Student-driven telecollaborative action-research:
lessons learnt from students’ contributions to
online learning projects integrated into the
curriculum at Coventry University (UK)
Elwyn Lloyd and
Marina Orsini-Jones
Applied Research Group
Pedagogical Innovation in Languages and
Literature
Coventry University’s
mission statement:
“We aspire to be a
dynamic, global,
enterprising university.
We will work in
partnership with external
organisations through our
research and engage our
students as partners in a
community of learning.”
‘The Global Graduate’
Graduates able “to confront and deal with
the prejudices, stereotypes and myths that
they hold about other social groups and
cultures and that others may hold about
them” (O’Dowd quoting Byram 2007: 29).
ILLE (Intercultural Language
Learning Exchanges)
MexCo (Mexico City/MonterreyCoventry)
Ariadna
(León/Koblenz/Tel Aviv and
Coventry)
Project Lead: Marina Orsini-Jones
Project Lead: Robert O’Dowd
Moodle supported with dedicated
‘metaweb’ 
Moodle Supported with dedicated
‘metaweb’ 
Task-based and assessed (intercultural Task-based and assessed (intercultural
learning objects with Mahara) 
Blogs) 
‘Hybrid telecollaboration’: English as a ‘Hybrid telecollaboration’: English as a
Lingua Franca but with opportunities to Lingua Franca but with opportunities to
practise other languages 
practise other languages 
Semi-structured
Structured
‘Expert Student’facilitated/moderated
Tutorfacilitated/moderated
The action research cycle, after Kemmis and
McTaggart, 1988:14 and 2005
(MexCo, with reflections on Ariadna)
• Reconnaissance
• Planning
• Acting
• Observing
• Reflecting
• Re-planning
(and cycle starts again)
Reflection in action
Reflection on action
Schön 1983
Action Research Phases in MexCo (1)
Pilot:
 ‘Organic’ growth, informal, not integrated into the curriculum
 Dedicated Moodle area with basic forums and basic information
 Analysis of data by an ‘expert student’ – MA in ELT (April-Aug 2012)
 Interviews and questionnaires administered in both Mexico and UK.
 Discourse analysis of exchanges (SFL).
Exploring ‘agency’. Local
needs: particularity
(Kumaravadivelu 2011)
Action Research Phases in MexCo (2)
Phase 1:
 Addressing themes of interest that emerged in phase 1
 Curricular integration (development of assessed intercultural tasks based
on UG students’ ‘organic’ exchanges’) Sep 2012 – Jan 2013
 ‘Expert student researcher’ now become research assistant involved in
analysing data
 Focus groups, questionnaires and individual interviews with students in
both Mexico and the UK, feeding into Phase 2
Action Research Phases MexCo (3)
Phase 2:
 Collection and analysis of new data
 Classification of data via Nvivo and design of new environment to
address issues that have emerged with more ‘expert students’ +
design of tailor-made e-materials and e-tivities (Salmon) + tasks that
were re-tested by new groups of students in October - November
2013
 Students supported by ‘expert students’ from the year before who
also created dedicated e-guides on YouTube (e.g. Prezi; Mahara)
and/or on paper (for Blogger)
 Discourse analysis of exchanges (SFL used)
Action Research Phases MexCo (4)
Phase 3
 Focus group interviews, questionnaires
 Re-design of Moodle environment to address students’ needs
and wants
 Repeat of assessed collaborative digital object design
Samples (with cross-fertilisation between MexCo and Ariadna):
collaboration and product creation; (sample 2); (sample 3)
Telecollaboration through the
‘looking glass’
of our
expert students’
perspectives to identify
troublesome knowledge
(issues identified: all those
listed by Lamy in her plenary
and...)
Intercultural critical incident 1: intercultural
discourse issues and Big C – little c
Tips from an effective intercultural communicator
(English as a Lingua Franca TC)
Overall, I think what helped me maintain discussions was:
• bearing in mind that I was communicating with people whose
first language wasn’t English
• bearing in mind that the point of going on the MexCo forums
was to talk to people
• having an interest in learning about other cultures
• having an interest in grammar and helping people with it
• remembering that I was, informally, an ambassador for both
CU and the UK, which meant I aimed to be polite and
friendly towards other participants (our stress)
Need to teach politeness and effective
online interaction: critical incident 2
Data emerging: is Intercultural
Cyberpragmatic Communicative
Competence (ICCC) a threshold concept?
“Threshold concepts lead not only to transformed
thought but to a transfiguration of identity and
adoption of an extended discourse.”
(Meyer and Land 2005:375)
Implications for teaching and learning
• Identification of the thresholds within a subject:
staff and student perspectives.
• Creating learning activities designed to “scaffold”
or support students to acquire concepts.
• Whilst students may have feeling of exhilaration
brought about by acquiring a concept, they
might equally experience a sense of loss or
stress in the ‘liminal’ space around the
threshold.
Interaction and intercultural dimension of
cyberpragmatics
Language as social practice (new literacy group, Gee et al
1996; 2000)
Should we start systematically teaching the discourse
features of online interaction?
Should we start seeing it as an academic digital literacy
genre and helping students to notice its salient features
(including ICC)?
Telecollaboration in academic settings as Digital
Multimodal Genre for Specific Academic Purposes - ICC
integral part of it
Problematic considerations
(some highlighted in
Lamy and Goodfellow 2010)
• Literacy clash (tension formal/informal practice –
academic work/SNSs interaction)
• SNSs=networked individualism (compatible with coconstruction of knowledge?)
• Students’ resistance to the blurring of the boundaries
between the personal and the curricular spheres in their
learning
• Each person as a node
+ students’ and staff’s ‘social capital’
The 21st century outlook
Digital Literacies
Hafner, Chick and Jones (2013: 1)
They include the ability to search and critically evaluate large
quantities of information in online databases; construct
meaningful reading paths through hypertext documents;
comment on the online writing of others in appropriate ways;
construct knowledge collaboratively through online platforms
like blogs and wikis; create multimodal texts that combine
visual, aural, and textual information; remix online texts
creatively; and interact appropriately with others in a range of
online spaces.
Quite a big ‘ask’: do we prepare students for this?
Exchange from focus group
interviews December 2013
•
•
•
•
P5: We didn’t really have a lecture –
P3: - on this.
P4: Yeah.
P5: On, on, on communi-, on
communicating with, with the Mexicans
Tension: individualised discourse practices vs
telecollaborative constructivist pedagogical
models
As a consequence of paying attention to multiple
sources of potential relevance and trying to process
all of them in parallel (multitasking), Internet users
might develop a reluctance to devote cognitive
resources to stimuli that do not offer immediate
reward or involve deferred relevance
Relevance theory as partial explanation for 0
postings? (Yus 2011:12)
Sperber and Wilson: (1986;1996)
Issues for discussion
• We like to be ‘guides on the side’ but are we actually
doing enough guiding?
• More guidance towards developing an online savoir
être?
• Development of students’ Cyberpragmatic Competence?
• Development of our own ‘CC’, ICC and ICCC?
• CMC norms vary between different ‘languacultures’
(Agar, 1995)
“Research into online politeness, or netiquette,
is rather novel branch of CMC research.”
Sharifian and Jamarani 2013:11
• Leech (1983) – ‘politeness maxims’ Tact, Generosity,
Approbation, Modesty, Agreement, Sympathy (although
‘Empathy’ would be better here)
• Awareness of linguistic norms and (cyber)pragmatic
peculiarities
Summing up what we are learning from our students
• To scaffold the introduction to online interaction and discuss
digital literacy requirements before, during and after
telecollaborative projects with students to develop
Intercultural Cyberpragmatic Communicative
Competence (ICCC) (linking blocks in Helm and Guth’s
model)
• To thoroughly (and critically) discuss beliefs on pedagogical
and digital literacy principles with partners before we start
the next project
• To work with student experts to design a cyberpragmatic
guide on ‘rules of online TC discourse engagement’
…and thank you
….to all members of the MexCo & Ariadna
teams – students in particular
Any questions?
• e.lloyd@coventry.ac.uk
• m.orsini@coventry.ac.uk
Selected Bibliography
Agar, M. (1995) Language Shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William
Morrow.
Barro, A., Jordan, S., and Roberts, C. (1998) ‘Cultural practice in everyday life: the language learner
as ethnographer’. In Byram, M. And Fleming, M. Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective.
Cambridge UP.
Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. Gribkova, B. and Starkey, H. (2002) Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language
Teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Gumperz, J. J. and Roberts, C. (1991). Understanding in intercultural encounters. In J.
•
Blommaert and J. Verschueren (Eds.) The Pragmatics of Intercultural Communication. (p.51-90).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Guth,S, and Helm, F. (2010)Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, Literacies, and Intercultural Learning in
the 21st Century. NY: Peter Lang
Helm, F, Guth, S. and Farrah, M. Promoting dialogue or hegemonic practice? Power issues in
telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology. June 2012, Volume 16, Number 2 , pp.
103–127
Legutke, M. And Thomas, M. (1991) Process and Experience in the Language Classroom. Harlow:
Longman.
Liddicoat A. J. and Scarino A. (2013) Intercultural Language teaching and Learning. Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell.
Kramsch, C. (2003) From Practice to Theory and Back Again. In Byram, M. and Grundy, P. (eds.)
Context and Culture in Language Teaching and Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001) ‘Towards a Postmethod Pedagogy’. TESOL Quarterly Vol.35:4.pp.537-560
Hafner, C.A., Chick, A. and Jones, R.H. (2013) Engaging with Digital Literacies in TESOL. TESOL
Quartely, 47, Vol 4, Dec. 2013 p. 812-815
Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R. (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts
and troublesome knowledge. London: Routledge/Falmer.
O’Dowd, R. and Ware, P (2009) Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 22 (2): 173–188
O’Dowd, R. (2010) Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign
language education? Language Teaching Journal 1-13. Available from:
http://www3.unileon.es/personal/wwdfmrod/LTJ.pdf
Orsini-Jones, M., Lloyd, E. Gazeley, Z., Lopez-Vera B., Pibworth, L. and Bescond, G. (forthcoming
2014), Student-driven intercultural awareness raising with MexCo: agency, autonomy and
threshold concepts in a telecollaborative project between the UK and Mexico, in O’Dowd, R.,
Dooley, M. and Tcherepashenets, N. (eds)Telecollaboration and Lessons in World Citizenship. NY:
Peter Lang
Sercu, L. (2004) ‘Assessing intercultural competence: a framework for systematic test development in
foreign language education and beyond’. Intercultural Education, 15, (1): 74-88
Sharifian, F. and Jamarani, M. (2013) Language and Intercultural Communication in the New Era. NY:
Routledge
Ware, P., Liaw, M-L, and Warschauer, M.(2012) ‘The use of digital media in teaching English as an
international language’. In Alsagoff et el (eds) Principles and Practices for teaching English as an
International Language. London: Routledge.
Weniger, C. and Kiss, T. (2013) Culture in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Textbooks: A Semiotic
Approach. TESOL quarterly. Volume 47, Issue 4, pages 694–716.
Wendt, M. (2003) Context, Culture and Construction: Research Implications of Theory formation in
Foreign Language methodology, in In Byram, M. and Grundy, P. (eds.) Context and Culture in
Language Teaching and Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Yus, F. (2011) Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam /
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.