1. "This comment was removed"
The challenges of harnessing
“
Web 2.0 for language and
intercultural learning
Francesca Helm – University of Padova, Italy
Web 2.0 and Language Learning Conference University of Limerick, 1 June 2012.

2. Where I’m coming from
 Teach English at the Faculty of Political
Science, University of Padova, Italy.

3. Don’t mention the war!
 Foreign language education, in particular ELT, has
tended to avoid the discussion of ‘sensitive topics’
 Savignon and Sysoyev’s “taxonomy of socio-cultural
strategies” includes: “using diplomacy for the purpose of
maintaining a dialogue of cultures in the spirit of peace
and mutual understanding; redirecting a discussion to a
more neutral topic; dissimulate[ing] personal views to
avoid potential conflict” (Savignon & Sysoyey 2002, p.
513)
 Intercultural training has also focused on avoiding
disagreement and conflict

4. Intercultural dialogue
 Response to the growing trend of xenophobia in
numerous European countries in the first years of the
21st century
 “forward looking model for managing cultural diversity”
 Intercultural dialogue requires the freedom and ability to
express oneself, as well as the willingness and capacity
to listen to the views of others. (White paper on
Intercultural Dialogue 2008: 17)

5. Educator attitudes
 Intent project – financed by LLP
 Survey of 210 European educators about
telecollaboration, above all foreign language educators
or teacher trainers
 from 142 universities
 in 22 European countries
 102 of these educators HAD experience of
telecollaboration
 108 had no experience

6. Disagreement and ‘sensitive’ topics
Experienced telecollaborators Educators with no experience
of telecollaboration

7. “Intercultural communcation
in the wild…
 situated in arenas of social activity that are less
controllable than classroom or organized online
intercultural exchanges might be, but which present
interesting, and perhaps even compelling, opportunities
for intercultural exchange, agentive action and meaning
making”.
(Thorne 2010)
 massively multiplayer online games
 Internet interest communities ( Thorne et al. 2009),
 public Internet discussion forums (Hanna and de Nooy
2009)
 YouTube cultures of contribution and participation

13.  Far from the utopia of the borderless world, the Internet
offers easy opportunities for fortifying frontiers, for
reinforcing stereotypes, for galvanizing racist hostility.
This is particularly true of online discussion, which offers
opportunities to stage intercultural battles. With its rapid,
largely anonymous exchanges, its capacity for faceless
interaction between strangers without means of redress
(Sproull & Kiesler, 1986, 1991) and the dominance of an
adversarial communication style in postings (Herring
1996) Internet discussion lends itself to volatile disputes,
and never more so than when race and culture are in
question” (Hanna & de Nooy 2009, p.137).

17. Characteristics of CMC
 “The many instantiations of CMC technology can
have a profound impact on the discourse
patterns and communicative behaviours of its
participants”
 Temporality: Asynchronous/Synchronous
 Anonymity: Low/High
 Modality: Oral/Written/Visual
 Spatiality: Low/High
 (Smith et al. 2003)

18. Contextual factors
 Who are the participants?
 How many are there?
 Length and nature of relationship
 Topic of discussion
 Public or private,
 Moderated or unmoderated,
 Participation rules
 General attitude to discussion
 (adapted from Thurlow et al. 2004)

19. Potential disadvantages of
IC in the wild
 Trolling, flaming, exposing students to offensive
or inappropriate language
 Time intensive
 Finding appropriate sites
 Effort required to negotiate inclusion
 Supporting learners
 More time spent on language analysis and
receptive skills than on language production

20. A ‘safe’ intercultural exchange

21. Contextual factors
 6-9 participants from universities in US, Europe and
MENA
 8 weeks of 2-hour synchronous multimodal discussion
and personal blog
 Do not know each other before discussion, are
registered in program by uni professors
 Topic – relationship between the ‘West’ and the
predominantly Arab and Muslim world
 Private, moderated by 2 trained facilitators,
 Group established ground rules
 Some participate as part of course, others genuinely
interested

22. Soliya group Discussion Ground Rules
1. We will take care when we talk about groups in absolutes.
2. We will use the phrases “Arab and Muslim World” and “Western
Societies”.
3. We will listen with an open mind, not a closed mind.
4. We will respect others by listening to their point of view.
5. We will understand and accept that others have differences in
backgrounds and ideas.
6. We will share with the group if any of us feels insulted.
7. We will be honest while being careful to select our words.
8. We will ask why and ask questions to go deeper into
conversations.
9. We will be okay with silence as it allows us to create a well
thought-out response or statement.

23. Facilitator roles
 Structuring dialogue sessions
 Transcribing/summarising oral discussion
 Facilitating and checking understanding
 Engaging all participants in discussion
 Pushing conversations deeper
 Mirroring, framing, summarising
 Modelling
 Developing students’ media literacy skills
 Fostering group ownership of the dialogue
process.

24.  How do contextual and technical features
interact to promote intercultural dialogue?
 Handout
 Excerpts from 560 lines of text chat from one
2-hour multimodal synchronous session of the
Soliya Connect Program

25. Multimodality and participation
Text chat is used:
 to get turn in spoken dialogue,
 18. MME higab is part from religion
 show active listening and acknowledge others’ contributions without
interrupting flow
 31. FMA: thanks FTM!
 35. MLA: clear! Thanks
 to share links and information
Visual cues can be used to gauge reaction and prompt participation
 48. Fac1: Fac2: i can see FTM smiling – reaction?
 49. Fac1: FTM: totally disagrees

26. Synchronicity/asynchronicity –
duration of exchange
90 Fac2: FTM: after our talk last week
91 Fac2: I went online and did some research about that masssacre
92 Fac2: and I realised that he killed 3 jews and that Muslims were
among the people he killed too
…
126 MLA: ok i will do some research
127 Fac2: do some research about it
128 Fac2: Fac1: could you say what you think about in Islam
129 Fac2: what would be considered a radical
130 MLA: We will discuss next monday after i do research
….
225 Fac2: FTM: I agree too, I think today's sesion was good, each
week we get more and more used to each other
226 Fac2: and I hope that not next week but the week after
227 Fac2: will be even better!

27. Evidence of listening, checking
understanding
19. Fac1: FMA: thanks, so it sounds like it's considered
oppressive when it's an obligation and not a choice
20. Fac1: perhaps it was basd on a western perspective
21. Fac1: perhaps people who wear it in the west may feel
profiled
22. Fac1: MLA: agrees, thinks that in his perspective it's
oppressive when it's an obligation and it's not a choice
23. Fac1: MLA: didn't know that you can choose
24. FMA: would you agree with what we've said, FTM?

28. We will ask why and ask questions to go
deeper into conversations
43. Fac1: FMA: MME, who made that rule?
44. Fac1: why is it best?
54. Fac1: FTM: this is the biggest conflict right now between muslims
55. Fac1: FTM: dont' ask me more details because it's one of the
biggest issues bewteen muslims
56 Fac1: MME; wants to say to FTM that we must to follow religion -
we take orders to work
57 Fac1: FTM: doesn't want to speak about this for now
58. Fac1: FMA: question for MME - regarding the niqab and hijab, is
that written or cultural or in traditional law? how did this come to
be part of the religion?

29. Learning from disagreeing!
207 Fac2: Fac1: Any thoughts about today, about the discussion and dynamics
208 Fac2: FTM: next week I can't be here with you
…..
218 Fac2: Fac1: any further thoughts
219 Fac2: MLA - today we discussed a lot of interesting things
220 Fac2: even though there were only few of us
221 Fac2: but I hope next week we can have everyone here to talk about these issues
222 Fac2: have a good week
223 Fac2: MWA: agrees today went really well - ironically think we have a better
conversation
224 Fac2: wehn we don't agree with each other
225 Fac2: FTM: I agree too, I think today's sesion was good, each week we get more
and more used to each other
226 Fac2: and I hope that not next week but the week after
227 Fac2: will be even better!
228 MWA: thanks so much
229 FTM: bye
230 MWA: see you monday
231 Fac2: byee

30. “If you haven’t fought with each other you do not know
each other”
Chinese proverb
While Web 2.0 does offer many opportunities for sharing
interests, working towards a common goal as in the case
of gaming, for instance, but when it comes to discussing
intercultural or sensitive issues perhaps a ‘safe space’ is
needed for conflict to become transformative and
educational.