Foreign language teaching in distance education is administratively and pedagogically challenging; research on the perspectives of novice practitioners’ online teaching is also relatively scarce. This study explores how a novice Japanese teacher navigated and negotiated her professional development in a two-way virtual practitionership during her first online teaching. Data were collected from ongoing dialogue journals between the novice and her mentor followed by a semi-structured interview. Qualitative results indicate that pedagogically-sound and personalized digital tools can not only reduce the psychological distance between the teachers and students, but facilitate online teaching and learning via a performance-driven, standard-based curriculum. Informed by Action Research, the study reveals how both practitioners de/reconstructed their teacher identities and achieved professional empowerment through robust supervision and reciprocal teacher evaluation in a virtual environment. It further demonstrates the extent to which this evidence-driven and research-oriented approach can better address the genuine concerns of a foreign language program in distance education. Specifically, this context-responsive study indicates the improvement of online course delivery, teacher training and program sustainability in its own right.
Adair-HauckB.TroyanJ. J. (2013). A descriptive and co-constructive approach to integrated performance assessment feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 23–44.
2.
AllwrightD. (1997). Quality and sustainability in teacher-research. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 368–370.
3.
AllwrightD. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7, 113–141.
4.
AllwrightR. L.BaileyK. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language researchers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BanegasD.PaveseA.VelázquezA.VélezS. M. (2013). Teacher professional development through collaborative action research: Impact on foreign English-language teaching and learning. Educational Action Research, 21, 185–201.
6.
BlakeR. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. 2nd edition.Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
7.
BurnsA. (2007). Action research: Contributions and further directions in ELT. In CumminsJ.DavisonC. (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Volume 15 (pp. 987–1002). Boston, MA: Springer.
8.
BurnsA. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge.
9.
BurnsA. (2011). Action research in the field of second language teaching and research. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Volume II (pp.237–253). New York: Routledge.
10.
BurnsA. (2013). Innovation through action research and teacher-initiated change. In HighlandK.WongL. L. C. (Eds.), Innovation and change in English language education (pp.106–121). Abingdon: Routledge.
11.
BurnsA. (2015). Action research. In PaltridgeB.PhakitiA. (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp.187–204). London: Bloomsbury.
12.
ChenJ.JourdainS. (2015). Implementing STARTALK-endorsed principles in an intensive summer LCTL program: Challenges and implications. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 17, 103–132.
13.
CornwellS. (1999). Interview with Anne Burns and Graham Crookes. The Language Teacher, 23, 5–10.
14.
CreswellJ. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th edition.Boston, MA: Pearson.
15.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
CrookesG. (1993). Action research for second language teachers: Going beyond teacher research. Applied Linguistics, 14, 130–144.
17.
EdwardsE.BurnsA. (2016a). Language teacher action research: Achieving sustainability. English Language Teaching Journal (ELT), 70, 6–15.
18.
EdwardsE.BurnsA. (2016b). Language teacher–researcher identity negotiation: An ecological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 735–745.
19.
Foreign Service Institute. (2019). FSI’s experience with language learning. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute. Available at: https://www.state.gov/m/fsi/sls/c78549.htm (accessed April 2019).
20.
GarstB.FranzN. K.PetersB.SmithC.BaughmanS. (2012). Using single-case participatory action research as a methodology to explore Appalachian summer camp communities. PRISM: A Journal of Regional Engagement, 1, 19–31.
21.
GoodnoughK. (2010). The role of action research in transforming teacher identity: Modes of belonging and ecological perspectives. Educational Action Research, 18, 167–182.
22.
GreeneJ. C. (2006). Evaluation, democracy and social change. In ShawI. F.GreeneJ. C.MarkM. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (pp.118–140). London: SAGE.
23.
GuichonN. (2009). Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’ competence through reflective analysis. ReCALL, 21, 166–185.
24.
HartshorneR.HeafnerT. L.PettyT. M. (2013). Teacher education programs and online learning tools: Innovations in teacher preparation. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
25.
JimenezJ. E.O’ShanahanI. (2016). Effects of web-based training on Spanish pre-service and in-service teacher knowledge and implicit beliefs on learning to read. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 175–187.
26.
KaiserD. J. (2017). English language teaching in Uruguay. World Englishes, 36, 744–759.
27.
KataokaH. (1986). Televised Japanese language program: The first year. Foreign Language Annals, 19, 491–498.
28.
KemmisS.McTaggartR. (1988) The nature of action research: The action research planner. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
29.
KubotaR. (1999). Learning Japanese via satellite in an American high school: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 329–347.
30.
MackeyA.GassS. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. New York: Routledge.
31.
MerriamS. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32.
MoriY.OmoriM.SatoK. (2016). The impact of flipped online kanji instruction on written vocabulary learning for introductory and intermediate Japanese language students. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 729–749.
33.
NesbittD.MullerA. (2016). Sustaining motivation for Japanese kanji learning: Can digital games help?The JALT CALL Journal, 12, 23–41.
OliverK.KelloggS.PatelR. (2012). An investigation into reported differences between online foreign language instruction and other subject areas in a virtual school. CALICO Journal, 29, 269–296.
36.
RovegnoS.PintosV. (2017). Building up authentic knowledge through teacher research. In BanegasD., et al. (Eds.), Authenticity in ELT: Selected papers from the 42nd FAAPI conference (pp.10–21). Posadas, Argentina: APIM.
37.
SatoE.ChenJ. C. C.JourdainS. (2017). Integrating digital technology in an intensive, fully online college course for Japanese beginning learners: A standards-based, performance-driven approach. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 756–775.
38.
SatoE.SohnH.ChenJ. C.AdebowaleK. C.JourdainS. (2015). Building innovative online Korean and Japanese courses: A pilot on technology-enhanced curriculum development. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44, 171–202.
39.
SheaP.LiC. S.SwanK.PickettA. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9, 59–82.
40.
ShibakawaM. (2018). The effect of a teacher’s belief system on online Japanese course development. In BastiaensT., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World conference on educational media and technology (pp.703–708). Amsterdam: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
41.
SowaP. A. (2009). Understanding our learners and developing reflective practice: Conducting action research with English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1026–1032.
42.
The National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-readiness standards for learning languages (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: ACTFL
43.
van Deusen-SchollN. (2015). Assessing outcomes in online foreign language education: What are key measures for success?Modern Language Journal, 99, 398–400.
44.
WangQ.ZhangH. (2014). Promoting teacher autonomy through university–school collaborative action research. Language Teaching Research, 18, 222–241.
45.
Warriner-BurkeH. (1990). Distance learning: What we don’t know can hurt us. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 129–133.
46.
YiH.MajimaJ. (1993). The teacher–learner relationship and classroom interaction in distance learning: A case study of the Japanese language classes at an American high school. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 21–30.
47.
YuanR.BurnsA. (2017). Teacher identity development through action research: A Chinese experience. Teachers and Teaching, 23, 729–749.
