Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:27:07.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of mode of instructional delivery on second language teacher self-efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2014

Scott Kissau  and
Bob Algozzine
Scott Kissau
Affiliation:
Department of Middle, Secondary, K-12 Education, College of Education, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA (spkissau@uncc.edu)
Bob Algozzine
Affiliation:
Department of Education Leadership, College of Education, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA (rfalgozz@uncc.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research has called into question the suitability of fully-online instruction for certain teacher preparation courses. Methodology coursework, in particular, has been singled out in research as ill-suited to online instruction. Recent research, for example, involving second language (L2) teacher candidates has demonstrated that aspiring teachers who completed online methodology instruction were less confident in their abilities to teach L2 learners than their counterparts who completed the same instruction in a face-to-face (F2F) setting. To address the limitations of online instruction, while still incorporating its associated strengths, the development and implementation of hybridized methodology coursework have been proposed. Following this recommendation, the researchers developed and implemented hybridized L2 methodology courses that mirrored their pre-existing online and F2F equivalents. Using a mixed methodology, the researchers then conducted a three-way comparison of instructional delivery modes (online, F2F, hybrid) to investigate their impact on L2 teacher candidate self-efficacy. Although the results demonstrated that all three modes of instruction can be equally effective at increasing candidate confidence, they also highlighted the potential of hybridized instruction to address the limitations of online and F2F instruction, while still including their strengths. The findings also emphasized that simply viewing or participating in live demonstrations of teaching strategies in post-secondary methodology courses is not sufficient. To feel confident in their teaching abilities, teacher candidates need opportunities in their coursework to apply what they have learned in K-12 classrooms. Offering numerous research-based suggestions to improve the design of hybridized methodology courses, the study also serves to inform the development of future hybridized methodology coursework.

Keywords

teacher trainingmethodology instructionmodes of instructional deliverysecond language teacher candidatesself-efficacy
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2015 , pp. 239 - 256
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, M., Lignugaris-Kraft, B. and Forbush, D. (2007) Online mathematics methods course evaluation: Student outcomes, generalization, and pupil performance. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30: 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, E. and Seaman, J. (2009) Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
Aragon, S., Johnson, S. and Shaik, N. (2002) The influence of learning style preferences on student success in online versus face-to-face environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 16: 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013) CAEP Accreditation Standards. http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/final_board_approved1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L. and McCloskey, E. M. (2009) A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1): 8–9.Google Scholar
Delfino, M. and Persico, D. (2007) Online or face-to-face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5): 351–365.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I. and Shaw, L. L. (1995) Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R. and Kanuka, H. (2004) Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7: 95–105.Google Scholar
Gedik, N., Kiraz, E. and Özden, M. Y. (2012) The optimum blend: Affordances and challenges of blended learning for students. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 3: 102–117.Google Scholar
Hall, D. and Knox, J. (2009) Issues in the education of TESOL teachers by distance education. Distance Education, 30(1): 63–85.Google Scholar
Harter, S. (1978) Pleasure derived from optimal challenge and the effects of extrinsic rewards on children’s difficulty level choices. Child Development, XLIX: 788–799.Google Scholar
Hoven, D. L. (2007) The affordances of technology for student teachers to shape their teacher education experience. In: Kassen, M. A., Lavine, R., Murphy-Judy, K. A. and Peters, M. (eds.), Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers. San Marcos: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), Texas State University.Google Scholar
James, M. (1996) The role of orientation and perceived personal causation in the motivation of adult ESL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Jang, S. (2008) The effects of integrating technology, observation and writing into teacher education method course. Computers & Education, 50: 853–865.Google Scholar
Kirtman, L. (2009) Online versus in-class courses: An examination of differences in learning outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education, 18: 103–116.Google Scholar
Kissau, S. (2011) Perceptions of self efficacy for two types of second language methods instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning: an International Journal. Available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09588221.2011.587436Google Scholar
Kissau, S. (2014) Instructional delivery and second language teacher candidate performance: Online vs face-to-face. Computer Assisted Language Learning. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2014.881389.Google Scholar
Kocoglu, Z., Ozek, Y. and Kesli, Y. (2011) Blended learning: Investigating its potential in an English language teacher training program. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27: 1124–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M. and Jones, K. (2009) Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.Google Scholar
Modern Language Association of America. (2007) Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. New York: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Moore, M. (1994) Administrative barriers to adoption of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 8(3): 1–4.Google Scholar
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009) Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 2006–2007. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009044Google Scholar
Tschannen-Moran, M. and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17: 783–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, A. and Lewis, C. W. (2008) Teacher education programmes delivered at a distance: An examination of distance student perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24: 601–609.Google Scholar
Youngs, G. and Youngs, C. (1999) Mainstream teachers’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of teaching ESL students. MinneTESOL/WITESOL Journal, 16(1): 15–29.Google Scholar