www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Factors influencing the adoption of the Internet as a teachingtool at foreign language schools

Claudia B.M.J. Martinsa, Andrea V. Steilb,*, Jose L. Todescoc

aCentro Federal de Educacao Tecnologica do Parana, CEFET—PR. Av. Sete de Setembro, 3165 Curitiba.

CEP: 80.230-901, Curitiba, PR, BrazilbDistance Education Laboratory (LED), Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Caixa Postal 5090,

CEP: 88040-900, Florianopolis, SC, BrazilcSTELA Laboratory, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC). Lauro Linhares St., 2123,

Bloco B, 2o andar. CEP: 88036-000, Florianopolis, SC, Brazil

Received 22 April 2003; accepted 20 August 2003

Abstract

The present article describes a research that determined the factors influencing language schools in Brazilto adopt the Internet as a teaching tool. The theoretical framework used was Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion ofinnovation (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press. theory of perceived attributes. A survey was carried outwith 92 language schools located in Curitiba, South of Brazil. Results revealed that the Internet is adoptedin 55% of the schools analysed. Both the model of linear multiple regression and the model of logisticregression predicted 77% of the cases of adoption and, therefore, represented satisfactorily the data fromthe questionnaire used. The variables observability and trialability were found to be the two mostsignificant predictors of adoption. Adoption took place in 65% of the schools where pedagogical coordi-nators were brought under pressure by teachers to have the Internet adopted as a teaching tool, implyingthat this variable may influence the adoption rate. The variables size and amount of time the school hasbeen functioning did not emerge as significant predictors.# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Media and education; Teaching/learning strategies; Innovation

1. Introduction

The use of technology in the classroom has increasingly been the object of study in recent years(Dooley, 1999; Holcombe, 2000; Means et al., 1993; Sherry, Billig, Tavalin, & Gibson, 2000). The

0360-1315/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2003.08.007

Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55-48-331-7126; fax: +55-48-233-4718.

E-mail address: andrea@led.br (A.V. Steil).

impact of instructional technology has also been perceived in foreign language teaching (Frizler,1995; Shetzer, 1997; Stoller, 1994). For instance, computers have been used for language teachingsince the 1960s (Grauss, 1999; Warschauer & Healey, 1998; Windeatt, Hardisty, & Eastment,2000 ). However, with the rise of the Internet, their use for language learning has been reshaped(Grauss, 1999). Their function in the classroom has evolved from instruments featuring repetitivelanguage drills to multimedia tools (Warschauer & Healey, 1998).Although the Internet has existed for nearly 30 years, only recently has its surge of mainstream

popularity motivated researchers and teachers to acknowledge its educational value (Frizler,1995). ESL (English as a Second Language)/EFL (English as a Foreign Language)/ESOL (Englishfor Speakers of Other Languages) teachers worldwide are increasingly using the Internet as ateaching tool in language classes (Grauss, 1999; Frizler, 1995).Literature on instructional technology shows that the use of the Internet in teaching has the

potential to motivate students and teachers (Carrier, 1997; Frizler, 1995; Warschauer & Whittaker,1997); increase their participation (Ortega, 1997; Singhal, 1997; Warschauer, 1996) andinteraction in the classroom (Felix, 1998, 1999; Singhal, 1997; Szendeffy, 1998); allow for a deeperintegration with the culture of the target language (Carrier, 1997; Leloup & Ponterio, 1995;Osuna & Meskill, 1998); provide students with a more active role in their learning (Broncano &Ribeiro, 1999; Carrier, 1997; Kasper, 1999); help to facilitate cross-curricular work (Ames, 2001;Leloup & Ponterio, 1995; Windeatt et al., 2000); among other advantages.Yet, with this potential, not only of the Internet but also of instructional technology in general,

the overall positive impact for which educators had hoped for has not totally occurred (Jacobsen,1998; Surry, 1997). According to Dooley (1999) and Holcombe (2000), this lack of effectivenessmay stem from the complex process of innovation acceptance in education.In the area of technological innovation, diffusion theory has been used to study the interaction

of factors that might facilitate or impede the adoption of an innovation (Rogers, 1995; Sherry,Lawyer-Brook, & Black, 1997; Surry, 1997). Surry (1997) defines diffusion as the process bywhich an innovation is adopted and gains acceptance by members of a certain community. Thetheory of perceived attributes of an innovation (Rogers, 1995) offers an exceptional way ofanalysing how the Internet is adopted or rejected by potential users (Holcombe, 2000).In spite of the fact that research exists on how teachers adopt or reject a technological innovation

that is based on hardware or software (Means et al., 1993; Surry, 1997), there exists a lack ofknowledge as to how teachers or teaching organizations will accept or reject the use of theInternet as a teaching tool.Considered as an innovation in the educational context, the decision on using the Internet at

language schools and the factors involved in this process can be analysed in the light of adoptionof innovation theories (Rogers, 1995; Surry, 1997). Although specialized literature indicates theexistence of several factors that contribute to the acceptance or rejection of a technologicalinnovation, the role of pedagogical coordinators in an educational system has become a factor ofgreat impact in this process (Dooley, 1999; Sherry, 1998; Sherry et al., 2000). Such impact residesin the fact that, in the end, they are the ones who have the power of decision and the resources foran innovation to be adopted and implemented. The lack of administrative support and vision atschools is in general the main factor responsible for the failing in the use of an innovation(Sherry, 1998). To understand how these individuals perceive the attributes of the Internet can bea possible starting point for comprehending the diffusion of this technology at language schools.

354 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

Considering this theoretical-empirical context, this article identifies the factors that support orimpede the acceptance of the Internet as a teaching tool at language schools in Brazil, from thepoint of view of those responsible for the pedagogical decisions, according to Rogers’ (1995)theory of diffusion of innovations.In specific terms, the article will: (1) verify who are the people responsible for the pedagogical

decisions at these schools; (2) identify, with those responsible, the factors that support or impede theacceptance of the Internet as a teaching tool based on Rogers’ (1995) theory of perceived attributes;(3) verify if they perceive teacher pressure for the Internet to be adopted; and (4) evaluate if the sizeand the time a school has been functioning influence the rate of adoption of the Internet.For these objectives to be achieved, the article is structured as following. The first sections deal

with the theoretical foundations for the development of the research, the Internet and languageteaching; the Internet at language schools and the administrative perspective; the context of lan-guage schools in Brazil; and diffusion theory in the area of education, including the attributes ofthe innovation and rate of adoption. Further ahead, research methodology is presented, with fulldetails of the participants in the research, of the instrument and procedures used. Results are thenpresented, with the characterization of the pedagogical managers from the schools; a thoroughdescription of the adoption process at language schools and the perceived attributes. Finallyresults are discussed and conclusions are drawn.

2. The Internet and language teaching

The use of the Internet for language teaching has its history in the experience of schools andteachers with computer-assisted language learning, or CALL, whose origin dates back to the sixties(Grauss, 1999; Levy, 1997; Warschauer & Healey, 1998). The first materials using the Internet andthe web for language teaching appeared in the early 90s (Delcloque, 2000). Research shows that theuse of the Internet by foreign language teachers has been increasing (Fidelman, 1997).Finnemann (1996) succinctly outlines the most common uses of the Internet for language

teaching by dividing the resources available in the net in two broad categories: teacher-centredresources and student-centred resources.Teacher-centred resources are the ones that support language teachers in planning their classes

and in their own development (Ames, 2001; Teeler & Gray, 2000). In this case the Internet can beseen as a resource bank (Dudeney, 2000) or as a source of teaching materials (Teeler & Gray,2000). These resources include foreign language magazines and newspapers, reference books—dictionaries, grammar books, journals, newsletters, research projects, theses and dissertations,resource books, mailing lists, newsgroups, USENET sites, language-oriented chat rooms, cultu-rally relevant video and graphics, virtual conferences regularly organized by various groups,specific sites for professionals of the area with hundreds of links that lead to several others, maps,on-line literature, courses, among others. Besides these resources, there is a wide range ofauthentic material in nearly all languages (Ames, 2001; Dudeney, 2000; Eastment, 1999; Teeler &Gray, 2000; Windeatt et al., 2000;).A plethora of student-centred resources can also be found in the Internet (Ames, 2001;

Dudeney, 2000; Finnemann, 1996; Windeatt et al., 2000). Students might use their secondlanguage skills to participate in target language discussions lists or chat rooms. They can access a

C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374 355

variety of web sites to research the countries and cultures that speak the target language, locateauthentic texts about the topics discussed in the language classroom, recipes, songs and games;participate in virtual tours of culturally relevant sites; consult on-line dictionaries and otherlanguage-oriented reference materials; practice grammar and vocabulary skills with interactivelanguage programs and develop listening and speaking skills by consulting interactive web pageswith audio capabilities. Besides these, they can participate in on-line videoconferences with nativespeakers and in projects with students from the target language country (Ames, 2001; Finnemann,1996; Leloup & Ponterio, 1995). The amount of input students can find in the Internet tends to beunlimited (Perez, 1999). These resources, among others, promote language learning and increasestudents’ cultural comprehension (Finnemann, 1996).The implementation of Internet resources can occur in many forms (Ames, 2001). Anyway,

researchers reveal a series of advantages when it is incorporated in the classroom, besides the onesalready mentioned: increased motivation (Gitsaki & Taylor, 1999; Kasper, 1999; Osuna &Meskill, 1998; Parra, 2000; Pellettieri, 2000; ); incentive to participation (Ames, 2001; Ortega, 1997;Warschauer & Healey, 1998;); increased interaction (Felix, 1998, 1999; Singhal, 1997; Szendeffy,1998); knowledge of the culture of the target language (Carrier, 1997; Felix 1999; Gitsaki &Taylor, 1999; Perez, 1999); increased student autonomy in the educational process (Broncano &Ribeiro, 1999; Hanson-Smith, 1997; Kasper, 1999); and promotion to more cross-curricular work(Grauss, 1999; Teeler & Gray, 2000; Windeatt et al., 2000).

3. The Internet at language schools and the administrative perspective

According to Frizler (1995), Szendeffy (1998), Singhal (1997) and Grauss (1999), the use of theInternet as a teaching tool does not necessarily imply the replacement of other teaching resourcesand linguistic activities, but the complementarity and integration with the best that happens inthe traditional language classroom.Although there is this awareness among language teachers, it is often not matched at

managerial level (Eastment, 1999) and the actual influence of the Internet on the linguisticeducational context is still marginal. Full integration of the Internet into foreign languagecurricula has not yet been achieved and many schools do not yet have Internet access(Grauss, 1999).Administrators, in general, are still reluctant to invest in what is seen as a difficult or risky

technology. Investment decisions tend to be made reactively, and in response to perceiveddemand from customers, students or teachers. Although changes do not stop taking place all overthe world, the prevailing attitude of language school administrators remains one of cautiousinterest (Eastment, 1999).Results of research/projects at schools that use the Internet show that administrative

support has a key significance in the diffusion of an innovation (Sherry, 1998; Sherry et al.,2000). Therefore, conducting an investigation with administrators and/or professionalsresponsible for the decisions to adopt innovations at these schools reveals itself relevant.Relevance lies not only in the fact that this is an area that demands more studies but alsofor the investigation of how a technological innovation diffuses in the field of languageteaching.

356 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

4. The context of language schools in Brazil

Language schools in Brazil provide a unique context for the analysis of the diffusion of inno-vations. Such schools do not depend on government funds, do not have to follow governmentalpolicies in relation to curriculum, school year, number of classes, hours and students in theclassroom, holidays period, teaching materials to be adopted, methodology, etc. They also differfrom regular private schools that have to follow government regulations that rule education.Language schools work as commercial organizations that aim at making profits and a few ofthem vary from non-profit making trusts (they have tax benefits but place restrictions on thepurchase and sale of assets, as well as on distribution of profits) to charitable institutes (Walker,1997).Language teaching, mainly English, at regular Brazilian schools, public or private, in general,

is not perceived as effective. There is a widespread belief among teachers and students that itis impossible to teach foreign language communication effectively to large classes. Thisidea that the regular schools system cannot be expected to teach communication in Englishefficiently contributes to the success of the private language schools sector (Walker, 1997).This is probably one of the reasons for Brazil to be classified as a ‘‘super-priority’’ educa-tional market by the British Council, an organization that promotes education and theteaching of the English language all over the world (Batchelor, 2000). Brazil distinguishesfrom other South American countries precisely for having a huge market for privatelanguage institutes (Walker, 1997).

5. Diffusion theory in education

The study of innovation diffusion is a fairly recent field and it has been used by several profes-sionals in a number of areas, from agriculture to marketing (Surry, 1997). The early work ofdiffusion was primarily done by rural sociologists who studied the agricultural community (Hol-combe, 2000). Early educational diffusion studies found that a considerable time lag was requiredfor the widespread adoption of new educational ideas (Rogers, 1995).A common problem for many teaching organizations and individuals is how to speed up the

rate of diffusion of an innovation, this being because even when a new idea has obvious advan-tages, it is often very difficult to get it adopted (Rogers, 1995). When instructional technologistsrealized that innovative instructional products and practices suffered from a lack of utilizationthey began to use diffusion theory in an effort to increase the adoption of instructional technol-ogies (Surry, 1997).Surry (1997) believes that the study of diffusion theory is potentially valuable to the field of

instructional technology for three reasons. First because a better understanding of the factorsthat influence adoption of innovations will make it possible for instructional technologists toexplain, predict and account for the factors that impede or facilitate the diffusion of their pro-ducts. Second because the comprehension of the innovation process and theories of innovationdiffusion prepares educational technologists to work effectively with clients and potentialadopters. Finally, the study of diffusion theory could lead to the development of a systematic,prescriptive model of adoption and diffusion.

C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374 357

To find out why people reject an innovation which is educationally sound and improves theteaching/learning experience is a key question. The case of the Internet fits this situation. Litera-ture shows that this innovation in language teaching offers a range of advantages which can opena number of significant improvements to the teaching and learning process. However, justbecause an innovation is ‘‘good’’ its implementation cannot be taken for granted.

5.1. Attributes of innovation and rate of adoption

According to Rogers (1995), adoption is defined as ‘‘a decision to make full use of an innova-tion as the best course of action available’’ (Rogers, 1995, p. 21). Rate of adoption is defined as‘‘the relative speed with which an innovation is adopted by members of a social system’’ (Rogers,1995, p. 22).The role that perceptions play in the adoption of an innovation has been examined by different

researchers (Stoller, 1994; Surry & Gustafson, 1994). Sherry (1998) states that the process of dif-fusion begins with individuals’ characteristics and perceptions. Clinton (apud Surry & Gustafson,1994) found out that how teachers perceived an innovation was as important as the innovationitself. Surry and Gustafson (1994) describe other studies that confirm the importance of the studyof perceived attributes and rate of adoption.According to Rogers (1995), from 49 to 87% of the variance of the rate of adoption is explained

by five attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability.Rogers (1995) further states that ‘‘Past research indicates that these five qualities are the mostimportant characteristics of innovations in explaining the rate of adoption’’ (p. 16). Each attri-bute listed above is somehow empirically interrelated with the other four, but the attributes areconceptually distinct (Rogers, 1995). Complementarily, Hurt and Hibbard (apud Holcombe,2000) found that the attributes mentioned are independent enough to be treated as orthogonalvariables in scientific research.The five attributes based on the conclusions of more than 1500 empirical and non-empirical

studies (Stoller, 1994) are presented as follows:� Relative advantage. It’s the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea

it supersedes. The important consideration is whether an individual perceives the innovation asadvantageous, no matter if it is economically or in terms of social prestige, convenience or satis-faction (Rogers, 1995). Surry and Gustafson (1994) define relative advantage as the extent towhich an instructional innovation is seen as being superior to, or an improvement over, existingor competing products.� Compatibility. It is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent

with existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters (Rogers, 1995). In acomplementary way, Surry and Gustafson (1994) describe compatibility as the extent to which aninstructional innovation is seen as consistent with the existing values, beliefs, environment,and tools of potential adopters. An innovation can be compatible or incompatible with thesocio-cultural values and beliefs, with previously introduced ideas, or with client needs for theinnovation itself (Rogers, 1995).� Complexity. It is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and

use by its potential adopters (Rogers, 1995). Cafarella et al. (apud Holcombe, 2000) asserted thatsimpler innovations have a higher probability of being adopted than complex innovations.

358 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

� Trialability. It is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limitedbasis by its potential adopters. The personal trying-out of an innovation is a way of making theinnovation meaningful, to find out how it works under one’s own conditions (Rogers, 1995).Surry and Gustafson (1994) define it as the extent to which potential adopters may test orexperiment with an instructional innovation prior to adoption.� Observability. It is the degree to which results of an innovation are visible to others and to

potential adopters (Rogers, 1995; Surry and Gustafson, 1994).Several researches about the theory of perceived attributes and technology have already been

conducted (Holcombe, 2000; Surry, 1997). In 1982, Rogers, Daley, and Wu studied the diffusionof home computers. The results showed that the perceptions of relative advantage, compatibility,observability, and trialability had an important positive influence on respondents’ decisions.Complexity and costs were negative factors in the adoption process (Surry & Gustafson, 1994).Surry (1997) also describes that perceptions of compatibility, complexity and relative advantagehave been found to play a significant role in several studies related to the adoption of technolo-gies. The above-mentioned author cites the work of Wyner (apud Surry, 1997) and Holloway(apud Surry, 1997), in which relative advantage and compatibility were found to be significantperceptions among potential adopters of instructional technology in high schools. In their ownstudy, Surry and Gustafson (1994) found that compatibility, complexity, and relative advantagewere important perceptions in weather forecasters’ decisions to adopt or not to adopt computerbased learning modules. Trialability and observability did not emerge as important perceptions.Finally, Wolf and Black (apud Sherry, Lawyer-Brook, & Black, 1997) found that the initialevaluation of the Boulder, Colorado, Internet project described similar user perceptions as theperceived attributes of the Rogers’ Model.

5.2. Method

A survey research was conducted to identify the factors that support or impede the acceptanceof the Internet as a teaching tool at language schools in Brazil, from the point of view of theirpedagogical managers. It employed a mailed questionnaire.

5.3. Participants

It was defined as the population of interest all language schools from the city of Curitiba, whichis the capital of the state of Parana, in the South of Brazil. Curitiba is a city with about a millionand six hundred inhabitants and it is the capital that ranks among the ones with the besteconomical positioning and quality of life in Brazil.All language schools open and working at the moment of the research were included: not only

the big ones with a large number of students and branches but also the ones with few students,franchise institutes or not. Private language teachers with small groups of students werenot considered for this study. Language schools are defined here as educationally independentinstitutes and franchise institutes from the private sector that provide foreign language teaching.To obtain the names and addresses of these schools several public and private agencies were

contacted: IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), the board of trade from thestate of Parana, the department responsible for firm establishment permits of the municipal

C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374 359

government of Curitiba, the British Council, APLIEPAR (Foreign Languages Teachers Associationof Parana), SINEPE/PR—Ctba. (Private Schools Syndicate of Curitiba), and others.After the analysis of the lists received the need to use other lists to obtain the final accessible

population was taken into account. According to Rea and Parker (2000), accessible population isan operational definition of a representation of the general population in which the researcher iscapable of identifying in a reasonable way a list as complete as possible of the members of thispopulation. With this purpose, all telephone directories of the city of Curitiba were checked aswell as the web sites of the telephone companies that operate in the city.Rea and Parker (2000) state that the telephone directory is one of the most common sources of

obtaining lists of the population and that its use has the advantage of ready availability, a greatpercentage of residences in alphabetical order and addresses and telephone numbers included.The research universe comprised 189 addresses of language schools formally established in

Curitiba. The next step was to obtain the names of the pedagogical managers. All the schoolslisted were contacted by telephone. The content of the research was explained, the importance oftheir participation mentioned and then the name of the pedagogical manager was required. Inseveral cases the pedagogical manager himself answered the telephone. In this first contact therewas no refusal to participation. The result was a list of 171 pedagogical managers. The differencein number was due to the fact that sometimes one person was responsible for more than oneschool, mainly in the case of branches and franchise institutes, and, in other cases, there was morethan one pedagogical manager in a school, especially in the schools that teach more than oneforeign language. The sample population for the present study was obtained from this accessiblepopulation. Considering the size of the population of this study (171 people) a sample of 50%would grant the required accuracy (Yamane, apud Rea & Parker, 2000, p. 129), that is 85.5people. The figure was then rounded to 86. In mail surveys there is no control over the number ofrespondents who will answer the questionnaires. It is necessary, for this reason, to adopt specialsampling procedures. The response rate of mailed questionnaires is of 50%, according to Rea andParker (2000). So the questionnaires were sent to all the 171 pedagogical managers. It was notnecessary to select one type of sample procedure.

5.4. Instrumentation

The variables assessed were based on the self-reported responses by pedagogical managers.Holloway and Goldman (apud Rogers, 1995), Surry and Gustafson (1994), Sherry, Lawyer-Brook, and Black (1997) and Holcombe (2000) support this approach. The complete ques-tionnaire (Appendix) used in the present work was translated and adapted from Moore andBenbasat (1991). Moore and Benbasat developed a generic framework for diffusion ques-tionnaires. According to the authors, ‘‘The resulting instrument is therefore general enough tobe used, with slight modifications, in most diffusion studies’’ (Moore & Benbasat, 1991, p. 194).The modification that the researchers mention centres around the type of innovation beingstudied.Moore and Benbasat (1991) noted that following the final test the scales demonstrated accep-

table levels in terms of reliability and validity. The instrument developed by Moore and Benbasatis supported by Rogers (1995), who states ‘‘Moore and Benbasat (1991) developed a set of generalscale items to measure each of the five main attributes of innovations that can be applied to any

360 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

particular innovation. This is a valuable methodological contribution to future research’’(Rogers, 1995, p. 209).

5.5. Procedures

Data collection took place from October 2001 to December 2001. One questionnaire was mailedto each pedagogical manager. A letter of transmittal was sent with the material, introducing theresearcher and explaining the content of the research, as well as a self-addressed stamped envelope.

6. Results

From the 86 pedagogical managers, 79 returned the questionnaire, representing a response rateof 92%. When the questionnaires were received, an initial list was made in which each school wasidentified by a Roman numeral so that the confidentiality of the information was kept. Eachschool received only one number, even when the school had more than one branch/franchiseinstitute. This number was repeated when the school had more than one pedagogical manager,even though he represented different branches/franchise institutes. Franchise institutes wereconsidered as independent schools, once they have different owners, teachers, students andpedagogical managers. They were treated the same way as the other non-franchise schools. Thepedagogical managers were identified by Arabic numerals. The objective at this moment was todetermine the number of responding pedagogical managers, type their answers, verify if theanswers were valid, if all the parts of the questionnaire were answered and discover the number ofschools each respondent was responsible for.The resulting number of this analysis provided valid answers from 75 pedagogical managers

representing 92 different school addresses (branches and franchise institutes).As the objective of the research is to show the view of the schools from the perspective of their

pedagogical managers, the number used for the statistical analysis was the total number ofschools under the responsibility of each pedagogical manager. For the research, the number ofschools—branches and franchise institutes—is an instance of the existing number of pedagogicalmanagers in each one. At this stage of the research the schools continued to be identified byRoman numerals, but now the numbers were not repeated. Each school address was treatedindividually, which resulted in 92 schools. The pedagogical managers continued with the Arabicnumeration, having their number repeated when more than one branch/franchise institute wasunder their responsibility. This was done to demonstrate that it was the same person answeringfor different branches/franchise institutes. The answers of these pedagogical managers wererepeated as many times as the number of schools they represented. This means a final answeroverall of 92 pedagogical managers, this number being the same as the number of schools. Thenumber of schools and pedagogical managers has to be the same for the calculation efficacy.

6.1. Characteristics of the pedagogical managers

The 92 schools analysed are represented by 64 (69.57%) female pedagogical managers and 28(30.43%) males. As to the age, 43 (46.74%) pedagogical managers are between 31 and 40 years

C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374 361

old and 29 (31.48%) are older than 40 years. As to the educational background, most of therespondents (59.78%) have a university degree and 33.69% are specialists or have a master’sdegree.It was also investigated if the pedagogical managers were actively teaching. Seventy-nine

(85.87%) of the respondents answered affirmatively. Most of the respondents have, therefore, thepractical perspective of the classroom, besides their position as pedagogical managers.In analysing the answers about who is responsible for the pedagogical decisions at the schools,

the following facts were obtained: in 16.30% of the schools only the director is responsible for thepedagogical decisions and in also 16.30% of the schools the directors and the pedagogical coor-dinators work together. In 8.70% of the schools only the owner is responsible for the pedagogicaldecisions. Besides, it can also be inferred that in 37 schools (40.22%) there is only one positionholding the pedagogical responsibility. In other 35 schools (38.03%) two positions hold the ped-agogical responsibility. In 13 schools (14.14%) three positions share the pedagogical work. Infour schools (4.34%) four positions share the pedagogical area and in one school (1.09%) fivepositions make the pedagogical decisions. In summary, in 78.25% of the schools the pedagogicaldecisions are made by just a small number of people. It proves the importance of the pedagogicalmanager at the language schools of Curitiba. Only in one school (1.09%) were the teachers theonly ones in charge of the pedagogical area. And in 19 schools (20.65%) they have some partici-pation in the pedagogical decisions. In relation to how long they have performed the function ofpedagogical coordinators, most of them (64.13%) have been in the present position for less thaneight years. The remainder have been in the present position for more than 8 years.

6.2. The dynamics of language schools and the adoption of the Internet

It was explicitly asked if the school used the Internet as a teaching tool. The results show that51 schools (55.43%) use the Internet with this objective while 41 (44.57%) do not use it (Fig. 1).The percentage of schools that have an institutional home page is of 70.65%.One of the questions investigated the amount of training the participants received on the use of

the Internet as a teaching tool. Results indicate that 40 participants (43.48%) did not receive anytraining; 29 participants (31.52%) had between 1 and 6 h of training, while eight participants(8.69%) had between 7 and 12 h of training. Only 12 participants (13.04%) had 16 or more hoursof training.

Fig. 1. Adoption of the Internet as a teaching tool at language schools.

362 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

Data in Table 1 suggest that all of those who received more than 6 h of training on the use ofthe Internet as a teaching tool, effectively use it for this purpose.In a complementary way, among the ones who do not adopt the Internet, are the majority

who did not receive any training on the subject or that received up to 6 h of training. Based onthese results, it can be inferred that the amount of training on the innovation is a factor to beconsidered in the decision about its adoption in the population researched.Besides the amount of training received, the time that the Internet had been available as a

teaching tool was also investigated. Most of the respondents, 55 (59.78%), have had the Internetavailable as a teaching tool at the school for more than 9 months (Table 2).Of the 55 respondents who have the Internet available as a teaching tool for more than 9

months, 16 (29.09%) do not adopt the Internet and 39 of them (70.91%) adopt it (Table 3).Twelve respondents (13.05%) have the Internet available for less than 9 months and two

Table 1Adoption of the Internet as a teaching tool X training time

Training time for the use of the Internet (h)

None

1–3 4–6 7–9 10–12 16+ NR Total

Adopt

15 10 5 6 1 12 2 51 37.50% 66.67% 35.71% 100% 50.00% 100% 66.67% 55.43%

Do not adopt

25 5 9 0 1 0 1 41 62.50% 33.33% 64.29% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 33.33% 44.57%

Total

40 15 14 6 2 12 3 92

Table 2

Internet availability

Months

Number of participants %

Less than 1

1 1.09

1–3

1 1.09 3–6 3 3.26 6–9 7 7.61

More than 9

55 59.78 Do not have it 23 25.00 NR 2 2.17

Total

92 100.00

Table 3

Correlations of the independent variables with the dependent variable

Independent variable 1Relative advantage

Independentvariable 2

Compatibility

Independentvariable 3

Complexibility

Independentvariable 4

Observability

Independentvariable 5

Triability

0.30

0.34 0.25 0.45 0.41

C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374 363

respondents did not answer this question. Data suggest that the availability of use of the Internet,at the schools researched, is related to its adoption.One question verified if the respondents perceived any kind of pressure from teachers for the

Internet to be used as a teaching tool. Sixty-five of the respondents answered negatively (70.65%),26 (28.26%) answered affirmatively and one respondent (1.09%) did not answer.By crossing these data with the effective use of the Internet as a teaching tool, it is verified that

in the 65 schools where the respondents do not perceive pressure from teachers 31 (47.69%) donot adopt the Internet and 34 (52.31%) adopt it. The difference, as expected, is small and notsignificant, once there is no pressure.In the 26 schools in which the respondents perceived pressure from teachers this seems to have

some influence. In nine (34.62%) of these schools the Internet is not adopted, but 17 (65.38%) ofthem adopt it as a teaching tool. Data suggest that teachers’ pressure can influence adoption rate,indicating a ratio between these two variables.The variable size of the school was included in the present study to determine which effects, if

any, it would have on the decision to use the Internet or not. It was assumed that bigger schoolswould have more resources for their teachers and students. Most of the schools, i.e. 58 (63.04%),have between 0 and 250 students, that is, they are relatively small schools. By cross-referencingsize with adoption, the result shows that in 60% of the schools with more than 500 studentsadoption occurs and in 50% of the schools with 0–250 students the Internet is also adopted. Inthe schools with 251–500 students the adoption of the Internet occurs in 78.57%. It can beinferred, therefore, that the size of the school is not a determinant factor for the adoption of theInternet as a teaching tool.The variable school existence time has also been included in the present study to determine

which effects, if any, it would have on the decision to use or not the Internet. By cross-referencingschool existence time with adoption, the result shows that in 48.78% of the schools with less than5 years adoption occurs, while in 60% of the schools with more than 16 years of functioning theInternet is also adopted. In the schools with 6–15 years of existence the adoption of the Internetoccurs in 62.96% of them.

6.3. Perceived attributes of the Internet

After the characterization of the pedagogical coordinators and the identification of the schools’dynamics in relation to the use or not of the Internet as a teaching tool, the perceived attributes ofthe Internet will be analysed.The pedagogical coordinators’ answers to the five perceived attributes identified by Rogers

(1995) were statistically analysed by means of two procedures: logistic regression and multiplelinear regression. Multiple linear regression is the most usual procedure for this type of analysis,once it is a general statistical technique used to analyse the relationships between one dependentvariable and several independent variables. This analysis generates a mathematical model whichallows predictions to be made.Logistic regression, also often called multivariate logistic regression (Delhumeau & Dean,

2002), is similar to multiple regression. Logistic regression estimates how independent variablesinfluence the probability of a particular outcome when the dependent variable is dichotomous(Holcombe, 2000).

364 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

In this study, the dependent variable is the Internet adoption rate and the independent variablesare the five attributes already identified. The two procedures were used for the validation andcorroboration of the results. The questions in the questionnaire were grouped by independentvariable (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability). The meansof the responses were used to represent each variable because there was more than one indicatorquestion for each diffusion variable. Means is one of the most used parameters to represent agroup of values because of its statistical characteristics and the fact that it is not a vicious para-meter. The use of means in diffusion research is supported by Moore and Benbasat (1991) and byHolcombe (2000).After obtaining these means, the analysis of correlation between each one of the independent

variables and the dependent variable was made. Value-crossing of each independent variable withthe dependent variable resulted in the data shown in Table 3.As it can be observed, variables 4 (observability) and 5 (trialability) are the ones that show

greater correlation with the dependent variable and, therefore, these two variables will contributemore in a regression model. Variables 4 (observability) and 5 (trialability) also appear as the onesthat will contribute more for the adoption or not of the Internet when odds ratio is analysed. Theodds ratio is useful in the interpretation of the results of logistic regression (Neter, Wasserman, &Kutner, 1989) and is computed from a 2�2 classification table which displays the predicted andobserved classification of cases for a binary dependent variable:

f �11 f22

� �= f �

12 f21� �

where f1j represents the respective frequencies in the 2�2 table.An odds ratio of two (2) is interpreted as an indication that an individual is twice as likely

to exhibit a certain response or behaviour. An odds ratio of 0.5 is interpreted as an indicationthat an individual is half as likely to exhibit a certain response or behaviour. The odds ratio ofvariable 4 is 2.4467 and of variable 5 is 1.84577, which corroborates the results obtained with thecorrelations.From the analysis of the correlation two methods of regression were applied: multiple linear

regression and logistic regression. Each method obtained an equation to represent the dependentvariable in function of the independent variables. The calculation to determine the coefficientsof each of the models of regression was done through the application of the STATISTICA1

package. The coefficients found in the regression model were then used to compare with theresults of the questionnaire.The model of multiple linear regression is shown as follows:

Y ¼ b0 þ b1:X1 þ b2:X2 þ . . .þ bn:Xn

where Y is the variable to be estimated (adoption or no adoption), b0 is the intercept (linearcoefficient), bn are the angular coefficients and Xn are the independent variables. The values of thecoefficients found in the multiple linear regression are in Table 4.

1 1statsoft.

C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374 365

These coefficients of the multiple linear regression were used to estimate the ouput values foreach of the 92 answers of the questionnaire. In result to application of the straight-line equation acut was made at the 0.48 point. To the values equal, or higher than 0.48 value 1 was given and tothe values lower than 0.48 value 0 was given. Subsequently a comparison was made between thevalue of the questionnaire (0=does not adopt; 1=adopts) and the calculated value of thestraight-line equation. From the 92 questionnaires used, the equation accounted for 71 hits, thatis, the model is capable of predicting 77.17% of the cases. The model of multiple linear regression,therefore, represents satisfactorily well the data of the applied questionnaire.The same procedure was followed with the model of logistic regression, that is, from the

determination of the coefficients of the regression, the equation was used for each one of thevalues observed in the questionnaires. A cut was also made, with the value of 0.48. Then, theobserved values and the value calculated by the equation were compared and 71 hits wereobtained, that is the model also predicts 77.17% of the cases. Besides this, the value of P foundwas of 0.0003, which means that at least one independent variable contributes significantly for theprediction of the dependent variable (Pampel, 2000).In conclusion, both models of regression are adequate for the verification of the independent

variables and the variables observability and trialability are the ones that better support theacceptance of the Internet as a teaching tool in Brazilian language schools.

7. Discussion and conclusion

The objective of this study was to identify the factors that support or impede the use of theInternet as a teaching tool in language schools of Southern Brazil, from the perspective of theones responsible for the pedagogical decisions at these schools.It was verified that a little more than half (55.43%) of the schools researched use the Internet as

a teaching tool. The percentage suggests that, in the average, Southern Brazilian language schoolsare slowly shifting from the position of mere observers of Internet applications with cautiousinterest to effective adopters of such resource. Nowadays the scenery is more characterized byschools going from ‘‘getting on’’ to ‘‘getting into’’ the Internet as a teaching tool. The gapbetween the 70.65% of the schools that have a home page and the 55.43% that use the Internet asa teaching tool exemplifies this process.The fact that the respondents researched who received more than 6 h of training on the use of

the Internet have adopted it is in consonance with the result of the correlation, that indicated

Table 4Coefficents of multiple linear regression

Intercept

�0.261890 Relative advantage �0.100838 Compatibility 0.078985

Complexity

�0.089810 Observability 0.171341 Trialability 0.107094

366 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

trialability as the variable that contributed more for the adoption of the Internet in the popula-tion researched. From this result it is inferred that training can have had an important role in thecomprehension and testing of the Internet as a teaching tool. Hands on training dismisses theconversion of abstract knowledge into applied knowledge and its inevitable cognitive loss, facil-itating the use and consolidation of learning (Barron, Black, & Lowenstein, 1989). The Internetavailability and adoption ratio can also be intrinsically related to training.The fact that the pressure exerted by teachers for the adoption of the Internet has influenced the

rate of adoption at the schools can be related with the language schools market. As languageschools are faced with fierce competition, they will try to satisfy their clients (students andqualified teachers) so that they will not lose market share and to show a modern image.Regarding perceived attributes, the results of this study are consistent not only with the models

of diffusion but also with the findings of specific studies. Rogers’ (1995) theory of perceivedattributes suggests that relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability and trialabilityare the variables that affect an innovation adoption rate.Observability and trialability are the two variables that appeared as the two most significant

ones, while relative advantage and complexity exerted little influence. In the schools where thepedagogical managers observed the results of Internet use and could experiment with before,adoption rate was higher. The fact that the variable observability has appeared as a strong vari-able for the adoption of the Internet at the language schools shows that when the results and thebenefits of its use are visible its diffusion occurs in a faster way. When an innovation is perceivedto be explicit and visible, favourable attitudes concerning the innovation are more likely to occurand thus motivate potential adopters of the innovation (Stoller, 1994). The models of regressionused in the present work confirm that the diffusion variables are predictors of the Internetadoption rates as a teaching tool at the language schools in the South of Brazil.The results obtained in this research make it possible to infer that the pedagogical managers are

key people for the comprehension of the innovation adoption, notably in the use of the Internetas a teaching tool, in the language schools in the South of Brazil. In prescriptive terms, the resultson the adoption rate and on how pedagogical coordinators perceive the Internet, inform that forthis innovation to be more diffused, it will be necessary that they, themselves, have the initiativeto make it better known, taking part in, for example, training programs, congresses and courseson the advantages and uses of this innovation.Simply providing Internet access in a language classroom will not make it an educational tool

that brings benefits for students and teachers. As pedagogical managers and teachers perceive theadvantages of using the Internet; assimilate the best ways to incorporate it in their classes andverify how the other schools and teachers are using it, adoption rate will probably increase.Appropriate training on how to use the resources of the Internet and time for its possibilities tobe explored for the use in the language classroom seem to be the key for the diffusion of theInternet as a teaching tool.Pedagogical managers at these schools are key components in the change process (Holcombe,

2000). If they are convinced of the Internet benefits, they will have a positive influence on howteachers will perceive the innovation and will supply the means for its adequate adoption. Byproviding leadership in the use of the Internet, they will encourage teachers to do the same. It isnecessary to show the advantages of using this innovation, to show that the Internet is easy touse, to give a chance for teachers to observe its use and give opportunities for them to use the

C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374 367

Internet on a trial basis. In brief, pedagogical managers are in a position in which they caninfluence each one of the variables identified by Rogers. However, it is necessary that pedagogicalmanagers themselves be aware of the impact that each one of these variables has in the adoptionof the Internet.This study focused on the variables identified by Rogers (1995) in his theory of perceived

attributes. Other variables were included in this study to determine what affect, if any, thesevariables would have on Internet adoption. However, other variables have been identified byresearchers that impact innovation’s diffusion. Rogers (1995), states that, ‘‘One of the possi-ble problems with measuring the five attributes of innovations is that they may not in allcases be the five most important perceived characteristics for a particular set of respondents’’(p. 209). Rogers suggests a preliminary measure to determine the most important attributesand using these attributes as predictors of adoption rate. The current study would addinsight into the characteristics of the Internet as perceived by coordinators and/or teachers.Perhaps other variables, aside from diffusion variables, would emerge as significant predictorsof adoption.This article points to new possibilities for future research. For example, research on how the

schools that have already adopted the Internet are using it are necessary. A comparable study atthe collegiate level would also be relevant. It would be informative to determine the level ofInternet usage of the people in charge of preparing future teachers.The use of the Internet in the classroom as a research field has not yet been much explored. The

potential for its use is vast, therefore, necessary guidance is expected as an outcome of futurescientific research on the topic. Without this theoretical–empirical base, the Internet undertakesthe serious risk of becoming a new fad in the teaching of foreign languages.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the schools and pedagogical coordinators that took part inthe study. We would also like to thank Alexandre Leopoldo Goncalves for his importantcontribution in the use of the STATISTICA software.

Appendix A

Questionnaire about the use of the Internet as a teaching toolThe objective of the following questions is to obtain information that will help the under-

standing of how the Internet is perceived by language teaching professionals from the city ofCuritiba. Your participation is very important for this survey to reflect the reality of the region.The information obtained here will remain anonymous.

Information about the use of the InternetThe following questions are about the use of the Internet. Please remember that the Internet is

referring to the information, web pages, discussion groups, etc. that are available as teachingtools.

368 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

InstructionsPlease circle the appropriate number to indicate the level of your agreement or disagreement

with each statement.1- Using the Internet enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

2- Using the Internet is compatible with all aspects of my work.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

3- My interaction with the Internet is clear and understandable.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

4- Before deciding to use the Internet, I was able to properly try it out.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

5- I would have no difficulty telling others about the results of using the Internet.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

6- Using the Internet improves the quality of work I do.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

7- I think that using the Internet fits well with the way I like to work.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

8- I think that it is easy to get the Internet to do what I want it to do.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

9- I believe I could communicate to others the consequences of using the Internet.

C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374 369

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

10- I was permitted to use the Internet on a trial basis long enough to see what it could do.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

11- Using the Internet makes it easier to do my job.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

12- Using the Internet fits into my work style.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

13- Overall, I believe that the Internet is easy to use.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

14- The results of using the Internet are apparent to me.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

15- I’ve had a great deal of opportunity to try various Internet capabilities.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

16- Using the Internet enhances my effectiveness on the job.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

17- Learning to use the Internet is easy for me.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

370 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

18- I would have difficulty explaining why using the Internet may or may not be beneficial.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

19- Using the Internet gives me greater control over my work.

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremelydisagree

Extremelyagree

School Information

1 The school was open in:______/______/______

2 Language(s) taught: German & Spanish & French & English &

Italian & Japanese & Others (please specify):

3 Is the school a franchisee institute? Yes & No &

4 No. of students:______________

5 No. of teachers: German: _____ Spanish: _____ French: _____

English: _____ Italian: _____ Japanese: _____ Other languages: _____

6 No. of administrative employees:_______

7 No. of pedagogical employees:_______

8 Teaching approach/method used by the school:__________________________

9 Does the school have an institutional home page? Yes & No &

10 Does the school have e-mail: Yes & No &

11 Is the e-mail used for communicating with the students? Yes & No &

12 Who is responsible for the pedagogical decisions at the school (it is included here the

decisions concerning the use or not of new technologies in the classroom)?The school owner & The director & The pedagogical coordination &The teachers & The franchise group & Other(s) (please specify):____________

13 Does the school use the Internet in the activities developed in the classroom with the

students? Yes & No &

C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374 371

Participant Information

The intent of this section is to obtain some information about individuals who respond to thissurvey. Information gathered about participants will be treated confidentially, and only GROUPdata will be reported as an outcome of this research.

1 Position held by the participant:_________________________

2 Are you actively teaching? Yes & No &

3 Educational background:________________________

4 Gender: Female & Male &

5 Age:____________

6 How long have you worked at the present school?

0–3 years & 4–7 years & 8–11 years & 12–15 years & 16 or more years &

7 How long have you been in the present position?

0–3 years & 4–7 years & 8–11 years & 12–15 years & 16 or more years &

8 How much training did you receive in using the Internet as a teaching tool?

None & 1–3 hours & 4–6 hours & 7–9 hours & 10–12 hours &13–15 hours & 16 or more hours &

9 How long have you had the Internet available to use as a teaching tool?

I do not have the Internet available to use as a teaching tool &Less than one month & 1–3 months & 3–6 months & 6–9 months &More than nine months &

10 Is there any kind of pressure from students for the Internet to be used as a teaching tool in

the classroom?Yes & No &

11 Is there any kind of pressure from teachers for the Internet to be used as a teaching tool in

the classroom?Yes & No &

References

Ames, Y. (2001). Foreign language study on the Internet. Available: http://www.lesley.edu/alumni/ames.html.Barron, J., Black, D., & Lowenstein, M. (1989). Job matching and on-the-job-training. Journal of Labour Economics,

7(1), 1–19.

372 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

Batchelor, R. (2000).What you need to know about marketing English language courses. The British Council. Available:

http://www.britishcouncil.org/english/marketing.pdf.Broncano, B., & Ribeiro, M. (1999). The shape of the future: computers and multimedia resources in the teaching ofPortuguese as a foreign language and culture. ReCALL, 11(3), 13–24.

Carrier, M. (1997). ELT online: the rise of the Internet. ELT Journal, 51(3), 279–309.Delcloque, P. (2000). The history of CALL. Available: http://historyofcall.tay.ac.uk/index2.htm.Delhumeau, C., & Dean, A. (2002). Logistic Regression—The MVA Win Program. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/

epiinfo/MANUAL/logreg.htm.Dooley, K. (1999). Towards a holistic model for the diffusion of educational technologies: an integrative review ofeducational innovation studies. Educational Technology & Society, 2(4), 35–45.

Dudeney, G. (2000). The Internet and the language classroom: a practical guide for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Eastment, D. (1999). The Internet and ELT. Oxford: Summertown.Felix, U. (1998). Virtual language learning: potential and practice. ReCALL Journal, 10(1), 53–58.

Felix, U. (1999). Exploiting the web for language teaching: selected approaches. ReCALL Journal, 11(1), 30–37.Fidelman, C. G. (1997). The third annual Internet use survey of language professionals. Agora Newsletter, 3(1), 1–15.Finnemann, M. D. (1996). The world wide web and foreign language teaching. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, 20(1), 1–10.

Frizler, K. (1995). The Internet as an educational tool in ESOL writing instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, SanFrancisco State University. USA. Available: http://thecity.sfsu.edu/-funweb/thesis.htm.

Gitsaki, C., & Taylor, R. P. (1999). Internet-based activities for the ESL classroom. ReCALL Journal, 11(1), 47–57.

Grauss, J. (1999). An evaluation of the usefulness of the Internet in the EFL classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis.University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Available: http://home.plex.nl/-jgraus.

Hanson-Smith E. (1997). Technology in the classroom: practice and promise in the 21st century. TESOL Professionalpapers # 2. Available: http://www.tesol.edu/pubs/profpapers/techclass.html.

Holcombe, M. C. (2000). Factors Influencing teacher acceptance of the Internet as a teaching tool: a study of Texasschools receiving a TIF or a TIE Grant. Unpublished dissertation submitted to the faculty of Baylor University,School of Education. USA.

Jacobsen, D. M. (1998). Adoption patterns of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning inhigher education. Proceeding of the ED-MEDIA AND ED-TELECOM 98: World Conference on EducationalMultimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunication. Available: http://www.

acs.ucalgary.ca/-dmjacobs/phd/phd-results.html.Kasper, L. F. (1999). Print, film, and hypertexts: a multimedia model for discipline-based ESL instruction. TeachingEnglish in the Two-Year College, 26(4), 406–414.

Leloup, J., & Ponterio, R. (1995). Addressing the need for electronic communication in foreign language teaching. InR. Steinfeldt. Educational Technologies—monograph of the New York State Council of Educational Associations(p. 39–54). Available: http://cortland.edu/www/flteach/articles/nyscea.html.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C., Remz, A., & Zorfass, J. (1993). Using technology tosupport education reform. US Department of Education. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms/.

Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an infor-mation technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.

Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1989). Applied linear regression models. (2nd ed.). Homewool, IL: Richard

D Irwin Inc.Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: defining the research agenda for L2computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Tecnhology, 1(1), 82–93.

Osuna, M., & Meskill, C. (1998). Using the world wide web to integrate Spanish language and culture: a pilot study.

Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 71–92.Parra, G. E. C. (2000). Learning English through online discussion groups. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,September, 36–38. Available: PROQUEST, proquest.com.

Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: the role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In

C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374 373

M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Perez, L. (1999). The Effectiveness of the Internet in the foreign language classroom. Available: http://horizon.unc.edu/projects/monograph/CD/Language_Music/Perez.asp.

Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2000). A metodologia de pesquisa: do planejamento a execucao. Sao Paulo: EditoraPioneira.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovation. (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Sherry L. (1998). Diffusion of the Internet within a graduate school of education. Unpublished thesis submitted to theUniversity of Colorado at Denver. Available: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/-lsherry/dissertation/defense/.

Sherry, L., Lawyer-Brook, D., & Black, L. (1997). Evaluation of the Boulder Valey Internet project: a theory-basedapproach to evaluation design. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(2), 199–234.

Sherry, L., Billig, S., Tavalin, F., & Gibson, D. (2000). New insights on technology adoption in schools. THE Journal,27(7), 43–46.

Shetzer, H. S. (1997). Critical reflection on the use of e-mail in teaching English as a second language. Unpublished thesis,

Graduate College of the University of Illinois et Urbana-Champaign. Available: http://www.newtierra.com/shet-zer97/.

Singhal, M. (1997). The Internet and foreign language education: benefits and challenges. The Internet TESL Journal, III

(6). Available: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Singhal-Internet.html.Stoller, F. L. (1994). The diffusion of innovation in intensive ESL programs. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 300–327.Surry, D. W., & Gustafson, K. L. (1994). The role of perceptions in instructional development and adoption. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. 373765.Surry, D. W. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Available: Available: http://intro.base.org/research/surry1997.

Szendeffy, J. (1998). Is the web ready for TESL (and vice versa?) MTSOL Currents. Available: http://www.bu.edu/

celop/mll/Currents2.html.Teeler, D., & Gray, P. (2000). How to use the Internet in ELT. Harlow: Perason Educational Limited.Walker, S. (1997). English markets: Brazil. UK: The British Council, The English Company Ltd.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICOJournal, 13(2), 7–16.

Warschauer, M., & Whittaker, P. F. (1997). The Internet for English teaching: guidelines for teachers. TESL Reporter,

30(1), 27–33.Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: an overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71.Windeatt, S., Hardisty, D., & Eastment, D. (2000). The Internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

374 C.B.M.J. Martins et al. / Computers & Education 42 (2004) 353–374

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.