Prospects and Pitfalls in Chinese and North American Telecollaboration Projects

1. Prospects and Pitfalls in Chinese and North American Telecollaboration Projects Gretchen Nauman gan120@psu.edu Pennsylvania State University 5th International Conference on ELT in China Beijing, May 20, 2007

2. Overview of Presentation • What is telecollaboration (TC)? • Why is telecollaboration (TC) useful? • Review of literature on using TC • Survey of teachers of Chinese (CFL teachers)

3. Telecollaboration: Background • Only about 10 year history • An alternative to study abroad • Not CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning), computer acting as a teacher-like resource • CMC (Computer Mediated Communication), computer as a tool • Not a short activity, goes on for 1-2 terms

4. Telecollaboration: Definition Defined by Belz (2003a): In telecollaborative partnerships, internationally-dispersed learners in parallel language classes use Internet communication tools such as e-mail, synchronous chat, threaded discussion, … in order to support social interaction, dialogue, debate, and intercultural exchange. The underlying rationale for this learning configuration is to provide the participants with cost-effective access to and engagement with representatives of the respective "languaculture" (Agar, 1994) under study.

5. Underlying Assumptions of TC • Culture is not facts about a group of people but ways of doing (Agar, 1994), so interaction is a critical way to understand culture • Culture and language can not be separated: language reflects culture and culture is expressed through language • Awareness of one’s own culture is enhanced when studying another culture (Kramsch, 1993)

6. Telecollaboration vs. Pen Pals • With pen-pals, contact and exchange of information doesn’t necessarily lead to deeper understanding of other culture (O’Dowd, 2003) • TC emphasizes engagement with a different group and learning culture through interaction and reflection with them • TC is a class-wide activity, not merely focused on individual communications between students • Information gathered by students is shared • Teacher guides students to understand interactions

7. The Components of TC • Cooperative relationship between two teachers of two languages (e.g. Chinese and English) • Planning activities which will guide students’ engagement with one another on meaningful topics • Using time in class to guide students to carefully interpret interactions • Activities arranged so that students do some activities in L1 and some in L2

8. The Components of TC (cont.) • Computer mediated communication (CMC) • Exchange of emails (asynchronous methods) • Use of chat programs (synchronous methods) • Exchange of information through on-line surveys, web pages or other media • Discussions with individual partners or small groups of topics which reveal “cultural fault lines” (Kramsch, 1993) between two cultures and also diversity of views within one culture • Classwide discussions (debriefing) on interactions

9. Why TC Enhances Language Learning • Using a foreign language becomes relevant and authentic • There are social consequences for the use of language, so students can think about how to best convey their ideas (Belz & Kinginger, 2003) • Provides a written record of communication which can be studied for: • Detailed discussion of content • Detailed study of native speaker language use • Detailed study of students’ L2 use

10. Considerations: Plans • TC must meet important goals of the class, not be an added on activity • Both classes must benefit (Greenfield, 2003) • E.g. Muller-Hartmann (2000), 4 phases: • Getting to know each other • Read and discuss same texts in two classes • Close reading of areas with different interpretations • Coordinating perspectives through joint project

11. Considerations: Role of the Teacher • Teacher must guide well to help minimize misunderstandings and stereotypes • Furstenberg et al (2001), teachers help by: • Keeping students from making hasty generalizations • Showing them different kinds of tone in communications • Pushing students to be open-minded and be ready to re-evaluate opinions • Two teachers must collaborate closely (Belz & Muller-Hartmann, 2003)

12. Considerations: Possible Tensions • Students may understand same genre differently (e.g. American students do not like using email, Thorne, 2003) • Tone and communication style in writing may cause goals of groups to appear to be different (e.g. getting information vs. establishing relationships) (Belz, 2003b) • Questions about own culture may cause students to feel defensive at times

13. Rationale for Study • Studies about TC have mostly been concerning English and European languages (some Japanese) • Are there were some reasons why it would be difficult to do with English and Chinese? • Research questions: • Are some CFL teachers using TC? • How open are CFL teachers to using TC?

14. Survey of Teachers of Chinese • CFL Teachers from the Chinese Language Teachers Association answered on-line survey • Close to 5% response rate, 32 teachers • Most were from North America • 75% from colleges, 25% from high schools • Among colleges, 25% from schools with no Chinese majors, only Chinese courses

15. Survey Results: Culture and Language • Students need more opportunities to communicate with native speakers of Chinese • Authentic communication motivates students and gives them confidence • Students need to understand Chinese thinking because language and culture are inseparable • Collection of authentic materials is great benefit of TC

16. Survey Results: Technology • Using technology is sometimes too time consuming • However, 75% were currently having students use computers in some activities • Many felt that their departments wanted them to use more technology • Software and interface may be a problem, but not a significant issue (c.f. www.mandarintools.com/)

17. Survey Results: Possible Difficulties • Finding a partner class is not easy • The other class may not respond quickly enough or schedules may be hard to coordinate • American students’ lower Chinese level may make communication more difficult • Using both Chinese and English not seen as a significant problem

18. Conclusions • Most respondents felt much potential in TC: it could meet student needs • TC fits with the goals and priorities of more than half of respondents • TC is understood to enhance language abilities and knowledge as well as cultural competence • Many lack confidence because they are not sure about how to work out the details

19. References • Agar, M. (1994) Language Shock: Understanding The Culture Of Conversation, Harper Books. • Belz, J.A.(2003a). From the special issue editor. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 2, pp. 2-5. • Belz, J.A. (2003b). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 2, pp. 68-117. • Belz, J. A. & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53, 4, pp. 591-647. • Belz, J. A., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), pp. 71-89. • Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura project. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 1, pp. 55-102. • Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative e-mail exchange for teaching secondary ESL: A case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 1, pp. 46-70. • Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. • Muller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 2, pp. 129-147. • O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 2, pp. 118-144. • Thorne, S. (2003a). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 2, pp. 38-67.