• Save
An initial approach to the study of  intercultural communication in interaction sessions conducted through video-web communication tools_Jauregi and Valdivia Sig Cmc Leon 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

An initial approach to the study of intercultural communication in interaction sessions conducted through video-web communication tools_Jauregi and Valdivia Sig Cmc Leon 2009

on

  • 2,900 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,900
Views on SlideShare
2,893
Embed Views
7

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
0
Comments
1

1 Embed 7

http://www.slideshare.net 7

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • The presentation seems to stuck on page 5, couldn't move forward. Any solutions?
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

An initial approach to the study of intercultural communication in interaction sessions conducted through video-web communication tools_Jauregi and Valdivia Sig Cmc Leon 2009 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. An initial approach to the study of intercultural communicative competence in interaction sessions conducted through video-web communication tools Kristi Jauregi and Patricia Valdivia
  • 2. In this presentation we want to share
    • The methodological approach used to investigate the negotiation of intercultural meaning in native-non native speaker interaction group settings conducted through video-web communication tools.
    • Problems faced & decisions taken.
    • (4) Some sample analysis of relevant data.
    • (5) Results.
    • (6) Future investigations.
  • 3.
    • Crucial in foreign language learning processes ( CEFR )
    • Linguistic or non-linguistic?
    • Chapter 5, the user / learner’s competences :
      • General competences
      • Communicative competences
    Intercultural Communicative Competence
  • 4. EXISTENTIAL COMPETENCE SKILLS & KNOW-HOW DECLARATIVE KNOWLEDGE GENERAL COMPETENCES Values Attitudes Knowledege of the world GENERAL COMPETENCES Intercultural skills Practical skills (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment …… . Sociocultural kn. Intercultural awareness ABILITY TO LEARN Beliefs Personality factors Cognitive styles
  • 5. PRAGMATIC COMPETENCES SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCES LINGUISTIC COMPETENCES COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE COMPETENCES Interaction schemata Discourse competence Functional competence Expressions of folk wisdom Dialect and accent Lexical Grammatical COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE Register differences Politeness conventions Linguistic markers of social relations (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment …… . Phonological Semantic
  • 6. Intercultural Communication
    • Byram’s 5 savoirs (1997: 50-4) :
    • Attitudes : curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
  • 7.
    • Bernd Müller-Jacquier, 2000: Linguistic awareness of cultures (c.f. Belz 2003) proposes a framework of analysis for Intercultural Communication:
      • Social meaning
      • Speech acts
      • Organization of conversation
      • Choice & development of topics
      • Directness / indirectness
      • Register
      • Para-verbal factors
      • Non-verbal means of expression
      • Culture specific values / attitudes
      • Culture specific behavior
    ICC linguistic or non-linguistic?
  • 8.
    • Asynchronous ( e-mail Belz, 2003; Fuchs, 2007; Müller Hartmann 2000, 2006; O’Dowd 2004; discussion boards, Arnold & Ducati, 2006; Liauw, 2006); & synchronous Interaction ( textual chat Fuchs, 2007 , Tic conferencing Toyoda & Harrison, 2002; Tudini, 2007; Vogt, 2006; audiographic conferencing Hauck, Hampel, Lamy; v ideoconferencing O’Dowd, 2006, video-web communication Jauregi & Bañados 2008). Kern & Warschauer 2000; Belz & Thorne, 2006.
    • Problems in telecollaborative encounters O’Dowd & Ritter (2006)
    Intercultural Communicative Competence in telecollaborative exchanges
  • 9. L Individual level Classroom level
    • Learners current level of ICC
    • Learners’motivation & expectations
    • Technology (tools, access)
    • General organisation of course/study
    Socioinstitutional level
    • Local group dynamics
    • Preexchange briefing
    • Prestige of TL & culture
    • Technology (tools, access)
    • General organisation of course/study
    Classroom level L Individual level
    • Local group dynamics
    • Preexchange briefing
    • Preexchange briefing
    • Prestige of TL & culture
    • Learners current level of ICC
    • Learners’motivation & expectations
    • Learner matching procedures
    • Task design (content, sequencing)
    • Teacher-teacher relationship
    Socioinstitutional level Interaction level
  • 10. Research question
    • Can video-webcommunication as a facilitating tool of synchronous interaction between speakers of different cultures (FLLs & NSs) contribute to their development of intercultural communicative competence?
    • Conditions:
    • Task
    • Interaction
    • Intersubjectivity among speakers
    • Technique
  • 11. Partial research questions
    • Does the task meet the conditions necessary to enhance intercultural communicative competence?
    • How does Intercultural Communicative Competence emerge during interaction between FLLs and NSs when they negotiate thematic issues?
    • How do speech partners approach intersubjectivity ?
    • How can the virtual environment contribute to the development of Intercultural Communicative Competence?
  • 12. Webcam image Logged in members Chat On-line writing Shared documents Record Video-web communication
  • 13.
    • Spanish Language Course (B1) Utrecht
    • Pilot 2005 > 6 + 6 > Granada
    • 2006: 20 + 20 > Granada + Barcelona
    • 2007: 20 + 20 > Granada + Valencia
    • 2008: 17 + 15 > Granada + Valencia
    • Spanish Language Course (B2) Utrecht
    • 2006: 20 + 18 > Concepción (Chile)
    • 2007: 20 + 17 > Concepción (Chile)
    • 2008: 24 + 24 > Concepción (Chile)
    Context: video-web communication project
  • 14. Subjects Interaction data: 2006: 20 Utrecht + 20 Granada / Barcelona (4 sessions) Utrecht University : students of Spanish Language and Culture in their first academic year. The project is included in the Spanish language course: B1 ( CEFR ). Task-based language teaching context. University of Granada / Barcelona : students of language pedagogy of Spanish as L2. Selection of 4 group interaction sessions for data analysis on the last task: Gente y Culturas
  • 15.
    • Interaction sessions were recorded
    • 4 sessions were transcribed for analysis
    • Questionnaires (N:17)
    Data collection & analysis
  • 16. RQ1: Does the task meet the conditions necessary to enhance intercultural communicative competence?
    • Task description > criteria for SLA & intercultural awareness
    • Questionnaires
  • 17. RQ1: T ask description criteria Byram, 1997; Chapelle, 2003; Doughty & Long, 2003; Ellis, 2003; Jauregi & Bañados, 2008; Willis, 1996). Tasks should:
    • Expose the learners to intercultural relevant target language input (rich, authentic & multimodal; non premodified input; focus on social, cultural & interactional content)
    • Elicit meaningful intercultural target language use:
      • involve some kind of “gap” (cultural, social interactional information, reasoning).
      • promote authentic interaction exchange
      • promote learning by doing by eliciting cognitive processes (input processing, pushed output and interaction, reflection on intercultural issues)
      • promote collaborative learning (two-way communication)
    1. Have IC language learning potential Be motivating (Dörnyei, 2001), encourage a positive attitude and openness towards the TL and culture. 3. Have a positive impact . Meet learnes’ needs, interests & idiosyncrasies 2. Fit the learner
  • 18. Tasks should (2) Adequacy of resources to support the task: how easy or difficult it is for learners and teachers to organize and implement the task in a particular setting. 5. Be practical
    • have a clearly defined general purpose/goal related to intercultural awareness
    • have a defined outcome (open, close; convergent, divergent)
    • have a more or less specified procedure (depending on goals etc)
    4. Have a clearly defined communicative outcome
  • 19. Gente y culturas
    • Objectives:
      • To reflect about differences in customs
      • To refer to customs, to compare them & introduce contrasts
      • To express surprise / astonishment about cultural differences
      • To share views & preferences
    • Pre-task: questionnaire with situations aiming at estimulating reflection on sociocultural issues
    • Task: interactants exchange information on questionnaire issues, listen to audio fragments of native Spanish speakers living in Holland about striking differences between both cultures.
    • Post-task: reflect upon and discuss interaction styles
    • Group sessions (3 groups 2 x 2; 1 group 3 x 3)
  • 20. RQ1: Results: Gente y culturas Task description criteria. 1. Has IC language learning potential
    • The learners:
    • used the TL pragmatically and communicatively : focus on cultural, social meaning.Topics: elderly, promises, getting married, appearances, agendas.
    • used the TL to engage in communicative activities involving real-world processes of language use: authentic .
    1.2 Elicits meaningful intercultural target language use
    • rich and multimodal: spoken, written, visual clues; cultural, social & interactional content, etc
    • Topics: elderly, promises, getting married, appearances, agendas.
    • during task performance, the input is elaborated by means of interactional modification or negotiation of meaning . No premodified input.
    1.1 Exposes the learners to intercultural relevant target language input
  • 21.
    • Meets learnes’ needs, interests & idiosyncrasies (questionnaire)
    2. Fits the learner
    • Is motivating, encourages a positive attitude and openness towards the TL and culture (questionnaire).
    3. Has a positive impact
    • Contributes to fill the “ gaps ” on intercultural knowledge of interlocutors
    • Promotes learning by doing by eliciting cognitive processes (input processing, pushed output and interaction, reflection on cultural, social and interactional concerns)
    • Promotes collaborative learning (two-way communication)
    1.2 Elicits meaningful intercultural target language use (2) 1. Has IC language learning potential (2)
  • 22. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen
    • Difficult beause of the synchronous & technical concerns.
    5. Is practical
    • The task
    • has a clearly defined general purpose/goal related to intercultural awareness:
    • Objectives:
      • To reflect about differences in customs
      • To refer to customs, to compare them & introduce contrasts
      • To express surprise / astonishment about cultural differences
      • To share views & preferences
    • has a clear communicative end product: cultural information exchange
    • has a more or less specified procedure: audio fragments
    4. Has a clearly defined communicative outcome
  • 23. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, AntwerpenQuestion item Results questionnaire on task items
    • GA: 1 5,9 %
    • GD: 1 5,9 %
    • GE: 8 47,1 %
    • GC: 5 29,4 %
    • GA: 5 29,4 %
    • GD: 1 5,9 %
    • GE: 7 41,2 %
    • GC: 7 41,2 %
    Which task was the most useful ? Why?
    • GA: 3 17,6 %
    • GD: 1 5,9 %
    • GE: 4 23,5 %
    • GC: 9 52,9 %
    NS (n:17)
    • GA: 1 5.9 %
    • GD: 0
    • GE: 1 5,9 %
    • GC: 15 88,2 %
    Which task did you find the most interesting? Why? (Gente y aventuras, Gente con derechos, Gente que escribe, Gente y culturas) NNS (n:17) Question item
  • 24. REASONS “ Gente y culturas me ha parecido la más útil e interesante es imprescindible conocer las costumbres . Si vienen a España podrán evitar sorpresas y nosotros las tendremos en cuenta al enseñar a alumnos holandeses.” “ Nos ha permitido comparar info de ambos países” “ Permite un diálogo interesante y fluido ” “ Todas han aportado algo. GC y GA fomentan la comunicación , desarrollan varias funciones comunicativas en un entorno temático de interés y bastante personal .” “ Porque a mí me ha aportado conocimientos nuevos .”
  • 25. RQ 2: How does Intercultural Communicative Competence emerge during interaction between FLLs and NSs when they negotiate thematic issues?
    • Discourse participation: individual contribution as engagement (asymmetric encounter in terms of power relationships).. Quantitative measures (4 sessions):
        • Time devoted to each topic
        • Quantity of words produced per topic
    • Discourse quality: how do they negotiate intercultural topics (3 sessions)
  • 26.     +- 30 min. 7,5 min. +- 21 min. 5,25 min +- 40,5 min. 10,1 min +- 22 min. 5,5 min +- 28 min. 7 min Total per Topic Average   01: 05:00 h. 26,5 min 01:55:10 02:03:18 +- 8 min. 01:52:14 01:53:55 +- 1min. 40 sec 01:41:09 01:49:40 +- 8,5 min. 01:36:18 01:39:53 +- 4 min. 01:31:05 01:35:03 +- 4 min. Session 4 N7, N8, N9, NN7, NN6 y NN9   01:17:59 h. 37 min min. 40:22 min. 44:52 +- 5 min. min. 32:55 min. 39:39 +- 7 min. min. 19:20 min. 30:00 +- 11 min. min.. 10:59 min.. 17:07 +- 6 min. min.. 01:23 min.. 09:15 +- 8 min. Session 3 N5, N6, NN5, NN6   01:07:46 h. 33 min min.. 42:00 min.. 52:26 +- 10 min. min.35:25 min.. 41:19 +- 6 min. min.. 21:40 min.. 27:38 +- 6 min. min.. 12:12 min.. 17:43 +- 6 min. min.. 5:54 min.. 10:25 +- 5 min. Session 2 N3, N4, NN3, NN4   01:38:49 h. 46 min min.. 45:28 min.. 52:42 +- 7 min. min. 37:03 min. 44:42 +- 7 min. min. 21:46 min. 35:29 +- 15 min. min. 15:22 min. 20:43 +- 6 min. min. 0:47 min. 12:36 +- 11 min. Session 1 N1, N2, NN1, NN2   Importance of agendas Imprtance of appearances Getting married Spanish speakers do not keep their promises. Elderly living by family or in old people’s homes.   Time total per session [ Topic 5 Topic 4 Topic 3 T opic 2 Topic 1 T I M E
  • 27.   11789 7055 2940 1760 2243 970 2674 2000 1990 918 1942 1407 Total per topic N NN 387 440 114 51
    • 18
    142 88 69 93 11 190 N9 NN9 gr 4   NN 809 1183 218 402 81
    • 9
    404 58 152 31 143 39 N8 NN8 gr 4   N 2297 727 151 325 26 50 27 170 76 84 16 98 6 N7 NN7 gr 4 NN 2102 2003 1043 299 188 346 162 428 339 463 74 467 280 N6 NN6 gr 3   N 3171 1168 1059 95 365 286 118 236 310 259 115 292 151 N5 NN5 gr 3 NN 2019 1709 1140 659 333 560 168 385 311 105 206 0 122 N4 NN4 gr 2   N 3303 1594 879 313 282 398 156 188 156 442 164 253 121 N3 NN3 gr 2 NN 2125 1353 539 456 183 217 71 117 147 207 63 356 75 N2 NN2 gr 1   N 3018 1665 1586 277 251 253 241 604 515 209 156 322 423 N1 NN1 gr 1 per session   N NN N NN N NN N NN N NN N NN Total native Total words Topic 5 Agendas Topic 4 Appearances Topic 3 Getting married Topic 2 Promises Topic 1 Elderly Subjects Groups
  • 28. Engagement NS versus NNS across topics -4734 words -1180 words -1273 words -674 words -1072 words -535 words D iffs 7055 38% 1760 38% 970 30% 2000 43 % 918 32% 1407 42% NNs 11789 62% 2940 62% 2243 70% 2674 57% 1990 68% 1942 58% Ns Total Topic 5 Agendas Topic 4 Appearances Topic 3 Getting married Topic 2 Promises Topic 1 Elderly Subj
  • 29. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen Discourse quality
    • Topic development
    • Interest in knowing other people’s way of life & introducing one's own culture to others
    • Ability to change perspective
    • Knowledge about one’s own and others’ cultures for intercultural communication
    • Knowledge about intercultural communication processes
    • Critical about own customs and open to different ones
  • 30. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen
    • Agendas & their uses in SP & NL:
    • From
    • g eneralisation to personalisation
    • Punctuality (gr1, 2)
    • Spontaneity in social life in SP (gr 1, 3)
    • Differences men & women (gr 1)
    • Differences northern & southern countries in socialising (gr 2)
    • Weather infuencing social habits (gr 2)
    • Clothes depending on situations (gr 1, 2, 3)
    • Make up (gr 2, 3)
    • Bicycle (gr 3)
    • Other cultures (gr1)
    • Generational (gr 1, gr 3)
    • Weather (gr 3)
    • From
    • g eneralisation to personalisation
    • Guests categories to a wedding (gr 1, 2, 3)
    • Celebration (gr 1, 2, 3)
    • Presents (gr 1, 2, 3)
    • Religious or civil wedding (gr 1,2,3)
    • Getting married in white (gr 3)
    • Comparisons with other cultures (gr 1, 3)
    • Age (gr 3)
    • Conditions for getting married (gr 3)
    • Results of a survey (gr 3)
    • From generalisation to personalisation
    • Indirection of pragmatic meaning in SP, important to interpret adequately pragmatic meaning (gr 1, 2, 3)
    • Importance of repetition (pragmatic force) in SP (gr 3)
    • Importance of confirmation in SP as a mean to validate promises (gr 3).
    • Promises in NL (gr 1, 2, 3)
    • Punctuality in NL-SP (gr 3)
    • Personal values (gr 1, 2, 3)
    • From generalisation to personalisation
    • Generalised custom in SP for elderly to live with their families (gr 1, 2, 3)
    • But also problems: loneliness, being abandoned (gr 1)
    • Necessity in case of illness (gr 1)
    • Tendency towards emergence of old people’s homes in SP (gr 3)
    • Advantages in NL for elderly living in old people’s homes: socialising (gr 1, 2, 3)
    • Visits to grand-parents (gr 1)
    • Enjoying life in Spain & the concept of family (gr 3)
    • Influence of weather in both countries (gr 1, 3)
    • Omparison with other cultures (gr 2)
    • From generalisation to personalisation
    S u b t o p i c s Topic 5 Agendas important in NL Topic 4 Appeaences important in SP Topic 3 Differences in getting married in SP & NL Topic 2 Spanish people do not keep promises Topic 1 In the Netherlands Elderly at old people’s homes
  • 31. Jauregi et al, Call 2008, Antwerpen Example of interaction
  • 32. NN2: Oh::// N1: //Oh:: Qué crítica ¡! He¿? Qué crítica ¡! ((levanta el brazo y deja ver su mano mostrando el dedo pulgar apuntando hacia abajo en señal de desaprobación)) ((todos se ríen)) N2: Qué malos los holandeses ¡! NN1: Muy negativa N1: Yo no quiero ser vieja en Holanda // N2: //es verdad lo que dice? NN2: Wat erg. NN1: Ja. NN1 : Bueno. ahora tenemos que dar opiniones o::(.) sí bueno// NN2: //ok NN1 : En mi opinión la mitad es correcto . Me oís ¿? N1: Sí, yo sí N2: ¿En serio::? ¿Es correcto::? NN1: No . por la mitad. Es que en España. (.)mm::= N2: =A qué te refieres por la mitad. NN1 : es que no es como en España. en España ehm::: las personas mayores viven con la hija menor, ¿no? La menor hija¿? O algo así¿? Y aquí. aquí no es así. La gente mayor vive en una residencia. Fragment transcription
  • 33.
    • N1: ((sonríe))
    • NN2: ¿no?
    • N2: Todo depende .
    • NN1: Profesor nos dijo eso.
    • N2: Todo depende. Si la persona mayor tienen mucho dinerito.
    • N1: Exacto, exacto.
    • N2: El profesor os ha engañado . Profesor mentiroso¡! ((risas))
    • Profesor: ((escribe en el chat “oye a la actividad no os metáis con el profe”))
    • N2: Pobrecillo. es broma. Es broma. No (.) además meter a un abuelito o a una abuelita en un esto de ancianos vale muy caro ¿sabes? A veces es más barato mantenerlos en casa que meterlos en un asilo.
    • N1: o abandonarlo en casa, hay muchos ancianos abandonados. No Jonathan, hay mucha gente que no cuida de nada de los ancianos. Los abandonan en casa
    • NN1: Y viven solos=
    • N2: =¿cómo? ¿Perdona?
    • N1: Digo que hay muchas familias //
    • N2 : //Aquí en España. dices. pero perdóname que se entrecortó .
    • N1: Sí, sí en España, como no hay economía, no hay dinero, las familias simplemente los dejan en casa solos. no se ocupan de ellos
    • NN1 : Y nadie se ocupa de ellos
    • N1: No, no o hasta que mueren en casa//
    • N2:// sí (.) es verdad.
    • NN1: //sí pero necesitan ayuda también ¿no?
    • N1: Pero si la familia no se ocupa quién se va a ocupar. Porque el gobierno tampoco subvenciona nada. Es todo privado.
    • NN1 : Qué curioso ¡!
  • 34. How do participants work on their intercultural competence?
    • Personality factors
    • IC language proficiency level
    • Willingness to communicate
    • Topics: pragmatic issues being + difficult to explain & understand than cultural behavour / customs
    • Contrasting differences
    • Trying to understand
    • Mitigating ( a lo mejor, puede ser, creo que, es un poco mal visto, todav’ia no es normal…)
    • From generalisations to concretisations
    • Showing ability to change perspectives
    • “ Yo creo que llegará un momento en el que en Espa ñ a pase lo mismo” N3
    • Criticizing own customs (example)
    • Building bridges
    • Jokes
    • Laughing
    • Visual cues
    • Sharing experiences
    • Building bridges
    • Being engaged:
      • Offering information
      • Negotiating meaning
      • Sharing experiences & knowledge
      • Expressing astonishment
      • Listening
      • Showing understanding
    • Taking initiative:
      • Asking questions
      • Requesting information, clarification, specification
    Means Aspects influencing ICC When facing differences Creating a supportive environment Showing interest in knowing others’ cultures & introducing one’s own through discourse
  • 35. In the sessions of Gente y culturas participants showed
    • Attitudes of curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Critical cultural awareness/ political education: the ability to evaluate critically and on the basis of explicit criteria perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries.
    • Related to 5 main topics: elderly, promises, getting married, appearances & agendas
    Byram (1997: 50-4)
  • 36. RQ 3: How do speech partners approach intersubjectivity ?
      • Create intersubjectivity during interaction
    • Personality factors
    • IC language proficiency level
    • Willingness to communicate
    • Topics: pragmatic issues being + difficult to explain & understand than cultural behavour / customs
    • Contrasting differences
    • Mitigating ( a lo mejor, puede ser, creo que, es un poco mal visto, todav’ia no es normal…)
    • Making nuances ( depende )
    • From generalisations to concretisations
    • Showing ability to change perspectives
    • “ Yo creo que llegará un momento en el que en Espa ñ a pase lo mismo” N3
    • Criticizing own customs (example)
    • Building bridges
    • Jokes
    • Laughing
    • Visual cues
    • Sharing experiences
    • Building bridges
    • Being engaged:
      • Offering information
      • Negotiating meaning
      • Sharing experiences
      • Expressing astonishment
      • Listening
    • Taking initiative:
      • Asking questions
      • Requesting information, clarification, specification
    Means Aspects influencing ICC When facing differences Creating a supportive environment Showing interest in knowing others’ cultures & introducing one’s own through discourse
  • 37. RQ4: How can the video-webcommunication environment contribute to the development of Intercultural Communicative Competence?
    • Makes possible synchronous conversations with speakers of other cultures living (far away)
    • The virtual room is supportive & reliable
    • There are visual cues: you see your speech partner > intersubjectivity
    • The chat application facilitates negotiations
    • You can upload and share different documents with your interlocutors
    • BUT: Technical problems
  • 38. Results questionnaires 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 (4) 23,5 % 4 (10) 58.8 % 5 (3) 17,6 % MEAN: 4 1 (0 ) 2 (0 ) 3 (0 ) 3,5 (1 ) 5,9 % 4 (6 ) 35,3 % 5 (10) 58,8 % MEAN: 4,6 How do you value the virtual environment? (1 very bad…. 5 very good) NNSs (N: 17) NSs (N:17)
    • 1 0 %
    • 2 (6) 35,3 %
    • 3 (9) 52,9 %
    • 4 (1) 5,9 %
    • (1) 5,9 %
    • MEAN: 2,2
    1 (0 %) 2 (2) 11,8 % 3 (3) 17,6 % 3,5 (1) 5,9 % 4 (9) 52,9 % 5 (2 ) 11,8 % MEAN: 3,7 How has the virtual environment functioned? (1 very bad…. 5 very good) 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 5,9 % 4 82,4 % 5 11,8 % MEAN: 4,1 1 (0 %) 2 (0 %) 3 (0 %) 4 (7) 41,2 % 5 (10 ) 58,8 % MEAN: 4,6 How do you value the project? (1 very bad…. 5 very good)
  • 39. Technical problems 15 Technical problems 11 Logístical, organization and coordination problems 1 No problems 2 Technical problems 7 Have there been negative aspects? To speak with natives 7 Through interaction you learn to improvise, to talk more spontaneous & fluently 7 Cultural exchange 2 To expand the lexicon 1 To apply what we learn in the classroom 1 Cultural exchange. 4 Distant contact 4 To put in practice the theory about the use of ICT 1 Interesting & positive. 1 Fantastic for the communication and teaching of Spanish 2 To put in practice theories on language teaching & learning 3 Direct & visual contact with the interlocutor 2 To learn in a pleasant way 1 To help the learner 1 What has been the positive of the project? NNS: 17 Granada (NS: 10) Barcelona (NS: 7)
  • 40. PRESENT- FUTURE www.niflar.eu
  • 41.
    • Objectives:
    • Enhance intercultural communicative competence through networked interaction:
        • Video-web communication
        • Virtual worlds (Second Life)
    • Languages: Dutch, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish
    • Partners: Netherlands: Utrecht University, TeLL Consult & 2 secondary schools
    • Spain: Universities of Granada & Valencia & 2 secondary schools
    • Portugal: University of Coimbra
    • Czech Republic: University of Palacky
    • Russia: Nevsky & NTSU
    • Chile: University of Concepción
  • 42. www.niflar.eu Thank you!