INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the scope of second language teacher education (SLTE) from the standpoint of three questions: How has the substance been and is being defined? How has engagement in professional learning processes been and is being understood? and How have its outcomes or influences been and are being defined and assessed? In this discussion, scope is understood to be “the range covered by an activity, subject, or topic.” These three questions examine scope in three dimensions: the substance of SLTE, which has moved from knowledge and skills to social activity and names what participants are expected to learn through SLTE designs; engagement addresses how they are expected to learn through these designs; and outcomes / influences speak to measures by which, in the broad and specific sense, the results of their learning through SLTE activities are ascertained. Together these dimensions form a useful heuristic for mapping past and present practices in SLTE. They also help to anticipate the major new directions that are now happening within the field.

DEFINITIONS

THE PROBLEMATIC NOTION OF SCOPE

Although this chapter addresses the scope of what is done in second language teacher education, the very concept of scope itself is an interestingly problematic one. We generally do not think about the activities we do in terms of their scope. Usually the boundaries come about – or are defined – through the process of doing the activity itself. For example, the scope of parenting is understood in multiple ways, depending on how the role of being a parent is carried out in various situations and cultures. Thus the adage “It takes a village to raise a child” has been widely mentioned in U.S. contexts to suggest a broadening of the scope of who are seen as involved in parenting in industrialized societies. Or consider how the scope of musicianship is defined, and oftentimes stretched, by what individuals who call themselves musicians do, as when John Cage’s composition, 4’ 33” (Four minutes and thirty-three seconds), was first presented in 1952, thus recasting the scope of music to include the absence of sound (Solomon 2007). In both instances, the boundaries of the scope of the activity are fairly permeable, and the process of the activity works dynamically to shape what is – and perhaps what is not – included within that scope.