Interactivity in the online teaching
and learning of foreign languages:
reconciling teacher centrality,
learner autonomy and resourcing
Dr Vincenza (Enza) Tudini:
enza.tudini@unisa.edu.au
What this presentation is about
• online teaching of foreign languages at university
but draws on principles originally developed for F2F
teaching to promote good practice;
• pedagogical/theoretical rationale for the introduction
of telecollaboration in FL uni programs;
• work-in-progress, derived from article destined for
colleagues both within and outside the languages
discipline;
• tension between the pivotal role of the language
lecturer and the increased expectation of learner
autonomy in online FL programs;
• role of lecturer where telecollaboration is introduced;
• resourcing of university FL programs (with input
from audience), articulate role of lecturer.
What is unique about the teaching and learning of foreign
languages?
Why different (higher) commonwealth funding levels for foreign
languages in Australia?
$11,681 per EFTSL (Equivalent full-time student load) compared with
most Humanities $5,369; ratio of at least 2:1.
What are the original arguments used to determine those funding levels?
What are some key theoretical frameworks which inform good practice in
language teaching and learning of foreign languages, including
telecollaboration? And what are the implications of these for teacher and
learner roles, and resourcing of languages?
When translated into online teaching practice, do these frameworks
provide evidence that languages require higher funding levels than other
humanities subjects? Are current funding levels sufficient?
What are the implications of these frameworks for the online teaching
and learning of foreign languages, especially telecollaboration?
For example, what level of autonomy should we be expecting from the
learner when online components are introduced into our programs? How
do we deal with learner differences in online programs (eg. students with
little or no experience in learning a foreign language)?
What are our own arguments regarding uniqueness of foreign
language programs? We have been allocated over double the
funding of other humanities subjects; why do we think this is
so?
• streaming of language classes according to various linguistic
levels, in a major which includes at least two entry levels (ab initio
and post Year 12), which increases the number of courses offered
to students (at least 10 courses where a major consists of 8
courses);
• small class sizes to adequately monitor and support individual
student progress in learning to communicate fluently and
accurately in the target language;
• continuous assessment, including regular testing of students’
reading, writing, listening and speaking skills in the target
language combined with intercultural learning, the development of
academic literacy, and ‘studies’ courses which all add up to FL
courses requiring more contact, multiple assessment items and
more assessment hours per week than non FL subjects;
• more complex marking than other subjects, as students are not
writing in their first language. Marking of FL assignments often
entails rewriting of substantial portions of assignments to
promote modelling of target-like language, especially at
beginners’ level where a significant proportion of Australian
students has no prior experience of rigorous study of a FL (Lo
Bianco, 2009);
• the incremental nature of FL learning which requires students to
acquire certain abilities and concepts before proceeding to the
next stage, as reflected, albeit somewhat crudely, in the use of
prerequisites;
• the need for technical support and specialist computer
laboratories;
• Students need more hours per week/ over a major (36 units)
than other subjects to achieve learning outcomes (proficiency
and academic literacy in a FL in an environment where English
is the dominant language);
From business cases to pedagogical theories and
good practice FL teaching and learning models
Revisit pedagogical rationales to assist Heads of FL
departments, FL lecturers and school/faculty managers to lobby
for adequate funding for students, at the chalkface;
Improve FL teachers’ own understanding of their discipline;
Develop good practice models for FL teaching and learning
(telecollaboration central aspect);
Why differentiate resourcing & pedagogical needs of FL
teaching and learning from those of other disciplines
Interaction between human beings, both social and institutional and across
cultures, is central motivation and learning activity of foreign language (FL)
learners enrolled in university programs, hence the success of
telecollaboration;
Learning to speak FL fundamental motivation for uni students: perceived
lack of progress in speaking and listening skills contributes to decreased
student motivation in first year (Busse and Walter (2013);
FL theoretical frameworks reinforce pivotal/ubiquitous role of language
teachers and expert speakers, including peers;
FL programs risk becoming ineffectual where online delivery models used to
reduce burgeoning workloads/cut costs rather than enriching FL learners’
learning experience through contact with expert speakers;
Trend to reduce F2F in corporatized university environments (Chomsky,
2011), despite central government funding models in countries like
Australia, which reflect the labour intensive nature of FL learning and
teaching (Department of Innovation, 2013).
Which theoretical frameworks?
Not exhaustive list, selection based on relevance to a notion of
interactivity which is specific to foreign languages discipline.
Apart from Vygotsky’s (1978) work, theories unlikely to be familiar
to educators outside languages.
• Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and
Lantolf’s (2011) sociocultural theory for language learning (SCTL2);
• Interactionist Second Language Acquisition (SLA) (Varonis &
Gass, 1985; (Long, 1996);
• Conversation analysis for Second Language Acquisition (CA for
SLA) (Markee, 2000);
• Intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997; Kramsch,
1978);
• Pienemann’s (2007) teachability/learnability theory.
Vygotsky’s ZPD & sociocultural theory: providing access to
scaffolding and collaborative interactive learning
According to sociocultural theory (Lantolf 2011) and Vygotskyian (1978)
construct, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD):
• learning occurs especially during interaction and collaboration with human
beings;
• collaboration stretches learners’ current abilities to accomplish tasks which
are beyond what they can achieve alone (for overview see Lantolf &
Thorne, 2007);
• notion of ZPD originally based on children’s learning and development,
especially during play;
• The construct has been adapted, in various interpretations (Kinginger,
2002), to adults learning a FL;
• Concept of ZPD gave rise to idea of ‘scaffolding’ or assistance by a
teacher or more competent peer, with assistance which is adapted to
learners’ individual needs, generating ZPD:
We propose that an essential feature of learning is that it creates the
zone of proximal development; that is, learning awakens a variety of
internal and developmental processes that are able to operate only
when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in
cooperation with his peers. Once these processes are internalized,
they become part of the child’s independent developmental
achievement (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90)
Lantolf’s (2011) application of ZPD to second
language acquisition
Lantolf (2011) first applied Vygotsky’s notion of ZPD to second
language acquisition in what is known as sociocultural theory for
second language learning SCT-L2):
• emphasised social nature of human mental activity, initiating
‘social turn’ [field dominated by cognitive perspectives]
• collaboration with more competent peers and role of teachers in
scaffolding and promoting learning central to this perspective:
…SCT-L2 is very much concerned with concrete classroom
activity and its impact on learning. It argues for the
pedagogical relevance of explicit and rigorous linguistic
explanation, especially that derived from cognitive
linguistics, and is devoted to discovering how to make
learning happen through direct instruction. (Lantolf, 2011)
Social constructivism and autonomy in CALL
Social constructivism’s (also derived from Vygotsky’s sociocultural
theory) emphasis on creativity spawned notion of learner autonomy.
Autonomy fostered by CALL (Benson, 2004; O’Rourke &
Schwienhorst, 2003) due to:
• Recent focus on interaction with human beings through computer
not interaction with computer (Warschauer, 2003);
• Autonomy in FL education and CALL not about learners working in
isolation;
• Little’s (2003) interpretation: development of autonomy in FL
results from interplay between social and reflective processes;
• Benson’s (2003) view: through social interaction learners work
collaboratively with others, develop higher order thinking skills by
observing, analyzing and evaluating information;
Further research needed on autonomy in CALL but basic view is that
leaners develop ability to:
• Take control of own learning;
• Monitor progress;
• Evaluate learning outcomes
(Benson, 2001;Little, 2003)
SLA: providing opportunities for negotiation of meaning, comprehensible
input and pushed output
Negotiation of meaning crucial for FL learners’ interlanguage
development:
interruptions to the conversational flow to question particular
utterances and request conversational help (Varonis & Gass,
1985)
• conversation pushed down;
• conversation about conversation/language or metalinguistic work
(CA: conversation moves from interpersonal to pedagogical)
Pica’s (1994) broader definition:
modification and restructuring of interaction that occurs when
learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or
experience difficulties in message comprehensibility” (p. 495).
Real time communication essential for negotiation of meaning and
consequent learning advantages (timing crucial for on the spot
resolution of communication/comprehensibility problems and
scaffolding of learning by the teacher or peers, (other learners or
expert/native speakers). Hence adoption of text & voice chat in FL
programs, especially in telecollaborative settings.
Comprehensible input and pushed output
• Comprehensible input required for pushed output (echoes ZPD);
• real time interaction, problems of understanding can be negotiated
by language learner, and may lead to pushed output (eg. new
vocabulary becomes part of learner’s linguistic repertoire after
clarification request);
• Authentic resources from the web require adaptation to cohort of
students’ linguistic level (eg. tuning into live digital target language
radio stations and TV broadcasts does not necessarily provide
learning opportunities when linguistic level too far above learners’
AND cannot be negotiated);
• Language teacher identifies, adapts web resources prior to use in
program (often on weekly basis, to ensure uptodateness and
capture changing target language);
CA for SLA and pursuit of ‘shared meanings’: providing
opportunities for naturalistic interaction
• CA for SLA (Markee, 2000) sees ‘conversational repair’ and
human beings’ pursuit of ‘intersubjectivity ‘ or ‘shared meanings’
as a guiding principle of human interaction, whether in socialinformal or institutional-formal contexts such as the classroom.
• real time interaction is main object of research by conversation
analysts
• conversation achieved collaboratively or co-constructed by
participants, hence is a social activity.
• Unlike SLA research which is often experimental or task-based,
CA for SLA engages in systematic analysis of talk in everyday
naturally-occurring situations of social interaction.
• Firth and Wagner’s (1997) seminal article calls for
reconceptualisation of Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
through Conversation Analysis so scholars and teachers ‘will be
better able to understand and explicate how language is used as it
is being acquired through interaction’ (p.768).
• According to CA for SLA theorists, by seeing language as
predominantly a cognitive phenomenon which is the product of an
individual’s brain, SLA theory has overlooked the role of language
and conversation as a social phenomenon which both NSs and
learners construct collaboratively (Liddicoat, 1997)
• CA tracks not just who initiates repair (negotiation in SLA terms) but
also who repairs;
• distinguishes the initiator of the repair sequence from the speaker
who resolves the conversational problem. (social and learning
implications, especially in other-initiated other-repair)
• Other-correction generally avoided in social conversation (seen as
impolite), more accepted in teacher-student conversations or social
intercultural chat (Liddicoat & Tudini, 2012; Tudini, 2010).
Suggests communication technologies which permit interaction in real
time are most likely to promote collaborative construction and
development of naturalistic conversational language, as well as
various forms of form-focused learning (If time zone differences
permit, telecollaborative settings do and should include real-time
interaction;
CA for SLA research examines interaction patterns: computermediated interaction promotes greater variety of interaction patterns
where the learner takes more initiative in learning than possible in the
classroom where the IRF interaction pattern is prevalent (Tudini,
2013).
Intercultural communicative competence: mediating two cultures
and promoting intercultural reflection
Byram’s (1997) definition of skills of discovery and interaction
(example of intercultural communicative competence required of the
‘intercultural speaker’) especially relevant to online FL programs and
a FL discipline-specific view of interactivity.
• speakers engage with both culture and language of the foreign
interlocutor;
• skills displayed in real time;
According to Byram (1997),
the intercultural speaker is able to estimate their degree of
proximity to the language and culture of their
interlocutor…and to draw accordingly on skills of interpreting,
discovering, relating different assumptions and
presuppositions or connotations in order to ensure
understanding and avoid dysfunction (my emphasis, p. 62)
Communication technologies, especially telecollaboration
activities, offer potential to develop students’ intercultural
communicative competence. However, Liddicoat and Scarino
(2013) point out:
ensuring connectivity between people from different
cultures alone cannot be considered an adequate use of
technology for intercultural learning (p.118).
• connectivity provides valuable opportunities for language use
and negotiation with interlocutors but interaction needs to be
converted into learning through reflection;
• design of activities is a key factor;
• language teacher has central role as mediator between 2
cultures (that of student and that of target culture).
Eg Ware & Kramsch (2005) study on episode of
misunderstanding in asynchronous telecollaborative project
between students of German in US and students of English in
Germany.
Authors’ conclusions:
• in such authentic intercultural settings, conflict may occur
despite taking precautions and constructing tasks tightly.
• Teachers cannot prepare for the unexpected when teaching
language for intercultural competence:
Telling incidents such as these are among the most
valuable learning opportunities in a communicatively
oriented curriculum, and they are valuable precisely
because they cannot always be avoided.
Language teacher has fundamental role in mediating intercultural
exchanges through reflection, especially where there is potential
for conflict and misunderstanding.
communication technologies (synchronous & asynchronous)
which permit connectivity and interaction opportunities with NS
peers and venue for discussion with the language lecturer as
intercultural mediator therefore have the best potential for
intercultural learning.
Need to achieve balance between learner autonomy and teacher mediation/
guidance especially evident in intercultural teaching and learning theories
• Provide opportunities for interaction with NSs outside the classroom
(both communication technologies and study abroad experience);
• learner autonomy integral to develop intercultural communicative
competence. Eg. Liddicoat (2005) emphasizes the importance of
negotiation strategies in the autonomous acquisition of intercultural
competence:
Because a learner can only ever acquire some of the cultural
conventions, an important part of intercultural competence is having
strategies for learning more about culture as they interact (p. 205).
Byram and Fleming (1998) describe “intercultural speaker” as
someone who is learning to become independent of the teacher and
the limits of what can be achieved in the classroom…” (p. 9).
Further research and evaluation required on how to effectively dovetail
virtual immersion between peers and guided intercultural reflection
between students and lecturers at university level
Timing and Learnability/teachability/processability theory: incorporating
individualized teaching and learning
Pienemann’s (2007) psycholinguistically based teachability/learnability
theory:
• FL program may not reflect individual learners’ readiness to learn a
particular grammatical point at a particular point in time; implications
for timing of stages of language teaching & learning;
• teachability of language constrained by what the learner is ready to
acquire due to a ‘processor’ which is influenced by word access and
memory.
• to maximise learning, instruction needs to reflect the stage just
beyond the learner’s current stage of interlanguage.
Pienemann’s theory suggests that online FL programs need to take
timing of linguistic development into consideration and build in
individualization of instruction rather than provide one-size-fits-all
program.
Technology needs to build in opportunities for learners to harness
human/expert support at the right moment, through real time
negotiation, provision of comprehensible input and direct teaching by
expert (teacher).
Readiness for specific stages of language learning and learner
differences
• issue of readiness for stages of linguistic learning implies that
learner differences need to be taking into account (eg. provide
extra support through one-to-one instruction when required, to
individual learners at certain points in time, to get them back on
track and encourage continuation).
• Larger numbers of students entering our programs (in South
Australia) with little or no experience in rigorous study of a
foreign language (beginners). At the same time the classes
need to be sufficiently challenging for those students who do
have prior language learning experience.
In summary: good practice online FL programs
• highly interactive and authentic (real life/experiential learning)
• provide opportunities for guided comprehensible input, negotiation
of meaning and naturalistic co-construction of conversations both
with the language lecturer and peers (NS or NNS).
• promote intercultural exchange under the direct or indirect guidance
of the language teacher as mediator between two cultures and
‘scaffolder’ of both target language and culture.
• take account of timing and individualization of learning (stages of
linguistic learning/varying levels of proficiency/need to support
students with no prior experience and challenge those who do).
• achieve balance between language teacher and peer-based online
interaction, with possible increasing autonomy for the language
learner as he/she becomes more proficient in the target language.
• link between proficiency and autonomy significant when comparing
study of non-ideographic with ideographic languages (more time
required for students to take on more autonomous tasks, eg. skype
conversations).
Figure 1: Student connections in an interactive online or blended FL program.
Foreign language
student
Foreign language
lecturer
Native/expert
speaker peers
Other foreign
language
students
In interactive online FL programs, the language lecturer harnesses
communication technologies to facilitate student connections with:
• the lecturer (eg. direct teaching/reflection/monitoring of progress/regular
assessment of speaking, writing and intercultural learning). (audio/video chat +
skype or VC ideal but asynchronous tools also helpful)
CA research needed to identify the specific interactional features which enhance
participation and increase opportunities for learning in online tutorials of varying
class sizes (what is ideal class size?)
Walsh & Li’s (2013) CA study Conversations as space for learning on face-toface English conversation classes in China demonstrates how teachers create
space for learning through specific practices eg. increased wait-time, extended
learner turns, increased planning time.
• other non-native speaker students (create online community through course
website or FB, computer-mediated social & pedagogical interaction, discussion
of ideas/concepts relating to course; completing pair work normally completed
in class online through chat, blogs, etc to expand target audience. Extends
target audience beyond teacher & provides task authenticity);
• expert/native speakers other than lecturer, both institutional and social
contexts (promote exposure to variety of voices, regional accents, contexts;
opportunities to make new friends and language learning partners/ tandem
arrangements with age-peers promote negotiation of meaning/scaffolding in
online conversation)
Interactive good practice online foreign language study is:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social;
Intercultural;
Collaborative;
Globally connected;
Guided and autonomous
Comprehensible/accessible;
Individualized AND challenging;
Telecollaboration has the potential to be all of the above.
What is so unique about FL programs (compared with other
humanities) and why do they require more resources?
• greater levels of interaction, hence higher levels of interactivity
which requires smaller groups and greater global connectivity;
• more demanding on student: seeks to acquire not just a new
system of communication but a new way of thinking, sometimes a
new way of learning (if never learned language before);
• new way of thinking entails thinking interculturally, as an
‘intercultural speaker’, but also entails learning how this thinking is
structured in a foreign language;
• FL students are doing this against the odds, compared with other
humanities (once they leave the classroom or internet space,
dominant language in the community is English or the local
language)