2.1 Language teaching and learning

It is widely accepted that learning a new language prospers from active, purposeful interaction with others (Lightbown & Spada, Reference Lightbown and Spada2006). These others must be willing to engage in effortful interaction with the goal of mutual meaning generation and comprehension. These others can be teachers, fellow learners or others in the community who are willing to interact in the target language for real purposes (Ellis, Reference Ellis1994), and who scaffold the developing discourse of the non-native speaker (Goldenberg, Reference Goldenberg2008).

In curricular terms, language itself is no longer viewed as a set of static competencies based on the ideal native speaker model (Larsen-Freeman & Freeman, Reference Larsen-Freeman and Freeman2008). Instead, language knowledge is complexly dynamic and contextually shaped (Hall, Cheng & Carlson, Reference Hall, Cheng and Carlson2006). This kind of active, learner-centered, talk in action approach is central to the design and processes of both 1) the Moodle fishbowl professional development sequence; and 2) the orchestration of the EFL interactions with US collaborators “inside” the metaphorical fishbowl. Anchored in this socioculturally influenced perspective on language education, the goal in the design and analysis of this professional development sequence is to build awareness of and fluency in the kinds of instructional guidance and responsive assistance that maximize learner-centered opportunities for their generative language use.

2.2 Teaching languages online

In traditional f2f classrooms, good language teachers gently restructure student output often by sensitively rephrasing what learners say. In traditional language classrooms this ‘classroom repair’ is a central task of teaching (Macbeth, Reference Macbeth2004). It is a central component in the organizational structure of language classroom processes (Seedhouse, Reference Seedhouse2004). What distinguishes clear cut ‘repair’ (no, try again in its various forms) from ‘instructional conversation’ is the meaning-centered authenticity of the conversational stream during which instructional adjustments to student output occur. “To be successful instruction, the conversation involves several kinds of understandings: understanding the aims and purposes of the learning, understanding the learner(s), understanding the factors that constrain the conversation, understanding the importance of being open to multiple contingencies in the conversation, understanding what language would best bring about learner comprehension and action, and the like” (Meskill & Anthony, Reference Meskill and Anthony2010: 16). Based on these understandings, the instructor may employ a variety of moves within instructional conversations (Tharp, Reference Tharp1993). In the language classroom, this could be calling attention to form when a teacher points out forms that a learner needs to be using (Student: He goes on school. Teacher: What school does he go to? Student: He goes to high school.) or corralling when an instructor redirects learners’ attention to specifics of language used (Student: Last Sunday I go to a party. Teacher: Last Sunday you…? Did what? Student: I went to a party). In online teaching fora, there are unique affordances of the online environment in this regard (see Appendix A for the list of affordances emphasized throughout the professional development sequences). In short, in CMC environments attention can be drawn to specific language mechanics without sacrificing the generative meaning-making that might otherwise get derailed, something which is often the case in traditional f2f classrooms.

Taking advantage of such opportunities and resources to engage learners in using the target language productively while calling attention to adjustments that need to be made to their output is the essence of online instructional conversation (IC) for learning additional languages (Meskill & Anthony, Reference Meskill and Anthony2010). Unlike traditional f2f classrooms where the teacher continually narrows and anchors focus, and thus limits the opportunities and choices with those opportunities for learners, in asynchronous online environments, environments whose hallmark is infinite choice and individual control over what happens on a screen (what Schull calls “the zone of certainty” (Schull, Reference Schull2008: 168)), employing ICs to orchestrate tasks is all the more challenging. However, due to the unique communicative affordances of asynchronous online communication, there exists exceptional potential for merging authentic communication with instruction (see Meskill & Anthony, Reference Meskill and Anthony2007, Reference Meskill and Anthony2010).

2.3 The Moodle fishbowl activity

The fishbowl technique is a widely employed instructional format used to promote collaboration, critical observation, and conceptual development (Badger, Reference Badger2007; Miller, Benz, & Wysocki, Reference Miller, Benz and Wysocki2002). In live contexts, participants sit in concentric circles with the outermost circle observing and discussing the human processes occurring in the inside circle. Thus a unique window on human activity is available for joint inspection. In educator professional development, the technique is frequently used as a means to stimulate careful observation of human interaction and collaborative reflection. We employed this technique in a Moodle environment in much the same way. The EFL faculty were positioned outside of the metaphorical fishbowl observing their students practicing their English communication skills with their US partners. The faculty then discussed their observations within the professional development course (Figure 1).

Fig. 1 Moodle fishbowl format

One of the largest hurdles for language educators as they move online is conceptualizing their professional role. Because online language learning experiences can best be learner-centered, generative and in some ways anarchic (Reference DoolyDooly, in press) this conceptual shift becomes doubly challenging. The rationale for the fishbowl approach was that faculty could best make progress towards this understanding and acceptance if provided the opportunity to see their EFL students learning in well orchestrated, conversationally rich online activities while reflecting on and discussing these interactions with their peers. Indeed, having teachers observe and reflect on the use of well constructed instructional conversations by others has been shown to be an effective professional development technique (Roskos, Boehlen & Walker, Reference Roskos, Boehlen and Walker2000; Saunders, Goldenberg & Hamann, Reference Saunders, Goldenberg and Hamann1992).

This project's Moodle fishbowl was an activity in which participating EFL professionals engaged as part of their year-long online professional development course in online teaching. Earlier in the year, they had explored online digital learning objects and their applications with their classes, developed and implemented online exercises and activities for their students that employed digital learning objects, and read and discussed the overall topic of teaching and learning language online. A good deal of the online discussion involved inviting and responding to invitations to provide peer feedback in the form of professional discussion as a generative form of professional development (Barab, MaKinster & Sheckler, Reference Barab, MaKinster and Sheckler2004). For each activity there was a reflective component and for the overall course a pre and post reflection writing piece as well as ongoing participation in asynchronous discussions between and among faculty and their course instructors in Moodle. The culminating product was an electronic portfolio of their work that became part of a shared library for all participants.

The following desiderata for the faculty steered design and development of the Moodle fishbowl activity:

• • Recognize the anatomy of speech events that represent teachable moments online (Meskill & Anthony, Reference Meskill and Anthony2010).

• • Utilize the living language curricular approach (Larsen-Freeman & Freeman, Reference Larsen-Freeman and Freeman2008).

• • Develop a ‘mediating toolchest’ of online IC strategies (Meskill & Anthony, Reference Meskill and Anthony2010).

• • Use verbal and non-verbal (visual online) strategies for amplifying ICs (Hilliker-VanStrander, Reference Hilliker-VanStrander2007).

• • Understand how IC strategies provide anchor/focus for teacher noticing and acting on teachable moments (Saunders et al., Reference Saunders, Goldenberg and Hamann1992).

The overarching conceptual framework for the activity was constructed via Allwright's “practice framework” for professional development whereby teachers are guided to gather data on their own work as part of their regular formative teaching practices, keep tabs on what learners in their classrooms know, and to what current pedagogical perspectives they are adhering (Tarone & Allwright, Reference Tarone and Allwright2005). Additionally, Lave and Wenger's notion of situated learning, whereby one observes experts at work for gradual participation and mastery, factored into the activity design (Lave & Wenger, Reference Lave and Wenger1991). In sum, the aim of the Moodle fishbowl professional development sequence was to promote faculty seeing, observing and reflecting on alternative teaching and teachers, an approach central to teacher education generally (Moreno & Ortegano-Layne, Reference Moreno and Ortegano-Layne2007), and language teacher education in particular (Fanslow, Reference Fanslow1987; Johnson, Reference Johnson1994; Meskill, Reference Meskill2009).

4.1 Class dynamics

Inside of the Moodle fishbowl, the nature of the US-led online EFL collaborations was learner-centered, generative instruction. Such learner-centered, generative instruction for language education rests largely on instructors’ positioning in terms of control: control of time, turns, topic, voice, and, in short, learning. In learner-centered environments, the position of learners shifts to one of controlling these elements, with the instructor becoming more of a guide than a task master. Closely paralleling Dörnyei's “authority type” as a critical factor in the language classroom environment (Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei1994), we tracked participant pre-fishbowl and post-fishbowl thinking regarding the dynamic between themselves and their EFL learners.

As online teacher educators, we were interested in understanding how participants viewed power relationships in the f2f classes and how this aligned with the power relationships they observed in the Moodle fishbowl activity. At the start of the year-long professional development course, we asked that faculty respond to a questionnaire designed to elicit such views (see Appendix B). We employed a comment-starter completion assignment with which participants recorded their post-fishbowl observations and reflections (see Appendix C).

Table 1 illustrates individual participants’ pre/post fishbowl activity thoughts on class power dynamics in the f2f classroom and, subsequently, in the online fishbowl collaborations. Faculty1, an older traditional classroom teacher, initially expressed fear about online language teaching chiefly in terms of losing control of students. In both her questionnaire responses and in class discussion, she was unsure about how learners could be continually watched and held accountable, something that was revealed to be clearly central to her classroom teaching. Her fishbowl observations reveal recognition that the power dynamic between students and teacher can indeed shift to some pedagogical advantage in online venues. Faculty2 likewise observed that online language teaching “changes the power distribution” and Faculty3, like Faculty1, started out concerned about loss of control online: “I was concerned about my students’ participation”, then, post-fishbowl, observed advantages in relinquishing control so that learners can “own the conversation”.

Table 1 Data matrix of faculty stances: class dynamics

While initially viewing online venues as opportunities for students to drill independently and hand in work to be graded – in short, language technologies as tools and task masters – Faculty4, one of two instructors who had used off-the-shelf online curricula, observed via the fishbowl that online venues were indeed opportunities for “personalization and installing the rapport” as well as being a place “to teach while keeping students motivated”. Faculty5, the youngest of the participants and one who had previous online teaching experience identical to Faculty4, observed that online venues could become places where students could be very active and “talkative” as opposed to merely working through pre-fabricated materials online.

In sum, participants used the fishbowl as a means to witness different forms of power relations/class dynamics. They were able to observe and consider more active, agentive roles on the part of their EFL students.

4.2 Source of topics/content

In determining the content of EFL instruction, learner-centered, generative instruction capitalizes on learner interests and experiences rather than set content delineated in language textbooks. Indeed, a generative approach to language content honors ideas and their nuances as these evolve conversationally, with learners serving as sources of content and ideas about content. The affordances of asynchronous online venues neatly support this approach to content.

Our interest in faculty thinking regarding the content of EFL courses includes focus on the inclusion/exclusion of learner-generated topics and content, an affordance of asynchronous online teaching that was foregrounded in the fishbowl professional development activity. In reviewing faculty questionnaire responses and discussion posts it appeared that much, if not all, of the EFL curriculum was textbook-based, including the off-the-shelf online EFL course. Through observation of their own students actively generating and steering topics and ideas during the fishbowl activity, faculty commented on the pedagogical value of authentic, learner-generated communicative activity. Moreover, as noted in Table 2, faculty noted how their students made extensive use of linked and/or embedded images, recorded audio files of their own making in English, and video, as means of amplifying their meaning making in English. Faculty marveled at the amount of new information they learned about their students as well as the quantity and quality of their posts in English. Seeing what one's students know and are capable of – Dozier, Johnston and Rogers’ “roaming the known” – is indeed a powerful and viable form of professional development (Dozier, Johnston & Rogers, Reference Dozier, Johnston and Rogers2006: 34). The faculty also learned how important it is to select discussion topics that are stimulating and relevant to students. A stunning example of this emerged during the collaborations when, in contrast to discussions of daily culture and individual interests and hobbies which generated rich and extended talk, the topic “Social involvement and responsibility” generated zero student comments even though the US collaborator attempted to initiate the discussion several times.

Table 2 Data matrix of faculty stances: source of topics/content

4.3 Role of teacher

Where traditional f2f classroom practices see teachers as the central impetus for all processes, learner-centered, generative instruction sees learners at the center of learning with teachers as guides and mentors of the learning. This shift represents a large conceptual hurdle that involves identity and affect on the part of both instructors and learners (Tarone & Allwright, Reference Tarone and Allwright2005; Walsh, Reference Walsh2002). The risks associated with giving up control both as the focal point of instructional activity and in terms of moving to a new instructional environment with which younger learners may be more competent than oneself present challenges for professional development in online teaching (Felix, Reference Felix2003).

Moreover, as noted in Table 3, the shift to an online asynchronous environment apparently does not come easily to those accustomed to controlling the classroom. This may be even more so the case for East Europeans. The participating faculty were Belarusian as were the majority of their students. Belarus is a culture that scores high in power distance, which implies that it generally accepts a hierarchical (vertical) relationship between a teacher and a student (Hofstede, Reference Hofstede1986). In such cultures a teacher does not generally share control of the classroom with students. It did not come as a surprise then that a good teacher might be described as the one who:

Table 3 Data matrix of faculty stances: role of teacher

The professional development course enabled the faculty to re-examine their role and explore ways of being a student's “partner” and “helper rather than a master” (Faculty1).

Faculty were able to see that their students might take more active roles in the classroom. Notably, course participants expressed surprise at how outspoken their quiet students were in CMC and, consequently, how much they were able to learn about their lives. Such observations confirm the current distance education literature that underscores the interactive and personal aspects of online learning (Dringus, Reference Dringus1999; King, Reference King2002), aspects that have been echoed strongly in research specific to language education (Hauck & Hampel, Reference Hauck and Hampel2008; Meskill & Anthony, Reference Meskill and Anthony2007).

4.4 Purposes and processes of evaluation

Evaluating language learning can be viewed as a summative endeavor: administering tests that cover some or all course curricula – or formative: the ongoing assessment of learners’ language development in progress. While traditional language teachers do both, online venues afford opportunities to undertake the latter more systematically, more instructionally, and more conversationally. Instructional conversation strategies that illustrate formative evaluation techniques were used extensively throughout the fishbowl collaborations.

As indicated in Table 4, it is clear from the faculty participants’ initial statements regarding the purposes and processes of evaluation that, along with the risk of losing control, they were also considerably concerned with how they were to evaluate student performance in online venues. Their strong interest in using online resources with built-in score keeping, as well as creating exercises that could be scored and tracked, evidence this perception of evaluation's purposes and processes. Post fishbowl activity, however, there is some shift in their thinking about evaluating student learning.

Table 4 Data matrix of faculty stances: purposes and processes of evaluation

As was reported in course questionnaires, course discussion threads, and in the Moodle fishbowl reflection assignment, there appears to be some movement away from teacher-centered toward student-centered concepts of language education. We are, however, far from making claims that actual changes in practices have or will result. What is very clear is that faculty awareness has been raised concerning the potential pedagogical strengths of learner-centered activity in asynchronous online environments.

Whether and how faculty appropriate any of these techniques in their live or online teaching is yet to be seen.