See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290391954

Teaching Practices and Teacher Perceptions in Online

World Language Courses

Article · December 2015

CITATIONS READS

10 6,989

2 authors:

Chin-Hsi Lin Binbin Zheng

The University of Hong Kong Michigan State University
42 PUBLICATIONS   631 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   690 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chin-Hsi Lin on 13 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Online Learning Research (2015) 1(3), 275-303

Teaching Practices and Teacher Perceptions

in Online World Language Courses

CHIN-HSI LIN
Michigan State University, United States
chinhsi@msu.edu

BINBIN ZHENG
Michigan State University, United States
binbinz@msu.edu

Online teaching and learning have become widespread with

the emergence of the Internet and other new technologies.
However, online environments pose new challenges to those
seeking to develop or choose suitable teaching approaches,
and this is especially true in the case of language courses.
Using survey and interview data, this study examines online
language teachers’ teaching practices, their adjustments to-
ward online teaching, and the professional development (PD)
that they received and expected to receive in a virtual high
school in the United States. The findings suggest that online
teachers generally used more non-content-related teach-
ing practices than content-related teaching practices in on-
line language courses; and that instructors in Chinese – the
only language course that offered weekly synchronous ses-
sions – exhibited more frequent use of content-related teach-
ing practices than teachers of other world languages. The
study also sheds light on teachers’ adjustment to the online
environment, which impacts their management, social, and
pedagogical roles. Lastly, our analysis of the PD that teachers
felt they needed, as against what they actually received, un-
derscores the need for more PD in the areas of online-course
design and content-related technology integration. The results
of this study could be useful to online language teachers and
researchers, and point the way to improvements in teacher
education vis-à-vis online language teaching.
276 Lin and Zheng

INTRODUCTION
The number of K-12 students taking online courses has surged rapidly
over the last decade (Cavanaugh & Blomeyer, 2007). In 2006, Michigan be-
came the first state to mandate that every student should complete an on-
line learning experience before they graduate from high school (DiPietro,
Ferdig, Black, & Preston, 2008). An estimated 1.82 million students were
enrolled in distance-education courses in U.S. K-12 school districts in
2009-2010, and 74% of these enrollments were among high-school students
(Queen & Lewis, 2011). As more states begin to operate virtual schools, en-
rollment numbers are expected to rise further in the next few years (Watson,
Pape, Murin, Gemin, & Vashaw, 2014).
The Internet has enabled the delivery of instruction at lower cost than in
face-to-face settings, thus providing more opportunities for learners to take
courses (Murday, Ushida, & Chenoweth, 2008). Teacher quality is one of
the most important contributors to student learning in the traditional class-
room (Darling-Hammond, 2000), and with the growing popularity of online
learning, the quality of online teaching has become a primary concern for
educators, administrators, students, and parents. Increasingly, teachers need
to be able to design virtual course materials and engage students using com-
municative technologies (Davis & Roblyer, 2005; Kennedy & Archambault,
2012). Since interaction and communication are at the heart of language
learning (Hampel & Stickler, 2005), these new teaching skills are especially
crucial for online language teachers (Compton, 2009). However, little re-
search has examined online language teachers’ teaching practices, and less
still has focused on how best to prepare teachers for online language teach-
ing in K-12 environments. The current research intends to fill these gaps
through a systematic and detailed examination of online language teachers’
teaching practices and the teacher-level factors that affect them. Specifical-
ly, the four research questions addressed in this study are:
1. What teaching practices did language instructors use in online courses?
2. What were the effects of teacher factors – namely, teachers’ self-
efficacy and individual characteristics – on teaching practices in online
language-teaching environments?
3. How did language teachers adjust their pre-existing teaching practices
for use in online language courses?
4. What kinds of professional development had teachers received, and
how did these differ from what they expected to receive?
Online Language Teaching Practices 277

ONLINE TEACHING PRACTICES

Anderson, Liam, Garrison, and Archer (2001) examined the multifaceted
functioning of teachers in online courses and proposed three categories of
teaching presence, including instructional design and organization, facili-
tating discourse, and direct instruction. These three categories in essence
reflect teachers’ content-related practices and the different roles they play in
online courses. The present study adopts Anderson et al.’s conceptualization
of teaching presence as a framework for reviewing the relevant literature.

Instructional Design and Organization

This first category focuses on the process of designing and planning
curriculum materials for online courses. Teachers play an organizational
or managerial role as they set curricula, design teaching approaches, and
utilize media for communication and teaching. DePietro (2010) examined
the teaching practices of 16 highly qualified online instructors in a virtual
school and reported that they designed various methods of engaging stu-
dents with content, incorporating a range of technologies including discus-
sion boards, online videos, and collaborative tools. The teachers also made
content accessible to learners who had various learning styles and needs,
and structured it to ensure its organizational coherence. Most of the partici-
pants felt that their instructional design helped to improve student learning
and interaction.
Similarly, a meta-analysis by Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, and Jones
(2010) documented how instructional design may affect learning outcomes.
The results showed that classes in which students learned independently
yielded smaller effect sizes than those featuring collaborative instruction
and instructor-directed teaching. Means et al.’s narrative synthesis sug-
gested that the provision of video or online quizzes did not appear to affect
learning outcomes, but that students who could manipulate their interactions
with media (e.g., through simulation) normally experienced positive learn-
ing outcomes. In addition, the use of tools that prompted students to reflect
on their learning was beneficial in online settings. Interestingly, scaffolding
for group learning only affected the way students interacted, and not the
amount they learned.

Facilitating Discourse
The second category of teaching presence covers the online teacher’s
role as a facilitator: supporting interaction among the students, the course
content, and him- or herself. Teachers play a social role in maintaining stu-
dents’ interest and engagement in active learning activities. In a study by
278 Lin and Zheng

Young (2006), the three practices or qualities that online students said they
needed most from their teachers were (1) encouraging motivation, (2) facil-
itating the course effectively, and (3) communicating effectively. Similarly,
Conrad (2004) highlighted the importance, from teachers’ perspectives, of
building a sense of community in online courses. DiPietro (2008) reported
that successful online instructors developed the skills necessary for facilitat-
ing interaction and communication in online environments.
Facilitating discourse is especially important in online language courses,
as linguistic interaction is the foremost key area of online language-learn-
ing pedagogy (Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2004). One the one hand, on-
line language learning creates opportunities for communication outside of
the brick-and-mortar classroom; on the other, it creates new challenges to
pedagogy, due to the lack of contextual factors and non-verbal cues that are
inherent in most online communication (Hauck & Stickler, 2006).
DiPietro (2010) demonstrated that, to compensate for the lack of imme-
diate non-verbal cues in online courses, teachers used clear communication
including concise writing to express care and concern as well as to demon-
strate their interest in building relationships with students. Providing timely
feedback has been noted by some scholars as another effective way to fa-
cilitate student learning (Ferdig et al., 2009). However, the meta-analysis by
Means et al. (2010) found the opposite: that there was no impact on the ef-
fectiveness of online learning from feedback provision, synchronous com-
munication with peers, or opportunities to practice.

Direct Instruction
The third and final category of teaching presence describes the intellec-
tual and cognitive role that teachers play during online courses, as leaders
and knowledge providers. Conrad’s (2004) qualitative study of five high-
er-education instructors found high levels of concern about content deliv-
ery and instruction, especially during the early stages of teaching online
courses. This may be related to the fact that pedagogical practices adopted
in online learning environments cannot be transferred directly from physi-
cal learning environments. Though direct instruction remains a critical com-
ponent in online learning, DiPietro (2010) has demonstrated how teachers
change their positions on direct instruction in virtual classes. One experi-
enced teacher translated his prior teaching practices into online settings by
changing his role from “knowledge giver” to “knowledge guide,” which fa-
cilitated content-related conversation and learning (p. 336).
Online Language Teaching Practices 279

ADJUSTMENT OF ONLINE TEACHING

Online teaching should not simply simulate face-to-face teaching via
the use of technological tools (Compton, Davis, & Mackey, 2009). Cavana-
ugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, and Blomeyer (2004) drew similar conclusions,
and noted that successful practices used in traditional face-to-face teaching
do not always translate into successful online teaching practices. Likewise,
teaching practices that work well for adult learners may not necessarily be
helpful to K-12 students (Cavanaugh et al., 2004), and will require adjust-
ments to teachers’ beliefs as well as to their pedagogical roles (DiPietro,
2010).
One area that typically requires major adjustment is time management.
Bailey and Card (2009) revealed a perception among college instructors that
they spent more time teaching online courses than face-to-face ones, but
observations by Hislop and Ellis (2004) revealed that there was no differ-
ence. In fact, though online instructors communicated with students more
frequently, their time was simply more fragmented than in face-to-face set-
tings, where they mostly communicated with students according to a fixed
schedule.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ONLINE TEACHING

Given the growing popularity of online learning, it is worth asking how
instructors develop the online courses that benefit students the most. To bet-
ter prepare for online teaching, instructors usually attend faculty-led work-
shops or professional development (PD) offered by their school or organi-
zation (Conrad, 2004; Dawley, Rice, & Hinck, 2010). In a national survey
in 2009, 74% of K-12 online instructors reported that PD was required by
their school or program (Dawley et al., 2010). Less than 40% of all K-12
online teachers received PD prior to teaching online, according to a 2007
national survey (Rice & Dawley, 2009), but this rate more than doubled, to
87%, over the following two years (Dawley et al., 2010). The proportion of
brand-new online teachers who received PD also increased from less than
40% in 2007 to 75% in 2009 (Dawley et al., 2010).
Regarding the foci of PD, Morris (2002) highlighted that online instruc-
tors should have technology skills, content knowledge, communicative and
organizational skills, and enthusiasm for online teaching. Such a catego-
rization reflects the multifaceted function of teachers in online courses, as
detailed by Anderson et al. (2001) and above. Dawley et al.’s (2010) five
PD topics overlapped with Morris’ only partly, and included foundational
knowledge of online teaching, technology tools, facilitation strategies, on-
line course design, and digital etiquette. The majority of Dawley et al.’s
280 Lin and Zheng

respondents mentioned that they had received training in all of these areas
except online course design. Less than two-thirds of the respondents in the
same study had received any training in online lesson design, possibly be-
cause of the sample’s low levels of involvement in course design. The ma-
jority of respondents (58%) reported that they designed few or none of the
activities in their online courses, and only 22% developed at least half of
their online content. Even so, 43% expressed a desire for training in instruc-
tional design for online courses.
In summary, examination of online pedagogy is essential to any assess-
ment of the quality of online teaching, and evaluating teachers’ perceptions
towards online teaching – especially their transition from face-to-face to
online teaching – could be beneficial to our understanding of their teach-
ing practices. In this study, we will first examine online language teachers’
teaching practices and what factors affect them. We will also look into how
these teachers adjust their pedagogy during or as a result of the transition
from face-to-face teaching and/or the PD they receive.

METHODS

Context
This study was conducted in a virtual school in the Midwestern United
States. Its students were concurrently enrolled in a local school but took in-
dividual courses in the virtual school to fulfill graduation requirements, as
electives, or for credit recovery. All courses except Chinese were asynchro-
nous and self-adaptive, so students could progress at their own pace. The
Chinese language course, on the other hand, had daily assignments and one
50-minute synchronous session per week. The synchronous sessions were
conducted using audio conferencing, so although the teachers and students
could not see each other, the students could see slides prepared by the in-
structors.

Sources of Data
Teacher Survey. Our teacher survey was administered at the end of the
Spring 2014 semester. It contained 70 questions and took approximately
15 to 20 minutes to complete. We invited all the school’s foreign-language
teachers (n=33) to complete the survey during the Spring 2014 semester,
and 19 responded. The languages taught by the survey participants were
Chinese (N=7), Spanish (N=7), French (N=3), German (N=1), and Japanese
(N=1).
 Online Language Teaching Practices 281

Teacher Interviews. A structured teacher interview protocol was devel-

oped to examine teachers’ attitudes towards online language teaching; their
communication and interaction in online environments; and their experience
of transitioning from face-to-face teaching to online teaching. All 19 teach-
ers were invited to participate in individual 40- to 60-minute interviews,
and eight of them agreed to do so. The interviews were audiotaped and tran-
scribed for later analysis.

Measures
To ensure the construct validity of the instrument, a draft instrument was
distributed to three faculty members with research expertise in second-lan-
guage acquisition and online learning. The authors then met with them to
discuss revisions to wording as well as item elimination.
Teacher background. The teacher survey collected individual back-
ground data including gender, education, number of years of offline and on-
line teaching experience, and language courses taught currently. Descriptive
statistics for these participating teachers are presented in Table 1. Most were
female, had attained masters’ degrees, and had extensive teaching experi-
ence.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Online Teachers of Various World Languages

Chinese French German Japanese Spanish Total

(n=7) (n=3) (n=1) (n=1) (n=7) (n=19)
Gender Male 1 1 0 0 2 4
Female 6 2 1 1 5 15
Bachelor’s 1 1 0 0 0 2
Education Master’s 5 2 1 1 7 16
Doctorate 1 0 0 0 0 1
Teaching 0-2 1 0 0 0 0 1
experience
2-5 2 0 0 0 0 2
(Years)
5-10 1 1 0 0 5 7
Over 10 2 2 1 1 2 9
Online 1 3 1 1 0 0 5
teaching
experience 1-2 3 0 0 0 4 7
(Years) 3-5 1 1 1 1 1 4
6-10 0 1 1 1 2 3
282 Lin and Zheng

In addition to demographic information, the survey asked about the

teachers’ teaching practices, their general self-efficacy in teaching and tech-
nology, and the PD they received and expected to receive. The questions
regarding teaching practices and self-efficacy were answered on a five-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Teaching practices. Based on the detailed descriptions in DiPietro
(2010), we created three to six survey items relating to each of the follow-
ing nine teaching practices: communicating effectively, guiding students’
knowledge, promoting individual learning, engaging students with content,
ensuring content accessibility, maintaining academic integrity, keeping the
course a safe place, meeting students’ needs, and scaffolding (Black, DiPi-
etro, Ferdig, & Polling, 2009). A sample survey question for the “communi-
cating effectively” category is, I communicate with my students regularly in
order to engage them.
Instructional self-efficacy. The final six items on the survey cover in-
structional self-efficacy and were adopted and modified from Bandura’s
(2006) teacher self-efficacy scale. A sample survey question on this topic
is, I feel confident that I can motivate students who show low interest in
language learning. We removed one item due to poor factor loading, after
which the Cronbach’s alpha for the section was .69.
Technology self-efficacy. Our six items relating to technology self-ef-
ficacy were adopted and modified from Wang, Ertmer, and Newby (2004).
The Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .92.
Professional development. We included two sets of questions regarding
PD: one set for the PD that the respondents had actually received, and the
second regarding the PD they felt they needed. The first set, adopted from
Black et al. (2009), had a total of eight items, covering content/language
specific knowledge, technology-based skills, online classroom management,
effective communication with online students, organizing and structuring
instructional content, strategies for accommodating different learning styles,
finding and evaluating high-quality resources for online classes, and con-
tent-/language-based technology integration. The answer scale for both sets
of PD items ranged from 1 (none) to 5 (excellent). We also asked teachers to
choose and prioritize three areas of PD that they needed additional training
in, from among the aforementioned eight areas.

Data Analysis
Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were used in this
study. Stata 13 software was used in all phases of the quantitative analysis,
and NVivo for the qualitative analysis. To answer our first research question
regarding teaching practices in online foreign-language courses, we cre-
ated a composite score for survey items corresponding to each individual
Online Language Teaching Practices 283

teaching practice. Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate the teaching

practices the respondents used. We then conducted an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) to further examine whether there were any high-order teach-
ing practices that the teachers employed. Though EFA is usually employed
with large sample sizes, Winter, Dodou, and Wieringa (2009) contended that
“a small sample size should not be the sole criterion for rejecting EFA” (p.
171). They showed that it can produce reliable results when factor loadings
are high and the number of factors is low. The results of EFA in this study
will be interpreted in light with prior research to ensure the theoretical plausi-
bility of any latent patterns we identify.
To answer our second research question, about factors predicting the use
of teaching practices, multiple regression analysis was performed. Based
on the results of the EFA mentioned above, we created composite scores for
each of our high-order teaching-practice categories, and performed a multiple
regression in which these categories were the dependent variables. In Mod-
el 1, we entered teachers’ backgrounds, including gender, education level,
teaching experience, and the language they taught. In Model 2, we added two
types of self-efficacy: instructional and technological.
To answer our third research question, relating to teachers’ adjustment
from face-to-face teaching into online teaching, we performed qualitative
analysis of the interview data. All eight interview transcripts were coded and
analyzed using a bottom-up scheme (Miles & Huberman, 1994) aimed at
identifying data trends in the interviewees’ perceptions of how online teach-
ing differs from their previous face-to-face teaching. The lead author color-
coded all transcripts, summarized themes that emerged from them, and high-
lighted arguments supporting these themes. Then, the second author reexam-
ined the transcripts in light of the lead author’s themes, and discussed them
with him until the final themes were agreed upon.
Finally, both descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of interview
data were used to answer our fourth research question, pertaining to PD that
teachers received and expected to receive. Survey questions on these two
topics were analyzed using descriptive analysis, and the results were further
triangulated using the interview data.

FINDINGS

Online Language Teaching Practices

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to evaluate our survey
instrument. Given the small sample size, we performed EFA separately for
the nine teaching practices. Using eigenvalues greater than one as the cri-
terion (Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004), each of the practices suggests a
one-factor solution. We then removed items with factor loadings below .45.
 284 Lin and Zheng

Next, internal reliability tests were conducted for each teaching-practice cat-
egory based on the final items retained (Table 2). All teaching-practice items
other than in the category of “ensuring content accessibility” were found
to have acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > .6). The entire “ensuring
content accessibility” category was then removed from further analysis be-
cause of its low internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .53).

Table 2
Internal Reliability for Teaching Practices Items, with Sample Questions

Initial Number
number of items Internal
Strategies Sample question of items retained reliability
Communicating effectively (CE) I communicate with my
students regularly in order to 6 4 .77
engage them.
Guiding students' knowledge I help students make
construction (GK) connections between 5 3 .71
content and their lives.
Promoting individual learning I tailor resources and support
4 3 .60
(IL) for individual students.
Engaging students with content I motivate students to
(EN) interact with the target 4 4 .88
language.
Ensuring content accessibility I use multiple teaching
(CA) strategies to introduce
3 2 .53
and teach the content
knowledge.
Maintaining academic integrity I post academic honesty
3 2 .74
(AI) policies.
Keeping the course a safe I set guidelines for
place (KS) communication and 5 4 .67
interaction.
Meeting students’ needs (MN) I provide students with
multiple ways to contact- 4 4 .77
ing me.
Scaffolding I create an organized
4 4 .63
environment.

We created a composite score for each teaching practice, and descriptive

statistics were used to illustrate the usage of different teaching practices by
online language teachers (Table 3). On average, all 19 teachers’ practices
were above-neutral, indicating that they used all the teaching practices.
Online Language Teaching Practices 285

The one found most frequently across all teachers was “maintaining aca-
demic integrity” (M = 4.74, SD = .45), followed by “communicating ef-
fectively” (M = 4.55, SD = .45), and “scaffolding” (M = 4.51, SD = .43).
The two least frequently used teaching practices across all respondents
were “meeting students’ needs” (M = 4.16, SD = .61) and “guiding student
knowledge” (M = 3.96, SD = .63).

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Teaching Practices by Language Taught

Chinese French German Japanese Spanish Avg.

Communicating
4.46 4.67 4.75 5.00 4.50 4.55
effectively
(0.64) (0.14) -- -- (0.35) (0.45)
Guiding student
4.38 4.22 4.00 4.00 3.43 3.96
knowledge
(0.71) (0.39) -- -- (0.25) (0.63)
Promoting indi-
4.67 4.44 3.67 4.67 4.00 4.33
vidual learning
(0.19) (0.51) -- -- (0.33) (.44)
Engaging students
4.75 4.42 3.25 5.00 3.96 4.34
with content
(0.38) (0.14) -- -- (0.62) (0.62)
Maintaining
4.57 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.71 4.74
academic integrity
(0.61) (0) - -- (0.39) (0.45)
Keeping the course
4.46 4.33 4.25 5.00 4.39 4.43
a safe place
(0.39) (0.14) -- -- (0.52) (0.41)
Meeting students’
4.57 3.75 4.00 4.25 3.93 4.16
needs
(0.37) (0.43) -- -- (0.76) (0.61)
Scaffolding 4.79 4.58 4.00 4.75 4.25 4.51
(0.30) (0.14) -- -- (0.48) (0.43)
Observations 7 3 1 1 7 19
Mean coefficients; standard deviation in parentheses
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
286 Lin and Zheng

From the results of the descriptive statistics, it appeared to us that there

were two major foci of online teaching practices: content-related and non-
content-related. In addition, content-related teaching practices seemed to
be used less frequently than non-content-related ones. To test this idea, we
conducted an EFA using a cut-off eigenvalue of one with PROMAX rota-
tion, which allowed correlation among teaching strategies to be identified.
We adopted a factor-loading criterion of 0.45 for inclusion of the practice in
the interpretation. The results suggested the existence of two factors, which
accounted for 91.2% of the variance in teaching strategy. These strategies
had high extracted communalities (i.e., > .40; see Table 4), which showed
that much of the common variance in the items can be explained by the two
extracted factors (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003).

Table 4
Exploratory Factor Analysis of Teaching Practices

Factor Communality
Strategy 1 2
Communicating effectively -.06 .97 .89
Guiding student knowledge .55 .21 .43
Promoting individual learning .71 -.06 .48
Engaging students with content .84 .01 .70
Maintaining academic integrity -.07 .92 .80
Keeping the course a safe place .36 .50 .51
Meeting students needs .69 .08 .52
Scaffolding .77 -.25 .51
Note: Factor loadings in bold were items loaded in the factor.

The first factor, with an eigenvalue of 3.38, contains five items: guiding
student knowledge, promoting individual learning, engaging students with
content, meeting students’ needs, and scaffolding. These teaching practic-
es had a high internal reliability, 0.82. We named Factor 1 content-related
teaching practice (CTP).
The second factor, with an eigenvalue of 1.48, contains three items:
communicating effectively, maintaining academic integrity, and keeping
the course a safe place. The internal reliability of Factor 2 was .85, and we
named it non-content-related teaching practice (NCTP).
Online Language Teaching Practices 287

We created composite scores for CTP (M = 4.26, SD = .10) and NCTP

(M = 4.58, SD = .09), and used a t-test to examine the differences between
them. The results of this t-test showed that online instructors used NCTP
significantly more frequently than CTP (t = 10.37, p < .001).

Factors Affecting Online Language Teaching Practices

Before performing multiple regression, we tested the relationships
among variables. The correlation results show that CTP was related to
teachers’ instructional self-efficacy (Table 5), but not to teaching experi-
ence. In addition, the correlation between CTP and NCTP, .40, was not sig-
nificant. NCTP was negatively correlated with being male and years of ed-
ucation, but positively correlated with years of teaching experience. Being
male was negatively correlated with instructional self-efficacy. The correla-
tion between age and years of teaching experience was .80, and the correla-
tion between age and years of online teaching experience was .60. Due to
its very high level of correlation with these two variables, age was removed
from further analysis.

Table 5
Correlations

CTP NCTP Male Age Edu YT YOT EFF TEFF

CTP 1
NCTP .40 1
Male -.29 -.48* 1
Age -.28 .42 -.27 1
Edu -.17 -.57* .23 -.02 1
YT -.04 .49* -.35 .80*** -.01 1
YOT -.20 .22 .14 .62** -.13 .40 1
EFF .54* .30 -.51* .15 -.04 .41 .02 1
TEFF .32 .24 -.04 .001 -.22 .06 .34 .39 1
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Note: CTP: content-related teaching practice; NCTP: non-content-related teaching practice; Edu:
years of education; YT: years of teaching experience; YOT: years of online teaching experience;
EFF: teachers’ instructional self-efficacy; TEFF: teachers’ technological self-efficacy

Multiple regression analysis then examined what factors affected these

two broad categories of teaching practices in online language courses
(see Table 6). Teachers of Chinese used more CTP than teachers of other
288 Lin and Zheng

languages, as shown in Model 1 (B = .76, p < .001), and this effect re-
mained significant after the addition of instructional and technology self-
efficacy in Model 2 (B = .63, p < .01). Other variables did not relate the use
of CTP.

Table 6
The Effects of Teacher Factors on Teaching Practices

CTP NCTP
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Male .03 .12 -.17 -.20
(.15) (.57) (-.86) (-.90)
Education -.13 -.11 -.18* -.17*
(-1.92) (-1.75) (-2.81) (-2.48)
Years of teaching .02 .01 .02 .02
(1.54) (.97) (1.89) (1.80)
Years of online
-.01 -.02 .01 -.00
teaching
(-.17) (-.54) (.25) (-.00)
Chinese .76*** .63** .10 .12
(4.38) (3.57) (.62) (.63)
Instructional
.22 -.10
self-efficacy
(1.13) (-.48)
Technology
.11 .08
self-efficacy
(.81) (.57)
Constant 6.07*** 4.59** 7.51*** 7.41***
(5.25) (3.40) (6.79) (5.08)
Observations 19 19 19 19
R2 .649 .735 .607 .620

t statistics in parentheses
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Note: CTP: content-related teaching practice; NCTP: non-content-related teaching practice; coef-
ficients are unstandardized.

The only variable that affected NCTP in Model 1 was years of education
(B = -.17, p < .05), and this effect remained significantly negative after we
added instructional and technology self-efficacy in Model 2.
Online Language Teaching Practices 289

Adjustment of Teaching Practices

Among the eight teachers who participated in our structured face-to-face
interviews, six taught Chinese, one taught French, and one Spanish. Our in-
terview findings are mostly based on the Chinese teachers’ responses, since
at the school in question, only Chinese courses offered weekly synchronous
sessions, making possible a comparison between online and face-to-face
teaching. The findings are broken down into five themes: classroom man-
agement, course preparation, the flipped classroom, multimodal presenta-
tion, and rapid response.
Classroom management. Many of our respondents noted that, in com-
parison to their face-to-face teaching experience, classroom management
tended to be easier in online environments. Minimal time and attention were
devoted to discipline and rule-enforcement, keeping students well-behaved,
and dealing with unexpected situations; this allowed the teachers to focus
more on imparting content knowledge. In addition, a majority of our partici-
pants mentioned that online learners usually had higher motivation toward
and more interest in learning a foreign language than students in traditional
learning environments, which the teachers felt was an important factor con-
tributing to easier classroom management. As one respondent noted, “In on-
line language learning, students usually have higher motivation, clear goals,
or relevant backgrounds. Students are more self-initiative so I do not need
to worry about discipline, which is the biggest difference between online
and face-to-face instruction” (#2).
Course preparation. All the Chinese instructors mentioned that it usually
took them more time to prepare lesson plans for online teaching than for
traditional teaching, with the online environment requiring a very specific
and refined structure. As one Chinese teacher put it, in face-to-face teaching,
you do not have to prepare every minute of class time; as long as you have
an overall plan in mind, it is not difficult to fill in the class time with activi-
ties and conversations. In contrast, synchronous sessions must be designed
on a minute-by-minute basis. It was very common for the Chinese teachers
in our sample to write scripts containing every single question they planned
to ask their students.
Another factor contributing dramatically to the amount of time spent
in course preparation was the restriction of teaching modes. Some activi-
ties that had been easily conducted in traditional classrooms needed to be
redesigned using specific online technologies. One Chinese teacher (#4),
for example, reported that in face-to-face settings she paired students, with
one giving drawing directions in Chinese, and the other following these di-
rections to create a picture. She still felt that this activity was engaging for
290 Lin and Zheng

young learners, but that it was neither easy enough to implement in online
settings, nor an effective use of time in synchronous sessions. Moreover,
such technologies had to be carefully selected for their appropriateness to
the teachers’ current needs, and this selection process also took considerable
time and effort.
The flipped classroom. Based on their experiences of both traditional and
online teaching environments, our respondents who had participated in syn-
chronous sessions felt that the pace of these was faster than that of traditional
classes. Synchronous-session content was condensed and intensive, and often
aimed at activating what students had learned prior to the sessions rather than
imparting new information. One teacher further noted, “I can easily teach for
four hours in a traditional class with the content I prepare for the fifty-minute
online session” (#7). Also, since only one synchronous session was provided
each week, both teachers and students wanted to maximize what students
could gain from it.
As one teacher mentioned, this mode of teaching is similar to a flipped
classroom in the sense that students were required to learn the materials on
their own prior to the synchronous sessions, while the purpose of the ses-
sions was to provide opportunities for students to practice and communicate
with each other using the target language. In online Chinese courses, students
were given two assignments before each synchronous session to “preview”
their learning, and another two afterwards to review it. During the synchro-
nous sessions, the teacher’s role was as a facilitator: bringing up main points
of learning to activate students’ language output. They also resolved common
problems students had in their learning. In other words, like a flipped class-
room, these Chinese courses included a self-learning component; but unlike
a flipped classroom, they lacked any face-to-face component, and were con-
duced through online audio-conferencing.
Multimodal presentation. One major challenge that the Chinese teachers
in our sample shared was the restricted number of presentation modes that
were available during synchronous sessions. In general, language teachers
use a considerable amount of body language to help with their teaching in
face-to-face settings; however, neither body language nor eye contact was
available in this case. The lack of non-verbal communication meant that
teachers needed more time to explain the meanings of words, and found it
difficult to correct students’ pronunciations, since they could not see their
students’ mouth shapes. On the positive side, however, such limitations en-
couraged the instructors to find other ways to transmit knowledge.
Most of the Chinese-language teachers in our sample created multimodal
instructional presentations, regularly using PowerPoint to present content and
making video recordings of their lectures. One teacher mentioned that slides
“should have abundant content and use more multiple media, as you want to
draw students’ attention” (#2). In addition, the Chinese teachers used multi-
media and online tools to enable students’ self-study as well as to facilitate
the synchronous sessions.
Online Language Teaching Practices 291

Rapid response. Since teachers were “not right there with the student to
see what they are struggling with” (#3), online respondents worried that on-
line students could feel more isolated than in face-to-face classrooms. When
students encountered difficulties, they could become frustrated in part due
to their lack of a sense of belonging to a learning community. To overcome
this frustration and pressure, all the interviewees emphasized the importance
of responding immediately to online students’ questions and emails (nor-
mally within 24 hours), and grading their assignments as quickly as pos-
sible. Some teachers provided multiple ways for students to contact them,
including messaging software on the school’s learning-management system,
email, and phone, though the majority of students chose to email their in-
structors. In addition, the Chinese teachers said that they completed their
grading within 24 hours, for several reasons: 1) to meet what they perceived
as the students’ general need for rapid response; 2) to ensure that students
were prepared for the synchronous sessions; and 3) to help refine their own
planning for the synchronous sessions, e.g., by designing more targeted
questions and activities and helping students internalize the language forms.

Professional Development Received and Expected

Our survey results regarding the PD teachers received and desired in-
dicated that they had received sufficient PD in online teaching, as the aver-
age of all types of PD was rated above neutral (Table 7). The top four types
of PD that teachers actually received were in effective communication with
online students (M = 4.16, SD = .69), technology-based skills (M = 4.00,
SD = 1.05), structuring instructional materials (M = 3.95, SD = .91) and
language-based technology integration (M = 3.95, SD = .91). They received
the lowest amount of PD in the area of strategies for accommodating differ-
ent learning styles (M = 3.32, SD = .75), followed by content knowledge
(M = 3.58, SD = 1.12), and finding high-quality resources (M = 3.58, SD =
.77). According to the teachers’ survey responses, the top three most-needed
PD areas were 1) accommodating different learning styles, 2) finding and
evaluating high-quality resources for online classes, and 3) language-based
technology integration (see Table 8). Up to a point, this was not surprising:
the instructors received the least PD in accommodating different learning
styles, and this was the type of PD they felt they still needed the most. Simi-
larly, they received the second lowest amount of PD in finding high-quality
resources, and identified this as the second most needed PD topic. Interest-
ingly, language-based technology integration was in the top three types of
PD they actually received, but they still felt they needed more training in
this area. Conversely, PD on content knowledge was lacking, but was not
greatly desired among these teachers.
292 Lin and Zheng

Table 7
Descriptive Statistics of Professional Development and Support Received

Mean SD
Professional development category
Content knowledge 3.58 1.12
Technology-based skills 4.00 1.05
Online classroom management 3.89 0.81
Effective communication 4.16 0.69
Structuring instructional content 3.95 0.91
Accommodating different learning styles 3.32 0.75
Finding high-quality resources 3.58 0.77
Language-based technology integration 3.95 0.91

Table 8
Professional Development Needed, by Teachers’ Ranking

Importance
1 2 3 Total
Content knowledge 2 1 1 4
Technology-based skills 3 1 4 8
Online classroom management 1 1 1 3
Effective communication 2 2 1 5
Structuring instructional content 1 1 1 3
Accommodating different learning styles 5 4 6 16
Finding high-quality resources 5 3 4 12
Language-based technology integration 5 6 1 12

Our interviews also asked the teachers about their perceptions of PD.
Several mentioned that they felt PD was extremely important, especially for
teachers who were transitioning from face-to-face to online teaching. One
Chinese-language teacher, who was originally from China, also mentioned
the need for PD in the area of American educational systems and values. In-
deed, all the online Chinese teachers we interviewed had little experience of
teaching Chinese in K-12 schools in the United States, and when teaching
in this particular online environment, they had little contact with either the
school or the children’s parents. The Chinese teachers felt that this, coupled
with their limited background knowledge of U.S. culture, hindered their
communication with students.
Online Language Teaching Practices 293

DISCUSSION

Online Teaching Practices

Our examination of the teaching practices used by virtual school teach-
ers, in light of DiPietro et al.’s (2010) categories, yielded two major group-
ings of teaching practices: content-related teaching practices (CTP) and
non-content-related teaching practices (NCTP). CTP is a combination of
instructional design and direct instruction, similar to that proposed by An-
derson et al. (2001). NCTP is related to teachers’ managerial and social role
in online courses. Taken as a whole, our findings confirm the ongoing rel-
evance of the three roles that online teachers play, as identified by Ander-
son et al. (2001): instructional designer, discourse facilitator, and knowledge
provider.
Of our two broad categories of teaching practices, the online teach-
ers in our sample seemed to use NCTP more frequently than CTP. The
use of NCTP was negatively correlated only with these teachers’ years of
education, and was not impacted by their years of online teaching experi-
ence. This contradicts Bailey and Card’s (2009) finding that novice online
instructors tended to concentrate predominately on their management role,
whereas experienced online instructors’ practice was generally more con-
tent-focused. This inconsistency may be attributable to variations in teach-
ers’ levels of control over course content. In our sample, the teachers of all
languages except Chinese reported having little control, with the school pur-
chasing all non-Chinese language courses from publishers and other third
parties. As one senior French instructor noted during our interview: “Actual
instructional content that we use in all of these courses is almost like a text-
book. You can’t get in or input a different code. […] Currently it is com-
pletely uneditable other than posting announcements and giving feedback.
We can’t even change the assessment” (#8). Dawley et al. (2010) reported
similar findings: more than half of their respondents did very little or no
course design, but did not explain the reason. Our discussion with admin-
istrators of the virtual school raised the possibility that this was due to most
of its courses being either designed by its in-house instructional design team
or purchased from a third-party provider, and the fact that instructional de-
signers may not specialize in online instructional design.

Adjustment of Online Teaching

Our data revealed adjustments in the managerial, social, and pedagogi-
cal roles that teachers play when they move into online teaching. Regard-
ing their managerial role, online teachers needed to be more flexible with
their time. All the online Chinese instructors clearly expressed expectations
294 Lin and Zheng

that students would be well prepared for the synchronous sessions in order to
take full advantage of these relatively brief and infrequent events. Expressing
high expectations has been identified as an effective online teaching practice
in both higher education (e.g., Bailey & Card, 2009) and K-12 contexts (e.g.,
DiPietro et al., 2008). In addition, the Chinese instructors in our study de-
signed questions and even prepared scripts to maximize the use of every min-
ute of class time, which they had seldom done in their face-to-face teaching.
Unlike traditional teaching that occurs at scheduled times, online teaching
time is distributed over the week (Easton, 2003; Hislop & Ellis, 2004). Nor,
in this case, was it confined to the hours of 8am to 5pm: the Chinese instruc-
tors frequently held synchronous sessions in the evenings to accommodate
the schedules of students in different time zones, among other reasons.
In regard to their social role, most of the participants highlighted the im-
portance of timeliness in their communication with students, which is con-
sistent with research on online K-12 learning (DiPietro, 2010; DiPietro et al.,
2008). All of our respondents indicated the importance of timeliness in com-
munication, with all the instructors in the virtual school expected to reply to
students’ queries within 24 hours and returning assignments within 48 hours.
To achieve this goal, they had to check emails regularly. Timeliness has been
documented as an important factor effect in online teaching in both higher
education (Bailey & Card, 2009) and K-12 settings (DiPietro, 2010; DiPietro
et al., 2008; Easton, 2003).
Another aspect of adjustment to the social role of teachers involved clar-
ity of communication. Very conscious of the lack of non-verbal cues in on-
line written communication (Murphy, Shelley, White, & Baumann, 2011),
our participants wrote carefully to avoid the possibility of miscommunica-
tion, and used multiple modes of communication. As noted by one teacher,
who used phone calls and videos in addition to written communication:
“many times the tone of written communication may not be perceived or
may be perceived as different than I intended it to be. It’s not like it can’t
happen online, but it takes greater effort” (#8).
Regarding our participants’ pedagogical roles, only the Chinese teach-
ers had synchronous sessions, which allowed more student-centered learn-
ing. In contrast to the findings of Murphy and her colleagues (2011), that
Canadian higher-education instructors used synchronous sessions for di-
rect instruction, the Chinese teachers in our study adopted new pedagogi-
cal techniques and focused on interactivity. They “flipped” the classroom
to provide students with opportunities to practice the target language,
which they thought were lacking in asynchronous language courses. Such
a shift in the role of the teacher is not uncommon in the literature. In fact,
online teaching provides an opportunity for teachers to reassess their peda-
gogy (Easton, 2003). This shift was not limited to the Chinese teachers.
Online Language Teaching Practices 295

One participant teaching French (#9) noted:

What I like most about online learning is that it allows for the
learner the content and instruction is available 24-7. As an
instructor, I am also freed up because that my position or my
role is not delivering of content. It’s already been done. The
role is completely different, I see my role as more of a coach
or the students may be engaging with the content, they maybe
ask questions. And I take questions and guide them, but I more
look at how are they doing on the assignment, how are they
doing with their speaking or their reading skills or listening. I
am freed up to sit back and watch how they are interacting …
. From there I can offer some supplemental instruction. I mean
we direct them. As an instructor, I have a little more freedom
to do that than a face-to-face situation.

Despite the online instructors in languages other than Chinese having

very little control over course content, as noted earlier, this teacher partici-
pant saw this situation as an opportunity to provide additional direct instruc-
tion to help students’ learning. The specific nature of his change of role –
from knowledge provider to facilitator and supporter – is also broadly con-
sistent with DiPietro’s (2010) conception of the transition from knowledge
giver to knowledge guide.

Professional Development
The teachers in our sample received PD in all the major areas investigated
by our survey, with the exception of online course design. Accommodating
different learning styles and finding and evaluating high-quality resources
were the two areas in which the teachers received the least PD, but wished
to receive more. Our finding that online course design was in high demand
among online teachers, but that few received PD in this area, was consistent
with research by Dawley et al. (2010).
Our findings also highlight the importance of technological pedagogical con-
tent knowledge (TPACK, see Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Our data showed that
the teachers received little PD in content knowledge, and that such PD was also
very low on the list of what they wished to receive. Online instructors are likely
to have extensive face-to-face teaching experience (Dawley et al., 2010) and
therefore may feel that their content knowledge is already sufficient.
We also found that, although these virtual school instructors received
PD in language-based technology integration, they still wished to receive
more. It is worth mentioning in this context that technology itself does not
constitute pedagogy (Warschauer, 1999); Dawley et al. (2010) surveyed vari-
ous technology tools covered in PD, but noted a lack of training in how to
296 Lin and Zheng

teach online vis-à-vis content. As Mishra and Koehler (2006) put it, “training
teachers to use specific software packages not only makes their knowledge
too specific to be applied broadly, but it also becomes quickly outdated” (p.
1032).
Amid a growing demand for instruction in languages that have rarely been
taught in the U.S. in the past, it is inevitable that qualified teachers will be
recruited from other countries. Many of the Chinese instructors in our study
mentioned their need for PD in knowledge of U.S. education and culture.
This need may be shared with many online world language instructors from
various other cultures, who – if they lack any previous knowledge about the
U.S. educational system and classroom culture – will tend to find that this
hinders their communication and interaction with their online students. Prior
literature has highlighted the need for targeted support for immigrant teach-
ers (e.g., Cruickshank, 2004), as they usually have difficulties integrating
into local culture at both the school and country level (Niyubahwe, Muka-
murera, & Jutras, 2013).

CONCLUSIONS
The rapid spread of online learning in K-12 schools poses a major chal-
lenge for teachers, which may be especially difficult in the case of world-
language teaching. Our study collected survey data from 19 world language
teachers in a Midwestern virtual school, supplemented by interview data
from eight of them. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative re-
search methods, our study identified a relative lack of content-related teach-
ing practices, such as guiding student knowledge and engaging students with
content, as compared to a more frequent use of non-content-related practices
(e.g., maintaining academic integrity, keeping the course a safe place). Ad-
ditionally, this study shed light on teachers’ managerial, social, and pedagogi-
cal role changes as they transitioned from face-to-face to online teaching, and
their need for more PD in subject-based technology integration. Our findings
carries important implications for how to improve world language teachers’
online teaching practices, and how to provide smoother transitions from face-
to-face to online teaching, as well as what types of PD online language teach-
ers need. It also may be of assistance to online teachers and administrators
of virtual schools seeking to build engaging online environments for world-
language teaching.
Several limitations of the current study need to be noted. First, we had a
small sample of teachers, all teaching similar subjects. It would be worth-
while to test whether our findings can be extended to other academic subjects
or to virtual schools, and/or reconfirmed at a larger sample size.
Second, we interviewed each teacher only once, which may not have been
sufficient to capture the sample’s adjustment to online teaching. Longitudinal
Online Language Teaching Practices 297

studies would therefore be useful to ascertaining the affordances and chal-

lenges that the online environment creates for instructors, which in turn may
provide further insights on PD and teacher education.

References
Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching pres-
ence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Net-
works, 5(2), 1–17.
Bailey, C. J., & Card, K. A. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching:
Perception of experienced instructors. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3–4),
152–155. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.002
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Informa-
tion Age Publishing.
Black, E., DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R., & Polling, N. (2009). Developing a survey to mea-
sure best practices of K-12 online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learn-
ing Administration, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/
spring121/black121.html
Cavanaugh, C., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2007). What works in K-12 online learning. Eugene,
OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects
of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Learning Point
Associates.
Compton, L. K. L. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: a look
at skills, roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1),
73–99. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588220802613831
Compton, L. K. L., Davis, N., & Mackey, J. (2009). Field Experience in Virtual Schools—
To Be There Virtually. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 459–
477.
Conrad, D. (2004). University instructors’ reflections on their first online teaching experi-
ences. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 31-44.
Cruickshank, K. (2004). Towards diversity in teacher education: Teacher preparation of
immigrant teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2), 125–138. http://
doi.org/10.1080/0261976042000223006
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. Education Poli-
cy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1. http://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
Davis, N. E., & Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Preparing Teachers for the “Schools That Technol-
ogy Built”: Evaluation of a Program to Train Teachers for Virtual Schooling. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 399–409.
Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinck, G. (2010). Going virtual! The status of professional devel-
opment for K-12 online teachers. Boise, ID: Boise State University. Retrieved from
http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual3.pdf
DiPietro, M. (2010). Virtual school pedagogy: The Instructional practices of K-12 virtu-
al school teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 327–354.
http://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.3.e
298 Lin and Zheng

DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. W., & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teach-
ing K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), 10–35.
Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the Instructor’s Role in Online Distance Learning. Com-
munication Education, 52(2), 87–105. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634520302470
Ferdig, R. E., Cavanaugh, C., DiPietro, M., Black, E. W., Dawson, K., Ferdig, R. E., …
Dawson, K. (2009). Virtual schooling standards and best practices for teacher edu-
cation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 479–503.
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach
languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326. http://
doi.org/10.1080/09588220500335455
Hauck, M., & Stickler, U. (2006). What does it take to teach online? CALICO Journal,
23(3), 463–475.
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor Retention Decisions in Ex-
ploratory Factor Analysis: a Tutorial on Parallel Analysis. Organizational Research
Methods, 7(2), 191–205. http://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675
Hislop, G. W., & Ellis, H. J. C. (2004). A study of faculty effort in online teaching.
The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 15–31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihed-
uc.2003.10.001
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in
K-12 online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of
Teacher Education, 63(3), 185-200. doi: 10.1177/0022487111433651
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). 11. Crossing frontiers: New directions in
online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243–260.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of ev-
idence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online
learning studies. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source-
book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–
1054.
Morris, S. (2002). Teaching and learning online: A step-by-step guide for designing an
online K-12 school program. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Murday, K., Ushida, E., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2008). Learners’ and teachers’ perspectives
on language online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 125–142. http://
doi.org/10.1080/09588220801943718
Murphy, L. M., Shelley, M. A., White, C. J., & Baumann, U. (2011). Tutor and student
perceptions of what makes an effective distance language teacher. Distance Edu-
cation, 32(3), 397–419. http://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.610290
Niyubahwe, A., Mukamurera, J., & Jutras, F. (2013). Professional integration of immi-
grant teachers in the school system: A literature review. McGill Journal of Educa-
tion, 48, 279-296. http://doi.org/10.7202/1020972ar
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The
use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Sage.
Queen, B., & Lewis, L. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and
secondary school students: 2009-10. First Look. NCES 2012-008. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Online Language Teaching Practices 299

Rice, K., & Dawley, L. (2009). The status of professional development for K-12 online
teachers: Insights and implications. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
17(4), 523–545.
Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-effi-
cacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Edu-
cation, 36(3), 231–250. http://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture and power in online edu-
cation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Watson, J., Pape, L., Murin, A., Gemin, B., & Vashaw, L. (2014). Keeping pace with K-12
digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Retrieved from http://www.
kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/EEG_KP2014-fnl-lr.pdf
Winter, J. C. F. de, Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with
small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 147-181.
Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education.
American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 65–77. http://doi.org/10.1207/
s15389286ajde2002_2

APPENDIX A
TEACHER SURVEY

Section one: Teaching practice

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements using the scale below:
1 – Strongly disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Neutral
4 – Agree
5 – Strongly agree

1. Effective Communication
1) I communicate with my students regularly in order to engage them.
2) The majority of my communication with students focuses on their
learning/use of the target language.
3) My online communication practices make students feel as connected
to me as they would be to a face-to-face teacher
4) I communicate clearly with my students
5) I self-monitor my communications to avoid miscommunication with
my students
6) I respond to students in a timely manner
300 Lin and Zheng

2. Guiding Students’ Knowledge Construction

1) I answer content questions
2) I facilitate students’ ability to construct knowledge of how the target
language is used
3) I help students make connections between content and their lives
4) I facilitate student conversations utilizing the target language.
5) I provide opportunities for students to use the target language in
authentic situations
3. Individual learning
1) I provide individualized instruction
2) I tailor resources and support for individual students
3) I use different practices based on student needs
4) I make language learning transferable to other situations outside the
online course environment

4. Engaging students with content

1) I prompt students to actively use the target language
2) I motivate students to interact with the target language
3) I integrate technology to motivate students
4) I use technology to facilitate language acquisition

5. Content accessibility
1) I use multiple forms of assessment to evaluate student progress
2) I use multiple teaching strategies to introduce and teach the content
knowledge
3) I build in manipulate course components to integrate students’ person-
al interest in the topics.

6. Academic integrity
1) I align course content with American Council on The Teaching of
Foreign Languages (ACTFL) standards
2) I post academic honesty policies
3) I monitor for cheating

7. Keeping the course a safe place

1) I monitor venues of public communication (e.g. blogs/chat rooms) to
identify students in personal crisis
2) I model expectations for appropriate student communication
3) I facilitate students’ use of constructive communication
4) I set guidelines for communication and interaction
5) I use strategies to address inappropriate or abusive behavior by
students in public forums
Online Language Teaching Practices 301

8. Meeting students’ needs

1) I encourage students to go to each other for support
2) I encourage students to share resources
3) I establish a learning community
4) I provide students with multiple ways to contact me

9. Scaffolding
1) I adapt course to accommodate students’ self-pacing
2) I create an organized environment
3) I outline expectations to foster student responsibility
4) I use course tools to adapt course structure

Section two: Efficacy

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements using the scale below:
1 – Strongly disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Neutral
4 – Agree
5 – Strongly agree

10. Instructional self-efficacy

1) I feel confident that I can promote language acquisition even though
there is no target-language support available in the students’ homes
2) I feel confident that I can keep students on task on difficult assignments
3) I feel confident that I can increase students’ retention of the language
4) I feel confident that I can motivate students who show low interest in
language learning
5) I feel confident that I can encourage students to collaborate in practic-
ing the target language
6) I feel confident that I can motivate students to do their homework

11. Technological self-efficacy

1) I feel confident that I can successfully teach relevant language content
using appropriate technology
2) I feel confident that I can help students when they have difficulty with
the computer
3) I feel confident that I can motivate my students to participate in
technology-based projects to support language acquisition
4) I feel confident that I can mentor students in appropriate uses of technology
5) I feel confident about assigning and grading technology-based projects
6) I feel confident about using technology resources (such as spreadsheets,
electronic portfolios, etc.) to collect and analyze data from student per-
formance scores to improve instructional practices
7) I feel confident that I can develop creative ways to cope with the con-
straints of the learning management system and continue to teach effec-
tively with technology
302 Lin and Zheng

Section three: Training and support

12. Using the scale below, how would you rate the support and training you
receive?
1 – None
2 – Below Average
3 – Average
4 – Above Average
5 – Excellent

1) Professional development on content/language specific knowledge

2) Professional development on technology-based skills
3) Professional development on online classroom management
4) Professional development on effective communication with online
students
5) Professional development on organizing and structuring instructional
content
6) Professional development on strategies for accommodating different
learning styles
7) Professional development on finding and evaluating quality resources
for my online classes
8) Professional development on content-/language-based technology in-
tegration
9) Instructional support (ongoing support for incorporating technologies
into your online courses)
10) Technical support (e.g., network, software, hardware)

13. Please select three professional development areas you believe you need
additional training in, and prioritize them (1-3) in order of importance, with
1 being most important.
1) Content/language-specific knowledge
2) Technology-based skills
3) Online classroom management
4) Effective communication with online students
5) Organizing and structuring instructional content
6) Strategies for accommodating different learning styles
7) Finding and evaluating quality resources for my online classes
8) Language-based technology integration
Online Language Teaching Practices 303

Section four: Demographic information

13. What is your gender? □Male □Female

14. How old are you? □ under 25 □ 25-29 □ 30-39 □ 40-49 □ 50-59 □ 60+

15. What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?
□ Bachelor’s degree □ Master’s degree □ Doctoral degree

16. How long have you been working as a teacher?

□ This is my first year □ 1-2 years □ 3-5 years
□ 6-10 years □ 11-15 years □ 16-20 years □ More than 20 years

17. How long have you been teaching online courses?

□ This is my first year □ 1-2 years □ 3-5 years
□ 6-10 years □ 11-15 years □ 16-20 years □ More than 20 years

18. What is your target language proficiency level?

□ None □ Novice □Intermediate □ Advanced □ Native

19. What language courses are you teaching now?

□ American Sign Language 1 □ Japanese 1
□ American Sign Language 2 □ Japanese 2
□ Chinese 1 □ Spanish (AP)
□ Chinese 2 □ Spanish 1
□ Chinese 3 □ Spanish 2
□ Chinese 4 □ Spanish 3
□ French (AP) □ Latin 1
□ French 1 □ Latin 2
□ French 2 □ Latin 3
□ French 3
□ French 4
□ German 1
□ German 2
□ German 3
□ German 4

20. Your language course would be best described as a:

□ Non-Middlebury Interactive Course
□ Middlebury Interactive Course (Competency)
□ Middlebury Interactive Course (Fluency)
□ Other
View publication stats