web page of links: creating a page of useful links organised into cate-gories can be one of the most effective ways to provide access to usefulcontent for learners. The creation of the page may require more timeinitially, but once created it requires little more maintenance than aperiodic updating as new sites become available. Some providers arepresently creating these web pages for their students; however, it couldbe useful to consider a web page of links available to all AMEP learn-ers using the Internet.

Chapter 7 Conclusion 37

Chapter 7

Conclusion

Current and potential use of Internet-basedactivities for AMEP students

The purpose of this project was to identify what, if any, barriers preventedAMEP learners from Internet usage, and what groups, if any, were at par-ticular risk of being on the wrong side of a possible ‘digital divide’ whileunder the auspices of the AMEP. The project found consistently that, atany level of language proficiency, learners with a higher level of educationare the most frequent and confident users of the Internet. In addition,learners with a higher level of language proficiency tend to be more frequent users of Internet-mediated activities. Learner Focus Groups setup to identify sources of difficulty for specific learner types indicated thatmost students who do not use the Internet frequently have not had theopportunity to learn the necessary skills. The main factors contributing tolearners’ use or non-use of Internet sites are access to the skills to navi-gate the Internet and use a variety of sites, and relatively easy access touseful content.

There is a strong sense from teachers and learners that, given appropriateaccess and support, the use of the Internet for personally valuable learn-ing and settlement purposes can be undertaken by any AMEP learner. Ittherefore seems reasonable to conclude that variations in usage are aresult of access issues, rather than learner variables other than languageproficiency and level of education. Although usage and attitudes variedaccording to language proficiency and education, both these variables arein fact being addressed and modified through the experience of the AMEPitself. There is no reason to assume that other variables, such as age, gen-der or country of origin, are significant in affecting attitudes and awarenessonce learners are under the auspices of the AMEP.

It is noteworthy that the uses of the Internet reported in this project gobeyond the curricular and include settlement issues. This may account forsome of the frustrations expressed by teachers who consider learners usingemail to contact friends, or using first language news, as wasting time. Inone sense it is — there is relatively little time available for access, andteachers naturally wish to focus on language learning, given the need todemonstrate outcomes in CSWE terms. Yet a wider view would see settlement issues intertwined with language-learning motivation andopportunities. This would be the view taken presumably by the learners.Perhaps we need to reconsider the nature of settlement itself in the ‘post-Kosovo’ era.

38 Online for all?

Limitations to the study

• Teachers and Internet facilitators who responded to the survey are likely to be strongly committed to using Internet tasks with learnersand to have good Internet access.

• These teachers are likely to direct learners to, or use with learners,sites they consider to be valuable for language-learning purposes.

• There was a small number of responses to the Provider Survey (25),despite extensive follow up by phone and email. The Provider Surveywas circulated to over 90 providers, covering all states. States repre-sented in the Provider Survey were Victoria, New South Wales andQueensland.

• There was more response to the Learner Survey. However, responseswere still dependent on teachers being interested in and committed tousing Internet-mediated activities. In Victoria, by using personal con-tacts of the project team, we were able to encourage less committedteachers to assist their students to complete the Learner Survey.

Recommendations

Issues raised by the Teacher Focus Groups and by other teachers, Internetfacilitators and coordinators during phone and in person follow up at various stages of the project indicate that there is still a large amount ofresearch to be done in this area. These issues include:

• critical evaluation of task types and content

• type of student access

• integrating Internet-mediated tasks fully into the teaching program

• program delivery issues, including teacher skills development.

To maintain continuity with previous work, the following recommendationsare presented as extensions and expansion of the recommendations of theAMEP Instructional Technology Strategy.

Establish a set of best practice standards in delivery and infrastructurebased on the research and current DIMA/provider relationships.

This project has highlighted the significance of access issues for AMEPlearners.

Establish a set of computing competencies relating to IT that reflect theneeds of the program, providers and staff.

This recommendation needs to be extended to include computing compe-tencies of learners. There is also a need to describe the competencies inmore detail. The NCELTR publication Computer literacies (Corbel 1997)could serve as a useful starting point.

Chapter 7 Conclusion 39

Ensure provision of a coherent set of training options based on comput-ing competencies, utilising a range of delivery mechanisms that reflectteacher needs and reflect best practice.

In the light of the present project this recommendation has implications forboth teachers and learners. The accredited Short Course Online Literacycould be the basis of such training. Equally importantly, there is a need forcoherent training, integrated with language learning for AMEP learners.

Teachers also need skill development in the most effective ways of finding,framing and facilitating the tasks based on the sites.

Ensure the provision of timely, flexible resources for teachers and learn-ers, linked to the Certificates of Spoken and Written English.

Two implications of the present project are that Internet resources aimeddirectly at ESL learners may not be as highly valued by learners as theyare by teachers, and that they may well already exist but learners can’t findthem. There needs to be more effective focusing of learners’ attention oneffective ESL sites.

Establish an AMEP website to keep all AMEP stakeholders informed ofstrategy implementation.

This recommendation entails extending a central website so that it wouldprovide a central portal to Internet tasks for AMEP learners. DIMA mayconsider funding a web page of useful links for students. An AMEP OnlineLearning page would help meet the learner needs identified in this project.This should be put out to tender across AMEP providers.

References 41

ReferencesActivities for ESL students website. Retrieved May 8, 2002, from

http://a4esl.org/

Anderton, M. & Nicholson, A. (1995). New technology and curriculumdesign: A research project with NESB distance learning students. TeacherResource Series No. 5, L. Bailey (Ed.). Sydney: NCELTR.

Corbel, C. (1996). The computing practices of language and literacy teach-ers. Research Resource Series No. 8, G. Brindley (Ed.). Sydney: NCELTR.

Corbel, C. (1997). Computer literacies: Working effectively with electronictexts. Sydney: NCELTR.

Corbel, C. (1998). Instructional technology strategy for the Adult MigrantEnglish Program. Research Resource Series No. 13, G. Brindley (Ed.).Sydney: NCELTR.

DIMA National Management Information Unit. (2000). Settlement data andAMEP participation 1997 and 1998. National Management InformationUnit: DIMA: Canberra.

Gilchrist, M. (1999, September 7). Net works — just don’t bank on it. TheAustralian, p. 29.

Headcount website. Retrieved May 8, 2002, from www.headcount.com

Murray, D. (1999). Access to information technology: Considerations forlanguage educators. Prospect, 14(3), 4–12.

National Telecommunications and Information website. Retrieved May 8,2002, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/summit/

Nicholson, A. (1997). Current practice in the use of telematics to support dis-tance learners in the Adult Migrant English Program. Research ResourceSeries No. 10, G. Brindley (Ed.). Sydney: NCELTR.

TESOL website. Retrieved May 8, 2002, from www.linguistic funland.com/neteach.html

Appendixes 43

Appendixes Appendix A: Summary of methodology

Appendix B: The Provider Survey

Appendix C: The Learner Survey

Appendix D: Learner Focus Groups

Appendix E: Teacher Focus Groups

44 Online for all?

App

endi

x A

Sum

mar

y of

met

hodo

logy

Purp

ose

Act

ion

Out

com

es

Dat

a

Iden

tify

In

tern

et t

ask

typ

es

Des

k s

urv

ey

Task

typ

es

Lit

eratu

re r

evie

wD

esk s

urv

ey

Iden

tify

lea

rner

cate

gori

es

Ch

eck A

RM

S

Cate

gori

es o

f A

ME

P l

earn

ers

AR

MS

lea

rner

typ

e ca

tego

ries

Iden

tify

In

tern

et t

ask

s u

se b

y S

urv

ey o

f V

irtu

al

ILC

net

wor

k

Pop

ula

r ta

sk t

ypes

Pro

vider

su

rvey

AM

EP l

earn

ers

Iden

tify

stu

den

t att

itu

des

an

d

Su

rvey

of

stu

den

ts v

ia s

am

e S

tuden

t att

itu

des

an

d a

cces

s to

Lea

rner

su

rvey

acc

ess

to p

opu

lar

task

typ

esn

etw

ork

pop

ula

r ta

sk t

ypes

Iden

tify

lea

rner

s w

ith

dif

ficu

ltie

s A

naly

se a

ttit

udes

an

d a

cces

s by

Usa

ge a

nd a

ttit

ude

by

learn

er

Lea

rner

su

rvey

— a

cces

s by

learn

er

in p

opu

lar

task

typ

es

learn

er c

ate

gori

es

cate

gory

ca

tego

ry

Iden

tify

rea

son

s fo

r dif

ficu

ltie

s Foc

us

grou

ps

incl

udin

g ra

nge

of

Vie

ws

of l

earn

ers

wit

h d

ifficu

ltie

s S

tuden

t fo

cus

grou

ps

learn

er t

ypes

re p

opu

lar

task

typ

es

Pro

pos

e fu

rth

er a

ctio

n

Foc

us

grou

ps

of t

each

ers

Vie

ws

on i

ssu

es

Tea

cher

foc

us

grou

ps

Appendix B 45

Appendix B

The Provider Survey

ProcedureProviders were asked to complete the survey, giving details of up to 10Internet task types used by their students. They were instructed that theydid not need to complete all 10 sections of the survey form if this was notappropriate for learners at their institution. They were also instructed toinclude all Internet tasks used by learners, not only ESL sites.

46 Online for all?

Top T

en M

ost

Popula

r In

tern

et S

ites

Ple

ase

giv

e th

e N

ame

of t

he

site

an

d t

he

full A

ddre

ssas

it a

ppea

rs i

n t

he

loca

tion

box

wh

en l

earn

ers

firs

t acc

ess

the

site

. L

= L

ow; M

= M

ediu

m; H

= H

igh

.Ple

ase

cir

cle

L,

Mor

Hfo

r ea

ch c

ate

gory

an

d a

dd c

om

men

tsif a

ppro

pri

ate

.

Cos

t Ef

fect

iven

ess

Lear

ning

Out

com

esR

equi

red

Lang

uage

R

equi

red

Com

pute

rR

equi

red

Stud

y (i

e le

arni

ng v

alue

Fr

eque

ncy

of

Site

Nam

e an

d A

ddre

ss(b

enef

it t

o le

arne

rs)

Leve

lSk

ills

Leve

lSk

ills

Stra

tegi

esvs

cos

ts)

Usa

gePo

pula

rity

1

L

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HC

omm

ents

:

2

L

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HC

omm

ents

:

3

L

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HC

omm

ents

:

4L

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HC

omm

ents

:

5

L

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HC

omm

ents

:

6

L

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HC

omm

ents

:

7

L

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HC

omm

ents

:

8

L

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HC

omm

ents

:

9

L

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HC

omm

ents

:

10

L

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HL

M

HC

omm

ents

:

Appendix B 47

Emai

l

ww

w.h

otm

ail.c

om

ww

w.y

ah

oo.c

om

Firs

t La

ngua

ge N

ews

htt

p:/

/w

ww

.hrt

.hr/

htt

p:/

/w

ww

.bos

net

.org

ww

w.a

fgh

an

.web

.com

/aop

/

ww

w.s

udan

.net

ww

w.irn

a.c

om

ww

w.p

ersi

an

.com

oth

er n

ews

site

s

Sear

ch E

ngin

es

ww

w.y

ah

oo.c

om

ww

w.a

ltavi

sta.c

om

oth

er

Aus

tral

ian

New

s

ww

w.a

bc.

net

.au

ww

w.a

bc.

net

.au

/btn

ww

w.t

hea

ge.c

om.a

u

oth

er

Car

eer

Info

rmat

ion

ww

w.m

ycare

er.c

om.a

u

ww

w.c

entr

elin

k.g

ov.a

u

ww

w.v

tac.

edu

.au

ww

w.c

are

ers.

look

smart

.com

.au

ww

w.d

etya

.gov

.au

edu

cati

on i

nst

itu

tion

s

Vir

tual

ILC

ESL

Gra

mm

ar

Qu

izze

s fo

r E

SL S

tuden

ts

htt

p:/

/w

ww

.ait

ech

.ac.

jp/~it

eslj/qu

izze

s/

htt

p:/

/w

ebst

er.c

omm

net

.edu

/H

P/page

s/darl

ing/

gram

mar.

htm

Gen

eral

htt

p:/

/w

ww

.ait

ech

.ac.

jp/~it

eslj/lin

ks/

ES

L/in

tern

et

htt

p:/

/dei

l.la

ng.

uiu

c.ed

u/w

eb.p

age

s/gr

am

mars

afa

ri.h

tml

htt

p:/

/w

ww

.myn

a.c

om/~prj

g/to

c.h

tm

htt

p:/

/ti

tan

ia.c

obu

ild.c

ollin

s.co

.uk/id

iom

.htm

l

ww

w.e

du

net

.com

/en

glis

h/gr

am

mar/

index

.cfm

ww

w.c

lta.o

n.c

a/gr

am

mar.

htm

oth

er

Cha

t

ww

w.e

slca

fe.c

om

oth

er

Res

ult

s

Prov

ider

Sur

vey

— s

ites

and

add

ress

es g

roup

ed in

cat

egor

ies

48 Online for all?

Appendix C

The Learner Survey

ProcedureThe data collected in the Provider Survey was collated into categories ofsites. The data, in this form, were used in the Learner Survey.

The Learner Survey was circulated via email and on the AMES web page.The layout of the two versions of the survey was slightly different, but thecontent — the questions and possible responses — was exactly the samein both versions.

AMEP Internet Learner Survey

The Computer Literacy Centre (CLC), AMES Victoria is undertaking aproject for NCELTR to evaluate the current and potential use of Internet-based activities for AMEP students. As part of this project we are con-ducting a survey across a broad range of ESL providers. The survey willexamine the use of Internet resources and Internet-mediated learningactivities by NESB language learners.

Who should fill out this form:• AMEP students in classes

• AMEP students in the ILC

• AMEP students using the Internet at home.

What to do:• Teachers assist any AMEP students to complete the online form.

Where to get more information:• Terry Taylor

email [email protected]

Appendix C 49

AMEP Internet — Learner Survey

State ________________________________________________________________________

Provider ________________________________________________________________________

Gender ❏ M ❏ F

Age ❏ -25 ❏ 25–35 ❏ 45–55 ❏ 55 +

Years of ed. ❏ 1–4 ❏ 5–7 ❏ 8–12 ❏ 12 +

Country of origin ______________________________________________________________

Language ______________________________________________________________

English language level

❏ beginner (low)

❏ intermediate (medium)

❏ advanced (high)

Computer skills level

❏ beginner (low)

❏ intermediate (medium)

❏ advanced (high)

Where do you use the Internet?

(You can tick more than one box)

❏ in class

❏ in the ILC/Self Access Centre

❏ at home

How much do you use the Internet every week?

❏ 0–1 hr

❏ 2–4 hrs

❏ 5+ hrs

Would you like more Internet access time?

❏ Yes Why? _________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

❏ No Why? _________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

50 Online for all?

Use one category from the list below to describe each of the sites in thefollowing table.

Write one number (1–7) in each box in the table below.

Number 1–7 Internet Site and/or Address

Email — Hotmail, Yahoo!www.hotmail.comwww.yahoo.com

Virtual ILChttp://virtual.ocean.com.au/ames/asp/home.asp

First Language Newsany news sites about your own country — in your own language

Quizzes — for ESL Studentshttp://www.aitech.ac.ip/~iteslj/quizzes/index.htmlhttp://webster.commnet.edu/HP/pages/darling/grammar.html

ESL Grammarhttp://webster.commnet.edu/HP/pages/darling/grammar.htmlhttp://deil.lang.uiuc.edu/web.pages/grammarsafari.htmlhttp://www.myna.com/~prjg/toc.html

Career Informationwww.mycareer.com.auwww.careers.looksmart.com.auwww.centrelink.gov.au

Australian News/Information (The Age & The ABC)www.theage.com.auwww.abc.net.auwww.abc.net.au/btn

Search Engines — Altavista, Yahoo!, Excite, etcany search engines you use to look for information on any topic

Chat — Dave’s ESL Café, Yahoo, etcwww.eslcafe.comwww.yahoo.com

Your Favourite Site (and Address) — if not included in this list

1 don’t like using the Internet

2 have never heard of this

3 have heard of this but haven’t used it

4 have used this and don’t like it

5 use this but find it difficult to use

6 use this and find it easy to use

7 use this often and like it a lot

Appendix C 51

Res

ults

Lea

rner

Surv

ey R

esult

s 1

Key

to r

esponse

s

1don

’t l

ike

usi

ng

the

Inte

rnet

2h

ave

nev

er h

eard

of

this

3h

ave

hea

rd o

f th

is b

ut

have

n’t u

sed i

t

4h

ave

use

d t

his

an

d d

on’t l

ike

it

5u

se t

his

bu

t fin

d i

t dif

ficu

lt t

o u

se

6u

se t

his

an

d f

ind i

t ea

sy t

o u

se

7u

se t

his

oft

en a

nd l

ike

it a

lot

020406080100

120

140

160

180

IIIC

IIIB

IIIA

13

24

56

7

Number of responses

IIIC

1110

485

1867

171

111

IIIB

IIIA

148

366

3440

42

239

431

917

15

Res

pons

es

Lear

ner

Surv

ey I

IIC

, III

B, I

IIA

020406080100

120

IIC

IIB

IIA

13

24

56

7

Number of responses

IIC

1599

6816

3479

40

IIB

IIA

140

251

1017

14

325

142

1310

6

Res

pons

es

Lear

ner

Surv

ey I

IC, I

IB, I

IA

0510152025IC IB IA

13

24

56

7

Number of responses

IC1

1922

012

10

IB IA

01

00

10

0

00

00

00

0

Res

pons

es

Lear

ner

Surv

ey I

C, I

B, I

A

52 Online for all?

Lea

rner

Surv

ey R

esult

s 2

1 do

n’t l

ike

usin

g th

e In

tern

et

2%2

have

nev

er

hear

d of

this

18

%

3 ha

ve h

eard

of t

his

but h

aven

’t us

ed it

15

%

4 ha

ve u

sed

this

an

d do

n’t l

ike

it 3%

5 us

e th

is b

ut fi

nd

it di

fficu

lt to

use

12

%

6 us

e th

is a

nd fi

nd it

ea

sy to

use

30

%

7 us

e th

is o

ften

and

like

it a

lot

20%

IIIC

1 do

n’t l

ike

usin

g th

e In

tern

et

0%

2 ha

ve n

ever

he

ard

of th

is

24%

3 ha

ve h

eard

of t

his

but h

aven

’t us

ed it

17

%

4 ha

ve u

sed

this

an

d do

n’t l

ike

it 3%

5 us

e th

is b

ut fi

nd

it di

fficu

lt to

use

16

%

6 us

e th

is a

nd fi

nd it

ea

sy to

use

19

%

7 us

e th

is o

ften

and

like

it a

lot

21%

IIIB

1 do

n’t l

ike

usin

g th

e In

tern

et

2%

2 ha

ve n

ever

he

ard

of th

is

31%

3 ha

ve h

eard

of t

his

but h

aven

’t us

ed it

34

%

4 ha

ve u

sed

this

an

d do

n’t l

ike

it 1%

5 us

e th

is b

ut fi

nd

it di

fficu

lt to

use

7%

6 us

e th

is a

nd fi

nd it

ea

sy to

use

13

%

7 us

e th

is o

ften

and

like

it a

lot

12%

IIIA

Appendix C 53

Lea

rner

Surv

ey R

esult

s 2,

cont

1 do

n’t l

ike

usin

g th

e In

tern

et

4%

2 ha

ve n

ever

he

ard

of th

is

28%

3 ha

ve h

eard

of t

his

but h

aven

’t us

ed it

19

%4

have

use

d th

is

and

don’

t lik

e it

5%

5 us

e th

is b

ut fi

nd

it di

fficu

lt to

use

10

%

6 us

e th

is a

nd fi

nd it

ea

sy to

use

23

%

7 us

e th

is o

ften

and

like

it a

lot

11%

IIC

1 do

n’t l

ike

usin

g th

e In

tern

et

1%

2 ha

ve n

ever

he

ard

of th

is

37%

3 ha

ve h

eard

of t

his

but h

aven

’t us

ed it

23

%

4 ha

ve u

sed

this

an

d do

n’t l

ike

it 1%

5 us

e th

is b

ut fi

nd

it di

fficu

lt to

use

9%

6 us

e th

is a

nd fi

nd it

ea

sy to

use

16

%

7 us

e th

is o

ften

and

like

it a

lot

13%

IIB

1 do

n’t l

ike

usin

g th

e In

tern

et

4%

2 ha

ve n

ever

he

ard

of th

is

34%

3 ha

ve h

eard

of t

his

but h

aven

’t us

ed it

19

%

4 ha

ve u

sed

this

an

d do

n’t l

ike

it 3%

5 us

e th

is b

ut fi

nd

it di

fficu

lt to

use

18

%

6 us

e th

is a

nd fi

nd it

ea

sy to

use

14

%

7 us

e th

is o

ften

and

like

it a

lot

8%

IIA

1 do

n’t l

ike

usin

g th

e In

tern

et

2%

2 ha

ve n

ever

he

ard

of th

is

37%

3 ha

ve h

eard

of t

his

but h

aven

’t us

ed it

37

%

4 ha

ve u

sed

this

an

d do

n’t l

ike

it 0%

5 us

e th

is b

ut fi

nd

it di

fficu

lt to

use

22

%

6 us

e th

is a

nd fi

nd it

ea

sy to

use

2%

7 us

e th

is o

ften

and

like

it a

lot

0%

IC

Appendix D

Learner Focus Groups

ProcessA standard format was used to frame discussions with each of the fourfocus groups of learners. The learners used the Learner Focus Group formto record their responses during the discussions.

54 Online for all?

NAME

CLASS

CENTRE

A. BROWSER

Netscape or Internet Explorer

1 How easy is it for you to use Netscape or Explorer (the Internet)?

Tick one (1) box. Very Easy Quite Easy Difficult Very Difficult

2 If it is difficult, what would help?

(write 1, 2, 3 or 4 on each line) At your Centre,1 help a lot 2 help a little 3 not help much 4 not help at all is this available?

lessons in the Internet _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

someone to help with the Internet _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

someone to help with the language _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

someone to help with the computer _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

B. ACCESS

Access time and computer equipment/set-up

Timetable:How often would you like to use the Internet per week? At your Centre,(Choose one or more and number in order, eg 1, 2, etc) can you do this?

1 hr _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

2 hrs _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

3–4 hrs _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

5+ hrs _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

Appendix D 55

Location:Where do you like to use the Internet?(Choose one or more and number in order, eg 1, 2, etc) Can you do this?

lessons in the Internet _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

in class time (computer room) _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

out of class (ILC, etc) _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

at library, etc. _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

at home _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

Speed Audio/Visual: What is important when you use the Internet? At your Centre, are (Choose one or more and number in order, eg 1, 2, etc) you happy with this?

speed (how fast) _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

sound (to listen) _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

video (to see moving pictures) _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

C. ORGANISATION OF CLASSES

Is it important to you that people in your class are the same?(write 1, 2, 3 or 4 on each line) 1 very important 2 helps a bit 3 doesn’t help much At your Centre,4 not important is this available?

computer skills _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

English skills _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

level of education _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

age _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

gender _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

country of origin _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

first language _____ Yes ❏ No ❏

D. INTERNET SITES/RESOURCES

Do you use this? How easy is it to use?

Email Yes ❏ No ❏ Easy ❏ Difficult ❏

1st language news Yes ❏ No ❏ Easy ❏ Difficult ❏

Search Yes ❏ No ❏ Easy ❏ Difficult ❏

Australian news Yes ❏ No ❏ Easy ❏ Difficult ❏

Career information Yes ❏ No ❏ Easy ❏ Difficult ❏

Virtual ILC Yes ❏ No ❏ Easy ❏ Difficult ❏

Grammar Yes ❏ No ❏ Easy ❏ Difficult ❏

Chat Yes ❏ No ❏ Easy ❏ Difficult ❏

56 Online for all?

Results

The following raw data were collected from participants in the LearnerFocus Groups. Not all participants completed the form as it was explainedthat if they felt they could not comment, they did not need to do so.Participants were also advised that they need only complete some sectionsof the form, if they felt they could not comment on all sections. Each sec-tion of the form was discussed with the participants and the data collectedin written form was supplemented by discussions and practical exampleswhere appropriate.

A. How easy is it for you to use Netscape or Explorer?


IIIC 0 6 5 1 12

IIIB 0 1 4 0 5

IIIA 0 0 0 0 0

0 7 9 1 17

41% 53% 6% 100%

IIC 0 4 13 8 25

IIB 0 2 8 3 13

IIA 0 0 3 0 3

0 6 24 11 41

15% 58% 27% 100%

Is this available at your Centre?What would help? Yes

Lessons in using the Internet 45 10

Someone to help with the Internet 33 30

Someone to help with the English 31 29

Someone to help with the computer 30 29

B. Preferred access time and location

Preference

Hrs per wk 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

1 4 0 1 13

2 5 2 10 0

3 to 4 1 15 0 1

5+ 9 0 5 3

Appendix D 57

Preference

Location 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

In class 7 4 3 2

Out of class 4 8 2 2

Public Library 1 4 9 2

At home 3 2 1 8

Preference

Internet Specs 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Speed 15 14 2 3

Sound 2 3 7 4

Video 1 0 7 8

C. Learning Group — What’s important

Important Helpful Not Important

Computer Skills 8 5 4

English Language Level 12 3 2

Level of Education 2 6 9

The majority (100%) of students responded that the other categories — age,gender, country of origin and 1st language are not important at all, thatthese are not factors which influenced learning in computing, Internet orother classes.

Internet Sites and Resources — Do you use this?

Yes No Easy Difficult

Email 20 38 15 29

First Language News 19 39 35 20

Search Engines 12 46 10 35

Australian News 11 47 8 38

Career Information 9 49 9 38

Virtual ILC 16 42 10 34

ESL Grammar 4 54 7 33

Chat 3 55 5 31

58 Online for all?

Appendix E

Teacher Focus Groups

ProcessThe attached notes were circulated at the Teacher Focus Groups and usedto direct discussion.

AMEP learners and the Internet

Project outlineTo research AMEP learner use of the Internet

• identify Internet sites used by AMEP learners

• identify AMEP learner groups with strengths and weaknesses

• analyse the difficulties experienced by some groups of learners

• discuss difficulties and propose ways of meeting learner needs.

Data gathering — overview

Stage 1Survey of Internet Staff (teachers, etc)

Purpose: to identify which sites learners are using — ‘Top Ten Sites’these sites then used to survey students in next stage of project

Stage 2Survey of learners (via provider Internet staff)

Purpose: to survey frequency of use and learner response to ‘Top Ten sites’ to analyse overall use by learner types (IIIA, IIIB, etc)

Stage 3Learner Focus Groups (four classes from different AMEP Centres inMelbourne)Groups to include learners identified as having difficulty with using theInternet

Purpose: to discuss issues in the use of the sites

Stage 4Teacher Focus Groups

Purpose: to discuss findings and propose techniques for addressing theissues

Appendix E 59

Summary of data collected at different stages of the Project

What learners are using (data provided by Internet staff (teachers), Provider Survey)

1 Email

2 Search Engines

3 First Language News

4 Virtual ILC

5 Australian News

6 Chat

7 ESL Grammar


Note: Learner Survey and Learner Focus Group evidence indicate thatwhere learners are using ESL sites (Virtual ILC, Grammar, etc) they areusing these in class with their teacher, or being directed to them by theteacher.

The reasonable high access of Australian News sites can also possibly belinked to teacher directed activities — eg BTN, The Age, etc being used inclass. (One or two groups of students reporting access to these sites com-pared with several others not reporting access indicates teacher direction.)

Who’s using the Internet(data provided by learners, Learner Survey)

168 responses

1 don’t like using the Internet 2 have never heard of this3 have heard of this but haven’t used it 4 have used this and don’t like it5 use this but find it difficult to use 6 use this and find it easy to use7 use this often and like it a lot

IIIC 63 IIIB 23 IIIA 14 = 100

IIC 39 IIB 12 IIA 9 = 60

IC 7 IB 1 IA 0 = 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180IIIC

IIIB

IIIA

�

Num

ber

of u

sers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Access and attitude

Access by Learner Types IIIC, IIIB, IIIA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120IIC

IIB

IIA

�

Num

ber

of u

sers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Access and attitude

Access by Learner Types IIC, IIB, IIA

60 Online for all?

What learners find difficult(data provided by learners, Stage 2 — Learner Survey)


2 ESL Grammar sites

3 Chat

4 Australian News

5 Virtual ILC

6 First Language News

7 Search Engines

8 Email

Note: learners do not necessarily use the sites that they report to be easyto use, eg First Language News. The data also show that, even though theyfind some sites difficult to use, some learners will continue to use them, eg Email and Search Engines.

Why they find it difficult(data provided verbally by learners, Stage 3 — Student Focus Groups)

No-one has ever shown them how to use the Internet. Don’t know what todo. Lack of English language skills. Unable to understand the language.Unaware of useful sites, where and how to find them.

What would help make it easier(data provided by learners, Stage 3 — Student Focus Groups)

Help with navigating the InternetLessons in using the Internet — 32%Someone to help with the Internet — 24%

0

5

10

15

20

25IC

IB

IA

�

Num

ber

of u

sers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Access and attitude

Access by Learner Types IC, IB, IA

Appendix E 61

Help with EnglishSomeone to help with the English — 22%Help with computer skills in generalSomeone to help with the computer — 22%

Preferred access time and location(data provided by learners, Stage 3 — Student Focus Groups)

Preferred time per week5+ hrs3–4 hrs2 hrs1 hr

Preferred locationIn class timeBefore or after classPublic LibraryAt home

Preferred ‘learning group’Similar level of:

• English language• Computer skills• Education

evaluating current and potential use of internet-based activities

Documents