Preparing language teachers to teach language online: a look at skills, roles, and responsibilities

Abstract

This paper reviews and critiques an existing skills framework for online language teaching. This critique is followed by an alternative framework for online language teaching skills. This paper also uses a systems view to look at the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders in an online learning system. Four major recommendations are provided to help language teacher training programs prepare future language teachers for online language teaching.

Keywords:

• online language teaching
• skills
• roles
• responsibilities
• language teacher education
• framework

Introduction

Online language learning has steadily increased in popularity over the last decade with the growth of the internet and the proliferation of computers at home and in educational settings ranging from K-12 to post-secondary (Felix, 2003a; Hubbard & Levy, 2006; Stickler & Hauck, 2006a; White, 2003). White (2003) indicated that there were more than 1300 distance language courses from the 55,000 distant courses registered in 130 countries. She added that the common perceptions of online courses as cost- and time-effective have pushed more providers into the field of online language learning. While the notion of language learning at a distance is not a new phenomenon, rapid developments in communication technology have increased the demand for online language learning that involves connection of learners, both asynchronously and synchronously as well as autonomous learning.

The online context of language learning has prompted the need for new teaching approaches and teaching skills that are different from those used in teaching face-to-face language courses (Hampel & Stickler, 2005). These new teaching skills are crucial for teaching online language courses ‘whose subject matter is communication’ and especially at the lower level where there is a ‘need to focus on the form of interaction as well as the content’ (Hampel & Stickler, 2005, p. 312). Additionally, it requires skills that are different from teaching other subjects online. However, there seems to be little concerted effort in this direction as the increase in online language learning has not been matched with an increase in teacher training for language teachers beyond the technical and software-specific skills. Moreover, the vast research and best practices for teaching online may not translate well for online language teaching.

Despite a multitude of research-based publications and best practices relating to computer assisted language learning (CALL), including online language learning, there is a dearth of resources on how to prepare teachers for online language teaching and the skills needed for this new teaching environment. To date, no literature review has been published specifically on the skills needed for online language teaching. This literature review is therefore an effort to fill the gap by synthesising the existing but limited literature and providing recommendations for teacher training programmes. However, before proceeding in depth with the synthesis and recommendations, this literature review will attempt to set the stage by presenting: 1) the current state of CALL and language teacher preparation; and 2) the methodology used for the literature search.

It should be noted that for the purpose of this literature review, several references to CALL will be included to frame the general discussion since online language learning is a subset of this area and very little has been published specifically on online language learning. In most cases, the references to CALL used in this review deal with the use of technology over the internet, which relates closely to the online language learning environment.

Current state of CALL and language teacher education

In a 2007 keynote address at a leading CALL conference, Hubbard (2008) shared that CALL had increased its presence in second and foreign language teaching. He also asserted that language teachers are ‘pivotal players … [for] the future of CALL [since] they select the tools to support their teaching and determine what CALL applications language learners are exposed to and how learners use them’ (p. 176).

Presently, a common approach to CALL in current language teacher education programmes is to concentrate on the hardware and software issues rather than the pedagogy. According to Kessler (2006), much of instructional technology preparation in teacher training programmes focuses on digital literacy or software specific orientation. These skills help teachers to use technology but do not prepare them to use technology for language teaching. While there is a growing amount of literature that provides an overview of CALL to teacher candidates, Hubbard (2008) reported that there is evidence of language teachers graduating with little or no knowledge of the use of technology in language teaching. Similarly, Abras and Sunshine (2008) and Jones and Youngs (2006, p. 267) pointed out that teacher preparation in the United States for online, distance or hybrid language courses is lacking. Abras and Sunshine also highlighted the inconsistencies in good practices and the lack of benchmarks for teacher training technology standards as concerns for the field of language teacher education.

Meanwhile, Hubbard and Levy (2006) were concerned that language teachers would be at a disadvantage if they are not adequately trained for CALL. As Hubbard (2007) pointed out, 39% of the positions listed on 29 October 2005 on a TESOL career centre site mentioned CALL or technology skills as required or desirable. The number jumped to 60% based on listed positions on the same site five months later on 22 March 2006 (Kessler, 2006). Clearly, CALL preparation is needed in language teacher education programmes.

In a survey through CALL-related listservs, Kessler (2006) found that graduates of TESOL programmes expressed general dissatisfaction with their formal CALL preparation. Of the 240 respondents 51% said their CALL training was ‘extremely ineffective’ and 25% found it ‘somewhat ineffective’. Hubbard (2008) attributed the lack of formal CALL training to reasons including limited CALL teacher educators, lack of established methodology, insufficient infrastructure, standards, and time, as well as unsupportive faculty who believed that technology training was an institutional responsibility. Even though many teacher trainers have done work independently in the area of CALL (Hubbard & Levy, 2006), Kessler (2006, p. 23) claimed that ‘formal language teacher preparation programmes have largely neglected to equip their graduates with the related knowledge and skills they need to enter today's technologically advanced language classroom’. In fact, only a shocking eight of 50 North American TESOL graduate programmes (as indicated on their websites in 2004) had any mention of a CALL component in their coursework and only three of these had a CALL course (Kessler, 2005). Kessler (2006) added that most teachers gained their CALL knowledge from informal or self-study rather than instruction.

The assumption that a teacher who is good at teaching in a face-to-face class can easily jump in and teach in this new medium is a common myth (Davis & Rose, 2007; Wood, 2005). Easton's (2003) study of skills needed by distance learning instructors showed the need for the online instructor to have a paradigm shift in perceptions of instructional time and space, virtual management techniques and ways of engaging students through virtual communications in addition to the communication skills already required for general effective classroom teaching. Additionally, Hampel and Stickler (2005) noted that online language teachers not only needed different skills from those of traditional language teachers in face-to-face classrooms but also different skills from online teachers of other subjects. The lack of non-verbal clues in audio conferencing, for example, can be very challenging for online language teachers. Clearly, CALL teacher preparation needs to improve if we want the new generation of language teachers to be prepared for teaching in online environments. This literature review attempts to provide recommended steps for language teacher education programmes based on identified skills needed for online language teaching. The next section outlines the methodology used to identify relevant and quality resources for the identification of such skills.

Literature search methodology

The areas of CALL, technology for language learning, and language teacher education have been greatly researched. However, research on effective preparation for online language teachers is scarce. Due to the limited publication pertinent to the topic of teacher education and online language teaching, the search for relevant literature became an exploration into three major disciplines: CALL, online/distance education and teacher education. Using a methodology resembling a qualitative data analysis, this literature search involved iterative cycles of data collection, analysis and synthesis. Key publications dealing closely with the topic of this literature review (Chapelle & Hegelheimer, 2004; Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Stickler & Hauck, 2006a; Jones & Youngs, 2006) were used as the starting point. These articles were used to identify important skills needed for online language teaching. Additionally, relevant books (Felix, 2003b; Hubbard & Levy, 2006) and special publication issues (CALICO Monograph Series (2008), Vol. 7; CALICO Journal (2006) 23(3); Language Learning & Technology (2003), 7(3) (Glew, 2003) were identified in the first round to provide a general insight into this topic.

In the second round of review, critiques and ideas gleaned from prominent CALL specialists through related books and articles were also used to support and elaborate on the list of skills identified from the first round of review as there were limited research-based articles related to teacher training and online language learning. Searches for articles (print and online) selected and reviewed for this cycle were conducted using the ERIC online data base with various combinations of keywords (keywords: CALL, teacher education, distance education, online education, language learning, literature review) without the year restriction as well as a methodical manual search of individual issues in leading and reputable journals (e.g. CALICO Journal, CALL Journal, Language Learning & Technology). Because instructional technology is constantly evolving, the manual search of articles was limited to those published between 2000 and early 2008 to ensure that the most relevant issues in teaching CALL were covered. Additional relevant references gathered from the key publications from the first cycle were also reviewed in this round.

Although literature in the general area of online teaching and CALL is widely available, there are very limited resources specifically for the preparation of language teachers for online language teaching. This literature review is an attempt to address the scarcity of resources in the mentioned area by synthesising research and thought pieces from CALL, online and distance education and teacher education. This paper now presents its main discussion starting with a review of an online language teaching skills pyramid and a critique of the framework.

Skills for online language teaching

Chapelle and Hegelheimer (2004) stressed the need to clarify the key competences of language teachers in the twenty-first century to ‘effectively and critically engage in technology-related teaching issues … within a world that is decisively supported and interconnected by technology’ (p. 300). Clarification of key competences is crucial for online language teacher training, since teaching language online requires skills that differ from traditional language teaching as well as teaching other subjects online. In this section, this literature review will look at the type of skills for online language teaching. In the first part, Hampel and Stickler's (2005) paper as introduced earlier provides a framework to discuss the types of skills needed for online language teaching. In the second part, I will provide a critique of the pyramid and recommend a modified framework for online language teaching skills. Since research from the European context will be used to inform this literature review, the term ‘tutors’ will be used interchangeably with the United States (US) equivalent, ‘teachers’ or ‘instructors’.

Types of skills

In this sub-section, Hampel and Stickler's (2005) paper is used to frame the discussion of skills needed for online language teaching, since their paper was the first clear effort on the topic of teacher training for online language learning. Because few research-based articles relating to the training of online language teachers were located, non research-based literature was also used to provide supporting evidence for the skills discussed in this section.

According to Hampel and Stickler (2005), teaching language online requires skills that are different from those used to teach language in face-to-face classrooms. It is also different from teaching other subjects online. It requires more than just the knowledge of ‘which buttons to press in order to send an email or which HTML coding is required to insert an image on a web page’ (Bennett & Marsh, 2002, p. 14). Bennett and Marsh identified two important pieces of knowledge beyond the technical level: (a) to ‘identify the significant difference and similarities between face-to-face and online learning and teaching contexts,’ and (b) to ‘identify strategies and techniques to facilitate online learning and help students exploit the advantages in relation to both independent and collaborative learning’ (p. 16). Besides that, community building skills to encourage socialisation, active participation and collaboration are equally important for online teaching (Jones & Youngs, 2006; Hampel & Stickler, 2005; McLoughlin & Oliver, 1999).

Based on their years of teaching languages synchronously in an online environment and experience in the training of online tutors, Hampel and Stickler (2005) attempted to identify the key competences of an online language tutor. They presented a pyramid of skills ( Figure 1) with seven key competences ranging from lower level skills (e.g. basic ICT competence, specific technical and software competence and awareness of constraints and possibilities) to higher level skills (e.g. online socialisation, facilitation of communicative competence as well as creativity, choice and selection). They said that the online language teaching skills needed to ‘build on one another in a kind of pyramid, from the most general skills forming a fairly broad base to an apex of individual and personal styles’ (p. 316).

Figure 1. Skills pyramid (Hampel & Stickler, 2005, p. 317).

The first level of skills for an online tutor relates to technological skills. This includes the ability to deal with basic equipment such as a keyboard, mouse, soundcards, and headsets, as well as familiarity with common problems with ISP connections, firewall, internet browsers, plug-ins, etc. Chapelle and Hegelheimer (2004) added that the ability to troubleshoot basic browser problems was also important since most information is accessed through a browser interface. They advocated training through computer methods courses. The competence to use networked computers and the familiarity with basic applications are skills that have become prerequisites for effective online language teaching (Hampel & Sticker, 2005) and the general twenty-first century language teacher (Chapelle & Hegelheimer, 2004). These skills are often taken for granted and commonly left to the teachers to learn on their own, especially since there is a limited amount of time to cover everything else.

The second level of skill is to use specific software applications to teach languages online. These applications may include commercial software purchased by the institution (e.g. webCT, Wimba, or Elluminate) and/or freeware and open source (e.g. Yahoo Messenger, Skype or Moodle). Additionally, online teachers need to know a range of applications, from course management software (CMS) to applications that specifically facilitate CALL activities and provide students with a range of communication opportunities. Chapelle and Hegelheimer (2004) specifically noted the importance of knowing how to use communication tools such as ‘chat rooms, bulletin boards, e-mail, and electronic mailing lists’ to support the learners' communicative competence through computer-mediated technologies in the area of language learning (p. 308). Additionally, the latest technologies have made it easier and more affordable for teaching languages via audio and video conferencing. Skype and Yahoo Messenger, for example, offer free audio-video conferencing, while webcams and headsets with microphones are cheap and can be easily purchased online or in stores.

However, knowing how to use the specific software applications is not enough. The third level of skills requires the online language teacher to understand the affordances and constraints of the specific applications. For instance, free software is plentiful but each has its strengths and drawbacks. ICQ, an example of free synchronous chat software, can be downloaded in different languages such as Arabic, Swedish, Dutch, French, Chinese and Spanish (Compton, 2004). This is an extremely useful communication tool for online language learning since it supports different language scripts. However, Compton warned practitioners that their students may receive unsolicited messages and chat invitations from other ICQ users even though they are not on the student's list, because ICQ is an open chat channel. These unsolicited messages and invitations may interrupt the task and could possibly pose as safety threats, especially for younger learners. Teachers, however, can avoid them by having their students switch to the ‘invisible mode’ after they have established connections with their assigned learning partners.

The fourth level of skills relate to online socialisation. The quality of interpersonal interaction relies on the sense of community that has been established (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Salmon, 2003). A sense of trust is particularly relevant in beginners' language courses because learners often feel very insecure and unable to express themselves. Hampel and Stickler (2005) believed that extra care should be taken to foster positive online socialisation and community so learners will not be afraid to be active participants. They added that socialisation and community building in an online environment require skills that are very different from face-to-face classroom, so that even ‘the most jovial and well-liked tutor of face-to-face courses’ cannot automatically become a successful online teacher (p. 318). Additionally, Davis and Rose (2007) warned that miscommunication in an online community can lead to tension. They stated that online teachers should have good communication skills, and that these are even more critical for online environments due to the lack of visual cues. Jones and Youngs (2006) added that online teachers also need to know how to stimulate active participation and collaboration because they can facilitate online socialisation and even help to maintain students' interest in the subject matter and learning.

The literature contains a number of studies that support the importance of community in online language learning. A study on networked collaboration between non-native speakers (NNSs) of Spanish and native speakers (NSs) of Spanish in the US by Lee (2004) showed that language proficiency affected the quality of online negotiations and students' motivation. The goal of the collaboration was to provide the NNSs with opportunities to use the target language outside the classroom, while the NSs gained experience with online technologies as part of their course requirements. No effort was made to establish community between these two groups of learners prior to their task-based interactions. Survey results of the NNSs learners showed that the NNSs experienced anxiety and discomfort with the online experience. Additionally, NNSs learners expressed frustration in scheduling attempts and they believed that the NSs did not benefit from their collaborative experiences and may have felt frustrated or bored. These negative experiences could be minimised if the sense of community had been established prior to the task-based interactions. In particular, the sense of community and trust might have helped to alleviate the NNSs' concerns of making mistakes if they did not feel judged or feel they were holding up the online conversation, which in turn could have resulted in a more positive interpersonal interaction with high level interactions.

The fifth level of skills requires the online instructor to be an effective facilitator of communicative competence. This skill builds upon the successful socialisation of students and the promotion of social cohesion: Hampel and Stickler (2005) noted that meaningful communicative interaction ‘would hardly take place in a classroom without social cohesion and would certainly not provide successful practice opportunities for communicative encounters’ (p. 318). They asserted that in communicative language teaching, interaction between participants is crucial and can be achieved in an online course through task design.

A study of a telecollaborative project between students of English in Germany and students of German in Australia by O'Dowd and Ritter (2006) provides evidence of the need to develop social cohesion and importance of task design. An intended topic of comparison of media coverage of a global event was misinterpreted as a debate about religion and resulted in superficial exchanges because a strong sense of community had not been established. Results showed that the task design and lack of social cohesion prevented the students from meaningful interactions. One student commented in his final evaluation:

Not everyone is interested in the Pope and/or religion. So our messages about this were very short and superficial …. This disturbed the rather personal beginning of the exchange. It is definitely not a good choice as the second task for people who barely know each other. (O'Dowd & Ritter, 2006, p. 636)

The researchers concluded that the ‘task design, … [and] the students' psychobiographical backgrounds led to interaction failures’ (p. 637).

Creativity and choice are the sixth level of skills for online language tutors. Chapelle and Hegelheimer (2004) noted that ‘searching, evaluating and repurposing of materials’ are important web literacy skills that all twenty-first century teachers should have since the world wide web provides such a wide range of resources for teaching. For an online tutor, these skills are necessary to aid the selection of ‘good, authentic language learning materials … and [creativity in] designing online activities with the communicative principles in mind’ (Hampel & Stickler, 2005, p. 319). Creativity is not only limited to the design of the materials but also with finding new uses for online tools. For example, most text and voice chat freeware applications were originally offered as social tools but they can be used to mediate communicative language activities. Hampel and Stickler also shared an example of creativity where a ‘yes’ button in Lyceum, the institution's synchronous audio-graphic conferencing system, was originally intended for voting but later used as a signal of consent to a verbal statement.

In the event of working with pre-prepared materials, it is necessary to have skills to select, implement and adapt given tasks for successful online language teaching in addition to the critical understanding of affordances and constraints of the technologies and mediums of communication and interaction. Davis and Rose (2007, p. 9) added that ‘an understanding of how and when to provide student support, how and when to provide opportunities for interaction, the appropriate selection and use of resources, and the development of resources to serve specific instructional purposes’ are necessary skills for online teaching.

The seventh and highest level of skills for online language teaching includes the ability to develop a ‘personal teaching style, using the media and materials to their best advantage, forming a rapport with [the] students and using the resources creatively to promote active and communicative language learning’ (Hampel & Stickler, 2005, p. 319). In essence, this level of skills requires the online tutor to master all of the previous levels of skills listed in the pyramid. These skills do not come naturally and may require tutors with face-to-face teaching experiences to re-discover their teaching styles. Hampel and Stickler noted that inexperienced tutors may find the lack of body language restrictive at first, but an increase familiarity and confidence with lower level skills can help them find new teaching styles. They also added that some problems encountered during online teaching may be similar or parallel to those in face-to-face classes but the solutions may be different. Thus, the online tutors have to develop new teaching styles that will be suitable to the medium of instruction.

Critique of Hampel and Stickler's skills pyramid

In this sub-section, I will address the limitations of Hampel and Stickler's (2005) skills pyramid and use them to propose a modified framework in the next section.

Hampel and Stickler (2005) presented their online teaching skills in a pyramid form to indicate that the skills ‘build on one another, from the most general skills forming a fairly broad base to an apex of individual and personal styles’ (p. 316). They added that the lower level skills have to be achieved before the higher level skills can come to fruition. In doing so, there is an implication that these skills have to be developed sequentially. I would argue that some of these skills can be developed concurrently and do not necessarily have to come in the order implied in the pyramid. For instance, acquiring specific technical competence and dealing with constraints and possibilities of the medium are both technology related issues. An online language tutor who is learning new software can also learn to deal with the constraints and possibilities at the same time. It may even be more beneficial to develop those skills together since all software applications have strengths and weaknesses and not all software is intended for online language learning.

Meanwhile, online socialisation and facilitation of communicative competence are both pedagogical issues that can be dealt with simultaneously or in any order, since they relate to strategies of teaching. Online socialisation is important because it helps to create a sense of community, which in turn helps to facilitate online interaction. Therefore, an online language tutor should learn strategies that will facilitate online socialisation and promote interaction at the same time so that learners can develop their communicative competence.

L2 acquisition may not necessarily require online socialisation. Intrapersonal interactions that focus on the learner's mind and interpersonal interactions between learner and content (Chapelle, 2005) do not require any online socialisation with other learners or the tutor. Thus, the online language tutor should know how to facilitate L2 acquisition rather than online socialisation. In this case, it is important for the online language tutor to focus on the curriculum, tasks and the delivery method rather than the online community.

Besides the limitation implied in the sequencing, the pyramid does not provide any indication of when an online language tutor is ready to teach. A look at the pyramid suggests that a tutor who has developed his/her own style of teaching has achieved the highest level of skills but this may not necessarily be the same level as that at which a tutor is ready or allowed to teach. In spite of this, there are no guidelines from the pyramid to show when that should happen.

Hampel and Stickler (2005) stated that ‘online language teachers require different skills compared to online teachers of other subjects’ (p. 312). However, only one skill (i.e. facilitating communicative competence) is specific to online language learning. In general, the pyramid provides a framework that appears to be applicable to any online teaching context. Other important skills and competences of online language teaching, such as application of language learning theories, online language assessment and task evaluation, are not included. Knowledge of language learning theories, assessment and task evaluations are not only important for any language courses, they are also different for an online context. Therefore, it is crucial that a framework for online language teaching should address these skills.

This section began with a review of Hamel and Stickler's (2005) pyramid of skills for online language teaching and continued with a review of its limitations. In the following section, an alternate framework for online language teaching skills will be provided based on synthesis of literature including the mentioned pyramid of skills.

A proposed framework for online language teaching skills

In this section, I propose a framework for online language teaching skills that is intended to guide language teacher training programmes. This framework is built based on synthesis of literature in CALL and teacher education. It attempts to address the limitations in Hampel and Stickler's (2005) skills pyramid. The framework focuses solely on the skills of an online language teacher and excludes any other roles played by the learning institution, student services or instructional technology services.

Abras and Sunshine (2008) called for technology related benchmarks in teacher training, including course design, content, pedagogy and technology as well as methodology and theory of second language learning. Figure 2 shows the proposed framework for online language teaching skills that attempts to address the suggested benchmarks. As indicated in the framework, there are three major sets of online language teaching: a) technology in online language teaching; b) pedagogy of online language teaching; and c) evaluation of online language teaching. The first set, technological skills, relate to knowledge and ability to handle hardware and software issues. Next, the pedagogical skills refer to knowledge and ability to conduct and facilitate teaching and learning activities. Lastly, the evaluative skills refer to the analytical ability to assess the tasks and overall course and make necessary modifications to ensure language learning objectives are met.

Figure 2. Proposed framework for online language teaching skills.

Each of these sets has different skills that are essential for online language teaching. These skills are also organised into three levels of expertise: novice, proficient and expert. These levels are not absolute but rather a continuum of expertise. The skills within each level can be developed individually or simultaneously but they are necessary in order to proceed to the next level of expertise. For instance, any skills listed in any of the three sets (technology, pedagogy and evaluation) under the novice level can be developed in any order and combinations. However, these skills have to be developed before they can proceed to the next level of skills listed at the proficient level. Additionally, in order to limit the scope of this literature review, this framework only lists a range of key skills that should be given primary focus but acknowledges that there may be other skills that can be added to the framework.

Technological skills

Technological skills in this subsection are divided into three levels of expertise: novice, proficient and expert. At each of the levels, there is a main emphasis underlying the technological skills. The emphasis at the novice level is for the teacher to become a proficient user of technology. Familiarity with a range of technology can then help to increase the teacher's confidence in using the technology for teaching purposes. At the proficient level, the emphasis is on being an effective judge of different technologies so the teacher can choose the best technology given a certain set of conditions. This is similar to the sixth level skill (choice) listed in Figure 1. Figure 1 also lists creativity at the sixth level. In this proposed framework, creativity is separated from choice and reserved for the expert teacher who has become confident and successful at using, choosing and modifying relevant technologies for online language learning.

At the first level, the basic technological skills as defined by Hampel and Stickler (2005) are necessary prerequisites for any novice teachers. This includes the ability to turn on a computer, use a mouse and basic knowledge of simple applications, e.g. word processing and the internet. Based on these basic skills, a novice online language teacher should proceed to be a proficient user of various technologies that could be used for online language learning. Since communicative competence is an important facet of language learning, the novice teacher should also learn about the differences between asynchronous and synchronous technologies and be comfortable in using computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies which include text, audio, and video conferencing. Additionally, a novice teacher should also be familiar with CMS (e.g. Blackboard, webCT and Moodle), and able to navigate through one or more systems. While learning to use different software, the novice teacher should be able to identify and compare features in similar software (e.g. Yahoo Messenger versus Skype or webCT versus Moodle).

At the next level of expertise, a proficient teacher can build upon his/her knowledge as a technology user and be good at making choices. This includes familiarity with different software and having the ability to carefully select suitable technology to match the online language tasks. Also, the proficient teacher can find available software (freeware and commercial software) and make an informed decision based on the pros and cons. Complementary to this skill is the ability to deal with the limitations of the chosen software and provide solutions to overcome the limitations. Also, the proficient teacher is capable of drawing on the software's existing features to facilitate the language learning process including content delivery, online interactions and course management.

Chapelle and Hegelheimer (2004) stated that all twenty-first century language teachers should be able to troubleshoot basic browser problems since almost all information will be accessed through a browser interface. They added that these teachers should also have expertise ranging from ‘creating basic web pages [using WYSIWYG (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get) programmes] on one end of the continuum to programming an online course on the other end’ (p. 307). A proficient online language teacher should have some ability to troubleshoot basic browser programmes as recommended by Chapelle and Hegelheimer. Examples of these skills would include recognition of basic extensions (e.g. .doc, .png, .exe, .jpeg and .mov) and being able to identify, download and install appropriate browser plug-ins. As for web pages, a proficient teacher should at least be able to design basic web pages using WYSIWYG programmes as well as insert hyperlinks and links to media files.

Next on the expertise continuum, an expert teacher is able to creatively use and adapt existing technologies for online language learning tasks. Since many software applications were not originally created for online language learning, the expert teacher has to be creative in using the existing features to provide online interactions. For instance, Second Life, a 3D virtual world, was originally intended for social networking and fantasy gaming. Users can connect with other ‘residents’ of this virtual world through voice and text chat. However, an expert teacher would be able to explore the use of Second Life for role-playing to provide learners with opportunities for practicing language. Examples of creativity in such areas by expert teachers are evident through the creation of and participation in Second Life English ( http://www.secondlifeenglish.com/news.php). In addition, the expert teacher is able to construct dynamic and interactive web pages that can enhance online language learning activities as well as the delivery of content. They may also be able to create basic applications using programming knowledge.

Pedagogical skills

Similar to the technological skills, there is also an underlying emphasis for each level of pedagogical skills. At the novice level, the emphasis is for the teacher to acquire adequate information or knowledge. At the proficient level, the emphasis is on application of the knowledge that has been acquired at the novice level, while the emphasis at the expert level is on creativity with knowledge and application.

Since many online language courses involve more than one student, there is a need for online community building and socialisation. The novice teacher should therefore be aware of their importance and different strategies to promote them. Also, the novice teacher should be knowledgeable about different ways to facilitate communicative competence and online interaction. Besides that, the teacher should also know different language learning theories and strategies for online language assessment. Lyddon and Sydorenko (2008) for instance, presented a range of assessment tools ranging from computer-adaptive tests to CMC assessments for the four basic communication skills (listening, reading, writing and speaking) that would be useful for online language learning assessment.

In addition to language learning theories and online language assessment strategies, knowledge of online language learning curriculum design is also important, since learning language online is different from learning language in a traditional face-to-face setting. Lai, Zhao, and Li (2008) for example, proposed some design principles for distance foreign language environments that deal with the course communication component and the course structure component. Table 1 shows their proposed framework.

Table 1. Design principles for distance foreign language environments (Lai, Zhao, & Li, 2008, p. 90).

Components	Principles
Course communication	• Provide many opportunities for various forms of interaction with different interlocutors in both written and oral modes
	• Facilitate high-quality interactions with multiple opportunities for negotiation of meaning and cultural understanding
	• Provide clear instructions, course expectations, and technical support
	• Provide quality feedback in a timely manner and encourage peer feedback
	• Mediate interaction through various communication media and use different media for different interaction purposes
Course structure	• Apply task-based instruction to foster a learner-centred learning environment
	• Strive for focus on form and emergent, learner-based linguistic ‘instruction’
	• Vary the course structure to cater to various learning needs and styles
	• Conduct constant formative assessment to construct individualised learning support
	• Incorporate activities that help learners to strengthen their ability to manage their learning
	• Encourage learners to co-construct class resources and the learning environment

At the proficient level, the teacher should be able to choose suitable materials and tasks for online language learning. The proficient teacher is also able to adapt one or more language learning theories and course design frameworks for the online language learning context, and select materials and tasks accordingly. Additionally, the teacher is also able to assess language learning using a range of assessment methods.

Once a teacher has gained confidence in online language teaching and exposure to a range of tasks, activities, and materials, they may become more creative in using and adapting materials and tasks for online language learning purposes. Creativity may also be expressed in ingenious ways to facilitate online socialisation and community building. At this point, a personal style of teaching as indicated in the seventh (highest) level in Figure 1 would emerge. The expert teacher is also more intuitive with formative assessment, i.e. able to identify learners' progress easily based on learners' language output, and able to integrate several ways of language assessments through formative and summative methods. (See Lyddon & Sydorenko, 2008 for ideas on formative and summative online language assessment.)

Evaluation skills

A creative teacher may not necessarily be successful at teaching if the learning tasks do not lead to the desired outcomes. Moreover, as pointed out by Chapelle (2001), teachers need to know what kind of CALL tasks may be beneficial. Therefore, knowledge of CALL and/or online language learning tasks, software and course evaluation are necessary for online language teachers so that appropriate modifications can be made.

At the novice level, the teacher should have knowledge of different types of evaluation. For example, Chapelle (2001) identified three levels of analysis (software, task and learner's performance) to improve CALL evaluation. Firstly, aspects to focus on (but not limited to) software use include its impact on control, interactivity and feedback. Secondly, the task should be evaluated based on its impact on learners' online interactions and opportunities for negotiation of meaning. Thirdly, the learners' performance can be used to evaluate if desired learning outcomes are met through the online tasks.

Knowledge of one or more suitable evaluation frameworks (e.g. Chapelle, 2001) is also important for evaluating the effectiveness of the CALL learning activities. For example, Chapelle also provided a framework to evaluate CALL task appropriateness ( Table 2) that can be adapted for online language learning tasks. Chapelle's framework uses six criteria to evaluate CALL task appropriateness: language learning potential, meaning focus, learner fit, authenticity, positive impact and practicality. While this framework was intended to evaluate CALL tasks, it can be adapted to evaluate online language learning tasks. Additionally, it can help to inform the task design process. Besides knowledge about task and software evaluation, the novice teacher should also know different ways to evaluate the course. For example, knowing the difference between formative and summative evaluation and the functions of these evaluations are important for any course evaluation.

Table 2. Criteria for CALL task appropriateness (Chapelle, 2001, p. 55).

Language learning potential	The degree of opportunity present for beneficial focus on form
Meaning focus	The extent to which learners' attention is directed toward the meaning of the language
Learner fit	The amount of opportunity for engagement with language under appropriate conditions given learner characteristics
Authenticity	The degree of correspondence between the learning activity and target language activities of interest to learners out of the classroom
Positive impact	The positive effects of the CALL activity on those who participate in it
Practicality	The adequacy of resources to support the use of the CALL activity

Based on the knowledge acquired at the novice level, the proficient teacher can learn to apply the different frameworks and use various strategies for task, software, and course evaluations. If evidence from the evaluations show that the learning outcome is not met, the proficient teacher is able to rely on his/her pedagogical and technological skills to make the necessary modifications.

While the proficient teacher is capable of using one or more frameworks to evaluate the three areas (task, software and course) on their impact on learning outcomes, the expert teacher is able to conduct the evaluation using integrative methods, i.e. combining several ways of evaluation. Moreover, the expert teacher is more insightful than the proficient teacher and is able to quickly identify the impact on learning outcomes based on their extensive knowledge of evaluative frameworks. Evaluation may even become a subconscious effort.

This proposed framework in this section attempts to address the limitations in Hampel and Stickler's (2005) skills pyramid. This alternate framework divides online language teaching skills into three categories (technology, pedagogy, and evaluation) and describes the different skills at three levels of expertise (novice, proficient and expert). This framework will be used to guide the recommendations for teacher education in a later section. The following section will review the different roles and responsibilities of an online teacher using a systems view.

Role and responsibilities of an online language teacher and other stakeholders: a systems view

This section reviews the role and responsibilities of an online language teacher using Moore and Kearsley's (1996) systems view to show how the teacher and other stakeholders contribute to the success of online learning. This literature review will not analyse the roles played by the online teacher within the virtual classroom (e.g. facilitator, moderator, motivator and modeller) because it has been done by other writers (see Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1997; Hauck & Haezewindt, 1999; Lynch, 2002; White, 2003). Instead, this literature review looks at online language learning as a system, and the role of the teacher as one of the stakeholders in the learning process. This approach will allow us to understand how different components work together, with whom online language teachers have to work and the scope of assistance other stakeholders can provide.

Moore and Kearsley's (1996) systems view was used to describe the distance education (DE) system. Because online learning is a form of DE, the use of the systems view is easily adapted for this literature review. From this point onwards, any reference to DE by these authors and others will be used to refer to online language learning. According to Moore & Kearsley (1996):

a distance education system consists of all the component processes that make up distance education, including learning, teaching, communication, design, and management … [and] anything that happens in one part of the system has an effect on other parts of the system (p. 5)

They believed that the use of a systems view as a conceptual tool can help us to understand DE and that it can act as a control mechanism that ‘ensures all the component processes are well integrated and interact with each other’ (p. 6). Based on this systems view, neither the teacher nor the technology alone will make DE work because there are other critical components.

Moore and Kearsley (1996) identified eight key stakeholders in the DE system: student, course developer, site coordinator, tutor, proctor, student support services, management/administration and teacher. Table 3 summarises the stakeholders and their responsibilities. While each stakeholder has his or her own responsibilities, these responsibilities affect those held by the teacher. Additionally, the teacher's responsibilities may overlap with those of other stakeholders, depending on the circumstances at the local and remote sites. 1 Also, depending on the resources available at the remote institution, the roles of some stakeholders, particularly the site coordinator, tutor, proctor and student support services, may overlap.

Table 3. Stakeholders in a distance education system and their responsibilities.

Stakeholder	Responsibilities
Student	Self-directing and have learner autonomy
Course developer	Works in a team of specialists including technology, content, media, and instructional design specialists
Site coordinator	Communicates with the teacher, student, and the larger community, organises and manages local circumstances, provides learner support at local site for administrative, technological, and content issues
Tutor	Provides individualised instruction, grade assignments, and monitor student progress
Proctor	Proctors exams and quizzes at local sites
Student support services	Counsellor provides guidance; administrative staff provides routine administrative assistance
Management/administration	Manages policy, planning, staffing, budgets, scheduling, resources, etc
Teacher	Humanises the learning environment, facilitates and encourages interaction, organises and presents information, and provides feedback

As an online student, the responsibilities include self-direction and conducting learner autonomy. White (2003) stated that learner autonomy can be developed in two ways. The first approach emphasised learner training while the second emphasised on learners' choice in opportunities and negotiation of meaning in social interactions. In the first approach, learner strategy training is especially important for CALL because language learners cannot be expected to take a significant amount of responsibility for their own learning if they do not know how languages are learned. As pointed out in Smidt and Hegelheimer (2004), some low level learners engaged in wrong input enhancements and they were less likely to use metacognitive strategies while listening to online academic lectures. These resulted in low success rates in comprehension tasks. Hubbard (2004) stressed that CALL learner training is part of the teacher's responsibility to help students make ‘informed decisions about how to use computer resources effectively to meet their learning objectives’ (p. 51). However, because learner training takes preparation and class time, teachers need to consider the pros and cons before implementing them.

The second learner autonomy approach emphasises negotiation of meaning. White (2003) stated that learner autonomy includes the ‘capacity to negotiate and develop control of learning experiences while interacting with others in the learning community’ (p. 161). Therefore, teachers should ensure that there are ample interaction opportunities and provide sufficient guidance and support for learners in their selection of learning options.

The next stakeholder in the DE system is the course developer. Moore and Kearsley (1996) identified two common models for course design. The first was the author–editor model, in which the subject matter expert drafted the curriculum and an editor produced the final document. The second model was the course team model, which included technology, media, content and instructional design specialists at different stages of the course development. Each model has its strengths and weaknesses. For example, the author–editor model is a faster and cheaper model but may lack the good instructional design features of the course team model. The role of the teacher can vary significantly depending on which model is used for the creation of the online language course. In many cases where the online language course is a new innovation that is not supported by the department or institution, the teacher may end up becoming the course developer and having to invest a lot of personal resources (time, money and energy) to design the course by himself. The teacher should therefore have some knowledge of free or cheap resources that can be used for online language learning as well as some basic instructional systems design. On the contrary, an online language course that is supported and implemented by the department may have access to resources needed for the course team model.

The site coordinator (SC) plays an important role in a DE system. His responsibilities can vary depending on the resources available at the remote site. However, his primary responsibility is to maintain excellent communication. Moore and Kearsley (1996) said that the SC needed to communicate well with the instructor so he can carry out the instructor's plans. Additionally, the SC has to maintain good communication with the students so he can assist them with their needs. The SC may also need to communicate with the larger community so that information about the course can be disseminated to potential students. Because the SC is in charge of everything at the remote site, he needs to have some technical competence. Some basic technical knowledge required might include software/hardware installation and the ability to troubleshoot or recognise the problems so the appropriate specialists can be contacted. The SC also needs to have some content knowledge so that they can discuss matters with the instructor and assist the students if necessary. If the SC has some content knowledge, it would be easier to understand the instructor's instructions and ‘arrange local circumstances [at the remote site] to see the goal is achieved’ (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p. 245).

In the US K-12 virtual schooling (VS) system, the SC is known as the facilitator and also plays the role of a DE course counsellor where s/he advises students in their selection of DE courses based on their learning needs (Harms, Niederhauser, Davis, Roblyer & Gilbert, 2006). Additionally, Harms et al. said that the facilitator may also serve as ‘a coach to prepare students for VS, including the development of organisational and other study skills necessary to be successful online learners’ (p. 9). In other words, the facilitator might help students to develop their responsibilities for self-direction and learner autonomy. Harms et al. also added that the facilitator needs to promote co-presence, especially if there is more than one student at the same remote site. The promotion of co-presence can help to increase motivation and peer support. These responsibilities are similar to those shouldered by the student or learner support services in some learning institutions. White (2003) listed three primary functions of learner support: cognitive, affective and systemic. In the first two columns, Table 4 lists the functions and scope of learner support services according to White (2003). The third column in Table 4 lists the roles that, according to different studies, hold similar responsibilities to illustrate the overlap among the roles and responsibilities of site coordinators or facilitators, tutors and student services.

Table 4. Functions and scope of learner support services and the overlap in roles.

Functions of learner support	Scope of learner support services	Role as listed in studies
Cognitive	Tutoring	Tutor (Moore & Kearsley, 1996)
	Study groups and centres, actual and virtual	Student support services (Moore & Kearsley, 1996)
	Learning support (including study and exam skills seminars, 1:1 assistance)	Facilitator (Harms et al., 2006)
		Student support services (Moore & Kearsley, 1996)
Affective	Guidance and advisory services (including motivational counselling)	Facilitator (Harms, et al., 2006)
		Student support services (Moore & Kearsley, 1996)
	Residential schools^1	n/a
	Peer contact	Facilitator (Harms et al., 2006)
Systemic	Enquiry and admission services	Facilitator (Harms et al., 2006)
		Student support services (Moore & Kearsley, 1996)
	Course/academic information and guidance	Facilitator (Harms et al., 2006)
		Site coordinator (Moore & Kearsley, 1996)
Note: Residential schools in this context refer to those offered by the Open University, UK. ‘There are now more than 50 Open University courses running a residential school. These last from one day to a full week and are based at universities, hotels, conference and field study centres in the UK and mainland Europe. Language schools run in France, Germany and Spain.’ (Retrieved May 8, 2008 from http://css2.open.ac.uk/resschools/AboutResSchools.aspx)

Moore and Kearsley (1996) identified the tutor as a stakeholder in the DE system. They pointed out that some DE systems (especially correspondence courses and open university courses) that have limited or no student–student or student–instructor interactions often appoint a personal tutor to students. This tutor is usually neither the course designer nor the person who presents the course content. The responsibilities of this tutor are to interact on a one-to-one basis with the student and to provide individualised instruction. White (2003) listed tutoring responsibilities under learner support services. She shared an example where a weekly one-to-one telephone tutorial allowed the tutor to support the student in the following manner:

	negotiating learning targets for the week;
	identifying further materials for each learner based on individual needs;
	advice on learning routes and language learning strategies;
	feedback on performance – simple error correction offered instantaneously; evaluation and correction of pronunciation and intonation; summary of errors and correction of structures at the end of interchanges; evaluation of progress as a whole. (White, 2003, p. 178)

In addition to the mentioned support, the language tutor can also provide opportunities for oral practice through phone (Radic, 2000, 2001 in White, 2003).

In forms of DE other than correspondence and open university courses, the responsibilities of the tutor as listed by Moore and Kearsley (1996), such as grading assignments and monitoring student progress, can be shouldered by the SC. In the state of Iowa in the USA, the online learning system (Iowa Learning Online (ILO)) mandates the role of a student coach that is similar to Moore and Kearsley's (1996) SC. In addition to the administrative, technical, and content responsibilities, the student coach is also responsible for monitoring student progress and providing reports to both the instructor and the students' parents (see Iowa Learning Online, n.d.). This ILO student coach is also responsible for Moore and Kearsley's proctor's duties, including proctoring quizzes and exams and managing the passwords for students' access to the assessment tools. However, the ILO student coach does not grade the quizzes and exams. In a different Iowa context that is unaffiliated with ILO, the grading responsibilities are taken on by the SC using a rubric provided by the instructor (see Davis & Compton, 2005).

Besides counselling and tutoring services, White (2003) also listed technical support to be a systemic function of learner support services. Examples of technical support included informational technology orientation at the beginning of the course and subsequent support for technological matters throughout the course. This differs from the SC's technical responsibilities listed by Moore and Kearsley (1996), which focused more on the technical matters before and during instruction. White cited Radic (2000) who set up a technical help desk for students. He believed that it was essential to the effectiveness of the course because it not only helped to solve students' technical problems but also established students' confidence in the institution, the delivery mode, the teaching method and the tutor/moderator.

The next stakeholder in Moore & Kearsley's DE system is the management/administration. This level of administrative duty differs from the administrative duties that are held by the SC or the learner support services. Generally, management/administration deals with the budget, resources, staffing, scheduling, policies and other institutional matters. At the remote site, the administrative duties are held by the SC and they include dissemination and distribution of content materials, record keeping and other administrative procedures relating to instructional matters. Meanwhile, learner support staff might provide administrative assistance that includes course registration, fees and other administrative aspects of a course or programme.

The case study of a high school partnership provides a good example of the three levels of administrative duties (see Davis & Compton, 2005). In this case study, a rural Iowa high school was unable to hire a chemistry teacher. The principal then negotiated with another Iowa high school to offer the course at a distance via the Iowa Communication Network (ICN), a two-way interactive video system with studio classrooms in all school districts and most high schools in Iowa. The two high school principals and school counsellors determined the timetable of the course so students from both schools could work on the course at the same time. They also decided on the teacher who should teach the course and the amount of compensation provided to that teacher. Meanwhile, the SC at the remote site was in charge of administrative procedures such as receiving and distributing materials and record keeping. On the other hand, the secretary at the remote school provided administrative assistance by making copies of a faxed paper quiz from the teacher.

The final stakeholder in the DE system is the online teacher. The responsibility of the online teacher is to develop co-presence in their virtual classroom so the learning environment feels less distant (Harms et al, 2006; Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Building a learning community can promote group rapport and full participation from students. Hiltz (1994) reported that when an online community was successfully fostered, students said they learned more and felt closer to their peers and instructor compared to traditional classroom settings. Additionally, the online teacher has to facilitate and encourage active participation and high levels of interaction. The online teacher also has to be effective in providing feedback so the students can monitor their progress. All these require skills that have been discussed in the previous section.

Moore and Kearsley (1996) pointed out that the responsibilities of the online teacher not only differ from traditional classroom but also depending on which level of DE. They used Michael Mark's (1990) typology that divided DE into four levels as listed in Table 5. An online teacher at the distance learning programme will undoubtedly play more roles than those at the other three levels. For example, an online teacher of a single DE course in a conventional learning institution may have to handle the administrative duties, whereas a distance learning institution would have staff designated specifically for such matters. Additionally, an online teacher of a single course may have to personally provide technical, cognitive affective and systemic support if students are not located at any remote sites where learner support services are available. In a distance learning institution such as the United Kingdom's Open University, there may be no need for online teachers. Instead, the primary instructional role is the tutor who supports the students' learning (see The Open University, n.d.).

Table 5. Levels of distance education and their definitions (based on Moore & Kearsley, 1996).

Level	Definition
Distance learning programme	‘Activities carried out in a conventional college, university, school system, or training department whose primary responsibilities include traditional classroom instruction’ (p. 2–3)
Distance learning unit	‘A special and separate unit within a conventional college, university, or school system that is dedicated to distance learning activities’ (p. 3)
Distance learning institution	‘The sole purpose of the institution is distance education [and] all activities are exclusively devoted to distance education’ (p. 3)
Distance learning consortia	‘Two or more distance learning institutions or units who share in either the design or delivery of program, or both’ (p. 4)

This section used Moore and Kearsley's systems view to review the roles and responsibilities of eight stakeholders in an online learning system. Each stakeholder plays an important role in making the system work effectively. Depending on the circumstances at the local and remote sites, roles and responsibilities of some stakeholders may overlap, which will in turn affect the responsibilities of the online teacher. Knowing the different components of the system and the scope of responsibilities of each stakeholder can help the online teacher identify to whom and where to turn to for assistance. Furthermore, such awareness can help the online teacher understand his/her own scope of responsibilities and other responsibilities that may need to be absorbed if certain roles are not present in the online learning system. The next section will provide recommendations for language teacher education programmes based on the proposed framework for online language teaching skills ( Figure 2) and the systems view of online language learning.

Recommendations for language teacher education programmes

Presently, the main source of professional development in the area of online English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching is offered by the TESOL Organisation through its certificate programme (see TESOL, 2008). The profession has also begun to note the need to identify effective pedagogical frameworks for teaching language online. A special journal issue by CALICO (Stickler & Hauck, 2006b) and collections of works such as Felix (2003b), Goertler and Winke (2008), and Holmberg, Shelley, and White (2005) are great examples of such efforts. Despite these gallant efforts to exemplify good practices of online language teaching through design, technological and pedagogical issues, little emphasis has been placed on teacher education for the twenty-first century beyond the ability to integrate technology into the classroom. Specifically, little has been done to prepare language teachers for online language teaching. Using ideas from earlier sections, such as the proposed framework for online teaching skills and the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in an online language learning system, this literature review presents four recommendations for language teacher education to improve the state of preparedness of language teachers for online language teaching: a) developing online language teaching skills through existing courses; b) developing online teaching skills at different levels of expertise and responsibilities for different roles; c) revamping existing technology training; and d) implementing early virtual field experiences and virtual practicum.

Developing online language teaching skills through existing courses

As presented in the earlier section, online language teaching skills are divided into three categories: a) technology in online language teaching; b) pedagogy of online language teaching; and c) evaluation of online language teaching. Ideally, language teacher education should include technology, methodology and evaluation courses that focus solely on online language teaching issues because online language teaching is very different from traditional language teaching. Realistically however, resource and time constraints would hinder such efforts from fruition at most language teacher education programmes. This literature review does not recommend immediate comprehensive teacher preparation for online language teaching but rather a gradual and progressive change to prepare all language teachers for the possibility of a career in online language teaching. This change involves raising the level of awareness of all language teachers regarding the potential of online language teaching and the knowledge level of basic principles and skills required for successful endeavours in this new system. If language teachers are interested after being exposed to the potential of online language teaching through their TESL or applied linguistics programme, they could then pursue further professional development such as the certificate programme offered by the TESOL Organisation (TESOL, 2008) or possibly a new certificate or specialisation in existing TESL or applied linguistic programmes.

The skills of incorporating socialisation techniques and fostering an online community are difficult to achieve. Hampel and Stickler (2005) recommended that future online language teachers experienced first hand the ‘need for building an online community’ through training events in the medium. As Slaouti and Motteram (2006, p. 89) put it: ‘teachers need to learn about online learning through online learning’. This first hand experience – or situated learning – will illuminate the strengths and limitations of the technologies for learning (Hubbard & Levy, 2006) as well as reduce tensions about the realities of real teaching situations (Egbert, 2006). Bauer-Ramazani (2006) shared how a CALL course was successfully offered fully online to help trainee teachers develop the necessary competences for educational technology and apply them in their teaching situations that ranged from TESL to K-12 classrooms. Additionally, the online course itself was carefully designed using principles of distance learning (e.g. Palloff & Pratt, 1998, 2003; Warschauer, 2002) to provide a model of good practice. Kessler (2006) and Peters (2006) called for the integration of CALL training into the overall language teacher training programme including CALL or online language learning components within methodology and pedagogy courses, especially if there is not a CALL specialist available. Also, Hoven (2006, 2007) stressed on the importance of modelling and practice to encourage familiarity with different technologies and their affordances. Thus, curriculum design and methods courses should adopt an online or hybrid/blended approach through which language teachers can experience how online social presence can differ from face-to-face social presence and practice online community building strategies. Also, supplementing traditional in-class experience with online experiences will help to highlight the need for ‘netiquette’ and the importance of community building strategies that do not rely on visual cues. Besides that, they can also identify online learning design features that are effective and those that are weak.

Developing online teaching skills at different levels of expertise and responsibilities for different roles

The proposed framework for online teaching skills in the earlier section identified three levels of expertise: novice, proficient and expert. Language teacher training programmes can use this framework to identify the skills that should be developed at different levels of expertise and match that with their curriculum. Skills at the novice level, for example, should be taught in the earlier years of their programmes, while skills at the proficient level should be reserved for the later years. Meanwhile, the skills at the expert level may be slowly developed in the final years and gained through field and practical experiences. (See also the recommendation for early virtual field experiences and virtual practicum below.)

In addition to the different levels of expertise, language teacher training programmes should also prepare their teachers for the possibility of different roles in an online language learning system by integrating knowledge of online teaching skills at the novice level into all existing programmes. While not all teachers are likely to become online language teachers, some might find themselves as elected site coordinators or tutors in their future work place. Therefore, language teachers should know what roles and responsibilities exist in online learning systems and how the different components work together as a system. Additionally, having basic online teaching skills will prepare language teachers for the possibility of supporting an online language learner at a remote site. If all language teacher programmes integrated the development of novice teacher skills into their curriculum, this could ensure that the language teachers could take on site coordinator or tutor roles if necessary.

Revamping existing technology training

Mandatory technology training for CALL purposes should be considered early in language teacher training programmes. Hegelheimer (2006, p. 117) believed that ‘a mandatory technology course early in a [language] teacher training programme’ as a technology foundation can encourage its students to integrate technology more fully. He feared that technology electives taken late in the teacher training programme would limit opportunities for technological proficiency integration in the training process. He reported that a mandatory technology course in a TESL MA programme showed positive impact on its students as they were not only ‘more computer-literate and able to construct instructional web resources … but also more adept at using and critically evaluating technology in their teaching’ (p. 125). Results also showed that students were integrating technology in their teaching assignments (as teaching assistants) by creating relevant extensive projects in their own coursework. Also, this recommendation would be more favourable than general technology electives in other departments since the course would focus on TESL. As Hoven (2007, p. 137) pointed out, teachers' adoption of change and innovation are more likely ‘when they can see positive benefits in terms of direct relevance to their content area, usefulness from a practical task perspective, and increased effectiveness for their day-to-day classroom teaching.’ Additionally, by mandating this course early in the programme, teaching trainees could benefit from the knowledge and skills throughout the rest of their programme and experience increased confidence in teaching with technology – unlike the participants in Peters (2006) who expressed confidence in technological competences after a fourth-year technology integration course ‘yet still felt that they were not ready to integrate technology in the language classroom’ (p. 163).

While a mandatory technology course is a good recommendation, an alternative is to integrate CALL technology training into existing courses. Peters (2006) and Desjardins and Peters (2007) thought that a single course in technology integration might produce quick technical knowledge and promote the use of technology for teaching rather than the integration of technology in the curriculum. While Desjardins and Peters agreed with Hegelheimer (2006) that a mandatory technology course should be offered early in the programme, she added that this course was usually limited to technical aspects and could send an unwanted message that ‘technology is an add-on rather than an integral part of the [teacher education] programme’ (2007, p. 5). Simple steps can be taken to avoid this situation. For instance, basic technological skills and knowledge of specific applications taught in existing computer methods courses can be enhanced with discussions of affordances and constraints in specific situations, particularly in online language learning systems. Additionally, assignments, projects and tasks involving the use of technology for language learning should incorporate principles of a selected language theory. For example, using an experiential modelling approach in a technology and language learning course, Hoven (2006, 2007) incorporated the use of blogs, wikis, and e-portfolios that highlighted the principles of social constructive learning. Hoven (2007, p. 137) stated that the experiential modelling approach allows the immersion of students in the use of the technologies while allowing them the experience of ‘practical application of the theory in their own learning’. Other examples include the training programme by Hampel and Stickler (2005) in which they used animated online tutorials, specific training for applications and discussions of possibilities, constraints and implications of the electronic medium for online language teaching to address the lowest levels of skills (technological competence).

Implementing early virtual field experiences and virtual practicum

Language teacher training programmes can consider offering all their trainee teachers an early virtual field experience in online language learning. This virtual field experience would happen in the early stages of the programme before any student teaching experience and provide opportunities for observation and ‘work with real students, teachers, and curriculum in natural settings’ (i.e. online environments) (Huling, 1998). Such experiences allow teaching trainees to personally experience and observe aspects of online language teaching and online interactions through careful guidance and mediation. These carefully guided observations will provide them ‘with the experiences necessary to build the complex schema required’ to be an effective online language teacher, site coordinator or tutor. (Huling, 1998, p. 3).

Because observation alone cannot provide a rigorous experience (Davis & Rose, 2007) and does not result in substantive learning for effective teaching (Huling, 1998), early virtual field experiences alone are insufficient to prepare trainee teachers for online language teaching. Those who have experienced early virtual field experiences and continue to express interest in a career in teaching languages online should then participate in a virtual practicum. This virtual practicum should be offered in the final stages of the programme after trainee teachers have had more exposure to online language teaching skills at the proficient level through methods, technology and other relevant courses.

Recommendations provided in this section are based on the proposed framework for online language teaching skills ( Figure 2) and roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in an online language learning system ( Table 3). These recommendations stress a need for ALL language teachers to acquire some basic online language teaching skills (at the novice level) so they are at least able to serve as site coordinators or tutors in their future teaching capacity. Those who wish to pursue careers as online language teachers should proceed to gain more knowledge and skills through courses that include the development of online teaching skills at the proficient and expert levels and relevant experience through virtual practicums.

Summary and conclusion

This paper reviewed online language teaching skills, provided a critique of an existing skills framework and highlighted the complexity of identifying online language teaching skills. Online language teachers need to acquire skills beyond technological competence in order to teach effectively in this online environment. While some skills such as technical and software specific skills are easy to learn, other skills, such as facilitating online socialising and community building, can be more challenging. Nonetheless, these skills are essential in order to promote social cohesion that is necessary for meaningful communicative interaction. A proposed framework for online language teaching skills covering three categories of skills (technology, pedagogy and evaluation) at three levels of expertise (novice, proficient and expert) is provided to guide language teacher education programmes.

Additionally, a review of roles and responsibilities of stakeholders using a systems view is included to show how different components work together to promote effective online learning. In any online language learning system, the online language teacher is likely to work alongside other stakeholders. Each stakeholder bears different responsibilities. Depending on the circumstances and available resources, online language teachers may need to fill in the gap by shouldering additional responsibilities. Online language teachers should be aware of the different roles and responsibilities in the online language learning system so they are able to refer to the appropriate resources as well as identify missing gaps and take necessary actions.

While online language learning has become more possible with the increase in communication tools and the number of online language courses is increasing, teacher training at its present state has not focused on preparing language teachers for the challenges of teaching in an online environment. Since researchers and practitioners have warned against the assumption of a natural transition in teaching skills from a face-to-face classroom into an online environment, teacher educators need to pay more attention to the preparation of future language teachers for this new learning system especially considering that the efforts and cost of creating online materials ‘can be wasted without the adequate training of teachers to present and support the learning’ (Hampel & Stickler, 2005, p. 312). As Salmon (2003) stated: ‘Any significant initiative at changing teaching methods or the introduction of technology into teaching and learning should include effective e-moderator support and training, otherwise its outcomes are likely to be meagre and unsuccessful’ (p. 80). Thus, this literature review ends with recommendations for teacher education programmes on how to support the change in learning system through integration of online language teaching and learning related issues in existing curriculum design and methods courses. After all, online language teachers cannot be expected to become effective based on training meant for face-to-face classrooms when these two environments involve different skills and responsibilities. More research needs to be done to identify these skills and responsibilities so that language teacher preparation programmes can continue to improve and serve the needs of future online language teachers.

Notes on contributor

Lily Compton is a doctoral candidate in Curriculum and Instructional Technology with a minor in Applied Linguistics and Technology. Her research interests include teacher preparation for online language learning and teaching, and using computer mediated communication for language learning.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Niki Davis, my programme committee members, and the reviewers for their constructive feedback on the early drafts of this manuscript. I also want to thank Dr. Shannon Sauro for her help in my thought process on the framework.

Notes

1. ‘Local’ refers to where the online teacher is located while ‘remote’ refers to where the DE student is located.