Using e-tools to facilitate international

collaborations and enhance language teaching

Teresa Mackinnon

July 2013

2

Contents

Section Page

The changing context for language learning 3

The purpose of this report 3

The challenges and opportunities presented by telecollaboration 4

Revisiting computer-assisted language learning 5

Reviewing the relationship between theory and practice 7

Telecollaboration: the human aspects 10

Summary 13

Methodology used in data collection 13

Case studies 14

Case study 1: Durham University Centre for Foreign Language Study and Ecole

des Mines, Douai 14

Case study 2: Kings College London and Université du Maine 15

Case study 3: University of Hull and EDHEC Business School, Lille 16

Case study 4: University of Warwick Language Centre and Université Blaise Pascal,

Clermont-Ferrand 17

Case study 5: University of Manchester, University of Macerata and the Language

Centre at the University of Cagliari 20

Summary of learning activities 21

Wider perspectives from abroad 22

Emergent themes to inform OIE activity 22

Engagement 22

Synchronicity 22

Assessment 22

Embedding 23

Evaluating the risk and reward of OIE 23

Critical evaluation of the OIE in UK HEIs 24

Bibliography 27

Appendix 1 32

Appendix 2 36

3

The changing context for language learning

As communication technologies continue to evolve, connecting individuals worldwide through the web

and mobile phone networks, they bring new opportunities for international interaction that transcend the

traditional face-to-face barriers of time and place. European Commission statistics (Eurostat, 2010) reveal

a significant increase in the amount of computer-mediated communication (CMC) happening across

member countries. Access to the internet is more widespread with 70% of European households having

access to the internet in the first quarter of 2010, compared with 49% in the first quarter of 2006. 80% of

EU internet users between the ages of 16-24 were posting messages online through chat sites, blogs and

social networks (Eurostat, 2010; Mentor, 2011). According to recent research (Neilson Research, 2011)

young people in the UK send an average of 117 text messages a day; the mobile phone has become the

tool of choice for many. In our increasingly networked society much of our interaction with each other

takes place online or over the telephone. This trend is likely to continue as concerns about our carbon

footprint affect decisions about face-to-face meetings. With global working becoming more extensive,

mastery of communication skills is highly prized in the corporate recruitment market. Crystal (2001)

offers us a glimpse of a possible social revolution to come:

Whereas at the moment, face-to-face communication ranks as primary, in any account of the linguistic

potentialities of humankind, in the future it may not be so. In a statistical sense, we may one day communicate

with each other far more via computer mediation than in direct interaction. (Crystal, 2001, p. 241)

It would appear important, if he is correct, to include this dimension in our language teaching and to

increase our understanding of the challenges it presents. This background of shifting modes of

communication presents new challenges and opportunities to those involved in language education.

As language teachers who have the experience of creating a suitable environment for the development of communication in our day-to-day work with students, we know how important it is to help learners feel

at ease as they try out their new language skills and interact with those from another culture. We are

also very sensitive to the complexity of intercultural communication, able to analyse communication

failure and develop the abilities and strategies of our learners. Many of our colleagues working in other

disciplines do not have the benefit of such experience. In modern society, as more interaction is taking

place in virtual environments we need to understand how best to use our skills to ensure that our

learners are equipped to interact effectively in these new situations. However, we may be less familiar

with the culture of internet communication, which adds another layer of complexity to these

interactions. Using the internet to connect and communicate with others is often referred to as

telecollaboration. A recently released executive summary of the INTENT project (Helm et al., 2012), a

large-scale investigation into the use of telecollaboration for language learning in Europe, reminds us that

it has received little support in university contexts to date. This begs the question: what are the barriers

to engagement and adoption of telecollaboration in the UK? How will we address these? Will we be

prepared take up the many challenges that we face in keeping pace with rapidly changing technologies?

The purpose of this report

This report has been commissioned in order to present examples of best practice in telecollaboration for

language learning from across the higher education sector. It will also consider the wider benefits thereof

in relation to employability, intercultural awareness, internationalisation and the widening participation

agenda. It will:

examine the challenges and opportunities presented by telecollaboration, described by O’Dowd

as Online Interactive Exchange (OIE) (O’Dowd, 2006);

present case studies of a selection of current projects in UK HEIs;

propose a critical assessment that will attempt to identify issues to address.

It aims to provide concrete examples that may inspire and encourage engagement in OIE alongside

theoretical perspectives that may inform and develop practice.

4

The challenges and opportunities presented by telecollaboration

The development and normalisation of new technologies to facilitate international interaction clearly

present many opportunities. Klapper (2006) writes of computer-mediated communication in language

learning:

Perhaps the most exciting application of the web in language learning is its capacity for bringing together

students and native speakers. (Klapper, 2006, p. 191)

However, one cannot ignore the challenges that it presents. Some might say that the fact that language

professionals are very aware of the complexity of intercultural communication may be one of the reasons

why we approach with caution online opportunities to connect our learners directly with the speakers of

the language studied. Recognising that internet culture presents another set of norms and protocols to

navigate. We are yet to establish how much this new medium changes the interaction it can facilitate. The

nature of ‘failed communication’ that can occur between participants in such online exchanges is explored

by O’Dowd (2006). However, it is clear that many already use social sites such as Facebook to interact

and practise their language skills. There are hundreds of Facebook language learning pages with many

thousands of users.

Facebook language learning pages

Clearly individuals believe that such interactions are supporting their learning and yet some language

teachers are not convinced of the usefulness of such an approach. The theories contributing to the

5

teaching and learning of a second language have a long history and practice has evolved through a wide

range of teaching methodologies (Richards and Rodgers, 2001; Klapper, 2006) most of which predate the

coming of the internet. The historical legacy of such approaches still has influence today and some would

say that in the light of the changing context for language use and recent developments in our

understanding of learning we should re-examine teaching methodologies and the theories that underpin

them. This would imply that engaging with telecollaboration necessitates the reconsideration of the

theoretical grounding of our work.

On a practical level, the use of technology in teaching brings new challenges, new skills for both teachers

and learners, a new literacy. Interaction through technology is a fast moving area of technical

development, particularly in the last ten years. The basic concept of the internet as described by Tim

Berners-Lee, considered by many as the father of the World Wide Web, was that it was to be an

information space through which people communicate by sharing their knowledge in a pool. This vision

was at first realised as a text-based pool linked through hypertext, the exchange of documents, until the

arrival of Web 2.0, which delivered faster internet speeds through a more robust infrastructure. This

brought ways of sharing large files such as audio and video and the explosion of social networking: the

emergence of a creative, collaborative online world, for better or for worse. This new online landscape

has been the playground of our students as they grew up; they are very familiar with the affordances it

offers. Students are generally natural users of technology, embracing it when there are clear academic or

social benefits. They also consider interaction with peers and teaching staff essential to learning. Prensky

(2001) defined the difference in attitude towards technology as a generational one, young people are

‘digital natives’, their elders ‘digital immigrants’. This definition has been hotly debated and Prensky (2009)

reviewed his position, stating that the concept of ‘digital wisdom’ was a more useful one in supporting the

acquisition of the knowledge and skills required to capitalise on the affordances offered by new

technologies. To become wise in how to operate in the digital realm requires time spent engaged in use

of technologies, time some of us may consider less important than the many other demands upon our

limited resources.

It is clear, however, that there are those who are investing considerable time and effort in the

investigation of the opportunities available in connecting through technology. Prior to presenting some

case studies of how these new opportunities and challenges are affecting language learning in our higher

education contexts, I would like to present some of the literature that brings insights to this area,

sometimes referred to as NBLT (network-based language teaching) and as CMC (computer-mediated

communication) drawing from a wide range of sources, which can contribute to our understanding. Such

activity crosses the usual borders of disciplines, but a synthesis could help to bring us to a deeper

understanding of the issues that could present barriers to adoption and merit closer attention. Firstly I

will focus upon the demands of the technology itself and secondly on the necessary re-evaluation of the

relationship between language teaching theory and practice.

Revisiting computer-assisted language learning

In modern society, as more interaction is taking place in virtual environments, there is an increasingly

pressing need to understand how best to develop our skills as educators to ensure that our learners are

equipped to interact in these new situations. For some this is an uncomfortable realisation, and it is clear

that our comfort level with technology is an important factor contributing to the success of

implementations. In Levy’s computer-assisted language learning (CALL) survey (1997) he identified that:

“teacher-related factors were the most important in determining the success of CALL materials

development”. Not all language tutors would accept that technology can add value to the language

learning experience. In the early days of CALL there was pessimism particularly about the contribution

that could be made to the development of speaking skills. Past attempts to promote speaking using CALL

in the classroom had been disappointing (James, 1996). The resultant use of language had been formulaic

and machine oriented (Piper, 1986; Mohan, 1992). However, James points out that the conversational

teacher’s “bag of tricks” (1996, p. 19) is the most useful reference point when using computers to

stimulate speaking skills; if an idea doesn’t work without a computer it is all the more likely to fail when

the added complication of the machine is introduced. This serves to remind us that we are facing a

6

relocation of our skills, rather than their replacement. One thing is certain; the changes are not going

away. According to Crystal: “The use of the Internet in foreign-language teaching may be in its infancy,

but it is plainly here to stay” (2001, p. 236).

The teaching of foreign languages in the UK is changing as a result of advances in communications and

information technologies. This started with multimedia CD-ROMs and digital language laboratories and

progressed further thanks to the internet, supporting the inclusion of lively, up-to-date resources that

bring the reality of the culture and language studied within easy reach of the learner. Virtual learning

environments present opportunities for learners to explore a wide range of stimuli selected by their

tutor for access beyond the classroom and may also offer possibilities for interaction. At the same time

the internet has facilitated autonomous learner exploration, making distant countries and their media

more accessible. We are seeing increasing internationalisation of these technologies as they develop and

their sphere of influence increases. New versions of operating systems facilitate input in a wide range of

scripts, browsers support their display and domain names proliferate to accommodate international

expansion of the internet. It is unsurprising that language tutors, faced with the richness of possibilities to

support their teaching are including new technological tools in order to meet the expectations of their

learners. The dangers of reacting to the “wow factor” (Murray and Barnes, 1998) presented by such new

opportunities (at that time by CD-ROMs) emphasise the importance of practitioners seeing beyond the

superficial to arrive at a position whereby one can evaluate such opportunities objectively. This emphasis

on critical evaluative skills is even more vital when faced with such a wealth of technologies and

resources on the World Wide Web. With respect to listening opportunities, for example: “The issue

becomes not how to obtain the material, but how to select from what is available” (Field, 2008, p. 274).

Surely this would be an important element of the digital wisdom we can bring to teaching.

Do we as leaders in language specialisms feel that we have the necessary skills to continue and extend

our learners’ experiences? Do we have a sufficient command of digital literacies? New media call into

question our definition of literacy (Kramsch et al., 2000; Warschauer, 2000). Dictionary definitions centre

on mastery of written language, but wider, more inclusive definitions would take account of cultural

differences (Langer, 1991) and disabilities (Foley, 1994). It is widely agreed that to be ‘literate’ involves a

range of skills, knowledge and abilities that enable an individual to interpret and communicate ideas with a

degree of mastery. Electronic literacy is required today as a facet of broader literacy skills: “Literacy is a

shifting target and we have to prepare students for their future rather than our past” (Warschauer,

2000). If teachers are to be able to support the development of electronic literacy so that students can

master language as it appears in this context, they also need to be familiar with language use in these

situations:

The language and literacies of the new technologies form a subset of the literacies that learners will need to be

empowered in their personal and work and community lives. (McPherson and Murray, 2003, p. 5)

It is therefore important for language teachers to understand the issues raised by interaction and

communication in computer-mediated settings. The growth of internet use and its existence in

mainstream education as a tool could not have been foreseen. Its impact is still a huge area for research

and will doubtless change the face of teaching and learning: this new medium is inevitably affecting both

the process and the products of communication. Language teaching is one of many areas to be affected.

The increase in online teaching has brought renewed interest in communication skills. Communication

and collaboration are affordances of the networked environment. Research into computer-mediated

communication (CMC) is proliferating. Many disciplines are employing technologies to connect their

learning communities and their experiences are very pertinent. According to a leading voice in e-learning,

Gilly Salmon:

Combining new ideas about computer-mediated technologies and well-loved theories of learning results in

fantastic possibilities but they need a little human time and energy to make them work. (2002, p. 4)

Interactivity and social interaction form one of the main themes of contemporary e-learning research

(Conole and Oliver, 2007). It is concluded that successful interaction in an e-learning environment can

impact significantly on learner motivation and learning outcomes, although engaging learners in such

7

interaction is problematic. Salmon acknowledges the existence of a new form of interaction that has

developed online, called “netspeak” by Crystal (2001). Netspeak describes the way in which language is

used when interacting through the internet: its vocabulary has spilled over into our daily lives (i.e. words

such as download, spam), its rhythm is affected by the technical properties of the medium, its rule-

breaking use of non-standard language is challenging: “Netspeak is identical to neither speech nor writing,

but selectively and adaptively displays properties of both” (Crystal, 2001, p. 47). Salmon (2002) believes

that those engaging in interaction on the internet in a language that is not their mother tongue may have

a particularly sharp learning curve, coping not only with communicating in another language, but also with

a particular usage of that language. It would appear therefore that interaction over the internet as part of

second language teaching presents particular challenges to tutors. Success is likely to be dependent upon

the transfer of their classroom expertise to this new context as well as their mastery of the skills

required by the technology. According to Warshauer (2000, p. 161):

… networked multimedia environments provide opportunities for asynchronous and synchronous dialogue in

which meaning can be negotiated in modes other than written or printed text. The interactions between and

among learners … enhance the “learning as knowledge” process.

The case studies presented here are illustrative of those who have engaged with the challenges and

opportunities presented, putting in the time and energy required to innovate in this area. It is hoped that

they help in identifying key aspects of best practice that will shorten the path to innovation in your

context.

Reviewing the relationship between theory and practice

In higher education, language tutors use methodologies that suit their teaching style, their beliefs and

their experience. Individual language learner profiles vary and it falls to the tutor to make informed

decisions as to the most useful course design and procedure to suit the needs and context of their

learners. Our learners are in a post-compulsory phase of education; in many cases they have experienced

language learning in the past, even if they are beginners in the language they study with us. They come

from a range of international backgrounds, experiences and language teaching traditions. They are adult

learners and therefore they share the following features elaborated by Knowles (1980), they:

decide for themselves what is important;

use experience to validate information;

expect what they learn to be immediately useful;

have much experience;

have significant ability to act as resource to group.

In a paper describing an andragogical approach to language teaching, Graham Bishop (2006) highlights

positive feedback from adult learners who have significantly greater input into the course design and

activities they undertake than younger learners. However, there are major challenges for tutors engaged in this approach. It could be considered time-consuming as the teacher feels the need to be familiar with

all the different resources employed by learners. This resistance to a student-centred learning approach is

discussed by Blake (2008) in a very readable overview of technology use in language teaching. Laurillard

(2002, p. 69, pp. 86-87) offers a phenomenographic teaching strategy that may make allay such fears,

creating an adaptive environment for learners. The stages are described below:

present the learner with new ways of seeing;

focus on a few critical issues and show how they relate;

integrate substantive and syntactic structures;

make the learner’s conception explicit to them;

highlight the inconsistencies within and the consequences of the learner’s conceptions;

create situations where learners centre attention on relevant aspects.

Language teaching as delivered in most classrooms since the 1950s tends to fall under a loose group of

approaches that can be defined as ‘communicative methodologies’, described by Beavan (2000) as “the

8

traditional pedagogy of the IWLP” (p. 169). These emphasise the importance of utilising language learned

for an immediate goal of communication as created by the teacher. A common criticism of

communicative language teaching is that the learner is restricted within a set of predefined language

chunks made available by the tutor (Klapper, 2006, p. 114.) This may restrict the learner’s ability to

generate his/her own language as it lacks a framework for independent use. Ironically, learners’

communications are not always connected with their real desire for communication, but they are rather

an artificial construct. The notion of ‘authenticity’ is explored by Widdowsen (1998) and Kramsch et al.

(2000) among others. In many language learning situations particularly at lower levels there is little space

for real negotiation with the learners as to the content of their study, nor are they able to lead the

practice phase, choosing the focus of discussion according to their own interests.

When using technology for teaching the tutor role is one of the first aspects of teaching and learning that

is called into question. Rüschoff and Ritter (2001) highlight that computer-assisted language learning

generates situations “calling the paradigm of instruction into question”. The tutor’s role in language

learning in a networked environment is described in Communicating on the Net (McPherson and Murray,

2003) as that of “guide on the side rather than sage on the stage” (p. 3). However, the tutor is still

central to the success or failure of the learning process: “Technology does not substitute for the key

roles of mediation, inspiration, annotation and provocation” (Heppell and Ramondt, 1998 cited in Ryan et

al., 2000). Wright (1987) postulated that all language teachers could be located somewhere on a

continuum between:

transmission interpretation

based upon their assumptions of the nature of language learning. At the transmission end of this

continuum tutors would have positivist views that learning is achieved through the transmission of

objective reality. They would see mastery and internalisation of language structure and form to be the

learner’s goal. At the interpretation end, the tutor is concerned to train the learner to become

autonomous in language acquisition, more in tune with a constructivist approach, a theory that argues

knowledge and meaning are constructed from each individual’s human experience. Such assumptions have

an impact upon the role that the tutor assumes in the learning process and therefore the role occupied

by the learner. Moving along the continuum from left to right is an implicit transference of power from

tutor to learner. Interpretation teachers are: “more of a resource person or consultant than an authority

… a facilitator rather than an arbiter” (Tumposky, 1982, p. 5). This relocation of the locus of control

brings benefits. According to Vandergrift: “intrinsically motivated learners or self-regulated learners are

more effective learners because the locus of control is internalised” (2008, p. 90).

Such teachers see the learning process as a dynamic one rather than the mechanical digestion of a body

of knowledge. They are more likely to encourage learners to develop good learning strategies, promoting

a degree of learner autonomy.

The use of technology in learning can facilitate a constructivist approach to learning. Individuals actively

interpret their perceptions, constructing their own representation of knowledge in the light of their

experience. In a social learning context “the constructivist perspective … emphasizes collaboration

between peers and teachers within supportive frameworks” (Duffy and Cunningham, 1996).

The seven hypotheses for constructivist language learning (Figure 1), articulated by Chapelle (1998) in her

consensus model of second language acquisition, reveal learners taking a greater responsibility for their

learning, actively noticing and modifying their errors.

9

Figure 1: The seven hypotheses for constructivist language learning (Chapelle, 1998)

The linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient.

Learners should receive help in comprehending semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic input.

Learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output.

Learners need to notice errors in their own input.

Learners need to correct their linguistic output.

Learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for

negotiation of meaning.

Learners should engage in L2 tasks designed to maximise opportunities for good interaction.

The tutor ensures the provision of opportunities for helpful interactions to take place, establishing rules

for interaction that protect and support the learner. In this model the tutor is involved with the process

of learning rather than focusing only on the product.

However there may be a danger of marginalising the language teacher who then surrounds learners with

a wide range of choices of appropriate learning resources, becoming a “tour guide” (Benson and Voller,

1997). Voller identifies three assumptions (p. 113) necessary to empower language teachers:

language learning is an interpretive process, requiring a transfer of control to the learner;

teaching practices should be based on negotiation with learners;

teachers should self-monitor and reflect upon their practices.

Transferring control to the student could be problematic; particularly for those tutors whose underlying

approach is essentially behaviourist. Some tutors may not be willing to allow the student the freedom to

explore and make mistakes for themselves, particularly in a digital environment where all interaction will

have a ‘footprint’, leaving behind a recording of what has been said. The resultant proliferation of and

exposure to error may be too challenging. There will be tensions between the need for error correction

and the need to offer opportunities to make mistakes. Such tensions strike at the very heart of the

tutor’s perception of their role. Concerns about error correction are rooted in a particular conception

of the role of the tutor in the language learning process. Concerns about ‘negative language models’ are

not supported by research into language teaching methodology (Macaro, 2003).

Ultimately, it could be argued that the goal of education is to create autonomous learners who are able

to continue their learning beyond our classroom. Benson (Benson and Voller, 1997) proposes three

versions of learner autonomy: technical, psychological and political. The acquisition of language learning

techniques and skills (technical), the capacity to take responsibility for one’s learning (psychological), and

the control over the processes and content (political). All have a part to play in the development of the

language learner:

The changing patterns of language education that support this tendency [to learner autonomy] are essentially a

continuation of those which supported the mainstreaming of Communicative Language Teaching: the ever

increasing quantity of language education and the growing importance of media and information technologies.

To increase learner autonomy is to acknowledge that learners have their own “preferred styles,

capacities and needs” (Skehan, 1989) and is in tune with Nunan’s (1988) learner-centred curriculum.

Tutor attitude to error correction is largely determined by the tutor’s chosen approach to language

acquisition. There are many publications that include advice on error correction in modern language

teaching, and input and output theories such as Krashen (1985) and Long (1981) remain a focus for

debate that continues to try to elaborate how learners acquire a second language. According to Lewis

(2002):

10

... error is intrinsic to learning, and any strategy of error avoidance will be counter-productive. Anyone who

learns a foreign language to a reasonable degree of proficiency will inevitably make thousands of mistakes on the

way. Correcting every one of them is an impossibility. Fortunately it is also highly undesirable. (p. 173)

Recasting, the process of the tutor correcting a spoken learner error, has been proven to be ineffective in achieving learner change, although it is the most frequently used technique. Macaro (2003) also casts

doubt on the importance of correction adding: “I would argue that we should focus on forms in order to

generate more learner errors, more inaccuracy.” In a more natural process of language acquisition, such

as the acquisition of our first language, it is usual to accept that the learner will spend a period of time

communicating in less than perfect language and gradually self-correct as they adjust their utterances to

comply with the norms of language usage around them.

Some language teaching approaches exist that are more in tune with the challenges of networked

language learning and ‘netspeak’. The Natural Approach to second language acquisition (Krashen and

Terrell, 1983) is so called in reference to first language acquisition in young children. Krashen’s Monitor

Theory hypothesises that adults have two systems for developing their language competence. One is

subconscious (acquisition) and the other conscious (learning). If this is the case then exposure to

comprehensible language by the tutor is only meeting the requirements of one aspect of the learner’s

input: learning alone cannot lead to competence. He maintains that the most important of the two

systems is the subconscious: “Error correction and explicit teaching of rules are not relevant” (Krashen,

2002, p. 1).

The cognitive learning system performs monitoring of the language that has been acquired, allowing the

learner to self-correct. Language acquisition occurs according to a natural order of progression, which is

parallel to that seen in first language acquisition. The learner’s emotional state is also central to his/her

ability to acquire language according to Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis. The learner who has low self-

confidence and high anxiety is less likely to be receptive. On the other hand those with high motivation,

self-confidence and low anxiety levels will be more effective learners. The methodology elaborated from

this approach is broadly a continuation of communicative teaching methods, but with greater emphasis on

the tutor creating an ambiance that fosters the learner’s natural ability to process comprehensible input.

Establishing and clarifying the role of the tutor at a period of rapid technological change will be

particularly important for language teaching.

More recent approaches to language learning such as problem-based or task-based instruction have roots

firmly in communicative language teaching, but with greater focus on problem solving and the potential to

allow for a more constructivist learning experience. Learners negotiate the language required to address

a real-life task generating what is known as “pushed output” (Swain,1985; Willis,1996). If language

teachers are to address the challenges of computer-mediated interaction they must keep abreast of

emerging research and practice in such approaches. Pachler (2003) makes a case for what he describes as

“Evidence Informed Practice”. In such a scenario the tutor has an important responsibility to be aware of

current research debates, developing their educational research literacy in order to critically evaluate

their practice in the light of sound evidence. Such a practitioner is reflective and pluralist because “the

study of different approaches focuses our attention on how theory and practice are integrated and is thus

fundamental to the process of reflective continuing professional development” (Klapper, 2006, p. 123).

Telecollaboration: the human aspects

It is widely accepted in the literature studied that affective factors are of significance to learning. It is therefore important to explore this area. How we feel when we encounter and experience learning is

now widely considered to have a bearing upon our learning experience: “emotions … are the very centre

of human life … [they] link what is important for us to the world of people, things and happenings”

(Oatley and Jenkins, 1996, p. 122). Krashen hypothesised about the existence of an ‘affective filter’, a

psychological block that is produced by negative emotions and prevents the learner processing input thus

interfering with second language acquisition. According to Heron: “there are few disciplines in the

curriculum which lay themselves open to anxiety production more than foreign or second language

acquisition” (1989, p. 33). Stevick (1996) found a close link between memory and emotion. Access to

11

both short- and long-term memory is crucial to the comprehension and production of language. It would

appear that affective factors therefore are of particular significance in second language acquisition.

The biological system used to communicate feeling to the brain as a result of stimuli is called the appraisal

system. Positive appraisals occur in any of five dimensions:

novelty/familiarity;

pleasantness;

goal significance;

coping potential;

self/social image

Providing opportunities for interaction in a foreign language will necessarily impact on several of these

dimensions as language use is a transactional process. A good deal of tutor skill is required to ensure that

interactions are positive enough to gradually, over time, move learners out of their comfort zone, with

success bringing greater confidence. If we are to ensure positive experiences for learners then becoming

more reflective as a practitioner is to be desired. We can change our everyday practice by having

reflective conversations with ourselves and other people and “teaching will probably only improve

through self-analysis and self-evaluation” (Nunan, 1996). It is wise therefore to “re-evaluate our position

in an unashamed theoretical way” (Lewis, 1993).

Language professionals require a significant emotional intelligence in order to connect with their learners

and have a transformative affect upon them. Language learners take significant risks when speaking in a

second language. Heyde (1979) found positive correlation between self-esteem and oral production in

French. The poker chip theory (Canfield and Wells, 1994, p. 6) found that a depleted self-concept lowers

the currency available to risk further failure. Such information provides language tutors with clear

direction when it comes to task design. Tasks must be intrinsically motivating, achievable, have clear goals

and provide immediate feedback if they are to engage the learner. Extensive research exists that shows

the importance of motivation to successful language learning (Dörnyei and Schmidt, 2001; Oxford, 1994).

As language professionals, many of the theories underpinning our work have been based upon what could

loosely be described as ‘best guess’ theories. Until recently it was possible only to theorise about how

the brain processed language, understanding of human language acquisition has been limited. We are now

witnessing the evolution of a greater understanding of the workings of the brain thanks to developments

made possible by the use of magnetic resonance imaging, bringing insights from the relatively new field of

neuroscience. Clearly it will be important for the practitioner to be aware that the evolution of our

collective understanding could have relevance to teaching. It is beyond the scope of this report to

consider in any depth the new insights arising from research in the many fields, including psychology,

applied linguistics and neuroscience, that investigate language. Language is at the same time the most

trivial and the most complex of phenomena. Trivial because we acquire our own language with so little

effort and it permeates our every moment, yet more complex than we ever imagine. According to

Pinker: “To a scientist, the fundamental fact of human language is its sheer improbability” (1994, p. 371).

We may perhaps be reassured therefore that the diversity of practice in our professional setting could be

attributed in part to the complexity of our activity. In order to learn language effectively it is clear that

the tutor has an important part to play in establishing an environment where the learner feels

comfortable to take risks without fear of losing face.

Furthermore, for those needing to increase their confidence in the digital environment, there is a need to

feel able to take risks. Given that effective factors play a role both in language acquisition and in adoption

of e-learning, we can see that computer-mediated language learning presents a ‘double hit’. As tutors (or

e-moderators) we must acknowledge Salmon’s observation (2002) that: “Feelings about being unable to

take part successfully are more significant than precise technical skills” (p. 12). We may need to rethink

what is really important about our subject matter.

Nonetheless, we need to better understand how to cope with the challenges of our new context.

Constructing a social framework that ensures possibilities for experimentation, discussion and mutual

12

support may help to provide reassurance for those experiencing technology-induced anxiety. Tutors

already have a shared repertoire as language teachers and would be united in a joint enterprise and

mutuality, the main components of a community of practice (Wenger, 2000). As in Salmon’s model for

developing e-moderators (Salmon, 2000) tutors could experiment with CMC between themselves in

order to gain an insight into the affective factors that can be experienced by their learners. The

phenomenon of the ‘connected educator’ has much to recommend it in supporting the development of

digital skills. Described by Nussbaum-Beach (2011) it prescribes very practical steps to take in order to

increase familiarity with the affordances on digital technology for interaction and has been well received

by professional educators worldwide. The connected educator creates a personal learning network, or

PLN, using social media to interact and constantly refining their understanding of areas of professional

enquiry through both formal and informal activities. Realising the affordances of the technology, these

professionals draw down the information that is relevant to their practice using RSS feeds and hash tags,

they follow the blogs of those who can inform their development, leveraging the web to raise their

profile, thus attracting further interaction. This phenomenon has already had impressive results in

developing the digital skills of modern foreign language educators in the UK who connect through an

extended network on twitter known as the #mfltwitterati (Dale, 2010). Once connected, the sharing of

resources, ideas and inspiration is facilitated and community building is regulated by the enthusiasm and

knowledge of a few core champions who encourage participation. Literature describing the attitudes and

behaviours of contemporary learners who are connecting through technology is plentiful (Downes et al.,

2002; Hargreaves, 2004; Prensky, 2001) and it is undoubtedly a challenge for ‘digital immigrants’ to feel at

ease with these new ways of working. However, if the social setting of a significant amount of interaction

is moving online, language tutors must be ready to consider and experience the social aspects of this

setting. Education is essentially “a social process” (Dewey, 1897). In his article, Hudson (1981) states that

one of the issues that linguists can agree on is that:

We learn our language from other individuals, so language is a property both of the individual and of the

community from which he learns it. Consequently, both social and psychological approaches to its study are

necessary.

Schwarzer (2009) states:

As language instructors, we can build a setting in which adult learners can learn and practice communication

strategies and tools … in order to become successful language users. (p. 28)

These both point to the importance of modelling the behaviour one wants to develop.

As student social communications are taking place in an online context we may need to re-evaluate our

own role in order to moderate and influence interaction. The communicative model for language

learning, ‘presentation-practice-production’ may need to be replaced by one of ‘observe-hypothesise-

experiment’ (Lewis, 1993) if we are to embrace the challenges facing language teaching in this

technological age. Unless we spend time investigating foreign language use on online settings such as the

internet forum and the instant messenger, how can we ensure that our learners understand what is

appropriate?

Research in the area of distance learning can contribute significantly to our understanding of

telecollaboration in language learning. In distance learning, conversations are increasingly facilitated using

audio-visual technologies. Adults spend between 40-50% of their communication time listening (Gilman

and Moody, 1984). It is perhaps therefore surprising to find that listening and speaking are only relatively

recent additions to the second language teaching research agenda (Oxford, 1993; Bygate, 1987). A study

(Ice et al., 2007) into the use of audio feedback surveyed 312 students whose tutors had made voice

recordings as feedback on their work. They were overwhelmingly positive about tutors recording spoken

comments, with 70% of students stating that they were better able to understand the nuances of the

feedback and 51% expressing feelings of increased involvement in their course. This research reveals

many interesting findings pertaining to community building and immediacy behaviours that reveal a

learner perspective on the use of voice over the internet. One learner with experience of distance

learning felt that audio had connected her to her tutor: “you were reaching in there and touching me. I

know that’s probably kind of silly, but just your voice alone made me feel like it was a real class.”

13

‘Immediacy behaviours’, a term from psychology, refer to the responses received to interaction of any

kind. The timeliness and nature of these responses, be they verbal or non-verbal, will be interpreted by

the instigator of the interaction and can be a vital factor in the success or otherwise of the interaction.

Kessler and Plakans (2008) found that English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher confidence was lowest

when using technology to develop oral and aural (listening) skills. This is understandable given the wide

range of technical expertise necessary. Audio-visual technologies are more complex and can potentially

present the user with the need for a broad range of IT skills including understanding of codecs, file types,

browser capabilities and file management. In an article on teacher confidence Kessler and Plakans (2008)

found that an important source of support for teachers using technology was their community of practice

(CoP). Tutors sharing their experience and supporting each other impacted positively on tutor view of

the technology. Recent applications of voice-over the internet are beginning to show real advantages for

students (Polisca, 2011).

Summary

To summarise the main points arising from the literature pertaining to online interaction for language

learning, one would expect that that the most successful innovations in this area would have the following

characteristics:

The tutors would be comfortable in their use of technology, probably already having their own community of practice and PLN.

The project would be learner-centred, involving the students in the negotiation of activities and

offering a reasonable amount of learner autonomy.

The online interactive exchange would be rooted in a social framework that encourages both

formal and informal learning.

Methodology used in data collection

Whenever data are to be collected we work within certain constraints. In this instance time was a

constraint that had to be taken into account and the research plan was formulated with this in mind.

Participants were contacted via the main UK networks for higher education using the JISCMail service with a request for forwarding to relevant colleagues. An invitation to participate was posted on the

listservs for the professional networks of AULC, UCML and ALT, as well as the HE Moodle users and

VLE language user groups and the CMC Special Interest Group. The underlying assumption here was that

those who are working with computer-mediated communication were more likely to be active in

professional online networks.

All respondents received a personal email to raise awareness of a forthcoming online questionnaire,

which they were asked to complete with a two-week deadline. The link was then sent as a separate

email. The form used is available in Appendix 1.

A large-scale EU investigation, the INTENT project, had included Warwick Language Centre’s OIE as a

case study and access to the first draft of that report helped to inform the investigations for this report.

The initial questionnaire was divided into four parts:

Understanding your context – establishing the size and nature of the OIE.

Understanding the role of your OIE in the curriculum – establishing documentation and assessment.

Understanding the activities in your OIE – establishing the rationale for OIE.

Your chosen e-tools – establishing the technological choices.

The size of OIE was defined by the total number of students participating (small = <20, medium between

20-100, large >100). Details of the place of the OIE within the curriculum and the institution gave an

indication of the depth of embedding within the programme as indeed did the range of activities included.

14

Finally the e-tools chosen and the level of satisfaction with these choices helped to identify the nature of

the international interaction that was taking place. Follow-up conversations were conducted to ensure

clarity and agree the details of the case studies presented.

The nature of the questions was to elicit information from the respondents that would help to identify

those OIEs that were distinctive in order to focus upon them in the case studies. To this extent the

selection of the included case studies is a purposive sample designed to present the most interesting

models from which to learn. The questionnaire, followed up by online professional conversations (Kvale,

1996) helped to build up a clearer picture of how individuals are currently exploiting the opportunities

and facing the challenges of CMC with their students.

Case studies

The table below captures the replies elicited by the initial questionnaire:

Table 1.: Replies elicited by the initial questionnaire

Location of respondent Context Number of respondents

UK HEI language department or centre 7

Beyond UK HEI 5

Beyond UK Non institutional 1

*multiple responses from one institution are counted once only.

The following are vignettes that represent a snapshot of the range of international connections currently

underway in a variety of language learning contexts in the UK. They have been chosen to highlight how

colleagues have approached the constraints and opportunities of their particular context. The provision

of language learning in higher education in the UK takes place in specialist language departments and in

Language Centres (generally non-specialist provision); the contexts of OIE vary from the short- to

longer-term collaboration, from the product oriented (e.g. collaborative production of a translation) to

broader conversational and social exchanges. Technologies used included email, a course area of the

virtual learning environment, audio-visual web-conferencing tools and social media.

Case study 1: Durham University Centre for Foreign Language Study and Ecole des Mines,

Douai

This small-scale pilot involved just 12 students, six from each institution. All are studying Engineering and

are not language specialists. The links between the two participating courses exist at institutional level.

The aims of this OIE were:

to develop students’ cultural awareness and cross-cultural communication skills;

to provide the students with an opportunity to use the language in a real-life situation;

to develop their oral and written skills (including online communication language i.e. texto/SMS French);

to establish a link that includes a semi-professional dimension, since the students are paired up

with partners studying in the same field.

The inspiration for setting up an OIE came as a result of a presentation by Laurent Semichon at the

Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies (LLAS) conference in London in 2010. David Tual, who had

chaired the session, discussed further the approach adopted by Laurent, who also shared his materials

and task suggestions. David then found a contact with L’Ecole des Mines through Durham’s Engineering

links. Teresa Geslin was very enthusiastic about the potential link and a face-to-face staff visit helped to

consolidate the relationship. The French institution was keen to increase its international profile but

found it difficult to attract UK students on placements. It was thought that the OIE would help to

15

establish the student link and encourage UK students’ future participation in French placements. The

technologies were largely chosen by the students themselves and there was little central control of how

interactions were mediated. At the end of the pilot project a short survey was carried out and some

interviews took place. For four of the six Durham students, the outcomes were quite positive; they

reported that their language skills had developed and two students intend to keep in touch with their

partner once the course is over. One student was able to gain peer support from her partner, who had

more advanced mathematical knowledge. For another student, the exchange never really picked up (only

emails were exchanged), and for another one, interactions were quite limited. Feedback from students

includes a request for the first exchanges to take place during class time, and this will be implemented

next year.

Sessions provided by David to discuss and review the linguistic and intercultural aspects of the OIE face

to face with students proved to be interesting but problematic. Although such data is rich with

opportunities to better understand error production and reveal cultural difference, the sensitive ethical

issues of sharing transcripts of text chats to be reviewed and discussed in class would need participant

consent forms. It was felt this would be overly bureaucratic and could even prevent students from

participating.

One of the main obstacles to the success of the project for some students seems to have been the

difficulty in identifying a time at which both partners were available (Engineering students in both

institutions said they have very busy timetables and many extra-curricular activities that prevented them

from scheduling regular meeting easily). By liaising with the project co-ordinator in the partner

institution, project leaders managed to identity a time slot during which students on both sides will be

available to talk to each other in class time (most probably via Skype), which will ensure regular

exchanges take place. Logistic issues remain, however, as existing hardware does not include webcams,

so this is another area for investigation. For the coming year, participation in the OIE will be compulsory

for Durham students on the French Language for Engineers module but it will not be assessed. A similar

project is about to be initiated for some students studying German in the Centre for Foreign Language

Study.

Case study 2: Kings College London and Université du Maine

This medium-sized OIE involves specialist language students and arose from a personal connection

between the staff members concerned. Again the project was inspired by an earlier e-mail conversational

approach used at Imperial College connecting year abroad students. Development was facilitated by the

enthusiasm of a young postgraduate student at Le Mans. For both parties, the expected outcomes of the

activity include:

increased translation and collaboration skills;

increased self-confidence;

understanding of how both languages work;

the development of specific links and ties with the study partner.

Dr Solman explained that the intention was to give students in London and in Le Mans the possibility to

interact via the use of technology, either in English or French, about the translation processes of literary

passages. This work was done by pairing students over four separate sessions of an hour and half each.

The work was collaborative and aimed to promote the use of taught skills in a different and informal

context of work (un contexte de travail). She states: “It was to be very much about having students of

two different countries studying the language of the other, work together, build a collaborative

relationship and share a common goal, to share their skills and achieve something by themselves, for

themselves, using taught skills but without direct teaching input.” The exchanges made use of a variety of

technologies including an online conferencing facility (EVO: http://evo.caltech.edu/evoGate/ ), which facilitated

synchronous connections using a webcam. It was felt that these synchronous online meetings helped the

students to connect with each other and the issues that arose were the subject of staff debriefing

sessions which informed the teaching. Dr Solman was assisted by a multilingual technical team member,

Andreas Konstantinidis, who helped ensure the success of this OIE. This was a challenging enterprise and

16

the student feedback provides some interesting insights. Student participants were clearly reasonably

comfortable using technology: 56% report using social media quite extensively, 46% were excited to

participate in the project and 54% would recommend it to others. French students gave positive

feedback, stating that the course:

was motivating and different from other courses;

provided an opportunity to practice the language with a native speaker;

involved confronting interpretation of a text;

lead to realising that language is multi-faceted and hard to explain to a non-native speaker.

Negative comments related to working time lost when a partner couldn’t access the technology due to

losing a password or being late; the sort of niggles one might have about co-workers professionalism in a

face-to-face context too.

The project’s success has led to further plans to refine the model and expand activity, increasing the

cohort this coming academic year. As UK students collaborate with French students on their translation

work they also have to reflect upon the process and write a commentary. Tighter guidelines for this

activity are under preparation in order to help students better identify the translation problems they

encounter. Also a second project is currently under discussion with the Lycée Henri IV, Paris. From

2013, KCL translation students will mentor 1st year French students who are undertaking ‘asses

préparatoires’ in their creation of a literary translation. In order to work effectively together students will

need to discuss and overcome cultural differences and focus upon the real-life application of the skills

they have acquired in the classroom. Dr Solman is considering how to encourage the students to make

links between the activities and the essential work skills that they are acquiring and to ensure that they

evidence these explicitly for future employment.

Case study 3: University of Hull and EDHEC Business School, Lille

This medium-sized OIE between two institutions has been running for two years. The UK students are

on undergraduate language courses and the activity is not assessed. Students are paired and connect using

their own choice of technologies in order to communicate. The exchange arose after the UK course

leader was contacted by Susan O’Byrne at the French institution, who came up with the idea of finding eTandem partners to help address their lack of international students on campus. Susan credits Dr Peter

Daly as an inspiration, who had had a similar experience with the University of Bradford ten years

previously. After researching on the internet, it was apparent from Hull’s website that the Language

Learning Advisory Service arranged tandem learning. Hull’s Senior Language Learning Advisor, Judy

Jowers, saw this as an opportunity to provide additional language exposure for those students who

wanted it. After an initial set-up phase with students signing up using a Doodle questionnaire, the project

required very little intervention. The most common form of interaction was using e-mail, but Skype use

has also been popular, with Facebook also being used in the second year; there were precedents within

the institution for the use of VoiP for student support. The objectives are:

to provide opportunities for informal exchange, enhancing linguistic skills;

to allow for the development of greater intercultural awareness.

Built around a traditional tandem learning approach, there are clear guidelines given to students about

how to get the relationship under way (see Appendix 2). Adopting an informal approach towards how

and when to connect seems to have proven popular with participants who completed an online

questionnaire but the response rate was quite low. Feedback included the following comments:

Coincidentally, we’ve got a lot in common and have developed a friendship, thanks to tandem. I have been

conscious of speaking properly and learn as she expresses her mind to me in French as well.

My vocabulary is getting richer and grammar is improving.

A mature student found it less easy to develop this opportunity saying:

We each sent an email within two days. I sent a total of 3 but received only the first one. No further contact!

17

The future of the project is uncertain, although it is expected to continue for at least another year.

Greater direct involvement of the Hull French section could be very valuable in ensuring success. One

challenge is ensuring that those who would most benefit become aware of the scheme. Previously it was

promoted by members of staff in the French Department as well as by means of posters. A more

sustained publicity campaign could pay dividends, stressing the use of social media at the control of the

participants. Another challenge is a familiar one of timing. Certain difficulties are encountered as the

institutions’ timetables for the year are so different. Lille students hit the ground running at the beginning

of September and students are very motivated to find a tandem partner, whereas Hull students aren’t

ready to sign up to the programme until at least mid-October. French students are already winding down

in April when the Hull students are just getting into their second semester.

However, on balance, both sides report benefits. It is considered that it is important to stress the choice

of tools available to participants and the flexibility in the time and frequency of interactions as well as

regards the topics for discussion.

Case study 4: University of Warwick Language Centre and Université Blaise Pascal,

Clermont-Ferrand

This large OIE began as a pilot in 2011 as a result of the two lead tutors’ chance meeting through an e-

learning blog. The concept of a virtual exchange was elaborated and approximately 300 students from

each partner institution were brought together through a Moodle course, EWC. A physical launch event

took place on the UK side and participants were asked to browse profiles and connect with each other

using their preferred technologies. A downloadable instant messaging tool was provided. The objectives

included:

development of written and oral communication skills;

development of metacognitive skills (learning to learn);

development of a personal learning network (PLN);

tutor research into social networks/online learning environments for language learning.

As there was a research focus to this pilot, the students were given the choice as to whether they wished

to allow their activity to contribute to investigation by signing a consent form. Initially students chose

their own partners by browsing profiles shared in the Moodle course. During the second term all

students were allocated a partner in order to help them create their language learning history in the

target language. An online survey sent to both cohorts was completed by 168 students towards the end

of the year. These revealed several findings worthy of note. Firstly, that the students were already using a

range of technologies to connect with friends and to support their language learning and were clearly

comfortable with their use:

Student comfort levels with technology

18

Tools of choice included instant messaging and social networking tools, with email providing a familiar

and reliable tool for 65% of respondents.

Student means of communication

They felt, furthermore, that their endeavours in language acquisition were important should they spend

time abroad (58%) and that they should be accredited (66%).

Student opinions on accreditation and the value of speaking foreign languages when living abroad

Students were encouraged to take their connections beyond the confines of the VLE and they connected

through Twitter (#warcler, #clerwar), YouTube, a student-created Facebook page and Last.fm. Some

challenged each other to games of Angry Birds, finding social spaces to continue their communication. A

group of Graphic Design students in France took part in a competition to create a logo for the research

project, Clavier.

19

Clavier logo created by Graphic Design students in France

The activity was not assessed, but those students who were completing a reflective e-portfolio for credit

(100 post A-level students) were able to use their experiences as evidence of their autonomous learning.

Student online activities in foreign languages

20

E-portfolio extract

Two staff visits were made by Simon Ensor (French co-ordinator) to Warwick during the year to discuss

the project and, thanks to Erasmus funding, two members of Warwick staff were able to make a return

visit on a teacher exchange in June meeting with the French tutors, presenting the project and connecting

with a wider teaching body. This resulted in the development of a set of tasks to be embedded in lesson

planning for the academic year 2012-13. The project was reviewed and evaluated to be a successful

model to be further refined and developed through an agreement at institutional level. An exciting recent

development also sees elements of this activity to be extended to a global audience through the

aggregation of some public content. Interested partners include Polish and Indian teacher trainers.

Further portal developments will increase the potential for video and photo sharing. The project is

showcased as a case study in the INTENT project report.

Case study 5: University of Manchester, University of Macerata and the Language Centre at

the University of Cagliari

This medium-sized OIE for language specialists grew from personal contact between lecturers into a

formalised exchange, and is documented and assessed through a reflective e-portfolio. The OIE dates

back to 2007 and the idea has spread within the institution. Other language disciplines have embarked on

similar projects with similar objectives as a result of this innovation. Elena Polisca, the lead for the UK

side of the exchange, had always been interested in intercultural exchange and was also comfortable with

e-learning technologies. For her it seemed clearly advantageous to combine the two in order to facilitate

relationships between her students and native speakers. However, finding an Italian partner institution

was not easy. By chance she came across a tutor in Cagliari who was willing to make a connection and

over time they developed a contract in order to arrive at a shared understanding and transparency to

ensure the success of the project. Her colleagues teaching Japanese, German and French also explored

this area with varying levels of success.

A detailed list of objectives was supplied. It is felt that the activity helps students to develop:

an awareness of, and responsiveness to, the nature and extent of cultural diversity;

increased competence in the oral and aural skills in the TL;

an increased awareness of intercultural diversity;

an increased understanding of the culture of the TL country;

the possibility to speak with a native speaker regularly;

the ability to undertake independent learning and reflect on one’s achievements;

the ability to manage time and work to deadlines;

the ability to participate in pair and team work;

21

the ability to assess the relevance and importance of the ideas of others;

the ability to present information, ideas and arguments orally with due regard to the target audience.

This clarity of purpose no doubt helped the optional module, called Additional Language, to get

institutional support. It is now credit bearing and available to both 2nd year and final year students at a

level suitable for their language level. A second exchange followed though the relocation of a former

colleague and this enabled larger participant involvement. Elena acknowledges that the greatest workload

comes during the early stages of the exchange but feels that once in place, the course is no more

demanding than any other module for the staff. Students of joint degrees are also able to take advantage

of the module, increasing their intercultural awareness. There is no doubt that participation prior to the

final year abroad for language students contributes to their preparation for this demanding enterprise.

Students on the module have to complete eight tasks on a range of themes with their partners, each

designed to encourage their curiosity into aspects of cultural identity. They are supplied with a booklet of

18 tasks and can also submit their own suggestions. A recent student suggestion to investigate young

people’s language produced some interesting work and has been incorporated into the set list for future

students. The most common feedback is that students loved the course, loved interacting with a native

speaker, and found that both their language skills and cultural awareness of the target country improved.

Negative feedback, which is very limited, includes some students questioning partnerships when these did

not work out, a request for a larger number of tasks to choose from for portfolio work, and increased

guidance from a small minority of students.

The project is showcased as a case study in the INTENT project report.

Summary of learning activities

Table 2.: The range of tasks reported for each OIE

Range of activities Durham Hull Manchester KCL Warwick

Communicate online with an allocated partner y y y y y

Complete a collaborative task/tasks with a partner y y y

Produce a product/products (report/translation/diary

entry) as a result of communicating with partner y y y y

Choose their own partner y y

Correct partner’s language y y y y

Negotiate and agree a task to complete with their

partner y y

Complete communication with foreign partner

within a given time frame y

Reflect upon and review their interactions with

peers and tutor y y

Formulate and apply strategies to improve their

interactions y y y

Negotiate and agree on which e-tools to use for

communication with partner y y y

Negotiate and agree on timing of interactions with

partner y y y

Make their reflections about the process explicit

through writing or preparing a presentation y y

Other

22

Wider perspectives from abroad

In the course of collecting data, insights have been offered from institutions beyond the UK that are

worth considering. David Richardson, from Linnaeus University Sweden, describes their small OIE as

integral to student courses. The students participate in online interaction with a wide range of other

institutions in order to complete joint projects which are assessed. A wide range of partners joined the

University of Utrecht in the NIFLAR project (2009-2011), Networked Interaction in Foreign Language

Acquisition and Research, founded by the European Commission (2009-2011). The aims included making

foreign language education more authentic, relevant and rewarding through the use of innovative e-

learning environments: online video communication and 3D virtual worlds. Intercultural communication is

a central issue within the project. These northern-European activities made use of a wider network of

technologies including social networks such as Twitter and Facebook (rarely used in the UK examples)

and simulations such as Second Life.

Emergent themes to inform OIE activity

In the process of collecting and discussing experiences with the practitioners actively involved in OIE

from the case study group and beyond, it becomes clear that there are lessons we can learn for future

development. Their challenges can be set against four key themes which may impact on each other and

certainly need to be considered as part of the planning and execution of an Online Intercultural Exchange:

Engagement;

Synchronicity;

Assessment;

Embedding.

Engagement

One cannot assume, no matter how well planned an intervention, that participants will share an

enthusiasm to get involved. The ‘school disco phenomenon’ was described to me by a student on the

Warwick virtual exchange, where participants lurk and hesitate to make the first move, despite an

awareness of the potential benefits. Tutors have to support these early days by facilitating opportunities

to get to know partners, using launch events, showcasing stimulating encounters and presenting

challenging tasks. Staff themselves also need to find their personal role in order to experience a degree of

ownership of the OIE; otherwise the initiators can find themselves left to carry the project.

Synchronicity

Timing of the project can be crucial to success. Not all events need to be synchronous but there are

crucial moments such as the initial stages that need to be coordinated in order to avoid a lack of

immediacy in responses and consequent disappointment. An understanding of such routine events as

assessment, reading weeks and term times for the participants should be included in the timing of key

collaborative moments. A lack of planning in this respect can lead to a reduction in engagement. Asynchronous activity (such as forum postings) can be successful but the user expectations need to be

managed as the timeframe for response may vary and be dependent on many external factors.

Assessment

Lack of assessment or reward for engagement can significantly reduce participation as students are very

strategic in the use of their time. Even those who are most enthusiastic about the intrinsic rewards of

participation, when faced with choices of how they use the time available, will prioritise on the basis of

potential credit. Including a framework for assessment in the OIE sends a clear signal that the activity is

valued but also creates challenges for assessment design that would benefit from wider collaborative

work. Practitioners generally agreed that the activity offers the development of core skills for

employability in a global workplace but reported difficulty in supporting their students’ ability to

recognise these skills and make them explicit.

23

Embedding

Despite widespread acknowledgement of the value of the activity and at a time when internationalisation

and employability are so important to the higher education agenda, it is difficult to comprehend why so

many practitioners had problems gaining institutional support for their innovative grass roots OIE.

Allocation of timing and funding were problematic, support from likely areas such as international offices

and careers departments were patchy. Staff turnover and illness also resulted in threats to continuing

delivery. There is clearly a need to join up institutional activity and embed the practice within the student

opportunities offered so that the greatest impact can be achieved.

Evaluating the risk and reward of OIE

It is clear that all of the case studies presented here have achieved a measure of success in their own

contexts, students have engaged with them and on the whole they have given positive feedback. By and

large the activities have observed to some extent the three points extracted from the earlier literature

review, that is:

the practitioners were IT literate and had a network of colleagues with whom they were working;

the projects were learner-centred and encouraged student input;

most projects included a social framework for learning.

So did those concerned feel that their efforts were worthwhile? According to the objectives expressed in

the case studies those engaging in an OIE believe this activity contributes to their desired course

outcomes and also supports a wide range of higher education agenda as illustrated below. These

sometimes overlap, but clearly together present a range of important skills:

Employability: the possibility to speak with a native speaker regularly; increased competence in

the oral and aural skills in the TL; the establishment of a link that includes a semi-professional

dimension.

Intercultural awareness: to allow for the development of greater intercultural awareness; to develop students’ cultural awareness and cross-cultural communication skills, to increase

understanding of the culture of the TL country.

Internationalisation: to develop their oral and written skills (including online communication

language i.e. texto/SMS French); to develop students’ cultural awareness and cross-cultural

communication skills.

Widening participation: the ability to manage time and work to deadlines; the ability to

participate in pair and team work; the ability to undertake independent learning and reflect on

one’s achievements; an increase in self-confidence.

This is further supported by the generally positive feedback from students engaged in the OIE: broadly

they believe that it is a worthwhile activity. It is clear from the reading that mounting such projects is a

complex undertaking requiring a good deal of time and effort. In her article Melinda Dooly (2008) offers

practical advice for those undertaking a collaborative language exchange, highlighting the importance of

good project management to ensure that the needs of all stakeholders are met. She is clearly convinced

of the benefits of network-based learning, yet approaches the challenges giving a series of clear points to

consider that could be summarised thus:

start small and ‘local’: in order to get underway it is necessary to offer hands-on support in class

time;

develop through reflection, discussion and empirical enquiry: collect feedback, be prepared to

change.

User unfamiliarity with technology adds a further layer of complexity to the enterprise, and it is vital that

contributors from a range of backgrounds (central IT services, language specialists, learning technologists)

24

have to come together to work effectively as a team in order to reduce the possible barriers to success.

Liaising with technical specialists in countries that may have different preferred software and hardware

infrastructures is a further challenge; it is rare to have access to a multilingual learning technologist in the

UK. Often it is the volition of the students to communicate that drives success: they will overcome

barriers if given the flexibility to adopt technologies they understand.

Beyond the technical challenges, experiencing communication failure can be reframed as part of the

journey to successful interaction online (O’Dowd, 2006). He proposes that in taking a more

discriminating perspective informed by the reading available (e.g. Kern et al., 2004; Kramsch et al., 2000;

Warschauer, 2000), it is possible to analyse the aspects influencing communication in order to arrive at a

greater intercultural awareness and better understand the dynamic nature of online communication. A

recurring theme in the literature of online interaction is that of authenticity. This is not the ‘authenticity’

well known to practitioners of communicative language teaching, which is essentially an artificial

reconstruction of tasks designed to appear authentic in order to elicit the use of certain linguistic

features. This is rather the presentation of a clear, coherent online presence through which your

audience is able to identify your authentic self. The skills required to present an authentic professional

identity online will doubtless become increasingly important as part of the graduate student’s portfolio of

skills in an overcrowded job market.

Critical evaluation of the OIE in UK HEIs

According to O’Dowd (Helm et. al., 2012) telecollaboration in UK higher education institutions “has

received little support … whilst primary and secondary school teachers interested in running OIE

projects have been supported by major networks and virtual platforms”. Yet, despite this lack of

direction it is clear from our case studies that many language specialists are sufficiently convinced of the

relative value of such activities that they dedicate time and effort to their implementation. Students also

report positive impact from engagement in OIEs. However, the developments initiated are generally small

scale and are barely visible to those who are not actively involved therein. Of the six case studies

showcased here none had official dissemination resources at an institutional level. Many had internal

documentation visible to students and shared with partner institutions, some even had formal partnership

agreements to support their exchange (Manchester and Warwick), but these were still local to the

department rather than incorporated within an institutional register of partners. The connections that

fostered the partnerships had arisen from staff links rather than from any institutionally forged

relationships. This leaves the arrangements rather exposed to staff changes, which could result in a loss

of an activity core to the learning experience of students. Activities were sometimes disseminated within

professional networks through papers and conferences, but as there are many different networks

according to the nature of the language activity (applied linguistics, business, CALL, etc.), the net impact

upon the sector is limited. In one case the student feedback that could have helped to progress higher

level visibility of the OIE at an institutional level was no longer collected as the institution only allows

central collection of data from students and this does not include surveying on specific activities within

courses. Clearly these contexts present a threat to the viability and embedding of telecollaboration.

Institutional support and recognition in the UK that OIEs contribute to the internationalisation agenda at

a ‘grass roots’ level are vital to increasing the impact they can have on producing graduates who have the

skills to work effectively in a global economy .

When asked about the e-tools chosen to facilitate the OIEs, all those involved in the case studies here

reported that they were more or less satisfied with the tools chosen. The tools ranged from email, the

tool of choice for tandem learning for some time now, to more ambitious web-conferencing tools.

However, these presented problems of synchronicity, which most navigated by dedicating lesson time

and prearranged slots to their use. This, of course, limits the immediacy of the interaction. In some

situations allowing students time to plan is a useful strategy, allowing opportunity to draft and redraft

work prior to offering it to a native speaker. However, for most young people these days online

interaction is immediate and inaccuracy is tolerated as part of the more interesting impetus of conveying

a message and getting immediate feedback. The use of an instant messaging tool (Warwick used

25

Blackboard Collaborate IM) allowed a closer recreation of this authentic experience and led to the

forging of partnerships that could then grow through a variety of means for connection.

University of Warwick Blackboard Collaborate IM

Beavan (2000) points out that by imposing technology that is inconsistent with what is being used beyond

the classroom we create barriers, so by insisting on technologies that are limited to certain spaces and

times we may “encourage if anything a non-autonomous approach to learning” (p. 170). There can be no

doubt that technology use is now so ubiquitous in the lives of our students that we risk alienating their

interest by insisting upon the use of unfamiliar ways of mediating collaboration. When speaking of the use

of multimedia Beavan concluded that technology use should not only “meet stakeholders’ needs, but

ideally … surpass their expectations” (2000, p. 177), and this holds true for all technology use with a

generation of young people who have never known a computer-free world. When comparing responses

from UK HEIs with those provided by other European universities, it was clear that interactions were

being encouraged that went beyond what was facilitated in the UK. There was more widespread use of

virtual worlds such as Second Life. These environments are immersive and, although more complicated

to master for a new user, they offer a rich array of simulated environments, which could contribute to

the interaction. Monash University in Australia has developed its own Chinese village in Second Life;

26

existing spaces such as the virtual reconstruction of Paris in the 1930s and the beach village of Arcachon

could provide attractive social spaces for those wishing to capitalise on their affordances.

The provision of shared social spaces had not been considered by most of our case studies, although it

was reported that students were encouraged to extend their working relationships by using their

preferred social networks online if they wished to do so. The role of informal learning (Krashen, 1997) in

supporting the acquisition of language skills is beginning to receive serious consideration with the growing

importance of social media. Learners are more likely to take opportunities to engage in informal language

learning opportunities if their self-confidence and motivation are high and the tutor may be instrumental

in minimising risk in order to facilitate engagement. Ushioda (2011) proposes that encouraging students

to “speak as themselves” supports motivation and learning.

Within the UK, it was reported that IT support staff were rarely aware of the suitability of provided

technology to cope with the challenges of international collaboration. Clearly there is a need for

technology that supports all languages without installation of additional language packs, and it is desirable

to avoid file systems that cannot deliver files named using accented characters or foreign scripts over the

web. Such monolingual, Anglo-centric systems militate against effective and rewarding intercultural

experiences, leaving tutors battling with issues that complicate and frustrate the achievement of their

aims and students having to search for suitable ways to overcome technical challenges. It is unsurprising

therefore that some become discouraged. A good deal of CALL activity, led by Graham Davies, recently

deceased, has been dedicated to increasing understanding of some of these issues (http://www.ict4lt.org/),

and yet often this does not reach the wider IT support audience. No doubt with the embedding of a

more international approach in the world of technical development through key technology companies

such as Google, this cultural hegemony will become a thing of the past over time.

The promise captured in these case studies is that student-centred projects that allow for ownership of

both the tasks and the technology can help to deliver a more flexible, engaging curriculum and greater

autonomy for the learner. The projects embed a form of consciousness raising that allows learners to

create their own learning experiences, reflect upon them and make their learning explicit. Their

intercultural experiences can be shared with peers and tutors (Belz, 2003; Claro, 2006). This in turn

provides potential transferable skills improvement (Hurd, 2000) that can contribute to placement

preparation and is starting to be considered by some as a way to help pave the way to the year abroad

experience.

However, if such activities are to be taken seriously by students and staff alike we need to address how

to assess and accredit them for “what is not tested is not taught” (Byram, 2008, p. 219). Of the case

studies presented here most did not accredit the OIE at least on the UK side of the activity. Assessment presents many challenges (O’Dowd, 2006) that will need to be addressed in order to establish the OIE as

a valued activity contributing to the development of plurilingual intercultural operators. Product-based

assessment such as the marking of a final essay based on the international collaborative work tends to

employ the same criteria as more traditional forms of language output evaluation; more innovative

assessment models take the form of e-portfolios where assessment criteria are starting to emerge. These

could contribute to the development of a formal acceptance of the value of digital literacies and a better

understanding of professional online identity management.

In conclusion, there are many positive signs that the time is right to progress confidently with

implementing OIEs in UK higher education provision, but we need to push further than we have so far

managed to do. Listed below are some points to consider in order to capitalise on the potential they

bring to both learner and the tutor.

The partnership choices made by language specialists should actively reach further to involve developing countries where the target language may be spoken and where interaction could

bring important social and cultural exchange for all parties.

The dissemination of existing robust international technologies is required to reduce barriers to

international collaboration and capitalise on their potential for skills development.

27

The elaboration of new assessment approaches that acknowledge the significance of effective

online communication must be supported.

The acknowledgement of the time and effort involved in creating and embedding successful

partnerships needs to be accounted for in workload models.

A community of practice for language educators should be established in order to support

growing confidence during a period of rapid evolution.

The contribution made by OIEs to the delivery of a truly internationalised university experience

should be recognised within institutional policies and practices.

Bibliography

Arnold, J. (ed.) (1999) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beavan, C. (2000) Icons or iconoclasm? The case for multimedia technologies in language learning. In: Fay,

M. and Ferney, D. (eds.) Current trends in Modern Languages Provision for Non-Specialist Linguists.

London: CILT.

Belz, J. (2003) Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in

telecollaboration. Language learning and technology. 7 (2), 68-99.

Benson, P. and Voller, P. (eds.) (1997) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.

Bishop, G. (2006) True independent learning – an andragogical approach: giving control to the learner

over choice of material and design of the study session. Language Learning Journal. 33 (1), 40-46.

Blake, R.J. (2008) Brave new digital classroom. Technology and Foreign Language Learning. Washington: GUP.

Bygate, M. (1987) Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Byram, M. (2008) From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship. Essays and

reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Canfield, J. and Wells, H.C. (1994) One Hundred Ways to Enhance Self-Concept in the Classroom. Boston,

MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Chapelle, C. (1998) Multimedia CALL: lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language

Learning and Technology. 2 (I), 22-34.

Claro, J. (2006) Online Intercultural Sister Classes. In: Bradford-Watts, K. (ed.) JALT2006 Conference

Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

Conole, G. and Oliver, M. (eds.) (2007) Contemporary Perspectives in E-learning Research. Oxon: Routledge.

Crystal, D. (2001) Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dale, J. (2010) the #mfltwitterati. Available from:

http://joedale.typepad.com/integrating_ict_into_the_/2010/04/mustering-the-mfl-twitterati.html [29 June 2012].

Dewey, J. (1897) My Pedagogic Creed. School Journal. 54 (January 1897), 77-80.

Dooly, M. (2008) Understanding the many steps for effective collaborative language projects. The

Language Learning Journal. 36 (1), 65-78. Available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571730801988405 [7 June 2013].

Dörnyei, Z. and Schmidt, R. (eds.) (2001) Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu: SLT&CC.

Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, M., et al. (2002) Making better

connections: Models of teacher professional development for the integration of information and

28

communication technology into classroom practice. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education,

Science and Training.

Downing, K., Lam, T., Kwong, T., Downing, W. and Chan, S. (2007) Creating interaction in online

learning: a case study. ALT-J. 15 (3), 201-215.

Duffy, T. M. and Cunningham, D. J. (1996) Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of

instruction. In: Jonassen, D.H. (ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and

Technology. New York: Macmillan.

Eurostat (2010) Internet usage in 2010 dataset. Available from:

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_pibi_ioa&lang=en [7 June 2013]

Field, J. (2008) Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, L., Evans, M. and Esch, E. (2004) Computer-Mediated Communication: promoting learner

autonomy and intercultural understanding at secondary level. Language Learning Journal. 30 (1), 50-

58.

Foley, B. E. (1994) The development of literacy in individuals with severe congenital speech and motor

impairments. In: Butler, K.G. (ed.) Severe communication disorders: Intervention

strategies. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen, 183-199.

Gilman, R. and Moody, R. L. M. (1984) What practitioners say about Listening: Research implications for

the classroom. Foreign Language Annals. 17 (4) 331-334.

Hargreaves, D. (2004) Transforming teaching and learning through ICT. Paper presented at the Education.au

conference, Sydney, Australia.

Helm, F., Guth, S. and O’Dowd, R. (2012) University language classes collaborating online. Available from:

http://intent-project.eu/sites/default/files/Telecollaboration_report_Final_Oct2012.pdf [7 June

2013].

Heron, J. (1989) The facilitator’s handbook. London: Kogan Page.

Heyde, A. (1979) The relationship between self-esteem and the oral production of a second language.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

Hudson, R. (1981) 83 things linguists can agree about. Journal of Linguistics. 17, 179.

Hurd, S. (2000) Helping learners to help themselves: The role of metacognitive skills and strategies in

independent language learning. In: Fay, M. and Ferney, D. (eds.) Current trends in Modern Languages

Provision for Non-Specialist Linguists. London: CILT.

Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P. and Wells, J. (2007) Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching

presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Available

from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.137.2582&rep=rep1&type=pdf [7 June 2013]

James, R. (1996) CALL and the speaking skill. System. 24 (1), 15-21.

Kern, R., Ware, P. and Warschauer, M. (2004) Crossing Frontiers: New directions in on-line pedagogy

and research. Annual review of Applied Linguistics. 24, 243-260.

Kessler, G. and Plakans, L. (2008) Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated

use? Computer Assisted Language Learning. 21 (3), 269-282.

Klapper, J. (2006) Understanding and developing good practice. Language teaching in Higher Education. London:

CILT.

Knowles, M. (1980) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL:

Follett.

29

Kramsch, C., A’Ness, F. and Lam, W.S.E. (2000) Authenticity and authorship in the computer-mediated

acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning & Technology. 4 (2), 78-104.

Krashen, S. (1976) Formal and Informal Linguistic Environments in Language Acquisition and Language

Learning. TESOL Quarterly. 10 (2), 157-168. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3585637 [14 July 2012].

Krashen, S. (1981) Second language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1985) The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1997) The comprehension hypothesis: Recent evidence. English Teachers’ Journal (Israel). 51,

17-29.

Krashen, S. (2002) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

(Internet edition.)

Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983) The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Kvale, S. (1996) InterViews. California: Sage.

Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Langer, J.A. (1991) Literacy and schooling: A sociocognitive perspective. In: Hiebert, E.H. (ed.) Literacy for

a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies. New York: Teachers College Press, 9-27.

Lewis, M. (1993) The Lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove: Language Teaching

Publications.

Lewis, M. (2002) Implementing the lexical approach: putting theory into practice. Boston, MA: Heinle.

Levy, M. (1997) Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Long, M. (1981) Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of

Sciences. 379, 259-278.

Macaro, E. (2003) Teaching and Learning a Second Language. London: Continuum.

McPherson, P. and Murray, D. (eds.) (2003) Communicating on the Net. Sydney: Macquarie.

Mentor, D. (2011) Supporting students’ connectedness via texting. EDUCAUSE review online. Available

from:

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/Supporti

ngStudentsConnectednes/225851 [July 2012].

Mohan, B. (1992) Models of the role of the computer in second language development. In: Pennington,

M.C. and Stevens, V. (eds.) Computers in Applied Linguistics. Avon: Multilingual Matters, 110-126.

Murray, L. and Barnes, A. (1998) Beyond the wow factor – evaluating multimedia language learning

software from a pedagogical viewpoint. System. 26 (2), 249-259.

Neilson Research (2011) State of the Media: Mobile media report Q3 2011.

Available from: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports-downloads/2011/state-of-the-media--

mobile-media-report-q3-2011.html [July 2012].

Nunan, D. (1988) The Learner-Centred Curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1996) The self-directed teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30

Nussbaum-Beach, S. (2011) The connected educator: Learning and leading in a digital age. Bloomington, IN:

Solution Tree press. Available from http://www.worldcat.org/title/connected-educator-learning-

and-leading-in-a-digital-age/oclc/754186770

Nussbaum-Beach, S. and Ritter Hall, L. (2012) The connected educator: learning and leading in a digital age.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Oatley, K. and Jenkins, J. (1996) Understanding emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Dowd, R. (2006) Understanding and working with “failed communication” in telecollaborative

exchanges. CALICO Journal. 23 (3).

O’Dowd, R. (2010) Issues in the assessment of online interaction and exchange. In: Guth, S. and Helm, F.

(eds.) Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st Century. Bern:

Lang.

Oxford, R. (1993) Research update on L2 listening. System. 21 (2), 205-211.

Oxford, R. (1994) Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern

Language Journal. 78 (1), 12-28.

Pachler, N. (2003) Foreign Language teaching as an evidence-based profession? Language Learning Journal.

27 (1), 1-14.

Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct. London: Penguin.

Piper, A. (1986) Conversation and the computer: A study of the conversational spin-off generated among

learners of English as a foreign language working in groups. System. 14 (2), 187-198.

Polisca, E. (2011) Language learning and the raising of cultural awareness through internet telephony: a

case study. The Language Learning Journal. 39 (3), 329-343.

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon. 9 (5), 1-6.

Prensky, M. (2009) H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate. 5 (3). Available from: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705 [14

July 2012].

Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Rüschoff, B. and Ritter, M. (2001) Technology-Enhanced Language Learning: Construction of knowledge

and template-based learning in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language

Learning. 14 (3), 219-232.

Ryan, S., Scott, B., Freeman, H. and Patel, D. (2000) The Virtual University: The Internet and Resource-Based

Learning. London: Kogan Page.

Salmon, G. (2000) E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Salmon, G. (2002) E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning. London: Kogan Page.

Schwarzer, D. (2009) Best Practices for Teaching the “Whole” Adult ESL Learner. New Directions for Adult

and Continuing Education. 121, 25-33. Available from:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ace.322/abstract [7 June 2013].

Seybert, H. and Loof, A. (2010) Internet usage in 2010 – Households and individuals. Eurostat. Available

from:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=

KS-QA-10-050 [7 June 2013].

Skehan, P. (1989) Individual Differences in Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.

31

Stevick, E. W. (1996) Memory, meaning and method: a view of language teaching. (2nd edition) Florence:

Heinle & Heinle.

Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible

output in its development. In: Gass, S. M. and Madden, C.G. (eds.) Input in Second Language

Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Tumposky, N. (1982) The learner on his own. In: Geddes, M. and Sturtridge, G. (eds.) Individualisation.

London: Modern English Publications, 4-7.

Ushioda, E. (2011) Motivating Learners to speak as themselves. In: Murray, G., Gao, X. and Lamb, T.

(eds.) Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Vandergrift, L. (2003) Orchestrated strategy use: Towards a model of the skilled second language learner.

Language Learning. 53 (3), 463-496.

Vandergrift, L. (2008). Learning strategies for listening comprehension. In Hurd, S and Lewis, T. (eds.)

Language Learning in Independent Settings. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Warschauer, M. (2000) On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In:

Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds.) Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41-58.

Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds.) (2000) Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2000) Communities of Practice and social learning systems. Organization. 7 (2), 225-246.

Widdowsen, H. G. (1998) Context, community and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly, 705–716.

Willis, J. (1996) A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.

Wright, T. (1987) Roles of Teachers and Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

32

Appendix 1

33

34

35

36

Appendix 2

LILLE-HULL eTandem Learning: GUIDELINES

First message

As soon as you can, write a message by e-mail (or Skype) introducing yourself:

Write something about yourself, what you do, where you live, etc.

Mention what you are hoping to gain from your eTandem partnership and how much time you

can and want to invest (once a week, more often, less often ...).

Important

Write at least half of every message in your native language!

Your eTandem partner learns from this - and you learn from what he writes in his language.

This way your exchanges will be even more fun: in your native language you can both express

more interesting topics in a more complex way, thereby keeping your correspondence at a

higher level.

If your partner doesn't answer...

... then be patient but if there’s no reply after week send another message to check all is well.

Remember

Tandem is reciprocal; both partners must contribute to benefit equally. This does not mean you must be

at the same level of proficiency as your partner. Try to see your partner as a natural resource of the

language you are learning.

It is an excellent opportunity to not only improve your language skills but also to find out more about the

culture of your partner’s country. There is a wide range of topics you could cover, e.g.

1 Getting to know your partner

2 Accommodation

3 Describing a national game, such as cricket or boules

4 Examining online newspaper articles on a particular topic – one in French and one in English

5 Stereotypes and cultural differences

6 Television

7 Films / music

8 Sport(s)

9 Moral and ethical issues

10 University Education etc.

11 Politics

12 Current affairs

13 Job searching / internships

37

Corrections?

You’ll need to agree what sort of corrections you wish to give and receive. One of the benefits of on-line

tandem is that it is easier to see mistakes as an opportunity to learn, rather than something to be

avoided at all costs because they will lower marks. There is no official assessment in e-tandem learning.

On some occasions you may, for example, ask your partner to provide alternative vocabulary and ignore

any grammar mistakes or to only correct any verbs with mistakes. Whatever you decide, both partners

must be happy with the approach.

If problems arise...

If your partner does not reply at all or if there is total incompatibility in the partnership, you should

contact the organisers and we will try to find you a new partner. If you have any other difficulties, do not

hesitate to email the programme organisers:

Lille: Susan O’Byrne [susan.obyrne@edhec.edu]

Hull: Judy Jowers [j.m.jowers@hull.ac.uk]

38

Contact us

The Higher Education Academy

Innovation Way

York Science Park

Heslington

York

YO10 5BR

+44 (0)1904 717500

enquiries@heacademy.ac.uk

ISBN: 978-1-907207-78-5

© The Higher Education Academy, 2013

The Higher Education Academy (HEA) is a national body for

learning and teaching in higher education. We work with

universities and other higher education providers to bring

about change in learning and teaching. We do this to improve

the experience that students have while they are studying,

and to support and develop those who teach them. Our

activities focus on rewarding and recognising excellence in

teaching, bringing together people and resources to research

and share best practice, and by helping to influence, shape

and implement policy - locally, nationally, and internationally.

The HEA supports staff in higher education throughout

their careers, from those who are new to teaching through

to senior management. We offer services at a generic

learning and teaching level as well as in 28 different

disciplines. Through our partnership managers we work

directly with HE providers to understand individual

circumstances and priorities, and bring together resources to

meet them. The HEA has knowledge, experience and

expertise in higher education. Our service and product range

is broader than any other competitor.

www.heacademy.ac.uk | www.twitter.com/heacademy

The views expressed in this publication are those of the

author and not necessarily those of the Higher Education

Academy. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or

mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any storage

and retrieval system without the written permission of the

Editor. Such permission will normally be granted for

educational purposes provided that due acknowledgement is

given.

To request copies of this report in large print or in a

different format, please contact the communications office

at the Higher Education Academy: 01904 717500 or

pressoffice@heacademy.ac.uk