1. Social Dimensions of Telecollaborative Foreign Language Study Julie A. Belz The Pennsylvania State Univeristy Presentation by Kathryn Sederberg, Nov 2008

2. CALL – Computer Assisted Language Learning Research so far:  Pedagogical, structural  Not cultural, historical, social dimensions “the social turn”  Recognizes culturally and historically shaped nature of learners  Recognizes learning and teaching processes in which they are situated

3. Telecollaboration The application of global communication networks in foreign language education Social dimensions of languge learning and use Learner agency

4. Socio-cognitive investigation Brings together  Siociocultural, ethnographic, qualitative data sources  Psycholinguistic, linguistic, and quantitative data sources “social realism” (Archer, Layder) as an approach to the exploration and interpretation of social action

5. Social realism Theoretically:  Empirical world is highly complex and multi- faceted  Social action is shaped by an intimate interplay of macro level (social context, setting) and micro-level (linguistic interaction and psycho- biography)  Social action is embedded within history and power relations

6. Social realism, cont. Methodologically:  Reflects complex and layered nature of empirical world  Bedrock of interpretive work (interviews, participant observation), but also quantitative data  Tries to keep “scientific attitude” towards social analysis without ignoring the importance of actors’ meanings

7. Belz’ method Social realist investigation Relationships between structure and agency Ex: transatlantic email correspondence Focus on inter-relationship of broader context of telecollaboration and language learning and language use in telecollaboration

8. Research map: multi-strategy research in German-American telecollaboration Additional Factors Research elements Types of Data Qualitative - Quantitative HISTORY – eg, patterns of socialization into classroom FLL CONTEXT SETTING Theoretical/interpretive characterizations, eg, institutional histories; policy documents; informational interviews with administrators; scholarly publications Aggregates of individuals in specific social circumstances, eg, computer ownership by race/ethnicity from gov. statistical databases POWER – eg, student-teacher or NS-NNS differentials; learning accreditation pressures SITUATED ACTIVITY SELF -participant observation -interviews with learners -classroom discourse -learner portfolios -email correspondence -chat transcripts -biographical surveys -project assessments Simple forms of counting, eg, occurrence of linguistic features in electronic discourse; number of email messages composed per group

9. Actual Project: Phases Phase I (US students)  Biographical sketches, university information  Read first set of parallel texts, films Phase II (German and US students)  Form pairs or groups based on mutual interests  Discuss and analyze parallel texts with partners via email (both in English and German) Phase III (German and US students)  Merge to form larger groups  Develop a web site with bilingual essay pertaining to parallel texts, and a bilingual discussion of cultural construct from multiple perspectives Phase IV (German students)  Final discussion

10. Level of Context Language Valuation  German vs. English  Discrepancy in proficiency  Learning expectations/perceived learning outcomes Technological Access and Know-How Institutional Level of Setting  Course accreditation  American perspectives (ie frustrations)  German perspectives

11. Discussion, Conclusions Context  Nat’l differences in technological know-how, access Setting  Institutional differences Multidirectional Interaction of Context, Setting, Situated Activity, and Self  Social realism (role of the individual in all this)

12. Telecollaborative Best Practices Main cultural learning not related to tasks assigned Projects should be designed to minimize the logistical difficulties to shift learning to task OR: should the cultural faultlines inherent in this project be allowed to surface and function as the main point of intercultural learning?  Pedagogical intervention (“clash of faultlines” shouldn’t be smoothed over, but encouraged, yet not in a counterproductive way) More cultural work at beginning