Telecollaboration projects and FL teacher education

Mueller-Hartmann, A. (2006) Learning How to Teach Intercultural Communicative Competence via Telecollaboration: a Model for Language Teacher Education. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (eds.), Internet-Mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education (pp. 63-83). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Internet-based telecollaborative exchanges are not only an effective means towards the development of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) but also toward that of critical media literacy. If conducted from a perspective of critical use of Internet-based technology as well as within an experiential and reflective practice approach to learning, telecollaboration can be an invaluable tool for FL teacher education. Seen and practiced as a means of experiential learning and model teaching in foreign language education (FLE), international telecollaborative projects can expand student-teachers knowledge base of Internet-mediated FLE and particularly of ICC and critical media literacy. In this paper, Mueller-Hartman reports on a study of 2-5 years of assignment portfolios of graduate EFL student-teachers in Germany involved in telecollaborative projects with fellow students in the US. His goal is to track students’ ICC and media literacy development and extract best practices for Internet-mediated FLE.

Pedagogically, Mueller-Hartman works from a reflective practice model of learning emphasizing experiential and reflective learning as key complements to reading and discussions of scholarly work, and integrating such activities into the design of telecollaborative projects. He also argues for the power of model teaching for teacher education and emphasizes the multiple roles of the teacher in Internet-based FL teaching as instructor, social facilitator, manager of schedules, time-frames, and institutional constraints, and technical expert. Along with Byram (1997), he sees ICC as “one of the mainstays of language learning” (66) and composed of affective and cognitive aspects, interactional and interpretive skills, and critical cultural awareness.

From this perspective Mueller-Hartman studies the interactions and reflections by the German and American partners to a telecollaborative project for signs of change in attitudes (or of some kind of “descentering” from one’s own position and views through a process of re-socialization into the other culture), in knowledge about groups, there practices, products and processes of interaction; in interactional skills built by way of interpreting and relating the other culture’s artifacts and events to one’s own; and critical cultural awareness.

The participants to Mueller-Hartmann’s study belong to two classes of pre and in-service graduate FL teachers in Germany partnering with another two classes of graduate and undergraduate student-teachers in the US, with one of the pairs of classes (the one including only graduate students, called the B-level partnership) having to observe the work of the other pair (the A-level partnership, including only undergraduate students on the US side) as part of their telecollaborative tasks and exchanges. In the design of the telecollaborative exchange, the A-level partnership was expected to be a laboratory for the construction of B-level partners’ knowledge base of ICC, critical media literacy, and general Internet-mediated foreign language education (FLE). The project design involved a reflective phase after the collaboration, which was guided through specific and engaging tasks (like the drawing of a ‘mind-map’ of students’ view of all the aspects of the collaboration and scrutinizing one particularly striking aspect of it through “the magnifying glass” approach; and the making and later reviewing of “do’s and don’ts” lists as to teaching through telecollaboration projects); and the building of student portfolios which were then used for analysis.

Analysis according to Byram’s ICC categories of attitudes, knowledge, interactional skills showed evidence of ‘decentering’ experiences in student-teachers understanding of their partners and themselves, expansion of cultural knowledge as well as of different telecommunication and interactional conventions. Their interactional skills were also challenged and expanded through this project. All German students experienced the difficulty of explaining ideas and concepts which are not shared by the other culture, and B-level group’s opportunity to observe another group’s telecollaborative interactions made them aware of the potential and value of conflict in telecollaboration as well as the mediator role of teachers in it. The importance of interpretation as the ability to “look below the surface to get to hidden meanings” was also made apparent in these observations. Finally, student-teachers generally also became aware of the importance of media competence in order to guide other people’s Internet-mediated learning processes. This gave them able to reconsider and widen their pre-course expectations for international telecollaboration in teacher training beyond language proficiency improvement. The study’s participants are seen as reporting to feel better prepared for teaching in general and as having expanded their knowledge base of ICC, critical media skills and Internet-based FLE.

The general point of how a reflective practice oriented and well-designed teacher training course based on international telecollaboration can contribute to knowledge base expansion and teacher preparedness is welcome. Furthermore, the idea of having learners practice a particular way of learning while observing other learners do the same and reflecting on this, clearly duplicates the opportunities for “descentering”. It seems an effect worthwhile considering in the design of almost any learning exercise! In terms of the drawbacks of this study, the pathways to discovery of people’s different practices, products and processes of interaction with ‘others’ as well as the pathways to ‘self-discentering’ being so important for IC development, I wonder why the study was not design to obtain at least some information on the experiences of the US students. A contrast of these views and the areas of potential conflict these might have highlighted may have been valuable for student-teachers learning from this study. Finally, even though we learn that some of the conditions for a telecollaborative FL learning project to be successful are for it to be task-based, experiential and reflective the report on this success story does not give us a window into more details of the teaching process: how is conflict dealt with and turned into teaching/learning moments?; what are some difficulties of text search and selection for telecollaborative projects; of project or task design and the drafting of instruction?

Suspending or being willing to constantly revise one own's beliefs?

Hi all!
I've very much enjoyed this week’s readings and in general all I've been learning lately in the area of literacy-based language education. The review of communicative competence as having been somehow, at some point, wrongly separated from reflective and interpretive practice (Kern, 2000, Thorne's chap 1. in the edited volume by Belz and Thorne) is very enlightening to me. (If you have a chance I recommend reading Kern's intro to this argument with a two-page comparison of two French as a FL classes on the same topic. To me it explained many of my frustrations as a FL learner). Of course, as experience with the Cultura project shows, the focus on "culture, identity, behavior and meaning" (Belz and Thorne, x), and particularly on the awareness and analysis of our own complex selves through interaction with others and understanding is easier preached than actually done successfully. It requires from language instructors, among other things, immense flexibility and self-awareness of our own "complex selves", getting rid of our prescriptive tendencies as to the proper codes of communicative interaction, as well as trust in students' disposition to actually communicate and put themselves in their interlocutors' shoes, provided they are adequately motivated and guided to do so.

One aspect that has been worrying me some in the discussion of the goal of intercultural competence (IC) is the potential interpretation of Byram (97:34)'s definition (readiness to suspend disbelief and judgment in others' meanings, beliefs and behaviors, as well as belief in one own' s in order to be able to see them from the viewpoint of others) as the need to eliminate judgment, opinion altogether. For some reason to me it seems important to make a difference between the undesirable practice of drawing definitive, stereotyping conclusions based on single comments and the fundamentally important practice of our interpretive expertise as IC or multicompetent speakers. In order to revise and question our judgments we need to be aware that we have had them and not “demonize” the fact that we have them. What should be promoted is their desirable and necessary “transient” nature. I hope that the authors of the Cultura article are aware that De Beauvoir (whose quote stress the importance of not “jumping to conclusions”) are aware that she was herself extremely “opinionated” to say the least! Again, my point is that if we believe that one of the paths towards greater IC is to develop our reflexive and interpretive abilities along with communication, we should guard ourselves from the “colorblinding” effect of excessive “suspension” of opinion or judgment. It is fine (and unavoidable) to react and take a stand on what we become expose to, the important thing is to be ready to review it in light of the next input, as much in terms of how my opinion or judgment has changed as in terms of what the process has changed me. 

It is highly likely that for most IC scholars "suspending (dis)beliefs" never meant "demonizing" interpretation, judgment or opinions on what we are confronted with. But somehow the pervasive idea that the need to be open to 'other ways' and negative effect of stereotyping and profiling somehow require a sort of "tabula rasa" (or 'blank slate', is that the English equivalent?) attitude, made me feel it is worth bring up this point for discussion. What do you think?

Oskoz' Learner feedback in online chats

Oskoz, Ana (2009) Learners’ Feedback in Online Chats: What Does It Reveal about Students’ Learning?, CALICO Journal, 27(1): 48-68.

Oskoz (2009) investigates learner’s feedback (or assistance) in L2 synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC)—or ‘chat’—environments as a potential driver for language development. Do patterns of peer assistance occur in SCMC, as they are known to occur in face-to-face interaction? What is their nature? And what is their impact on L2 learning?

In line with a now well-established school within CMC studies, Ozkoz works from a socio-cultural theory (SCT) perspective which sees learning as a socially-mediated activity, a process of psychological internalization of experienced interactions on the social plane. It therefore attributes paramount importance to the social process of interaction and assistance by which a learner progresses from what she can achieve individually to what is attainable through the help—or ‘mediation’—of an expert or more capable peer or tool. According to Vygotskyan theory this social process has a cognitive correlate in the learners’ mind and is referred to as his zone of proximal development (ZPD). In this view learning occurs over an individual’s lifetime (ontologically) yet also as interaction develops within the ZPD (microgenetically), and can thus be measured as ‘microgenetic growth’—“the cognitive development that occurs moment-by-moment in social interaction within a single task.”(p.??)

Oskoz intends to revisit the understanding of the ZDP beyond the evident notion that assistance is necessary for learning, calling instead for attention to the nature of “effective” assistance. She grounds her inquiry into the nature of SCMC learner feedback and its impact on language development on L2 learning research which confirms 1) the observability of microgenetic growth; 2) that learners do provide each other assistance even though often on their own ‘learning agendas’ (thus distancing themselves from work on teacher-prescribed structures or functions); 3) that learning is in fact enhanced by learner-learner interaction, and made particularly effective when help is “contingent, gradual and systematic” (pp.??); 4) and that feedback in SCMC is both implicit and explicit in nature, and makes occasional use of the L1 as a “psychological mediating tool”.

Ozkoz analyzes the transcripts of four sessions of task-driven SCMC interactions within two college-level Intermediate Spanish I classes in search for instances of assistance and microgenetic growth, measured in terms of uptake of the provided assistance. The evidence for the following three aspects is categorized along an explicit-implicit continuum: 1) the form of help provided by the expert learner of the moment; 2) the type of error noticing and request for help; and 3) the degree of acceptance and integration of the feedback by the novice learner of the moment. As to the form of help provided, analysis shows that expert learners do provide assistance voluntarily and in varied ways. Over 70% of the times learners do notice errors and very often ask for help, mostly explicitly, 25% of the instances of assistance also reveal intervention by the expert learner when it has not been required. Finally, as to integration, the analysis reveals that in 80% of feedback instances novice learners see and understand the error; of those who see understand and accept it, 60% do not use it and about 40% do.

. In more general terms, findings are thus seen to reveal that due to learners lack of pedagogical and linguistic expertise assistance is significant, explicit and implicit in nature, but random with students following their own agendas for learning and displaying patterns of collaboration which are stable over time but unpredictable. Nonetheless, microgenetic growth happens when the novice is ready for it and is likely supported by a beneficial use of the L1. Pedagogically, these findings are seen as recommending flexibility as to the directions of development as well as a cautious monitoring of the extent to which what is being learnt corresponds to instructions goals. In terms of further research, the study’s results on the “own learning agenda” phenomenon invite us to investigate how more or less form-based styles of instruction correlate with different contents of learner-learner feedback. The results which provide evidence for microgenetic growth, on the other hand, request further inquiry on the long-term impact and integration of feedback into the learner’s L2.

This thorough analysis of SCMC interactive dynamics, made from a descriptive rather than a prescriptive perspective, clearly addresses the pedagogical implications of its findings. In that sense, it seems like a great reminder of the unpredictability entailed in fostering learner autonomy as well as of the complex nature of the role of learner agency in the teaching/learning process and what this in turn means for the role of instructors. In my view it points to the imperative of trusting learners’ intuitions and engagement with the learning process while perfecting instructors’ ways of observing and remaining vigilant about the various courses learning might take. It is also a reminder of the importance of instructors’ ability to think on their feet—based on flexibility and preparedness—in order to maximize the impact of our interventions.

On a less bright side, even though Ozkoz makes a point of looking into the CMC environment to expand our knowledge on general L2 classroom interaction, it does not address the possible effects or value of the medium itself on the results obtained. SCMC is treated as any other means of communication. Given the fact that evident uptake only occurs in 35% to 40% of instances of feedback—a fact which Ozkoz tends to background when discussing results---, addressing the potential enabling or restricting power of the medium might be an interesting route to take. Finally, Ozkoz’s interesting initial argument on education scholars misunderstanding of the relevance of the ZDP is not pursued in light of her data analysis and findings, beyond the assertion that learners cannot be as professional as their teacher in their provision of feedback. A more in-depth discussion of what it means to provide “contingent and gradual” assistance means might have been helpful.

Reactions on Tech-mediated interaction I (Blyth and Reinhardt)

Hi all:
I'm not quite done with my readings yet, but I have a few questions and comments I figure might be useful to have up there before class:

·        1.  What is exactly new stuff in the ecological approach, in contrast to the sociocultural or socio-cognitive one?

o   The social semiotic idea seems to be important but can’t quite articulate it. Any help?

·       2.   Why is it so important to synthesize Interactionist and SC approaches, to expose how they are not necessarily incommensurable? What do we gain by it?

·        3. Is the Interactionsit claim that they acknowledge the importance of the social aspects of the learning process but just chose to not focus on them at all valid as a research principle? “I know it’s important but I’m just not interested in it” kind of argument? What are the consequences for understanding of how the world works and how we contribute to the way it does?

4. ILiked: hindsight look at technological descriptive phase in research harshly criticizing not contributing to grand theoretical understanding of CALL reflects the “ivory tower phenomenon”: academics’ estrangement from teachers’ need and concerns and self-centeredness on their own needs

5. I Liked: We don’t always need to go to the most outer layers of the "onion" to understand practices in a specific context if it is not relevant, not answering your questions; you just have to be aware that the layers exists and how they interact with each other—this poses a selectivity issue. How do we accumulate the right criteria to do this?