What Does It Take To Teach Online

463

Mirjam Hauck and Uschi Stickler

What Does It Take to Teach Online? MIRJAM HAUCK URSULA STICKLER

The Open University, UK THE QUESTION OF PEDAGOGY

Increasingly, fundamental questions are being asked of online language learning: In what ways can online teaching benefit the language learner most? How can online environments be designed, or redesigned, to suit the purposes of language learners? Finally, what does the language teacher need to know to become a successful online tutor? In other words, questions of pedagogy for online language teaching are coming to the fore. They will need to assume even greater—and more sustained—importance, if online language learning is ever going to shed the image of being “second best” to face-to-face teaching and lose the peripheral status which it still seems to have for many researchers (Coleman, 2005). Conferences devoted to the topic of pedagogy such as EuroCALL 2004 (see Holzmann, Koleff, & Peters, 2005) and a number of seminal articles (see, e.g., Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2004; Felix, 2005; Thorne, 2005) all ask for an appropriate online pedagogy, whether in collaborative settings, from a constructivist perspective, or in the context of intercultural communication. Kern et al. (2004) offer an overview of recent trends in online language-learning pedagogy and research, identifying linguistic interaction, intercultural learning, and literacy and identity as three key areas of dynamic development. In all three areas, networked computing and the ready availability of opportunities for communication outside the traditional language classroom have offered new potential and, thus, new challenges to research and pedagogy. The focus of research has shifted from quantitative to qualitative methods, from inside the classroom to online settings, and from the learning of language(s) to the learning of culture(s). Scrutinizing in detail developments in one of these areas, Thorne (2005) outlines different models of “internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education.” Telecollaboration and e-tandem are just two ways in which computer-mediatedcommunication (CMC) can be used to further intercultural competence through meaningful dialogue. As Thorne acknowledges, teacher intervention, planning, and organization clearly play a crucial role in the success of these collaborative learning endeavors, yet a pedagogic framework for them is still to be created: “[T]he outstanding problem is how conditions for developing a capacity, and perhaps even hunger, for the challenges presented by intercultural communication can be inculcated in instructed FL settings” (p. 4). CALICO Journal, 23 (3), p-p 463-475.

© 2006 CALICO Journal

464

CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3

Rather than providing an overview of current research, Felix (2005) suggests a future pathway to make e-learning pedagogy fit for the third millennium by identifying the shift from instruction to construction of knowledge as the major tenet of online pedagogy—a sea change noticeable in the wider context of education that has led to calls for “unlearning pedagogy” (McWilliam, 2005). At the same time, Felix underlines the constraints of time and circumstance that make truly constructivist teaching in the everyday (language) classroom all but impossible. The solution she offers is to combine high-maintenance collaborative tasks of social constructivist teaching with automated activities for the cognitive construction of knowledge, thus placing intelligent CALL firmly back on the agenda for online pedagogy. This suggested combination “would on the one hand expose learners to sophisticated automated activities, engaging them in autonomous, predominantly cognitive and metacognitive processes; on the other, with the help of networked systems, it would involve them in collaborative, process-oriented real-life activities fostering psycho-social processes” (Felix, 2005, p. 96). SHIFTS AND CHANGES

One could argue in this context that language teachers have been faced with the necessity to “unlearn” pedagogy before. The tutor role in language education underwent considerable changes when approaches based on authentic communication and learner autonomy became pedagogical desiderata, if not outright demands (see, e.g., Holec, 1979; Rogers, 1969; Rogers & Freiberg, 1994). The advent of generally available1 and reliable information and communication technology (ICT) tools such as email, internet relay chat, or, more recently, instant messaging and audioconferencing has added to these trends, not a new dimension, but rather new attributes (ease and speed of access) and new quantities (number of Internet-based exchanges among people, the sheer mass of information available on the World Wide Web, access to native speakers and cultural informants virtually across the globe). In his “bibliometrical” research of CALL publications Jung (2005, p. 12) cites 61 instances of the descriptor “authenticity,” 98% of which are post-1992. The figures for “autonomy” are similar: 115 instances of which 83 (72%) belong in the post-1993 period. CALL itself has undergone quite dramatic changes in pedagogical paradigms in the wake of technological advancements. Since its beginnings in the 1960s, the use of computers in language teaching has moved from the initial computeras-tutor approach—based on a behaviorist learning model and reflected in repetitive drills—to communication and interaction via the computer, that is, CMC. Ubiquitous connectivity among learners has allowed the move from this cognitive approach to learning to an integrative, sociocognitive approach combining traditional language skills such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing with electronic literacy skills such as learning to interact with others through the use of a variety of technological tools as an integral part of language teaching (for a more detailed overview of the history of CALL, see Warschauer & Healey, 1998; or the more recent article by Bax, 2003).

Mirjam Hauck and Uschi Stickler

465

There is little doubt, that CALL and, more important, networked language-learning environments offering a variety of modes for communication and interaction have changed the face of the language classroom. These changes have had a profound and irreversible impact on language tutors and their perceived role(s)—in the classroom and beyond. The initial enthusiasm for increased opportunities for exposure to the L2 via online or ICT-supported interaction is reflected in a vast array of experimental, if often uncoordinated, uses of computers for language teaching (see Salmon, 2005). While we continue to discover the possibilities and constraints of CMC, a trial-and-error approach to pedagogy still seems to be the order of the day. This is partly due to the fact that “[n]etworked environments that allow learners to communicate using the full range of multimodal forms are relatively new” (Chun & Plass, 2000, p. 165), but it is also a result of the on-going, fast-moving development of technologies and the ensuing multiplicity of the modes they afford. It has become apparent that enthusiasm alone will not necessarily lead to successful learning experiences; “it is the tutor’s skill in managing learning activities which results in the success or failure of the learning event” (Shield, Hauck, & Hewer, 2001, n. p.), a factor also stressed by Jung (2005, p.15), Information technology may provide us with the means of overstepping the boundaries between classroom and real life, making experiential learning a possibility. It is true, we can allow nature to run its course nowadays. Nature, however, can be very unsympathetic on occasion to the cause of foreign-language learning. That is why we need teachers who can adapt or modify their students’ language acquisition devices when necessary.

There is, in other words, a growing consensus on the potential of developing an e-pedagogy for language learning. In common with some of the contributors to this special issue of the CALICO Journal, we would even go a step further and advocate that successful online tutors should know how to create a need in learners to adapt, stretch, and modify the means for communication and interaction available to them (see also Hampel & Hauck, in press). ROLES AND SKILLS

The successful online tutor needs to

1. combine and adapt different roles, including those of teacher, administrator, trouble shooter, and colearner (Shield et al., 2001); 2. have recourse to different styles of teaching (e.g., cognitive, social, etc.); and 3. develop new e-teaching skills.

That online teaching skills differ from face-to-face or traditional classroom teaching skills has been consistently argued by Salmon (2004). That online language teaching offers yet another challenge is the central thread of a recent paper entitled “New Skills for New Classrooms,” based on work done at the Open University’s Department of Languages (Hampel & Stickler, 2005). The authors

466

CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3

propose a “pyramid of skills” for successful online language teaching to capitalize on a situation where learner communication is doubly mediated by the foreign language and the learning environment. Research into online language pedagogy often comes from dedicated practitioners engaging in action research and motivated by a desire to improve practice in their field. This is also the backdrop for this special issue, which draws together different strands of online pedagogy. This collection, however, cannot cover even a fraction of all the possible combinations and applications of ICT and CMC for language-learning purposes. One notable absence is the lack of new and innovative research into synchronous videoconferencing because software development has not been as quick and reliable as anticipated. Simpler but more reliable applications (e.g., Internet phone) have, in the meantime, met with far greater popularity among users. The contributions to this issue come from geographically (and, of course, culturally) diverse regions, covering more than half of the globe. The institutional settings described in the articles vary widely, as does the involvement of researchers in the studies. In some cases, a number of different roles (e.g., teacher, tutor, trainer, researcher, organizer, work flow manager, course writer, etc.) are played by a single individual; in others, the authors are dedicated researchers. ASPECTS OF ONLINE PEDAGOGY

We have brought together articles in a number of areas ranging from tutorial or dedicated CALL via blended learning to tutor training and collaborative learning, and the articles investigate the use of virtual (language) learning environments, asynchronous and near-synchronous text-based CMC, as well as synchronous audiographic conferencing. The insights from practitioners on how to make the best use of online contexts in their particular circumstances and for their particular clientele illustrate the multifarious nature of the terms “online teaching” and “online learning” in the area of languages. The questions presented in the researchfocused articles show how much work there is still to be done in online language education and pedagogy, and even the findings in these articles lead to further questions.

Tutorial CALL

This issue opens with a research article in the area of tutorial CALL, a subject that has been unjustly neglected and unduly associated with behaviorism and which, according to some authors, should be brought back into the mainstream of online language learning research (see, e.g., Hubbard & Siskin, 2004). The starting point of Jozef Colpaert’s state-of-the-art article is his critique of various approaches to online language teaching and learning such as technology-driven or affordances-based methods. In a truly pedagogy-based approach, he argues, a detailed needs analysis and a definition of the method that is most suitable for this purpose should come first.

Mirjam Hauck and Uschi Stickler

467

Colpaert’s considerations are based on a comprehensive project exploring the potential of a “pedagogy-driven approach in research-based research-oriented CALL system design” (p. 480) where tutors inform CALL research by giving feedback and formulating new working hypotheses at critical points in the design and development process of applications for online language learning. In what he calls “dedicated CALL” (p. 479), online systems no longer shape languageteaching methods but, rather, it is the other way round. Acknowledging that the gap between technology and language pedagogy constitutes the main challenge in online teaching, Colpaert advocates a 10-step pedagogy-driven design process where teacher contributions play a pivotal role both in identifying and formulating needs and in developing solutions. A similar attempt to bridge the gap between technology and language pedagogy and to combine the development of both technical and pedagogical knowledge and competence in order to train ingénieurs pédagogiques ‘pedagogical engineers’ forms the background to the research of Mangenot and Nissen and also informs that of Lewis.

Blended Learning

If teachers, then, “can and should become contributors in CALL research,” (Colpaert, p. 494), our next three contributions prove that they are well on their way. Hubbard (2003) identified evaluation as one of the main gaps in CALL research. Yet evaluation is one of the contributions that practitioners are uniquely placed to make through their experience, through direct learner contact, and—as is the case here—through surveys and quality assurance measures implemented as part of the design and development process of their online language-learning modules and courses. It is crucial that these tutors, course designers, coordinators, and so forth not simply be satisfied with providing a good course but, instead, that they have set in motion action research to better understand and enhance both curriculum and tuition. From the UK, the US, and Chile, three contributions provide insights into the online classroom. It is no coincidence that these articles all report on projects based on “blended learning” or “hybrid courses.” Whether for pragmatic, financial, or pedagogic reasons, many institutions see blending as a solution to the practical problems of university teaching in the 21st century. For a variety of reasons, whether to increase access, student numbers, and the transferability of skills, or to give students a competitive edge in a global market, many language departments have incorporated online elements in their courses. Fortunately, the days when blended courses meant haphazardly compiled elements transferred to whatever medium happened to be available at the time and implied convenience on the cheap have long gone. All the examples presented here can in themselves be seen as “good practice;” yet, in generating insights that are applicable well beyond the immediate context of their production, these articles go well beyond “case studies” or “good practice guides.” In the first practitioner piece, Elena Polisca reports on how embedding a Web -CT-based independent language-learning program (ILLP) into an existing cur-

468

CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3

riculum for learners of Italian at the University of Manchester, UK, has influenced student motivation and the quality of the portfolios submitted for assessment. While proving a confidence booster for weaker students and helping them remain highly motivated throughout the course, the ILLP also allows stronger students to push themselves to the limits of their ability. As the author shows, a decisive element in a carefully planned ILLP is in-built reflection, not an obvious or immediate favorite with students but eminently useful in the longer term process of language learning. Empowered to intervene actively in their course via the platform and encouraged to depart from suggested activities and move on to more self-directed work, learners at both ends of the capability spectrum manage successfully to become less dependent on their teacher(s). Their portfolio work tends to be more personalized, and they seem more creative in editing online material than those students who opt out of the program. A similar case of blending and a study based on successful innovation born of necessity is presented by Emily Scida and Rachel Saury of the University of Virginia. They see their article as a contribution to the growing body of investigations focusing on how hybrid courses influence student learning and classroom practice. Their observations are based on a small-scale comparison of student performance in a hybrid program and in a traditional classroom. Following Littlewood (1990), who found that using language implies having constantly to create higher level plans in terms of ideas, meanings, and conversational strategies and that being able to execute these plans depends on the degree of automaticity at lower levels, they feel that such automaticity can be achieved by employing the computer as tutor. In accordance with Felix’s call for pedagogy for the third millennium (Felix, 2005), the authors hypothesize that hybrid courses can offer the ideal language teaching and learning scenario where an initially conservative use of the computer for practicing vocabulary and structures allows students to carry out higher level functions such as communication and writing. Whereas our American authors stress the emerging importance of Spanish as the major second or foreign language in US higher education institutions, Emerita Bañados from the Universidad de Concepción, Chile, emphasizes the need for the large-scale learning of English for a global market and as a valuable commodity in the education market itself. Considerable investment is targeted towards making this resource available to more students at a high level, and the chosen way of achieving this is by means of blended courses. Bañados’ article “A Blended-learning Pedagogical Model for Teaching and Learning EFL Successfully Through an Online Interactive Multimedia Environment” describes the implementation of a blended-learning program (English Online) at the Universidad de Concepción. She stresses the need for a multidisciplinary team of teachers, technicians, software developers, graphic experts, and video producers to find a “common language” (p. 541) and points out that this can require “hundreds of hours of discussing possibilities, sharing ideas, and jointly planning lessons” (p. 539). Only on this basis can maximum benefit be drawn from the substantial talents at hand and the creative potential available for developing a language-learning environment that reflects the tutors’ original vision. This article, written from a practitioner’s

Mirjam Hauck and Uschi Stickler

469

perspective, sheds light on both the solutions devised at the Universidad de Concepción and the steps needed to arrive at them. The processes described in all three of the above articles call to mind that the design of courses, for delivery wholly or partly online, continues to require large amounts of time, energy, and finances. However, as Colpaert quoting Cooper (1997) so pointedly reminds us: “The only thing more expensive than software is bad software” (p. 493). That these courses are also costly in terms of maintenance and updating and require more faculty input than face-to-face classes is a view shared by Pauline Ernest and Joseph Hopkins based on their experience at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya in Spain.

Tutor Training

The third section of this issue is concerned with the training that language tutors need when they set out to swap the classroom for the virtual world. Little has been written specifically on the topic of the training requirements for online language instructors, and it is hoped that every insight gained about what it is like to receive and/or to provide training will contribute to improved staff development efforts in the future. Ernest and Hopkins, course coordinators of the English program at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, consider issues arising from the training and support of online instructors. The context of their observations is quite different from the other case studies featured in this special issue, given that all courses at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya as well as course coordination activities and tutor training and support take place predominantly online, via asynchronous CMC at a virtual campus. This means, moreover, that students at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya are technoliterate by the time they start their language course. The authors have found that in their role as course coordinators they spend a substantial amount of their time on the training of colleagues and offer an overview of the initiatives they have taken over the last 10 years to meet tutor development needs. They identify the sharing of insights by tutors, regular opportunities for joint tutor reflection, and construction of knowledge on pedagogical issues as well as the constitution of a learning community among online teachers as critical factors in the successful delivery of any online course. The provision of a space for “communal warmth” (p. 558) where staff can share experiences, tips, and support is regarded as essential. Often, however, tutors are faced with having to develop their e-teaching skills without sufficient institutional support. This problem inspired one of the most exemplary “warm” spaces for training and development of online language instructors currently available, which is reported on by Teresa Almeida d’Eça and Dafne González. They set up and run a free, annual online workshop for teachers of EFL in particular. In “Becoming a Webhead” (BaW) language tutors equipped with a computer, an Internet connection, and, most important, a sense of adventure, get acquainted with various web communication tools and their potential use in teaching. BaW relies on hands-on activities followed by shared reflection among

470

CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3

participants where “[e]ach can be learner at one time and teacher at another” (p. 575). The “high tech and high touch” (p. 578) approach to training chosen by the course designers combines intensive hands-on learning with equally intensive human interaction. Its worldwide dimension, a nonthreatening atmosphere, and the human element provide a “powerful mix” (p. 578) for learners with varying levels of expertise who achieve their individual objectives collaboratively in an environment characterized by social scaffolding. This success does not come about naturally. This safe place for exciting pedagogical discoveries rests on a solid pedagogical basis: “Planning ahead, dividing tasks, being organized, in short, working collaboratively as a team has been the crucial factor of our e-moderation” (p. 578). At the other end of the spectrum, what happens when novice online tutors are left largely to their own devices is depicted very clearly in an honest and insightful account by one of our colleagues at the Open University.2 Tim Lewis tells us how he went about equipping himself with appropriate teaching skills for a multimodal online environment combining audiographic conferencing and WebCT. His starting point is the concept of teacher autonomy which, following McGrath (2000) and Smith (2000), he sees as the capacity for “self-directed professional development” (p. 590) and describes how he used three different instruments (i.e., reflection based on keeping a teaching journal and two action research methods, observation by a ‘critical friend,’ and discussions with a group of colleagues in an online forum) in order to systematically develop his online teaching skills. “When Teaching is Learning” also addresses the affective dimension of learning to teach online and the relevance of heightened teacher awareness of one’s own autonomy as well as that of learners. Lewis concludes with a critical analysis of the chosen tools in terms of their potential to bring about behavioral change in tutors who are about to or have already embarked on learning how to teach online.

Collaborative Learning

These considerations are taken a step further in the article by François Mangenot and Elke Nissen from the Université Stendhal in Grenoble, France. Theirs is the first contribution in the fourth and final section of this special issue, which features two articles inspired by one of the most exciting and fast-developing areas of online language learning: collaborative learning at a distance—or telecollaborative learning. The authors set out to remedy the perceived lack of information flow between the research areas of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and network-based language teaching (NBLT), particularly with regard to the impact on tutor involvement of collaborative versus noncollaborative settings. They compare and contrast learning contexts designed for collaborative work with more tutor-controlled and activity-led settings and find that although the learning platform and the course might be designed to encourage learner collaboration and reflective discussion, “just insisting on these aspects was clearly not enough” (p. 619). They see the tutor’s ability to raise learner awareness and acceptance of

Mirjam Hauck and Uschi Stickler

471

the need to develop an autonomous approach as well as new skills as pivotal for successful CSCL and emphasize that better teacher training is required to achieve this. Of all the forms of NBLT, it is telecollaboration that offers the greatest opportunity for cross-cultural and cross-linguistic collaborations of language learners (see Thorne, 2005). Robert O’Dowd at the Universidad de León in Spain and Markus Ritter at the Universität Essen in Germany present research that is based on their own telecollaboration projects and a comprehensive overview of other projects in the area. They offer a taxonomy of the causes of failed communication in telecollaborative exchanges and show how problem areas at various levels (e.g., individual and sociocultural factors) are often interrelated. Of significance, they also take into account collaboration between teachers as well as learners and the special case of virtual collaboration where, “contrary to other team-teaching efforts, teachers involved in online exchanges often do not even know each other face to face” (p. 630). Yet, they point out that their ‘inventory’ of pitfalls does not necessarily guarantee a successful outcome to those who use online communication tools with the aim of linking language learners from all four corners of the world. They see it rather as a reference guide, a way of making sure that areas of conflict and misunderstanding can be systematically turned into key moments of cultural learning for both tutors and students. CONVERGENCE(S)

While editing this volume, new connections and possible collaborations have become apparent to us: Would Spanish learners and tutors at universities in the US not benefit from collaboration with online students of English in Chile? Would novice tutors left to find their own training not benefit from “Becoming a Webhead?” Would research into tutorial CALL not be enriched by the attempts of technologists, software designers and English tutors to find a “common language?” The current volume is intended in the spirit of 1. bringing together different projects, 2. sharing reflection on experiences, 3. analyzing and discussing problems, 4. furthering a deeper understanding of what it takes to teach languages online, and 5. stimulating new and more far-reaching debates.

We trust this will lead to an increased awareness of tutor needs and hope that it will inform and enhance provision of appropriate training opportunities. We would like to encourage those teaching online to feel free to use and adapt the approaches described in the articles for reflective practice and to communicate their thoughts and experiences either via the CALICO mailing list (http://calico.org) or directly to the editors. Although the research-oriented and the practitioner-focused reports are clearly two elements to this special issue, the division between them is not as clear cut as we had originally envisaged. Going far beyond what Allwright (2003) has termed

472

CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3

‘exploratory practice,’ the practitioners have turned out to be truly reflective in their various approaches. They have shown a keen interest in the ongoing evaluation of their work with the aim of contributing to an existing body of knowledge about best practices in online language teaching. Moreover, their findings are relevant not only to the settings in which they work but are also more broadly applicable. All this is achieved in often less than favorable circumstances, or, as Ernest and Hopkins (p. 565) put it: “On a personal and professional level as online coordinators, we still find that we have to struggle to reconcile the multifaceted daily demands of our job with our desire to carry out much-needed research in the field.” Those whose primary focus is on research have shown that there is a variety of ways to tackle the question of online pedagogy ranging from a qualitative “case study” approach based on deep personal insights (that will reverberate with many a new language tutor) via a theoretically based comparative study of different teaching and learning environments and their inherent constraints and affordances to a more general advocacy of pedagogic considerations as the basis for online teaching. With the help of these studies, new light has been shed on what it takes to teach online. Online teaching takes technical know-how, content that is planned from a pedagogic rather than a technological perspective, creative adaptation of skills and teaching styles, training of tutors to equip them for work in an environment where—as a result of an increasing rate of technological development—the goalposts are permanently shifting, and thus a willingness to change, adapt, question, and improve constantly. Despite the hope of some administrators that online language teaching would allow cuts in staff costs, the teacher is still very much part of the learning context; maybe not as a “guide on the side,” and certainly not as a “sage on the stage,” but as a (co)designer of learning situations, mediator, and colearner in the search for information, the construction of knowledge, the development of competences, and the creation of opportunities for real and meaningful communication. THE ROAD AHEAD

While we continue to develop and explore new ways of using online media, “teaching is indeed learning,” and it will probably take a little longer to establish not only what it takes to teach online but also how we learn to teach online. Some of the challenges that lie ahead of us are 1. multimodality and new literacies, 2. open source/open content, and 3. online tutor training on a larger scale.

The increasing convergence of technologies makes new and different cognitive demands on tutors and learners. The varying degrees of embeddedness of modes in the new media and the resulting differences in ‘modal density’ (Hampel & Hauck, in press)—the number and interaction of modes available in one single medium (i.e., computer, cell phone, or palm pilot)—turn language acquisition in

Mirjam Hauck and Uschi Stickler

473

virtual environments into a new challenge. Moreover insights gained from one online learning and teaching environment might not necessarily be transferable to the next. Open source/open content make it all the more important to think of delivery as well as content, of pedagogy as well as affordances, and of teachers (virtual or real) as well as materials. Open content will only become relevant when what is offered is pedagogically prepared material rather than a haphazard collection of lecture notes. On the other hand, learning activities prepared for one cultural context might have to be re-thought or re-presented for the global audience of open accessibility in order to meet culturally diverse learners’ styles and needs. Language professionals are ideally placed for this task of “localizing.” Finally, online language teacher training is already gaining prominence, funding, and a public—both on a European level with projects such as Lancelot3 and internationally with Webheads. Other online communities of educators, not necessarily language specific, include Tapped In and Learning Times. At the outset, online language learning benefited from enthusiastic teachers (and learners) trying out new ideas. It is likely that investigations of online teaching and online tutor skills similarly rely on enthusiastic practitioners prepared to experiment with and reflect on their online teaching practice and its challenges. While we have presented here a range of views on the tasks and challenges of online pedagogy, a systematic overview of teacher training methods and reflective practice in online language teaching, a “How do we learn to teach online” collection might be the next step that is needed to carry this endeavor forward. NOTES 1

For a current discussion of the digital divide, see van Dijk, 2005.

It should be noted here that Associate Lecturers or tutors employed at the Open University to teach online language courses do, routinely, receive training for this. The situation for researchers and lecturers, however, is slightly different.

2

3 Lancelot: LANguage learning by CErtified Live Online Teachers, a European project launched in June 2005 (or more information, see http://www.kolabora.com/experts/heike_ philp/2005/07/09/lancelot_language_learning_by.htm).

REFERENCES Allwright, D (2003). Exploratory practice: rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7 (2), 113-141. Bax, S. (2003). CALL—Past, present and future. System, 31 (1), 13-28.

Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (2000). Networked multimedia environments for second language acquisition. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 151-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

474

CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3

Coleman, J. (2005). CALL from the margins: Effective dissemination of CALL research and good practices. ReCALL, 17 (1), 18-31.

Cooper, A. (1997). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Indianapolis, IN: SAMS.

Felix, U. (2005). E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: The need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17 (1), 85-100.

Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18 (4), 311-326.

Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (in press). Computer-mediated language learning: Making meaning in multimodal virtual learning spaces. Language Learning & Technology. Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Holzmann, C., Koleff, I. A., & Peters, K. (2005). TELL and CALL in the third millennium: Pedagogical approaches in a growing EU community. ReCALL, 17 (1), 1-3. Hubbard, P. (2003). A survey of unanswered questions in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16 (2-3), 141-154.

Hubbard, P., & Siskin, C. B. (2004). Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCALL, 16 (2), 448461. Jung, U. O. H. (2005). CALL: Past, present and future—A bibliometric approach. ReCALL, 17 (1), 4-17.

Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260. Littlewood, W. (1990). Teaching oral communication: A methodological framework. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

McGrath, I. (2000). Teacher autonomy. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 99-109). Harlow: Longman. McWilliam, E. (2005). Unlearning pedagogy. Journal of Learning Design, 1 (1), 1-11.

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.

Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Salmon, G. (2004) E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (2nd ed.). London, New York: Routledge Falmer. Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 13 (3), 201-218.

Shield, L., Hauck, M., & Hewer, S. (2001). Talking to strangers—The role of the tutor in developing target language speaking skills at a distance. In A. Kazeroni (Ed.), Proceedings of UNTELE 2000, Vol. II (pp. 75-84). Compiègne, France: Technological University of Compiegne. Available at http://www.utc.fr/~untele/vol ume2.pdf

Smith, R. C. (2001). Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher_autonomy.pdf

Mirjam Hauck and Uschi Stickler

475

Thorne, S. L. (2005). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education: Approaches, pedagogy, and research (CALPER Working Paper No. 6). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. London: Sage.

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31 (1), 57-71. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The editors would like to thank the following individuals for their invaluable help in reviewing contributions to this special issue: Jim Coleman, Nina Garrett, Regine Hampel, Stella Hurd, Christopher Jones, Marie-Noëlle Lamy, Monika Shelley, Lesley Shield, and Claire Bradin Siskin. AUTHORS’ BIODATA

Mirjam Hauck is a Senior Lecturer and Head of German in the Department of Languages at the Open University in the UK, where she has been involved in investigations of multimodal virtual learning spaces for language learning and teaching for almost a decade. She has also been responsible for the introduction of online language tuition and tutor training in the German section. Her current research and publications focus on the role of metacognitive knowledge and strategies in the context of electronic literacy. Dr. Ursula Stickler joined the Department of Languages at the Open University, UK, as a Lecturer in German in 2002. She has published widely in the areas of autonomous language learning, especially tandem learning and language advising, technology-enhanced language learning, and online teaching skills. She is involved in the training of online tutors at the Open University.

AUTHORS’ ADDRESS

Mirjam Hauck Dr. Ursula Stickler Department of Languages The Open University Walton Hall Milton Keynes MK7 6AA United Kingdom Email: Ursula Stickler, [email protected]; Mirjam Hauck, m.hauck@open. ac.uk

476

CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3