Landguaging Imperialism through Teacher-Reflection Art: Land-Sensitizing Tools for Imperial Language Instructors

Rick Kern's (2024, this issue) critical engagement with the implications of technological advancements such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine translation in the postpandemic era should prompt many to reflect on the so-called "existential crisis" we face, both as language teachers and as human beings. Language teachers, like many other professionals (e.g., accountants and lawyers), may fear that they will be replaced by AI (e.g., Felix, 2020) while modern language education programs already face funding cuts in many contexts such as the United States and Australia (e.g., Gao & Zheng, 2019; Lanvers et al., 2018). For this reason, I completely agree with the premise that there is a need for language educators to identify the affordances and constraints presented by technological tools in language education. It is also critical to ascertain how we can draw on intellectual sources to help language teachers make informed use of technological tools to provide the best possible learning experience for language learners. At the same time, however, I wonder if the challenges that technological advancements present for language teachers may require more in-depth elaboration. Such an elaboration might help us better "articulate and communicate the value of language study" (Kern, 2024, this issue, p. XX) for the public and implement the pathways in language (teacher) education advanced by Kern. It should be noted that technological developments such as the rise of generative AI pose challenges for most professions. Generative AI tools have already been tested for their ability to replace humans in the fields of accountancy and law (e.g., Choi et al., 2021; Vasarhelyi et al., 2023), and language teachers may also feel their profession is at risk. A counterargument against "fearmongering" discourses about this technological development is the assertion that AI can replace human beings for the completion of individual tasks but cannot replace their jobs altogether. Indeed, professions such as teaching involve complex orchestration of multiple tasks (e.g., delivering content, facilitating thinking, and guiding and supporting learning), which is beyond the current capacity of generative AI tools. As an increasing number of tasks can be executed by these new technological means, however, the ways in which human beings are needed in these jobs are also likely to change. In the context of language learning and use, technologies such as machine translation may generate inaccurate texts, but they are sufficient for communication tasks that do not require high levels of precision. For instance, as a journal editor, I may need to look up a colleague in a Turkish university to find out whether their research background and expertise match a manuscript that needs to be reviewed. I would not be able to understand the content of this colleague's webpage on their university's staff directory, which would be in Turkish, if I did not use Google Translate in my Chrome browser. While it is possible that Google Translate would not accurately translate the entire website from Turkish into English, it would be adequate to help me to decide whether this colleague had sufficient expertise to review the manuscript. In a similar way, I imagine that hundreds of such day-to-day professional tasks do not require translations that are 100% accurate. For example, generative AI tools can help people to create texts such as letters of complaint or appreciation in different languages. Machine translation and generative AI tools can help people overcome language barriers without necessarily needing to learn new languages to complete these tasks. Most of these tasks involve the transactional use of language (i.e., the communication of information for exchange), a form of language use that has motivated many learners to learn languages in traditional classrooms. It should also be noted that machine translation and generative AI tools are undergoing further development and refinement. Kern's (2024, this issue, p. X) article suggests that generative AI tools such as ChatGPT are "harmful to a social understanding of knowledge and learning" because they do not make the sources of knowledge explicit, have "no notion of empirical truth," and "no conception of a theoretical frame" (Peters et al., 2023, pp. 14−15), and cannot apply ethical principles in the course of reasoning. Moreover, generative AI tools tend to appear to be "uncritically affirmative" (Peters et al., 2023, pp. 14−15). In my view, these issues cannot be fixed through continuous technological developments, but it is likely that generative AI tools will function as if they have appropriate understandings of empirical truth and use theoretical frameworks when presenting views on particular issues. They may also appear to have balanced views on different topics and to use ethical principles when elaborating upon these views. As an applied linguist, I cannot evaluate how well generative AI tools are "learning" and what they are capable of in terms of functionality in the future. However, it is very likely that the community of language teachers faces a crisis, as the rise of generative AI tools will lead to a worldwide diminishing of the scale of language education. Opportunities to learn languages will likely be reserved for those aiming for an expert level of proficiency and competence that enables them to outperform and manage machine translation and generative AI tools in language use; or those who are intrinsically motivated to learn languages. Will this create a world in which people are categorized into those who have the resources and expertise to manage technological tools, and those who depend on such tools? The growing inequity as a result of this knowledge gap is beyond the scope of this response, but the crisis engulfing language education has important ramifications for language teachers, which I shall now rely on Chinese cultural wisdom to discuss. The dialectical idea of "crisis" in the Chinese language "危机 wei ji" means both "danger [危 wei]" and "opportunity [机 ji]" (Wang, 2014). In the spirit of Kern's (2024, this issue) article, the crisis here presents an opportunity for language educators to rethink the values involved in the study of language and how these values can be articulated and realized. Such critical reflections and conversations will help reenergize language education with new understandings and commitments. It is my contention that the changes that must take place in language education have been well presented in Kern's (2024) article. For this reason, I will focus on the critical question of how we can "articulate and communicate the value of language study" to the public to develop a clear agenda for language teacher education moving forward. My first response regarding the value of language study against the backdrop of technological developments is that language learning needs to be promoted as a fundamentally humanistic endeavor. Many tasks involving the transactional use of language can be performed with improved functionality by rapidly evolving machine translation and generative AI tools. Although generative AI tools may appear to be increasingly humanlike when interacting with us, our deep, intrinsic needs—such as a sense of belonging, identity aspirations, and desirable attributes associated with speaking languages other than our own (such as "coolness," creativity, etc.)—cannot be satisfied by these tools. The value of language study lies in the human life journeys that language teachers undertake together with learners. I recall what my English language teacher used to say many years ago: You can live multiple lives if you learn to speak multiple languages. Nevertheless, I understand that we must develop a much more persuasive message if we are to persuade the public to value language studies. Let us shift our attention to other professions where automation can replace human beings, but human beings still play a critical role. For example, autopilot technology is already quite well developed in the aviation industry. We now have the technology to pilot a plane from takeoff to landing, yet we still rely on human pilots to operate planes. The obvious reason is that we do not want human beings to lose the essential skills and capacity required to operate increasingly sophisticated modern aircraft in complex situations. If we fully rely on automatic instruments to fly the plane, pilots may not have the opportunity to operate these planes themselves. Reliance on human pilots for the operation of aircraft helps ensure that the world still has reliable pilots if technology fails. We also want to remain the "masters" of technological tools. The same reasoning can be applied in defense of language study: It can be argued that language makes us human, and language use is an essential characteristic of our humanity. If we rely on technological tools for human interaction, we will have fewer opportunities to develop critical skills, competence, and practices for cross-cultural communication and mutual understanding. Which tasks can be replaced by technological tools that can perform them more efficiently than human beings? Which tasks can be replaced by technological tools but should be retained by human beings as essential skills? Which tasks cannot be performed entirely with technological tools but can be approached by using these tools to facilitate the growth of our skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions? A lack of rigorous answers to these questions will undermine the efforts of language educators to respond to the challenges posed by technological developments. Robust responses to these questions will help language teachers identify where they stand in relation to technological developments and the need for effective pedagogy. For example, generative AI tools may help us remove grammatical infelicities in our written language and improve the quality of our writing as users of English as an additional language. It is perfectly reasonable for us to use these tools to help us write texts in languages other than our own. However, this does not mean that learners should also give up learning the skills needed to notice and appropriate target language forms. Another example involves the use of technologies that may help learners to spend less time drilling and practicing their linguistic knowledge. This does not mean that learners do not need to develop the capacity and disposition needed to monitor and reflect upon their language development, either. In this way, language education researchers may now need to identify a repertoire of essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that human beings should retain as language users, regardless of whether technological tools can replace human beings in the completion of many tasks connected to language use. For instance, language learners want to be heard and listened to, while language teachers also want to promote language learners' acquisition of linguistic knowledge and skills, as well as fostering their personal growth in teaching. In order to achieve such aspirations, language teachers and learners need to work together to find the most effective ways to develop language learners into agentic and lifelong learners who are capable of creating learning opportunities for themselves—learners who are resilient, persevering, and highly motivated; who can regulate their learning processes, and believe in their own capacity to take control of language learning (Larsen-Freeman et al., 2021). Indeed, the use of technological tools such as generative AI can give language teachers the time and opportunity to focus on the development of the list of essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that may otherwise receive insufficient attention. The effort to identify this list of qualities addresses the critical question language educators must answer to the public regarding the value of language study. Further research is required to demonstrate the value of the essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions language learners can develop through their learning process. For instance, language learners' perception of self-efficacy, which relates to their beliefs about what they can learn and how they can manage their learning process, is essential for their development through learning both subject content and languages. While learners may develop a positive perception of self-efficacy through language learning, this can also be promoted in other arenas, such as learning mathematics or participating in sports. For this reason, I suggest that language teachers focus on the variety of skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that are unique to the learning of languages, rather than more generic counterparts. As an example, intercultural communicative competence is a highly desirable attribute that language learners can develop through learning languages. At this point, it is not clear whether future technological tools will be capable of detecting and appropriately responding to subtle cultural nuances in the context of intercultural communication, but this is a valuable, essential skill for human beings to retain (e.g., Gao & Yang, 2023). When language teachers possess a list of what can be best learned through language education, we can achieve a clear articulation of the value of language study for the public. Language teachers also need this list to clarify the roles that they must perform in this brave new world. In my perspective, the shifting responses to the roles of language teachers by generative AI tools presented in Kern's (2024, this issue) article are at once deeply comforting and concerning. The article indicates that generative AI tools are learning how to respond based on the available language data at their disposal, which suggests that we are still refining our thoughts on this critical question. I can imagine that their responses will become increasingly sophisticated as language educators' engagement with this critical question deepens. At present, these responses highlight the role that teachers have in providing emotional support to language learners in terms of motivation, confidence, and engagement. Additionally, human teachers are responsive to individual language learners' needs, preferences, and styles when monitoring, regulating, and facilitating language learners' learning processes. Human teachers promote language learners' critical reflections on values and norms to develop a better sense of self and belonging toward community building. Human teachers are also believed to facilitate language learners' development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions for adaptive and creative responses in real-world environments. However, these represent patterns of responses that human beings have been producing to the question as captured and identified by the AI tools. As such, they likely reflect our limited understanding of what technological tools are capable of at present, and how they may evolve into in the future. While these responses are valuable, I also wonder if they partly reflect the wishful thinking of language educators. As generative AI tools are further refined in terms of their functionality, I imagine that these tools can perform the aforementioned tasks that have been ascribed to human teachers so far. These tools may appear to behave as if they were language teachers who attempt to provide emotional and human support to language learners; offer feedback responsive to language learners' needs, preferences, and styles; facilitate their critical skills of reflection and reflexion; and enable language learners with knowledge and skills to promote their adaptability and creativity. The fundamental difference between generative AI tools and human teachers is found at the fact that these are not essential qualities of AI tools but rather represent their behavioral functions. Importantly, these are qualities that human teachers cannot afford to lose. As a result, language teacher education programs should reorient themselves to focus on the development of these essential qualities that language teachers must offer as human teachers (Gao, 2019). While the changes induced by technological developments do not fundamentally change the roles that language teachers play in education, they do indicate that language teachers must prepare for the shifting priorities in their professional practice. Consequently, language teacher education programs must also adjust their pedagogical priorities so that they can better prepare language teachers for the need to adapt their teaching practice to the new world to come. Language teacher education programs help language teachers to develop a critical awareness of technological affordances and constraints so that they can be clear about the mission they undertake as human teachers: They need to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are essential for human beings to maintain. Without these essential attributes, humans may be unable to claim ourselves as human agents in control of our own life and existence. The humanistic aspects of language education should become more prominent as human language teachers focus on the satisfaction of language learners' intrinsic and integrative needs, while technological tools address the instrumental needs of language learners. Language teacher education programs may need to focus on developing language teachers' adequate understandings of technological tools so that they use these tools effectively in collaboration with language learners to facilitate their personal growth (Tao & Gao, 2022). Effective use of these tools will create time and space for the development of the skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that have not been well addressed in traditional language classrooms, in which the main tasks of learning and teaching relate to linguistic knowledge. Language teacher education programs prepare preservice language teachers who need to teach languages other than their own for using technological tools to help develop and refine their knowledge of these languages. Pedagogical priorities will shift toward the learning and teaching of language-related outcomes, including intercultural communication, as well as nonlinguistic outcomes such as perseverance, adaptability, and creativity. Teaching can also focus on the growth of inner resources such as agency, so that learners have opportunities to develop these crucial inner resources (Larsen-Freeman, 2019). For example, teachers might use learner-oriented feedback to allow language learners to choose the aspects of their learning that they would like to receive feedback on and how they would like feedback to be given to them. As technology increasingly replaces human beings in the performance of a variety of tasks, it is critical for language educators to reorient our focus toward developing the essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that make us human through learning languages. For me, the crisis brought about by technological developments presents an opportunity for language educators to revive the fundamentally humanistic cause of language education—that is, to promote critical cultural and human understandings and to bring people together so that we can respond to the existential crises facing the human race, such as climate change and war. Open access publishing facilitated by University of New South Wales, as part of the Wiley - University of New South Wales agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

The Douglas Fir Group Framework as a Resource Map for Language Teacher Education

Learning about another educational context is often a stated institutional goal of pre-service study abroad. However, living abroad is no guarantee that pre-service teachers will reflect upon their language learning and teaching experiences through the lens of future teaching. Drawing from a large study of reflective practices during study abroad, from preparation to debriefing, we use nexus analysis to focus on how five pre-service teachers living and volunteer-teaching abroad over nine weeks reflected upon their learning and teaching experiences through blogs. We ask: “What study abroad participant learning about language teaching and learning emerges through blogging?” Despite disparate teaching specializations, the participants often found themselves learning firsthand about the opportunities and challenges of language learning. They used blogs to reflect upon knowledge, skills, and attributes needed for language teaching. These results reveal that learning during study abroad can advance the teaching competencies necessary to working with diverse learners in future classrooms.

Towards crosslinguistic pedagogy: Demystifying pre-service teachers’ beliefs regarding the target-language-only rule

ABSTRACTThis study explores six Vietnamese, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ reflections on their experiences of English language learning during the early 1980s to the late 1990s. Data collected in narrative interviews with the participating teachers revealed a wide range of issues that arose during their EFL learning, central to which was the prevalence of grammar-focused practices in all EFL classes. From their perspectives as EFL teachers today, the participants see their learning experience as a way of learning to teach. In particular, they pinpoint the negative aspects of language teaching at that time in the hope that their teaching practice today will not repeat the same mistakes. However, they also reflect on positive aspects, especially their influential teachers, to inform their teaching. Based on the findings, the study suggests that language teachers’ experience of language learning should be considered part of reflective teaching as well as of teachers’ trajectories of learning to teach.

This chapter aims to engage pre-service teachers in developing their own puzzles with regard to language learning and/or teaching experiences. The chapter focuses on helping pre-service teachers experience exploratory and reflective processes while elaborating on their puzzles based on their real word pedagogic experiences. We also introduce the concept of exploratory practice as an approach to investigating research puzzles by discussing its key principles. The chapter provides a list of questions that can help revise and refine initial questions to create more focused and context-specific puzzles. Additionally, puzzle development processes by pre-service English language teachers are exemplified and pre-service teachers’ views on doing research as puzzles are provided. The chapter ends with engaging tasks that could help pre-service language teachers develop their own puzzles.

Bilingualism among Teachers of English as a Second Language: A Study of Second Language Learning Experience as a Contributor to the Professional Knowledge and Beliefs of Teachers of ESL to Adults

The study of language acquisition and instruction is not new to academics, but it never fails to excite linguists and teachers. The goal of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is to help students develop their communication skills so that they can effectively communicate in a target language. Since its start in the 1970s, when the need for language learners to improve their communication skills was rising, this approach has received worldwide reputation. But since many educators still reject this method, many worries remain. According to Chomsky (1957), the four main aspects of language acquisition lexis, syntax, phonology, and morphology are focused on linguistic competence. Hymes (1971) argues that pragmatic, sociolinguistic, semantic, and grammatical considerations are more important. When it comes to teaching second languages, the theories put forward by researchers, have been game-changers for communicative language instruction. The communicative language teaching (CLT) technique places an emphasis on students' active participation in second language classroom activities and provides more opportunities for students to improve their communication skills compared to the grammar-translation method. Other traditional methods of instruction do not typically use this component. In the context of ESL instruction, this article delves deeply into the ideas and methods of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In particular, it compares and contrasts conventional methods of instruction with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and gives a brief summary of its advantages and disadvantages. In addition, the article delves into the latest advancements in CLT and the difficulties encountered while applying CLT in an academic environment. After that, the post helps educators understand Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) better. Furthermore, it suggests possible outcomes, such as creating classroom activities and encouraging student motivation, of utilizing CLT to teach English in a university context. References Abahussain, M. O. (2016). Implementing Communicative Language Teaching Method in Saudi Arabia: Challenges Faced by Formative Year Teachers in State Schools. (PhD). University of Stirling, Scotland. Abrejo, B., Sartaj, S., & Memon, S. (2019). English Language Teaching through Communicative Approach: A Qualitative Study of Public Sector Colleges of Hyderabad, Sindh. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(5), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.5p.43 Ahn, S. Y., & Kang, H.-S. (2017). South Korean university students’ perceptions of different English varieties and their contribution to the learning of English as a foreign language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(8), 712-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1242595. Al-Nasser, A. S. (2015). Problems of English language acquisition in Saudi Arabia: An exploratory-cum-remedial study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1612- 1619. Alsalmi, A. A. (2014). Challenges confronting teachers of English language. (Master). Taif University, Taif. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Batawi, G. H. (2007). Exploring the use of CLT in Saudi Arabia. (Master). American University of Sharjah, Sharjah. Borg, S. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. In The Routledge handbook of language awareness, (pp. 93-109): Routledge. Brandl, K. (2019). Communicative Language Teaching in Action: Putting Principles to Work. Pearson Education, Inc. Brandl, K., & Bauer, G. (2002). Students’ Perceptions of Novice Teaching Assistants’ Use of the Target Language in Beginning Foreign Language Classes: Preliminary Investigation. In W. Davis, J. Smith, & R. Smith (Eds), Ready To Teach: Graduate Teaching Assistants Prepare for Today and for Tomorrow (pp.128-138). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (6th ed.). White Plains, NY Pearson Education. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistic, 1(1), 1-47. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton. Courtney, D. (2020). Activities to Activate and Maintain a Communicative Classroom. English Teaching Forum, 58(1), 10-21. Dey, M. (2021). Psychological processes in language learning and teaching: Scoping review and future research directions. Journal of Psychological Perspective, 3(2), 105-110. Dey, M. (2023). The primary characteristics of English pragmatics in Applied Linguistics: Exploring the Key Features of English Pragmatics in Applied Linguistics. Inverge Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1022/ijss.v2i2.25 Dey, M., Amelia, R., & Herawati, Y. W. (2023). Challenging the'Native Speaker'Ideal: The Impact of Native Speakerism on Language Education. Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa, 17(2), 232-245. Dos Santos, L. M. (2016). Foreign language teachers' professional development through peer observation programme. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 39-46. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n10p39. Dos Santos, L. M. (2017). How do teachers make sense of peer observation professional development in an Urban School. International Education Studies, 10(1), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n1p255. Dos Santos., L. M. (2019). Science lessons for non-science university undergraduate students: An application of visual-only video teaching strategy. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 14(1), 308–311. https://doi.org/10.36478/jeasci.2019.308.311. Dos Santos, L. M. (2020). The Discussion of Communicative Language Teaching Approach in Language Classrooms, Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 2020. Journal of Education and E-Learning, 7(2), 104-109. Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Blackwell Publishing. Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Huang, S.-H., & Yang, L.-C. (2018). Teachers’ Needs in the Advancement of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Taiwan. TESOL International Journal, 13(1), 100-117. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (1971). Pidginization and creolization of languages. London, UK: Cambridge University Press. Iwashita, N., & Ngoc, K. M. (2012). A comparison of learners’ and teachers’ attitudes toward communicative language teaching at two universities in Vietnam. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 7, 25-49. Jung, S. K., & Norton, B. (2002). Language planning in Korea: the new elementary English program. In Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 245-265). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Kachru, B. (1992). World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1–14. Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5), 430-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370210156745. Kiato, S. K., & Kiato, K. (1996). Testing Communicative Competence. The TESOL Internet Journal, 2(5). Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Lee, J. S., & Lee, K. (2019). Perceptions of English as an international language by Korean English-major and non-English-major students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(1), 76-89. Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/19. 10.1017/S0272263197001034. Natividad, M. R. A., & Batang, B. L. (2018). Students’ Perceptual Learning Styles and Attitudes toward Communicative Language Teaching. TESOL International Journal, 13(4), 104-120. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 279–295. Ozsevik, Z. (2010). The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers’ perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illiois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman. Pham, H. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Riggenbach, H., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). Promoting Oral Communication Skills. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 125-136). Los Angeles: University of California. Richards, J. C. (2006), Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.). Sydney, NSW: McGraw-Hill. Saengboon, S. (2002). Beliefs of Thai EFL teachers about communicative language teaching. (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University Bloomington, USA. Schulz, R.A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Learners’ and teachers’ view on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 333-364. Sawalmeh, M. H., & Dey, M. (2023). Globalization and the increasing demand for spoken English teachers. Research Journal in Advanced Humanities, 4(2). Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1989). Intensive ESL programs in Quebec primary schools. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 11-32. Souriyavongsa, T., Rany, S., Abidin, M. J. Z., & Mei, L. L. (2013). Factors causes students low English language learning: A case study in the National University of Laos. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 179-192. Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(1), 9–15. Tomlinson, B. (2001). Humanising the Coursebook. Humanising Language Teaching, 3(5). Walia, D. N. (2012). Traditional teaching methods vs. CLT: A study. Frontiers of language and teaching, 3(1), 125-131. Weiner, L. (2012). The future of our schools: Teachers unions and social justice. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books. Weiner, L., & Jerome, D. (2016). Urban teaching: The essentials (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. West, A. J. (2016). Adaptation of Communicative Language Teaching Methodology to an English Textbook for English Language Learning of NIDA Students. PASAA, 52, 25-52 Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zhang, J. L. (2006, November 11-13). The ecology of communicative language teaching: Reflecting on the Singapore experience [Paper presentation]. Annual CELEA International Conference: Innovating English Teaching: Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Other Approaches, China English Language Education Association (CELEA) and Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China.

Almost since the onset of emergency remote teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, studies examined how teachers and students adjusted to the change, including in language courses. Some of this research has explored language teachers’ self-efficacy and confidence in teaching remotely, and to a lesser extent how student language learning has been affected; most studies have not differentiated among languages taught or between different student age groups. Through a survey of 173 PK–16 language instructors in the United States who switched from face-to-face classroom teaching to remote teaching in the spring of 2020, the present study examines teachers’ perceptions of their success in transferring specific teaching skills to a remote teaching context and their perceptions of the effects of remote learning on their students’ language learning experience. Across the teaching skills respondents were asked to report on, a majority of teachers reported that their in-person teaching skills were at least somewhat useful for remote teaching, but PK–12 teachers were more likely to report poorer transfer of teaching skills than instructors of adult students. Across different aspects of the student learning experience, teachers of PK–12 learners generally reported a more negative impact of remote instruction on their students’ learning than instructors of adults, while teachers of less commonly taught languages reported a more positive impact of remote teaching on their students’ learning than teachers of commonly taught languages. Our results provide new evidence of differences in the remote language learning and teaching experience between different groups of students and teachers, and underscore the importance for teachers and schools to prepare generally for flexibility in teaching, which includes remote teaching.

Importance. Existing empirical research in the field of integration of artificial intelligence technology in foreign language teaching is devoted to the use of specific technology in teaching types of speech activity, mainly writing. The authors note the wide methodological potential of artificial intelligence technologies in foreign language teaching and use chatbots, voice assistants, intelligent learning systems, corpus technologies to form the foreign language communicative competence of students. However, the analysis of a number of studies has allowed us to conclude that so far the authors have not attempted to design a unified model of language and methodological preservice teachers’ training based on artificial intelligence technologies. The purpose of this work is to design a model of language and methodological pre-service teachers’ training based on artificial intelligence technologies.Research Methods. The present study is related to the study of the context of the integration of artificial intelligence technologies into language education. To achieve the set research goal, theoretical methods were used: the study and analysis of scientific and methodological works on thedesign of methodological models of teaching a foreign language using modern technologies; empirical methods: survey, observation and description of research results; modeling methods.Definition of Concepts. The main concepts in this work are “the model of language and methodological pre-service teachers’ training” and “the competence of a pre-service foreign language teacher in the field of using artificial intelligence technologies”.Results and Discussion. Structurally, the model of language and methodological pre-service teachers’ training based on artificial intelligence technologies is represented by the following components: prerequisites (determining the relevance of designing a learning model), a goalsetting block (setting goals and objectives for developing teaching methods), a theoretical block (determining the theoretical and methodological basis of research), a technological block (determining strategies and teaching methods, selection of the learning content, identification of organizational and pedagogical learning conditions, the choice of optimal organizational forms of learning, the definition of pedagogical tools), the evaluation and performance block (the development of a criterion-based assessment apparatus and the forecast of expected learning outcomes).Conclusion. At this stage, the proposed model reflects the essence of the development of AI technologies and their applicability in a foreign language teaching. The separation of artificial intelligence from a means of learning into a separate subject of the educational process indicates that there is a paradigm shift in the use of new technologies in learning. AI technologies are able to provide high-quality feedback, create additional conditions for language practice, take on daily routine tasks and automate them, thereby shaping the ability of students to engage in their education and self-education throughout their lives. The obtained research results are recommended to be used in the methodology of teaching a foreign language, as well as in the development of private methods of teaching a foreign language using AI technologies.

Background: The potentials of arts-based health research are increasingly being realized as an approach to understanding and communicating the complexities of the human experience of health and illness. Despite this, arts-based health research often remains shrouded in obscurity, limiting its potential utility. Arts-based health research offers unique opportunities to integrate evidence of patients’ lived experience with other forms of research evidence to improve understanding and knowledge translation, but transparent descriptions of this praxis are generally lacking. In response, this article offers methodological insight and guidance through an in-depth case exemplar of an arts-based health research process linking qualitative research with diverse evidence sources in the context of frailty research. Methods: Responding to research data generated within a Centre of Research Excellence in Frailty and Healthy Ageing, we adopted a researcher-as-practitioner stance to produce research-based artworks to integrate and communicate conflicting research findings. We structure this process according to Ecker’s seven domains of qualitative inquiry, demonstrating parallels between the arts-based research and qualitative inquiry processes and offering opportunities for engaging with “evidence misalignments” resulting from incongruent evidence sources. Findings: Arts-based health research can enable meaningful reflection upon, integration, and communication of “evidence-misalignments” in research spanning the health and social sciences. Such misalignments are problematic when the lived experience of health and illness conflicts with other empirical evidence, including gold standard evidence guiding treatment decisions. These in turn, can function as plausible barriers to self management and to achievement of health outcomes. Interpretation: Through the researcher-as-practitioner lens, and with an orientation to production, this work engaged with a new means of materiality—one that extends beyond text and numerical representations—and whose meaning and connections may not be immediately apparent. These relationships change how the researchers-practitioner engages with, understands, explores, and represents concepts, enabling epistemological and ontological gains of benefit to the health and social sciences.

In This Issue

Language teacher educators train pre-service teachers in numerous theories and pedagogical practices of language learning and language teaching. They expect that their student teachers will translate this conceptual and practical knowledge into action during their practicum. However, in the process of determining pre-service teachers’ readiness for the field experience and the profession in general, methods classes measure only their conceptual knowledge and omit looking at their student teachers’ belief system about language teaching and learning. This belief system is a strong indicator of how the students organize their knowledge for application (Borg, 2003) and may help teacher educators gauge students’ read ness in the use of new pedagogies that these pre-service teachers may not have experienced before. Using two reflective essays and a piece of authentic assessment as instruments to gather data, as well as Jürgen Habermas’s theory on cognitive interests as a framework to explore the espoused beliefs of nine pre-service language teachers at the end of a methodscourse, this qualitative study addressed the following questions: What levels of cognitive interests do the nine pre-service world language and ESL teachers exhibit prior to student teaching? To what extent do the students’ levels of cognitive interests change during the methods course called Teaching a Second Language? What are the most common cognitive interests regarding such areas of teaching performance, such as methodology and assessment among the participants? The results show that the nine pre-service teachers held mostly technicaland some practical cognitive interests at the beginning of the semester. In the end, most of the participants held practical interests, and three out of the nine pre-service teachers held elementary emancipatory beliefs. One pedagogical recommendation is to include experiences in the training of pre-service teachers that promote emancipatory beliefs that could support teachers in their pursuit of transforming challenging social conditions while examining and adopting new pedagogies.

In both the school environment and teacher education, sustainable development is usually linked to the natural and social sciences and is rarely incorporated into language education or encouraged as part of language teacher education. As more research is needed on the practical implementation of sustainable development in language teaching and language teacher education, this study elucidates Finnish pre-service language teachers’ perceptions of sustainability dimensions (i.e. ecological, economic, social, and cultural) and their role in language teaching. We used a questionnaire comprising open-ended and Likert-scale questions to examine pre-service language teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards themes under all sustainability dimensions, and their feeling about their ability to integrate them into their teaching. Pre-service teachers ( n = 26) recognized the importance of the social and cultural dimensions in language teaching and felt more capable of addressing personal environmental actions than global problems in the language classroom. Some pre-service teachers produced concrete practices linking sustainability issues with language teaching, but they were mostly teacher-centred. The pre-service teachers did not link equality as tightly to the cultural and social aspects of language teaching as they did in their personal lives. These findings help in developing language teaching and teacher education programmes toward the educational sustainable development goals. Moreover, the questionnaire can be used to analyse the consideration of sustainability themes in language teaching and language teacher education.

Teachers' Sense of Efficacy: An Important Factor in School Improvement