Telecollaborative exchanges in the classroom - not a panacea for learning

Reflection leads the way forward

“One of the most constructive ways to ascertain the developmental path of a particular phenomenon is to study those instances where it is disrupted, that is, those cases where the system fails” (Belz, 2003, p.76). Belz’s words strike a chord as I approach the end of my first semester of postgraduate online learning. In this final blog, looking back is integral to the learning experience. The learning has impacted on my approach to telecollaborative exchanges in my professional role as an ESL teacher.

The popularity of online language learning is fed by the commercial interests of the software industry and the explosive growth of social networking. Ignoring the potential benefit for learners of this interface would be naïve: overlooking the flaws, equally so.

Finding fault

O’Dowd and Ritter note that “telecollaborative exchanges frequently end in ‘failed communication’ and do not automatically bring about successful negotiation of meaning between the learners” (2006, p.623). This is not a new observation. Kern observed that online exchanges may rather reinforce differences as opposed to bridge them (Kern, 2000, p.256). Other flaws are noticeable, for instance:

·        Communication by email necessitates a stylised way of writing that may lack spontaneity and be a platform for clichéd response in which known sentences and attitudes are presented. It is much easier to present stereotypical responses to questions than to be creative. How do we then get real writing and real communication where genuine response is communicated?

·        The argument for authentic material in the classroom is undeniable. But it may come at a cost when used as the justification for telecollaborative lessons. Working together on blogs or wikis may become a highly sophisticated exercise in social interaction, rather than an exploration and growth of understanding in a particular subject area. My recent learning experience in preparing an elesson for a postgraduate class is that the primary learning was of social negotiation and management of communication tools. Secondary was the targeted subject material. If this is the case in postgraduate adult learners, then how much more energy will be expended by less experienced learners on the support structures of collaborative learning?

·        Some teachers, with substantial demands made on their time and energy already, put the whole idea in the ‘too hard basket’. Already battling against multiple excuses from students for incomplete work, now the new one is that students were unable to connect online to complete the assignment. If the telecollaboration is taking place in the classroom – critical time is lost in ‘connecting’, reducing learning time in class, and reducing the potential output that the student may have produced in class.

·        Some students on the other hand, see telecollaboration as a softening of traditional classroom pedagogy. Telecollaboration is presented as a way to make learning fun. Somehow this is associated in the minds of students as learning that requires less personal effort. Deep cognitive engagement is avoided as they tap into an electronic environment that is strongly identified with social connection, entertainment and pleasure. The gritty experience of challenging mind and memory is avoided.

Persistence pays

So why persist with online learning? What is it that we identify as worthwhile and attractive about this kind of communication?

A reason is that online groups are able to be created that dispense with prejudices: cultural, social, gender and age. Strongly divergent groups are able to interface and potentially engage in a way that might not have been possible face to face for spatial or cultural reasons.

Furthermore, students are exposed to reading / writing and listening / speaking opportunities that reach far beyond the constraints of the classroom. They are able to explore how language works through joint negotiation of meaning, and interface with a range of audiences. They are able to be linguistically more confident in the relative anonymity they have online.

Practical considerations to improve performance  

Podcastings, blogs, emails and wikis all have merit. But there should be a balance of group work, individual work and whole class engagement. The latter should be a time during which learners are encouraged to keep pace as they move along the learning continuum. There should be opportunities for creative work and drilling. There should be ongoing assessments.

 Exploring “the target language and culture at their own time and pace” (Lee, 2009, p.427) is a good idea, but would I dedicate expensive classtime to this? I think not. There should be deadlines, obligatory report back sessions by learners and feedback from teachers.

Success depends predominantly on the teacher who needs to create highly structured elearning environments, with tight scaffolding in which learners have a real sense of direction, with easy integration of elearning applications.

Reference List

Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 68-99.

Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee, L. (2009). Promoting intercultural exchanges with blogs and podcasting: a study of Spanish-American telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22 (5). 425-443.

O’Dowd, R. & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and Working with ‘Failed Communication’ in Telecollaborative Exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23 (3), 623-642.