Jump to content

Draft:Intercultural Telecollaboration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The intercultural telecollaboration (IC), also known as virtual exchange or online international exchange (OIE) is an experiential learning tool used in the development of cultural competence, including intercultural communication, cultural sensitivity and cultural agility. It is “generally understood to be internet-based intercultural exchange between people of different cultural/national backgrounds, set up in an institutional context with the aim of developing both language skills and intercultural communicative competence (as defined by Byram, 1997) through structured tasks”.:[1][2][3] Such exchanges are typically “bilateral, bilingual, bicultural exchanges lasting more or less one semester”. [4]

Typical Models

[edit]

There are 2 models that are most widely used [5]

1.E-Tandem: speakers of 2 different languages are paired together to engage in conversation either synchronously or asynchronously, with the time being split evenly between the 2 languages.

2.Blended Intercultural Model: frequently based on the ‘Cultura Model’, it uses the juxtaposition of materials from 2 different cultures to promote the exploration of cultural difference through the means of comparison.[6]

Origins

[edit]

The origins of IC can be traced back to the pioneering efforts of Célestin Freinet in the 1920s in France and Mario Lodi in the 1960s in Italy.[7][8] Through the exploitation of the technology of the day, namely the printing press and the mail service, Freinet’s students were able to communicate with students in other areas of France by creating class newspapers and ‘cultural packages’ which included ‘flowers, fossils and photos of their local area’. Lodi’s students engaged in the creation of ‘student newspapers in collaboration with distant partner classes’. The influence of such early experiments and initiatives can be seen in the online activities such as the ‘E-Twinning Culture in a Box’ activity.[9]

Task Types

[edit]

O’Dowd and Waire[10][11] have identified 3 main categories of task types emerging from the literature:

1.Information Exchange Tasks: Learners provide information about themselves and their own culture. These exercises are typically used as introductory activities and are ‘monologic’ in nature, requiring little negotiation of cultural or linguistic meaning.

2.Comparison and Analysis Tasks: Learners carry out comparison and analysis of culturally or linguistically related material. These tasks are generally more demanding in nature as participants are required to ‘engage in dialogue in order to establish similarities or differences between the 2 cultures’.

3.Collaborative Tasks: In addition to exchanging in relation to cultural and linguistic comparison, learners are required to produce a joint piece of work such as ‘a blog, wiki entry, web page, website, digital story, or a presentation’.[12] These tasks require ‘a great deal of coordination and planning’ but result in ‘substantial amounts of negotiation and meaning at both linguistic and cultural levels'.[13]

Advantages

[edit]

Where the exchange is reflective and comparative in nature, it has been shown to lead to greater ‘critical cultural awareness’, not only through discussion but through the elicitation of meaning of cultural behavior as seen in one’s collaborative partner, “from ‘real’ informants in the target culture”.[14] It can also provide learners with knowledge that they wouldn’t typically find in textbooks or other typical sources of cultural and linguistic learning.[15] It has also been seen as a tool in effectively preparing learners for work in the current globalized job market.[16]

Criticisms

[edit]

IC does not always provide the desired result of intercultural understanding. It has been observed that ‘exposure and awareness of difference seem to reinforce, rather than bridge, feelings of difference.[17][18] IC can also provoke negative attitudes toward the target culture[19] and has also been seen to promote over-generalised cultural stereotypes by interpreting a particular individual’s behavior as being representative of an entire culture.[20]

Future Perspectives

[edit]

Through the rise of online tools such a ‘blogging, wikis and social networking sites’, there has also been a rise in intercultural exchange that is ‘classroom independent’ and ‘allows for a much greater spectrum of possible partners, language set-ups and forms of interaction’ through collaboration ‘in specialized interest communities or environments that focus on specific hobbies or interests’[21]and allowing for ‘intercultural communication in the wild’.[22]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Byram, M. (1997). Revisited. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/doi:10.21832/9781800410251.
  2. ^ Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Telecollaboration as an approach to developing intercultural communication competence. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 8–28.
  3. ^ Guth, S., & Helm, F. (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, Literacies and Intercultural Learning in the 21st Century. Peter Lang. .
  4. ^ Helm, F. (2015). The Practices and Challenges of Telecollaboration in Higher Education in Europe. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 197–217.
  5. ^ Chun, D. (2015). Language and culture learning in higher education via telecollaboration. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2014.999775
  6. ^ O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 340–356.
  7. ^ Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1997). Brave New Schools: Challenging Cultural Illiteracy Through Global Learning Networks. St. Martin’s Press.
  8. ^ O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 340–356.
  9. ^ O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 340–356.
  10. ^ O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 340–356.
  11. ^ O’Dowd, R., & Waire, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220902778369
  12. ^ Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Telecollaboration as an approach to developing intercultural communication competence. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 8–28.
  13. ^ O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 340–356.
  14. ^ O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 340–356.
  15. ^ O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 340–356.
  16. ^ Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Telecollaboration as an approach to developing intercultural communication competence. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 8–28.
  17. ^ Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). 11. CROSSING FRONTIERS: NEW DIRECTIONS IN ONLINE PEDAGOGY AND RESEARCH. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000091
  18. ^ O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 340–356.
  19. ^ O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 340–356.
  20. ^ Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Telecollaboration as an approach to developing intercultural communication competence. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 8–28.
  21. ^ O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 340–356.
  22. ^ Thorne, S. L. (2010). The ‘Intercultural Turn’ and Language Learning in the Crucible of New Media. In F. Helm & S. Guth (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0 for Language and Intercultural Learning (Pp. 139-164). Bern: Peter Lang., 139–164.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:Intercultural_Telecollaboration&oldid=1234976737"