|
IATEFL Poland A Journal for Teachers of English ISSN 1642-1027 Vol. 6, Issue 2 (May 2006) |
|
Articles |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
TEACHING CULTURE!
Abstract The
Teaching Culture! project develops inter-cultural awareness in adult educators
through blended-learning teacher training courses. The main question was
whether inter-cultural awareness could develop through a course which was
largely online. We experimented in monitoring the progress of inter-cultural
awareness, a set of skills which are notoriously difficult to define. We used
learning diaries and portfolios over two rounds of the pilot course, the first
round with language teachers and the second for teachers in all subject areas.
The results of our study suggest that our approach succeeds in raising
inter-cultural awareness. Introduction ‘To know another‘s language and not his culture is a very
good way to make a fluent fool of one’s self.’ (Brembeck, 1997) In an
increasingly mobile and multi-cultural Europe you don’t even have to travel to
come across other cultures. School teachers are increasingly well prepared for
inter-cultural encounters but adult education teachers do not have access to so
many training opportunities. The Teaching Culture! project, supported by the
Grundtvig strand of the European Union’s Socrates programme, sought to remedy
this by experimenting with developing a blended learning teacher training
course to enable adult education teachers to develop their inter-cultural
awareness. One of the greatest uncertainties was whether inter-cultural
awareness could be nurtured through a course which was largely online. The
project also experimented with how to monitor the development of cultural
awareness. Inter-cultural
issues which may arise in the adult education classroom include: 1.
Dealing with different attitudes to learning; 2.
Dealing with different attitudes to teaching; eg. the
teacher as ‘sage on the stage’ or ‘guide on the side’. 3.
Building cultural perspectives into teaching
materials and activities. 4.
Overcoming stereotypes and prejudice in learners,
their families and other teachers. 5.
Communicating across cultures. These
issues arise to a greater or lesser extent across the whole of adult education.
The obvious starting point is language teachers, who were targeted in the first
round of the pilot course. However the second round of the pilot course was
opened to teachers of all subjects so that the general applicability of the
course could be tested. In both pilots there were strict limits on the numbers
from each country to ensure a mixture of cultural backgrounds. The group size
was 11 in both pilots. The project partners came from
Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, Austria, Germany, Spain, Ireland and the UK and
included professionals from universities, research institutes, teacher training
institutions, adult education institutions and cultural associations. There
was, therefore, a broad inter-cultural representation from various relevant
professions. In addition to technical and administrative support, required
roles included personal tutors for each participant, unit tutors to prepare and
monitor the use of materials for both the online and face to face units, and a
course director to ensure curriculum cohesion. Often
inter-cultural training takes place in mono-cultural groups, so one of the aims
with this project was to make the experience inter-cultural right from the
start. One common problem for adults taking part in training events is lack of
time. Therefore, taking a culturally mixed group of adults for an intensive
face-to-face course over several weeks was simply not feasible especially since
this would involve long periods in another country for most, if not all, of the
participants. The solution proposed was therefore a blended learning course in
three modules. The first module is an extended period of collaborative online
study followed by the second module, an intensive week of face-to-face
activities, with the whole rounded off by a
third module, a second online period in which participants devise and try out
each other’s ideas in the classroom. See the course structure in Table 1 below.
Table 1: The three module structure. The
project faced two major challenges: 1.
Is it possible to develop inter-cultural awareness
online? 2.
Is it possible to chart the development of
inter-cultural awareness online? Module One 1.
Developing inter-cultural awareness online There are
two approaches to inter-cultural training, culture specific and culture
general. Culture specific refers to the do’s and don’ts guidelines one often
gets just prior to a business trip, foreign work placement, or internship to a
specific country. This gives information without stressing understanding.
Culture general refers to the acquisition of an understanding of what culture
means and how it can lead to different behaviours and perceptions. Whilst not
of immediate use to a forthcoming visit to a specific culture, it may help to
make one more tolerant of ambiguity and differences, which in the long run may
be more useful. It was this latter approach which we tried to promote in the
Teaching Culture course. The first
module provides an introduction to the major features of inter-cultural
considerations by reference to both the basic theory of inter-cultural
communication and the participants’ own personal experiences. The second module
was the face to face component designed to provide inter-cultural experiences
by bringing the multi-cultural group together in an unfamiliar location where
they would get to know each other. They would also take part in inter-cultural
activities which test their ability to operate in a different culture. The
third and final module is where participants get the opportunity to combine
theory and personal experience in planning activities for their own classroom
as well as trying out their colleagues’ ideas to judge how well the ideas travel
across cultural boundaries and how to adapt them for use in different cultural
contexts. In
adopting the culture-general approach, it is usual to lead participants to
recognise their own cultural background before going on to examine features of
other cultures and their own reactions to these. However, this was not explicit
enough for the participants of the first pilot round, and therefore in the
second round the project group devised a story metaphor to chart this learning
journey. The story was based around the idea of the group coming together in
the virtual campus. The resulting story and corresponding modules are shown in
Table 2 below.
Table 2: The story metaphor
across the three modules The story metaphor was most strongly developed in the
units of Module 1 as shown below in Table 3.
Table 3: Units in Module 1
– Intercultural campus Attempts
were made to vary the activities as much as possible during the online sections
and to avoid the tendency to make online courses heavily text-based. The
exercises in Module 1 therefore included reports on the participants’ own
culture, exploration of metaphors, choosing representative pictures, collecting
evidence from media, and individual interviews and role plays. This achieved
two goals, the first being to make the course accessible to those whose skills
in English are not so high and the second being to make the course as
experiential as possible since this is deemed most effective in inter-cultural
training. 2.
Monitoring the development of inter-cultural awareness online Inter-cultural
awareness is manifest in the reactions of an individual when faced with an
inter-cultural situation. Those reactions are based mainly on an individual’s
innermost beliefs and values and can be tempered to some extent by training and
awareness-raising. These deeply personal attributes are largely hidden from
view and difficult to make explicit. There are also important ethical questions
relating to the extent to which we can aim to tamper with and change these
beliefs as described by Byram (2000). Another indication of the sensitivity of
the issue is that the promoters of the Common European Framework of Reference
for languages have considered and failed to come up with indicators of
inter-cultural skills. Learning
diary and portfolio The
project team therefore concluded that the most effective approach to charting
inter-cultural awareness development was through self-reporting and
self-assessment. The approach adopted was to encourage reflective learning through
the compilation of (1) a learning diary, in which participants recorded their
progress, feelings, triumphs and difficulties; and (2) a portfolio in which
participants could collect their work, notes and other material of interest.
These two items were shared periodically with the personal tutor which each
participant was allocated. This was usually the project partner in the country
where the participant was based. In most cases this ensured the participant had
face to face meetings throughout the duration of the course but in a couple of
cases the distances involved meant that these tutorial sessions were also
online or at least by telephone. Table 4 below shows where the tutors fit in to
the overall course structure.
Table 4: Support structure Collaborative
activities Another
important part of the strategy was to create opportunities for reflection by
promoting collaborative activities across cultures as the main method of
content delivery. Many of the activities across the whole course required
working in small groups with participants from different cultures. Participants
were also required to use their immediate circle of family, friends and
colleagues as cultural informants for finding out about their own cultural
background. During the face to face residential period one of the tasks is for
participants to form small inter-cultural working groups for the final teaching
activity in which group members try out and evaluate each other’s tasks as well
as their own, once back in their own home environment. Module 2 The residential
The
residential in the first pilot took place in Lithuania, a country unknown by
most of our participants except our one Lithuanian participant, and therefore a
really inter-cultural experience for all. An important element of the
residential was an exercise designed to reveal the participants’ values with
respect to their teaching. This was the subject of a useful plenary on the last
day about the implications of participants’ bringing different sets of values
to their classrooms. In addition to purely pedagogical and team building
exercises, various inter-cultural experiences were timetabled in. One was a
tutorial in the Lithuanian language and another was a city-wide treasure hunt
through Vilnius which required our participants to solicit information from
passers-by thereby initiating contact with local people. In
Lithuania, our hosts organised dancing classes so that our participants could
learn one or two traditional Lithuanian dances. The dances are a much more
important part of Lithuanian culture than in many other European cultures
partly because they were suppressed or discouraged during the Soviet era. The
school children assigned to the task did a very good job of coaching our
participants. The biggest challenge was for our participants to perform, in
front of the mainly local Lithuanian audience, the two dances they had learned
at a folk dance evening organised especially for our benefit. The performance
was followed by a buffet reception which in fact turned out to be more of a
challenge for the project partners than the participants who had had the
benefit of getting to know the Lithuanians all afternoon. This demonstrated the
value of personal contact quite forcibly and the lesson was not lost on the
project partners. A basic theme running throughout the project is ‘from virtual
to real´ but sometimes it was the other way round as when the participants
created an online travelogue of the residential period which can be seen at http://www.teaching-culture.de/en/events/litauen/travelogue/travelogue_start.htm.
Module 3 The lesson
exchange For some
participants this was the most anticipated part of the course. During the
residential week they came together in small inter-cultural groups of three to
four persons to create inter-cultural lessons around a common theme. The themes
which emerged during the residential were ·
non-verbal communication ·
the use of pictures ·
developing empathy or tolerance. Groups formed easily during the residential prior to
creating, trialling and exchanging teaching ideas. The biggest problem in this
final module was the staggered summer holiday across Europe which made regular
online communication difficult since the project partners had naturally
insisted on inter-cultural working groups. It also affected the participants’
ability to trial the lesson plans with exam or induction periods intervening. Challenges The
project organizers were able to learn a great deal from the first round, and
lessons learned were implemented in the second pilot which at the time of
writing is still in session. The second pilot invited participants from any
subject area and this attracted a very wide range of participants including art
and dance teachers, online learning consultants, multimedia teachers and
economics lecturers, which will create a challenge in forming groups for the
exchange of teaching ideas in Module 3. Two of the
problems encountered have already been mentioned namely staggered holidays and
the need for a more explicit thread running through the course. These have both
been addressed; the first by re-scheduling the course and the second by the
development of the story metaphor. Another problem was that a common language
had to be chosen for the course. One of the main aims was to foster
communication between the participants, thus facility in English was a
requirement, and it then became a question of what level was sufficient. We
decided on B1[1]
according to the Common European Framework of Reference. Even so there
is a delicate balance to be struck between the amount of background theory to
be considered as a basic minimum and over-burdening participants with language
which is above their level. In some
cases this problem can be overcome by ensuring that all rubrics, guidance, and
instructions generated by the project developers are at an appropriate level.
For example, an article was specially written for one of the units and this was
explicitly simplified for the second pilot. This was done using online tools
such as The Compleat Lexical Tutor (http://www.lextutor.ca/),
which analyzes texts to show which word lists the vocabulary used belongs to.
It was therefore possible to substitute uncommon words with more common words
in many but not all cases. The readability analysis contained within the text
processing program was also used to reduce average sentence length and number
of passive sentences. The other
major problem unsurprisingly was misunderstandings. To a certain extent, an
inter-cultural communication course thrives on misunderstandings in that they
provide a rich fund of critical incidents which serve both to illustrate
problems and which can be used as exercises for deepening understanding later
on. The potential for misunderstanding was all the greater because we were
working mostly online. The main example from the first round occurred when we
invited participants to post pictures representing their culture. When one
of the participants posted a picture of the Virgin Mary, some of the other
participants assumed that this meant that she was fervently religious. However,
such assumptions were not voiced openly through the course website. Rather they
were voiced privately between participants or to tutors by email. It was not
until the residential week when a session on the use of pictures was scheduled
that an explanation of the picture was finally forthcoming. The participant had
posted the picture to represent the differences she had experienced moving from
a Protestant part of Germany to a Catholic region where religious icons are
much more common. This incident illustrates two points. First was the need to
define tasks carefully when working online. The problem arose when the
participant did not realise she was meant to comment on her choices after
allowing an initial period for reaction by the rest of the group. The second
point is that while the course was carefully planned, there was also a need and
a willingness to amend the programme when the necessity arose. Benefits There were
many benefits to running two pilot rounds, one of these being that we could use
the participants from the first round as consultants to the round 2
participants when they come to planning their inter-cultural classroom
activities. By sharing their newly gained expertise and further experience
gained since the end of the course it is hoped that this will be an important
additional benefit of the course. Results What sort
of reflections does the learning diary give rise to? The following extracts are
quoted as evidence that the online section of the course does give rise to real
increases in inter-cultural awareness. They are taken from the pilot 2
participants, who have yet to meet face to face at the time of writing. 1. “It was my first chat and I liked it. Talking,
communicating, replying, listening, disclosing - that way we may get to know
our own stereotypes as well as the more hidden ones in the media. Knowing my
dialogue partners leads to the wish to understand them.” Birgit 2. “I've enjoyed this lively expression and exchange of
messages and reflections, and I find the asynchronous online format useful for
such discussions. I like the pause to stimulate my own thinking before I write
back to you, and sometimes I may have an inner dialogue for a while before I
answer, and maybe even not, when I'm too busy elsewhere.” Susanne 3.
“I really enjoyed this unit because of its really
practical and everyday-life implications. Unit 5 was a very important step for
my intercultural understanding.” Magdalena 4.
“I would like to tell you that I was really enjoyed
about the last unit and the chat was a very new and interesting experience for
me. All your contributions made me think a lot about the influence of mass
media and my own stereotypical views and their origins.” Brigitte There is
greater interaction in the second round, and this has made for a richer
experience for all. It is difficult to know whether this is due to the
individuals involved or whether it can be attributed to the improved
presentation and structure of the course. The quotes below from current
participants reflect this: 1.
“And until now all my expectations have [been]
fulfilled and every day I am looking forward to the news from all the other
participants.” Brigitte 2.
“I like working in multicultural settings and thought
this course would be interesting [and so] it proves to be.” Birgit It must be
admitted that using this devolved system of recording inter-cultural awareness
development means that the results are very personal, known sometimes only to
the participant’s personal tutor apart from the participant. Indicators of
progress emerge by proxy through evaluations undertaken at key points of the
course such as half way through Module 1, at the end of Module 2, and at the
end of Module 3. Since the inception of the project, the project team has been
working on producing a set of can-do statements regarding cultural awareness
for participants to assess themselves against. We are making progress on such a
list but have yet to test it out on any of the pilot groups. Conclusion The hope
is that the course developed by the project can be adapted and used by others
once the project is over. The blend of online and face-to-face contributes to
its success, with online Module 1 providing a solid basis from which to work in
the face-to-face Module 2. The residential is an important transformative event
which builds on the awareness set in train during the online period and helps
to build the trust necessary for the participants to work more closely together
in developing and sharing teaching ideas. The two pilot rounds have been
invaluable in fine-tuning the course. As we enter the read-write era of the
Internet, the so-called Web 2.0, more interactivity could be built into the
online section of the course thereby making this part even more inter-cultural. Notes 1.
Level B is an independent user; B1 is defined as ’Threshold’. Find out more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_ 2.
Readers interested in finding out more about the project are invited to request
a video DVD about the first round from the author or see a reduced-quality version on the project website (http://www.teaching-culture.de/en/events/ References Brembeck, W. (1997) The
development and teaching of a college course in intercultural communication. Readings
in Intercultural Communication. Pittsburgh: SIETAR Publications, University
of Pittsburgh. Byram, M. (2000)
Assessing inter-cultural competence in language teaching. Sprogforum, 6
(18), 8-1. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from: http://inet.dpb.dpu.dk/infodok/sprogforum/Espr18/byram.html.
Cobb,
T. The Compleat Lexical Tutor. [Web site]. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from: http://www.lextutor.ca/. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/education/ Teaching Culture. [Web site]. Retrieved May 1, 2006
from: http://www.teaching-culture.de. Editor’s
notes: This presentation was made as a regular session at
theWebheads in Action Online Convergence on November 19, 2005.
NEGOTIATING FOR MEANING ACROSS BORDERS WITH CMC
and Susana
Trabaldo Abstract
In our Tandem Language Learning
(TLL) project experience using Computer Mediated Communication, fifty students
of Spanish at a university in the USA exchanged e-mail and participated in
synchronous conversations using Instant Messaging with fifty students of
English at a university in Argentina.
An analysis of the discourse produced with these two methods of CMC
showed that a variety of functions were used by the students to negotiate for
meaning. The investigators will refer
to the importance of TLL and negotiating for meaning in Second Language
Acquisition as well as the students´ opinions after the experience. We will also include examples of the
learners’ cultural exchange, post study observations, and recommend
possibilities for future investigation. Introduction
As language educators we all know that learning a language
is more than just memorizing a vocabulary list and grammar rules. Language learners need communicative
competence which has as a feature the ability to use the target language to communicate
in a spontaneous situation. Computer
technology has created the opportunity to include computer mediated
communication (CMC) in our language teaching.
Recently, second language (L2) researchers have found that using e-mail
and chat rooms is an effective use of technology for a communicative approach
to teaching languages (Blake 2000, Lee 2004, Patterson 2001, Toyoda & Harrison
2002, Tudini 2003, Schwienhorst 1997 and 1998, Sotillo 2000, Smith 2003). The
increased use of and familiarity with CMC have provided us with the prospect of
incorporating computer mediated Tandem Language Learning (TLL) into the
classroom. Tandem
Language Learning
TLL
involves the interaction of two individuals with different native languages
that are learning each other’s language.
They meet and talk, speaking one language for half the time and the
other language the other half. In this
way both participants benefit from the exchange. Schwienhorst
(1998) and Little et al (1999) refer to the three principles of tandem learning
presented in the Tandem Guide by Little & Brammerts (1996), which have been
respected in this project: ·
Bilingualism: Learners were instructed to use
both target languages equally throughout the project. ·
Reciprocity: Because the learners alternated
languages in both forms of CMC, both groups benefited from the
interaction. ·
Autonomy: Rather than switch to their native language students often
negotiated for meaning in the target language when they did not understand
something. They took the initiative for their own learning and took advantage
of the opportunity to learn both language and culture from a native speaker
without the guidance of a teacher. In TLL the learners assume the responsibility for improving their own
language skills, facilitating clear communication with native speakers of their
target language by asking questions and negotiating for meaning, and helping
their tandem partners to understand their native language. The learners have an opportunity to not only
practice the target language but also to be exposed to a different culture,
first-hand from a native speaker. Each
learner takes on the role of teacher or as Donaldson and Kötter explain it,
"the partners become in effect 'resident experts' of their own linguistic
and cultural community and support the learning process of the other"
(1999: 537). Appel (1999), Lee (2004), and Schwienhorst (1998b) liken the concept of
learner autonomy to the social-interactive nature of language presented by the
psychologist Vygotsky. As Lee puts it,
language is a tool that the individual uses to socialize with others and
through this socialization, learners can help each other in performing a shared
task. Vygotsky (1978) states that this
social interaction promotes learning through the “zone of proximal development”
which he explains as the difference in what an individual can achieve solving
problems by himself and what he can achieve with the help of an adult or more
capable peers. Thus, through social
interaction during the course of this investigation, using CMC, the tandem
partners enter this ‘zone of proximal development’ as they interact and
negotiate meaning, helping each other comprehend each other’s language and
learn about their culture under one another’s guidance. We provided our students with the opportunity to participate in this TLL
project hoping that as they interacted with native speakers of the target
language they would improve their language skills, increase their vocabulary in
the target language (TL), learn more about the culture found in their tandem
partner's country, and of course increase their language acquisition. Negotiation for meaning
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research has shown
that interaction and especially negotiation for meaning are essential elements
of language acquisition (Gass and Varonis 1994, Gass 1997, Long 1985, Pica
1994, Swain 1998). Pica
(1994: 494) defines negotiation as “the modification and restructuring of
interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate,
perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility.” As the learners negotiate for meaning they
modify their speech linguistically to produce comprehensible TL. They
accomplish this task by repeating a message, adjusting its syntax, changing the
vocabulary, or modifying its form and meaning. Long
and Robinson (1998) classified the process of negotiation for meaning under the
Interaction Hypothesis. This hypothesis states that the conditions for second
language acquisition are improved when learners negotiate meaning with other
speakers. These negotiations tend to
increase input comprehensibility through language modifications such as
simplifications, confirmation or clarification requests, elaborations, and
recasts. Thus, activities that promote
negotiation for meaning create a quality environment for SLA to occur. Design
and methodology of study
The
subjects of this study included 50 learners of Spanish from Rice University in
Houston, Texas and 50 learners of English from Universidad Tecnológica Nacional
(UTN) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The
two groups of 50 learners at the two universities were randomly paired as
tandem partners. Throughout one
semester, from September to December, the pairs of students communicated with
each other by sending e-mails and participating in Instant Message (IM) online
chats. In addition, some Rice students
created video letters to be viewed by the Buenos Aires students and Buenos
Aires students posted digital photographs on-line for Rice students to
see. In
September and October the learners exchanged two e-mails every week: one e-mail
in Spanish and one e-mail in English.
There were, however, no controls or limits on the topics or the amount
of language they should write in each e-mail.
Because of this there was no consistency in the length of e-mails that
were sent. Throughout the month of
November, the pairs of learners participated in four IM chats online using the
MSN Instant Messaging system. They were
told to participate in each chat for a minimum of 15 to 20 minutes, twice in
Spanish and twice in English. At the
end of the investigation, the learners were given a questionnaire to provide
the investigators with feedback and the learners’ opinion of the study and its
benefits if any. Data
and Discourse Functions
Data
were collected in the form of e-mails and saved IM chats. Each written
utterance produced by the 50 pairs of learners was analyzed and classified
according to its function within the discourse. The categories used to classify the different functions of each
utterance in both the asynchronous e-mails and synchronous computer discussions
are based on those used by Patterson (2001) in her research on Computer
Assisted Class Discussions (CACD). A list of the functions used in the discourse analysis which are
considered to reflect negotiation for meaning can be found in the table in Appendix
I . E-mails
After completing the discourse
analysis of all e-mails, we totaled the number of times each pair used the
specific discourse functions that were previously noted to be associated with
negotiation for meaning. These data are
located in the following table (Table 1).
Table
1: Total Discourse Functions associated with negotiation used in all e-mail Due to the
nature of this TLL project it was not possible to separate the two languages in
the e-mail portion. The students often
wrote a question in an e-mail written in one language and received a response
in the next e-mail in the other language, as can be seen in the examples
below. Therefore, the data for e-mails
are for both languages combined and there is no distinction between the
negotiations found in native or foreign languages. The
following examples are excerpts from e-mail exchanges. Negotiation functions in the examples are
written in bold letters and labeled.
The Spanish discourse is followed by an English translation. This first
example is taken from e-mails written in English. Student D from Argentina is unsure about some of her phrases in
English and asks for confirmation of her wording in one e-mail (“I’m down with
flue”). Then in the next e-mail Student
H responds by correcting the wording and spelling. Also by repeating the phrase “runny nose” the Rice student is
indirectly correcting the expression “running nose”. She also confirms that the word “salsa” is also used in the
USA. Example 1: l
D-UTN says: I wanted to tell you that I also know how to dance salsa (do you say
salsa in inglish too????) [confirmation
check] l
H-Rice says To answer your question, it's probably
better to say you're sick with the flu or you have the flu. [reply:correction] (Isn't 'a
runny nose' the strangest expression in English? [confirmation check] I've
always thought it's funny.)
The health services on campus is offering flu shots and I should probably get
one so I don't get sick. We do say salsa in English. [reply:confirmation]
I'm having so much fun learning. In the
second example student D from Argentina uses the comprehension check function
to ask if the Rice student understands the word copado because it is a word commonly used in Argentina but possibly
not in other countries. Rice student H
does not understand and asks for clarification. Then student D answers in English in the next e-mail and gives a
definition of the word “copado”. Example 2: l D-UTN says: ojalá que conozcas algún chico lindo y
¨copado¨ (conocías esta palabra? [comprehension
check ] acá se usa mucho) (Hopefully you meet a nice cool boy. Did you know this
word? It is used a lot here.) l H-Rice says: ¿Qué es esto de un chico lindo y
copado? [elicit: clarification] No se que es copado, pero pienso que puedo entenderte. Ahora mismo, no tengo novio. ( What is that about a good looking guy and “copado”? I don’t know what
“copado” is, but I think I can understand you.
I don’t have a boyfriend right now.) l
D-UTN says: Thanks for your whishes and pieces of
advise. When I said "copado" I meant cool, you know, I hope you
will find a cool and handsome boy. [reply:clarification]
Instant
Messaging chats
The
ability to communicate in English for the UTN students was more advanced than
the ability to communicate in Spanish for most of the Rice students because the
UTN students had been studying English for a few years longer than most of the
Rice students had been studying Spanish.
After analyzing the discourse in the IM chats, rather than separate the
data by learners of a specific language, we listed the negotiation data
separately for Spanish and English chats in order to see if this difference in
language ability affected the amount of negotiation. For
reasons unknown to the investigators, six pairs of learners did not complete
the chat portion of the study. Some did
not chat at all and some chatted once or twice but only in Spanish. Therefore, the data collected from these 12
learners were deleted from the results.
The overall total number of negotiation
for meaning functions found through analysis of the English and Spanish chats
of 44 pairs can be seen in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Total negotiation for
meaning functions in English and Spanish chats The following excerpts from the chats contain some examples of negotiation
for meaning. In example 1 Rice student L is talking about the weather and
describes it as “weird”. Student M from
Argentina interrupts her tandem partner to ask what “weird” is. Rice student L is not sure whether M wants
a definition of the word “weird” or clarification of what she thought was weird
and immediately clarifies both: “I was
refering to the weather. Weird means
unusual.” Example 1: ·
M-UTN dice: sorry
but what is weird? [elicit clarification] ·
L-Rice dice: the word weird? [elicit
confirmation] Or what I was refering
to? [elicit clarification] ·
M-UTN dice: and did you have important things inside the
car? ·
L-Rice dice:
no, just some junk, thankfully ·
M-UTN dice: yes,
[reply confirmation] you said It´s weird! [reply
clarification] ·
M-UTN dice: I
don't understand [elicit clarification] ·
L-Rice dice: I was refering to the weather. [reply
clarification] Weird means unusual.
[reply definition/clarification] ·
M-UTN dice: Ah!
[reply comprehension] In the
second example the chat is in Spanish.
We can see that student L from Argentina uses the expression “me voy al sobre” and Rice student J
infers the meaning but wants to make sure she is right by saying “te entiendo?” (do I understand
you?). Then L provides the correct
meaning and J confirms she now understands that “me voy al sobre” means “I am
going to bed”. Example 2: ·
L-UTN says:
aca aveces decimos, "me voy al sobre” (Here at times we say, “ I am going to the envelope”) ·
J-Rice says: bueno,hablaríamos solo quince minutos. me voy al sobre por no voy a dormir mucho?
[elicit confirm]
te entiendo? [elicit:comprehension] (Well, we would talk only 15 minutes. I am going to the envelope for I am not
going to sleep a lot? Do I understand
you?) ·
L-UTN says: n me voy al sobre significa, me voy a la
cama [reply definition] (no, I am going to the envelope means I am
going to the bed.) ·
J-Rice says: ah! ahora
yo entiendo. [reply
comprehension] (Ah. Now I
understand.) Results
Looking
at the data in Table 2 above we see that the numbers of the different functions
associated with negotiation for meaning are very similar for the two different
languages. The
overall number of times that learners used negotiation functions was 938 in
English chats and 1193 in Spanish chats. However, there was no control over the
length of time for each chat so the chat lengths differed (see Appendix II).
Thus, it was not possible to compare numbers of functions related to
negotiation between the two languages without finding a common component. Although the number of utterances and
length of utterance as well as the length of chat varied from chat to chat, the
common feature for both chats is the word.
We therefore counted the number of words per tandem partner for each
chat and calculated the number of negotiation functions per 100 words. Of the 44 pairs of students completing all
four chats, two were done in English and two in Spanish. The results of the calculations for the four
chats of each pair of students can be found in Appendix II. The overall average numbers of negotiations
and words for chats are listed below in Table 3 along with the results for all
e-mails together.
Table 3:
Average negotiation functions per 100 words in e-mail and chats We found
an average of 2.00 negotiations per 100 words in the English chats and 2.99
negotiations per 100 words in the Spanish chats. This indicates that, even though it appears in Table 2 that the
numbers of negotiations were very close, the tandem partners actually
negotiated more often in the Spanish chats than in the English chats. As previously indicated, we believe this is
due to the fact that the Spanish language skills of the Rice students were not
as advanced as the English languages skills of the UTN students. We did find a greater number of Confirmation Checks and
Clarification Requests in Spanish chats.
A possible indication of the weaker language abilities of the Rice
students can also be seen in the more than double vocabulary requests and high
number of correction functions in Spanish chats. In
addition to comparing the two languages in the chats, we also wanted to look at
the number of negotiations used in e-mail compared to chats. Table 4 below contains the numbers of the
individual negotiation functions that were found through an analysis of all
discourse in the chats vs. all e-mails of the 44 tandem partners. Looking at the numbers we found twice as
many instances of negotiation in the chats than in e-mail. We noted that confirmation and comprehension
check, clarification request and the replies to these requests were more common
in chats; while e-mails had a slightly higher number of elaborations.
Table 4: Number of negotiation functions for all
chats and e-mails With this data, we are considering 176 chats (4 chats for all the tandem
pairs-2 in Spanish and 2 in English) and 1084 e-mails in Spanish and
English. Even though the number of
asynchronous e-mails outnumbers the number of chats and the number of words in
these e-mails (186,251) was almost double the number of words in the chats
(99,115) we found over twice as many negotiation functions in the chats. Again, in order to make a valid comparison,
we calculated the ratio of negotiations per 100 words used in the e-mail for
each of the same 44 pairs of students and the data per pair are given in Appendix III. The averages
found in Table 3 above show that the ratio of
negotiation for meaning to words is greater in the chats (2.28 per 100 words)
than in e-mail (0.51 per 100 words). We expected to see more negotiation in the synchronous CMC than in the
asynchronous e-mails and our data support this theory. Considering the amount of negotiation we
found in e-mails and the amount found in chats, our data support this theory. We found
over four times as many negotiation functions in the chats (2.28) than in the
e-mails (.51) for every 100 words produced.
Thus, in a language class where face-to-face partners are not readily
available to carry out a TLL communication project with native speakers, the
language teacher might consider organizing a similar TLL project using
CMC. In this way learners of both
languages would have the opportunity to communicate with native speakers of
their target language through synchronous chats. Videos
and photos and a cultural exchange
Some of
the Rice students made video letters, which were digitized by the Language
Resource Center at Rice. They were then
placed on the LRC server to be viewed as streaming video so that the students
in Buenos Aires could see them using RealPlayer. The Rice students were divided into groups
and each group videotaped and described in Spanish a different aspect of
university life at Rice including dorm life, sports activities, shopping,
nightlife and eating in the cafeteria.
These videos are located online at: http://lang.rice.edu/ppatters/301/SPANVIDEOS_new.htm. At
UTN in Buenos Aires, digital photographs were taken of groups of students in different areas of the building: the
computing lab, the Office of Student Services, and
the entrance to the building. The
photos were then placed on the Net-Learning website so that the Rice students
could see pictures of their e-pals and view a little university life at UTN. You will find the photos at the following site
address: http://www.net-learning.com.ar/utnphotos.
Although
the Spanish language videos and photos were neither bilingual nor interactive
they provided our students with a great deal of information about each other’s
universities which was then discussed in chats and e-mail. They commented on differences in the
campuses and compared various aspects of university life in the different
countries. This
CMC project along with the videos and photos provided our students with a great
opportunity for a cultural exchange along with the language interaction. In addition to the university differences,
we found examples of an exchange of other cultural issues in the e-mails and IM
chats. Some of the cultural issues
dealt with were: university life, nightlife, jobs, families, holidays, food,
music, war, basic characteristics of each country, and the most important
traditions celebrated there. Due
to limited space we will include only a few examples of the cultural
exchange. In the following excerpt from
a Spanish chat, the Argentine student M is talking about the Argentine
tradition of the 15th birthday party called “la fiesta de
quince”. She compares it to the
tradition of a sweet sixteen party in the USA.
In
the next example from an English chat, the US student is surprised when she
realizes that her partner from Buenos Aires will eat dinner at about 9:00 pm
(the time when most Argentineans eat dinner) whereas in the USA most people
have dinner around 6:00 pm.
Although the major focus of our investigation was the interaction and
negotiation that took place while learners communicated with the various forms
of CMC, we assumed that an intercultural exchange would also be a part of the
tandem interchange. Both O'Dowd (2003)
and Kramsch & Thorne (2002) agree that TLL exchanges through CMC contribute
to intercultural learning and point out that the language instructor plays an important
role in the development of this intercultural learning. As the TLL interchange progressed over the
semester and we analyzed the discourse produced by our students we became aware
of many examples of a cultural exchange between them. Class discussions about the tandem project and what they learned
provided more information about their cultural exchange. We are interested in evaluating the cross
cultural learning but due to limited space here and the amount and types of
cultural exchange between the tandem partners, we must consider the intercultural
learning that took place in this study in more detail at a later date for
future investigation and discussion. Questionnaire
results
At
the end of the study the learners filled out a short questionnaire to provide
the investigators with feedback about their TLL project. The learners’ comments provided us with
their opinion of the project and the two methods of CMC that were used. The learners were also asked how much they
thought they benefited from the TLL exchange of information. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix
IV and comments by Rice
and UTN students taken from the questionnaires are in Appendix V. Of
the Rice students that answered the questionnaire, 20 said they preferred IM
for a variety of reasons. These students thought that IM was more enjoyable and
they liked the immediate feedback they got.
They thought it was more communicative and more like a real conversation
and they believed they learned more.
Eighteen Rice students wrote that they preferred e-mail because it was
easy to include it in their busy schedules.
They liked having more time to compose their messages and it was more
flexible. With IM the students had to
find time to meet on-line with each other and had to take into account that the
time in Argentina was 3 hours later than in Texas. Of the UTN students that filled out the questionnaire, 32
said they preferred IM for various reasons and 14 UTN students wrote that they
liked e-mail best. The reasons
mentioned by UTN students are similar to those for Rice students. IM gave more immediate feedback and was more
like a conversation. They also liked
the informal nature of the IM chat.
They had the same to say about e-mail, mentioning that it was easier to
fit into their busy schedules. They
also believed they learned useful expressions in English. Also, some students in Buenos Aires did not
have Internet access at home making IM chats more difficult for them. Not only did they have to match the
appropriate time schedule with their Texas partners but they also had to deal
with Internet access availability, often using Cyber cafes and paying by the
minute. Conclusion
We found that both e-mail and IM chats provided an environment conducive to
negotiation with approximately twice as many functions of negotiation found in
the IM chats. This is possibly due to
the synchronous nature of chats, which provided the opportunity for learners to
receive immediate responses to their questions and requests for
clarification. Learners
negotiated for meaning 2131 times in chats and 1024 times in e-mail, requesting
clarification and vocabulary, checking confirmation and comprehension,
providing clarifications, definitions, and vocabulary and affirming comprehension
of their tandem partners. To validate the comparison between these two different methods of
CMC we calculated the ratio of number of negotiation functions per 100 words
both in e-mails and in chats. This
confirmed the students´ responses in the questionnaires stating that they
thought they had negotiated more when chatting. According to our questionnaire and the results of this investigation,
students preferred communicating with their partners through IM first and
e-mail second. The asynchronous e-mail
and particularly the synchronous IM chats provided learners with the
opportunity to interact and negotiate with native speakers of their TL, which
has been shown by SLA research to facilitate language acquisition. There are, however, disadvantages
to IM chats such as the need for both participants to be online at the same
time and to have Internet access available at times which may be difficult for
some learners. Another disadvantage is
the pressure some non-native learners may feel to keep up with the conversation
as they attempt to read, think, and type faster in the target language. By contrast, the advantage to e-mail is that
the learners do not have to be on-line at the same time to communicate with
each other and they can take their time composing the e-mail without pressure
to rush. We
concentrated in this study on the functions related to negotiation for meaning
between tandem partners while using two forms of CMC. Our study had several limitations and we see a need for further
research. We agree that tandem partners
in future exchanges should be more closely matched with regard to their
proficiency in the target language, their age, and common interests. We would also like to separate the
negotiation functions by native speaker of the language rather than by language
spoken, in order to investigate differences and similarities between learners
and compare this data with our previous research. In addition, we plan to look more carefully at the cultural
exchanges in which these tandem partners engaged during CMC for future
evaluation. We also hope to incorporate
voice communication into future CMC projects.
Opportunities to interact with native speakers of the target language may
be limited for some language learners.
CMC provides a chance to communicate with native speakers of the target
language outside the classroom which research has shown to be beneficial to
language learners. A TLL project where
learners communicate with native speakers in their native country also provides
a tremendous resource for an authentic cross-cultural experience. Thus, we find
that a tandem language learning project using CMC can be a valuable asset to
the language learner and language class and beyond. We typically study language learning in the context of the classroom. Communicating with native speakers through
CMC provides the opportunity for developing language skills and exposure to the
culture related to the target language that goes beyond the language
class. TLL through CMC presents the potential
for research in the context of life-long learning for the language learner
outside the classroom. A longitudinal
study of the long term effects of such an exchange would contribute important
data to our current investigation. Post study observation
When
the semester ended in December the students were not required to participate in
the CMC any longer. Many pairs of
students, however, decided to continue the e-mail exchange and occasional IM
chats. In their final chat many
students ended with the agreement to remain in contact through e-mail and chats
even though the project had ended. When
several Rice students were questioned a few months later about their e-pals,
they said that they still exchanged e-mail periodically with their e-pals in Buenos
Aires. References Appel, M. C. (1999). Tandem Language Learning by e-mail: Some basic
principles and a case study. (vol. 53,
CLCS Occasional Paper). Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language &
Communication Studies. Blake, R. (2000).
Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language
Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 120-136.
Retrieved May 1, 2006 from: http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html. Donaldson, R. P. and Kötter, M. (1999). Language learning in cyberspace:
Teleporting the classroom into the target culture. CALICO Journal, 16 (4), 531-557. Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, Susan and Evangeline M. Varonis. (1994). Input, interaction, and
second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16,
283-302. Kramsch, C. and Thorne, S. L. (2002). Foreign language learning as
global communicative practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and Language Teaching, pp.
83-100. London: Routledge. Lee, L. (2004). Learners’
perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of
Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (1), 83-100. Retrieved May 1,
2006 from: http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/default.html. Little, D., and Brammerts, H. (Eds.) (1996). A guide to language
learning in tandem via the Internet (vol. 46, CLCS Occasional Paper). Dublin:
Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies. Little, D., Ushioda, E., Appel, M. C., Moran, J., O’Rourke, B., and
Schwienhorst, K. (1999). Evaluating tandem language learning by e-mail: Report
on a bilateral project. (vol. 55, CLCS Occasional Paper). Dublin: Trinity
College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies. Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S.
Gass and C. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 377-393. Rowley, Mass: Newbury
House. Long, M. and P. Robinson. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and
practice. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.), The Cambridge Applied
Linguistics Series: Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition, pp. 15-41.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural
learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange.
Language Learning & Technology,
7 (2), 118-144. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from:
http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/odowd/default.html Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about
second-language-learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language
Learning, 44, 493-527. Patterson, P. (2001). Computer
Assisted Language Learning: An Analysis of Discourse Produced in
Computer-Assisted and Oral Class Discussions by Spanish Learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Austin: The University of Texas. Schwienhorst, Klaus. (1997). Talking
on the MOO: Learner autonomy and language learning in tandem. Paper
presented at the CALLMOO: Enhancing Language Learning Through Internet
Technologies, Bergen, Norway. Electronic version at http://www.tcd.ie/CLCS/assistants/ Schwienhorst, K. (1998). The “third place”- virtual reality applications
for second language learning. ReCALL,
10 (1), 118-126. Schwienhorst, K. (1998b). Matching pedagogy and technology-Tandem
learning and learner autonomy in online virtual language environments. In R Soetaert, E. De Man, G. Van Belle
(Eds.). Language Teaching On-Line. pp. 115-127. Ghent:
University of Ghent. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded
model. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 38-57. Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in
synchronous and asynchronous communication.
Language Learning & Technology,
4 (1), 82-119, Retrieved May 1, 2006 from:
http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html. Swain, M. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two
adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language
Journal, 82 (3), 320-337. Toyoda, E. and Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat
communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language
Learning & Technology, 6(1), 82-99. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from: http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/toyoda/default.html. Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 141-159. Retrieved May
1, 2006 from: http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/tudini/default.html. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in
Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Editor’s
notes: This presentation was made as a regular session at
theWebheads in Action Online Convergence on November 19, 2005.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Last Updated: May 10, 2006 |