Intercultural communicative competence in the third space

of virtual communities

ICS Symposium, February 28, 2014

Melinda Dooly Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain)

•  Rationale •  Context & Participants •  Outline of Telecollaborative Activities •  Theoretical Framework •  Data Presentation & Discussion •  (Tentative) Conclusions

Rationale (i)

•  Network-based language practice: computers provide means of mediating communication between persons across the globe.

•  Consistent increment in day-to-day use of CMC.

•  Possibilities of contact between language learners have multiplied exponentially.

Rationale (ii) •  Social actors in online interaction may not

necessarily follow the patterns of face-to-face interaction.

•  Transglobal communication patterns through Web 2.0 may create intricate and uncertain intercultural interaction (Neuliep, 2003).

•  Must not ‘essentialize’ the cultural traits when discussing ‘misunderstandings’

Context The data derive from interactions between

student teachers (STs) in Spain & the USA in 2009.

STS were involved in various collaborative activities (principal ones designing of teaching sequences and podcasts).

Their online interaction was facilitated through diverse communicative modes including forums, Skype, Moodle and Second Life.

Participants

UIUC 1 teacher (USA) 2 students (USA)

4 students (Philipines) 2 students (China) 2 students (Mexico)

1 student (Honduras) 1 student (India)

UAB 1 teacher (Spain/USA)

5 students (Spain) 1 student (Finland) 1 student (Czech

Republic) 1 research student

(Cyprus)

Implementation of collaboration (i)

Teaching Units •  Introductory phase

–  Students introduce themselves (voicethread) –  Students are provided space for interaction (Moodle)

•  Working groups are formed (2 UIUC – 1 UAB) –  Students brainstorm (f2f & online) ideas for teaching

sequences (forum) –  Students post first draft of teaching unit (Zoho)

Implementation of collaboration (i)

Teaching Units •  Introductory phase

–  Students introduce themselves (voicethread) –  Students are provided space for interaction (Moodle)

•  Working groups are formed (2 UIUC – 1 UAB) –  Students brainstorm (f2f & online) ideas for teaching

sequences (forum) –  Students post first draft of teaching unit (Zoho)

Implementation of collaboration (i)

Teaching Units •  Introductory phase

–  Students introduce themselves (voicethread) –  Students are provided space for interaction (Moodle)

•  Working groups are formed (2 UIUC – 1 UAB) –  Students brainstorm (f2f & online) ideas for teaching

sequences (forum) –  Students post first draft of teaching unit (Zoho)

Implementation of collaboration (ii)

•  Peer Input & Self Reflection – Students give feedback (text chats & Skype) – Students revise units, based on f2f & virtual

peer feedback; write 2nd version of teaching sequence.

– Students give feedback 2nd time. •  UAB students implement teaching

sequences and give peers feedback on experience (online & f2f)

Implementation of collaboration (ii)

•  Peer Input & Self Reflection – Students give feedback (text chats & Skype) – Students revise units, based on f2f & virtual

peer feedback; write 2nd version of teaching sequence.

– Students give feedback 2nd time. •  UAB students implement teaching

sequences and give peers feedback on experience (online & f2f)

Implementation of collaboration (iii)

Podcasts & Related Teaching Activities •  Introductory phase

–  New students (UIUC & Erasmus) join group –  All students are introduced to new virtual space for

interaction (Second Life) –  Scavenger hunt: familiarise students with SL & set up

& get to know groups (Second Life) •  Podcast Design

–  Students brainstorm ideas for podcasts (SL) –  Students set up online collaboration per group –  Students post preliminary ideas in Second Life

Scavenger Hunt

Implementation of collaboration (iii)

Podcasts & Related Teaching Activities •  Introductory phase

–  New students (UIUC & Erasmus) join group –  All students are introduced to new virtual space for

interaction (Second Life) –  Scavenger hunt: familiarise students with SL & set up

& get to know groups (Second Life) •  Podcast Design

–  Students brainstorm ideas for podcasts (SL) –  Students set up online collaboration per group –  Students post preliminary ideas in Second Life

Brainstorming

Implementation of collaboration (iii)

Podcasts & Related Teaching Activities •  Introductory phase

–  New students (UIUC & Erasmus) join group –  All students are introduced to new virtual space for

interaction (Second Life) –  Scavenger hunt: familiarise students with SL & set up

& get to know groups (Second Life) •  Podcast Design

–  Students brainstorm ideas for podcasts (SL) –  Students set up online collaboration per group –  Students post preliminary ideas in Second Life

Projectors for Preliminary Ideas

Implementation of collaboration (iii)

Podcasts & Related Teaching Activities •  Introductory phase

–  New students (UIUC & Erasmus) join group –  All students are introduced to new virtual space for

interaction (Second Life) –  Scavenger hunt: familiarise students with SL & set up

& get to know groups (Second Life) •  Podcast Design

–  Students brainstorm ideas for podcasts (SL) –  Students set up online collaboration per group –  Students post preliminary ideas in Second Life –  Peers give feedback during design (and after

implementation during SL party)

Link to podbean

(Brief) Theoretical Framework

•  STs seen as ‘inter-textualized’ (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986; Maybin, 2005) which can help them form part of CoPs (Wenger) & having ‘subjectivity’ (Weedon, 1997; Norton, 2000)

•  Subjectivity: multiple, nonunitary nature of the subject which can serve as site of struggle & contradiction & can change over time.

•  Subjectivity theorized as produced by & producing meaning-making practices in different social sites

‘Good student’ Identity – choice of language, images reflect awareness of identity that is being projected to the teacher & classmates

‘Cyber1 Identity’ (in another virtual space outside of the classroom – choice of language, images reflect projection of a different identity than the ‘Good student’ identity

Authentic language use in the Class forum? There seems to be an acute awareness of the expected choice of language, registers, etc.

Nina: Hi Magda. HRU 2day? Im not feelN so gud coz Iv got a tuf Xam 2moz.

Magda: Bad luk.We're mid exams 2. I likD ur homepage bt RU rly dat N2 snowboarding?

Nina: Wrd^

Language use in a chat outside of the forum (between Magda & Nina): A completely different choice of way of expressing themselves

Principal ‘membership’ identities: TEACHER (i)

•  Predominant use of ‘teach-talk’ (repertoire, jargon, topic-content, indexicality, etc.) – Shared” identity of ‘teacher’ in the virtual

community – The allowed them to form a cohesion that was

more important than orientation to other available identities

Shared ‘Teacher Culture’ Imogene says: ok of all the documents, look at SRD II Part

1 and SRD II Part 2 Ann@! says: ok IMy Imogene says: the others are just supporting materials,

you can look at them if you want, but they're hard to edit cho73@illinois.edu says: will you make a detailed lesson

plan? Imogene says: yes, I'm far behind you guys in that, mainly

because I don't know how to sequence these materials cho73@illinois.edu says: do you also in charge of craft? if

then you can connect craft and lesson material Ann@! says: but Imy, is your unit based on the grammar-

based apporach or the topic-based one? or maybe none of them...

Imogene says: topic based: animals

•  ‘Shared’ teacher culture was far more relevant to the participants during synchronous interaction than other available identities which the participants could have deployed.

•  There were few incidences in all of the transcripts where ‘offline’ identities were made relevant (e.g. nationality in personal introductions in voicethreads)

•  Intros constituted asynchronous interaction for general audience, deployment of ‘traditional’ cultural identities is contextually coherent.

1 incident of STs ‘picking up’ on ‘cultural’ identity as ‘opening’; validation of other.

Next, STs immediately go to task at hand. (NB: Lee returns to Catalan & dancer identity

of Javier further on) Javi says: Hi Lee!!! Katherine says: Lee~are you in here? Lee says: This window? Katherine says: yes! Javi says: there you go Lee says: yea! Hola Javier! Javi says: Hi girl!!! Lee says: ?Como te vas? Javi says: HAHAHAHAHA muy bien guapa!!! Lee says: Now I just need to learn Catalan! Javi says: hahaha, you should Katherine says: So how are you all doing with the project? Lee says: Not too bad, ya'll? Javi says: well.. not too bad Katherine says: Yeah, I think I'm doing okay--but I have a lot more to work on Lee says: We'll let's talk about yours first, Katherine

Cultural identities were relevant for them (in identifying STs’ students and parents) as part of their

shared teacher identity

Ann@! says: but be careful if they're interested in some topics such as drugs, sex...cause parents may not like that...

Imogene says: These are Korean students Anna, not Spaniards!

Ann@! says: hahahah Imogene says: just kidding! cho73@illinois.edu says: That's interesting point Imogene says: actually Americans would be worse! […] Ann@! says: I only say parents from Barcelone are

"beyond protective" […] cho73@illinois.edu says: Korean parents will not lose in

terms of overprotective.. Imogene says: this would be interesting to research

Misunderstandings

•  This does not mean that there were no misunderstandings or negative evaluations of the ‘other’ occurring between the student-teachers.

•  However, the transcripts do not show misunderstandings based on cultural expectations so much as working group expectations of the other.

Cultural misunderstanding? •  Fragment 15 (final tutorial f2f11 – 31st May 2010) •  CAT i liked doing the activity but then/ when the result

was completely different so what i have planned that was like why did i do this\

•  HAL yeah i think i had the same problem it wa:s_ nice to work with them/ and it was kind of productive but the:n in the end when i asked for some changes they seemed like they didn't care anymore they just wanted to go for a holiday so_ [yeah]

•  NAT =yeah •  UT yeah the time was a bit off wasn't i:t l

Should avoid essentializing misunderstandings as intercultural (Hinnekamp, 1997)

•  Arguably, previous negative evaluation could be interpreted as a mismatch between different cultural backgrounds (e.g. “we” Catalan/Spanish group versus “they” American group).

•  1) Both groups were very culturally heterogeneous and 2) cultural traits were not made relevant in exchanges, this does not seem an appropriate conclusion.

“ A communicative exchange is not intercultural by virtue

of interactants being from different cultural backgrounds. Nor is it intercultural by virtue of a misunderstanding

between interactants from different cultural backgrounds” (para. 1)

•  Appears to be a general disappointment in the online behaviour of some of the members of the virtual community of teachers.

•  This cohesive identity (with all of them as members) was the most relevant and the one that they oriented themselves to.

What about 3rd space? (i) •  Concept of subjectivity must take into account

‘social sites’ and available discursive practices. •  Unfamiliarity of some of the contexts of the

exchange (e.g. Zoho, Second Life) seemed to make STs more aware of the different possible channels of communication.

•  Moments of communication break-down, STs switched to ‘familiar’ modes (many of which followed f2f patterns)

!

What about 3rd space? In distinctly ‘new’ and unfamiliar environments STs expressed fear, reluctance and even dislike towards the medium of communication.

What about 3rd space? (ii) •  STs’ feelings towards the new technological

tools were similar to the characteristics outlined by Matsumoto, Leroux, and Yoo (2005) concerning intercultural conflict and misunderstandings:

Negative emotions that “are upsetting to our self concepts (…) Uncertainty contributes to this conflict.

People may become impatient with or intolerant of the ambiguity, leading to anger, frustration, or

resentment” (p. 16)

What about 3rd space? (iv) •  Was it their involvement in a new 3rd space

culture that made STs feel angry, frustrated or resentful?

•  Intercultural misunderstanding with her online partner?

•  Technological issues only?

What about 3rd space? (v) •  Arguably, both participants were engaged in

interaction in a ‘foreign’ culture (Second Life) but it is difficult to determine just how much influence their personal ‘real’ backgrounds may have had on their ‘virtual’ interaction.

•  Are these misunderstandings related to a new 2.0 culture?

Transcript from SL: Three female avatars in brainstorming session

[…] the chapter is so short that I could literally type up the

first five or six chapters and send them to her as an email_she’s like a _is our partner a her? A she?

(Tentative) conclusions (i) •  Interactions between the same group members (all from

different cultural backgrounds) varied more according to the modes of communication used than the group member composition.

•  Ways in which STs oriented their interaction with their distanced partners was influenced by their previous knowledge, acceptance, experience and willingness to adapt to the different available communication channels and modes.

(Tentative) conclusions (ii) •  Ways in which STs oriented their interaction also

influenced by their shared orientation towards VCoP of ‘teacher’.

•  Membership identities were constructed in the virtual interaction in similar ways to membership identities in the face-to-face interactions, especially when dealing with the related practices belonging to the community of teachers.

(Tentative) conclusions (iii) •  These shared identities appeared to have more impact

on the expectations concerning the behaviour of the ‘other’ than different available social or cultural identities (e.g. information given to their partners in individually designed voicethread presentations).

(Tentative) Conclusions (iv) Need to interrogate what intercultural’ means within a space where new means of communication require skills and competences that are not necessarily linked to any specific culture.

melindaann.dooly@uab.cat