1. Native & non-native speaker interactions through video web communication and Second Life: a clue for enhancing motivation? Kristi Jauregi, Rick de Graaff, Sterre Krooshof, Huub van den Bergh & Silvia Canto Utrecht University

2. Structure Introduction to NIFLAR Results research on impact of video web communication on motivation Experiences with virtual worlds Conclusions

3. Background to NIFLAR Europeans’ language skills far from being optimal (EUDICE, ELISE, CILT) Limitations in FLL & teaching contexts: FLL > teacher, book and grammar oriented Scarce opportunities for FL learners to engage in meaningful interaction with native peers Low motivation, low levels of achievement, possible drop outs (Final Report High Level Group of Multilingualism, 2007) Intercultural awareness insufficiently addressed (Lace Report, 2007) ICT underused (ICT-Impact Report, 2006)

4. NIFLAR Time span: 1 January 2009 – 31 December 2010 Lifelong Learning Programme Partners: Universities of –Utrecht in the Netherlands –Granada and Valencia in Spain –Coimbra in Portugal –Palacky in Olomouc the Czech Republic, –Nevsky and Novosibirsk in Russia –Concepción in Chile TELL Consult (Netherlands) 2 secondary schools, in Spain and The Netherlands Coordination: Utrecht University Target languages: Dutch, Portuguese, Russian & Spanish

6. To enrich and innovate academic programs of foreign languages and make them more rewarding and relevant  enhance motivation Using two virtual environments: –Video web communication (Adobe Connect) –3D Virtual Worlds (Second Life / Open SIM) Two target groups: –FL learners at secondary and tertiary levels –Pre- (in) service teachers Main objective of NIFLAR:

7. Second Life Open Sim Adobe connect

8. Actions to enhance motivation of FLls in NIFLAR (1): 1.Enriching the context of FLL: putting the learner (Tudor, 1996) and interaction (van Lier, 1996) at the heart of the learning process. 2. Providing challenging and innovative learning environments (video-web communication and 3D virtual worlds, which facilitate synchronous (native-non-native) speaker interaction (Jauregi & Bañados, 2008; 2010). 3.Promoting collaborative networked learning (Warschauer 1997) and action learning (Molka Danielsen & Deutschmann, 2009).

9. Actions to enhance motivation of FLls in NIFLAR (2): 4.Favouring experiences of enjoyment and success (interaction with native peers, participation in simulated target language culturally relevant contexts and events through relevant tasks). 5.Enhancing the learner’s willingness to communicate (MacIntyre et al. 2001) 6.Supporting authenticity of learning by favouring Integrative motivation (learner's positive attitudes towards the target language group and the desire to integrate into the target language community) (Gardner, 1985) Dörnyei & Csizér, 2005).

10. NIFLAR stimulates positive intercultural contacts respecting conditions reported to be essential in successful exchanges (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2005) (a)equal status between the individuals/groups within the contact situation; (b)shared pursuit of common goals; (c)perception of common interests; (d)intergroup cooperation; (e)authority support; (f)friendship potential; (g)possibility to share and empathize with others.

11. Actions to enhance motivation in NIFLAR (3): 7.Developing tasks, which require active participation with peers and dynamic communication exchanges and which involve a combination of entertainment, leisure, game as meaningful ways of learning the target language and its culture (High Level Group of Multilingualism, 2007). 8.For the pre-service teachers: providing opportunities to interact with 'real' foreign language learners, to be engaged in task design and action research.

12. Task design principles for ICC in VWC & VW Communicative competence in L2 acquisition ( Willis, 1996; Doughty & Long, 2003; Ellis, 2003; Moonen, 2007; Long, 2009) Intercultural competence in L2 acquisition (Byram, 1997; Müller-Jacquier, 2003; Zarate et al 2004) The application of VWC and VW in L2 acquisition (Jauregi & Bañados, 2008; Deutschmann, Panichi & Molka, 2009; Hauck, 2010)

13. The impact of video web communication on motivation Research questions: Does native – non-native speaker interaction through VWC affect motivation? Is this effect different for lower vs. higher proficiency level language learners?

14. Participants and procedure 36 Czech students of Dutch L2 (A2; B1) 35 Dutch student teachers 3 VWC sessions during a 10 weeks’ course Weekly questionnaires on willingness to communicate

15. Examples of video-web communication First Second First Second

16. My competence in the TL is sufficient to communicate with native speech partners

17. Because of my positive attitude I can communicate well with native speech partners

18. I like speaking to native speakers in the target language

19. I can explain myself well in the target language

20. I understand (almost) everything when communicating with my native speech partner

21. I enjoy the language course this semester

22. I get worried when I make mistakes when interacting in the target language

23. Evaluating experiences: FLl learning process TL:Dutch // N: 25 Questions over the FL learners’ learning process (1 disagree … 5 agree) T (UU) N=25 Mean StDev FL (PU) N=25 Mean StDev 38 a. They/I have learned to talk more fluently4,00,73,50,9* 38 b. They/I became more confident talking in the TL4,10,74,00,4 38 c. They/I became more aware of cultural contrasts & similarities 3,70,93,21,3 38 d. They/I have learned new words3,70,63,20,7* 38 e. They/I can talk more accurately3,00,62,61,7

24. Experiences with Second Life February – April 2010 Part of a bigger research study (2 exper. gr & 1 cotrl gr) TL: Spanish, B1 Participants: 14 FLls (UU) & 7 pre-service teachers (UV) Interaction formats: trio’s Tutorials + 5 interaction sessions (1-2 hours) Tasks integrated in academic curricula (obligatory for FLls) Data: recordings, pre-mid- and post-questionnaires, interviews

25. Tasks in Second Life Task 1 Task 2

26. Task 3 Task 4

27. Task 5 Example in Second LifeSecond Life

28. Results post-questionnaires:The environment X: 3,64; N:14)

29. Results post-questionnaires:Tasks

30. Results post-questionnaires: speech partner

31. Results post-questionnaires: learning

32. To talk more fluently

34. Conclusions:The added value of integrating virtual interaction in education 1.Challenging, motivating and innovative learning environments. 2.Offer opportunities for real-life and virtual synchronous communication with native speakers of the target language. 3.Rich linguistic and intercultural learning sequences emerge. 4.Collaborative learning and learner autonomy are enhanced. 5.They favour experiences of enjoyment and success. 6.Support authenticity of learning by favouring Integrative motivation. 7.Significant impact of VWC and SL tasks on willingness to communicate. 8.Impact on motivation in VWC was greater with lower level (A2) than with higher level (B1) students: proficiency effect or novelty effect? 9.Intersubjectivity and social empathy are enhanced: participants do not just carry out pedagogical tasks together but work also to create intersubjectivity and friendship.

35. Would you like to know more about NIFLAR? Join us in niflar.ning.com www.niflar.eu k.jauregi@uu.nl rdegraaff@uu.nl