Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:54:09.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign language education?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

Robert O'Dowd
Robert O'Dowd*
Affiliation:
Universidad de León, Spainrobert.odowd@unileon.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper I argue that online intercultural interaction and exchange remains a relatively peripheral ‘add-on’ activity in most foreign language classrooms. In its current state, it is yet to be considered an integral part of curricular activity and it does not yet form a significant part of high stakes assessment procedures. Against this background, it is becoming increasingly difficult for educators to justify to learners the value of their online work. I present here an overview of what online intercultural exchange involves and discuss what have been its contributions to foreign language education. I then present findings from a survey of telecollaborative practices and discuss why this activity has yet to become a ‘normalised’ part of foreign language learning.

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 368 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Audras, I. & Chanier, T. (2008). Observation de la construction d'une compétence interculturelle dans des groupes exolingues en ligne. Revue Apprentissage des Langues et Système d'Information et de Communication (ALSIC) 11, 175–204. http://alsic.revues.org/index865.html.Google Scholar
Bax, S. (2003). CALL – past, present and future. System 31.1, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology 6.1, 60–81. http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/belz/.Google Scholar
Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology 7.2, 68–117. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/BELZ/default.html.Google Scholar
Belz, J. & Thorne, S. (eds.) (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Belz, J. & Vyatkina, N. (2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review/Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 62.1, 17–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Chambers, A. & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System 34.4, 465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Brussels: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Culhane, S. (2006). Virtual acculturation: Ongoing development of an E-homestay platform for SLA and intercultural learning. Presented at the PacCALL 3rd Annual Conference, 16–19 November, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.Google Scholar
Dooly, M. (2008). Telecollaborative language learning: A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009). Green paper: Promoting the learning mobility of young people. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/mobility/com329_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K. & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Culture Project. Language Learning & Technology 5.1, 55–102. http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/default.html.Google Scholar
Goodfellow, R. & Lamy, M-N. (2009). Introduction: A frame for the discussion of learning cultures. In Goodfellow, R. & Lamy, M-N. (eds.), Learning cultures in online education (Continuum Studies in Education). London: Continuum, 1–14.Google Scholar
Guth, S. & Helm, F. in press. Telecollaboration 2.0: Language and intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, B. & de Nooy, J. (2009). Learning language and culture via public internet discussion forums. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, M. (2007). Critical success factors in a TRIDEM exchange. ReCALL 19.2, 202–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology 7.2, 145–172. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/kotter/default.html.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In Block, D. & Cameron, D. (eds.), Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge, 83–100.Google Scholar
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning (2nd edn.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Little, D. & Simpson, B. (2003). European Language Portfolio: The intercultural component and learning how to learn. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
O'Dowd, R. (2005). Negotiating sociocultural and institutional contexts: The case of Spanish–American telecollaboration. Language and Intercultural Communication 5.1, 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Dowd, R. (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Berlin: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
O'Dowd, R. (ed.) (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Dowd, R. & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘Failed Communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal 23, 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Dowd, R. & Ware, P. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology 12.1, 43–63.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal 22.3, 433–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Rourke, B. (2007). Models of telecollaboration (1): eTandem. In O'Dowd (ed.), 41–61.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. (2006). Pedagogical and praxiological lessons from Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education research. In Belz & Thorne (eds.), 2–30.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. in press. The intercultural turn and language learning in the crucible of New Media. In Guth & Helm (eds.).Google Scholar
Ware, P. (2005). ‘Missed communication’ in online communication: Tensions in fostering successful online interactions. Language Learning & Technology 9.2, 64–89. http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/default.html.Google Scholar
Ware, P. & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal 89.2, 190–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M. & Ware, M. (2008). Learning, change, and power: Competing discourses of technology and literacy. In Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. & Leu, D. J. (eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 215–240.Google Scholar