Online Language Teacher Education:A Review of the Literature

A commissioned research report for theAssociation for Quality Education and Training Online

Denise E. Murray, Macquarie University

MaryAnn Christison, University of Utah

aqueduto.com

About this paperThis research paper is made availablefree of charge by Aqueduto, and isavailable from our website at: http://aqueduto.com/research/.

You may download, print, distributeand share the paper in hard copy orelectronic means so long as the paperis not edited, changed, redesigned orbroken up into smaller sections.

Pleaseuse the followingdetails to referto this publication:

Murray. D.E. and Christison, M. (2018).Online Language Teacher Education: AReview of the Literature. Aqueduto, Norwich.

As English has increasingly been used as theglobal language for commerce, science, andtechnology,more people have been learningEnglish, with an estimated 1.5 billion Englishlanguage learners as of 2015 (Noack &Gamlo, 2015). This demand for Englishlanguage education has led to a pressingneed for a large number of qualified Englishlanguage teachers who need access to highquality courses and programs to developtheir knowledge base and their skills asteachers. Access to such courses andprograms is of particular concern indevelopingparts of theworldwhere theneedfor qualified English language teachers is thegreatest, and qualified teachers are in shortsupply.

Inparallelwith thegrowth inEnglish languageuse worldwide has been the development ofnew digital technology tools, especially thegrowth of second-generation tools referredto as Web 2.0 (the second stage ofdevelopment of theWorldWideWeb), which

can be characterized asmoving from static todynamic web pages and including not onlyuser-generated content with a focus on easeof use by non-experts but also social mediawith a focus on interactivity and collaboration(Brown, 2010). Although distance learning(DL) has a long history dating from the earlycorrespondence courses at the University ofLondon in the 1840s, until recently, with theadvent of digital technologies, the growth ofDL has not been remarkable. Transnationaleducation similarly has an extensive historywith students from developing countriestravelling to countries that offer theeducationalopportunitiesunavailable in theirhome countries. However, this type ofeducation has been an expensive anddislocatingpropositionandsohasoftenbeenrestricted to a wealthy elite or those whomgovernments have been willing to fund. TheWeb has transformed transnationaleducation to provide more equitable accessto both educational opportunities and toEnglish language through social media.

“[O]nline and distance educationis very likely the fastest growingarea of education in the worldtoday, in both the developed anddeveloping worlds”

In today’s globalized world, which isconnected through digital technology and acommon language, DL has, therefore, grownexponentially. “[O]nline and distanceeducation is very likely the fastest growingarea of education in the world today, in boththe developed and developingworlds” (Simpson, 2012, p. 1), so it is nosurprise that the number of online languageteacher education (OLTE) courses andprograms have increased to meet thedemand for qualified English teachers. It isalso no surprise that along with theproliferation ofOLTE programs has emergedthe concern about quality, not only quality interms of the content of the programs andcourses themselvesbut also theeffectivenessof the online delivery for promoting positiveoutcomes for teachers and, ultimately, theirstudents.Todetermine thequalityof content,

2

OLTE course and programdesigners are ableto draw on several decades of research insecond language teacher education (SLTE)(see Crandall & Christison, 2016 for asummary); however, research relative to theuse of new technologies and the quality ofonline delivery in promoting teacher learningis still in its infancy stage (Shin & Kang, 2017).

Determining the effectiveness of newtechnologies for promoting learning issometimes difficult because proponents ofnew technologies have often exaggeratedtheir “fit for purpose” (Thornbury, 2016) orhave sought to create a need for thetechnological innovation. On the other hand,the more cautious or skeptical individualshave created a fear of the new or, at best,proposed a thoughtful, deliberate, andstageddevelopmentandstudyof thepositiveand negative impacts of new technologies.Historically technologies havebeen adopted,adapted, and transformed by cultural groupsbecause they havemet the current needs andaspirations of a group (see Murray, 2013a). Intruth of point, the process of adoption,adaptation, and transformation has beenmore fitful than systematic and is often basedmore on trial and error than either theproponents or naysayers of new technologieshave claimed.

The use of digital technology in SLTE hasfollowed a similar jagged path. For example,in the 1990s Anaheim University began thefirst fully online MA TESOL program, whichwas developed by David Nunan. The classesused synchronous chat for tutorials, anasynchronous discussion forum, and selectedreadings. The nature of the synchronoustechnology at the time was not conducive toan in depth discussion of abstract concepts,but it did provide both the instructor and thestudents with human contact. Thesynchronous chat was primitive, andconnections were via modems at very slowspeeds. The limitations of technologyresulted in the need for written protocols formanaging student communication in thesynchronouschatbox, forexample to indicateif they had a question (?), hadmore to say (…),

or had finished their contribution (//). Timedelays often meant the instructor did notknow whether the student had nothing to sayor the connection had dropped, whichhappened frequently, so these protocolswere essential for promoting effectivecommunication for both the students and theteacher. As it turned out, and much to thesurprise of the instructor, the delays wereeventually deemed pedagogically useful, asthey gave students, whowere quite often alsonon-native speakersofEnglish, time tocollecttheir thoughts (personal communication withDavid Nunan). Today, OLTE courses andprograms have evolved to make use ofadvanced digital technologies, which includevideo conferencing, online supervisedteaching practice, avatars, and multimedia.

Defining Online LanguageTeacher Education

Because both online learning and teachereducation in general can be variouslydescribed, we begin this report by definingterms specific to online learning, teachereducation, and OLTE.

What is Online Learning?The term online is often used quite looselyamong some researchers and practitioners,frequently referring to a course in which someinstructional activities are conducted online;others confine its use to courses that areconducted totally online. The term has alsobeen defined relative to the percentage oftime that the students in the course spendonline, comparedwithotheractivities (OECD,2005; Bauer-Ramazani, 2006; Allen &Seaman, 2013). The most frequently usedclassification reported in Allen & Seaman wasdeveloped by the Sloan Consortium, which isnow referred to as the Online LearningConsortium, whose focus is online educationin U.S. higher education contexts. Thepercentage of time for what they deemnecessary for an online course is 80%, which ismeant to account for courses or programsthat include some face-to-face (f2f)component, such as a residential in whichlearners meet f2f for a short, but intensive,

3

period of time. The four-part classificationfrom the Online Learning Consortium isdisplayed in Table 1.

Table 1Online Learning Consortium CourseClassification

Adapted from and reprinted with permission.Murray and Christison (2017). Onlinelanguage teacher education: Participants’perceptions and experiences (p. 16).Retrieved from https://www.tirfonline.org/w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 7 / 0 3 /TIRF_OLTE_2017_Report_Final.pdf

"Based on the obviouscomplexities involved in both thedesign and delivery of OLTEcourses and programs, we findthe system for categorizing OLTEcourses and programs thatconsiders only the percentage oftime online to be rather simplisticbecause it fails to recognize thedifferent configurations that arepossible for content delivery and

learning activities"

Based on the obvious complexities involvedin both the design and delivery of OLTEcourses and programs, we find the system forcategorizing OLTE courses and programsthat considers only the percentage of timeonline tobe rather simplistic because it fails torecognize thedifferentconfigurations thatarepossible for content delivery and learningactivities, such as MOOCs (i.e., massive openonline courses) (Murray & Christison, 2017);flipped courses (courses that deliver corecontent online and reserve f2f time forenrichment and reinforcement activities, suchas discussions and problem solving); andcourses that include synchronous activities,such as videoconferencing. Consequently, intheir 2017 study, Murray and Christisoncategorized courses and programs based onhow online technologies were used in thedelivery and design of instruction, rather thanonly by the percentage of time spent online.This categorization was essential to thedesign of the questionnaire they used in thestudy and was necessary in order to makeinstructional decisions salient (see Table 2). Itis the course classification that will be used inthe current report.

Table 2Course Classification Used in the OLTEQuestionnaire

Adapted from and reprinted with permissionfrom Murray and Christison (2017). Online

4

language teacher education: Participants’perceptions and experiences (p. 17).Retrieved from https://www.tirfonline.org/w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 7 / 0 3 /TIRF_OLTE_2017_Report_Final.pdf

Language Teacher EducationUse of the term teacher education is mostoften restricted to describing pre-serviceprograms, which are also sometimes referredto as preliminary certification or teacherpreparation. It is generally assumed thatteacher education takes place in tertiary(higher education) institutions at bothundergraduate and postgraduate levels andis designed with a specific population of pre-service teachers in mind, for example K-12public school teachers. It is important torecognize that practicing teachers alsoengage in further education, either toenhance their knowledge and skills or to learnnew knowledge and skills for differentcontexts. Many teacher education programsfor practicing teachers are designed forspecific groups of teachers, for example,teachers in a private English languageteaching school who may be involved inadding an online component to their courses.Such programs may be called in-service,professional development (PD), continuingprofessional development (CPD), continuingprofessional education (CPE) or programs forlife-long learning. While OLTE programsmaybe designed to meet the needs of specificgroups of learners, there are also growingnumbers of tertiary institutions targetingteachers globally through open accesscourses such as MOOCs (Murray, 2013b). Inthis report we will use OLTE to include all ofthe types of courses and programs in whichpracticing and potential teachers of English(or other languages) learn the craft ofteaching, unless we are referring to a specificstudy where a specific type of program iscritical to understanding OLTE practices.

Courses and ProgramsIn this report, we use the term course to referto a single class, which may be a standaloneworkshop or part of a larger program;program refers to a set of courses that form a

curriculum leading to a degree or certificate.The term institution refers to the organizationresponsible for oversight of a program, whichmight be a department in a university or acompany offering only OLTE programs ofdifferent lengths and with different content,such as from short 40-hour programs to 100-hour-programs. For participants in OLTEcourses and programs who are alreadyteachingorwhoare learning how to teach,wewill use the term teacher learner (TL),reserving the term student for the individualswhom TLs teach. We use the term teachereducator for instructors of OLTE courses andteacher when referring to classroom, face-to-face (f2f) language teaching. When referringto general studies that are not specific toteacher education, the terms student andinstructor will be used.

“there is a dearth of research onOLTE. Much of the literaturefocuses on describing whatindividual teacher educators havedone in their own instructionoronoffering general comments aboutthe issues around onlinelearning”

Data on OLTEAs already mentioned, there is a dearth ofresearch on OLTE. Much of the literaturefocuses ondescribingwhat individual teachereducators have done in their own instructionor on offering general comments about theissues around online learning (e.g., Smith2014onaK-12 in-servicePD in theU.S.). Thereis also a general confusion in many studieswhere teaching TLs how to use technology intheir brick-and-mortar classrooms isconflated with using OLTE. There is, in fact, agrowing literature on the inclusion ofinstruction in CALL in teacher educationprograms (see, for example, Son &Windeatt,2017). Moreover, many studies of OLTE havefocused on one aspect of online learning,especially facilitating interaction and the useof discussion lists. Often these studies havenot provided details on the configuration ofthe program or course being researched,even whether it is blended or online. This lack

5

of consistent reporting onprograms and theircomponents makes comparisons acrossstudies impossible. It is possible that there aresignificant differences between theeducational experiences of TLs in blendedandonlinedelivery. Forexample, inablendedprogram or course, which has both in classdiscussion or group work and an onlinediscussion, it is likely that TLs social presenceonline will be affected by the social presencethey have already established f2f. In contrast,TLs in totally online courses or programs willhave to initiate sand establish social presenceonline. Knowing that there are differenceacross delivery options would likely influencestudies on interaction and social presence.Similarly, there may be significant differencesbetween OLTE courses and programs thatinclude synchronous video, suchasSkypeandGoToMeeting software, in the design, andthose that are entirely asynchronous. Inaddition, there are important differencesamong synchronous components. It is,therefore, vital for researchers to explicitlydescribe all aspects of an OLTE course orprogram configuration because all aspects ofthe configuration need to be consideredwhen determining the quality of a programorcourse.

Purposes for Learning Online

Theoverall purposeofmostSLTEprograms intertiary education is to provide candidateteachers with the foundational knowledgeand skills for entry into the teachingprofession. Foundational knowledge can beconceptualized in terms of professionalstandards, local teaching requirements,institutional course requirements, or programexit requirements, which are determined byindividual SLTE programs in response toteachers’ needs. SLTE is also a term that canbe used to describe programs that offercourses for practicing teachers, such as CPDorCPE. ThepurposeofCPDorCPE is tobringabout change in teacher practice;consequently, CPDs have a direct influenceon the teachers they serve. The influence theyexert can be characterized as bringing about

change in the short term, such as making adecision to use a new teaching strategy, or inthe long term, which can be characterized asinfluencing the type of teacher an individualwill become.

"making adecision to put an SLTEprogram online is a complexprocess, which involves manyfactors that can influence aprogram’s purpose"

It should be possible for an SLTE program toachieve its purposes in both f2f and onlineformats. Nevertheless, making a decision toput an SLTE program online is a complexprocess, which involves many factors that caninfluence a program’s purpose. For example,many TLs are socialized to believe that f2finteraction and direct involvement with theircourse instructors and other mentors areimportant components of teacherdevelopment (Wright, 2010).Moving an SLTEprogram online could change TLs’involvement and interaction with the teachereducators and other mentors and, ultimately,could change the very nature of an SLTEprogram and its purpose. There is a questionas to whether an SLTE can maintain itspurposes in an online format given thechanges that occur in the process.

Diverse Student PopulationAs England (2012) and Murray (2013b) havenoted, one obvious change that can resultfrom moving an SLTE program to an onlineenvironment is that OLTE programs attract amore varied and diverse student populationthan f2f SLTE programs. Online educationprovides opportunities to learners who areunable to access brick-and-mortarclassrooms, either because they live far fromsuch institutions or because of family or workcommitments (Murray, 2013b). Individual TLsare motivated to study in OLTE programs fora variety of reasons. These reasons may bepersonal, such as a desire to expand one’sknowledge base and understanding ofteaching or to learn about and use digitaltechnologies, related to the nature of thetechnology being used or to the instructional

6

approaches. They may also be related tomotivations that are instrumentally based,such as satisfying the requirements for adegree or certification, upgrading teachingcredentials, fulfilling the requirements for anemployer, or even having no f2f option for arequired course available.

"The fact that OLTE programsattract TLs who would be unableto attend f2f courses andprograms and, therefore, arelikely to have different goals andobjectives for themselves asfuture teachers and have lifeexperiences that are differentfrom TLs in traditional f2f coursesand programs, presentschallenges for both OLTEadministrators and teachereducators."

The fact that OLTE programs attract TLs whowould be unable to attend f2f courses andprograms and, therefore, are likely to havedifferent goals and objectives for themselvesas future teachers and have life experiencesthat are different from TLs in traditional f2fcourses and programs, presents challengesfor both OLTE administrators and teachereducators. Instructional goals and objectivesmust change to accommodatedifferent typesof TLs and how these instructional challengesare addressed can affect a program’spurpose.

AttritionAttrition is another factor that can influence aprogram’s purpose. TLs persist or drop out ofonlineprograms foravarietyof reasons,whichmay be personal or job-related and notnecessarily linked to OLTE curricular issues.Simpson (2012) asserts that a “fundamentalweakness” of distance education is thedropout rate (p. 6) as dropout rates for onlinecourses in general are 10% to 20%higher thanin traditional, f2f courses (Herbert, 2006). It iscrucial for researchonOLTE todeterminewhyTLs terminate their participation in OLTEprograms and to explore the underlyingcauses of attrition. It is also important to

recognize that some factors related toattrition are not related to the quality ofOLTEcourses or programs. However, dropout ratesand reasons for attrition are difficult todeterminebecause few institutions arewillingto provide these data and becauseacknowledgingdropout rateswhen reportingenrollment figures may affect the reputationof the institution or program.

Banegas&Mansur Busleimán (2014) reportedon a study of individuals in Patagonia,Argentina who participated in an onlineEnglish Language Teaching (ELT) trainingcourseat theundergraduate level. Thecoursewas the only one of its type in the region andwas intended for practicing teachers who hadnot yet earned their qualification to teach andneeded a degree, as well as those who wereinterested inELTbut could notmove to townswith brick-and-mortar institutions to takeadvantage of f2f teacher education coursesand programs. In 2010, 77 TLs participated inthe OLTE course. By 2013, 152 TLs wereparticipating in the course; however, what ismissing from these reported enrollmentfigures are data between 2010 and 2013. Datafor this time period show that 144 TLs alsodropped the course. Without access todropout data andwithout understanding TLs’reasons for dropping the course, it isimpossible to accurately determine attritionrates. Dropout rates could easily be the resultof non-course or non-learning factors, such asthe inability to pay course fees, get regularaccess to the Internet, or manage personalchallenges, such as time constraints. Dropoutrates could also be related to a number offactors related to the courses themselves,such as the design of courses, the inclusion ofsynchronous learning, or the content oflearning modules.

Reasons for Choosing OLTE

"online education is primarilypromoted because of theflexibility that it affords, in otherwords, its any time, any placecharacteristics"

7

FlexibilityEven though there are various reasons forstudying online, online education is primarilypromoted because of the flexibility that itaffords, in other words, its any time, any placecharacteristics. All of the programsinvestigated in Murray’s 2013b study notedthat their participants chose OLTE for itsconvenience or for the flexibility that itafforded. OLTE is especially well suited topracticing English language teachersbecause it is likely that they are unable to giveup their jobs to study full-time on a campus(Copland & Garton, 2012; Hall & Knox, 2009).OLTE “encourages teachers to investigatenew ideas and approaches as part of theircourse of study, in the context of a supportiveonline community andwith a reliable link toanacademic centre” (Copland & Garton, 2012,p. 66). Copeland and Garton also noted thebenefits of cohorts of TLs who come fromdifferent educational and cultural contexts,providing a rich exchange of ideas andapproaches to language teaching. Culturallydiverse cohorts allow TLs to become familiarwith contexts in which theymight teach in thefuture.

In their recent study of TLs and teachereducators’ perceptions of OLTE, Murray andChristison (2017) found that “flexibility” wasthe Number 1 reason given for participationby 309 TLs because they “placed a highpriority on flexibility and the importance offlexibility in mediating the educationalchoices they were pursuing” (p. 84). BecauseTLs most often engage in OLTE for itsflexibility, a global study of TLs in culturallydiverse cohorts raises additional issuesrelative to flexibility. Synchronous interactionis either difficult or impossible for these TLswho must manage time zone differences toparticipate in synchronous online activities. Itis important to remember that TLs have“chosen to study online because it fitsconveniently into their busy lives (Shin &Bickel, 2012). To be required to be online at aparticular time, in some ways defeats theadvantages of any time, any placeinstruction” (Murray, 2013b, p. 37).

Participants in the 2017Murray andChristisonstudy also noted their objections toasynchronous design features of OLTEcourses that theyperceivedas interferingwithflexibility, such as teacher educators’decisions to unlock content modules at pre-determined times, thereby limiting TLs’opportunities for working ahead andmanaging their own time. At the same time,they also applauded features of synchronouscourse components that allowed for moreflexibility, such as having open access torecordings of synchronous online classes,having no barriers to joining synchronoussessions, and allowing for access tosynchronous activities frommobiledevices. Inaddition, over half of the TLs indicated thatthey chose OLTE because they wantedflexibility in learning by studying at their ownpace and in their own way, without thepressures inherent in f2f classrooms.

Other Motivational FactorsWhile there is a rich research base onlanguage learning motivation (for example,see Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Ushioda, 2011,2013), research on the motivations of TLs inOLTE is scarce (Hiver, 2013; Kumaza, 2013);nevertheless, some key factors related tomotivation are emerging.

Collaboration and interaction. In f2f andonline teacher education contexts,collaboration and interaction are certainlymotivating factors (Stockwell, 2013), andthese same motivational factors are thoughtto be important in OLTE as well. Murray andChristison (2017) found that TLs and teachereducators have a preference for onlineactivities that foster collaboration andinteraction and that teacher educators“placed an importance on providing [TLs]with opportunities for interaction and ondesigning and delivering OLTE courses andprograms with interactional components” (p.84). This finding suggests that teachereducators and TLs find collaboration andinteraction to be essential components inOLTE course design and would likely see thepresence of these components in OLTE asimportant factors affecting TLs’ decision-

8

making processes, including whether to takean online course or whether to drop out.

"This finding suggests thatteacher educators and TLs findcollaboration and interaction tobe essential components inOLTEcourse design"

Qualities of teacher educators. Nunan(2012) notes that feedback and interactionfrom online instructors can be motivating inany form, whether it is related to coursecontent or is of a personal nature. Thisobservation is consistent with Wright (2010)who sees the teacher educator as a crucialfactor affecting teacher learning in formalclassroom contexts. Xiao’s (2012) researchfound that participants in online courses seethepersonal characteristicsof their instructorsto be motivating, such as humility,approachability, and egalitarianism.

Online tools. The research by Anglada andBanegas (2012) found that online toolsthemselves couldbemotivating, for example,the use of social media, such as Facebook(Massi, Verdú, & Scillipoti, 2012). Gakonga(2012)pointsout thatonline tools that supportasynchronous communication, such asasynchronous chats and discussions, can alsobe motivating for some TLs, particularly TLswhomay lackhigh levels of confidence in theirEnglish abilities; asynchronous tools giveparticipants time to prepare their answersbefore they have to deliver them.

Issues in OLTE

Kebritchi, Lipschuetz, and Santiague (2017)used Cooper’s (1998) procedure to“synthesize and integrate empirical studies’results” and to “provide an integrative reporton existing challenges in teaching online” (p.5). Although their work focused on onlinecourses in higher education, their findings areapplicable to other contexts, such as OLTE.The issues they identified fell into three broadcategories related to learners, teachers, andcontent, which teacher educators and course

designers must address in any context. Theissues identified for OLTE in the Murray andChristison (2017) study are similar to the onesidentified by Kebritchi, et al (2017) in that theyinvolve TLs and teacher educators, as well asthe quality of the content of courses andprograms. In this report, we have framedissues inOLTE in termsofTLs, thepreparationof teacher educators, attitudes andperceptions of TLs and teacher educators inOLTE, as well as a variety of issues related toquality.

Readiness of Teacher Learners.Charlier (2011) stated, “Online learning canbe time-consuming as learners are faced withgreater demands for self-organization” (p.237). While it is true that TLs experiencegreater flexibility in OLTE courses andprograms, it is also true that with the flexibilitycomes greater individual accountability formanaging one’s time in a way that results inoptimal learning and interaction with thecontent, and that many TLs find this aspect ofOLTE challenging (Luyt, 2013; Mayes,Luebeck, Yu Hu, Askarasriworn, & Korkmaz,2011). Murray and Christison (2017) identifiedTLs’ readiness for online learning in terms oftheir abilities to manage time and their ownlearning as issues in OLTE.

"While it is true that TLsexperience greater flexibility inOLTE courses and programs, it isalso true that with the flexibilitycomes greater individualaccountability formanagingone’stime in a way that results inoptimal learning and interactionwith the content, and that manyTLs find this aspect of OLTEchallenging"

Preparing Teacher EducatorsAs already mentioned above, teachereducators are a pivotal factor in the quality ofOLTE (Wright, 2010;Nunan, 2012; Xiao, 2012).There has been extensive discussion andsome research on how to develop onlinetechnology competence in languageteachers and teacher candidates so that they

9

can use CALL effectively. Most recently, forexample, has been the volume edited byJeong-Bae Son and Scott Windeatt (2017),which covers many different contexts withdetails of courses and CPD that provide suchinstruction. The chapter authors and others(e.g., Compton, 2009; Ernest et al., 2013) havenoted the increasing use of online activities inlanguage education. While the programsdescribed are not online as we have definedthem, theauthors raise the important issue forOLTEof the importanceofmodelingeffectiveonline instruction so that language teachersare "far more confident, skilled, andmotivated to use computers with their ownstudents" (Johnson, 2002, p. 74). In a study ofPD for teachers in Iran, Ernest et al (2013)taught teachershowtouse technology in theirlanguage classrooms by using it to deliver thePD. However, as in OLTE, there is very littleresearch on the transfer of CALL courseworkinto the classroom (Murray, 2017; Son, 2014).Both Murray and Son note that this is oftenbecause of a lack of institutional support(especially allocations of time to developCALL tasks) and lack of ongoing professionaldevelopment. Support from the institution isunder-researched, even though it is a focus inmany QA systems. One study that didexamine support services was conducted bythe University of Oregon for the U.S.Department of State to determine whatsupport serviceswereneeded for onlinePD inlow resourced countries (Opp-Beckman,2012).

England andHall (2012), Hall and Knox (2012),andHealey (2012) have all acknowledged thatthe online context requires a different skill setfrominstructors.RudestandandSchoenholtz-Read (2010) emphasize that replicating f2finstructional practices is not effective in anonline environment. In summarizing theliterature on the skills needed for an e-teacher, Murray (2013b) found generalagreement that these skills include thefollowing:

• mastery of the technology, includingsocial software;

• developing new teacher roles;• understanding distance learnerneeds, ability to foster onlineinteractionamongstudents, betweenteacher and students, and betweenstudents and course content;

• understanding the legal and ethicalissues around online education;

• ability to situate learning and createcommunities of practice (Lave &Wenger, 1991);

• ability to employ project-basedlearning;

• ability to develop and supportautonomous learning amongstudents; and

• using constructive, timely feedback(pp. 32-3).

While the list thatMurray (2013) provides is anexcellent guide for identifying the skillsneeded for teacher educators in OLTE, it isimportant to note that the recommendationsare based largely on research in related areas,such as teacher education, communities ofpractice (CoP), CALL, and online learning ingeneral because of the dearth of research inOLTE. However, one study in Mexico thatinvestigated a Spanish course on testing andassessment found that tutors needed to focuson the language they used in feedback toprevent misunderstandings because of thewritten online environment (Contijoch-Escontria, Burns, & Candlin, 2012)

Quality Assurance

"There has been considerableconcern about whether onlinelearning delivers qualityexperiences for students, both inacademic publications and in thegeneral press."

Defining quality. There has beenconsiderable concern about whether onlinelearning delivers quality experiences for

10

students, both in academic publications andin thegeneral press.Quality andbest practiceare often used as unrelated concepts.However, over the past two decades, highereducationhas increasinglybegun focusingonquality assurance (QA) as a result of pressurefor greater accountability, reduced funding,increased competition, changes inaccreditation systems, and growth andadvances in information technology. But,what is quality? It seems that even ifwe cannotdefine it, we can recognize it when we see it(McNaught, 2009). “[W]hat constitutes qualityis contested, with different OLTE providersprivileging different aspects ofquality” (Murray, 2013b, p. 14). The sameprocess applies to notions of best practice.While language teacher education andlanguage teaching both profess an objectiveof best practice, the term is used loosely andis often unrelated to actual student learning(i.e., outcomes).

"quality assurance is a system thatexamines both inputs, that is, allaspectsof theOLTEenterprise, aswell as outcomes, that is, TLlearning"

For us, quality assurance is a system thatexaminesboth inputs, that is, all aspectsof theOLTE enterprise, as well as outcomes, that is,TL learning. Best practice refers to thebehaviors across all aspects of the enterprisethat result in TL learning. By all aspects of theenterprise we include the following:

• Procedures formanagingenquiries&enrolments;

• Induction arrangements-students &staff;

• Guidance & counseling services;• Management of staff performance;• Extra-curricular programs;• Admin such as record keeping;• Marketing & publicity materials;• Financial management; and• EO [equal opportunity] & otherpolicies’ implementation &

achievement (McNaught, 2009, p.169).

So, we consider the term quality toencompass the use of the term best practiceand will use the term quality throughout thisreview.

Measuring quality. A variety of differentorganizations around the world accredit orassert quality for OLTE programs. In largeinstitutions such as universities, theaccreditingagency forOLTE is usually theoneused by the entire institution. There is a rangeof agencies that smaller institutions havechosen, often ones dedicated to DL, but notspecializing in language teacher education.Others have grown up in response to thegrowth of OLTE, for example, The OnlineLearning Consortium (OLC) and morerecently, Quality Matters (QM), and theAssociation for Quality Education andTraining Online (AQUEDUTO). Theemergence of organizations that focusspecifically on quality in OLTE is an indicatorof the proliferation of OLTE (see Murray,2013a, for an extensive list of organizationsfocused on quality assurance in OLTE). Thethree programs that we review here arerepresentative of the fact that the field ismaturing and that practitioners andresearchersarebecomingmore informedandsophisticated in theirunderstandingofqualityin OLTE.

OLC (www.olc.org) has studied onlineeducation in higher education in the U.S. forover a decade. They established a qualityframework around their five pillars: learningeffectiveness, cost effectiveness andinstitutional commitment, access, facultysatisfaction, and student satisfaction (Moore,2005). They developed quality scorecards forboth online and blended models to helpinstitutions “determine strengths andweaknesses of their program, and initiateplanning efforts towards areas ofimprovement” (OLC, n.d.). The scorecard forfully online covers institutional support,technology support, course development/

11

instructional design, course structure,teaching and learning, social and studentengagement, faculty support, studentsupport, andevaluations andassessment. Forblended learning social and studentengagement is omitted, and we assume theomission is likely motivated by the fact that infully online courses, engagement is difficult toachieve; whereas, in blended learning, oneassumes the presence of engagementbecause of the f2f component. Theseelements include indicators of achievement.The elements that OLC considers toconstitute quality are similar for otheraccrediting agencies. There are no measuresof either student learning or of their futuresuccess as language teachers. Instead, thesurrogate of student satisfaction andengagement is used. Many of the studiesreported here, as well as others, use studentsatisfaction with their online courses as anindirect measure of quality.

QM (www.qualitymatters.org) offers variousstandards and rubrics for evaluating thedesign of online and blended courses forhigher education, K-12, continuing andprofessional education (CPE), and publishersin higher education and K-12, as well asstandards and rubrics for the development ofonline instructors’ skills. “The rubrics areintended to guide users through thedevelopment, evaluation, and improvementof your online and blended courses.” (QM,n.d.). QM reinforces two important measuresof quality—the design of courses and thedevelopment of online instructors’ skill sets.

AQUEDUTO (www.aqueduto.com) is a not-for-profit organization that is dedicated tothree main activities: (1) evaluating blendedandonlinecoursesagainst aquality assuranceframework (i.e., accrediting courses andprograms), (2) representing providers ofcourses, and (3) helping professionals identifycourses and enroll in them with confidence.The Quality Assurance Framework looks atthree domains of technology mediatedtraining: institutional, technological, andpedagogical. Within each domain sub-domains and quality indicators have been

identified (AQUEDUTO, n.d.).

Teacher Attitudes andPerception

"Research studies that haveexamined attitudes towardsonline teacher education(although not for languageteachers) as a measure of qualityhave shown mixed results"

Research studies that have examinedattitudes towards online teacher education(although not for language teachers) as ameasure of quality have shownmixed results,with U.S. public school principals beingapprehensiveabout the“teacherdispositionsand the ‘social’ aspects of teaching that maybe compromised in an onlineprogram” (Huss, 2007, n.p.). In contrast, alarge-scale,multi-year study of online andon-campus graduates from K-8 teachereducation programs in a large publiceducation system (Chiero & Beare, 2010)found that employment supervisorsconsidered online program completers to bewell prepared or adequately prepared andthatTLsconsidered themselveswellpreparedor adequately prepared relative to 12measures of teaching. Additionally,supervising teachers found the TLs fromonline programs were better prepared thanthe on-campus TLs.

Discovering what TLs and teacher educatorsknow,believe, and thinkaboutonline learningis essential to the creation of effective OLTEcourses and programs because TLsatisfaction with OLTE courses and programsis one indirect measure of quality (Murray &Christison, 2017; Rodriquez, 2016). As Borg(2003) has pointed out, assumptionsregarding the importance of teachercognition (i.e., what teachers think andbelieve about teaching) are “now largelyuncontested” in the literature. TLsare“active,thinking decision-makers” who draw on“complex, practically-oriented, personalizedandcontext-sensitivenetworksofknowledge,

12

thoughts, and beliefs,” (p. 81). Research thatinvestigates TL and teacher educatorperceptions of OLTE helps us understandhow they are affected by the onlinepedagogical practices that are available tothem. “It is important to have a large numberof teacher educator and TL voices toaccumulate sufficient knowledgeaboutOLTEfromthepractitioners’ pointsof view” (Murray& Christison, 2017, p. 37).

Frameworks for Examining OLTE

If the goal of an OLTE program is for teachergraduates to be able to achieve positiveoutcomes, that is, todemonstrate effective TLlearning, then research and SLTE need tofocus on teacher work as the knowledge basefor OLTE programs. OLTE sits within twostrong traditions: distance education andlanguage teacher education. Distanceeducation has a long history, moving frompaper-based to video-based and to onlinedelivery such thatmostdistanceprogramsarenow situated in online learning. Teachereducation also has a long history of differentimplementations, and different frameworkshave been developed to theorize the work ofboth traditions. Because there is a paucity ofresearch directly related to OLTE, it isnecessary to examine general principles thathave been developed from studies of onlinehigher education and language teachereducation,aswell ashowthoseprinciplesmayhave been applied to OLTE. Kebritchi,Lipschuetz, and Santiague (2017) provide anextensive review of the extant literature.

Frameworks for Online EducationOne of the most commonly used frameworksin OLTE is that of community of inquiry (CoI).The core claim for the choice of CoI has beenthat “[i]n an environment that is supportiveintellectually and socially, and with theguidance of a knowledgeable instructor,students will engage in meaningful discourseand develop personal and lastingunderstandingsof course topics” (RourkeandKanuka, 2009,p. 21). The threecomponentsofonline CoI can be conceptualized as follows:

• Teaching presence. “the design,facilitation and direction of cognitive andsocialprocesses for thepurposeof realisingpersonally meaningful and educationallyworthwhile outcome” (Anderson, Rourke,Garrison, & Archer 2001, p. 5).

• Cognitive presence. “the extent towhich the participants in any particularconfiguration of a community of inquiryare able to construct meaning throughsustained communication” (Garrison,Anderson, & Archer 2001, p. 89).Cognitivepresencehasbeen identifiedas having four indicators: trigger,exploration, integration, andresolution, in ascending order ofcomplexity (Garrison et al., 2001).

• Social presence. Social presence isdefined as “the ability of participants ina community of inquiry to projectthemselves socially and emotionally, as‘real’ people (i.e., their full personality),through themediumofcommunicationbeingused” (Garrisonetal., 2001,p. 94)and collaboration and interaction inOLTE are important components inactualizing social presence. Socialpresence has been identified as havingthree indicators: (1) emotionalexpression, (2) open communication,and (3) group cohesion (Garrison et al2001).

More attention has been paid to socialpresence than to cognitive presence,probably because of warnings from earlystudiesgoingback to the1980s about the lackof visual or paralinguistic cues in computermediated communication (e.g., Murray,1988). In f2f communication, these cues carryaffective meanings that facilitate community.However, today, both visual andparalinguistic cues are available throughonline tools such as video conferencing.Another impetus for this focus may be thateducators are trying to replicate the f2fenvironment in an online one, instead ofexploiting the specific affordances thetechnology offers. One study that focused on

13

higherorder thinking in twodiscussion forumsamong TLs in the United Arab Emirates(McLaughlin &Mynard, 2009) found evidencefor the cognitive presence categories ofexploration and integration, but littleresolution. They also found differencesbetween the two forums, one of which was inapedagogicalgrammar course, and theotherin a Cognitive Academic Language LearningApproach (CALLA) course. TheCALLAcoursepostings exhibited more explorationpostings, while the pedagogical grammarcourse had more integration postings. Thisfinding seems to indicate that content canaffect cognitive presence.

Edmett (2018) noted thatdiscussions inonlineCoPs have the potential for bringing about achange in teachers’ practices, but thediscussions within the CoP need to advancecognitive presence and provideopportunities for deep critical thought.Edmett found that lower level discussionswere dominant among CoP groups, withteachers retelling events rather than criticallyreflecting on them. He also noted that theexamples of lower level discussions were notproportionate to the number of prompts.Changing the design of the CoP taskimpacted and shaped the substance of thediscussion and, therefore, the nature of thereflection.

Since the early formulation by Garrison andhis colleagues, a number of studies using theCoI framework (not on OLTE) have sought torefine and/or validate the framework, oftenbyisolating one of the three components, butalsoby examining the intersectionof all three.These re-workings have included areconceptualization of the components, forexample dividing social presence into twoconcepts: social presence that involves thedegree of realness of the other person in thecommunication, and social space, that is, thesalience of social interpersonal relationships(Kreijns, VanAcker, Vermeulen, & vanBuuren,2014).Yet, another study (Kim,2011) foundthesocial presence to include four constructs:“mutual attention and support, affectiveconnectedness, sense of community, and

open communication (p. 763).” In a multi-institutional study, Arbaugh et al. (2008)developed an instrument to operationalizetheCoI framework. Their study supported thevalidity of the dimensions of social andcognitive presence. However, the analysisrevealed that teaching presence as aconstruct consisted of two factors: coursedesign, as well as organization and instructorbehavior. Armellini and de Stefani (2016) in astudy of online participant-tutor and peerexchanges in a blended CPD program inUruguay found that teaching presence andcognitive presence had become social and,therefore, proposed the CoI frameworkshould identify social presence as moredominant.

Social presence has been found to be animportant contributor to student satisfaction(e.g., Richardson&Swan, 2003;Cobb, 2009). Ifsatisfaction is an important aspect of quality,and it is facilitatedby social presence, thenweneed tounderstandwhat contributes to socialpresence. Some studies indicate that videotechnologies improve interaction, especiallystudents’ perceptions of instructor presence,but have less impact on student socialpresence (Borup, West, & Graham, 2012).Studies have also shown that social presenceis facilitated by collaborative learning (e.g.,Richardson and Swan, 2003; ColemanHampel, Hauck, & Stickler, 2012). However,the studies that have investigated onlinediscussion as a tool for collaboration have notbeen consistent, with some finding thatstudents collaborated interactively, whileothers found that students acted individually.In a study of the use of discussion boards bypreservice language teachers, Arnold andDucate (2006) found that their TLs were highlyinteractive and progressed in theirunderstanding of pedagogy, while usingsocial presence to facilitate their discussionson pedagogy. The results were unlike otherstudies of discussion boards that found TLparticipants were not very engagedinteractively with their peers (e.g., Pawan,Paulus, Yalcin, & Chang, 2003).

Arnold and Ducate’s (2006) TLs were actively

14

engaged in dialoging with their peers. Theyattributed this difference to the fact that therewas no teacher educator present on thediscussion board, so TLs directed theirattention to one another, rather than towritingmonologues for the teacher educator.Furthermore, the instructors had alsoprovided specific questions for students torespond to, as well as explicit grading criteria.Arnold and Ducate attributed the activeengagementofTLs toboth theabsenceof theteachereducatoron thediscussionboardandthe specificity of the pedagogical activity.Theseexplanations reinforceother reports oninteraction in OLTE (Murphy, 2004; Satar &Akcan, 2018; Coleman, et al., 2012).

Murphy found that TLs tend to engage inindividual rather than group work, unlesshigher-level collaborative processes, such asdeveloping shared goals or producing jointwork, are explicitly promoted by the teachereducator (e.g., Murphy, 2004). Furthermore,online teacher educators need to “moderateactivities, provide careful scaffolding of tasks,and give detailed instructions” (Coleman etal., 2012, p. 173) to promote interaction andcollaboration.

Thegoalof Satar andAkcan’s (2018) studywasto train theirpre-serviceTLs inhowto facilitateonline communities in their future teachingroles. This explicit instruction in tutoring skillsand online social presence improved the TLs’own online participation and interactivity. Inaddition to using the CoI framework on socialpresence as an analytical tool, they also usedSocial Network Analysis (SNA) and found arelationship between the two frameworks. Itwould, therefore, seem that SNA mightprovideanother useful analytical tool in futureresearch.

In an effort to tease apart the role of teachingpresence in the development of bothcognitiveandsocialpresenceonline,ShinandBickel (2012) report on multiple studiesinvolving different teacher educators of andinstructional approaches in a TeachingEnglish toYoungLearners (TEYL)CPDcourse.All teacher educators used discussion boards

to facilitate a CoI, while using differentapproaches. In the first study the teachereducator provided the topic and conductedthe discussion through questioning andproblem posing. They found that, althoughTLsexpressedsatisfactionwith thecourseandidea sharing, there was in fact no higher-levelcognitive presence, findings similar to thosediscussed above. Subsequently, the programmoved to participant-moderated discussionsusing a starter-wrapper approach (Hara,Bonk, & Angeli, 2000), in which assigned TLsmoderated thediscussion.TheseTLs initiatedtopics, asked questions, and summarized.Additionally, teacher educators restrictedposts to 150-250 words, and modeled theprocess. Shin and Bickel (2018) report that theprogram found this technique facilitatedsocial and cognitive presence throughgreater meaningful interaction. Over time,with more teacher educators using theapproach, variations on teaching presencewere observed as teacher educatorsgrappled with how to model, as well as whenand how to intervene. Earlier studies of onlinelearning in general similarly found thatinstructional activities, including task type,influenced cognitive presence (e.g., Kanuka,Rourke, & Laflamme, 2007; McLaughlin &Mynard, 2009) and that without teacherpresence, student discourse is diminished inquality, even though the discussions werestudent-centered (e.g., Meyer, 2003). Nomatter the approach, “participants valuehighly the opportunity to talk with and learnfrom their teaching colleagues who areworking in diverse contexts around theworld” (p. 118). However, Annand (2011), in areview of the literature (not in OLTE), foundthat “[r]elated research results indicate thatsocial presence does not impact cognitivepresence in a meaningful way” (n.p.). Hesuggests that cognitively oriented learningtheories may lead to best practices.

While the CoI has been extensively used as aresearch tool, in a review of 252 studies,Rourke and Kanuka (2009) found that only fiveincluded measures of student learning.Studies seem to mistake student activity forstudent learning, as Mason warned back in

15

1992 (as quoted in Satar & Akcan, 2018). Ourexamination finds similar pattern of studiesexamining the indicators of CoI, but notnecessarily studying the extent to which theycontribute to student learning. Therefore,because we have taken the position thatoutcomes of instruction are a critical measureof the quality of instruction, further researchneeds to be conducted before CoI can bedefinitively determined to be a frameworkthat defines effective online learning.

Frameworks for Language TeacherEducationLanguage teacher education over the pastcouple of decades has increasingly adoptedan outcomes-basedmodel, focusing on whatteachers need to know and be able to do as aresult of their education. Someof the impetushas been driven by accreditation systems,such as the Council for the Accreditation ofEducator Preparation (CAEP) in the UnitedStates,whichaccreditsCollegesofEducation,as well as the focus on quality assurance asdiscussed above. If we are to adopt thisapproach to quality, then language teachereducation must confront the problems ofintegrating theory and practice. Such anintegration has been considered problematicbecause, unlike other professional training,teacher candidates enter with intact beliefsystems about best practice, beliefs that arebased on their own schooling experiences(e.g., Lortie, 1975). Therefore, an essentialpart of teacher education is acculturation intothe CoP.

To that end, Freeman and Johnson (1998)proposed “an epistemological frameworkthat focuses on the activity of teaching itself—who does it, where it is done, and how it isdone” (p. 405). They argue that this focusneeds to address the interconnectedness of“(a) the nature of the teacher-learner, (b) thenature of schools and schooling, and (c) thenature of language teaching” (p. 406).Therefore, any discussion about quality inlanguage teacher education needs toexamine these three domains. The CoIframework has beenwidely, and the Freemanand Johnson framework has been applied

specifically to language teacher educationand research. The Freeman and Johnsonframework has been recently updated in aspecial issueof LanguageTeachingResearch.This issue elucidates who is doing Englishlanguage teaching, with whom, and to whatend (Freeman, 2018).

The TL comes to a program with priorknowledge and beliefs about languageteaching, knowledge and beliefs that evolveover time depending on context, and teachereducation seeks to facilitate this growth. Thecontext of teaching and learning is embodiedin schools, that is, physical and socioculturalsettings, and in schooling, the socioculturalprocess through which both teacher andlearners learn to be teachers and learners andlearn the values and expectations of thecommunity. Often these values andexpectationsarecontested in termsofaccess,power,andwhosewaysofknowingcount.Thenature of language teaching includespedagogical thinking and activity, the subjectmatter and the content, and languagelearning. However, this content is not facts forteachers to absorb, but rather an orientationto their practice, an examining of actualteaching to understand why it is the way it is,not the way it “should” be.

"The nature of language teachingincludes pedagogical thinkingand activity, the subject matterand the content, and languagelearning. However, this content isnot facts for teachers to absorb,but rather an orientation to theirpractice, an examining of actualteaching to understand why it isthe way it is, not the way it“should” be."

Within this framework, then, reside thenotions of reflective practice, CPD, and CoP(Lave&Wenger, 1991). Farrell (2016) analyzed116 research articles on language teachingthat focused on reflective practice from 58journals over a 5-year period and werecategorized under the topics of philosophy,principles, theory, practice, and beyond

16

practice. These topics alignwith FreemanandJonson’s framework. He found that teachersoverwhelmingly found that reflection in theseareas help them develop as practitioners.However, whether this reflection improvedthe quality of their teaching or led toimproved outcomes for learners was notdemonstrated in these studies. Effectiveprofessional development is coherent,ongoing, context driven, and collaborative(see Crandall & Christison, 2016). A recentstudy on CPD has focused on teacherlearning, and how that learning leads toemergent knowledge, which, in turn, leads toa paradigm shift that changes practice(Avalos, 2011; Brooke, 2014).Therefore, weare left with something of a dilemma.Teachers perceive the value of both reflectivepracticeandCPD;however, canweassert thatto prepare TLs for their teaching lives,institutional best practice should teach forandmodel reflective practice and CPDwithina variety of contexts in which TESOLpracticestake place?

Reflective practice is also considered criticalfor teacher educators. In a study on feedback,Contijoch-Escontria, Burns, and Candlin(2012) found that the tutors in an OLTEprogram in Mexico needed to “reflectcritically on their methodological proceduresand assessment practices within the onlinemedium…to consider the way language isused in online feedback, precisely because ofthe medium” (p. 36).

"Language teacher education hasprogressively adopted aconstructivist approach tolearning. (....), developing a CoP(Lave & Wegner, 1999) hasbecome a dominant goal ininstructional practices in generaland in online teacher learning inparticular"

Language teacher education hasprogressively adopted a constructivistapproach to learning. Consequently,developing a CoP (Lave &Wegner, 1999) hasbecome a dominant goal in instructional

practices in general and in online teacherlearning in particular (Murray, 2013b). The 18programs studied by Murray adopted avariety of different approaches, in addition todiscussion boards, to facilitate professionallearning communities: “collaborativeprojects, facilitated online; peer review ofassignments or videos of teaching; localtutoring; field experiences; and studentpresentations” (p. 95). Theseonlineprogramsall considered sharing of ideas and contextswas critical for knowledge development forTLs who were in disparate educationalsettings. Other research or scholarlydiscussions on OLTE, have also found thatCoPs can be supported by technology (see,for example, Khalsa, 2012). Khalsa identifiesthe conditions that need to be explored toensure the development of CoPs that result inlearning: shared identity, empoweringhumanrelationships, real people and real peopleneeds, more student choices, trust in a virtualteam setting, guidelines for a virtual teamsetting, and issues of power. Mann andTalandis (2012) compared two differenttechnologies for facilitating CoPs, one adiscussion list that was archived and the othera platform that allows groups to network. Thearchivewas accessible to all so that it couldbeused by potential students, TLs, and programgraduates. The other platform was availableto both TLs and program graduates. Theyconclude that forming and supporting onlineCoPs is highly complex and needs to becarefully designed for sustainability. Inparticular, they recommend that “thecognitive and social needs of the community[need to be balanced] with the needs ofindividual members” (p. 134).

By expanding their CoP to programgraduates, Mann and Talandis promoted aform of CPD through a CoP initiated duringinitial teacher education. Copland (2013) alsonoted the importance of having TLs interactwith teachers who had graduated from theprogram.

The Teaching PracticumIf a TL’s ability to be a teacher is the measureof a quality program, then teaching practice

17

provides one window into this ability. Therehas been a long tradition of the importance ofsupervised practice teaching in TESOL, fromRichards and Crookes’ 1988 seminal articlethrough numerous publications over the next40 years, to The CATESOL Journal’s 2015special section on the practicum (Santos,Olsher,&Abeywickrama,2015). Thesestudieshave confirmed its importance and, yet, havedemonstrated how it fails to live up toexpectations (e.g., Eröz-Tuğa, 2013; Freeman&Johnson,1998;Gebhard,2009;Santosetal.,2015). Research has found that, whenaccompanied by systematic reflection, TLsbecome “creators of their pedagogicalknowledge and theorizers of their classroompractice” (Yazan, 2015, p. 194). While someform of supervised teaching practice is anessential component in most languageteacher education programs that lead toofficial certification to teach in state-fundedschools, that is not the case in non-certification programs. Challenges includedifficulty in finding willing sites, such thatmany programs use micro-teaching andobservation only, while others admit onlystudents who are already certified orexperienced.

In OLTE programs, the problem isexacerbated by the challenges of distantsupervision. Of the 18 programs reported byMurray (2013b) only 10 reported includingsome form of teaching practice. Four of theprograms admittedonly experienced teacherstudents, while three were short CPDprograms, and one was a course for a trainerof trainers so that all enrolled students wereexperienced language teachers. Of the 10programs that required some form ofsupervised teaching practice, one had an on-campus residential, while another had ateacher educator visit the teaching sitebecause this was an in-country training fornew recruits to a language institute that hadtwo sites. The remainingeight programsuseda variety of strategies to supervise teachingpractice remote from the institution: studentsvideo-taping their teaching with self-, peer-,and teacher educator evaluations; remotesites and supervisors or mentor teachers

chosen and facilitated by the institute orstudents; action research projects; and areported field experience in each course ofthe program.

However, online activities, such asasynchronous collaborative forums have alsobeen shown to facilitate deep reflection(Bonadeo, 2013; Brooke, 2014). In Argentina,Bonadeo (2013) and her colleagues use theMoodle platform to support the practicum.The platform included forums for students toexchange lesson plans, materials, andteaching ideas; wiki texts for students torecord their practicum experiences, and alibrary of articles andwebsites. Students wereable to access one another’s work, respond toit, or borrow from it. She reports that studentsfound the collaborative, reflective activitiesbuilt aCoP for themsuch thatmanycontinuedto participate after graduation. Brooke (2014)studied preservice ESOL TLs during thepracticum, in which they used asynchronouse-journaling and collaborative discussionforums to engage in shared reflections ontheirexperiences.Brooke foundheneededtouse intensive scaffolding to help the studentsengage in a cycle of reflection (experience,reflection, generalization, testing), whichresulted in new understandings. To scaffoldreflection, he used Daloglu’s 2002 model inwhich students ask themselves: What did Ialready know but benefited from observing/teaching in school? What did I not know butlearned from observing teaching in school?What would I like to implement in my ownteaching? What are my comments on andreactions to the experiences that I have had?Similar to the studies mentioned above onsocial and cognitivepresence, careful teacherpresence was essential to effective reflection.However, likeFarrell’s 2017 reviewof theSLTEliterature, he found that while the reflectionwas effective, that is students learned to bereflective practitioners, the transformation toemergent knowing and a paradigm shift, didnot take place.

The necessary hardware and software haveemerged in recent years to simplify theprocess of making video-recordings of

18

classroom practice so that the process ismanageable and efficient (Hockly, 2018).Seidel, Stürmer, Blomberg, Kobarg, andSchwindt (2011) found that viewing andanalyzing videos of teaching were effective inpromoting critical reflection forboth inserviceand preservice teachers. While research onthe use of video recordings in Englishlanguage teacher education has focused ontheir use in f2f classrooms, it is easy to see thepotential for using video recordings forOLTE.IRIS Connect (https://www.irisconnect.com)and Video Enhanced Observation (VEO)(http://www.veo-group.com/) are two recentplatforms that allow teachers to record, edit,insertappropriate tags,andcommentontheirown and their peer’s videos of teaching.Davies, Perry, and Kirkman (2017) found theIRIS Connect platform to be useful inpromoting positive changes in teachers’thinking. IRIS Connect was used to facilitateinterventions in a number of researchprojectsthat were designed to promote and developonline CoPs.

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF)(educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk)piloted a professional learning program todetermine the impact of IRIS connect andfound, “the overwhelming majority ofteachers believed that the intervention was agood use of time and had improved theirteaching. Therewas also strongevidence thatthe programme changed teachers’ thinkingand classroom practice” (para. 5, KeyConclusion 1). Professor Christina Prestonfrom the University of Bedfordshire and theMiranda Net Fellowship (http://mirandanet.ac.uk) partnered to investigatethe impact of using IRIS Connect fordevelopingCoPs. Key findings from this studyinclude the following:

• ninety-nine percent of teachersreported an increase in conversationsbetween teachers about teaching intheir school,

• ninety-six percent felt they werewilling to take more risks,

• ninety-four percent said theirteaching had improved,

• eighty-eight percent felt there hadbeen a positive impact oncollaboration, and

• eighty-eight percent said theirconfidence had risen.

Compton (2009) suggested a virtual fieldexperience for OLTE, however, mostlanguage teachers taking OLTE programs/courseswill teach in conventional classrooms,even if they include CALL. Therefore, fieldexperiences or practicum should giveprospective teachers experience in f2fcontexts (Shin & Kang, 2014).

"Compton (2009) suggested avirtual field experience for OLTE,however,most language teacherstaking OLTE programs/courseswill teach in conventionalclassrooms, even if they includeCALL. Therefore, fieldexperiences or practicum shouldgive prospective teachersexperience in f2f contexts (Shin &Kang, 2014)"

RecommendationsBased on the fact that empirical research onOLTE is still in its infancy stage, therecommendations that we will make in thissection, have necessarily drawn on theresearch in other related areas, such as CALL,LTE, CoPs, computer mediatedcommunication (CMC), and computer-mediated technologies (CMT).

1. OLTE is a complex endeavor andneeds tobe researchedanddefinedin the literature so that discussionsreflect theways in which courses aredesigned and delivered. Much ofthe discussion regarding onlinelearning is based solely on theamount of time TLs spend online.This finding would suggest thatOLTE needs experienced teachereducators who are alsoknowledgeable OLTE coursedesigners to make the curricular,pedagogical, and technologicaldecisions about OLTE.

19

2. Moving an SLTE program online is acomplex process than can affectteacher education in a variety ofways, including the diversity ofparticipants who enroll in theprogram, the goals and objectivesof the program, and rate of attrition,and all of these factors may in turnaffect the purpose of the program.SLTEprograms that are consideringmoving either individual courses oranentire SLTEprogramonlineneedto think carefully about howmakingsuch a decision will affectinstructional and non-instructionalfactors, such as enrollments andavailability of qualified teachers.

3. Research in OLTE and in onlinelearning in general highlights thefact that flexibility is the mostappealing factor contributing to thereason why most TLs choose onlinelearning. Therefore, it seems thatflexibility must be taken intoaccount in all aspects of OLTE fromdesigning courses and programs toaccessing andmanaging all aspectsof instruction and administration.Making a decision about OLTE thatlimits the amount of flexibility TLswill have must be carefullyconsidered. For example, in the2017 Murray and Christison study,TLs gave OLTE courses thatincluded required synchronouslearning component a lower ratingbecause OLTE courses that includea required synchronous learningcomponent are less flexible than anOLTE course that is asynchronous.TLs also stated that they did not likefeatures of course design thatinterfered with flexibility, such asrestricting accessibility, Further,because TLs may be unused toflexibility, they may need additionalinstruction in how to manage theirtime.

4. Learning experiences in OLTE are

obtained ina virtual, rather thana f2fenvironment. Can TLs in OLTEcourses and programs who hope toteach in f2f environmentssuccessfully transfer knowledgeandskill sets? Can OLTE teachers andTLs who hope to teach in f2fenvironments transfer knowledgeand skills from the onlineexperience to the f2f context?

5. In addition, Wright (2010) sees therole of the teacher educator as acrucial factor in influencing thedevelopment of teacher candidatesin f2f contexts. Can teachercandidates in OLTE programsdevelop skills as reflectivepractitioners without f2f access toteacher educators? Can onlineteacher educators effectivelymodelappropriate f2f activities TLs willneed to use in their brick-and-mortar classrooms?Whatadditionalskills set do teacher educators needinorder to navigate suchdilemmas?

6. Muchof the literatureonOLTEworksfrom the assumption thatdeveloping a CoP in the onlineclassroom is an important (if not themost important) component ofensuring quality instruction. Yet,research on the role of online CoPsis just beginning (see, for example,Edmett, 2018);more researchneedsto be conducted before we canunderstand this aspect oftransferability.

Conclusion

"The education of Englishlanguage teachers in onlinecontexts warrants considerationas an independent domain ofresearch because educatingteachers online is very differentfrom educating teachers in f2fenvironments in a myriad ofways"

20

Based on the research that we have reviewed,including analyses of other researchsummaries provided by other scholars (see,for example Shin & Kang, 2017), we havedrawn a number of conclusions about OLTEand made several recommendations. Theeducation of English language teachers inonline contexts warrants consideration as anindependent domain of research becauseeducating teachers online is very differentfrom educating teachers in f2f environmentsin a myriad of ways, such as in the roles thatteachers assume, the design of learningmaterials, access topeers and instructors, andthe virtual environment. Although the f2f andOLTE environments are different, researchneeds to consider the SLTE knowledge baseframework that is thebasis forOLTE (Freeman& Johnson, 1998; Freeman, 2018).Furthermore, it is also important to recognizethat OLTE is not a generic context. Onlinecontexts vary as much as f2f contexts do. Assuch, there can be no “one size fits all”approach to OLTE. For example, researchersmust take great care in defining thecharacteristics of the online environment, todescribe the options for the delivery ofmaterials and possibilities for interactionamong teacher learners. The process ofteaching and learning online is necessarilyand intricately tied to the types of tasks andactivities that are available and selected foronline learning, and researchers areparticularly interested in the types of tasksthat are useful in building and sustainingonlineCoPs.CoPs, in turn, support teachers indeveloping a reflective practice (Freeman &Johnson, 1988; Freeman, 2018; Smith 2014;Wright, 2010).

Gaudin and Chaliès (2015) have noted thatviewing videos of teaching has become animportant component in SLTE and PD.Developments in technology, such ascompact digital cameras andmobile devices,have made it possible for teachers to recordtheir own teaching and share these recordedexamplesof teachingonline.OLTEpresents anew set of possibilities and opportunities forteaching and learning English. Along withexciting new possibilities and opportunities

come challenges for researchers, teacherlearners, and teacher educators. Reviews,such as this one, provide an opportunity forongoing reflection about the development ofeffective OLTE courses and programs.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years

of tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved

from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/

changingcourse.pdf

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001).

Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing

context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2).

Retrieved from http://www.aln.org/pubications/jaln.v4n2/

v5n2...anderson.asp

Anglada,L,&Banegas,D.L. (2012) (Eds.).Viewsonmotivation

andautonomy inELT:Selectedpapers fromtheXXXVII FAAPI

conference. San Martín de los Andes, Argentina: APIZALS.

The Association for Quality Education and Training Online

(AQUEDUTO) (n.d).QualityAssuranceFramework. Retrieved

from http://aqueduto.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/

Aqueduto-Quality-Assurance-Framework-Version-3.0-

Approved.pdf

Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of

inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in

Open and Distributed Learning, 12(5). Retrieved from http://

www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/924/1855

Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D.

R., Ice, P. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing

a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the

community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional

sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133-136.

Armellini , A. & de Stefani, M. (2016). Social presence in the

21st century: An adjustment to the community of inquiry

framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6),

1202-1206. doi:10.1111/bjet.12302

Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006).Future foreign language

teachers’ social and cognitive collaboration in an online

environment. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 42–

66.

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in

21

Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 27, 10-20.

Banegas, D. L., & Manzur Busleimán, G. (2014). Motivating

factors in online language teacher education in southern

Argentina. Computers & Education, 76, 131–142.

Bauer-Ramazani, C. (2006). Training CALL teachers online. In

P. Hubbard &M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp.

183-200). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

Bonadeo, F. S. (2013). Using a virtual classroom in the

practicum: Innovations and enhanced practices. Argentinian

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 79-87.

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A

review of research on what language teachers think, know,

believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109.

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving

online social presence through asynchronous video. Internet

and Higher Education, 15, 195-203. Retrieved from http://

www . n o r t h e a s t e r n . e d u / n u o l i r c / w p - c o n t e n t /

uploads/2014/04/video-and-instuctor-presence-.pdf

Brooke, M. (2014). Developing the reflective practice

capabilities of pre-service trainees through online means. 4th

CELC Symposium Proceedings (pp. 50-60). Retrieved from

http : / /www.nus .edu.sg/ce lc/ research/books/4th

%20Symposium%20proceedings/8).%20Mark%20Brooke

%2017-10-2014.pdf

Brown, S. (2010). From VLEs to learning webs: The

implications ofWeb 2.0 for learning and teaching. Interactive

Learning Environments, 18(1), 1-10.

Charlier, B. (2011). Actors: From audience to provider. The

American Journal of Distance Education, 25, 226–237.

Chiero, R., & Beare, P. (2010). An evaluation of online versus

campus based teacher preparation Programs. MERLOT

JournalofOnlineLearningandTeaching,6(4). Retrieved from

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/chiero_1210.pdf

Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A

current view from a research perspective. Journal of

Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241-254. Retrieved from

http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/8.3.4.pdf

Coleman, J. A., Hampel, R., Hauck, M., & Stickler, U. (2012).

Collaboration and interaction: the keys to distance and

computer-supported language learning. In G. S. Levine, A.

Phipps,&C.Blythe (Eds.),Critical and intercultural theory and

language pedagogy (pp. 161–180). Florence, KY: Cengage

Learning.

Compton, L. K. L. (2009). Preparing language teachers to

teach language online: A look at skills, roles, and

responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22

(1), 73-91.

Contijoch-Escontria, M. C., Burns, A., & Candlin, C. N. (2012).

Feedback in the mediation of learning in online language

teacher education. In L. England (Ed.), Online language

teacher education: TESOL perspectives (pp. 22-77). New

York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Cooper, H. (1988). The structure of knowledge synthesis: A

taxonomyof literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1, 104–

126.

Contijoch-Escontria, m de C., Burns, A., and Candlin, C N.

(2012). Feedback inmediation of learning in online language

teacher education. In L. England (Ed.), Online language

teacher education (pp. 22-38). New York, NY: Routledge,

Copland, F., & Garton, S. (2012). Life after online learning. In

L. England (Ed.), Online language teacher education: TESOL

perspectives (pp. 64-77). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Copland, F. (2013). Distance learning at Aston University.

Retrieved from http://www.tirfonline.org/wp-content/

uploads/2013/02/TIRF_OLTE_CaseReport2_Copland.pdf

Crandall, J., & Christison, M. A. (2016). An overview of

research in English language teacher education and

professional development. In J. Crandall & M. A. Christison

(Eds.), Global research on teacher education and

professional development in TESOL (pp. 3 – 34). New York,

NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Daloglu, A. (2002). Fostering reflective teaching from the

start: journal keeping in pre-service teacher education. In J.

Burton & M. Carroll (Eds.), Journal writing: Case studies in

TESOL practice series (pp. 87-101) Alexandria, VA: Teachers

of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Davies,P., Perry, T.,&Kirkman, J. 2017. IRISConnect:Developing

classroom dialogue and formative feedback through collective

video reflection. Education Endowment Foundation. Retrieved

from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/

22

f i l e s / P r o j e c t s / E v a l u a t i o n _ R e p o r t s /

E E F _ P r o j e c t _ R e p o r t _ I R I S . p d f .

Dörnyei, A., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching

motivation (2nd edition). Harlow, England: Longman

Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (n.d.). IRIS

Connect: Developing classroom dialogue and feedback

through collective video reflection. Retrieved from https://

educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/projects-and-

evaluation/projects/iris-connect.

Edmett, A.W. (2018). Online professional development of

English teachers: An analysis of cognitive presence via the

community of inquiry framework (Doctoral dissertation),

University of Bath, Bath, England.

England, L. & Hall, D. (2012). The future of Online TESOL. In

L. England (Ed,), Online language teacher education: TESOL

Perspectives (pp.187-199). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ernest, P., Catasús, M. G., Hampel. R., Heiser. S., Hopkins. J.,

Murphy. L., & Sticker, U. (2013).Online teacher development:

collaborating in a virtual learning environment. Computer

Assisted Language Learning, 26(4), 311-333.

Eröz-Tuğa, B. (2013). Reflective feedback sessions using

video recordings. ELT Journal, 67, 175–183.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2016). Anniversary article: The practices of

encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective

practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions.

Language Teacher Research, 20(2), 223-247.

Freeman,D. (2018).Arguing foraknowledge-base in language

teacher education, then (1998) and now (2018). Language

Teaching Research. doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777534

Freeman,D. andJohnson,K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the

knowledge –base of language teacher education. TESOL

Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417.

Gakonga, J. (2012). Collaboration or bust? An inquiry into the

use of differing on-line models of delivery for a pre-service

grammar course for English teachers (Masters dissertation).

University of Warwick. Retrieved from http://

englishagenda.brit ishcouncil .org/sites/ec/f i les/Jo

% 2 0 G a k o n g a % 2 0 I m p a c t % 2 0 s t a t e m e n t

%202012%20þEU.pdf.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000). Critical

inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing

in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2,

87–105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001). Critical

thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to

access cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance

Education, 15(1), 87-105.

Gaudin, C., & Chaliès, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher

education and professional development: A literature

review. Educational Research Review 16, 41–67.

Gebhard, J. G. (2009). The practicum. In A. Burns & J. C.

Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language

teacher education (pp. 250-258). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of

online discussion in an applied psychology course.

Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152.

Hall, D. R., & Knox, J. (2009). Issues in the education of TESOL

teachers by distance education. Distance Education, 30(1),

63-85.

Hall, D. & Knox, J. (2012). Rewards and Challenges of Online

ProgramAdministration. In L. England (Ed.),Online language

teacher education: TESOL perspectives (pp. 137-153). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Healey, D. (2012) Planning a Distance Education Course for

Language Teachers:What AdministratorsNeed toConsider.

In L. England (Ed.), Online language teacher education:

TESOLperspectives (pp. 172-184).NewYork,NY: Routledge.

Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the course: A study in online

student satisfactionandretention.OnlineJournalofDistance

Learning Administration, 9(4). Retrieved from https://

www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter94/herbert94.htm

Hiver, P. (2013). The interplay of possible language teacher

selves in professional development choices. Language

Teaching Research, 17(2), 210–227.

Hockly, N. (2018). Video-based observation in teachereducation. ELT Journal, 72(3), 1-7. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccy022.

Huss, J. A. (2007). Administrator attitudes toward online

teacherpreparationprograms:Areprincipals loggingon—or

logging off? Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/

EJ987301.pdf

23

Johnson, M. (2002). The role of computer-supported

discussion for language teachers: What do the students say?

CALICO Journal, 20, 1, 59-80.

Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence

of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260–271.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00620.x

Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues

and challenges for teaching successful online courses in

higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational

Technology Systems, 46(1), 4-29.

Khalsa, D. K. (2012). Creating communities of practice. In L.

England (Ed.), Online language teacher education: TESOL

perspectives (pp. 81-92). New York: NY: Routledge,

Kim, J. J. (2011). Developing an instrument tomeasure social

presence in distance higher education. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 42, 763-777. doi: 10.1111/

j.1467-8535.2010.01107.x

Kreijns, K., Van Acker, F., Vermeulen, M. & van Buuren, H.

(2014). Community of Inquiry: social presence revisited. E-

Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 5–18.

Kumazawa, M. (2013). Gaps too large: four novice EFL

teachers’ self-concept and motivation. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 33, 45–55.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate

peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Lortie, D.C., 1975. Schoolteacher: A sociological study.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Luyt, I. (2013). Bridging spaces:Cross cultural perspectiveson

promoting positive online learning experiences. Journal of

Educational Technology Systems, 42, 3-20.

Mann, S. & Talandis, Jr, J. Developing communities of

practice at a distance. In L. England (Ed.), Online language

teacher education: TESOL perspectives (pp. 122-136). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Massi, M. P., Risso, Z., Verdú, M. A., & Scilipoti, P. (2012).

Tagging Facebook in the ELT picture: Developing student

motivation with social networks. In L. Anglada, & D. L.

Banegas (Eds.), Views on motivation and autonomy in ELT:

Selected papers from the XXXVII FAAPI conference (pp. 64–

69). San Martín de los Andes: APIZALS.

Mayes, R., Luebeck, J., Yu Hu, H., Askarasriworn, C., &

Korkmaz,O. (2011). Themes and strategies for transformative

online instruction. The Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 12, 151-166.

McLoughlin, D. & Mynard, J. (2009). An analysis of higher

order thinking in onlinediscussions. Innovations in Education

and Teaching International, 46(2), 147-160

McNaught, C. (2009). Ensuring quality programs. In M. A.

Christison & D. E. Murray (Eds), Leadership in English

language education: Theoretical foundations and practical

skills for changing times (pp. 156-171). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Meyer,K.A. (2003).Face-to-faceversus threadeddiscussions:

The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of

Asynchronous LearningNetworks, 7(3), 55-65. Retrieved from

https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/jaln_article/face-to-

face-versus-threaded-discussions-the-role-of-time-and-

higher-order-thinking-2/

MirandaNet (n.d.) Innovation in teachingand learning. Phase

one. Retrieved from https://www.irisconnect.com/us/wp-

content/uploads/sites/3//2016/02/Innovation-in-teaching-

and-learning-research-report.pdf

Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan Consortium quality framework

and the five pillars. Retrieved from http://

s l o a n c o n s o r t i u m . o r g / p u b l i c a t i o n s / b o o k s /

qualityframework.pdf

Murphy, E, (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration

in an on line asynchronous discussion. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 35(4), 421-431.

Murray, D. E. (2017). Should we offer a CALL course? In J-B.

Son & S. Windeatt, (Eds.), Language teacher education and

technology: Approaches and practices (pp. 169-183).

London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.

Murray, D.E. (2013a). Technology for literacies. In C.A.

Chappelle (Ed.). TheEncyclopediaofAppliedLinguistics (pp.

186-199). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Murray, D. E. (2013b). A case for online language teacher

education. Retrieved from http://www.tirfonline.org/wp-

c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 3 / 0 5 / T I R F _O L T E _ T w o -

PageSpread_May2013.pdf.

Murray,D.E. (1988). Thecontextoforal andwritten language:

24

A framework for mode and medium switching. Language in

Society, 17(3), 351-373.

Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. A. (2017). Online language

teacher education: Participants’ perceptions and

experiences. Retrieved from https://www.tirfonline.org/wp-

c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 7 / 0 3 /

TIRF_OLTE_2017_Report_Final.pdf.

Noack, R. &Gamlo, L. (April 23, 2015). Theworld’s languages

in 7 maps and charts. Retrieved from https://

www .w a s h i n g t o npo s t . c om / n ew s /wo r l d v i ew s /

wp/2015/04/23/the-worlds-languages-in-7-maps-and-

charts/?utm_term=.a7909508448b

Nunan, D. (2012). Foreword. In L. England (Ed.), Online

language teacher education: TESOLPerspectives (pp. vii-xv).

New York, NY: Routledge.

OECD. (2005). E-learning in tertiary education: Where do we

stand? Paris, France: OECD.

OLC. (n.d.). OLC quality scorecard: Criteria for excellence in

the administraiton of online programs. Retrieved fromhttp://

onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/quality-scorecard/

Opp-Beckman, L. (2012). Administration of online distance

education academic services in support of ESOL e-learners.

In L. England (Ed.), Online language teacher education:

TESOLperspectives (pp. 157-165-77).NewYork,NY: Taylor&

Francis.

Pawan, F., Paulus, T.M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. (2003). Online

learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-

service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3),

119–140. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/

pawan/.

QM (n.d.).QMRubrics and standards. Retrieved fromhttps://

www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards

Richards, J. C. &Crookes, G. (1988). The practicum in TESOL.

TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 9-27.

Richardson, J. & Swan, K. (2004). Examining social presence

in online course in relation to students’ perceived learning

and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 7(1), 68-88. Retrieved from https://

onl inelearningconsort ium.org/si tes/default/ f i les/

v7n1_richardson_1.pdf

Rodriquez, M. E. (2016). Effective pedagogical practice in

online English language teacher education. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona. Retrieved from

h t t p s : / / r e p o s i t o r y . a r i z o n a . e d u / b i t s t r e a m /

handle/10150/613241/azu_etd_14601_sip1_m.pdf?

sequence=1

Rourke, L. & Kauka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of

inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance

Education, 23(1), 19-48.

Rudestam, K.E. & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2010). Handbook of

online learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Santos,M.G.,Olsher,D.,&Abeywickrama,P. (2015).Charting

our course: What the practicum still matters to us in TESOL.

The CATESOL Journal, 27(2), 89-100.

Satar, H. M. & Akcan, S, (2018). Pre-service EFL teachers’

online participation, interaction, and social presence.

Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 157-183. https//

dx.doi.org/10125/44586

Seidel, T., Stürmer, K, Blomberg, G., Kobarg,M., & Schwindt

K. (2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped

classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether

teachers observe their own teaching or that of others?

Teaching and Teacher Education 27(2), 259-67.

Shin, D., & Kang, H-S. (2017). Online language teacher

education: Practices and possibilities. RELC Journal, 1-2.

doi.org/10.1177/0033688217716535

Shin, J. K. &Bickel, B. (2012). Building anonline community of

inquirywithparticipant-moderateddiscussions. In L. England

(Ed.). Online language teacher education (pp. 102-121). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Simpson,O. (2012). Supporting students for success in online

and distance education (3rd edition). New York/Abingdon,

NY: Routledge.

Smith, S. U. (2014). Frameworks shaping and online

professionaldevelopmentprogramforK-12 teachersofELLs:

Toward supporting and sharing of ideas for empowering

classroom teachers online. TESOL Journal, 5(3), 444-464.

Son, J.-B. (2014). Moving beyond basics: From CALL

coursework to classroom practice and professional

development. InJ.-B.Son (Ed.),Computer-assisted language

earning: Learners, teachers and tools (pp. 122-149).

Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars

25

Publishing.

Son, J.-B., & Windeatt, S. (Eds.) (2017). Language teacher

education and technology: Approaches and practices.

London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.

Stockwell, G. (2013). Technology and motivation in English

language teaching and learning. In E. Ushioda (Ed.).

International perspectives onmotivation: Language learning

and professional challenges (pp. 156-175). Basingstoke,

England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thornbury, S. (2016). Educational technology: Assessing its

fitness forpurpose. InM.McCarthy (Ed.).Cambridgeguide to

blended learning (pp. 25-35). Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Ushioda, E. (Ed.). (2013). International perspectives on

motivation: Language learning and professional challenges.

Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning and motivation, self

and identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer

Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199-210.

Wright, T. (2010). Second language teacher education: A

reviewof recent researchonpractice. LanguageTeaching, 43

(3), 259-96.

Yazan, B. (2015). “You learn best when you’re in there”: ESOL

teacher learning in the Practicum. The CATESOL Journal, 22

(2), 171-199.

Xiao, J. (2012). Tutors’ influence on distance language

students’ learning motivation: Voices from learners and

tutors. Distance Education, 33(3), 365-380.

Please use the following details torefer to this publication:

Murray. D.E. and Christison, M. (2018).Online Language Teacher Education: AReview of the Literature. Aqueduto, Norwich.

26