Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:42:15.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introducing EFL faculty to online instructional conversations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2011

Carla Meskill  and
Gulnara Sadykova
Carla Meskill*
Affiliation:
Department of Educational Theory and Practice, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222 (email: cmeskill@uamail.albany.edu)
Gulnara Sadykova*
Affiliation:
Department of Educational Theory and Practice, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222 (email: gsadykova@yahoo.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes the anatomy and dynamics of an online professional development activity, the Moodle fishbowl. The fishbowl was designed as an opportunity for experienced EFL educators to witness and make sense of instructional conversation strategies that they might themselves use as they migrate their EFL courses to blended and eventually fully online venues, venues where the roles and dynamics of interaction are decidedly different than those in the live classroom. A major emphasis in this professional development sequence was to raise faculty awareness of the unique affordances on which they, as experienced language educators, might capitalize through observation of authentic examples of responsive online instructional strategies. To that end, three-week-long collaborations were established between participating faculty's EFL students and a ‘cultural expert’ in the US. The cultural experts were doctoral students in language technology who employed instructional conversation strategies with the EFL students as part of informal, authentic asynchronous threaded discourse topics. The role of the faculty in training was to observe these conversations by looking into the metaphorical fishbowl, reflect on the anatomy and impact of these online instructional conversations, and report back to the group as a whole. The following narrates the rationale, processes and outcomes of this Moodle fishbowl professional development sequence and suggests future considerations in supporting language educators as they move some or all of their instruction online.

Keywords

Teaching languages onlinesociocultural perspectivelanguage teacher professional developmentonline instructional conversationslearner-centered online language teaching.
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 23 , Special Issue 3: Special issue on CALL and CMC teacher education research , 01 September 2011 , pp. 200 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Badger, R. (2007) Ideas that work in college teaching. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G.Sheckler, R. (2004) Designing system dualities: characterizing an online professional development community. In: Barab, S., Kling, R. and Gray, J. H. (eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 53–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, S. (2003) Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what languages teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36: 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darling-Hammond, L.Bransford, J. (2005) Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Dooly, M., (in press) Divergent perceptions of telecollaborative language learning tasks: Task-as workplan vs. task-as process. Language Learning Technology.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (1994) Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78: 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dozier, C., Johnston, P. H.Rogers, R. (2006) Critical literacy/critical teaching: Tools for preparing responsive teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Dringus, L. (1999) Towards active online learning: a dramatic shift in perspective for learners. Internet and Higher Education, 2(4): 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994) The study of second langauge acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fanslow, J. (1987) Breaking rules: Generating and exploring alternatives in language teaching. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2003) Language learning online: Towards best practice. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, C. (2008) Teaching English language learners: What the research does and does not say. American Educator, 32(2): 8–23.Google Scholar
Hall, J., Cheng, A.Carlson, M. (2006) Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(2): 220–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampel, R. (2009) Trainee teachers for the multimedia age: Developing teacher expertise to enhance online learner interaction and collaboration. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1): 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, M.Hampel, R. (2008) Strategies for online environments. In: Hurd, S. and Lewis, T. (eds.), Language learning strategies in independent settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilliker-VanStrander, S. (2007) Online collaboration of teachers in professional development for instructional technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State University of New York: Albany.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1986) Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10: 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (1994) The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10: 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, K. (2002) Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. Internet and Higher Education, 5: 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubanyiova, M. (2006) Developing a motivational teaching practice in EFL teachers in Slovakia: Challenges of promoting teacher change in EFL contexts. TESL-EJ, 10 (2) http://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej38/a5.pdfGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.Freeman, D. (2008) Language moves: The place of “foreign” languages in classroom teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 36: 146–186.Google Scholar
Lave, J.Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P.Spada, N. (2006) How languages are learned. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macbeth, D. (2004) The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language and Society, 33(5): 703–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meskill, C. (2009) CMC in language teacher education: Learning with and through instructional conversations. Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1): 50–68.Google Scholar
Meskill, C.Anthony, N. (2007) Form-focused communicative practice via computer mediated communication: What language learners say. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 25(1): 69–90.Google Scholar
Meskill, C.Anthony, N. (2010) Teaching languages online. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Miller, R., Benz, J.Wysocki, D. (2002) Encouraging collaborative learning: Computer-mediated conferencing or fishbowl interaction. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED472925.pdfGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R.Ortegano-Layne, L. (2007) Do classroom exemplars promote the application of principles in teacher education? Educational technology Research and Development, 56(4): 449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (2007) Enhancing professional development for teachers: Potential uses of information technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Pajares, F. (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Education Research, 62: 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roskos, K., Boehlen, S.Walker, B. (2000) Instructional conversation: the influence of self-assessment on teachers’ instructional discourse in a reading clinic. The Elementary School Journal, 100(3): 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C.Hamann, J. (1992) Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(2): 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schull, N. (2008) Video poker. In: Turkel, S. (ed.), The inner history of devises. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 153–171.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2004) The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversational analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tarone, E.Allwright, D. (2005) Second language teacher learning and student second language learning: Shaping the knowledge base. In: Tedick, D. (ed.), Second language teacher education: International perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum, 5–24.Google Scholar
Tharp, R. (1993) Instructional and social context of educational practice and reform. In: Forman, E., Minick, N. and Stone, C. (eds.), Contexts for Learning. New York: Oxford University Press, 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, S. (2002) Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimer, M. (2002) Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practices. New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar