Guided by the TPACK theory (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), this chapter reviews and compares the technology standards related to and designed for teachers of Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) from the entry level to the accomplished level in the United States and China. It has found that the technology standards are often included in the comprehensive standards for teachers and parallel the standards about other aspects of teaching. The technology standards related to CFL in the two countries share some similarities but also differ in important ways. Several important and critical understandings are identified, including the needs for CFL technology standards, the theoretical foundations for CFL technology standards, and a more solid and comprehensive infrastructure for CFL education. Recommendations are made to address the needs, and research is called for to study the development and implementation of CFL technology standards.
TopBackground
While China’s critical role is evident in promoting CFL education within China and around the world, a justification is needed for examining and comparing technology standards for Chinese teacher education in the United States and China. The United States is a super power where English, as a global language, is also the dominant language. Thus, English itself is a disincentive for CFL education in the United States (Lo Bianco, 2011). However, the United States has become a critical site for CFL development outside of China. By 2014, the United States has had a total of 542 Confucius institutes and classrooms, which is the largest number of Confucius institutes and classrooms in a country across the world (Xu, 2014). In U.S. higher education, its CFL enrollment grew from 51,582 in 2006 to 61,055 in 2013 (Furman, Goldberg, & Lusin, 2007; Goldburg, Looney, & Lusin, 2015). In its K-12 schools, the percentages of the elementary and secondary schools that offer Chinese rose from 0.3% and 1% in 1997 to 3% and 4% in 2008 respectively (Pufahl & Rhodes, 2011). It is very likely that the numbers will continue growing. Moreover, China has a centralized educational system, but the U.S. educational system is de-centralized. Thus, comparison and contrast of the technology standards for Chinese language teacher education in the two countries may offer important insights for CFL teacher education.
To understand and describe standards for CFL teachers and knowledge that they should have, we turn to the literature of mainstream teacher education for a theoretical framework, because second and foreign language teacher education is relatively new (Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Richards & Nunan, 1990), and much work has remained to be conducted. The theory of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) by Mishra and Koehler (2006) is thus selected and used as the theoretical framework for this chapter because it integrates knowledge of technology with other components of teacher knowledge (e.g., knowledge of pedagogy and content) and best serves the purpose of the chapter.