Talk to be given at the "New Directions in Telecollaborative Research and Practice: The Second Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education" at Trinity College Dublin, 21-23 April, 2016. Our presentation outlines a study carried out in the context of the European-funded project TILA (Telecollaboration for Intercultural Language Acquisition - Grant Agreement Number 2012-4001/001-001). This two-year project involved secondary school students from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. Our aim in this presentation is to offer insights into the verbal and non-verbal characteristics of synchronous telecollaboration (STC). Our corpus consists of twelve recordings of tandem interactions between Spanish and British secondary school students aged between 14 and 15. In the first stage of our analysis we transcribed the video recordings. The transcriptions include all linguistically coded communication –both spoken and written– as well as annotations of paralinguistic and non-linguistic phenomena. In our analysis we draw on Goffman, 1956, Brown and Levinson, 1987 and Pennock-Speck and del Saz-Rubio, 2013. We focus specifically on Goffman’s (1956: 476) notion of deference, “a symbolic means by which appreciation is regularly conveyed to a recipient”. There are two main types of deference: “avoidance rituals”, similar to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) negative politeness strategies, and “presentation rituals” (Goffman, 1956: 481), akin to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) positive politeness strategies. This research brings to light empirical evidence of the affordances of STC when compared with other kinds of online peer interaction. Our results show that participants systematically use body language and non-verbal cues along with verbal language to make their interlocutors feel at ease, to resolve potentially embarrassing moments and also to offer them praise. It also provides insights into how TC can enhance Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC) defined by Walsh (2011: 158) as “Teachers’ and learners’ ability to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning”. We posit that TC promotes CIC and that students benefit from the peer-feedback and the peer-scaffolding that ensue from interaction of this kind.

1. Analysing Students’ Communicative
Strategies in Synchronous Telecollaboration
Interactions from a Multimodal Perspective
Barry Pennock-Speck
Barry.Pennock@uv.es
Begoña Clavel-Arroitia
Begona.Clavel@uv.es

2. Contents
 The TILA project
 Synchronous Telecollaboration
 Multimodality in STC
 Classroom Interactional Competence in TC
 The context of the study
 Results
 Conclusions

3. TILA Project (Telecollaboration for Intercultural Language
Acquisition)
• General objective: to enrich the teaching and learning of foreign
languages, intercultural competence and study the results of the
implementation of telecollaboration in that process.
• Beneficiaries: students in secondary education in
• Life long learning project
(European Comission)
• Duration: 2013-2015

4. Telecollaboration
 “ …. offers opportunities to use the target language to
negotiate both meaning and form in a social context” …”
(Lee, 2001: 232)
 Develops language skills and intercultural communicative
competence (Guth & Helm, 2010; Dooly, 2011; Derivry &
Jauregi, 2014).
 Internationally dispersed students (Belz, 2003: 68)
 Institutionalized settings (Belz, 2003: 68)
 Collaborative tasks (O'Dowd, 2013: 1)
 Synchronous/asynchronous computer-mediated
communication (van der Zwaard & Bannink, 2014: 137)

5. Multimodality in STC
• Not only linguistically coded spoken and written language but
also
• Paralinguistic features of voice:
– voice quality: breathy, creaky, etc.
– Intonation, stress, rhythm
– Accent
• Images
• Video

6. Multimodality in STC
• The sum of semiotic modes and how they interact
• Mediality: physical substratum and purpose
– not just ink and paper but writing, not sound waves but
speaking (Schneider, 2006)
– Each medium has its affordances and constraints
– ‘the medium is the message’ (Herbert Marshall McLuhan).

7. Facework
• Goffman, Erving (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor.
American Anthropologist 58: 473-502.
• Brown Penelope and Levinson Stephen C. (1987). Politeness:
Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
• Pennock-Speck, Barry & del Saz Rubio, Milagros (2013). A
multimodal analysis of facework strategies in a corpus of charity
ads on British television. Journal of Pragmatics 49(1):38–56.

8. Facework
• Deference and demeanour Goffman (1956)
• Deference: “a symbolic means by which appreciation is regularly
conveyed to a recipient”. (Goffman 1956: 476)
• Deference: “avoidance rituals” and “presentation rituals”
• Avoidance: maintaining a distance from the other so as not to
encroach on that person’s “ideal sphere”.
• Also involves avoiding embarrassing topics (Goffman 1956:
482 –similar to negative politeness: B&L, 1987)

9. Facework
• Presentation rituals (1956 –similar to positive politeness: B&L,
1987)
• “presentational rituals, encompass acts through which the
individual makes specific attestations to recipients concerning
how he regards them and how he will treat them in the on-
coming interaction.” (Goffman 1956: 485)

10. Facework
• Demeanour: “that element of the individual’s ceremonial
behavior typically conveyed through deportment, dress, and
bearing, which serves to express to those in his immediate
presence that he is a person of certain desirable or undesirable
qualities” (Goffman 1956: 489 See also Penman, 1990)
• Overlapping of deference and demeanour: “ … a willingness to
give others their deferential due is one of the qualities which the
individual owes it to others to express through his conduct, just as
a willingness to conduct oneself with good demeanor is in general
a way of showing deference to those present. (Goffman 1956:
489)

11. Classroom Interactional Competence in TC
• Negotiation of meaning and form (Lee, 2001: 232)
• “Teachers can provide students with adequate tasks in an
adequate setting for them to engage in negotiation of meaning
and this can be very effectively done through TC” (Clavel-Arroitia
& Pennock-Speck, 2015).
• See also: Jauregi, Melchor-Couto, Vilar Beltran (2013;
Hoffstaedter & Kohn, 2014)

12. Classroom Interactional Competence in TC
• According to Walsh (2002: 10-13) some of the features that characterize
teacher’s language use which facilitates learner involvement are:
– direct error correction,
– content feedback,
– checking for confirmation,
– extended wait-time
– and scaffolding.
• In instructional settings, this is normally overseen by the T. Our aim
here is to demonstrate that Ss in TC can adapt and implement those
features that characterize T’s language and thus take charge of their
own learning as we will see in the results.

13. Classroom Interactional Competence in TC
• Facilitating autonomous learning involves several aspects such
as:
a. Changing teacher and student roles
b. The use of tasks
c. Telecollaboration

14. Classroom Interactional Competence in TC
Learning based on tasks
Tasks are divided into three phases:
Pre-task
Main task
Post-task

15. Classroom Interactional Competence in TC
Learning based on tasks
Tasks are divided into three phases:
Pre-task
Main task
Post-task

16. Classroom Interactional Competence in TC
• Students have the main role
• Autonomous learning
• Collaborative work
• The teacher as facilitator
• NEGOTIATION OF MEANING (PEERS)

17. Classroom Interactional Competence in TC
• Students have the main role
• Autonomous learning
• Collaborative work
• The teacher as facilitator
• NEGOTIATION OF MEANING (PEERS)

18. Context of the Study: TILA Project in Spain
Secondary schools
IES Clot del Moro (Sagunt)
IES La Garrigosa (Meliana)
IES L’Eliana
IES Joan Fuster (Sueca)
Universitat de València
Spanish cluster coordinator: Begoña Clavel Arroitia
Piloting coordinator and IP: Barry Pennock Speck
Godolphin and Latymer (London, UK)

19. Context of the study
• Based on the transcription of videos of online interactions
between Spanish and British students using BBB.
• The students are involved in task-based exercises called
“Getting to know you/Conociéndonos”, “My town/Mi ciudad”
and “Planning a holiday/Planeando unas vacaciones”

20. Context of the study
• There are twenty one participants intervening in twelve videos
featuring interactions between English and Spanish students in
tandem constellations.
• Only fourteen have lengthy spoken interventions, one, ENG3,
speaks a couple of times and five just wave at the camera while
one just types, as in the case of ESP2.

21. Context of the study
• Our corpus comprises twelve videos and fourteen main
interactants.
• Here we will present the results from a subcorpus consisting of
four videos and their respective transcripts from
• There are three interactions (the first two videos correspond to
the first interaction). They take place on the following dates
27/11/2014 (two); 02/12/2014 and 04/12/2014.
• There are two main interactants ESP6 and ENG6, speak. Three
others: ENG7, ENG8, ENG9 appear briefly and wave at the camera.

22. Quantitative Results
• Sub-corpus contains 4759 words
• Due to the bilingual nature of the corpus it is difficult to use
quantitative evidence. English is not a pro-drop language so “I” and
“you” are common. Spanish is pro-drop so these pronouns are not
found in any great numbers.
• As the tasks revolve around “getting to know each other” and
“organising a holiday” this determines to a great extent both the
use of function words (I, you, etc.) and lexical words.
• “London” and the word “odio” to refer to the Chemistry subject
occur frequently. Both “sorry” and “siento” are common due to the
technical problems with sound.

23. Quantitative Results
• The word clusters in blue have to do mostly with the subjects they
had to talk about . The word clusters in red show that the technical
problems generated a lot of <genuinely more authentic?>
(mis)communication.
• Es muy cerca de
• Eh, ah, entonces tienes un
• Are you going?
• This academic year
• Estoy intentado
• Ahora? Ahora puedes
• Lo siento pero
• Sorry, let me
• Puedo, puedo verte

24. Qualitative Results
• Multiple instances of facework.
• Demeanour: Sts attend to each other’s
production, do not interrupt, nod,
smile, thumbs up, friendly waves,
introduce classmates, self-deprecate.

25. Qualitative Results
• Demeanour depends on age. Intonation, pace of
speech, expressions of surprise might not be
acceptable in adults.
• For instance, when ENG6, a 15-year-old girl finds that
ESP6 is 18, she does nothing to hide her surprise. Nor
does she do so when she finds out ESP6’s mother is also
her teacher.

26. Qualitative Results
• Deference:
• offering apologies for interrupting, expressing regret
“What a pity!”.
• Complimenting interlocutor indirectly “I love that
pronunciation: Laura”.
• ENG6 does the same thing with ESP6’s friend’s name

27. Qualitative Results
• ENG6 uses self-deprecation on numerous occasions
(humbling oneself according to B&L: 81)
• about her Spanish
• the weather in England
• her parents’ profession (at the same time a compliment)
• The profession she wants to pursue.

28. Qualitative Results
• ENG6 expresses wish to go to Mediterranean. B&L PPS –
finding common ground.
• They also find common ground regarding examinations and
subjects they like.
• Avoiding disagreement: ENG6 is surprised that ESP6 is in the
staff room but then says “Es muy enrollado”.

29. Qualitative Results
• CIC:
<ESP4> ¿Cuál es la fiesta donde tú vives? <trigger>
<ENG4> ¿Uhmm? Wait, otra vez. <asks for repetition>
<ESP4> ¿Qué fiesta se celebra donde tú vives? <reformulation>
<ESP4> Lo que más me gusta en mi ciudad es la plaza.
<ENG4> ¿Qué? <clarification request>
<ESP4> Lo que más me gusta en mi ciudad es el centro.
<reformulation>
<ENG4> Ah sí. <confirmation>

30. Qualitative Results
• CIC:
<ESP4> Estanterías para guardar los libros, ¿me entiendes? ¿lo
entiendes? <comprehension check>
<ENG4> Aha. <confirmation>
<ESP4> Una silla, dos armarios, y unos cajones <trigger>
<ENG4> ¿Qué? Unos…? <clarification request>
<ESP4> Unos cajones <repetition>
<ENG4> ¿Qué es? <question>
<ESP4> Es para guardar cosas. <feedback>
<ENG4> Ah… ok, ok, ok. <acceptance>

31. Qualitative Results
• CIC:
• <ESP7> I listen to that group. <trigger>
• <ENG11> You listen to what? <clarification request>
• <ESP7> The group that XXXX said. <reformulation>
• <ENG10> Oh!! Woo! <She nods and laughs> <acceptance>

32. Qualitative Results
• CIC:
• <ENG6> What’s it like having a turtle?! <trigger>
• <ESP6> What? <clarification request>
• <ENG6> ¿Como es tener un turtle? <translation>
• <ESP6> It’s fine because she doesn’t do anything!
• <ENG6> <Laughs and throws herself back into the seat> Well
you kind of knew that when you got a turtle! <Laughs again>

33. Conclusions
• Our multimodal analysis highlights the affordances of STC. There
are many non-linguistically-coded examples of non-verbal
communication and face-work ranging from bodily gestures,
facial expressions, intonation, loudness, etc. They can reinforce
verbal language or reveal sts’ real feelings.
• Our subjects show genuine surprise about
their peers and foreign culture.
• We have not found any cases of overt conflict.
• Students are well demeaned and are deferential vis à vis their
peers.
• Social and civic competences is a key
competence and includes interpersonal
and intercultural competence.

34. Conclusions
• The type of peer interaction that takes place in our sample
provides many opportunities that challenge the students’ ability to
comprehend what is being said and to communicate their own
ideas. (Clavel-Arroitia & Pennock-Speck, 2015)
• It would be very difficult to reproduce this kind of situation in the
traditional classroom both in terms of meaning negotiation and
face-work/interpersonal communication.
• Regarding authenticity, the Sts are aware of where they are and
the presence of the teacher but their interactions seem very
natural.

35. Thank
you!
Barry Pennock-Speck
Barry.Pennock@uv.es
Begoña Clavel-Arroitia
Begona.Clavel@uv.es