Kristi Jauregi, Emerita Bañados, Jerónimo Morales Universidad de Concepción Universidad de Granada Call 2008, Antwerpen Distant intercultural communication through video-web communication tools: preliminary results after four years of experience Intercultural communication

Video-web communication tool

Spanish Language Course (Lengua 3) (B1) UU Pilot 2005 > > Granada 2006: > Granada + Barcelona 2007: > Granada + Valencia 2008: > Granada + Valencia Spanish Language Course (Lengua 5) (B2) UU 2006: > Concepción (Chile) 2007: > Concepción (Chile) Projects Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Background: CMC in SLA Learners become more confident & active (Kelm 1992, Kern 1996), produce more coherent language (Felix & Lawson, 1996) Learners output present syntatical & lexically more complex structures (Smith, 2003; Sotillo, 2000; Warschauer & Kern, 2000) There are frequent instances of negotiation of meaning (Lee, 2004; Shekary & Tahririan, 2006; Tudini, 2003; Warschauer & Kern, 2000) Develop Intercultural Competence (Belz & Thorne, 2006; Tudini, 2007; Vogt, 2006) Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Synchronous communication Communication through chat has been reported to : ‐ enhance language learning at syntactic (Sotillo, 2000), grammar (Pelletieri, 2000), lexical (Smith, 2004) and Intercultural (Fuchs, 2007; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002 Tudini 2007) levels; ‐fovour negotiation of meaning ( Jepson, 2005; Lai & Zhao, 2006; Shekary & Tahririan, 2006; Smith, 2004; Thorne, 2003; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002; Tudini, 2003) Audio (graphic) conferencing (Hampel & Hauck, 2004; Hampel et al 2005; Hauck 2007; Kötter, 2004; Levy, 2004; Ciekanski & Chanier, 2008 ) Videoconferencing (O’Dowd,2000; 2006;2007) Desktop-conferencing (Wang, 2006; 2007) Video-web communication (Jauregi & Bañados 2008) Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Questions 1.Are communication processes supported by chat and video-web technology similar? 2.Does visual information (seeing each other while talking to each other) hinder communication processes or just enhance them? How? 3.Does anonymity favour communication processes? 4.Under which conditions can Intercultural Communicative Competence (Byram, 1997) be furthered using synchronous communication tools? Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Spanish Language Course (Lengua 3) (B1) Pilot 2005 > > Granada 2006: > Granada + Barcelona 2007: > Granada + Valencia 2008: > Granada + Valencia Spanish Language Course (Lengua 5) (B2) 2006: > Concepción (Chile) 2007: > Concepción (Chile) Projects Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Utrecht University: Volunteer students of Spanish Language and Culture in their first or second academic year. The project is included in two Spanish language courses: B1 & B2. Task-based language teaching context. Spanish Universities: Volunteer graduate students of the Master of Education of Spanish as a FL. University of Concepción: Volunteer students of pedagogy becoming teachers of Spanish as L1. The project has been part of the course “Introduction to Pragmatics”. Project description: participants Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Process to students inviting them to participate in the project Plenary initial virtual session: project presentation Tutorials about how to use the e-platform Selection of students Matching dyads and groups / Schedule interactions Informal meetings 5 official interactive sessions (once per week) Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Tasks 5 communicative tasks per project with a clear intercultural focus according to course objectives Textual and audio(visual) input Objective: information and opinion exchange, reflection (mostly speaking; one task writing), negotiation of intercultural meaning Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Changes in the process From a controlled, centralised organisation (personal site) to a more flexible, learner oriented model > learner autonomy (group site: Surfnet groepen)personal site Surfnet groepen Experienced students as tutors & supervisors

Data Recordings of interaction Evaluation questionnaires Blog postings Final presentations Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Are communication processes supported by textual chat and video-web technology similar? Both synchronous communication modes > organisation Textual chat relies on literacy skills, reading & writing, quick typing; discussion threads, disrupted turn structure (questions and answers do not match) hybrid genre, informal language use. Lack of visual and paralinguistic features might difficult comprehension processes > emoticons & smileys Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Communication processes supported by VWC technology VWC tool is a multimodal environment where logged in members can: Talk and listen to each other while seeing each other in real time (dyadic & group interaction). Chat (complementary function to conversation) Collaborate in real time from different computers in the writing process of a text. Share multimedia documents in the same environment (flash video, mp3, ppt, flash documents) & the computer, desktop. VWC relies particularly on speaking & listening skills. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Webcam image Logged in members Chat On-line writing Shared documents Record Video-web communication

Are communication processes supported by textual chat and VWC technology similar? Technical issues VWC requires good computers and a quicker connection to the Internet than the chat environments. Technical problems are not unusual & these disrupt the normal communication flow. Consequently interlocutors engage in side-sequences negotiating technical matters (echo, low volume of microphone, default microphone, communication delay). Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen Are communication processes supported by textual chat and VWC technology similar? Technical issues

Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen Communication through chat or VWC. Quantitative results. Question itemNNS (B1) N14 Mean SD NS (Spain) N9 Mean SD NNS (B2) N19 Mean SD NS (Chile) N14 Mean SD Have you used frequently the chat application? Chat (1) or videocommunication (5). Would you have preferred to communicate with your interlocutors though chat or with WVC?

To support negotiation sequences: of comprehension & production problems of technical problems of cultural information For private talk To make jokes To sheer up interlocutors To empathise Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen Chats in a multimodal VWC environment are used:

Does visual information hinder communication processes or just enhance them? Lack of body language is at times perceived as an advantage: it allows learners to remain anonymous to speak more freely (chat, Tudini, 2007), (audio-graphic conferencing, Hampel et al 2005) > it reduces anxiety. But not knowing who you are addressing (an unknown /unseen audience) can cause anxiety. Without visual cues it is more difficult to detect non-literal use of language, indirect speech acts and irony or humor & it makes it more difficult to know whether the interlocutors have understood one’s contribution. Thus comprehension processes become more difficult without visual cues.

The Integrationist approach to linguistics (Harris, 2005) posits moving away from the “orthodox exponents” that have idealized the notion of language to focus on communication, that is, language in use, whereby gesture is regarded as a central aspect of language in use, integral to how we communicate (make & interpret meaning). Visual cues within the Integrationst approach ( SSLA, 2008 / 30, Gullberg, McCafferty ) Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Are regarded as an important component to acquisition both as a means of expression and as a mediator of meaning. Are implicated in interactional work (turn & floor regulation, feedback elicitation, agreement marking attention directing, via pointing) in experiences of sympathy & rapport. Influence & improve addressee’s comprehension & interpretation of speech (speech in noise, indirect speech acts) Important in cross-cultural communication & learning Gestures: Integrationst approach SSLA, 2008 (30) ( Gullberg, McCafferty )

Importance of visual cues in communication processes. Quantitative results. Question itemNNS (B1) N 16 Mean SD NS (Spain) N 11 Mean SD NNS (B2) N 16 Mean SD NS (Chile) N14 Mean SD Audio (1) vs audiovisual communication (5) How do you value seeing your interlocutor? (1: negative; 5: positive) Do you think that seeing your interlocutor hinders (1) or facilitates (5) communication Face-to face (1) vs videocommunication (5) Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Importance of visual cues in communication processes. Qualitative results. All students reported visual cues to be crucial to communication processes, as facilitative cues and information providers. “In an interaction it is important to see how the interlocutor reacts, which attitude s/he has when s/he talks (laughter, signs of misunderstanding, lack of agreement…) UU”. Some students reported non-verbal communication to be as important as verbal communication. Mostly Dutch students reported that visual cues contribute to facilitate comprehension and to reinforce personal relationships. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Facial expressions: sign comprehension, confusion, puzzlement, enjoyment Importance of laughter and smiling to reinforce solidarity among participants Reduce misunderstandings and ambiguity in speech (also Wang, 2006) Contribute to reinforce interpersonal social relationships > favours adequate IC negotiations Visual cues Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Face to face versus virtual interaction with video-web technology: Qualitative results. Students reported all to prefer face to face communication. Arguments: -Loss of embodiment -More difficult to break the ice -Technical problems But: Good environment for shy interlocutors who might feel embarrassed, inhibited in front of NSs Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Face to face versus virtual interaction with video-web technology: Quotation “Although, generally speaking, I prefer to speak face- to-face with a person, from all ICT-tools, the video web communication is the closest one to this. I also think that it is useful to have at hand a computer with the tasks and dictionaries. And of course without the video- web communication tool, it wouldn’t have been possible to speak with people form other countries and even less from another continent” (Utrecht student, 2006). Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Video-web communication with Adobe connect Does anonymity favour communication processes? Anonymity may contribute to self-confidence of more inhibited students and so stimulate more active participation and output production (Kern, 2000) But as is typical to human interaction, students engaged in exchanges of anonymous communication are left with the desire to know more about their interlocutors: who they are, how they look like (Tudini, 2007) Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Video-web communication with Adobe connect Anonymity and communication processes. Quantitative responses to a questionnaire. Question item B1 ( ) B2( ) NNS (B1) N42 Mean SD NS (Spain) N 42 Mean SD NNS (B2) N35 Mean SD NS (Chile) N19 Mean SD Was it interesting and enriching for you to communicate with a foreign student? (1 no …… 5 yes) Was it easy for you to communicate with a F student? (1 no …… 5 yes) Please value the fact of having had the same interaction partner during the project (1 bad….5 good) Would you have preferred to change interaction partner in each session? Does anonymity hinder (1) or favour (5) communication ? (Only in 2007 & 2008) Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Video-web communication with Adobe connect Does anonymity favour communication? Qualitative results. Changing partners. Almost all participants responded negatively to this option. Arguments: -Impossible to get to know somebody if you change partners constantly -With somebody you know you can conduct a more fluid and rich conversation (ICC) But some students (NSs) mentioned that having the option to talk to more interlocutors can widen your view of foreigners. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Video-web communication with Adobe connect Does anonymity favour communication? Qualitative results. Participants responded negatively to this option. Arguments: it would have been impossible to establish a friendly relationship, which is seen as a basis for a natural, meaningful and significant communication process; you feel freer, more at ease when you know somebody One Dutch student reported not to be a difference between both options. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Video-web communication with Adobe connect Does anonymity favour communication processes? If the objective of interaction is to reinforce interpersonal social relationships and adequately negotiate intercultural meaning, “to understand, & respect otherness”, participants will automatically develop a genuine interest of coming to know who the other person is, how s/he thinks, s/he lives… This is crucial to the development of ICC. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Under which conditions can ICC be furthered using CMC tools? Byram’s 5 savoirs (1997: 50-4) : 1.Attitudes: curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own. 2.Knowledge of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction. 3.Skills of interpreting and relating: ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents from one’s own. 4.Skills of discovery and interaction: ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and the ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real-time communication and interaction. 5.Critical cultural awareness/ political education: an ability to evaluate critically and on the basis of explicit criteria perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Under which conditions can ICC be furthered using CMC tools? O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006: failed communication in telecollaborative exchanges ProblemsReasons Failed communication Low levels of participation Indifference Tension Negative evaluations Individual Classroom Socioinstitutional Interaction Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Reasons of failed communication Social and economic value of the TL Proficiency mismatch between partners Students’ level of intercultural competence (appropriate attitudes to culture & in interaction, curiosity, openness, tolerance, pragmatic concerns of interaction, willingness to communicate & to make an effort to develop a personal relationship) Misalignment of academic matters (calendars, technological access to technology, novelty, forms of assessment, didactic approaches, language and culture, task design, relationship between teachers ) > organisation Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen

Under which conditions can ICC be furthered? Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen Language teaching perspective and methodology used > learner autonomy + Intercultural focus Adequate tasks Interlocutor matching (favour interpersonal & social communication > not anonymous matching) Interdependency, responsibility Good supervision / guidance Clear organisation Synchronous tools with visual cues contribute to avoid & better negotiate misunderstandings > ICC (cf. Tudini, 2007)

Tasks according to questionnaires & blog postings Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen The most interesting tasks those focusing entirely in cultural differences: “Gente y culturas” B1 (UU 4.9, NS 4.7) “Las diferencias sorprenden” B2 (UU 4.6, NS 4,8) Questionnaire + audioinput on cultural differences

Learning experiences: Qualitative results (blogs & questionnaires) Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen Cultural differences and commonalities To talk spontaneously in an authentic communicative setting To talk more fluently and accurately To improve Spanish grammar and vocabulary (idioms) To help students of a FL Didactic applications of an innovative virtual environment

Learning experiences: Qualitative results. Quotations. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen The positive aspect of participating in the project was the opportunity to get to know a Spanish native speaker of my age, listen to his/her Spanish language variant, and learn about his/her culture and how it differs from mine. (Utrecht student).

Learning experiences: Qualitative results. Quotations. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen Personally, I liked the project very much. I find very interesting the fact of being able to contact people from such a different environment. To talk and exchange experiences about common subjects (studies, family, friends) brings us closer and connects us with a different interesting reality. …I have learned how wrong the stereotypes that we may have about other cultures can be. (Concepción student).

Examples Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen Barcelona: Gente y culturas Concepción: Las diferencias sorprendenLas diferencias sorprenden

Thank you Hartelijk dank Danke Merci Gracias por su atención Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen Kristi Jauregi, Emerita Bañados, Jerónimo Morales