ReCALL 23(3): 187–199.

2011 r European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 187

doi:10.1017/S0958344011000139

Editorial
Teacher education research in CALL and
CMC: more in demand than ever
NICOLAS GUICHON
Universite´ de Lyon 2, Centre de langues, Bâtiment O, 5, Avenue Pierre
Mende`s-France, 69676 Bron., France
(email: nicolas.guichon@univ-lyon2.fr)

MIRJAM HAUCK
The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK
(email: M.Hauck@open.ac.uk)

At the EUROCALL conference 2009 in Gandia we, the editors of this special issue
decided to blow a breath of fresh air into the Special Interest Group for Teacher
Education and were overwhelmed by the response we received during the initial meeting.
One of the outcomes was the decision to organize a smaller, ‘between conferences’
research seminar for those among us who are involved – both as practitioners as well as
researchers – in CALL and CMC-based language teaching. Another decision was that
the event should have a narrower focus than the much wider themes of the annual
EUROCALL conferences. In May 2010, then, the ‘‘European workshop on teacher
education in CALL: towards a research agenda’’, took place at the Institut National de
Recherche Pédagogique (INRP) in Lyon over two and a half days. It provided the
opportunity to exchange experiences and catch up with developments in the field in
a convivial atmosphere and served as a springboard for setting up new research
partnerships among participants. The workshop was followed by a call for contributions
to an issue of ReCALL on ‘‘CALL and CMC Teacher Education research: enduring
questions, emerging methodologies’’. Four out of the six contributions in this issue are
from colleagues who gave presentations in Lyon, and two were selected from other
submissions that were received. We hope that you will find the articles as insightful and
thought-provoking as the reviewers and we did and would like to take this opportunity
to thank the members of the scientific committee for their support. Most of them also
served as reviewers for this special issue.
While the use of digital technologies in language education has been growing over
the last fifteen years, pedagogical developments and methodological reflection have
hardly kept pace. Unsurprisingly, teacher training continues to feature high on the
CALL research agenda and there is increasing interest in dedicated events such as the
Lyon workshop, or the one held this year in collaboration with EUROCALL’s CMC
SIG at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. The ensuing publications such as
188 N. Guichon and M. Hauck

this collection as well as other recent volumes and articles (see, for example, Dooly,
2009; Guichon, 2009; Hampel, 2009; Hauck & Stickler 2006; Hong 2010; Hubbard &
Levy, 2006; Kassen et al., 2008; Stockwell, 2009) bear witness to this development.
As Stockwell (2009: 1) observes and Cutrim Schmid (this issue) quite rightly
reminds us ‘‘[t]his attention is indicative of greater recognition of the importance of
CALL practitioners having sufficient grounding in CALL theory and practice, as
well as knowledge of what technologies are available to them in order to be able to
effectively implement CALL in their specific language learning environments’’.
In what follows we attempt to address enduring questions in research on teacher
education for CALL and CMC-based language learning and a variety of metho-
dological approaches, both traditional and emerging. The contributions explore
issues relevant for both novice and experienced colleagues when embarking on
teaching languages with information and communication technologies (ICTs) both
in more traditional classroom settings as well as in online only contexts. We believe
that insights gained from both these perspectives can inform and enrich current and
future research endeavours and teaching practice. For the sake of clarity, we will use
teacher to refer to classroom teaching and tutor to refer to online teaching even
though this distinction poses epistemological issues.

CALL and CMC teacher education research: how far have we come?

The role of teachers and tutors in technology-enhanced contexts has long been under-
explored by CALL researchers, as if language learning could occur thanks to the
attraction of tools and as a result of the potential for enhanced learner autonomy. Yet,
already more than a decade ago, while reporting findings from the Framework for
Language Use in Environments Embedded in New Technology (FLUENT) project
from the tutors’ point of view, and focusing on how learner autonomy and the tutor
role were affected by virtual environments, Hauck and Haezewindt (1999) drawing
on Dias (1998) concluded that the tutor was the lynchpin around which successful
online learning events revolve. Around the same time while exploring different types of
pedagogical intervention and their impact on learner performance in distance language
education contexts, Lamy and Goodfellow (1998) started to address the issue of
mediation which led to a re-conceptualisation of the tutor’s role in online environments
and has contributed to enrich reflections on teacher roles in more classical school
settings (Guichon, in press). In 2000 Lantolf draws our attention yet again to the
mediating role of a number of factors in second language acquisition such as teacher
and peers, setting, language and technology, and in 2003, in the context of internet-
mediated intercultural foreign language education, Belz states that ‘‘the importance
(but not necessarily the prominence) of the teacher and, ultimately, teacher education
programmes [y] increases rather than diminishes’’ (op. cit.: 92).
Today the key role played by teachers in mediating online language learning based on
the ability to assess the affordances of any given tool – the possibilities and constraints
for making meaning and communication offered by the available modes (Hampel,
2006) – and the ability to use these according to the learners’ needs, task demands,
and desired learning outcomes, is widely acknowledged. Indeed, if technologies are
integrated into pedagogical practices in an arbitrary fashion, or, if used inadequately,
 Teacher education research in CALL and CMC 189

their true additional value to language learning could be quite limited, if not highly
questionable. Hence, the importance of adequate training programmes for CALL
and CMC-based language teaching informed by pedagogical considerations and
suitable theoretical frameworks.
Although – as Grosbois (this issue) observes – the scope of research in this field is
wide, four key areas can be identified: assessment of the use of technologies in teachers’
practices, identification of pre- and in-service teachers’ attitudes towards technologies,
definition of a repertoire of techno-pedagogical competences, and reflections on
training content and experiences. These four areas are discussed in detail below.

Assessing the use of technologies in teachers’ practices

In 1998 Moore et al. conducted a survey on the use of technologies with 400 teachers
from Texas which revealed that the great majority of participants did not use
computers and the Internet to teach the target language and culture. More than a
decade later, surveys conducted in Spain with primary teachers (Dooly, 2009) and
France with secondary school language teachers (Guichon, in press) indicate that,
although the use of technologies has seen a rise for personal and professional
purposes, few changes can be detected in actual pedagogical practices (see also
Fuchs, 2008). Dooly (2009) suggests that the gap might still be too wide between how
technologies are presented during training programmes and what teachers are really
able to do once they start their professional life. This imbalance raises an issue also
underscored by Parks et al. (2003): institutional and contextual factors have hardly
been taken into account in most studies dealing with language teachers’ use of ICT.
If Degache and Nissen (2008) could detect an improvement in the use of technologies
at their university, they had to acknowledge the fact that their institution fostered
this trend by providing financial and infrastructural support and by running regular
hands-on workshops and organising conferences.
An exception in this respect are distance education settings such as at the British
Open University’s Department of Languages where the arrival of audio-conferencing
applications in the mid/late nineties made it possible to take the ‘‘distance’’ out of
distance language learning and created welcome opportunities for students to
improve their speaking skills. This led to the systematic introduction of online
tutorials from 2002 onwards accompanied by tutor training and investigations of the
changing tutor role (see, for example, Hauck & Hampel, 2005; Shield, Hewer &
Hauck, 2001). Thus, Beaven et al. (2010) posit quite rightly that it is the given
institutional context that determines expectations in relation to the use of ICT in
teaching and the degree to which technology integration is actually realisable.

Pre- and in-service teachers’ attitudes towards technologies

Teachers’ attitudes have been found to be one of the decisive factors when it comes to
using ICTs in language teaching1 (Kessler, 2007; Dooly, 2009; Guichon, in press) as

1
The first large study in this regard covering different school subjects was the Apple
Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) Project which ran for 10 years. The findings were published
by Haymore Sandholtz et al. (1997). This was followed up by others such as Cuban (2001).
190 N. Guichon and M. Hauck

this necessitates a redefinition of competences, and usually also a fundamental

reconsideration of teachers’ professional identity (see Meskill and Sadykova and
Comas Quinn, this issue). In line with Woodward (2010) Beaven et al. (2010) propose a
professional life cycle model for teachers with different developmental stages of their
self-perception as education professionals. They argue that teacher training in the area
of ICT has to take account of the various phases as the needs of novice teachers, for
example, are distinctly different from colleagues going through a phase of reassessment
of their role and practice or those experiencing a period of self-doubt.
To address the issue of teachers’ (self-) perceptions, researchers have generally
drawn on semi-structured interviews and stimulated recall protocols (see also Cutrim
Schmid and Whyte, this issue) in an attempt to assess anxiety or confidence levels
reported by teachers when using online tools. Dooly (2009) concludes one of her
studies by reporting that teachers, far from being conservative, are eager to bring
changes to their practice. Yet, changes associated with the use of technologies can
prove intimidating for language professionals, be they novice or expert, and lead to
misgivings. It is therefore not surprising that rather than being left to their own devices
and having to engage in non-formal learning about ICT integration, the language
teachers from 25 European countries who took part in the survey carried out by
Beaven et al. (2010) expressed a strong wish to be trained by qualified professionals.
For Peters (2006: 163–4), reticence to use technologies can come from worries about
the reliability of equipment or the lack of technical support but also from deeper
apprehensions, such as the fear of losing control when learners are working on the
Internet or the fear of losing face in front of the learners if the equipment does not work
properly. These fears need to be identified and brought to the fore so that constructive
solutions can be proposed. Whether in training or in service, the habit of working
collegially, in an atmosphere where difficulties are not set aside but confronted and
addressed, where in true socio-constructivist spirit everyone contributes their skills
and knowledge, can prove crucial for informed technology use. Besides, as Kessler and
Plakans (2008) point out, the feeling of self-confidence also depends to a large degree on
perceived ease of access to and usability of tools and of the perceived added value in terms
of pedagogical practices. This echoes one of Zhao and Cziko’s (2001, quoted in Beaven
et al., 2010: 9) conditions for ICT adoption by teachers: they ‘‘must believe that tech-
nology can more effectively meet a higher-level goal than what has previously been used’’.
If technologies can give rise to self-doubt, at least in the initial phase of discovery,
teachers have to be helped to integrate them in a carefully thought out and progressive
manner so that anxieties can be overcome.
It is difficult to determine whether attitude is a valid indicator of professional
competence as is suggested by Kessler (2007), but certain intellectual abilities such as
curiosity, tolerance of ambiguity, and a propensity for collaborative work can
facilitate change in self-perceptions and the move from one stage in the professional
life cycle to the next, and thus accelerate ICT integration. Moreover, investigations
of anxiety and self-confidence should not only rely on researchers studying teachers’
discourse on their practices. They need to include teachers as researchers who engage
in systematic in vivo observation of how their practices evolve over time and how
they gradually enrich their professional repertoire and become aware of the impact
that this evolution has on their self-efficacy beliefs.
 Teacher education research in CALL and CMC 191

Defining a repertoire of techno-pedagogical competences

Several studies have attempted to establish what might be called teachers’ techno-
pedagogical competences (Levy, 1997; Peters, 2006). As early as 1999 mentions the
professional challenges language teachers find themselves confronted with: apart
from familiarity with language pedagogy, they are supposed to master a range of
technological applications and take on new roles pertaining to task design, tutoring
and pedagogical mediation. Shield et al. (2001) building on Hauck and Haezewindt
(1999) come up with an overview of tutor roles and associated administrative,
cognitive and social skills and relate those to learners’ perceptions of tutors. Since
then several directions have been proposed to apprehend what a techno-pedagogical
competence encompasses (Bangou, 2006; Fuchs, 2006; Peters, 2006; Thomas &
Reinders, 2010; Wong & Benson, 2006). It includes the capacity to:

> Assess the potential and limits of technologies for language and culture learning;
> Carry out a needs analysis to introduce adequate technologies at appropriate
moments in a pedagogical sequence;
> Handle basic tools and applications, and solve simple technical problems;
> Design appropriate tasks;
> Design for interactions within and outside the classroom in view of the
technologies’ affordances;
> Rethink the contract with learners and colleagues;
> Manage time and optimize the integration of technologies.

Some of these abilities are also reflected in Hampel and Stickler’s (2005) ‘‘pyramid
of skills’’ which includes from the bottom up skills related to dealing with the
technology at hand and using its advantages, then social skills of community
building, followed by language teaching skills, and finally the ability to teach creatively
and develop a personal teaching style in an online medium.
An important first step is the development of what Guichon (in press) calls ‘‘critical
semiotic awareness’’, i.e., teachers’ capacity to adjust the potential of any tool to their
pedagogical objectives and to the relation they wish to establish with their (distant)
students, so that pedagogical skills gradually become semio-pedagogical ones and thus
reflect the demands made on language professionals.
However, acquiring such a repertoire of skills will continue to depend on teachers’
ability and readiness to re-think their practice in order to prepare the ground for
successful technology integration (Bangou, 2006).

Research on teacher training: content and practice

Kessler’s (2006) study assesses the training of a total of 240 language teachers and
reveals general dissatisfaction in terms of ICT integration. It indicates that reflection
on the content and format of teacher training in CALL and CMC is still in its
infancy and that teacher training programmes usually depend more on the teaching
philosophy of individual training institutions or government agencies than on a
consensus reached as a result of research.
192 N. Guichon and M. Hauck

Researchers who have addressed the issue of teacher training have generally
used their own experience as trainers to propose a few guidelines which can be
summarized as follows:
> Share out the techno-pedagogical components all along the training programme
instead of making them the content of a stand-alone module (Peters, 2006);
> Anchor teacher training and experiment with technologies in a specific setting,
so that trainees develop a better understanding of institutional constraints
(Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi, 2002);
> Focus on the development of competences that can be transferred to other
educational contexts (Slaouti & Motteram, 2006);
> Develop basic technical skills that can readily be used instead of training
teachers to use a bespoke application or programme that might become
obsolete quickly (Kessler, 2006);
> Make sure trainees put pedagogical objectives before technological ones
(Fuchs, 2006);
> Adopt constructivist or socio-constructivist approaches to language learning to
help trainees conceptualize the use of tools in a pertinent way (Parks et al., 2003);
> Develop collaboration skills among trainees (Parks et al., 2003).
Thus the training challenges are organisational, theoretical, strategic and pedagogical.
Interestingly, research has initially relied mainly on questionnaires and interviews
to explore the areas outlined above, teachers’ perceptions and content of training
programmes in particular. More recently, however, we have witnessed a move
towards action research and reflective practice.
Belz and Müller-Hartmann (2003) represent an early example of Allwright’s (2003)
‘‘exploratory practice’’ with a ‘‘self-reflective case study’’ of their ‘‘development as teacher-
learners of telecollaboration in telecollaboration’’. Another example comes from Lewis
(2006) who draws on recorded self-reflection (teaching journal) and action research in the
shape of observation by a ‘‘critical friend’’ as well as discussions with colleagues in an
online forum to equip himself with teaching skills for a multimodal online environment.
Overall four different approaches to observation and analysis can be identified in
their relation to practice in CALL and CMC-based teacher education:

Table 1 Four different approaches to CALL and CMC-based teacher education

Practice Process Purpose

as observed and analysed by action research, self-improvement,

teachers self-confrontation self-efficacy
as observed and analysed by confrontation with other comparison, broadening
other teachers teachers’ practice of repertoire of skills
as observed and analysed by confrontation with research description; identification
researchers findings of categories
as observed and analysed by action research description geared towards
researchers also involved teacher training
as teacher trainers
 Teacher education research in CALL and CMC 193

The proposed categories are not clear-cut and there is some overlap if the observer is
not only a teacher, but also a researcher and/or a teacher trainer, changing therefore the
lens through which practice is studied as well as the depth of the ensuing analysis.
Moreover these four approaches to reflection on situated technology-mediated practice
serve different purposes. Observing other teachers’ activities and reflecting on one’s
own practice are different symbolic and cognitive processes. In the same manner,
whether or not the researcher is also directly involved in a teacher training programme
him/herself will influence his/her focus. Thus, practice is not explored in avoid but
rather in relation to the actors involved and their motivations and intentions.
These approaches have also informed the studies presented and discussed in the
articles in the present issue.
The journal opens with Meskill and Sadykova who report on a study with
experienced EFL educators from Eastern Europe who – as part of their professional
development – had the opportunity to observe and analyse instructional conver-
sation strategies in Moodle between their own students and ‘‘cultural experts’’ in
the US. These were enrolled in a PhD programme in language technology and
engaged with the EFL students in learner-centred asynchronous threaded discus-
sions. It was hoped that the EFL educators would eventually want to take on and
apply the observed conversation strategies in their own teaching as they move their
courses to blended and fully online settings. Meskill and Sadykova draw on the
so-called ‘‘fishbowl’’ technique as an approach to foster observation of human
interaction – here, EFL learners and cultural experts – and joint reflection on what
was being observed. The in-service teacher trainees, they hypothesized, would
benefit from witnessing how their students engage with models who know how
to make optimal use of the affordances of the instructional environment. Thus
they acknowledge the necessity to make language educators aware of the con-
straints and possibilities for making meaning and communicating in online venues
(Hampel, 2006).
In a similar vein Comas-Quinn draws our attention to the required pedagogical
understanding of the affordances of the online medium and an acceptance by the
teacher of his or her new role and identity in this medium. Her contribution follows
the tradition of work that has explored teachers’ own experiences and perspectives
on their readiness and willingness to engage with new technologies in the language
classroom. Comas-Quinn points to Tait (2002) who proposes to involve teachers
in the design, delivery and evaluation of training activities as this has been shown
to promote the desired deeper understanding. She takes White and Ding’s (2009)
‘‘ideal teacher self perspective’’ as the starting point for her theoretical considera-
tions argues, with Kubanyiova (2009), that ‘‘effective training must both destabilize
teachers’ existing views of their role and identity and support them in building
new perspectives which match the training outcomes – what Wenger (1998) calls
‘learning as becoming’ ’’. Similarly Guichon (in press) advocates ‘‘retrospection’’,
i.e., training procedures which help teachers critically analyse their practice
and include initial imbalance inciting trainees to resist routines and to shape new
professional identities.
Comas-Quinn concludes that training practices designed to guide language teachers
in their adoption of online technologies still focus primarily on knowledge and skills
194 N. Guichon and M. Hauck

development and undervalue the required professional transformation, i.e., learning to

become an online teacher. Thus she confirms Hauck and Stickler’s (2006) prediction
that ‘‘it will take probably a little longer to establish not only what it takes to teach
online but also to know how we learn to teach online’’ (op. cit.: 472).
+ 1973), as a stepping stone for change
Imbalance, or ‘‘loss of a stable state’’ (Schon
in existing practices, is also part of the journey the student teachers in Antoniadou’s
network-based collaborative project embarked on. The exchange was based on the
use of Second Life and brought student teachers in Spain together with pre-service
trainees in the US. In line with Dooly (2009) the aim of the project was to foster
participants’ understanding of the added pedagogical value of such an exchange
and to inspire them to transfer this knowledge into their classrooms. Drawing on
Cultural Historic Activity Theory (CHAT) and the concept of contradictions
Antoniadou offers us a new way of conceptualising inter- and intra-institutional as
well as technology-based tensions which have been referred to in the literature
as potential ‘‘pitfalls’’ of such online encounters (see, for example, O’Dowd & Ritter,
2006). Yet, in agreement with Basharina (2007) she argues that misalignment
of study programmes and other contradictory elements are a sine qua non in
telecollaboration and that training for mutual awareness and understanding of the
different sociocultural and educational factors concerned should become part of
situated network-based learning during Initial Teacher Education. This approach,
Antoniadou suggests, increases the likelihood that an online professional community
of teachers will develop during the exchange and that participants will repeat
telecollaborative activity in their future classrooms.
In order to bridge the teacher-researcher gap, Cutrim Schmid and Whyte use video
recordings as a data collection instrument for their studies and thus as part of their
methodology, but also as a way of fostering reflective practice and professional
development. Cutrim Schmid’s study revolves around the use of Interactive White-
boards for the teaching of English in secondary schools while in Whyte’s case
primary school classes were paired up and linked together via videoconferencing to
learn English. Cutrim Schmid also provides a brief overview of methodologies used
in teacher professional development research so far, and summarizes various
approaches to data collection in the literature covering more traditional instruments
(e.g., interviews) and those exploiting the affordances of Web 2.0 technology such
as video-stimulated reflection (VSR) to evaluate video web-based online teaching
sessions (Guichon, 2009). Like Guichon, Cutrim Schmid uses VSR both as a data
collection method and a professional development tool. In her conclusions she
highlights the participants’ ambivalent attitudes towards VSRs, self-reflection and
self-evaluation, and draws our attention to the challenging, often even painful teacher
experiences with this approach.
In Whyte’s study, experienced teachers of English were joined by less experienced
colleagues and both classes were taught in tandem via videoconference. Similar to
Meskill’s and Sadykova’s set up, the ‘‘experts’’, in this case experienced language
teachers, were supposed to serve as ‘‘resources’’ for the novices. Yet in Whyte’s study
both were involved hands on with the online teaching instead of the latter only
observing the interaction of the former with his/her learners. Among the most
striking findings of her investigation was the lack of teacher comments related to
 Teacher education research in CALL and CMC 195

language learning in the episodes played during the VSR sessions. Another unexpected
finding was the lack of spontaneous interaction among participants in the video-
conferencing sessions due to over-preparation of learners by learner-centred teachers
who associated rehearsal with promotion of learner autonomy and seemed to perceive
second language acquisition as a product rather than a process. Thus – like Meskill,
Sadykova and Comas-Quinn – Whyte underscores the need for teachers to be fully
aware of the respective affordances of bespoke tools and applications before being
asked to design language learning activities and/or to run entire online sessions based
on their use. She also re-iterates Hubbard’s and Levy’s (2006) advice for teacher
development in CALL, i.e., that pedagogical and technological training should ideally
be integrated with one another.
Grosbois reports on a CMC-based teacher training programme for future primary
school teachers in France who engaged in Internet-mediated exchanges with pre-
service teachers from the UK. The aim of this teacher programme was to improve
their language skills while developing a web-based resource for cultural learning
aimed at French primary school children. Corroborating findings from previous
similar telecollaborative studies Grosbois observed an increase in participant moti-
vation through engagement in collective problem solving linked to a professional
domain. As a result the Master’s degree for primary teacher trainees at the author’s
institution now offers students the opportunity to take part in a virtual school –
based on the use of Web 2.0 tools – and combines a project-oriented approach to L2
learning with professionally relevant problem-solving. Grosbois concedes, though,
that this approach – which she sees as a specifically French approach to the field
of teacher training – clearly focuses on future teachers’ development of foreign
language skills and that the development of pedagogical expertise in terms of ICT
use is rather a welcome by-product than an aim in itself.

A tentative research agenda

Common features of most of the training and/or research on training in the studies
presented above are situated learning and reflective practice, with some using
the same methodology for both data collection and training purposes in an attempt
to move towards collaborative researcher-teacher research. This approach is typical
of action research where teachers do indeed turn researcher to gain a better
understanding of and potentially amend their classroom practices. Dörnyei (2007:
191–192) reminds us though that ‘‘teachers usually lack (a) the time, (b) the incen-
tives, and (c) the expertise or professional support to get meaningfully engaged with
research’’ and argues that it should therefore be an integral part of pre-service and
in-service training so that it becomes a natural part of teachers’ professional practice,
or, as Müller-Hartmann (in press) puts it, ‘‘to instil an attitude of professional
development as a continuous process of action and reflection’’.
Picking up Dörnyei’s conclusion we propose that initial and in-service CALL and
CMC-based teacher education should not only follow Hoven’s (2006) ‘‘experiential
modelling approach’’ where teachers/tutors as learners model and experience the
tools and processes they are supposed to use in their (future) practice. It should also
systematically instruct trainees in researching their own classrooms, i.e., in carrying
196 N. Guichon and M. Hauck

out action research, more specifically ‘‘exploratory practice’’ or inclusive practitioner

research as understood by Allwright and Hanks (2009) which allows them to develop
their ‘‘general understandings of learners and also to enable learners to develop their
understandings, and so develop as practitioners of learning’’ (op.cit.: 142).
Allwright and Hanks criticize the more traditional approach to action research
with its focus on changing and improving practice which undervalues the element of
‘‘understanding’’ in research: ‘‘AR [action research] starts out as an intention to
change in order to solve a problem, or at least to introduce an innovation. EP
[exploratory practice] starts out with an intention to try to understand, rather than
change’’ (ibid.: 172–173).
Yet as Müller-Hartmann (in press) points out in relation to the use of exploratory
practice in telecollaborative teacher education, two levels of research need to be
distinguished. The course instructors follow an exploratory practice approach to their
research in their attempt to understand the complex processes involved in developing
teacher trainees’ competences. At the same time, trainees develop a reflective practice
attitude which allows them to eventually do practitioner research themselves in their
future professional contexts.
We believe that this also holds true for CALL and CMC-based teacher education
research in general, i.e., beyond telecollaborative settings, particularly in situations
where teacher/tutor, trainer and researcher are all embodied in one single person.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our thanks to Melinda Dooly, Gavin Dudeney, Eric
Fleischer, Regine Hampel and Kurt Kohn, who reviewed some of the papers, in
addition to our regular panel of reviewers.

References
Allwright, D. (2003) Exploratory practice: rethinking practitioner research in language
teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2): 113–141.
Allwright, D. and Hanks, J. (2009) The Developing Language Learner. Houndmills: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bangou, F. (2006) Intégration des Tice et apprentissage de l’enseignement: une approche
systémique. Alsic, 9: 145–160.
Basharina, O. K. (2007) An Activity Theory Perspective on student-reported contradictions in
international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2): 82–103.
Beaven, T., Emke, M., Ernest, P., Germain-Rutherford, G., Hampel, R., Hopkins, J.,
Stanojevic, M. M. and Stickler, U. (2010) Needs and challenges for online language teachers –
the ECML project DOTS. Teaching English with Technology – Developing Online Teaching
Skills, Special Issue, 10(2): 5–20.
Belz, J. A. (2003) Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in
telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2): 68–99.
Belz, J. A. and Müller-Hartmann, A. (2003) Teachers negotiating German-American tele-
collaboration: Between a rock and an institutional hard place. Modern Language Journal,
87(1): 71–89.
Cuban, L. (2001) Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
 Teacher education research in CALL and CMC 197

Degache, C. and Nissen, E. (2008) Formations hybrides et interactions en ligne du point de

vue de l’enseignant : pratiques, représentations, évolutions. Alsic, 11(1): 61–92.
Dias, J. (1998) The teacher as chameleon: Computer-mediated communication & role trans-
formation. In: Lewis, P. (ed.), Teachers, learners, and computers: Exploring relationships in
CALL. Nagoya: Chubu Nihon Bunkakai, 17–26.
Dooly, M. (2009) New competences in a new era? Examining the impact of a teacher training
project. ReCALL, 21(3): 352–369.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M. and Nakamichi, Y. (2002) The impact of CALL instruction on
classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education.
Language Learning & Technology, 6(3): 108–126.
Fuchs, C. (2006) Exploring German preservice teachers’ electronic and professional literacy
skills. ReCALL, 18(2): 174–192.
Fuchs, C. (2008) Electronic Literacy and Media Competence in German Secondary Schools.
Online report. http://www.tc.columbia.edu/faculty/documents.htm?facid5cf2307
Guichon, N. (2009) Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’ competence
through reflective analysis. ReCALL, 21(2): 166–185.
Guichon, N. (in press) L’inte´gration des technologies dans l’enseignement des langues. Paris:
Didier.
Hampel, R. (2006) Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language
teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1): 105–121.
Hampel, R. (2009) Training 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.
Hampel, R. and Stickler, U. (2005) New skills for new classrooms. Training tutors to teach
languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4): 311–326.
Hauck, M. and Haezewindt, B. (1999) Adding a new perspective to distance (language)
learning – the tutor’s perspective. ReCALL, 11(2): 46–54.
Hauck, M. and Hampel, R. (2005) The challenge of implementing online tuition in distance
language courses: Task design and tutor role. In: Holmberg, B., Shelley, M. and White, C.
(eds.), Distance Education and Languages: Evolution and Change. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 258–277.
Hauck, M. and Stickler, U. (2006) What does it take to teach online? Towards a pedagogy for
Online Language Teaching and Learning. CALICO Journal, 23(3): 463–475.
Haymore Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C. and Dwyer, D. C. (1997) Teaching with technology:
Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Hong, K. H. (2010) CALL teacher education as an impetus for L2 teachers in integrating
technology. ReCALL, 22(1): 53–69.
Hoven, D. (2006 Designing for disruption: Remodelling a blended course in technology
in (language) teacher education. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Ascilite conference:
Who’s learning? Whose technology? 3rd–6th December. Sydney: University of Sydney,
339–349.
Hubbard, P. and Levy, M. (eds.) (2006) Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Kassen, M. A., Lavine, R. Z., Murphy-Judy, K. and Peters, M. (2008) Preparing and
Developing Technology-proficient L2 Teachers. CALICO Monograph Series. San Marcos,
TX: Texas State University.
Kessler, G. (2006) Assessing CALL teacher training. In: Hubbard, P. and Levy, M. (eds.),
Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–42.
198 N. Guichon and M. Hauck

Kessler, G. (2007) Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward
technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2): 173–188.
Kessler, G. and Plakans, L. (2008) Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and
integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3): 269–282.
Kubanyiova, M. (2009) Possible Selves in Language Teacher Development. In: Dörnyei, Z.
and Ushioda, E. (eds.), Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters, 314–332.
Lamy, M.-N. and Goodfellow, R. (1998) Conversations réflexives dans la classe de langues
virtuelle par conférence asynchrone. Alsic, 1(2): 81–99.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000) Second language learning as mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2):
79–96.
Lewis, T. (2006) When teaching is learning: A personal account of learning to teach online.
CALICO Journal, 23(3): 581–599.
Levy, M. (1997) A Rationale for Teacher Education and CALL: The Holistic View and Its
Implications. Computers and the Humanities, 30(4): 293–302.
Moore, Z., Morales, B. and Carel, S. (1998) Technology and teaching culture: Results of a
state survey of foreign language teachers. CALICO Journal, 15(1–3): 109–128.
Müller-Hartmann (in press) The classroom-based action research paradigm in tele-
collaboration. In: O’Dowd, R. (ed.), Telecollaboration in Education. Bern: Peter Lang
Publishing Group.
O’ Dowd, R. and Ritter, M. (2006) Understanding and Working with ‘Failed Communication’
in Telecollaborative Exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3): 623–664.
Parks, S., Huot, D., Hamers, J. and Lemonnier, F. H. (2003) Crossing boundaries: multimedia
technology and pedagogical innovation in a high school class. Language Learning &
Technology, 7(1): 28–45.
Peters, M. (2006) Developing computer competencies for pre-service language teachers.
Is one course enough? In: Hubbard, P. and Levy, M. (eds.), Teacher education in CALL.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 152–165.
+ D. A. (1973) Beyond the Stable State. Harmondsworth, Penguin, New York: Norton.
Schon,
Shield, L., Hauck, M. and Hewer, S. (2001) Talking to strangers – The role of the tutor in
developing target language speaking skills at a distance. In: Kazeroni, A. (ed.), Proceedings
of UNTELE 2000. Compiègne, France: Technological University of Compiegne, 75–84.
http://www.utc.fr/,untele/volume2.pdf
Slaouti, D. and Motteram, G. (2006) Reconstructing practice. Language teacher education
and ICT. In: Hubbard, P. and Levy, M. (eds.), Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, 81–97.
Stockwell, G. (2009) Teacher education in CALL: teaching teachers to educate themselves.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1): 99–112.
Tait, J. (2002) From Competence to Excellence: a systems view of staff development for
part-time tutors at a distance. Open Learning, 17(2): 153–166.
Thomas, M. and Reinders, H. (eds.) (2010) Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with
Technology. London: Continuum.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
White, C. and Ding, A. (2009) Identity and Self in E-Language Teaching. In: Dörnyei, Z. and
Ushioda, E. (eds.), Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters, 333–349.
Wildner, S. (1999) Technology Integration into Preservice Foreign Language Teacher
Education Programs. CALICO Journal, 17(2): 223–250.
 Teacher education research in CALL and CMC 199

Woodward, T. (2010) The Professional Life Cycles of Teachers. Plenary address at the 2010
IATEFL conference, Harrogate, UK. http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2010/sessions/2010-04-08/
plenary-session-professional-life-cyclesteachers-tessa-woodward
Wong, L. and Benson, P. (2006) In-service CALL education. What happens when the course
is over? In: Hubbard, P. and Levy, M. (eds.), Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, 251–264.
Zhao, Y. and Cziko, G. (2001) Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory
perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1): 5–30.