Social Dimensions of Telecollaborative Foreign Language Study

1. Social Dimensions of Telecollaborative Foreign Language Study Julie A. BelzThe Pennsylvania State Univeristy Presentation by Kathryn Sederberg, Nov 2008

2. CALL – Computer Assisted Language Learning • Research so far: • Pedagogical, structural • Not cultural, historical, social dimensions • “the social turn” • Recognizes culturally and historically shaped nature of learners • Recognizes learning and teaching processes in which they are situated

3. Telecollaboration • The application of global communication networks in foreign language education • Social dimensions of languge learning and use • Learner agency

4. Socio-cognitive investigation • Brings together • Siociocultural, ethnographic, qualitative data sources • Psycholinguistic, linguistic, and quantitative data sources • “social realism” (Archer, Layder) as an approach to the exploration and interpretation of social action

5. Social realism • Theoretically: • Empirical world is highly complex and multi-faceted • Social action is shaped by an intimate interplay of macro level (social context, setting) and micro-level (linguistic interaction and psycho-biography) • Social action is embedded within history and power relations

6. Social realism, cont. • Methodologically: • Reflects complex and layered nature of empirical world • Bedrock of interpretive work (interviews, participant observation), but also quantitative data • Tries to keep “scientific attitude” towards social analysis without ignoring the importance of actors’ meanings

7. Belz’ method • Social realist investigation • Relationships between structure and agency • Ex: transatlantic email correspondence • Focus on inter-relationship of broader context of telecollaboration and language learning and language use in telecollaboration

8. Research map: multi-strategy research in German-American telecollaboration

9. Actual Project: Phases • Phase I (US students) • Biographical sketches, university information • Read first set of parallel texts, films • Phase II (German and US students) • Form pairs or groups based on mutual interests • Discuss and analyze parallel texts with partners via email (both in English and German) • Phase III (German and US students) • Merge to form larger groups • Develop a web site with bilingual essay pertaining to parallel texts, and a bilingual discussion of cultural construct from multiple perspectives • Phase IV (German students) • Final discussion

10. Level of Context • Language Valuation • German vs. English • Discrepancy in proficiency • Learning expectations/perceived learning outcomes • Technological Access and Know-How • Institutional Level of Setting • Course accreditation • American perspectives (ie frustrations) • German perspectives

11. Discussion, Conclusions • Context • Nat’l differences in technological know-how, access • Setting • Institutional differences • Multidirectional Interaction of Context, Setting, Situated Activity, and Self • Social realism (role of the individual in all this)

12. Telecollaborative Best Practices • Main cultural learning not related to tasks assigned • Projects should be designed to minimize the logistical difficulties to shift learning to task • OR: should the cultural faultlines inherent in this project be allowed to surface and function as the main point of intercultural learning? • Pedagogical intervention (“clash of faultlines” shouldn’t be smoothed over, but encouraged, yet not in a counterproductive way) • More cultural work at beginning