This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]On: 05 November 2014, At: 12:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Education 3-13: International Journalof Primary, Elementary and Early YearsEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20

Technologically enhanced languagelearning in primary schools in England,France and Spain: developing linguisticcompetence in a technologicallyenhanced classroom environmentGee Macrory a , Lucette Chrétien b & José Luis Ortega-Martín ca Faculty of Education , Manchester Metropolitan University ,Manchester , UKb IUFM , University of Poitiers , Poitiers , Francec Department of Language and Literature, Faculty of Education ,University of Granada , Granada , SpainPublished online: 29 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Gee Macrory , Lucette Chrétien & José Luis Ortega-Martín (2012)Technologically enhanced language learning in primary schools in England, France and Spain:developing linguistic competence in a technologically enhanced classroom environment, Education3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 40:4, 433-444, DOI:10.1080/03004279.2012.691376

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.691376

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Technologically enhanced language learning in primary schools in

England, France and Spain: developing linguistic competence in a

technologically enhanced classroom environment

Gee Macrorya*, Lucette Chretienb and Jose Luis Ortega-Martınc

aFaculty of Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK;bIUFM, University of Poitiers, Poitiers, France; cDepartment of Language and Literature,Faculty of Education, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

(Received 18 April 2010; final version received 16 September 2011)

This paper reports on an EU-funded project (Ref: 134244-2007-UK-COME-NIUS-CMP) that explored the impact of technology, notably video-conferencing,on primary school children’s language learning in England, France and Spain.Data were gathered from the children in the project, their teachers and also fromtrainee teachers placed in the schools. The findings suggest that this technologyoffers real benefits in the development of intercultural understanding, increasesmotivation and has interesting implications for language learning processes.

Keywords: video-conferencing; language learning; primary

Introduction

In the last 10 years or so, proposals from the European Commission (Action Plan2004–2006 for Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity 2003; Barcelona:Bologna Declaration 1999; Lisbon Strategy 2000 Education and Training 2010)have raised the profile of early language learning considerably across Europe. Withina number of countries, this is now a statutory part of the curriculum and, althoughto date only an entitlement in England, much progress has been made since thepublication of the National Languages Strategy in 2002 (Driscoll, Jones, andMacrory 2004; Wade, Marshall, and O’Donnell 2009; Cable et al. 2010). Crucial tothe success of the primary language initiative is our ability to engage young learnersin a purposeful and meaningful way. Indeed, speaking in 2001, Johnstone suggestedthat any reintroduction of primary languages would need a ‘different rationale tounderpin it’; since then arguably that different rationale has indeed begun to emerge,with an increasing emphasis on the global dimension, cross-curricular, and contentand language integrated learning approaches to language learning alongsideincreasing use of technology. School partnerships across different countries are anincreasingly common phenomenon, and the international perspectives adopted bymany schools create a context supportive of language learning. Although schoollinks not supported by technology can nevertheless have a motivating effect(Macrory and Beaumont 2007), the technologies that have now become availableenable learners to communicate with others around the globe and thus offer the

*Corresponding author. Email: g.macrory@mmu.ac.uk

Education 3–13

Vol. 40, No. 4, September 2012, 433–444

ISSN 0300-4279 print/ISSN 1475-7575 online

� 2012 ASPE

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.691376

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

tantalising prospect of a different motivation and different ways of learning thanthose experienced by previous generations.

The project reported upon below formed part of the Collaborative Technologiesin Languages Initiative (CTLI) project set up by the Training and DevelopmentAgency for Schools (TDA) in England, which brought together six primary schools,three teacher-training institutions and local authorities and regional governments inEngland, France and Spain. Through the use of technology, they have workedtogether on a shared curriculum to improve and develop the teaching and learning oflanguages in a more cross-curricular and holistic way (see www.tda.gov.uk/ctli). Thesix schools involved (two in each of the three countries) are supported by theEuropean Union, as was the project reported below entitled ‘TechnologicallyEnhanced Language Learning Pedagogy’ (TELLP) (see www.tellp.org). Theinvolvement of trainees permitted another perspective on the project and allowedus to explore the implications for teacher education.

Technology and language learning

New technologies are increasingly available for use across both the curriculum andin the language classroom. Over recent decades, these have served to promotelanguage learning and teaching at a distance through online programmes, Web-based tutorials and so on as well as independent study (for example, on computer-based vocabulary and grammar programmes). The field known as ComputerAssisted Language Learning (CALL) has developed into a more nuanced range ofapproaches as the range of technologies has grown and diversified. The more recentdevelopments in the areas of webcams, videoconferencing, blogs, wikis, podcasts,mobile phones and digital video and photography have opened up possibilities thatwere the stuff of science fiction only a generation ago. In classroom practice, at leastin the UK, with laptops, interactive whiteboards and data projectors nowcommonplace, the opportunity to bring the benefit of other new technologies intothe classroom is within our grasp. Crucially, however, as O’Hara (2008, 31) pointsout, ‘pedagogy still has to catch up with resourcing in order to get the most out ofthe technology’. This may be particularly the case with primary languages as arelatively new field, although much innovation has taken place, particularly since theadvent of Web 2.0 (Dale 2011). As languages are being introduced at a time whennew technologies offer an apparent abundance of possibilities, it is crucial that weknow how best to exploit them as well as incorporating this understanding intoteacher education programmes.

Within the broader notion of CALL, there has been an increasing interest incomputer-mediated communication (CMC). Lamy and Hampel (2007, 7) note that itdoes in fact dates back at least 20 years and point out how language professionalssaw that it ‘could answer two needs at once: it could be the means through whichteaching occurred, and it could be an end in itself. Learners could engage with thecommunicative aspect of their study by exchanging language online rather than inconversation classes’. In order to stress their orientation to language (originalemphasis) learning, they suggest the acronym CMCL.

The relationship between CMC and the field of second language acquisition(SLA) research is clearly pertinent. Blake (2007, 77) points out that much of theresearch into CMC has been carried out from an interactionist perspective that seeksto ‘document how synchronous CMC stimulates negotiations of meaning similar to

434 G. Macrory et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

face-to-face exchange’; they are interested in the ways in which such meaningfulinteractions can provide opportunities for teachers and students to focus on theemerging target language (TL) system as well as intercultural reflections. As Blakenotes, the intercultural aspect is the one favoured by sociocultural researchers whodraw upon notions of intercultural competence (e.g. Byram 1997), and interculturalcommunicative competence and CMC together have prompted the notion oftelecollaboration (Blake 2007, 78). Chapelle (2007), in discussing CALL/CMCpedagogy, notes the extent to which this was influenced in the 1990s by SLA theoryand raises the issue of form and meaning. The latter is of course a tension familiar toall practitioners and researchers in SLA. The possibility that a focus on negotiationof meaning and/or intercultural reflections might result in lost opportunities to focuson form is ever present. Lamy and Hampel (2007, 8) suggest that this prompted areturn by some researchers such as Belz (2003) to more linguistic than socio-psychological interpretations of online communication. This throws up thecomplexity of the relationship between research and pedagogy as well as thatinherent in new technologies: pedagogic approaches are necessarily informed byprevious research but while some argue that pedagogic tasks should meet the criteriaderived from SLA research, on the other hand this CMC can itself inform SLAresearch through descriptive studies.

Whatever the relationship, however, differential attention has been paid todifferent technologies available for CMC and for different age groups. Very fewstudies have been carried out into the use of videoconferencing for language learning(Jaurgi and Banados 2008), for example. In terms of age groups, the vast majority ofresearch has been carried out with university level students rather than school-agedpupils, although more recently some studies in the UK have focussed on the use ofvideoconferencing to support language learning in the primary school (Philips 2010;Pritchard, Hunt, and Barnes 2010).

Research into videoconferencing for language learning

Research into the impact of videoconferencing is not of course limited to therelationship of this to language learning; positive benefits are reported for a range ofcurricular areas (BECTA 2004; Arnold and Cayley 2008). This does include positivebenefits for the use of videoconferencing for language learning. Perhaps unsurpris-ingly, researchers report that authenticity and the opportunity to interact with a realaudience has beneficial effects, and there is positive impact on confidence andmotivation (BECTA 2004). Kinginger (1998) and Yamada (2009) suggest that itimproves participation and supports the active production of spoken language.Equally, videoconferencing can serve to support the development of learnerautonomy, a point stressed by Steffens (2008), albeit in more general terms.McAndrew, Foubister, and Mayes (1996) note that in fact it can permit a goodcombination of working alone and working collaboratively. Very specifically relatedto language learning, it can allow for the use of paralinguistics to aid negotiation ofmeaning (Wang 2006; Yamada 2009). If it is the case, as Blake (2007, 78) notes, that‘one welcome result of the sociocultural paradigm is a heightened emphasis onintercultural pragmatics’, this may prove to be a key issue. Philips (2010, 225), in herstudy of a videoconferencing link between English and French children of primaryschool age, found that the use of paralinguistic support strategies promoted the pupils’sense of independence. She also found that the use of videoconferencing was effective

Education 3–13 435

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

in providing opportunities for solo use of the TL and had a positive impact uponmotivation. Likewise, Pritchard, Hunt, and Barnes (2010), whose study investigatedthe use of videoconferencing by secondary school teachers in the UK to teach Frenchto primary school children, found a positive impact upon motivation, as the ‘use ofnew technology created excitement for the pupils which led to a higher level ofengagement with lessons’ (Pritchard, Hunt, and Barnes 2010, 216).

Nevertheless, the research literature does throw up a number of unresolvedissues. Perhaps the most obvious is that of technical problems. The BECTA report(2004) highlights the potential negative impact of these, reporting that (admittedly inonly one case) a group of language learners in a secondary school requested an endto such sessions as the lack of synchronicity between lips and voice of the otherspeakers was too distracting. They also report some individual negative reactions.This raises the issue of group size, as it is still unclear what the differential advantagesand disadvantages of whole-class versus small group or individual interactionthrough the medium of videoconferencing are. Related to this is the precise purposeof using this medium rather than any other to enhance language learning. Only bycareful integration with other language teaching and learning experiences (or, forthat matter, other technologically enhanced learning experiences in other curricularareas) can a judicious balance between focus on form and negotiation of meaning beachieved (see Belz 2003; Yamada 2009). Finally, and very importantly, teachertraining and expertise is vital for the technology to be exploited appropriately (Blake2007).

The current project

As noted above, the project formed part of CTLI, established by the TDA inEngland. Our TELLP project had, as its central aim, the provision of an innovativecontext for initial teacher training within a technologically enhanced, holistic, cross-curricular approach to teaching languages in the primary schools of the threecountries. At the core of this were new technologies which include videoconferencingbetween children in all three countries and the use of a learning platform. Our aimsin the three universities (Manchester Metropolitan University, Universidad deGranada and Universite de Poitiers) include researching the impact on the children’slanguage learning and developing and evaluating the role of teacher trainees in theproject. The trainees who are placed in the project schools are drawn from the groupof primary modern foreign languages specialists who took part in the primarylanguages exchange programme funded at that time by the TDA. Thus, the Frenchtrainees who travel to Poitou-Charentes were placed in the two project schools there,the Spanish trainees in the project schools in Granada and the visiting Spanish andFrench trainees were placed in the two schools in Trafford, Greater Manchester. Theaims of the project were to establish the impact of the technology on thedevelopment of intercultural understanding, children’s motivation and the processesof children’s language learning, and the implications for appropriate pedagogy andteacher education.

As a project, this particular one is innovative as it not only investigates the use oftechnology for language learning in relatively young children (aged 8–11), but alsohas used this as a teacher-training context. This paper, however, reports on theimpact of the project upon children’s language learning, as perceived by themselvesand the teachers and trainees involved.

436 G. Macrory et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Some methodological issues

This project is also illustrative of the issues discussed above: it stands at theintersection between research and pedagogy. We might wish to question the extentto which the activities in which the children were involved are informed by SLAresearch. The Six Schools Project was one designed by school staff in three countrieswith little prior experience of language teaching or the technology in question,planning that did not initially heavily involve the university staff. Having said that,these were experienced primary practitioners, with a broader understanding of howyoung children learn. We were thus in a position of describing outcomes rather thansetting tasks that conformed to criteria arising from SLA. In any case, theincreasing recognition of the importance of context in SLA and the newness of thetechnology together suggest that a priori assumptions about appropriate pedagogyare not necessarily helpful. Lamy and Hampel postulate an a priori position inCMCL research in favour of ethnographic work, given that ‘the object of theirattention – human–human interaction – is likely to be affected by an unmanageablyhigh number of variables’ (2007, 17). They go on to suggest a further reason for thevalue of descriptive research, namely that the domain is still new and asserting thatgood description lays the ground upon which new theories can be erected. Thenarrative of this project is thus one of the descriptions and analyses giving rise toappropriate pedagogy. Add to this the prosaic constraints that a number ofresearchers have alluded to and we have a very complex research context. As notedabove, Lamy and Hampel point to the high number of variables in such a situation;other researchers have also noted the complexity of environments in which learnerswork (Steffens 2008, 230); and from a teacher’s perspective, the multiplicity ofcompeting priorities can have a negative effect upon curriculum developmentinvolving technology (O’Hara 2008, 37). When the technology itself is problematicand/or teachers lack confidence and expertise, the territory can also feel somewhatuncharted.

Project overview

The six schools in the project were in fact two groups of three: each school inEngland had a partner in France and one in Spain, thus creating two ‘triangular’partnerships. The three schools in each partnership followed a shared curriculum,where themes such as ‘My school’ were taught in language classes in all threecountries, shared resources stored upon the learning platform and the videoconfer-encing exchanges between classes were integrated into the scheme of work. In eachschool, two classes were partnered with the classes of the same or similar age in theother two schools (one English–Spanish link, one English–French link and oneFrench–Spanish link), and where possible, individual children had ‘buddies’ or‘penfriends’. All children were in the upper primary age range, from ages 8 to 11. Ineach school in all three countries, trainee specialist language teachers were placedon home placement and on placement abroad and were thus integrated into theproject.

Data collection

In order to ascertain the impact of the technology upon the children’s languagelearning, data were collected in a number of ways in both the first and second year of

Education 3–13 437

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the project. This was from focus group data from the children themselves, who wereinterviewed in small groups with a semi-structured approach. All children were askedthe same questions, which were agreed in advance and translated into all threelanguages. In order to ascertain the perceptions of the teachers and teacher traineesplaced in the schools, data were collected through a combination of questionnairesand semi-structured interviews, again with the same questions translated asappropriate.

Findings

Impact of technology upon children’s language learning

Development of intercultural understanding

First of all, it is clear from the data that children in all three countries have madepositive gains in terms of developing understanding about other children’s lives. Thenotion of intercultural understanding has gained ground in recent years and hasobtained a higher profile in official documentation. However, multiple interpreta-tions abound and there is a need for conceptual clarity (Gundara and Portera 2008).Byram differentiates between intercultural understanding/competence vs intercultur-al communicative competence, describing the former as the ‘ability to interacteffectively with people from cultures that we recognise as being different from ourown’ (2004, 298), whereas the notion of intercultural communicative competenceimplies performance in a foreign language. While the ability to ‘interact effectively’does itself merit scrutiny, there was at least palpable enjoyment on the part of thechildren not only in gaining knowledge about the children’s lives but also in theprocess of doing so and an acceptance of difference. Predictably, perhaps, theyappeared to be intrigued by the obvious differences in their lives. The immediateinsight into other children’s classrooms afforded by the videoconferencingtechnology prompted observations from both the French and Spanish childrenabout the uniforms worn by the children in England and the differences evident inthe layout of the classroom itself, as well as smaller details such as the tendency ofchildren in the English schools to have bottled water. Or, as the English children putit from their perspective, ‘they get to wear their own clothes’; a further observationabout teachers was the English children’s comments that ‘they (the French children)get to call their teacher by just their name’. The importance of seeing the otherchildren was emphasised over and over again, with comments such as ‘you can seehow they look like’, ‘you can see their personality’ and ‘if you just send letters youdon’t get the chance to see them and talk to them, but when you do video-conferences they are in front of you . . . it’s better’. The French and Spanish childrennoted not just the obvious inter-country differences (‘the English children wearuniforms’) but also some differences possibly particular to the schools in England,such as the ethnic diversity of the classes there (‘some children don’t have the samecolour of skin as us’; ‘some children wear scarves that hide their hair’) and thedifferent names that children had.

Beyond that which was actually visible, however, lay many more differences thatthe children found interesting. The videoconferences and, more so in the later part ofthe project, the learning platform, were a vehicle for learning much more about theother children’s lives. As one child in England put it, ‘it’s like fact-finding . . . whothey are, their favourite food, favourite places’. And another said, ‘you get to find

438 G. Macrory et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

out what their life is like’; another: ‘it would be really boring just to have lessons, notto be able to see people that actually speak different languages than us, what theywear and what their school is like, because you can see that, and we want to knowabout their lives’; that for them culture is integral to language learning is suggestedby the observation that ‘because you are learning Spanish, you have to know whatSpanish people do every day . . . if you didn’t it would be a bit strange because you’reonly learning the language’. This cultural element is a key point reiterated by thechildren in all three countries, the French and Spanish children offering similarquotes such as ‘it’s important because we get to know more about their customs,their food’.

Arguably, however, even more striking was the issue of cultural similarity. Eventhose things that initially seemed so different such as Eid were perceived andunderstood by the children in terms of their similarities through the common aspectsof gift giving, enjoying food and wearing new clothes. Other more day-to-daybehaviours were also keenly observed by the children, often through not onlyvideoconferencing but also emails sent on the learning platform. As one child ofMuslim background in his English school said of his partner in the Spanish school,‘my one, he likes pizza and when he gets home he just eats and watches TV just like Ido’; ‘when I saw his picture, he’s just like me – smiley!’

It was no surprise to note that the children regarded each other as friends – ‘theyare real friends’; ‘they are in France but they are our friends too’; ‘its nice to talk tosomeone and you can make friends with them even though you have only seen themon the screen’ – suggesting a strong affective element to their language learningexperience. This, in tandem with the sociocultural elements of the experience,appears to offer a very robust context for language learning itself.

Impact upon motivation

There was considerable evidence that the new technologies are having a positiveimpact on the children’s motivation to learn languages. Unsurprisingly, a key aspectof this motivation is the importance attached to the intercultural element and theestablishing of friendships outlined in the previous section. That there is a positiveimpact on children’s motivation is strongly suggested by the data, as theirenthusiastic comments testify: ‘it’s really, really good’, ‘you get to communicatewith real children’, ‘I’d like to do it more often’. Even the technical problems all toooften experienced did not seem to be overly off-putting and children who in thesecond year of the project did not appear to have their enthusiasm dimmed. On theother hand, their confidence is not high when they are new to it and all the childrenreported being scared or nervous before participating. In general, however, theirconfidence increases as the technology becomes more familiar, so that they makecomments such as ‘the more you do it, the easier it gets’ and ‘it’s okay to get itwrong’. It may be that the increase in confidence is crucial to the sustaining ofmotivation, suggesting that there are complex issues surrounding progression to betaken into consideration. The latter quote also suggests that a key consideration isthe role of error and teachers’ attitudes to this.

The issue of enjoyment was one highlighted by many. Comments such as ‘youhave fun and learn at the same time’ from a French child, and from Spanish childrenthat they felt ‘lucky to learn English in a fun way’, they ‘think it’s a good ideabecause it’s more fun than just learning the language because you can actually talk to

Education 3–13 439

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

people and communicate with them’. To some degree, this reflected a shift inemphasis in terms of the skills practised – the children appeared to be motivated byspeaking and listening: ‘you get to talk to people and that’s good’; ‘it’s really good,they can tell us what they do, instead of writing and we can tell them what we do andwe can learn more’; from a French child, the observation that ‘you talk whereas inother subjects you write’. Having said that, in the second year of data collection, anincreasing number of children made reference to the role of the leaning platform andthe associated email facility, even noting as one child did, that this help with theirspelling. A further issue in motivation was the opportunity to interact with realchildren their own age – ‘you would rather speak to someone your own age’; ‘adultspressurise you sometimes’ and the authentic nature of the communication wasstressed frequently: for example, ‘it’s really fun because instead of just talking toyour friends who know English, when you speak to them they say new words thatyou don’t know and they learn you words often and they learn new English wordsoff us’. One French child observed that ‘you don’t only speak to the teacher, toplease the teacher’. The real-time element of the situation was also appreciated, asanswers to questions were immediately forthcoming, in comparison to moreconventional written exchanges – ‘you ask each other questions and get the answersstraight away’.

Language learning processes

The new technology has undoubtedly had a very positive effect upon children’smotivation. Arising from this appears to be a desire to learn that has allowed thechildren’s confidence to develop considerably. As this child put it, ‘it’s really good,your ears get pricked up so you learn loads more . . . it’s exciting so you have tolearn’, or as another said, ‘it’s a good opportunity for us to learn French and forthem to learn English’. French and Spanish children made similar observations, yetlike the English children all reported their initial reactions to the experience to beones of anxiety and nervousness. In all three languages, the word for nervousfeatured often, but the successful accomplishment of the task meant that the childrenwent quickly from nerves to relief and enthusiasm. As one English child expressed it,‘at first you think it’s exciting but then you feel scared and nervous and then afterthat you wish you can do it again’. The children report again and again how itbecomes easier as one gets accustomed to it – as one child in England said, ‘whathappened was when I met the class in a videoconference and I was shy because Ididn’t know that much French but now that I’ve met 6 [penfriend] and I’ve learnedmore French I’ve got more confident’. Furthermore, this confidence is reflected intheir ability to both risk making errors and their acceptance of others’ mistakes.Although a small number of children were concerned about errors (‘if you get itwrong it’s a bit embarrassing’), the reciprocal nature of the experience in particularwas clearly a support: ‘I think it’s good because if I say a French word wrong, weshouldn’t feel embarrassed because they are learning English and they mightpronounce things wrong’. Indeed, the awareness of this reciprocity is one of the moststriking aspects of this technology. Not only can it assuage the fear of making errorsbecause others do too, but it also appears to make the children more aware of theirown first language use on the one hand and sensitive to their interlocutors’ potentialcomprehension problems on the other. The children in England made a number ofinsightful comments, such as ‘when you are talking to your friends (in England) you

440 G. Macrory et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

don’t say everything properly, but you say proper traditional English when you aretalking to them’, and ‘if they heard us speaking normally it would sound really fastto them’. Both these reflect an understanding of the language learning experiences ofthe other children. A further comment by a child that ‘it helps you to learn whatother people feel and not just think about yourself . . . it helps you to be more kind’points to a developing empathy that extends beyond the experience of languagelearning. That they realise that others may struggle to understand them in turn issuggested by such observations as ‘for us it’s a bit funny when they pronounce thewords really wrong, it must be funny to them when we pronounce a word wrong in aconference’. Equally, the children in the other two countries are also sensitive to thisissue. The Spanish children, for example, all reported speaking more slowly for theirEnglish counterparts and the French children too noted the importance of goodarticulation, one commenting that ‘you have to speak well to make yourselfunderstood, sometimes it can get confusing’. However, despite this apparentawareness, there remained problems of understanding each other and difficultieswith perceived speed and articulation of the other children’s language. A finalobservation is that the data reported here largely reflects the experience of children inEngland learning French or Spanish and that of the children in France or Spainlearning English. The exchange between the French and Spanish schools usesEnglish as a lingua franca, and there is some evidence emerging that the childrenperceive this exchange differently from that involving native speakers. As one childin France said, ‘it’s not the same accent when it’s an English or a Spanish childspeaking English’. The increased confidence displayed and reported by the childrenin all three countries is accompanied by heightened awareness of their own speakingand listening skills. The Spanish children report that they not only improve but also‘check’ their pronunciation, increase their vocabulary and feel that they have madeprogress. Equally, the French children also report support for their vocabularydevelopment with such comments as ‘it helps you to remember the difficult words’.The English children show awareness of progress, reflected in such comments as ‘welearn mostly speaking and listening because we hear what they are saying, we takethat in and then we can use those words in the next video-conference’. Commentssuch as ‘I think it’s better to have a videoconference because then if they say a wordyou’ve got to understand it’ suggest further a determination to communicate.

The awareness that the children have of their own progress in language learningcoupled with their sensitivity to the reciprocal nature of the language learning process isa key outcome of the use of new technologies such as videoconferencing. Perhapsinevitably this leads to a different conceptualisation of the respective roles of teachersand learners. While none of the children was asked explicitly to comment on this aspectof the project, their responses to other questions suggested that while, on the one hand,they were appreciative of having their teachers on hand to support, advise and clarify,on the other, they were developing a desire for independence. There is clearly a need forteacher support as articulated by this child: ‘it’s quite fun as well because if you’reforgetting something it’s not like you’ve got a great amount of pressure on you as thereis always someone to help you out’ or this: ‘when we do the video-conferences if we getstuck the teachers help us and then it gets easier’. Yet their desire for a moreindependent environment is beginning to show. As one child noted, ‘the teachers, theysay it for us . . . . I think they are doing too much for us, we should do it ourselves’.Equally, they are increasingly aware of the prepared nature of some of the activitiesand are beginning to comment on the need for a more spontaneous exchange, with

Education 3–13 441

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

suggestions such as ‘we could ask them in any order and it would be more of aconversation’, ‘with a script it’s like you’re doing a little play’ and ‘[we want] to be ableto talk and not have words given to you’. The Spanish children requested moreimprovisation and the French children more opportunities to talk – ‘speakmore often’.

Furthermore, the reciprocal nature of language learning noted above represents afundamental shift away from a traditional teacher-led language classroom. Indeed,there has been a perceptible shift towards a more autonomous approach to languagelearning among at least some of the children. The technology involves a learningplatform which is a secure online environment for children, teachers and trainees.Although the videoconferencing has so far proved to be the most used facility,increasingly the platform is being used by individual children contacting their friendsthrough email or webcam and/or small groups interacting with each other. Thedesire to have the opportunity to work independently was expressed by some of thechildren who are ready to move beyond the constraints of teacher-planned and -ledactivity, who offered comments such as ‘we want to have conversations, not a play’and ‘we really want to be able to choose what to do’. This also suggests that thetechnology may contribute to a change in the relationship between teacher andlearner, not only because the children are keen to work with each other but alsobecause the teachers and the children are discovering things together, both throughand about the technology, prompting one child to say that she had thought thatteachers knew everything but now realised they didn’t!

What did teachers and trainees have to say?

First of all, the issue of intercultural understanding was underlined by all teachersand trainees involved in the project, in all three countries. The engagement shown bythe children was evident to all, as was their motivation to communicate with theircounterparts using the new technology. They made many of the same observationsthat the children themselves had, relating to enjoyment, authenticity and the value ofengaging with children of their own age. The general consensus across all threecountries was quite striking in its message that this was a very promising approach tolanguage teaching and learning. Equally, when asked about language learningprocesses, the teachers’ and trainees’ comments echoed those of the children, notingin particular the impact a real communicative context has on language learning. Asteachers, however, they also remarked upon the impact (both real and potential) thatthe technology has on the development of speaking and listening skills.

Discussion

This has been a challenging project that has already thrown up a number of issuespertinent to the relationship of technology to SLA and to the whole issue ofcurriculum development at school level and at university (teacher-training) level.

First of all, the data appear to support the notion that videoconferencing haspositive benefits in terms of motivation and confidence, in this case for youngerchildren learning languages at primary school level. This echoes the findings ofPhilips (2010) and Pritchard, Hunt, and Barnes (2010). There are undoubtedlybenefits as far as speaking and listening skills are concerned and this for the first aswell as the foreign language. What comes across is what appears to be a fundamentaldifference in the experience of language learning in this way, a difference that resides

442 G. Macrory et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

in the reciprocal nature of the language learning experience. This, in turn, has thecapacity to alter the teaching and learning relationship between children andteachers and promote a more autonomous approach to language learning. Coupledwith the benefits in the development of intercultural understanding, this particularproject suggests that the technology has powerful potential to change for the betterthe language learning experiences of young children, addressing Johnstone’s (2001)call for a different rationale. That said, there remain numerous unresolved issues thatare pressing if technology such as this is to be commonplace in England and/or Europebefore too long. Key among these is the issue of appropriate pedagogy. The numerousissues here include some that are perhaps obvious, such as classroommanagement, thebalance between oracy and literacy, the use of appropriate language for audience andpurpose, linguistic progression and assessment of attainment. Highly pertinent,however, are those relating particularly to the development of speaking and listeningskills: the choice of TL and the use of code-switching and code-mixing in authenticcommunication is one aspect; another is the opportunity this technology offers (andneeds) to develop the communication strategies integral to authentic, purposeful andspontaneous communication. The roles of teachers and learners have also proved to bean intriguing focus for research, and the place of intercultural understanding andcontent in language learning and the relationship of these to linguistic progression ofcentral concern. Finally, there is the question of what happens when children who haveexperienced this innovative approach to language learning go to secondary educationand the change in teaching approach they may have to face; interestingly, Pritchard,Hunt, and Barnes (2010, 217) report that the pupils in their study were deemed by theirsecondary school teachers to have a number of advantages, including improvedconfidence, pronunciation and generally producing language of a high quality.

It has only been possible here to give a broad overview of the impact of thisproject. There remain many avenues of investigation. At the level of the technologyin schools, differences as well as similarities need to be explored. Different educationsystems and teacher perspectives, different prior experiences of technology and, inparticular, the relative roles of English, French and Spanish on the world stage needto be taken into account; finally, the experience of the French–Spanish link needs astudy of its own, as it is likely to yield valuable insights into the acquisition of alingua franca with non-native speakers of that language.

References

Arnold, T., and S. Cayley. 2008. Videoconferencing across the curriculum. Exeter: DevonEducation Services.

BECTA/DfES. 2004. Video conferencing in the classroom: final report.Belz, J. 2003. Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in

telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology 7, no. 2: 68–99.Blake, R. 2007. New trends in using technology in the language curriculum. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics 27: 76–97.Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon,

UK: Multilingual Matters.Byram, M., ed. 2004. Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning. London:

Routledge.Cable, C., P. Patricia Driscoll, R. Rosamond Mitchell, S. Sing, T. Cremin, J. Earl, I. Eyres, B.

Holmes, C. Martin, and B. Heins. 2010. Language learning at KS2: a longitudinal study.Final report. Research Report DCFS RR198.

Chapelle, C. 2007. Technology and second language acquisition. New trends in usingtechnology in the language curriculum. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27: 98–114.

Education 3–13 443

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Commission of the European Communities. 2003. Communication from the Commission tothe Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and theCommittee of the Regions, Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: AnAction Plan 2004–2006.

Brussels, 24.07.2003 COM (2003) 449 final.Dale, J. 2011. If you build it, they will come! The rise of the MFL twitterati. Keynote

presentation, ICT links into languages, University of Southampton, February.Driscoll, P., J. Jones, and G. Macrory. 2004. The provision of foreign language learning for

pupils at KS2. DfES Report ISBN 1 84478 306 5.Gundara, J.S., and A. Portera. 2008. Theoretical reflections on intercultural education.

Intercultural Education 19, no. 6: 463–8.Jaurgi, K., and E. Banados. 2008. Virtual interaction through video-web communication: A

step towards enriching and internationalizing language learning programs. ReCALL 20,no. 2: 183–207 (European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning).

Johnstone, R. 2001. Languages at primary school as a matter of national and internationalpolicy. What can research tell us about the key conditions of success? BAAL/CUPSeminar, Young Language Learners: Towards A Research Agenda. University ofManchester, June 15.

Kinginger, C. 1998. Video-conferencing as access to spoken French. The Modern LanguageJournal 82, no. 4: 502–13.

Lamy, M., and R. Hampel. 2007. On-line communication in language learning and teaching.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Macrory, G. and M. Beaumont. 2007. Anglo-French partnerships in primary languages:Implications of school links for learning, teaching and training. Francophonie 36: 3–9.

McAndrew, P., S.P. Foubister, and T. Mayes. 1996. Video-conferencing in a language learningapplication. Interacting with Computers 8, no. 2: 207–17.

O’Hara, M. 2008. Young children, learning and ICT: A case study in the UK maintainedsector. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 17, no. 1, 29–40.

Philips, M. 2010. The perceived value of videoconferencing with primary pupils learning tospeak a foreign language. Language Learning Journal 38, no. 2: 221–38.

Pritchard, A., M. Hunt, and A. Barnes. 2010. Case study investigation of a videoconferencingexperiment with in primary schools, teaching modern foreign languages. LanguageLearning Journal 38, no. 2: 209–20.

Steffens, K. 2008. Technology enhanced learning environments for self-regulated learning: Aframework for research. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 17, no. 3: 221–32.

Wade, P., H. Marshall, and S. O’Donnell. 2009. Primary modern foreign languages longitudinalsurvey of implementation of national entitlement to language learning at Key Stage 2 finalreport. National Foundation for Educational Research, for DCFS. Research ReportDCSF-RR127.

Wang, Y. 2006. Negotiation of meaning in desktop video-conferencing-supported distancelanguage learning. ReCALL 18: 122–45.

Yamada, M. 2009. The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative languagelearning using synchronous computer-mediated communication. Computers & Education52: 820–33.

444 G. Macrory et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14