Online collaborative communities of learning for pre-service teachers of languages.

Morgan, Anne-Marie

ABSTRACT

University programs for preparing pre-service teachers of languages for teaching in schools generally involve generic pedagogy, methodology, curriculum, programming and issues foci, that provide a bridge between the study of languages (or recognition of existing language proficiency) and the teaching of languages. There is much territory to cover in such courses, usually in only one or two semesters or trimesters of study. This paper describes one approach to the preparation of teachers of languages, through the use of a 'collaborative community of learners' pedagogy, in which the cohort of students acts as a collaborative learning and inquiry group, engaging dialogically, so as to share understandings and knowledge across the learning topics, and for all languages, year levels and school systems. Participants--university teachers and pre-service teachers--share experiences and responses throughout the learning period, establish networks that continue as the students undertake their school-based practicum, move into schools, and engage in the practice of 'teaching as inquiry' as they transition into the workplace. The student cohort in this program is all off-campus, and contributes asynchronously to the learning management site, dipping in an out of the learning management interface as times that suit the individual. The effectiveness of this approach is evidenced through high student satisfaction evaluation responses, online comments in discussion forums throughout the period of learning, and through testimonials of pre-service teachers who have been through the program. As more university programs move into the distance education mode, with less face-to-face contact, this model of shared participation provides a way to connect in critical interaction opportunities, and in reflective thinking inspired by the contributions of others, to prepare pre-service teachers adequately for work in schools as teachers of languages.

KEY WORDS

pre-service teacher education, languages teaching, teachers of languages, community of practice, community of inquiry, distance education, asynchronous learning

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Introduction

Pre-service languages teachers study in programs that prepare them to be specialist language teachers in schools. Often termed 'methodology' programs, these are undertaken after the requisite number of years of study of a language, or after proficiency to a particular standard of language facility is demonstrated, the latter being a more usual path in the case of first/background speakers of the target language (Harbon, 2014a). The different states and territories of Australia have different requirements to be accredited as a specialist languages teacher to teach in Australian schools, but, for the most part, programs for preparing teachers of languages are similar across Australian universities, and include a year's study (two semesters/trimesters) (Harbon, 2014a; University of New England (UNE], 2015a; University of Melbourne, 2015, University of South Australia, for example). Some universities offer a primary specialisation, but more offer a secondary specialisation, or a non-specified year level program is undertaken (Harbon, 2014a; Morgan & Saunders, 2014). These programs are linked with professional experience (practicum) or ongoing clinical practice undertaken in schools, and are rarely language-specific, instead being targeted at generic language teaching skills, knowledge, understandings and applications (Orton, 2015). Teachers of all languages therefore work with each other in these programs, and are taught by lecturers who would usually be users and speakers of one or more language, but never all the languages their students will be teaching in schools (Orton, 2015).

The needs of learners in languages education programs are diverse--some specific to the language(s) to be taught, and some applicable to all languages (Orton, 2015; Harbon, 2014b; Scrimgeour, Foster & Mao, 2013). In preparing teachers of languages, university lecturers need to consider how best to provide the pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge needed, and what kinds of pedagogies to use themselves, and to model for their students (Kumaravadivelu, 2012; Morgan & Saunders, 2014; Richards & Rodgers, 2014).

This paper describes a model used in a distance-learning context, utilising a 'collaborative community of practice' model for collegial, asynchronous interaction. That is, all students enrolled in the course are off campus, and all communication is online. Both teachers of the units and students enrolled contribute in the learning management system (LMS) online space to forums and wikis, around a series of concepts and topics that are the learning content of the three 'languages methodology' units offered in the program (UNE, 2015b).

Context: The University of New England languages and languages education programs

The University of New England, the university at which I coordinate languages education programs, has a deep commitment to languages learning and languages education. Its staff actively supports the work of the Languages and Cultures Network in Australian Universities (LCNAU) in promoting languages teaching and learning, and in collaborating with other universities to increase the study of languages and cultures in schools and universities. In the School of Arts, eight languages are offered: Chinese, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese and Spanish (UNE, 2015c), along with interuniversity enrolment in other languages. There is an English Language Centre, to provide English language classes for international students (UNE, 2015d).The university offers an inter-school Diploma of Modem Languages, as a one-year equivalent addition to any other degree program, undertaken over the years of university enrolment (typically four years), which involves either eight units of study of a language and language electives; or six units of study of a language teamed with two languages teaching methodology units offered by the School of Education, for students who have an existing teaching qualification, and who wish to qualify as specialist teachers of languages to teach in Australian schools (UNE, 2015e). In the School of Education, languages education is offered as a secondary or primary specialisation, and three units of study are available, with secondary, primary, or F-12 options (UNE, 2015f). In addition, there are teachers of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) programs, offered across the Schools of Education, Linguistics, Arts and Business. The 'languages' academic community across these schools is highly collaborative, involved in co-researching, teaching and writing projects (Feez et al, 2015).

The units offered by the School of Education are generic, designed to prepare teachers of all languages to work as language-specific teachers of languages in Australian schools. The first unit is common for all pre-service languages teachers, and students then select one of two additional units, depending on whether they have a primary, secondary or F-12 focus. Within the units, language specificity is addressed through dedicated wikis and forums for teachers of each language. These online spaces are open to all students enrolled in the units, however, as there is value in engaging with issues specific to a language other than the one each teaches. All students share common forums related to each conceptual topic of the unit, and a range of activities included in the topics, which provide material for discussion and ongoing interaction among students and teachers. The pedagogical model employed in the running of these units is a 'collaborative community of learners' model.

A 'collaborative community of learners' model

A 'collaborative community of learners' in relation to languages teachers, is an idea promulgated by languages teaching theorist B. Kumaravadivelu (2012). Kumaravadivelu's notion draws on the literature of 'communities of inquiry' (e.g. Wells [1999]) and 'communities of practice' (Wenger, 2011, and Lave & Wenger, 1991), which themselves are informed by Bakhtin's (1992) notion of 'dialogism' or 'responsive understanding through discussion' (Bakhtin (1992), in Kumaravadivelu, 2012, p. 90). The notion of 'dialogism', or of gaining a shared understanding through participatory discussion, is core to all these characterisations of 'communities'.

Bakhtinian dialogism places understanding at the core of all human endeavours. Understanding 'is the culminating moment for the sake of which dialogue exists, with all elements of its complex and dynamic structure' (Marchenkova, 2005, p. 173). Where the spirit of a truly dialogic interaction prevails, all participants learn from each other and benefit from each other regardless of hierarchical disparities in power, expertise, or experience. In a dialogic process, no one interlocutor is marginalised; no one interlocutor is privileged, for it is through dialogic relationships that interlocutors simultaneously acquire and abdicate their freedom. Therefore, the dialogic imperative carries with it the potential to shape and reshape the thought processes of both the interlocutors, resulting in reciprocal learning which eventually leads to mutual enrichment (Kumaravadivelu, 2012, pp. 90-91).

Wenger and Lave's 'community of practice' idea has been widely taken up In domains of practice where improving performance is a key goal (Wenger, 2011). Computer scientist Etienne Wenger and anthropologist Jean Lave coined the term 'community of practice' while studying 'apprenticeship' as a learning model in the early 1990s (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Their use of the term was widely adopted by organisations seeking performance improvement (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In their definition of a 'community of practice', there needed to be three elements: an idea of a joint enterprise or focus for the group; an agreement on how the community would function which bound the group together socially, towards the commonly agreed goal; and the production of resources-a shared repertoire of outputs developed by the group over time (Lave & Wenger, 2002). The communities they explored and applied their model to included those in a shared work or learning context; common thinkers wishing to progress a goal or solve a problem; pioneers of a new technique; or even those wishing to consolidate an aspect of identity (Wenger, 2011). There is always an aspect of intentionality in such groups, centred on a profoundly social organisation. Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger, 2011, p. 1).

Well's notion of a 'community of inquiry' combines the Wenger and Lave notion of a 'community of practice' with the Bakhtinian idea of dialogism. This formulation was devised to apply specifically to teachers, based on the central argument that 'education should be conducted as a dialogue about matters of interest and concern to participants' (Wells, 1999, p. xi). 'Inquiry' is central to such practice, understood as 'a stance toward experiences and ideas--a willingness to wonder, ask questions, to seek to understand by collaborating with others in the attempt to make answers to them' (Wells, 1999, p.121, in Kumaravadivelu, 2012, p. 93). In Wells' framing, a teachers' community of inquiry has the potential to become a community of knowledge builders (Kumaravadivelu, 2012).

The appeal of this combination of Bakhtinian dialogism, Wenger and Lave's community of practice and Wells' community of inquiry for teachers to build knowledge together, informed Kumaravadivelu's 'modular model' for language teacher education. He calls his formulation the 'KARDS' model: a modular model for Knowing, Analysing, Recognising, Doing and Seeing, as the basis for language teacher preparation (Kumaravadivelu, 2012). 'Dialogising' is one of the three pillars of the 'Doing' module, working alongside 'theorising' and 'teaching' as the stuff of what languages teachers do, after developing knowledge of self, learners and contexts of learners, analysing learner needs and capabilities, and recognising their own identities, beliefs and values and how these impact on their teaching and on their learners (Kumaravadivelu, 2012).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Application of the collaborative community of learners model to a pre-service languages teachers learning context

The affordances of tertiary learning envisaged and realised through a 'collaborative community of learners' model is very attractive for the preparation of pre-service teachers of languages. There is the ready-made community, the group of learners enrolled in the unit; with the common purpose of engaging in study to qualify as teachers of languages and to learn about what this might entail in the fixed space and time of the university trimester; and with the potential to produce a set of common resources--understanding and knowledge derived from the learning activities, influenced by the contribution of all through dialogic discussion. Here is an opportunity, therefore, to implement engagement in the process of 'wonder and discovery' (after Wells, 1999) through informed and mutually beneficial dialogic discussion.

Additionally, a community of learners model is a highly suitable pedagogical model for contemporary languages teaching education, as it acknowledges and allows expression of the unique and diverse backgrounds that each learner brings to the classroom--backgrounds that are intimately linked to the students' past learning, language skills and cultural contexts of language use. The model also recognises the nature of languages learning itself, which is highly individual and requires a great deal of dialogising or talk (spoken and written). Such talk includes self-reflection, comparison of languages and teaching stance and technique, and embraces development of an openness to new ideas and linguistic concepts as one encounters new cultures expressed through different languages, requiring learners to 'walk in the shoes of others' in understanding the new language and its expression in contexts often markedly different from their own. Allowing for expression of diverse and changing perspectives requires significant opportunities, where discussion, comparison, evaluation, and reflection can occur over extended and more natural thinking periods, perhaps best achieved through open-ended, asynchronous communication, and not limited by more traditional teaching models such as a weekly lecture and a one-hour tutorial, where materials are 'delivered', briefly discussed and from that point are no longer of focus of dialogic interaction.

The community

The 'community' for this community of learners comprises the teachers of the learning units, in this case two teachers/ academics, one (me) an Australian-born second language speaker of Indonesian and school-level French, and the other a first language speaker of Vietnamese with several additional languages including English and Thai; and the students, who are pre-service teachers of many languages, enrolled in the units, with a typical cohort being 35 to 40 students per trimester.

Pre-service teachers (the learners) come to these units with a range of backgrounds, including a major in a language, from a previous degree such as a BA or a BSc, or in a three- to four-year general teaching program, with a languages major obtained prior to or concurrent with the teaching degree; and also in-service teachers seeking an additional qualification as teachers of languages, completing either an in-service education conversion degree, or an additional qualification such as the Diploma in Modern Languages. Many of these learners already have considerable experience in either practicum placements in schools, or teaching in schools, but not necessarily in languages. Some come with community languages teaching experience (teaching at 'Saturday' schools), or even highly qualified as lecturers of languages in universities, wishing to move their teaching career to the school sector. Some also are first language speakers wishing to gain formal qualifications to teach that (and/or another) language in schools. The languages each is aiming to teach vary in every cohort. Typically, there are always a number of speakers of Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, French and Italian; and of other languages including Latin, Classical Greek, Vietnamese, German, Arabic, Persian, Thai and Korean. It is a surprise each year to see what the languages and cultures mix is each year.

Many--indeed most--of the learners also have plurilingual capabilities, across many languages and cultures, and have diverse backgrounds educationally as well as culturally. We may have, for example, teachers of Chinese who include Chinese first language users with initial degrees from China and who have studied with Chinese as the medium of instruction (MOD, with little knowledge and less understanding of Australian curricula, the nature of learning and classroom behaviour in Australian schools; and Australian background students who have learned Chinese at Australian universities, with a great deal of knowledge of Australian teaching contexts with English as the MOI, but with less depth to their Chinese language knowledge. We have had Italian background students who may also speak French and German, but who went into schools as general primary teachers and have now decided to become accredited teachers of their languages. There was recently a speaker of French and German who grew up in Switzerland, with Australian parents, and who had completed her education to date in three languages, but who spoke English predominantly at home, but felt like this was a 'minority' language as she had grown up in a community where English was necessary, but 'additional' to French and German and the Swiss variants of these. She was undertaking the postgraduate Diploma in Modern Languages to become a teacher of French in primary schools, but was constantly seeking reassurance about her English skills in being a teacher of languages.

The 'community' is therefore diverse, as learners come from these different backgrounds with widely varied experiences of learning, pedagogical knowledge (teaching now-how) and pedagogical content knowledge (teaching know-how in their subject), as well as widely varying levels of engagement with technologies, online learning management systems, other Information and communication technology capabilities, and also with the kinds of resources that might be used for teaching.

Such diversity in the learner group leads to widely varying understanding of what is needed in Australian teaching contexts, and how to bridge gaps in each person's set of semiotic (meaning-making) and pedagogic resources, as well as identifying how one's own attitudes to teaching, and indeed one's own learning experiences, will impact on how one works with learners in schools. There are consequently challenges for lecturers to meet each learner's needs in a one-year program.

While there is considerable diversity (not atypical in any university class, of course), the common purpose of the units of study also means the community is unified, with points of connection, fitting Lave and Wenger's (1998) criteria for a consolidated community linked through a mutual purpose and directed towards a common goal, and suitable for the educational dialogism espoused by Wells (1999) and Kumaravadivelu (2012). Indeed, it is arguably the diversity that makes this community of learners so successful, as different perspectives are brought to issues that might otherwise have been taken for granted, and this awareness prepares teachers of languages well for the diversity they will encounter in schools (Scrimgeour, Foster & Mao, 2013). So dialogic discussions, with variable points of view leading to expansion of perspectives, are a great benefit of this approach, and to preparation for the learning and teaching of languages and cultures.

The pedagogical model

The pedagogical model of the 'collaborative community of learners' involves regular and collegial interaction among members of the community (teachers and learners) in inquiry forums used as learning spaces. These online learning spaces are the 'classroom'. In these forums, there is discussion, critical analysis and reflection on unit concepts, key ideas, activities and materials, focused on professional practice in the teaching of languages.

Unit materials utilise a range of media and formats, including paper-based readings and e-readings (with direct e-links to the university library and articles or online sites); recorded lectures and podcasts, for viewing at a time selected by the user; multimodal resources including animations, You Tube clips, other videos, and interactive websites; as well as language-specific wikis which are used by speakers of a specific language (although others are free to read and contribute here, too) for in-language discussions and the posting of resources, links and other materials that any user thinks may be of Interest to others in the community. There are also links to professional network resources, such as those on the websites of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Association (AFMLTA), Modern Language Teacher Associations (MLTAs) In the Australian states and territories and organisations/networks such as the Japan Foundation, Goethe Institute, Bilingual Schools Network, and Education Services Australia Language Learning Space, as well as to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) Languages site, and to the Australian Curriculum Languages site. In keeping with a 'flipped-classroom' approach (Morgan, 2015a), all the materials are provided well in advance in themed modules, so users can select when to engage with the materials, before commenting on and uploading activity responses to the forums. A loose requirement to respond to activities associated with each week of teaching within a three-week window is in place, to keep discussions focused within this timeframe.

The discussion forums are linked to the module materials and guiding questions for discussion embedded in the module activities. The affordance of an online learning management system in allowing these direct links at a click of the mouse makes navigating the site, and participating in the appropriate forum (and avoiding getting 'lost' In endless posts on a range of topics) practicable and accessible. Learning also extends beyond the university 'classroom', as online forum discussions are linked to professional experience placements (prac/clinical placement) where the students work with a mentor teacher to teach languages In schools, and to their engagement in language-specific networks (such as the French teachers' association, or the MLTA in the student's state or territory).

As well as providing for module content engagement, participation in the forums builds a body of knowledge and evidence for unit assignments and for ongoing Inquiry-focused engagement in the key Issues. Such engagement also models practice for work contexts- with other teachers of languages and with students/parents, which new teachers will encounter in schools. Critically, thirty per cent (30 per cent) of the unit marks are assigned to participation in the forums and an associated submission task, to ensure that the forums are seen as an essential component of the learning, and to promote the collaborative community of learners pedagogical model, with regular Interaction with others in the forums an essential learning component.

The asynchronous format, with participants contributing at times of their own choosing, allows for extended and developmental interaction. Learners who have worked with the unit materials at their own pace can engage in meaningful consideration and discussion of ideas, to-and-fro-exchanges, development of thinking, and opportunities to both 'have a go' In a relatively risk-free learning environment (parameters of courteous online conduct are a standard university requirement), and to engage with others Involved in considering the same issues, but coming at them from them their own unique perspectives.

The presence of the teacher as a participant in the forums, as a member of the collaborative community of learners, Is also critical to the effective functioning of the learning space. The teacher needs to regularly read, respond to, pose further questions, and answer queries, as a member of the group. Her own ideas are given exposure and are open to critique and discussion, as much as others'. The relinquishing of the position of the 'all-knowing expert', talking 'at' students, and Instead adopting the role of guide, but also a learner interested in new perspectives and knowledge, Is a liberating teaching stance, and encourages openness and deeper discussion in the forums. It is an approach that has been highly successful for the lecturers in the languages education units, and one that students have responded to well, frequently commenting on the exchange of ideas between and amongst all participants, and on the willingness of the lecturers to respond to new ideas in a collegial, rather than an authoritarian manner (Unit evaluation data, 2014; 2015).

A notable feature of the learning community is that students are free to contribute in languages of their choosing to the forums. While much of the discussion is in English as the only common language, there are frequent passages of interaction in other languages, or across languages (translanguaglng), which is encouraged, and for which those without the language can seek clarification, translate the passages themselves (with an online translator), or contribute in the languages they understand. This fluid language environment seems to encourage some otherwise shy participants, who can code switch when they need to, to express a particular point of view, knowing both that this is welcomed, and that (usually) at least some other participants in the community can engage with, translate, or reinterpret these posts.

Shifting the culture of teaching and learning for pre-service language teachers

Adopting the collaborative community of learners model as the pedagogical approach for the languages education units has shifted the culture of learning, and of student engagement in these units. When I assumed responsibility for the suite of languages education units in 2013, there was a degree of discontent evidenced in previous years' student evaluations of the unit (Unit evaluation data, 2012). Overall Satisfactions Index (OSI) scores from student evaluations were In the upper-mid range (around 3.2-3.5 on a five-point scale), under the university average of 4.0 (UNE evaluation data, 2015). At this time, there were also pedagogical shifts occurring in schools and in universities, In responding to alternative pedagogies aimed at Increasing student engagement (Dlnham, 2015). Conditions for teaching were also changing quickly, with a new national curriculum being developed, altered online and digital learning possibilities, Increases in multimodal learning resources, constantly changing disciplinary literature, the rise of alternative pedagogical models of languages education in schools, and shifts to nationally controlled and standardised registration, accreditation and professional learning models for teachers (Dlnham, 2015; Harbon, 2014b; Morgan & Saunders, 2014). A process of re-accreditation of all teaching and learning units was underway at the university, so the opportunity for re-conceptualisation and redesign of units was timely, as part of the quality audit to ensure compliance with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). At the same time, online development resources and skilled education developers were being made available to assist with Increasing possibilities for online learning, and the affordances of online and digital learning were increasing (Absalom, 2013).

Taking account of these factors of change and possibility, the challenge to re-conceptuallse and re-develop the languages education units was undertaken. I took as my starting point the Intention to make the learning relevant, contemporary, participatory, and useful to the diverse cohort of students, working in an off campus (distance) mode. Adopting a 'collaborative community of learners' stance framed my thinking in this redevelopment process.

The intensive school

One of the first elements I addressed was the mandatory, three-day intensive school, which is run in conjunction with the first unit. With the Unit Coordinator of the related TESOL units, I redesigned the IS, to be conducted simultaneously at the Armidale and Parramatta campuses of UNE, linked throughout by high-definition video connection in dedicated high-tech teaching spaces. As the only face-to-face teaching time for the languages units, I saw this as the lynchpin to establishing relationships that could be developed and enhanced in the online learning forums.

The program addressed the most recent languages curriculum and pedagogies, and utilised live, high-definition video links with languages classrooms in Korea and Indonesia, linked to online learning resources and programs for languages teaching; and included access to recognised international speakers as well as education jurisdiction consultants who would be the future employers of graduate students.

Student feedback on the intensive school was very positive, with comments including

Working across campuses was one of the most enriching and helpful aspects of the intensive school. I was able to use the theory and experience how to put it into practice while learning from my peers in my group and watching how it all came together with others outside my group too

The session where all the NSW Language consultants came together was the most valuable session because it showed me the people who were passionate about making language teaching work well

The best on-campus experience I've ever had (Student evaluation data 2013; 2014; 2015).

The benefit of the intensive school's reinvigoration provided the anticipated connection between students, which was continued in the overall revision of the languages units. Within these units, there was now a stronger awareness of and attention to changing community trends and needs in relation to learner backgrounds, diversity, pathways for language learning, and of the new national languages curriculum which is conceptually, theoretically and practically different from previous syllabuses and curricula. The units include updated research on language learner motivation, styles and strategies, and on inclusion of alternative models of language teaching, including Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and bilingual and immersion programs that are the biggest growth areas in languages programs in Australian schools (Cross, 2014). The units also utilise contemporary and digital learning formats relevant to new curricula and tertiary institution pedagogy.

Conclusion

Most importantly, changes to the units' content, and to the pedagogical approach In teaching them, rest on the framing within the overarching 'collaborative community of learners' pedagogical stance (Kumaravadivelu, 2012). As indicated above, I have altered assessment items to reflect online contributions that are required of students. I have also included many more interactive and multimodal elements in my units, such as links to blogs, discussion forums and readings; inclusion of video clips and animations; more podcasts to replace traditional 'transmission' lectures by a single talking head lecturer; and wikis for teachers of different languages to share ideas and resources with other users of that language and teachers in the workforce.

Additionally, In an academic field undergoing rapid change, I also connect the students to recent lectures, webinars, outputs and conference presentations from leading theoreticians and practitioners in the discipline (e.g. AFMLTA 2013; 2015), and to the work of relevant professional associations, such as the language teacher associations in Australian states and territories, and internationally.

In terms of inspiring students and motivating them to learn, student evaluations and comments in emails and evaluations about the units and the pedagogical model of teaching and learning have been extremely positive. The OSI scores since implementation of this model are now in the 90th percentile or above, well above the university average, and with median scores of 5 (out of 5) in the 2015 evaluation data (UNE student evaluation data, 2015).

One student's comment sums up the value of the collaborative community of learners pedagogical model:

This unit has been life-changing for me in so many ways.... (E)ven now that the unit has finished, I think about everything I have learned everyday (not only about language teaching but about life, too). I love the way the lecturer chose such stimulating readings and then encouragingly engaged us all in discussions, ever moving us forward in our thinking. Her way of taking us forward in the learning journey was skillful and thoughtful and I always felt affirmed when I made a contribution. This really motivated me to voice my opinion, in a forum where, at first, I didn't know anyone.

Another highlight was the intensive school, where opportunities were created for us to connect with other people in the course and other language educators from NSW. This, and the unit work itself, gave me a really solid grounding in the foundations of language teaching ...(it) opened up a new world of possibilities for me (Student evaluation data, 2014).

References

Absalom, M. 2013. The Italian job: Reforming a beginners' Italian curriculum at university level. Babel, 47, 3, 28-36.

Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations (AFMLTA). 2013. AFMLTA National Conference 2013. http://conference2013.afmlta.asn. au. Retrieved 20 October 2015.

Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations (AFMLTA). 2015. AFMLTA National Conference 2015. http://conference2015.afmlta.asn. au/. Retrieved 20 October 2015.

Bakhtin, M. 1992. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Cross, R. 2014. Defining content and language integrated learning for languages education in Australia. Babel, 49, 2, 4-15.

Dinham, S. 2015, The nature and importance of instructional leadership. Keynote presentation, AFMLTA National Conference 2015.

Feez, S., Morgan, A., Chan, E., Clary, D., Devrim, D., Macken-Horarik, M., Ngo, T., Kigotho, M., Hansford, D. & Zhang, Z. 2015. Languages, Literacies, Literature (LLL): Research network showcase, UNE research seminar series, 2015.

Harbon, L. 2014a. Another piece of the puzzle: Preparing pre-service language teachers for the Australian Curriculum: Languages. Babel, 48, 2/3, 38-47.

Harbon, L. 2014b. Accomplished teaching of languages and cultures doesn't happen by chance: Reflective journal entries of a 'retrunee' to the learner seat. Babel, 49, 1, 4-17.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 2012. Language teacher education for a global society. New York: Routledge.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 2002. Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice, in R. Harrison & F. Reeve, Supported lifelong learning: Perspectives on learning. London and New York: Routledge.

Morgan, A. & Saunders, S. 2014. Exploring mentoring models for building leadership capacity among languages educators. New Zealand Language Teacher. 40, 21-31.

Orton, J. 2015. Powerful pedagogies in language teacher education. Babel. 50-2/3 (this issue).

Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. 2014. Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scrimgeour, A., Foster, M. & Mao, W. 2013. Dealing with distinctiveness: Development of Chinese in the Australian Curriculum: Languages. Babel, 48, 2-3, 20-29.

The University of Melbourne. 2015. Modern Languages Education, http://education.unimelb.edu.au/studv with us/professional development/course list/ modern languages education. Retrieved 20 October 2015.

University of New England. 2015a. Languages teaching 1. https://my.une.edu.au/courses/2016/units/EDLA385. Retrieved 15 September 2015.

University of New England. 2015b. Languages teaching 2. https://mv.une.edu.au/courses/2016/units/EDLA386. Retrieved 15 September 2015.

University of New England. 2015c. Bachelor of Languages, https://mv.une.edu.au/courses/2016/ courses/BLANG. Retrieved 15 September 2015.

University of New England. 2015d. English Language Centre, http://www.une.edu.au/current-students/ support/international-students/english-language-centre. Retrieved 15 September 2015.

University of New England. 2015e. Diploma in Modern Languages, https://my.une.edu.au/courses/2016/ courses/DMLANG. Retrieved 15 September 2015.

University of New England. 2015f. English, literacies and languages education, http://www.une.edu.au/aboutune/academic-schools/school-of-education/subiect- areas/english-literacies-and-language-lotetesol. Retrieved 15 September 2015.

University of New England. 2015g. UNE Dashboard. Restricted access. Retrieved 15 September 2015.

University of South Australia. 2015. Master of Teaching (Secondary), http://proqrams.unisa.edu.au/public/ pcms/prooram.aspx?paqeid=941&sid=3201.

Retrieved 20 October 2015.

Wells, G. 1999. Dialogic inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Anne-Marie Morgan is Deputy Head of School and a member of the English, languages and Literacies Education team In the School of Education at the University of New England, and a member of the Languages, Literacies and Literature Research Network. Her research, publication and teaching Interests include languages, English and literacy education, Indonesian and teachers' work and wellbeing. She is the President Elect of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, and actively involved In advocating for languages teachers, nationally and Internationally.