International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning

and Teaching

ISSN: 1750-1229 (Print) 1750-1237 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rill20

Developing the skills and techniques for online

language teaching: a focus on the process

Mike Levy, Yuping Wang & Nian-Shing Chen

To cite this article: Mike Levy, Yuping Wang & Nian-Shing Chen (2009) Developing the skills
and techniques for online language teaching: a focus on the process, International Journal of
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3:1, 17-34, DOI: 10.1080/17501220802655417

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220802655417

Published online: 19 Feb 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1076

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rill20
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching
Vol. 3, No. 1, March 2009, 17
34

Developing the skills and techniques for online language teaching: a focus
on the process
Mike Levya,*, Yuping Wanga, and Nian-Shing Chenb
a
School of Languages and Linguistics, Griffith University, Australia; bDepartment of Information
Management, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan
(Received 24 October 2008; final version received 30 November 2008)

This paper aims to describe the experience of two online tutors as they learn to
teach the language to learners at a distance. The two tutors formed part of a
cohort of eight participants who attended a four-week training course (Stage 1)
followed by an eight-week online teaching practice (Stage 2) from November 2006
to February 2007 at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Special attention is
paid to recording the tutors’ experience as they moved through the workshops and
on to the teaching practice sessions, which began with individual teaching and
later involved team teaching. In order to capture the details of the learners’
experience, and their individual views on working in an online environment, a
qualitative approach is taken to record the experiences of the two tutors.
A second and complementary point of focus is on the design, structure and
sequencing of the training materials that were used to guide and motivate the
trainee tutors, first in helping them acquire the knowledge and skills required to
use a Synchronous Learning Management System (SLMS) and second on helping
them develop the strategies and techniques necessary for effective online
pedagogy. The paper describes the rationale, structure and use of these training
materials which promote action and reflection through a learning cycle. This
project employs an SLMS called the Collaborative Cyber Community (3C). 3C
has a wide range of features that trainee tutors learn how to use including
synchronous cyber classrooms supported by a videoconferencing system called
JoinNet, an interactive whiteboard, text chat and joint web browsing.
Keywords: teacher education; reflection; online language teaching; online teaching
practice; online teacher training; synchronous learning management system
(SLMS)

Introduction
Previous approaches to online tutor training have tended to foreground a structural
model in some form (see Hampel and Stickler 2005; Salmon 2004). Typically, such a
model would have a number of levels, although the ways in which this idea has been
implemented vary widely. For example, in training e-moderators, Salmon (2004)
describes a five-stage model for online tutor training. The model moves trainee tutors
through the stages of access and motivation, online socialisation, information
exchange, knowledge construction and development. Each stage requires tutors to
master certain technical skills, although these are described very broadly. The model

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1750-1229 print/ISSN 1750-1237 online

# 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17501220802655417
http://www.informaworld.com
18 M. Levy et al.

also emphasises increasing interactivity as the participants move through the stages.
Another example is described by Hampel and Stickler (2005) who use the new skills
that tutors require to teach languages online as the central construct of the model.
They describe a Skills Pyramid where skills are taught such that they build upon one
another, ‘from the most general skills forming a fairly broad base to an apex of
individual and personal styles.’ (316). The layers in the Pyramid are: basic ICT
competence, specific technical competence for the software, dealing with constraints
and possibilities of the medium, online socialisation, facilitating communicative
competence, creativity and choice, and own style.
While such models provide a general framework that goes some way to indicate
the range of skills required and a sensible teaching and learning sequence in terms of
complexity (i.e. general to particular, generic to specialised), we feel such models and
frameworks downplay or leave implicit the processes of learning that the trainee
online tutors must undergo to acquire the requisite skills. In other words, existing
models tend to lack detail in terms of process. They also tend not to identify and
engage with the many micro skills that online tutors need to acquire to become fluent
in managing online teaching. These micro skills are often associated with the many
component technologies that form part of the Learning Management System (LMS).
Focussing on structure and form rather than process also tends to push into the
background the nature and sequencing of the training materials that need to be
designed such that they guide, support and motivate the learning process.
This study then sought to focus more on understanding and supporting the
processes that experienced face-to-face language teachers undergo in order to
become confident and competent online tutors. It does this by recounting in detail
the individual experiences of two tutors from a cohort of eight teachers who attended
a four-week training course (Stage 1) followed by an eight-week online teaching
practice (Stage 2). The tutors were trained in the use of a synchronous LMS called
the Collaborative Cyber Community (3C) developed by the National Sun Yat-Sen
University (NSYU) in Taiwan.

Rationale
Perhaps the most widely documented online environment specially designed for
language learning is Lyceum from the Open University, UK (see Hampel 2003;
Hampel and Baber 2003; Hampel and Hauck 2004; Hampel and Stickler 2005;
Stickler and Hampel 2007; see also Levy and Stockwell 2006 for discussion). Used
principally for audiographic conferencing rather than videoconferencing, it is
noteworthy in relation to the current study that it has been employed extensively
for online tutor training, its theoretical motivation has been documented, and the
pedagogical approach taken by the trainers has been recorded in some detail (see
Hampel and Stickler 2005).
Hampel and her colleagues have drawn upon many theoretical sources in their use
of the system. The theories span second language acquisition (the Interaction
Account), sociocultural theory, constructivism, situated learning and multimodality.
Levy and Stockwell (2006, 134) argue that this range of sources is required in order to
develop a conceptual framework that is sufficiently powerful to support a complex,
multi-functional, multimodal learning system. Mayes and De Freitas (2007) present a
similar argument which draws upon various learning theories to inform the
pedagogical design. They prefer the term ‘perspectives’ to ‘theories’ and argue
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 19

that, ‘Most implementations of e-learning will include blended elements that

emphasise all three levels: learning as behaviour, learning as construction of
knowledge and meaning, and learning as social practice.’ (20). They also argue
that it is helpful to regard the different perspectives or theories not as competing
accounts, but stages in a cycle or progression. These ideas have helped form our
pedagogical approach in this project (see also Chen et al. 2008; Wang and Chen
2007).
We have found the notion of the cycle to be fundamental in clarifying the
process we wished to incorporate and we have found the work of Cumming (1993),
Skehan (1998), Wallace (1991) especially helpful. Skehan (1998) emphasised the
value of cycles of task-based activity and opportunities to learners to ‘engage in
cycles of analysis and synthesis’ (91). Skehan also used the term cycle in relation to
cycles of ‘accountability’, cycles of ‘evaluation’, and ‘monitoring’ cycles where
learners carefully reflect upon what they have learnt through the task they have
completed and thereby make plans for future emphasis and action. Cumming
(1993) provided a useful perspective on learning which emphasised a distinction
between action and reflection (see also Levy 1999; Levy and Kennedy 2004 for
implications for Computer-Assisted Language Learning [CALL]). For learning
interactions at the computer, Cumming proposed a distinction between a Task
Level (TL) and a higher order Discussion Level (DL). The DL is intended to
provide detailed information about the TL, it requires the learner to ‘engage in
metalevel activities’ (230) and reflect, evaluate, plan and draw conclusions on
actions performed at the TL (Cumming 1993, 229). In training foreign language
teachers using a reflective approach, Wallace (1991) also described a ‘reflective
cycle’ involving practice and reflection. Wallace (1991, 56) says, ‘The ‘‘reflective
cycle’’ is a shorthand way of referring to the continuing process of reflection on
‘‘received knowledge’’ and ‘‘experiential knowledge’’ in the context of professional
action (practice)’. This cyclic approach of action and reflection is fundamental to
the approach taken here as we aim to develop the skills and techniques required for
online teaching.
We were also influenced by Akbari’s (2007) critical appraisal of reflective
practices in L2 teacher education. Akbari argues that more emphasis needs to be
placed on the ‘creative aspects’ of the concept of reflection. This led to the inclusion
of an ‘improvements’ column in the monitoring reports to be described later.
Akbari (2007) also says, ‘The identification of teaching problems is not an
automatic process, and there are many instances when teachers are not able to
see what is wrong with their classroom performance.’ (199). We were motivated by
this comment in the construction of the monitoring reports and our emphasis on
micro teaching and observation. In fact, observation by peers and their use of
monitoring reports to provide feedback to the online tutor after class became a key
component that was built into the training materials. Aside from the obvious value
for the teacher being observed of receiving specific feedback on elements of the
lesson, Maingay (1988) stresses the development value of observation for the
teacher doing the observing. Firstly, this individual is required to reflect on what
has occurred in the lesson and to formulate a response which will guide ‘the
observed teacher towards self appraisal (including looking afresh at behaviour that
may have become ritual) . . . ’; and, secondly, the observer will be able to pick up
new ideas and reflect on their own teaching through watching someone else
(Maingay 1988, 121).
20 M. Levy et al.

The study
The tutor training programme was conducted using an advanced SLMS called
Collaborative Cyber Community (hereafter 3C). The work areas and major functions
of 3C are shown in Figure 1.
3C has two main work areas: the ‘Teacher’s Office’ and the ‘Classroom’. The
teacher’s office can be accessed only by the teacher, for student administration and
planning learning activities, such as uploading learning resources and designing
content links. The classroom can be accessed by both the teacher and the learner, and
it has two modes: the asynchronous and synchronous modes. The asynchronous
mode is available to learners 24 hours a day, where audio, video and text-based
learning resources (e.g. discussion boards, lecture notes, web-based course materials,
assignments and video recordings of cyber face-to-face sessions) can be accessed. As
far as language learning is concerned, the most valuable component of the
synchronous mode is the ‘synchronous cyber classrooms’ (see Figure 2). It features
five major windows: the main audio and video (top left), the control panel (mid left),
the text chat box (bottom left), the whiteboard (centre) and the sub-video windows
(bottom right). Up to 18 sub-video windows can be displayed at the same time. The
audio and video are supported by a videoconferencing tool called JoinNet. This
cyber classroom is also supported by versatile synchronous data sharing tools, such
as desktop sharing, window capture, joint web browsing, remote control and
collaborative annotation tools (e.g. pens and pen colours). Another most valuable
function for language learning is the group cyber classrooms, a suitable venue for
group activities.
All the online synchronous activities can be digitally recorded using the recording
tool embedded in the SLMS. The video recording can then be posted on the SLMS
for learners to play back after class for revision or to catch up with missing classes.

Subjects
Chinese language teachers
The tutor training programme was conducted between November 2006 and February
2007. Eight experienced Chinese language teachers teaching at tertiary level in

The Collaborative Cyber Community (3C)

Teacher’s office The classroom

Student Course design The The cyber face-to-

administration asynchronous face mode
mode
1. Enrolments 1. Content upload 1. Forums 1. Audio
2. Attendance 2. Learning path design 2. Assignments 2. Video
status 3. Forum setup 3. Quizzes 3. Interactive
3. Emailing 4. Chat room setup 4. Learning material whiteboard
4. Student grouping 5. Menu bar setup 5. Course information 4. Text chat
5. TAs setup 6. Assignment setup 6. Online survey 5. Group cyber
7. Test setup classrooms

Figure 1. The major functions of 3C.

 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 21

Figure 2. The synchronous cyber-classroom.

Queensland, Australia, volunteered to participate in the project. Among them, seven

were Chinese native speakers and one was a native English speaker. Two of them had
either briefly taught or attended online classes before but the rest did not have any
online teaching and learning experience. They were primarily campus-based teachers.
None of them had used videoconferencing before. Fifty percent of them self rated
their computer competence to be three out of five, with five being high, three chose
four and only one chose two. Their rating of their computer confidence corresponded
with the level of competence they indicated. Apart from the first face-to-face
workshop, the participants attended the training solely online either from home or
their offices. The pre-training survey results showed that all the participants had
adequate computer resources needed for the project. Our concern that some might
not have adequate internet connection was not borne out. The project provided the
teachers and students with webcams, headphones and free access to 3C.
In this study, the experiences of two of the eight participants are featured. The
two online tutors, called Mary and Sarah,1 were selected from the group to represent
key areas of commonality and difference. Mary is in her late 50s and is a native
speaker of Chinese, whereas Sarah is in her late 30s and a non-native speaker. In
terms of age Sarah is the more representative, and Sarah is also the only NNS in the
group. Mary was one of the least confident members of the group as far as
technology was concerned, whereas Sarah was more typical with higher levels of
confidence initially.
22 M. Levy et al.

Chinese language students

Participation was called for among students who were studying intermediate Chinese
through the Open Learning Programme at Griffith University, Australia. Only five
students volunteered due to the small enrolment in the programme in the summer
semester, and the non-compulsory nature of the participation. They attended the
online sessions from various parts of Australia with one from China.
Theoretically, their proficiency level should be the same as that of our second year
on-campus students. However, we experienced a considerable difference in the
students’ proficiency levels. Two of them were at an advanced level as one was living
in China and the other grew up in a Chinese community in Singapore. The other
three only possessed a basic level of proficiency, lower than anticipated due to lack of
practice in their distance language programme. Their listening and speaking skills
were generally poorer than their writing and reading skills.

Procedure
We first emailed all teachers from the major universities in Queensland, Australia,
informing them of our first workshop on online language learning. Among the 10
teachers attending the workshop, eight expressed their intention to participate on the
spot. The high participation rate was unexpected. The training was undertaken in
two main stages over a total of 12 weeks, as shown in Table 1.
In Stage 1, the participants were trained in how to use the platform. It is
important to note at the outset that the course trainer taught the tutors using the
strategies and techniques she expected them to use with their own students later in
Stage 2. In this sense the training modules in Stage 1 of the project provided a venue
for rehearsing precisely the techniques that would be used later in the online
classroom. The training essentially consisted of a two-hour workshop each week. The
first workshop was face-to-face conducted in a language laboratory at Griffith
University and the other two workshops were online; the fourth week was for further
practice and preparation for the online teaching practice. The basic aims of the first
workshop were (1) to introduce the equipment needed, including webcams and
headphones and how to install them, (2) to give a general introduction to 3C and (3)
to build rapport among the participating teachers. The next two workshops were
conducted online using 3C. Seven teachers2 attended the workshops from their
homes or offices, while the training was conducted from the trainer’s home. The aims

Table 1. The structure of the 12-week program.

Stage Focus Duration Content

1. Online teacher Four weeks Two-hour workshop per week for three weeks
training followed by one week for practice, reflection &
preparation for Stage 2
2. Online teach- Four weeks Individual teaching; 15 mins. per week for two weeks
ing practice for each tutor
Four weeks Team teaching (pairs): 30 mins. per week for two
weeks for each team
Ongoing training workshop
two hours in the fifth
week of Stage 2
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 23

of these two online workshops were to introduce the various functions of 3C (see
Table 2).
The 3C features were approached incrementally giving time for students to
practice and reflect upon appropriate use as each feature was introduced and
considered. The topics and 3C features covered included how to: upload files to the
whiteboard; use the pointer; conduct an online poll (a function used to collect
students’ votes on a certain topic); capture a window; conduct joint web browsing;
and share the desktop, etc. This was followed by a week of self-reflection and practice
of what had been taught in the workshops. This week was also utilised by teachers to
prepare teaching materials for Stage 2
online teaching practice with language
learners. To effectively coordinate the teaching, teachers were provided with a
suggested teaching plan outlining classroom activities, resources and procedures.
Stage 2 comprised eight weeks of online teaching with distance students of
Chinese and one ongoing training workshop. In the first four weeks each trainee
tutor was required to teach two 15 minute sessions individually and then in the
second four weeks, tutors were paired to do team teaching for two 30 minute sessions.
While the individual tutor or a teaching team was teaching, all the other tutors plus
the trainer were required to observe and complete a monitoring report for each tutor
who taught. The tutors teaching that week were also required to complete a self-
reflection journal, reflecting on their teaching experience.
A two-hour workshop was held before the start of team teaching, in week five of
Stage 2, for reflecting and sharing online teaching experience and for introducing
more strategies, especially team teaching strategies. The rationale for having a
workshop in between the teaching practice was that the tutors by then would have
some experience with online teaching and would be able to understand more of these
strategies and relate them more to their teaching experience. In addition, throughout
the training period, a two-hour office period was made available to tutors twice a
week to deal with individual enquiries. In this period, help and advice were provided
to individual tutors as they practiced using the cyber, face-to-face features and also
guidance was given on materials preparation for teaching.

Data collection methods

Due to the involving nature of the training programme, a combination of data
collection methods was employed in order to explore the depth and breadth of the
tutors’ experience. Table 3 summarises the data collection methods and data
collected.
Table 2. The introduction sequence.

The sequential introduction of 3C features

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3

1. Whiteboard 7. Uploading files to whiteboard 12. Shared desktop

2. Text chat 8. Increasing font size 13. Poll
3. Photo-taken 9. Window capture 14. Sending instant written
messages
4. Video windows 10. Joint Web browsing 15. Passing token to others
5. Group conferencing 11. Saving whiteboard content
6. Discussion forum
24 M. Levy et al.

Table 3. Data collection methods and data collected.

Data collection methods Data collected

Stage 1: Online teacher training

1. Pre-training survey (background 8
information about the participants)
2. Reflection journals on the platform 21 (one survey for each of the three
training part of the project (Modules modules and seven participants
1, 2 and 3) completed the
surveys)
Stage 2: Online teaching practice
3. Self-reflection reports: Each teacher 26 reports
who conducted an online class completed
a self-reflection report
4. Monitoring reports: Each tutor and the 210 reports
trainer completed a monitoring report
for the tutor(s) who conducted the class
each week
5. Final survey 8
6. Discussion forum 108 entries/postings
7. Video recording of all online training and 11 sessions (Three two-hour and eight
practice sessions one-hour sessions

Data collection in Stage 1 was by survey and was aimed at improving the training
course itself. At the end of each training module, tutors were asked to reflect on the
experience through completing a survey. They completed three surveys altogether.
The questions invited general responses and specific feedback according to the goals
of the module. Thus, the first survey invited specific feedback on the handbook, the
JoinNet features, and any difficulties encountered during installation; the second and
third surveys targeted specific features of the 3C environment and were aimed at
gauging participants’ level of comfort in using them. Note that basically the features
of 3C were introduced according to the perceived level of usefulness and complexity.
The surveys also gave the tutors an opportunity to report back on specific aspects
concerned with the teaching of the module, including any technical issues and
suggestions for improvements.
In Stage 2, all tutors were engaged in online teaching practice and reflection. The
self-reflection and monitoring reports (3 & 4 in Table 3) formed the core of this study,
they go hand-in-hand, and were aimed at facilitating self-reflection on the part of
each tutor in relation to their individual teaching experiences (see Figure 3). These
reports provided each tutor with a cyclic, structured approach to the reflection
process as they moved through their online lessons. Each tutor proceeded through
this cycle for each online lesson taught. This process allowed not only for multiple
self-reflections but also, as a member of work group or Community of Practice, for
an opportunity to reflect upon the work of others, as an active agent in helping to
encourage reflective processes among all other members of the group.
The guided self-reflection report was constructed as a matrix and provided
sections to be completed on all major aspects of preparing and presenting an online
lesson. Down the left-hand side of the grid are aspects of the lesson including the
teaching/learning objectives, materials, management, technology, classroom interac-
tion, learning activities and other issues. Against these dimensions of the lesson, there
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 25

Figure 3. The reporting cycle.

was space for the online tutor to indicate satisfactory/unsatisfactory, to comment,

and to suggest improvements. In general, the monitoring report followed a similar
design and structure to the self-reflection report, but with more emphasis on the
management of the lesson online. Management here was used to include instruction
and monitoring, use of tools and use of time. Other sections included particular
contents/resources, opportunities for interaction/participation and activities.
A final survey completed the project and was used to record suggestions and
concluding comments from the participating tutors. Further data was collected
through a discussion forum and a video recording of all the training sessions.
Postings in the discussion forum began in week one of the project and continued for
the duration. It was not heavily used by tutors, but valuable information was still
received and discussed. Topics in this Forum feature discussion on online pedagogy,
technical problems encountered and reflection on the training experiences of tutors.
This paper now continues with the results for Mary and Sarah. The order is
essentially chronological and tracks each tutor’s online experience as they move
through the three training workshops and then on to the teaching practice. With the
teaching practice, the order of presentation follows the reporting cycle as given in
Figure 3, beginning with the self-reflection report. The cycle is applied first in
relation to the individual teaching experience and then to team teaching. In each of
the two cases, the section concludes with the online tutor’s summary remarks from
the final survey or the discussion forum.

Results
Mary: Online teacher training (Stage 1)
Mary was a native speaker of Mandarin Chinese who had been teaching the language
for eight years. She had not taught online or used videoconferencing before the
course began and she rated her computer competence and her computer confidence
26 M. Levy et al.

as relatively low at level 2 (1 low and 5 high); this personal rating ranked her
lowest in the group. For the duration of the training course, she worked from home
using a Pentium 4 desktop computer with a cable network connection. She had few
problems with installation of the software at home except when existing Chinese
software on her computer interfered in some way with its functioning.
In Mary’s reflection responses on the three modules there were some common
themes as well as distinct points relating to the particular module. Generally, Mary
emphasised the value of hands-on experience whilst stating in response to all three
workshop modules, the lack of time to practice. She also felt at times that the
demonstration and instructions should be more precise and shorter, again to leave
more time to practice. She noted a preference for written instructions rather than
spoken; the spoken word was the primary form of communication in the modules. On
the technical features of 3C, in most cases Mary ranked her comfort level lower than
the other students, notably with text chat at level 2, much lower than the average
rating of 4.34. Mary did take more time to become familiar with the main features of
JoinNet. In terms of challenges, she noted the problems of dealing with technical
problems at home; in this regard she advised creating ‘emergency instructions’ to
back up or continue the lesson.

Mary: Individual teaching (Stage 2)

With regard to the teaching practice, Mary’s self-reflection reports were detailed and
she responded to all categories provided on the report form. On pedagogical aspects,
she was comfortable with the objectives of her first lesson and the sequencing,
although she felt the materials may have been too easy for the students’ level. In
future, she decided to spend more time assessing what students were able to do at the
beginning of the lesson; she also decided to allocate time to solving any technical
problems that may arise beforehand, 15 minutes before the session officially starts.
She noted it was becoming easier to use 3C, especially the whiteboard.
Following the general model we had proposed, following her first online class,
Mary was provided with three monitoring reports from her peers plus one from the
course trainer. One tutor praised the excellent preparation and effective use of tools,
although she also felt that the students did not talk a great deal. Mary in turn
responded to each comment made and agreed that she needed to facilitate more
interaction in future lessons. Another tutor peer, having observed Mary’s lesson, noted
that sometimes students supplied feedback in the text chat box on any technical
problems they might be having so relevant information could be found there also. Like
many online trainee tutors, Mary found it challenging to keep an eye on the textbox
while working on the lesson with her attention tending toward the whiteboard and, of
course, the management and teaching of the lesson (see discussion of ‘scanning’ in the
Implications section). However, this observation by a student peer is an important one
in the learning process. This is precisely the kind of information online student tutors
need in order to become fluent and confident in using the technology. It also indicates
just how much needs to be learned by online tutors.
The course trainer also provided a monitoring report to Mary with detailed
comments and suggestions against each category. As well as words of encouragement
on what was done well, the trainer’s suggestions provided ideas relating to online
pedagogy, the use of the technological tools, or both in relation to one another. Thus,
on pedagogy, the trainer suggested more challenging work for two of the students
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 27

and encouraged more interaction between them; she also gave advice on how this
might be achieved. On the technology, the trainer suggested closer monitoring of the
control panel to see who was speaking and who could see the whiteboard at any
particular time. She also advised Mary not to keep asking students if they could hear
her. The trainer explained that you can tell if students can hear you by watching the
volume bar under the main video window in JoinNet; if the volume bar goes green,
they can hear you. Finally, in a further iteration in the reflective process, Mary
responded to the trainer’s ideas and suggestions. It was evident also that Mary was
pushing herself to try new tools in the 3C system and said she was going to try the
Poll tool in the next lesson in response to the trainer’s encouragement to explore and
use other tools in the future.

Mary: Team teaching (Stage 2)

In her team teaching, Mary’s self-reflection report was emailed both to her partner
and the course trainer. It indicated general satisfaction with the lesson, although the
comments were still self-critical when the Mary felt this to be necessary. Specific
points to come out of the self-reflection related to the need for more time for practice
(as noted earlier in the training workshops) and more individual assistance for one of
the students. In fact, the distribution of time allocated to the various parts of the
lesson was a recurring feature in the comments. Following the reflection comments
on her earlier class, Mary also made mental notes to herself on how she could
improve her use of various tools in relation to the particular exercise being
undertaken. Mary’s partner also completed a self-reflection report on her part of
the lesson. This enabled Mary’s observations to be cross-checked in areas that were
uncertain or problematic: for example, her hypotheses on student levels of language
understanding, and individual student confidence levels with particular tools could
be confirmed. What is evident at this stage was that Mary’s skills and confidence with
3C were steadily improving. Mary and her partner were taking it in turns to monitor
the lesson and were keeping in touch with students through the chat box. She noted
using many of the tools with good effect, although she also maintained her critical
stance in that she felt she needed more practice with her drawing skills on the
whiteboard. She also noted that she used less time than was allocated which was
unusual for her. She concluded: ‘Generally this was a good session, I tried whatever I
learnt and put it into practice’.
As with the individual teaching, the monitoring reports on team teaching
provided valuable feedback. Recipients also showed a keenness to consider and
respond to this feedback with their own comments in the ‘Your say’ column.3 With
the first team teaching session, one tutor monitoring (TuM-1) the lesson noted the
value of the listening material presented while suggesting also that the speed of
speech might be slowed down a little while carrying out the conversations. A second
tutor monitoring the same session (TuM-2) said that Mary’s voice was sometimes a
little bit too soft. She also advised using a pre-listening activity to clarify the
questions with students before the conversations so students would know what to
focus upon. In a third monitoring report (TuM-3), another peer made a similar point
and suggested using instruction comprehension questions to check whether students
had understood instructions: Mary said she would try it in the next class. This report
included a number of specific pedagogical techniques and the recipient responded
very positively and perceptively to all of them. On the monitoring reports received
28 M. Levy et al.

from her peers, Mary concluded: ‘Yes, I think we worked well as a team in the lesson,
and learnt a lot from each other’. Finally, the trainer’s monitoring report (TrM-1)
was provided to Mary. While always constructive and encouraging, the trainer was
quite critical of Mary’s teaching in this lesson, especially in terms of the two tutors
still going over lecture notes prior to the start of the lesson
this preparatory work
should have been done earlier. The trainer also emphasised the importance of
practising the use of any new tools before the lesson (e.g. Poll). As with all the
monitoring reports this tutor received, the advice and suggestions were taken
seriously. Again Mary made notes in the ‘Your say’ column on specific actions she
would take in her future teaching.
Of course, Mary in turn also contributed valuable advice and suggestions for the
other tutors in the group through her own monitoring reports. In writing these
structured documents which require completion of sections which prompt comments
on such matters as lesson preparation, management, content and so forth, the tutor
reflects further as she organises and articulates her advice for others. On one observed
lesson, for example, Mary made numerous suggestions concerned with pedagogical
aspects (e.g. grammar points, pace) and appropriate use of the tools (e.g. microphone
volume, position of webcam, use of tools). This was received positively, and led to
further dialogue and reflection. As discussed in the rationale earlier, in this study it was
clear that the completion of structured monitoring reports held great benefit for the
observing teacher as well as for the tutor actually conducting the lesson.
Mary’s responses to the final survey and her comments in the discussion forum
display confidence and competence in teaching online that had steadily increased
through the training programme. On pedagogical aspects, she emphasised the
importance of practice and meticulous planning before the class began. She also
appreciated the positive learning environment created within the group of tutors as a
whole. On technological aspects, she preferred a step-by-step approach to the
learning and use of the component technologies in 3C and cautioned that using too
many techniques at the same time would likely cause a loss in focus for both the tutor
and the students. She particularly valued the whiteboard and gradually grew in
confidence and awareness with the text chat box. She felt these tools provided a
critical form of communication between teacher and students that, ‘compensates for
the loss of intimacy which we would normally have in a face-to-face classroom
situation’. Her final thoughts on her personal process of learning are perhaps best
captured in the following extended self-reflection made at the end of the programme
(Mary
12 February 2007):
In this new field we have experienced something extraordinary which has gone beyond
the scope of conventional teaching. The technical challenge was at the beginning almost
overwhelming. I will never forget the very nervous and embarrassing moments searching
my way back to the class after getting lost in the middle of the teaching, or when could
not give back the token or find the Poll result. I felt that I was wasting everybody’s time
when nobody seemed to hear me, yet some simple steps such as clicking on the switch to
start talking could be easily rectified. This caused some frustration.

In the end, however, I learnt to use something which I never dreamt I could use and
could not have achieved this without this course. For this, I am truly grateful for being
offered this wonderful opportunity to learn these online skills in language teaching. The
fact that we as a team could put many online resources together (PowerPoint
presentation, pictured notes, chat box, board sharing, recording, Website browsing
and role play) and use them in an orderly manner, without any major disasters, indicated
our progress in the learning and increased confidence and demonstrated the potential
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 29

power of this marvellous tool in teaching. It greatly enhanced our overall presentation
and share of knowledge.

Sarah: Online teacher training (Stage 1)

Sarah is a non-native speaker of Mandarin Chinese with three years teaching
experience. She had not taught a class online before nor had she attended an online
course as a student. She judged her computer competence and confidence at mid
level and this placed her at the same mid way point within the group as a whole. She
worked from home with a dial-up connection in Stage 1 and changed to a cable
connection in Stage 2 using a Pentium 4 desktop computer.
Like Mary, Sarah’s response to the three modules included recurring themes and
specific points relating to the particular module. She had no problems installing all
the necessary technologies (e.g. JoinNet, webcam), and indicated high confidence
levels with 3C features. Generally, in her reflection survey for Module 1, Sarah
reported either good or very good comfort levels on the majority of features except,
interestingly, for the whiteboard (Level 2, 1 low, 5 high). In her response to Module
2, when more detail was given, this seemed to relate mainly to saving whiteboard
content, a 3C function that caused concerns initially for other tutors also. Problems
were also encountered across-the-board on sending instant written messages
because the tutor’s screen did not seem to show the same icons as the trainer’s
screen. Sarah asked that the trainer take the tutors through the process again. She
also noted that she and the other tutors in the class did not always give immediate
feedback during the lesson when a teaching point had not been fully understood,
and she noted how important it was that everyone use the text chat box for this
purpose; of course, as well as tutors sending a text relating to the problem, this also
requires the trainer to keep a close eye on any queries that arise in the text chat box
as they are teaching. Otherwise, for Sarah, apart from these two specific problems,
confidence with all 3C features introduced in the three modules remained high.
Other comments included very favourable reactions to team teaching. She
particularly liked the team teaching strategy of having one tutor to run the class
and one tutor responsible for providing support and answering any questions raised
in the text chat box. She planned to use this technique in her own online classes.
Her impression of online language teaching given at the end of the second module
captures her feelings in Stage 1 of the training programme well: ‘Definitely it (online
language teaching) has a lot of potential, but I suspect it will take (me) a while to
become au fait with all the different functions and to get to the stage where I feel as
though I can run a tight class’.

Sarah: Individual teaching (Stage 2)

As with much of Sarah’s reporting, her responses were both detailed and perceptive. As
well as always being constructive and self-critical in her analysis of her own
performance, she regularly matched observations and reflections with specific goals
where she believed she could improve. Many of the comments she made related to
assessing the individual student’s proficiency level more appropriately, the amount of
lesson material required, and the need for practice beforehand. On the classroom
environment, she noted that online was much slower than face-to-face, and a little
frustrating particularly because it is harder to elicit responses from students and to
30 M. Levy et al.

gauge their reactions. Similar comments were repeated in Sarah’s self-reflection report
on her second class. Here Sarah says: ‘Too much content (again!)’; and, ‘Try to be more
realistic in planning activities and allocating time required’. She made numerous other
comments and suggestions to herself for improvement in all categories of the report.
She also observed that she needed to explain the tasks more clearly, check more
thoroughly that students had fully understood the instructions, and she warned herself
not to be put off by technical problems when they occurred for a particular student.
The structure of the report again gave the online tutor ample opportunity to reflect and
comment on their performance and to think ahead and consider how they might
improve their online teaching in the next class.
Perhaps Sarah was being a little hard on herself because the monitoring reports
from her peers and the trainer on both classes were very positive. One peer made
positive comments throughout particularly in the use of a family photo in colour on
the whiteboard as a stimulus for talking about family members. Another tutor
observing Sarah’s online class made a similar point. Positive points from the trainer
included very well prepared lecture notes and activities, very clear instructions in
both English and Chinese and compliments on the timely and appropriate use of the
3C tools, such as the Poll function and an upload of the results of the Poll to the
whiteboard. Some of the main suggestions included using PowerPoint slides with a
simple background to improve uploading speed and, when writing on the white-
board, using the typing function more than the mouse for clarity. Sarah responded
enthusiastically to these suggestions and acknowledged their value and again
emphasised the importance of practice before the lesson began. The trainer
concluded:
I love to watch your body language and hear your laughter. You might need to watch
your own video window more often to ensure that you are still in the video frame and
that your movement is not too fast. Fast movements cause blurry images.
Sarah’s own monitoring reports for other tutors in the group were very detailed
and specific, comments were provided alongside every category, and they were always
accompanied by constructive suggestions which were clearly found helpful by
recipients.

Sarah: Team teaching (Stage 2)

Sarah’s self-reflection report on one of her team teaching classes indicated a growth
in terms of skills and confidence when compared with the earlier self-reflection
report on her individual teaching. She was still having some difficulties with the
amount of teaching material prepared and the use of time, but now instead of too
much, it was too little. As a result, she determined specific techniques and strategies
to be used in the future to overcome this deficiency, which in this case included a
second role play with more complex and involved vocabulary and interactions to
match the ability of one student whose proficiency was higher than the others. As
far as Sarah’s ability with the technology was concerned, although she still
acknowledged that she needed greater familiarity with the tools, she was clearly
making progress in her ability to manipulate the main functions in 3C. There is
evidence that the focus was moving from the technological tool to the pedagogy. For
example, she told herself to get used to pausing each audio file after the first
sentence to check if the student could hear (she did this the second time), to ensure
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 31

that the entire dialogue would not have to be replayed. She also wrote reminder
notes to herself in her reflection report, such as: before the start of the lesson,
upload all necessary audio files to joint web browsing and check the volume and
position of her microphone, and speak at a steady pace. Such personal reminders
indicate learning and developing skills and confidence.
Following the previous reports, the monitoring reports provided by peers on
Sarah’s team teaching congratulated her on meticulous preparation, clarity of
instructions, and quality and degree of interaction through well-chosen activities.
On the technology side, the only major problem related to difficulty in locating and
playing some sound files. Another peer focussed more on pedagogical aspects, and
noted that the information content in the dialogues was a little too heavy. Sarah and
her partner responded by saying they still need more practice in manipulating sound
files through joint web browsing. It was also clear from their comments in the ‘Your
say’ column that both tutors really enjoyed working together in this environment. The
trainer further reiterated the points made by peers, especially the team preparation and
coordinated teamwork throughout the lesson. She also congratulated Sarah on her use
of joint web browsing and made suggestions on how she might manage the sound files
more effectively. The trainer concludes: ‘(Sarah), I have noticed a huge improvement in
your use of the tools and confidence in online teaching. Congratulations!’
As with Mary, Sarah’s responses in the final survey and in the discussion forum
showed significant progress and development from the early stage. At the beginning
of the programme, Sarah felt more comfortable with new technologies and the speed
with which she adopted and adapted to the 3C learning environment was evident
throughout. This is not to say she did not have difficulties initially, but that when
complications did arise usually they were resolved quickly and efficiently. Also
technological problems encountered by Sarah were generally experienced by the
whole group. On pedagogical aspects, Sarah particularly enjoyed the team teaching
and the opportunity to receive help and advice from others, including criticism. Also
she was always very conscious of the differences between face-to-face and online
learning environments and at one point said, ‘the differences between traditional and
online classrooms actually made it very difficult to transfer teaching skills and
strategies from one setting to the other’. In a more detailed response to this issue in
the final survey, she said the following:
I often felt online that it was like working in water instead of air; everything is thicker,
sluggisher, reactions are delayed, etc. The other aspect is, of course, that my lack of
expertise with the necessary techniques made it difficult to choose the most appropriate
one when planning the lesson and almost impossible to change my strategy during the
lesson if I realised that it wasn’t working.
Sarah was also alert to the value of such features as the text chat in this regard
emphasising its importance in the online context as a means for students to attract
attention with a question without interrupting the flow of the lesson and to provide
feedback. In the processes of developing her online teaching skills and expertise,
Sarah remained a very alert, creative and perceptive student throughout.

Discussion/implications
Although there are differences between the two online tutors featured in this paper,
there are many similarities. For each individual, the process of moving through the
32 M. Levy et al.

online training modules followed by the online teaching practice represents a story of
gradually increasing familiarity and confidence in the use of the tools available in the
online learning environment. This process might best be described as an internal
dialogue in the mind of the tutor between evolving understandings of the
technological affordances on the one hand and the pedagogical affordances on the
other (Day and Lloyd 2007; Levy 2006). Through this cyclic and iterative process of
action and reflection, the seeds of an online pedagogy are first planted, then grown.
In Stage 1 particularly, the importance of hands-on experience and time for
practice are repeatedly emphasised by the trainees. As new features of the 3C learning
environment are introduced incrementally, they need to be tried out and practised,
first separately and later fully integrated into an online class. The approach
advocated here emphasises the importance of cycles of practice, feedback and
reflection that are designed to lead to confidence in the use of the tools, a sense of
appropriacy and a developing understanding of the range of applications that a
particular tool may have.
Given the two tutors’ backgrounds and experience in the face-to-face, classroom
teaching of Mandarin, the process the online tutors underwent also represents a
process where existing skills need to be revisited and possibly reconceptualised in the
new online learning environment. In the two stories here, it is clearly evident that
trainee tutors had difficulties at certain times with such pedagogical matters as
preparing language teaching materials, correctly assessing the proficiency level of
students in their class, allocating portions of time appropriately to different parts of
the lesson, and checking that language learners had clearly understood the
instructions they had been given. All language teachers are familiar with these kinds
of issues in face-to-face learning. But in online learning the mechanisms required,
both technological and pedagogical, may differ and tutors need to develop new skills
to manage old problems. In 3C, for example, tutors may need to upload language
teaching materials before the class begins, or they may need to check they remember
how to use the Poll tool to check understandings.
A particularly important new skill in the online environment is the scanning
technique. As noted earlier, Mary, in particular, found it difficult to keep track of
events across the multiple windows on-screen, but this was in fact a challenge for all
the trainee tutors. When teaching in a face-to-face context, experienced language
teachers are continually evaluating audience reaction; the teacher is always scanning
the class, looking at the faces of individual students to see whether they are attending
and to check whether they are fully engaged in the class. In the online setting, using
synchronous interactive language learning environments like 3C, scanning is equally
if not more important, and the skill is an especially demanding one. Not only does
the online tutor need to teach and communicate with the students using such features
as the interactive whiteboard, but they also need to pay regular attention to
important windows such as the video windows open on the desktop. For example, we
have seen how important it is to scan the control panel to check whether sound levels
and quality are up to standard (where colour codes need to be understood), or to
review the text chat box to see what is being reported there. The text chat box is an
especially valuable feature in the online environment because it provides the
individual student with the means to contact the teacher about a problem
either
with the technology or the language
without interrupting the conduct of the class as
a whole. It also gives the students a means to text one another as the class continues
on any matter relating to the lesson. In all of this, it is no wonder that online tutors
 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 33

need extensive exposure and practise in online pedagogical strategies and techniques
in order to become fluent and confident in this environment.

Conclusion
Online teaching as illustrated here in the use of 3C in the teaching of Mandarin
provides an excellent opportunity for teacher education and the observation of our
trainee tutors at work. In a training course, short 15-minute micro lessons and longer
30-minute team teaching lessons provided appropriate opportunities for practice.
Together with the self-reflection and monitoring reports, we have a process that
facilitates action and reflection cyclically whereby an individual may learn not only
from personal experience but also from the informed judgements and suggestions of
others working in the same online environment. Our two-stage model with an
emphasis on online practice teaching provides an opportunity for the trainee tutors
to further develop their technological and pedagogical skills, hand in hand, in an
authentic teaching context. Work in the future needs to aim to refine this process
further, especially by developing mechanisms that can explicitly check and record the
improvements made by trainee tutors on the previous cycles of development so that
the new knowledge and skills may be pitched at the right level and communicated
effectively and efficiently.

Acknowledgements
This project was funded by a Griffith University Signature Grant. Permission was granted
from NSYU for its use in this project. 3C was funded by the Taiwan National Science Council
and has been constantly upgraded by the National Sun Yat-sen University in Taiwan. In terms
of scalability, the server running 3C has a capacity to support up to 500 online asynchronous
users and 200 online synchronous users.

Notes
1. To preserve privacy, pseudonyms were used in this study for the two online tutors.
2. One teacher was not available for workshop two and three but returned for the rest of the
training program.
3. The ‘Your say’ column in the Monitoring Report is where the monitored teacher responds
to the comments made by the observing teacher.

Notes on contributors
Professor Mike Levy is head of the School of Languages and Linguistics at Griffith University,
Brisbane, Australia. His principal interest in teaching and research is computer-assisted
language learning (CALL) and he has published widely in the field. His recent books include
CALL Dimensions with Glenn Stockwell (Erlbaum, 2006) and Teacher Education in CALL
with Philip Hubbard (Benjamins, 2006). He is Associate Editor of the CALL and CALL-EJ
Online journals and on the Editorial Boards of the CALICO and ReCALL Journals.

Dr Yuping Wang is senior lecturer of Chinese language at Griffith University, Australia

(www.griffith.edu.au). Her research focuses on the use of synchronous computer mediated
communication (SCMC) and synchronous learning management systems (SLMS) in second
language learning. She has published journal articles on the use of internet-based
videoconferencing tools in distance language learning. She has also developed Chinese
language software for character writing.
34 M. Levy et al.

Professor Nian-Shing Chen is professor of information management at the National Sun

Yat-sen University (NSYSU), Taiwan. He is currently a visiting professor of the School of
Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, the University of Queensland, Australia. His
research areas include e-learning, knowledge management and the use and development of
online and wireless technologies to enhance learning. He has published over 200 articles
including journal articles, conference papers and book chapters on various issues in e-learning
and information technology with a particular strength on online synchronous teaching &
learning.

References
Akbari, R. 2007. Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflected practices in L2
teacher education. System 35: 192
207.
Chen, N., et al. 2008. Developing a pedagogically meaningful e-tutor training program for
cyber face-to-face language learning. Proceedings of the Paper presented at the 8th IEEE
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, July 1
5, 361
5, in
Santander, Spain.
Cumming, G. 1993. A perspective on learning for intelligent educational systems. Journal of
Computer-Assisted Learning 9: 229
38.
Day, D., and M. Lloyd. 2007. Affordances of online technologies: More than the properties of
the technology. Australian Educational Computing 22, no. 2: 17
21.
Hampel, R. 2003. Theoretical perspectives and new practices in audio-graphic conferencing for
language learning. ReCALL 15, no. 1: 21
36.
Hampel, R., and E. Baber. 2003. Using internet-based audio-graphic and video conferencing
for language teaching and learning. In Language learning online: Towards best practice, ed.
U. Felix, 171
91. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hampel, R., and M. Hauck. 2004. Towards an effective use of audioconferencing in distance
language courses. Language Learning & Technology 8, no. 1: 66
82.
Hampel, R., and U. Stickler. 2005. New skills the new classrooms: Training tutors to teach
languages online. Computer-Assisted Language Learning 18, no. 4: 311
26.
Levy, M. 1999. Theory and design in a multimedia CALL project in cross-cultural pragmatics.
Computer-Assisted Language Learning 12, no. 1: 29
58.
***. 2006. Effective use of CALL technologies: Finding the right balance. In Changing
language education through CALL, ed. R. Donaldson and M. Haggstrom,
18. Lisse, The
Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Levy, M., and C. Kennedy. 2004. A task cycling pedagogy using simulated reflection and
audioconferencing in foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology 8, no.
2: 50
69.
Levy, M., and G. Stockwell. 2006. CALL Dimensions: Options and issues in Computer-Assisted
Language Learning, 118
131. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Maingay, P. 1988. Observation for training, development or assessment? In Explorations in
teacher training*problems and issue, ed. T, Duff, 118
131. London, UK: Longman.
Mayes, T., and S. De Freitas. 2007. Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In Rethinking
pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning, ed. H. Beetham and
R. Sharpe, 13
250. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Salmon, G. 2004. E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online, 2nd ed. London and
New York: Routledge Falmer.
Skehan, P. 1998. The cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Stickler, U., and R. Hampel. 2007. Designing online tutor training for language courses: A case
study. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning 22, no. 1: 75
85.
Wallace, M.J. 1991. Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Y., and N.S. Chen. 2007. Online synchronous language learning: SLMS over the
internet. Innovate, 3, no. 3: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?viewarticle&id
337 (accessed 30 November 2008).