Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:31:42.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A semiotic perspective on webconferencing-supported language teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2015

Nicolas Guichon  and
Ciara R. Wigham
Nicolas Guichon
Affiliation:
Université Lumière Lyon 2 – Laboratoire ICAR - ENS de Lyon, France (email: nicolas.guichon@univ-lyon2.fr)
Ciara R. Wigham
Affiliation:
Université Lumière Lyon 2 – Laboratoire ICAR – ENS de Lyon, France (email: ciara.wigham@univ-lyon2.fr)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In webconferencing-supported teaching, the webcam mediates and organizes the pedagogical interaction. Previous research has provided a mixed picture of the use of the webcam: while it is seen as a useful medium to contribute to the personalization of the interlocutors’ relationship, help regulate interaction and facilitate learner comprehension and involvement, the limited access to visual cues provided by the webcam is felt to be useless or even disruptive.

This study examines the meaning-making potential of the webcam in pedagogical interactions from a semiotic perspective by exploring how trainee teachers use the affordances of the webcam to produce non-verbal cues that may be useful for mutual comprehension. The research context is a telecollaborative project where trainee teachers of French as a foreign language (FFL) met for online sessions in French with undergraduate Business students at an Irish university. Using multimodal transcriptions of the interaction data from these sessions, screen shot data, and students’ post-course interviews, it was found, firstly, that while a head and shoulders framing shot was favoured by the trainee teachers, there does not appear to be an optimal framing choice for desktop videoconferencing among the three framing types identified. Secondly, there was a loss between the number of gestures performed by the trainee teachers and those that were visible for the students. Thirdly, when trainee teachers were able to coordinate the audio and kinesic modalities, communicative gestures that were framed, and held long enough to be perceived by the learners, were more likely to be valuable for mutual comprehension.

The study highlights the need for trainee teachers to develop critical semiotic awareness to gain a better perception of the image they project of themselves in order to actualise the potential of the webcam and add more relief to their online teacher presence.

Keywords

multimodalitywebconferencing-based interactionframinggesturesteacher training
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 62 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2015 

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

Bétrancourt, M., Guichon, N. and Prié, Y. (2011) Assessing the use of a Trace-Based Synchronous Tool for distant language tutoring. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Hong Kong, July 2011, 478–485.Google Scholar
Camshare Inc. (2014) Camfrog (software) http://www.camfrog.comGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. E. (1991) Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M. and Teasley, J. S. D. (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Codreanu, T. and Combe Celik, C. (2013) Effects of webcams on multimodal interactive learning. ReCALL, 25(1): 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. (1983) L’image-mouvement. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Develotte, C., Guichon, N. and Vincent, C. (2010) The use of the webcam for teaching a foreign language in a desktop videoconferencing environment. ReCALL, 23(3): 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flewitt, R., Hampel, R., Hauck, M. and Lancaster, L. (2009) What are multimodal transcription and data? In Jewitt, C. (ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge, 40–53.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Guichon, N. (2009) Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’ competence through reflective analysis. ReCALL, 21(2): 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guichon, N. and Cohen, C. (2014) The impact of the webcam on an online L2 interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(3): 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, E. T. (1966) The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Hampel, R. and Stickler, U. (2012) The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in an online language classroom. ReCALL, 24(2): 116–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewitt, C. (ed.) 2009) The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. (2011) The changing pedagogic landscape of subject English in UK classrooms. In O’Halloran, K. L. and Smith, B. A. (eds.), Multimodal studies: Exploring issues and domains. New York: Routledge, 184–201.Google Scholar
Jones, R. H. (2004) The problem of context in computer-mediated communication. In Levine, P. and Scollon, R. (eds.), Discourse and technology – Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 20–33.Google Scholar
Jones, R. H. (2009) Technology and sites of display. In Jewitt, C. (ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge, 114–126.Google Scholar
Kappas, A. and Krämer, N. C. (eds.) (2011) Face-to-face communication over the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (1982) The study of gesture: Some observations on its history. Recherches Semiotique/Semiotic Inquiry, 2(1): 25–62.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (2014) Technology as Pharmakon: The promise and perils of the internet for foreign language education. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1): 340–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. (2009) What is mode? In Jewitt, C. (ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge, 54–67.Google Scholar
Manstead, A. S. R., Lea, M. and Goh, J. (2011) Facing the future: Emotion communication and the presence of others in the age of video-mediated communication. In Kappa, A. and Krämer, N. C. (eds.), Face-to-face communication over the Internet: Emotions in a web of culture, language, and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–38.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992) Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Parkinson, B. and Lea, M. (2011) Video-linking emotions. In Kappas, A. and Krämer, N.C. (eds.), Face-to-face communication over the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 100–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinnow, R. J. (2011) “I’ve got an idea”: A social semiotic perspective on agency in the second language classroom. Linguistics and Education, 22(4): 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricci Bitti, P. E. and Garotti, P. L. (2011) Non-verbal communication and cultural differences: Issues for face-to-face communication over the Internet. In Kappas, A. and Krämer, N. C. (eds.), Face-to-face communication over the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sindoni, M. G. (2013) Spoken and written discourse in online interactions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sloetjes, H. and Wittenburg, P. (2008) Annotation by category – ELAN and ISO DCR. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008).Google Scholar
Souchier, E., Jeanneret, Y. and Le Marec, J. (eds.) (2003) Lire, écrire, récrire. Paris: Bibliothèque Centre Pompidou.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tellier, M. (2006) L’impact du geste pédagogique sur l’enseignement/apprentissage des langues étrangères: Etude sur des enfants de 5 ans. Unpublished PhD thesis. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00371041Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2004) The ecology and semiotics of language learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigham, C. R. and Chanier, T. (2013) A study of verbal and non-verbal communication in second life – the ARCHI21 experience. ReCALL, 25(1): 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamada, M. and Akahori, K. (2009) Awareness and performance through self- and partner’s image in videoconferencing. CALICO Journal, 27(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zähner, C., Fauverge, A. and Wong, J. (2000) Task-based language learning via audiovisual networks. In Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds), Network-based language teaching: concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar