Analysing Students’ Communicative Strategies in Synchronous Telecollaboration Interactions from a Multimodal Perspective

Analysing Students’ Communicative Strategies in Synchronous Telecollaboration Interactions from a Multimodal Perspective

Barry [email protected]

Begoña [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Contents

The TILA project

Synchronous Telecollaboration

Multimodality in STC

Classroom Interactional Competence in TC

The context of the study

Results

Conclusions

TILA Project (Telecollaboration for Intercultural Language Acquisition)

• General objective: to enrich the teaching and learning of foreign languages, intercultural competence and study the results of the implementation of telecollaboration in that process.

• Beneficiaries: students in secondary education in

• Life long learning project (European Comission)

• Duration: 2013-2015

Telecollaboration “ …. offers opportunities to use the target language to

negotiate both meaning and form in a social context” …” (Lee, 2001: 232)

Develops language skills and intercultural communicative competence (Guth & Helm, 2010; Dooly, 2011; Derivry & Jauregi, 2014).

Internationally dispersed students (Belz, 2003: 68)

Institutionalized settings (Belz, 2003: 68)

Collaborative tasks (O'Dowd, 2013: 1)

Synchronous/asynchronous computer-mediated communication (van der Zwaard & Bannink, 2014: 137)


• Not only linguistically coded spoken and written language but

also

• Paralinguistic features of voice:

– voice quality: breathy, creaky, etc.

– Intonation, stress, rhythm

– Accent

• Images

• Video


• The sum of semiotic modes and how they interact

• Mediality: physical substratum and purpose

– not just ink and paper but writing, not sound waves but

speaking (Schneider, 2006)

– Each medium has its affordances and constraints

– ‘the medium is the message’ (Herbert Marshall McLuhan).

Facework

• Goffman, Erving (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist 58: 473-502.

• Brown Penelope and Levinson Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Pennock-Speck, Barry & del Saz Rubio, Milagros (2013). A multimodal analysis of facework strategies in a corpus of charity ads on British television. Journal of Pragmatics 49(1):38–56.

Facework

• Deference and demeanour Goffman (1956)• Deference: “a symbolic means by which appreciation is regularly

conveyed to a recipient”. (Goffman 1956: 476) • Deference: “avoidance rituals” and “presentation rituals”

• Avoidance: maintaining a distance from the other so as not to encroach on that person’s “ideal sphere”.

• Also involves avoiding embarrassing topics (Goffman 1956: 482 –similar to negative politeness: B&L, 1987)

Facework

• Presentation rituals (1956 –similar to positive politeness: B&L, 1987)

• “presentational rituals, encompass acts through which the individual makes specific attestations to recipients concerning how he regards them and how he will treat them in the on-coming interaction.” (Goffman 1956: 485)

Facework

• Demeanour: “that element of the individual’s ceremonial behavior typically conveyed through deportment, dress, and bearing, which serves to express to those in his immediate presence that he is a person of certain desirable or undesirable qualities” (Goffman 1956: 489 See also Penman, 1990)

• Overlapping of deference and demeanour: “ … a willingness to give others their deferential due is one of the qualities which the individual owes it to others to express through his conduct, just as a willingness to conduct oneself with good demeanor is in general a way of showing deference to those present. (Goffman 1956: 489)


• Negotiation of meaning and form (Lee, 2001: 232)• “Teachers can provide students with adequate tasks in an

adequate setting for them to engage in negotiation of meaning and this can be very effectively done through TC” (Clavel-Arroitia & Pennock-Speck, 2015).

• See also: Jauregi, Melchor-Couto, Vilar Beltran (2013; Hoffstaedter & Kohn, 2014)

Classroom Interactional Competence in TC• According to Walsh (2002: 10-13) some of the features that characterize

teacher’s language use which facilitates learner involvement are: – direct error correction, – content feedback, – checking for confirmation, – extended wait-time – and scaffolding.

• In instructional settings, this is normally overseen by the T. Our aim here is to demonstrate that Ss in TC can adapt and implement those features that characterize T’s language and thus take charge of their own learning as we will see in the results.


• Facilitating autonomous learning involves several aspects such as:

a. Changing teacher and student roles

b. The use of tasks

c. Telecollaboration


Learning based on tasksTasks are divided into three phases:

Pre-taskMain taskPost-task


Learning based on tasksTasks are divided into three phases:

Pre-taskMain taskPost-task


Main

task

• Students have the main role• Autonomous learning• Collaborative work• The teacher as facilitator• NEGOTIATION OF MEANING (PEERS)


Main

task

• Students have the main role• Autonomous learning• Collaborative work• The teacher as facilitator• NEGOTIATION OF MEANING (PEERS)

Context of the Study: TILA Project in Spain

Secondary schools

IES Clot del Moro (Sagunt)IES La Garrigosa (Meliana)IES L’ElianaIES Joan Fuster (Sueca)

Universitat de València

Spanish cluster coordinator: Begoña Clavel ArroitiaPiloting coordinator and IP: Barry Pennock Speck

Godolphin and Latymer (London, UK)

Context of the study

• Based on the transcription of videos of online interactions between Spanish and British students using BBB.

• The students are involved in task-based exercises called “Getting to know you/Conociéndonos”, “My town/Mi ciudad” and “Planning a holiday/Planeando unas vacaciones”


• There are twenty one participants intervening in twelve videos

featuring interactions between English and Spanish students in

tandem constellations.

• Only fourteen have lengthy spoken interventions, one, ENG3,

speaks a couple of times and five just wave at the camera while

one just types, as in the case of ESP2.


• Our corpus comprises twelve videos and fourteen main interactants.

• Here we will present the results from a subcorpus consisting of four videos and their respective transcripts from

• There are three interactions (the first two videos correspond to the first interaction). They take place on the following dates 27/11/2014 (two); 02/12/2014 and 04/12/2014.

• There are two main interactants ESP6 and ENG6, speak. Three others: ENG7, ENG8, ENG9 appear briefly and wave at the camera.

Quantitative Results

• Sub-corpus contains 4759 words

• Due to the bilingual nature of the corpus it is difficult to use quantitative evidence. English is not a pro-drop language so “I” and “you” are common. Spanish is pro-drop so these pronouns are not found in any great numbers.

• As the tasks revolve around “getting to know each other” and “organising a holiday” this determines to a great extent both the use of function words (I, you, etc.) and lexical words.

• “London” and the word “odio” to refer to the Chemistry subject occur frequently. Both “sorry” and “siento” are common due to the technical problems with sound.

Quantitative Results

• The word clusters in blue have to do mostly with the subjects they had to talk about . The word clusters in red show that the technical problems generated a lot of <genuinely more authentic?> (mis)communication.

• Es muy cerca de• Eh, ah, entonces tienes un• Are you going?• This academic year

• Estoy intentado• Ahora? Ahora puedes• Lo siento pero• Sorry, let me• Puedo, puedo verte

Qualitative Results

• Multiple instances of facework.

• Demeanour: Sts attend to each other’s

production, do not interrupt, nod,

smile, thumbs up, friendly waves,

introduce classmates, self-deprecate.

Qualitative Results

• Demeanour depends on age. Intonation, pace of speech, expressions of surprise might not be acceptable in adults.

• For instance, when ENG6, a 15-year-old girl finds that

ESP6 is 18, she does nothing to hide her surprise. Nor

does she do so when she finds out ESP6’s mother is also

her teacher.

Qualitative Results

• Deference:

• offering apologies for interrupting, expressing regret

“What a pity!”.

• Complimenting interlocutor indirectly “I love that

pronunciation: Laura”.

• ENG6 does the same thing with ESP6’s friend’s name

Qualitative Results

• ENG6 uses self-deprecation on numerous occasions (humbling oneself according to B&L: 81)

• about her Spanish

• the weather in England

• her parents’ profession (at the same time a

compliment)

• The profession she wants to pursue.

Qualitative Results

• ENG6 expresses wish to go to Mediterranean. B&L PPS –

finding common ground.

• They also find common ground regarding examinations and

subjects they like.

• Avoiding disagreement: ENG6 is surprised that ESP6 is in the

staff room but then says “Es muy enrollado”.

Qualitative Results

• CIC:

<ESP4> ¿Cuál es la fiesta donde tú vives? <trigger> <ENG4> ¿Uhmm? Wait, otra vez. <asks for repetition><ESP4> ¿Qué fiesta se celebra donde tú vives? <reformulation>

<ESP4> Lo que más me gusta en mi ciudad es la plaza. <ENG4> ¿Qué? <clarification request><ESP4> Lo que más me gusta en mi ciudad es el centro. <reformulation><ENG4> Ah sí. <confirmation>

Qualitative Results• CIC:

<ESP4> Estanterías para guardar los libros, ¿me entiendes? ¿lo entiendes? <comprehension check><ENG4> Aha. <confirmation><ESP4> Una silla, dos armarios, y unos cajones <trigger><ENG4> ¿Qué? Unos…? <clarification request><ESP4> Unos cajones <repetition><ENG4> ¿Qué es? <question><ESP4> Es para guardar cosas. <feedback><ENG4> Ah… ok, ok, ok. <acceptance>

Qualitative Results

• CIC:

• <ESP7> I listen to that group. <trigger>• <ENG11> You listen to what? <clarification request>• <ESP7> The group that XXXX said. <reformulation>• <ENG10> Oh!! Woo! <She nods and laughs> <acceptance>

Qualitative Results

• CIC:

• <ENG6> What’s it like having a turtle?! <trigger>• <ESP6> What? <clarification request>• <ENG6> ¿Como es tener un turtle? <translation>• <ESP6> It’s fine because she doesn’t do anything! • <ENG6> <Laughs and throws herself back into the seat> Well

you kind of knew that when you got a turtle! <Laughs again>

Conclusions

• Our multimodal analysis highlights the affordances of STC. There are many non-linguistically-coded examples of non-verbal communication and face-work ranging from bodily gestures, facial expressions, intonation, loudness, etc. They can reinforce verbal language or reveal sts’ real feelings.

• Our subjects show genuine surprise about their peers and foreign culture.

• We have not found any cases of overt conflict.

• Students are well demeaned and are deferential vis à vis their peers.

• Social and civic competences is a key competence and includes interpersonal and intercultural competence.

Conclusions

• The type of peer interaction that takes place in our sample provides many opportunities that challenge the students’ ability to comprehend what is being said and to communicate their own ideas. (Clavel-Arroitia & Pennock-Speck, 2015)

• It would be very difficult to reproduce this kind of situation in the traditional classroom both in terms of meaning negotiation and face-work/interpersonal communication.

• Regarding authenticity, the Sts are aware of where they are and the presence of the teacher but their interactions seem very natural.

Thank you!

Barry [email protected]

Begoña [email protected]



Education

Analysing Students’ Communicative Strategies in Synchronous Telecollaboration Interactions from a Multimodal Perspective