Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Impact of native nonnative speaker interaction through video-web communication slideshare


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

Impact of native nonnative speaker interaction through video-web communication slideshare

  1. 1. Impact of native-nonnative speaker interaction through video-webcommunication and Second Life on students’ Intercultural Communicative Competence Kristi Jauregi & Silvia Canto Utrecht University Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  2. 2. We present the results of a casestudy (research in progress) onthe added value of implementingnetworked interaction with expertpeers in language courses. Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  3. 3. IntroductionNIFLAR (2009-2011)Design & evaluation of innovative e- learning tasks for synchronous oral interaction with experts (NSs) for the development of ICC2 environments: 3D Virtual worlds and Videocommunication Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  4. 4. NIFLAR 2009-2011 Videocommunication Adobe ConnectVirtual worlds Second Life Open Sim
  5. 5. Social- ti on SLA theories acconstructivism t er (Mackey & Polio, 2009)(Vygotsky, 1978) In with expert peers
  6. 6. Context• In a previous study (Canto, Jauregi & Bergh, in press) it was found: those students participating in blended learning courses (with opportunities to carry out tasks with NSs through VC or SL) developed more their communicative competence than a control group (who carried out the same tasks in the classroom setting with no NSs). Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  7. 7. Previous study: Effects on Communicative Competence Subjects 3 groups of Spanish (B1) chosen at random: 1. Experimental group VC (N:14) 2. Experimental group SL (N:14) 3. Control group (N: 14) Carried out 5 interaction tasks during a 7 weeks’ course. Instruments: - Pre- & post- oral tests were taken and recorded - Oral tests were assessed by 2 independent raters according to an assessment grid (CEFR: range, accuracy, fluency, coherence & adequacy)
  8. 8. Previous study: Effects on Communicative Competence Interaction effect between condition and pre- and post-tests was found to be significant (F 2, 34 = 5.01; p = .012). 8 Oral Language Proficiency VC 7 SL C Score 6 VC C 5 SL 4 Pre PostThe results show that the difference between pre- and post- oral tests depends on the specificcondition. Especially in the SL and VC condition students show on average more progression than inthe control condition. Hence, both SL and VWC have an additive effect on students’ test scores.
  9. 9. Objectives of the present case study (research in progress) • To study what happens during those interactions: what learning opportunities emerge in NS-NNS interactions through new media as compared to a control group • To analyse the differences in learning opportunities the different contexts offer Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  10. 10. Method: case study• 3 groups at random chosen: 1. A videocommunication group: 2 NNs &1 NS 2. A Second Life group: 2 NNSs & 1 NS 3. A Control group: 4 NNSs• NNSs: students of Spanish (B1 level) from Utrecht University• NSs: pre-service teachers from the University of Valencia Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  11. 11. Weekly tasksTasks DescriptionSession 1: Cool Students:people (1) visit an apartment they are meant to share (2) talk about themselves and exchange cultural information triggered by pictures & (3) choose an outing option (go to the cinema, to a museum or to walk in the city).Session 2: Participants plan a holiday and reflect on past holidayPeople & adventure experiencesSession 3: Participants have to play different roles given theMovie celebrity indications of a brief script p e o p l eSession 4: Participants impersonate different characters andPeople with heart experience the reactions caused on others
  12. 12. Interaction analysis • Time devoted • Language related episodes (Swain & Lapkin, 1995) • Interculturally related episodes (Byram, 1997) -> negotiation of meaning Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  13. 13. Examples:VC• VC task 2 Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  14. 14. Examples: SLSL task 2 Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  15. 15. Examples: C• Control group, task 2 Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  16. 16. Examples:VC• VC task 5 Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  17. 17. Examples: SL• SL task 5 Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  18. 18. Examples: C• Control group, task 5 Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  19. 19. Results: time + negotiation of meaningTable 1. Number of negotiations per group – task 2 Group Task Negotiations durationSecond Life 01:15:01 27Video communication 01:20:04 23Control (C) 00:41:00 2 Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  20. 20. Results: time + negotiation of cultural meaningTable 2. Number of negotiations per group – task 5 Group Task Negotiations durationSecond Life 01:46:08 26Video communication 01:05:33 24Control 00:41:00 12 Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  21. 21. Example of cultural clarificationSi ves estas imágenes por la calle, ¿qué piensas que ha pasado? [10]
  22. 22. Example of cultural clarificationNNS1: cuando has terminado el instituto/ NNS1: when you have finished your¿sí? hay una fiesta y ponemos nuestras secondary education / yes? there is amochilas fuera/ con la bandera de party and we put our rucksacks outside/Holanda y / y es como una fiesta que todo with the Dutch flag and / and it is like ael mundo sabe que has hmm terminado el party that everybody knows that you haveinstituto bien hmm finished your secondary educationNS: ¡Ah! ¿y entonces se quedan ahí las wellmochilas? NS: Ah! and then the rucksacks stayNNS1 : sí/ fuera/ por dos semanas o así there?(risas NNS1: yes/ outside/ for two weeks or soNS: ¡Ah! (laughter)NNS1: porque es la idea que nunca NS: Ah!tenemos que usar la mochila (risas) NNS1: because the idea is that we don’tNS: ¡Ah! ¡qué originales! have to use the rucksack anymore (laughter) NS: Ah! how original! Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  23. 23. Differences VC vs SL?• SL elicited a high degree of rich participation, some triggered by elements of the world. Added value: action.• The interactions from the VC group (& control group) were characterized by a more descriptive language more limited to the photographs being used. Added value: access to visual information (through webcam). Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  24. 24. Conclusions• The learning opportunities offered for SCMC via VC and SL seem to be much richer than those offered by the traditional educational setting (control group)• This type of environments in addition to providing access to a wide range of interlocutors (including native speakers) may enhance cross-cultural understanding and communicative competence in the target language.• The electronic medium seems to afford more opportunities for active participation, particularly SL, and provides a forum where participants actively engage in negotiation of meaning. Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  25. 25. Future research• Negotiation of topic development• Pragmatic issues (face)• Identity negotiationIn further projects: EUROVERSITY & TILA Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  26. 26. Thank you for your attention! s.canto@uu.nlNIFLAR: www.niflar.euEUROVERSITY: Gothenburg, Eurocall 2012
  27. 27. References• Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.• Canto, S., Jauregi, K. & Bergh, H. v/d (in press). Integrating cross-cultural interaction through video-communication and virtual worlds in foreign language teaching programs: is there an added value? To be published in January 2013 in ReCALL.• Mackey, A. & Polio, Ch. (Eds.) (2009). Multiple Perspectives on Interaction. New York: Routledge.• Swain. M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16: 371-91.• Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind & Society. Cambridge: Mass. Harvard University Press.