The self-efficacy of primary teachers in art education

Ann Welch
The University of New South Wales

Many early-career primary teachers do not feel competent in teaching art education. Their lack of self-confidence is grounded in their perception of their own low level of artistic ability and, once in the classroom, they have little time to remedy this situation. For the majority of primary teachers, the only training they receive in the area of art instruction is during their preservice training program. If the training program offered does not address their lack of self-confidence, this could subsequently affect the quality and quantity of art lessons provided to children. This study investigated the perceptions of teachers about their own skills and abilities in teaching art education. Subjects were three groups: First Year primary education student teachers; Third Year student teachers at the end of a primary teacher education course; and inservice teachers. All subjects completed the Gibson and Dembo (1984) teacher efficacy scale, and a scale designed by the researcher for the purpose of measuring teaching self-efficacy in art education (TSEA) and teacher perceptions about the value of art education (PAE). No relationship existed between teaching self-efficacy in general and teaching self-efficacy in art education. However, scores on TSEA and PAE were correlated at a statistically significant level. Group scores indicated significant levels of variance for the scores on PAE. Specifically, PAE decreased as student teachers completed their preservice art education. The results should provide useful information for reviewing the primary teacher education program at this institution.

Self-efficacy of primary teachers in art education

In the New South Wales primary school system the majority of children study art under the guidance of teachers who are non-specialists in art education. Cox (1992) suggested that, because many teachers feel that they lack the necessary skills, they have no confidence or interest in teaching art education. If this conjecture is accurate, it implies that, for every teacher who lacks the confidence to teach art education, an average of about 30 children (class sizes on average are between 28 and 30) may not be receiving formal tuition in art education for at least one year of their formal education. Were this same situation to apply to mathematics or literacy there would be a public outcry, but, as Eisner (1989) maintained, in most countries art education is a non-issue, as it is considered peripheral to the real "mission" of the school, namely, to prepare children for the world of work.

Pre-service education for primary art teachers

The concept of newly trained teachers receiving little assistance once they take up their teaching positions suggests that the skills and abilities imparted to them during their preservice art education are critical in formulating their personal confidence to teach. Baker (1989) has been very critical about this situation. He stated that:

the several generations of art teachers now practicing in the public schools were prepared for their profession - 'professionalised', if you will - in ways that had, and continue to have, far too little to do with the real work required of them. (p.22)

Those people in higher education who determine both the preservice and advanced degree programs in teacher education occupy the most influential position pertinent to primary art education. Although educational establishments are only one agency for promoting art in the community, their role is nevertheless a significant one. Australian primary education is based on a national curriculum which, in NSW, is broken into six Key Learning Areas (Australian Education Council and Curriculum Corporation, 1990). Within these learning areas some subjects have been combined under a single heading; visual arts, craft and design, music and drama all come under the area of Creative and Practical Arts (Board of Studies, 1991) and it is up to teachers to decide how they will allocate their time among areas. This same disposition appears to persevere in many teacher education programs, where the acquisition of skills in mathematics, language and science is afforded a higher profile and consequently a much larger share of program time.

As with all individuals who enter higher education, prospective teachers bring with them a huge variety of background experiences in the various areas of education. It is essential, therefore, that the university art subject should not be aimed at a conceptual level beyond the capacity and confidence level of the majority of student teachers. It is one thing to observe some skill or technique being demonstrated or explained by an expert; it is quite another thing, however, to have the confidence to apply it oneself in a classroom setting.

Self-efficacy and teacher efficacy

How people perceive themselves can affect the way they behave. A major aspect of self-perception, which is fundamental to the way people conduct themselves, is the concept of self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) suggested that self-efficacy comprises two dimensions which he labelled "outcome expectancy" and "efficacy expectation". The former represents "a person's estimate that a given behaviour will lead to certain outcomes", and the latter is the "conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce the outcomes" (p. 79). Furthermore, Bandura (1977) suggested that the two dimensions are differentiated, because those individuals who believe that certain behaviours will produce certain outcomes may also believe that they are not capable of performing the activities or the relevant behaviours which bring about the desired outcomes.

In recent years a number of researchers have sought to relate these two dimensions of self-efficacy to an educational setting. In this context, the term "teacher efficacy" (TE) is generally accepted as analogous to Bandura's "self-efficacy". In an attempt to determine two elements which corresponded with Bandura's two-factor theoretical model of self-efficacy, Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed a scale to measure the two dimensions of TE. Their results indicated that teacher efficacy consisted of at least two clearly distinguishable factors. One factor (GTE) appeared to represent a sense of whether or not a teacher's ability to bring about change is limited by factors outside his or her control. The second factor (TSE), which is relevant to the present study, seemed to represent a teacher's sense of whether or not he or she personally, has the skills and abilities necessary to enhance student learning. However, the Teacher Efficacy Scales developed by Gibson and Dembo (1984) consisted of items which, with the exception of one which related to teaching a new mathematics concept, reflected beliefs about education in a general sense, whereas Bandura (1977) maintained that self-efficacy is situation specific and cannot be identified in general terms.

Raudenbush, Rowan and Cheong (1992) assumed that TE was not a "global disposition" and that perceptions of TE may be situational. Similarly, Kennedy (1990), commented that the various definitions of self-efficacy, such as "a person's beliefs about their performance capabilities in a particular domain" and "judgements about their ability to accomplish certain goals or tasks by their actions in specific situations", suggested that these implied "a relatively situational or domain-specific construct, rather than a global personality trait" (p. 844).

Recent research

Initial investigations into the composition of the elements of TE (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Trentham, Silvern, & Brogdon, 1985; Guskey, 1988; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990), were centred around the practices and experiences of inservice teachers and measured GTE and TSE as they related to teaching as a general concept. However, in an effort to determine if an individual's sense of TE was immutable, later research has progressed in a number of different directions. One direction has been to analyse the TE of student teachers during their preservice education; another direction has investigated possible developmental and transitional stages of TE; and other researchers have examined TE in specific subject areas.

In an investigation into student teachers' feelings of preparedness to teach, Housego (1990) stated that one of the most important prerequisites of successful teaching is confidence in one's own abilities, and equated a student teacher's acquisition of feelings of teaching self-efficacy (TSE) with feelings of preparedness to teach. Consequently, she considers one of the most important objectives for those involved in the preservice education of teachers is to present programs which are designed to enhance student teacher confidence in their skills and abilities. Her findings indicated that many student teachers were frustrated about the amount of time being afforded to course material that they felt was impractical.

In examining the transitional stages of TE in a teacher education program, Martin (1989) conducted interval studies with student teachers at the beginning of their final year and into their first year of teaching. Results indicated that there are developmental stages of TE, and that a high sense of TE begins early in teacher education programs but decreases as student teachers progress through their preservice training and into the early years of teaching. Similarly, Broussard, Book, and Byars (1988) had compared students entering and exiting teacher education programs with experienced teachers and found that, as teaching experience increased, the sense of TE became weaker.

Raudenbush et al. (1992) hypothesised that an individual's sense of efficacy varied from situation to situation. The results of their study confirmed their prediction and add further support to the theory of Bandura (1986), that "some situations require greater skill ... or carry greater negative consequences, than others" (p. 411). Although their study related to high school teachers, it has important implications for primary teachers. They demonstrated that for high school teachers, TE changed within one subject area from class to class. Primary school teachers rarely move from class to class, but teach many different subject areas. If we accept the findings of this study, and integrate the concept of Gibson and Dembo (1984) that TE comprises the two dimensions of GTE and TSE, it is possible that TSE for primary school teachers may vary from subject to subject in the way that Raudenbush's subjects changed from class to class.

Other researchers have measured TSE in relation to the teaching of science (Riggs & Enochs, 1989), environmental education (Sia, 1992), computer technologies (Kinzie, 1993), and mathematics (D'Emidio-Caston, 1993). However, there appear to be no studies which compare an individual's level of TSE, measured on the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), with his or her level of TSE measured in one specific subject area.

Summary

Of the studies reviewed that had attempted to measure TSE as a situation-specific construct, all had concentrated on the teaching of academic subjects such as mathematics, science, and language. These are subjects which can be perceived as having mandatory rules and guidelines which direct the teacher towards successful teaching experiences. That is, there is generally a "right answer" or "correct way" which is immutable, whether it is a scientific formula or a grammatical rule. Art education, however, is a process whereby students are encouraged to express their unique ideas and feelings in visual form; there is no general expectation of conformity.

Primary art teachers seldom are artists and, as many people consider art to be intuitive rather than something which can be taught, it is possible that many primary art education teachers exhibit low levels of TSE in art education. If it can be determined that individual teachers' perceptions of their own skills and abilities to teach art education are susceptible to change and at what point in their education changes may occur, this would prove beneficial to those administrators who determine the structures of both preservice and inservice art education.

Method

As part of this study was to determine the effect of the preservice art education course on perceptions of self-efficacy, participants were chosen who had been educated at the same institution. It would have been preferable to study those subjects who had participated in the same program. However, as the art education subject was restructured at the beginning of 1992, and the duration of the preservice course is three years, it was not possible to find inservice teachers who had experienced the new program. The sample was composed of three groups: (a) 31 First Year student teachers; (b) 23 Third Year student teachers; and (c) 18 inservice teachers (classroom experience ranged from 1 to 5 years).

The variables, TSE and GTE, were measured using the revised Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). The Art Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (ARTS) was developed for the purpose of measuring general teaching efficacy in art (GTEA), teaching self-efficacy in art education (TSEA), and perceptions about the value of art education (PAE). The main body of the questionnaire consisted of 54 items presented in a Likert scale format. Items 1 to 17 were those determined by Gibson and Dembo (1984) as having yielded significant loadings in the development of the Teacher Efficacy Scale. Items 18 to 54 were statements developed to reflect beliefs about art and art education, for example, "I don't feel confident when teaching art"; "I think art should have an equal role with other curriculum areas"; "The university art subject provided a good grounding for teaching art"; "I don't believe that art is teachable". Third Year student teachers and inservice teachers were also asked to identify the three best and worst features of the university art subject and to suggest how they would like the subject to be different.

As part of this research involved a scale previously determined by Gibson and Dembo (1984), factor analyses were performed to confirm the existence of the two factors - GTE and TSE. Results were compared with those of both Gibson and Dembo (1984) and Woolfolk and Hoy (1990). Although the present sample was relatively small compared with previous studies (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Guskey, 1988; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993), principal components analyses were performed on scores obtained on those items developed specifically for measuring efficacy beliefs and attitudes to art and art education in order to reduce the number of variables being measured and to provide guidance for the inclusion of the selected items.

For the evaluation of the university art subject, six categories were determined under which each response could be classified. A list of all the responses was then provided to two education academics who were asked to nominate which category they considered each response belonged to. Consensus was reached except for a small number of disagreements which had to be resolved through discussion. The six categories were Activities (experiences in which they engaged as part of the subject); Outcomes (impressions which they took away with them); Content (areas covered and skills demonstrated); Inputs (lecturers, resources and organisation); None (for those people who wrote 'none) and No Response.

Results

Replication of Gibson & Dembo's (1984) two-factor solution

Responses were subjected to the same procedure used by Gibson and Dembo (1984). Only four of the 17 items met the criterion, one in Factor 1, and three in Factor 2. There was no significant correlation between the two factors. The same items were then subjected to the solution utilised by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990). Three factors emerged which closely matched those of Woolfolk and Hoy in that Factor 2 reflected the dimension of GTE, and Factors 1 and 3 appeared to reflect a sense of personal accountability for negative student outcomes (TSEN) and personal accountability for positive student outcomes (TSEP), respectively. Taking into consideration the Cronbach's alpha for the scale measuring GTE (a = .11) and the lack of correlation between GTE and the two dimensions of TSE, GTE was rejected for the purpose of this study.

Principal component analysis of ARTS scale

Three factors emerged which accounted for 37.2% of the variance. Factor 1 appeared to indicate teachers' sense of confidence in their own skills and abilities for teaching art (TSEA), Factor 2 to indicate teachers' perceptions about both the value of art education and whether the preservice art education was relevant to teaching practice (PAE). Factor 3 appeared to reflect teachers' beliefs about who should be responsible for teaching art education rather than whether art education is considered teachable. Although this variable was moderately correlated with TSEA (rs = .35, p < .01), as the alpha coefficient was negligible (a = -.06), it was rejected for the purpose of this study.

Relationships among variables

Scores on the variables TSEN and TSEP were moderately correlated at a statistically significant level (rs = .32, p < .01). As predicted, scores on the TSEA, TSEN and TSEP scales were uncorrelated; TSEA showed almost no correlation with either TSEN (rs = .11), or TSEP (rs = -.01). Scores on the variables TSEA and PAE were moderately correlated at a statistically significant level (rs = .46, p < .01).

Significance test of high and low scores

There were positive associations at a statistically significant level between the total group ratings for TSEN and TSEP (c2 = 5.69, p < .01); between TSEN and PAE (c2 = 5.53, p < .01); and between TSEA and PAE (c2 = 11.33, p < .05).

Comparisons between groups

As shown in Table 1, a Kruskal-Wallis test applied to the median scores for each group on the four variables resulted in statistically significant differences across teacher levels for TSEN and PAE.

Previous experiences in art and art education

Table 2 shows a comparison of mean scores on TSEA with previous experiences in art or art education. Results indicate that studying art as a major subject at secondary school had a positive effect on TSEA scores for First Year student teachers and inservice teachers, however, scores increased for Third Year student teachers who had only had minor experiences with secondary school art education. Those participants who chose art as their university elective scored higher on TSEA, as did those who had participated in external part-time courses and full-time study at some other institution. The university art general study appears to have had a positive effect on TSEA for the inservice teachers, but this effect was not evident in the scores of Third Year student teachers.

Table 3 repeats the above procedure for the PAE variable (scores are relatively lower than for TSEA as there were fewer items). Scores comparing secondary school art education to PAE follow a similar pattern as those for TSEA. In contrast, however, the scores for those inservice teachers who had chosen art as their university elective showed a decrease. Again, similar to the previous comparison, participants who chose art as their university elective scored higher on PEA.

Evaluation of the university art subject

As the Third Year student teachers and inservice teachers had undergone different preservice art education programs, responses were analysed separately to determine if there were any differences. As shown in Table 4, the most popular features identified by the Third Year student teachers were in the content category, the most unpopular features in the content and inputs categories, and the most frequently nominated features to be changed were in the content and inputs category. Inservice teachers identified the most popular features in the activities category, the most unpopular features in the content and inputs categories, and the most frequently nominated features to be changed were in the content category. A synopsis of participants' comments is presented in the following discussion.

Discussion

Interpretation of results

The results of the factor analyses on those items developed to measure the two dimensions of GTE and TSE were consistent with the findings of Woolfolk and Hoy (1990). That is, that TSE, rather than being an integral attribute, is composed of two moderately correlated components which appear to represent teachers' sense of personal responsibility for positive student achievements (TSEP), and responsibility for negative student outcomes (TSEN).

The statistically significant differences between the groups' scores for TSEN suggest that feelings of responsibility for negative student outcomes increase with experience. The relatively low score for First Year student teachers is likely to be a consequence of their failure to appreciate this aspect of teaching. For Third Year student teachers, however, it is possible that something occurred during their preservice teaching and learning experience which resulted in increased awareness of this aspect of teacher responsibility. It can be inferred, therefore, that the preservice course was instrumental in increasing TSEN for this group. The significant increase in group scores for TSEN between Third Year student teachers and inservice teachers suggests that inservice teaching experience augments and increases this awareness. In the primary classroom, practising teachers are confronted with frequent disruption and impending failures and, consequently, acknowledge their personal potential for overcoming these situations.

As predicted, there appeared to be no relationship between teaching self-efficacy in general and teaching self-efficacy in art education. This implies that teaching self-efficacy cannot be considered to be a comprehensive quality which generalises to every context. Although some teachers may feel confident in their own capacity to enhance student learning as a general construct, their level of confidence may vary between subjects. This is a particularly vital distinction given the fact that the majority of primary school teachers in NSW are expected be proficient across all the key learning areas. Every subject to be taught in the primary school curriculum can be regarded as requiring diverse skills and knowledge; the findings in the current study support the need for further research into levels of teaching self-efficacy across every subject area.

In examining the findings of the analyses of scores on the variables TSEA and PAE, a major distinction between the First Year and the Third Year student teachers is the experience of the university art subject. However, it is important to acknowledge that it was impossible to separate the potential effect of length of inservice teaching experience from the potential effect of type of university art education course for the group of inservice teachers. Consequently, the interpretation of any differences between the scores for this group and the two student teacher groups must remain speculative.

The statistically significant differences in levels of PAE among the three elements of the sample have important implications for this study. The data indicated that First Year student teachers begin their preservice course with very positive perceptions about art education. These perceptions were much less positive amongst those completing their preservice art education. The data also indicated that the level of PAE for Third Year student teachers may decrease further once they spend some time as inservice teachers. It is likely that individuals' perceptions about any subject, are influenced more strongly by their most recent experiences. The literature suggested many primary schools do not consider art education as a high priority. In this case, it may be that, as inservice experience increases and teachers become inducted into the ethos of the school, positive perceptions about art education decline.

Contrary to expectations, there were almost no statistically significant differences among the group scores for the variable TSEA. This is difficult to explain given the disparate teaching and learning experiences in preservice art education for the three groups. The data indicated, however, that the group score for Third Year student teachers was considerably lower than for the other two groups.

Implications

A major finding was that PAE decreased as student teachers completed their preservice art education. This implies that some aspects of the preservice art education subject appear to be weakening student teachers' perceptions about the importance of art education. Given that there is a positive relationship between this perception and TSEA, it is possible that an instructional program which results in affecting PAE negatively, will have a reciprocal influence on student teachers' confidence to teach art education.

To establish what factors may have been instrumental in producing this negative trend, and determine what can be done to resolve this problem, it was necessary to examine what aspects of the art education program the Third Year student teachers felt were working against successful teaching and learning experiences. Three elements appeared to generate the most negative comments; (a) insufficient time; (b) lack of skills and methods relevant to the primary classroom; and (c) unrealistic expectations for the major assessment item.

1. The present situation is that all student teachers experience a brief overview (three weeks) of each of the areas of the creative and performing arts, that is, art, design, music and drama, during the initial semester of their teacher education. Individuals are then expected to choose one of these subjects as their elective study for the remainder of their preservice education. The result is that for those who do not choose art education (65% of the Third Year student teachers), the initial overview is the total amount of preservice experience in art education. Given the highly significant negative differences in scores in PAE for Third Year student teachers compared with First Year student teachers, this suggests that length of instructional time is a major factor which inhibits successful teaching and learning experiences in art education. Further indications which support this claim are in the features of the art education program criticised by this group. A frequently mentioned aspect was that there was insufficient time, and some were specific in stating that lack of time did not allow them to develop their own "limited" abilities. These same features were reflected in this group's suggestions for changing the art subject, that is, more time to allow students to gain confidence and experience demonstrations of skills and activities. The implication is that the weight given to art education in the primary education program should be increased.
2. Levels of PAE also decreased for those Third Year students who chose art as their elective. The main criticism by this group was that much of the work covered was not relevant to teaching in the primary classroom; specifically, no instruction was provided on methods or techniques suitable for primary-aged children. The data provided by the inservice teachers reflected a number of similar concerns; frequent comments criticised the lack of practical experiences in primary art methods. This could be resolved by including demonstrations of materials, skills and activities relevant to primary children.
3. Many of the Third Year student teachers (who had taken art as their elective) and inservice teachers were especially critical about the major assignment item. Specifically, it appeared to be a test of their own "creativity" rather than their instructional competence; they were made to feel inadequate; and the experience was embarrassing and stressful for those concerned about their own ability. If, as the comments revealed, this particular item generated such negative feelings, this may indicate that consideration should be given to redesigning the basis for assessing competence.

Primary school teachers' personal experiences during their preservice preparation are instrumental in shaping their approach to, and confidence in, teaching art education, therefore, identifying and sustaining those student teachers would, presumably, increase both PAE and TSEA. The scales developed for this study appear to be effective in measuring these two related variables, and, hopefully, the findings of the evaluation of the university art subject will be beneficial for those involved in the design of the program by identifying areas within the program which may need some modification.

Future research

As indicated by Cronbach's Alpha, internal consistency of the ARTS scale was evident in this study. By replacing the references to art and art education with some other subject, the ARTS scale may lend itself to future application in other curriculum areas. This would work towards highlighting which, if any, subject areas are more likely to have negative connotations for student teachers.

The problem of extricating the possible effects of inservice experience and type of preservice education program was an obstacle which impeded the interpretation of the findings. This highlights the need for a future study designed to separate these two potentially powerful influences. Using the data already gathered for this group of Third Year student teachers, a longitudinal study, in which the ARTS scale is reapplied at yearly intervals, should assist in distinguishing effects that may be attributed solely to increased inservice experience.

References

Australian Education Council and Curriculum Corporation. (1990). National report on schooling. Australian Education Council and Curriculum Corporation.

Baker, D. W. (1989). On practices, theories, philosophies, and art education in the next century. Design for Arts in Education, 91(1), 21-26.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Board of Studies. (1991). Curriculum requirements for NSW schools. Sydney: Board of Studies.

Broussard, B. A., Book, C., & Byars, J. L. (1988). Teacher beliefs and the cultures of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(9), 28-32.

Cox, M. (1992). Children's drawings. London: Penguin Books.

D'Emidio-Caston, M. (1993, April). Ambition, distraction, uglification and derision: The case for confluent education in math procedures. (CD-ROM). Abstract from: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED362508.

Eisner, E. W. (1989). Current issues in art and design education: Art education today: A look at its past and an agenda for the future. Journal of Art and Design Education, 8, 153-166.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63-69.

Housego, B. E. J. (1990). A comparative study of student teachers' feelings of preparedness to teach. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 36, 223-239.

Kennedy, M. M. (1990). Choosing a goal for professional education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan.

Kinzie, M. B. (1993, April). Computer technologies: Attitudes and self-efficacy across undergraduate disciplines. (CD-ROM). Abstract from: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED357064.

Martin, O. L. (1989) Does teacher efficacy begin with teacher education: Implications from student teacher candidates. (CD-ROM). Abstract from: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED324273.

Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167.

Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1989, March-April). Toward the development of an elementary teachers' science teaching efficacy belief instrument. CD-ROM). Abstract from: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED308068.

Sia, A. P. (1992) Preservice elementary teachers' perceived efficacy in teaching environmental education: A preliminary study. (CD-ROM). Abstract from: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED362487.

SPSS Inc. (1994) SPSSâ (Release 6.1) [Computer software]. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Trentham, L., Silvern, S., & Brogdon, R. (1985). Teacher efficacy and teacher competency ratings. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 343-352.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81- 91.

Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137-148.

© 1995 Issues in Educational Research
Last revision: 26 Oct 2013. This URL: http://www.iier.org.au/iier5/welch.html
Previous URL: http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/iier5/welch.html
Previous URL from 29 Dec 1997 to 2 Aug 2001: http://cleo.murdoch.edu.edu.au/gen/iier/iier5/welch.htm
HTML: Clare McBeath [c.mcbeath@bigpond.com] and Roger Atkinson [rjatkinson@bigpond.com]