While there is a growing body of research on the cognitive activity of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) in distance-learning programmes, this paper focuses on how asynchronous CMC can be used in a blended on-campus language course to complement classroom activity. More specifically, the study examines students´ participation in an online intercultural forum. It is hoped that the study will shed some light on student engagement patterns in a blended learning environment and help us identify a number of instructional strategies to promote authentic dialogue between between native and non-native speakers. Exploiting the model of content analysis proposed in the Practical Inquiry Model by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001), the case study investigates collaborative interaction between Irish undergraduate students and French Erasmus students who participated in an online discussion forum to develop their intercultural competence. The qualitative analysis of students’ postings as well as students’ feedback from reflective reports and post-task questionnaires shows that students were able to develop a ‘dialogical space’ (Helm et al. 2012, p.37) and self-regulate their learning process, thus demonstrating that ‘overt teacher facilitation’ was not necessary to support students’ advanced cognitive learning. The findings would also suggest that “in order for students to develop their own voice, they first needed to develop an ‘ear’ for other voices.” (Kramsch 2014, p. 309).

1. Shaping student engagement
in online intercultural communication
Marie-Thérèse Batardière
University of Limerick, Ireland
7th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGIES
University of Victoria, Canada, 25-26 June 2018

2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE
oContext of L2 learning
oCase study: a Franco-Irish online
exchange
▪ Theoretical perspectives on deep learning
oShaping student learning experience
oConclusion

3. INTERNATIONALISATION
OF THE CURRICULUM
“We will continue to raise our
international profile. This will be
achieved by further internationalising
the UL student experience.”
UL Strategic Plan 2015-19: ‘Broadening Horizons’
(introductory message from Prof Don Barry, p.7)

4. TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF
‘INTERNATIONALISATION AT HOME’*
Internationalisation at Home is the
purposeful integration of international
and intercultural dimensions into the
formal and informal curriculum for all
students, within domestic learning
environments.
The European Higher Education Area: Between
critical reflections and future policies, 2015
*concept included in the European Commission’s education policy since 2013

5. Virtual
Exchange
Telecollaboration
Online
Intercultural
Exchange
E-tandem /
Teletandem
Global Virtual
Teams
Globally-
Networked
Learning
Environments
Collaborative
Online
International
Learning (COIL)
From telecollaboration to virtual exchange
(O’Dowd, 2018, p.4)

6. A CASE STUDY OF INTERCULTURAL
LEARNING:
A FRANCO-IRISH ONLINE
COLLABORATION
http://www.uni-
collaboration.eu/?q=node/429

7. FRANCO-IRISH ONLINE COLLABORATION
PARTICIPANTS’ PROFILE
o 16 Irish undergraduates*[‘Business with French’ year 4]
• Intermediate to advanced L2 learners
• Work/ Study abroad undertaken in year 2 or 3
o 16 Erasmus Students* from France & Belgium
• on UL campus for study abroad
• Partners unknown to L2 students
• Already working in tandem face to face partnerships
with 3rd UL students – ‘Translation & Intercultural studies’
module
Both groups of students are on University campus
*NNS: 7 males/ 9 females *NS: 2 males/ 14 females

8. FRANCO-IRISH ONLINE COLLABORATION
PROJECT OUTLINE
Individual project on Francophone & European current
affairs (1/4 of a language module)
Blended task-based learning
(Stage 1) -4 weeks -1h/w in Call lab-(F2F) tutorial:
->Research conducted on the Internet
(Stage 2) -8 weeks outside-class activity – CMC -
tandem partners
->Online dialogic interactions via posts
->Co-Production of a discussion synthesis
(Stage 3) -final week in class (optional) - oral feedback

9. FRANCO-IRISH ONLINE COLLABORATION
TASK GUIDELINES

12. FRANCO-IRISH ONLINE DISCUSSION
DATA SOURCES
Students’ postings
180 messages in total (average length 250 words)
circa 45 000 words
Students’ feedback
->online questionnaire (2 weeks after the online activity)
22/32 students www.surveymonkey.com/
->students’ interviews (a month after the project)
4/32 students

13. Focus on students’ cognitive presence in
online interactions
Cognitive presence is defined as “the
extent to which the participants are able
to construct and confirm meaning through
sustained reflection and discourse”.
(Garrison et al., 2001, p.11)
Students’ postings
Content analysis of discussion transcripts
Franco-Irish online discussion

14. A research tool to explore students’
cognitive activity in online interactions
(i.e., to examine students’ level of critical thinking & deep
learning)
The Practical Inquiry (PI) model
A framework used to describe and assess
the development of cognitive presence in
online learning.
(Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001)
A conceptual framework defining a four-
phase process

15. Descriptor Sociocognitive processes Example
Phase 1/
Initiation
phase
(Triggering
event)
Identifying potential
problems/ Asking
questions to prompt more
discussions
«[…] Je me demande toujours s'il y a quelque chose que l'on puisse faire en tant que
simples étudiants mais à chaque fois le résultat de toutes mes pensées n'est qu'une
immense tristesse. La seule chose que je peux faire dans la vie de tous les jours c'est
parler de ça avec les autres jeunes […]? Et toi, est-ce que tu penses qu'on pourrait
tous faire quelque chose pour aider ces gens?
E –Erasmus student)
Phase 2/
Exploration
Phase
Exchanging ideas
Discussing ambiguities
Offering suggestions
« Comme tu l’as dit, il est difficile pour les étudiants à aider les réfugiés. […]
Toutefois, des sites tels que ‘Unicef’, ‘Trocaire’, et ‘OxFam Ireland’, permettre aux
irlandais de faire des dons. Chaque centime aide! Mais quelle est ton opinion sur le
don de l'argent? » (M –Irish student)
Phase 3/
Integration
Phase
Connecting ideas to
construct new meanings/
Incorporating information
from other sources
Creating solutions
« […] A propos des associations il y a ‘Save the Children’, c'est une organisation fiable.
J'ai trouvé un article intéressant à propos des enfants syriens et de Save the Children.
Voici le lien: http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2014/01/22/syrie-enfants-guerre-ong-save-the-children_n_4636030.html
Donne-moi ton avis ! » (E)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
«Je participe à ‘The Christmas shoe box appeal’ à UL. Peut-être tu peux aussi ? Ces
boîtes vont aux enfants africains et européens de l'Est. Cela peut bénéficier aussi à
certains enfants syriens. Les étudiants recueilleront les boites en semaine 10 […].
Voici un lien : https://www.facebook.com/events/156092148075978/ (M)
Phase 4/
Resolution
Phase
(Summary of
discussion)
Applying new ideas
Critically assessing and
defending solutions
Taking direct or vicarious
action
[…] Avec ce travail en binôme on a aussi essayé de trouver des solutions pour cette
situation: tous les pays doivent se sentir concernés et devraient envoyer des aides aux
syriens. En ce qui concerne les jeunes, on pourrait tous faire des dons d'argent avec
des associations telles que 'Save the Children'
En Plus, nous avons parlé des musiciens et des dons. Acheter une chanson sur iTunes
est un moyen facile pour les étudiants d'aider la situation. Acheter une chanson, au
moins une fois et pour une bonne cause, c'est tout à fait faisable ! ‘Chaque petit geste’
aide. Il faut se le dire. (M & E)
Table 2. Four-Phase Practical Inquiry Model (adapted from Garrison et al., 2001)

16. STUDENTS’ COGNITIVE PRESENCE IN INTERACTIONS
No of partnerships
per PI category
No of postings per PI
category (180 in total)
Phase 1/
Initiation Phase
(Triggering event)
-------------- 17/ 9.5%
Phase 2/
Exploration Phase 16/16 partnerships 49/ 27.2%
Phase 3/
Integration Phase 16/16 partnerships 106/ 58.8%
Phase 4/
Resolution Phase 7/16 partnerships 8/ 4.5%
Other 8/ 4%

17. UNDERSTANDING LEARNING IN A ‘BLENDED-LEARNING’ ENVIRONMENT
Deep learning is associated with the
quality of student engagement.
(Wang, 2010)
Engagement is defined as ‘student-
faculty interaction, peer-to-peer
collaboration and active learning’.
(Chen et al, 2008)

18. Variables affecting level of students’
engagement
o Students’ target Language proficiency
o Students’ prior experience of the TL country
o Students’ expectations & goals
o Students’ learning style & strategies
o Students’ grades
o Classroom environment
o Teacher’s role
(Chen, 2014)

19. SHAPING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE TASK
• Step 1 -Familiarisation with the task
[Teacher guidance]
• Step 2 -Experimentation
• Step 3 -Appropriation of the task
[Peer support]

20. STEP 1 -FAMILIARISATION (WITH THE TASK)
The teacher
o explains task goals and potential outcomes (Brindley et al,
2009)
o offers clear instructions & marking criteria (O'Dowd,2007)
o allows access to previous forums (Lamy and Goodfellow, 2010)
o gives free choice of topics (Curtis and Lawson, 2001)
o identifies article potential difficulties (Hanna and de Nooy, 2009)
o sets up a ‘real world’ activity (Helm, 2013)
Teacher’s explicit instructional guidance

21. STEP 2 -EXPERIMENTATION
STEP 3 -APPROPRIATION
Learners
• experiment new mode of learning
• express ideas/ share knowledge/ prompt each other
• gain confidence
• engage in true (intercultural) dialogue
• build on/ co-construct knowledge
• regulate their learning
• take responsibility (vis-à-vis partner)
Peer* feedback & scaffolding
*Expert-learner

22. STEP 3 -APPROPRIATION (CONT.)
TOWARDS SELF-REGULATION

23. What factors seem to have an impact on
the quality of interaction?
othe design of the course [which
promoted student’s authentic dialogue]
(see Weerasinghe et al., 2012)
oL1 partners’ expert knowledge and
language proficiency [which provided
peer- scaffolding]
(see Lee, 2009)
23

24. FINAL NOTE
In our interconnected world the
tasks of both bringing the equality
of opportunities and promoting
intercultural dialogue continue to
be priorities for higher education.
(Tcherepashenets, 2015, p.47)

25. FRANCO-IRISH ONLINE COLLABORATION
ASSIGNMENT GRID
Stage 1 NNS: 5%
Article summary
Stage 2 NNS: 15% / NS: 20%
Exchanges between NNS and NS
Stage 3 NNS 5% / NS: 5% (shared grade)
A synthesis of online discussion
Percentage of module grade: 25% (NNS / NS)