"... In PAGE 48: ... The absolute beginners were much slower to advance, so the training was divided into two groups. *Optional selection of subjects (courses) TT - Potential Teacher Trainers TSp - Trainers Specialists TS - Teaching Staff IS - Informaticians (teachers+technical) PS - Professional Staff (assistants) AS - Administrative Staff PR - Principals Table1 . Implementation Plan for Training the Staff in Croatian Schools ED/HED/TED/2002/FINREP 48 Phase I Test 2002 Phase II Pilot 2002 Phase III Implementation 2003-04 Phase IV Implementation 2005+ Basic Level TS TS All Advanced Level IS IS IS PR,PS,AS* Specialist Level TT* TT* TSp* TS, IS* TSp*... In PAGE 66: ... Table1 . School Internet Connection Numbers SchoolNet Express SchoolNet Express is the next phase of SchoolNet.... In PAGE 107: ...Seven years ago the Didactic Telecommunication Laboratory under IRTC start- ed to develop teachers apos; ICT skills and knowledge to apply ICT to teaching/learning (see Table1 ) These skills are taught within a framework of compulsory subjects in study programmes for university teachers and teacher educators. In 2001 the E- learning Centre was formed at the Didactic Telecommunication Laboratory.... ..."

"... In PAGE 3: ...04 Annotated Resource UKI3(VN) UKI3(VN+1) UKI1(VN) UKI1(VN+1) UKI2(VN) UKI2(VN+1) ? Ontology changes: (1) the class Informer was deleted, (2) the classes Tutor and Teacher were merged Trainer in the fourth version and (3) the class Manager was added in the fourth version. In order to preserve the access to and the interpretation of annotated resources, the odifies the UKIs associated to resources according to the changes applied to to obtain VN+1 (see Table1 and Table 2). These changes are previously identified by cal relations that may exist among the entities N and those belonging to VN+1.... ..."

"... In PAGE 3: ...04 Annotated Resource UKI3(VN) UKI3(VN+1) UKI1(VN) UKI1(VN+1) UKI2(VN) UKI2(VN+1) ? Ontology changes: (1) the class Informer was deleted, (2) the classes Tutor and Teacher were merged Trainer in the fourth version and (3) the class Manager was added in the fourth version. In order to preserve the access to and the interpretation of annotated resources, the odifies the UKIs associated to resources according to the changes applied to to obtain VN+1 (see Table 1 and Table2 ). These changes are previously identified by cal relations that may exist among the entities N and those belonging to VN+1.... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ...elated to frustration level (p lt;.01). Considered with the results on changes in causes of frustration, this suggests that while interface characteristics that lead to high incidences of novice mistakes may lead some users to abandon tasks or applications, conventional usability analysis may focus too heavily on finding and fixing sources of problems that may not be particularly troublesome to users over time. The aggregated data for user responses to frustration episodes, presented in Table3 , show that by far the most common (52 percent) of user responses was to ask someone else for help. This reflects the fact that, in our study, the trainer and a computer technician were in the lab while the teachers worked on their Web pages.... ..."

"... In PAGE 10: ...emographics of Teachers/Principal Interviewed.....................................44 Table3 : Demographics of Teachers Interviewed .... ..."

"... In PAGE 8: ... Typically, after about 15-30-minute interactions with a particular human trainer, the SAIL robot could follow commands with about 90% correct rate. Table1 shows the voice commands learned by the SAIL robot and its perfor- mance. Fig.... ..."

"... In PAGE 2: ...stablish common ground with other teachers (e.g., Burton amp; Usaha, 2004). Table1 sets out a typology of ESOL teacher writing: Table 1: Teacher writing for publication... In PAGE 2: ...Shared writing (row 2, Table1 ) frequently functions as a simple form of interactive analysis in which teachers describe selected teaching features or incidents that may be of interest to other teachers. It may occur in a number of ways.... In PAGE 2: ...e.g., Nieto et al., 2003). Most teachers find any more formal kind of writing (row 4, Table1 ) for publication challenging (see Burton, 1992; Casanave amp; Vandrick, 2003). With its emphasis on following style guidelines and meeting standards for research, editing processes in formal writing are widely seen by teachers as denying them voice and academic recognition on their own terms in public professional settings: That is, refereeing and editing processes function as gatekeeping.... In PAGE 3: ...teachers apos; insights and reflections from the classroom and other learning contexts. At the same time, the sorts of writing that teachers may produce for their own reflection and learning (row 1, Table1 ) is often not valued professionally and so another source of professional learning is lost to the broader teaching community. The role of written reflection Although reflection is recognized as a professional activity (e.... In PAGE 4: ... Reflection on meaning and negotiation of text occurred several times with all chapters, many of which were collaboratively written. The corpus fits in row 4 of Table1 , as published, refereed writing. Most of the case studies in the corpus incorporate all four writing steps (Table 2).... In PAGE 12: ... It is kaffeeklatsch. While there are relatively few examples of common sense writing by teachers for the profession, there are even fewer large collections of row 4 (see Table1 ) published, refereed writing by teachers. However, the one large corpus I know well, the CSS, also demonstrates that few teacher-writers come from or write about elementary or secondary schools (Stoynoff, 2004, p.... In PAGE 12: ... Vygotsky, 1962). Thus, from the beginning (step 1), writing for others (imagined or real) enables teachers to learn from the questions they ask themselves as writers in inner speech--for example: quot;Is this accurate? quot; quot;Will readers understand what happened? quot; quot;Will readers know what I mean? quot; Editors who are the interface between writers and readers in published, refereed writing (see Table1 ) take on this dialogic, reflective role when writers appear not to have asked or responded to such questions. For example, as indicated previously, teacher-writers in the CSS often had to be prompted to provide context (the teaching circumstances they were writing about) so that readers could more fully relate their own experience and concerns to those of the writers.... ..."