Videoconferencing in Foreign Language LearningbyRobert O' DowdThis is an extract from my completed PhD thesis on telecollaboration in foreign language learning. For a complete copy of the thesis or a bibliography on the area, please contact me at this address: Robert O'Dowd. |
1.1 Why use Videoconferencing?
Various synchronous communication tools have already been used quite extensively in NBLT. Students have carried out task-based discussions with their classmates through chat programs and LANs (Beauvois, 1997; Pellettieri, 2000) and have taken part in intercultural tandem exchanges with partners in different countries using MOO’s (Schwienhorst, 2000; von der Emde, Schneider and Kötter, 2001). These pieces of research had reported relatively positive results for aspects of language learning such as the development of autonomy and language awareness.
In the previous projects in this thesis, synchronous tools had been ignored for mainly practical reasons. In order for students to engage in chats, MOO’s or videoconferencing, it is necessary for them to be on-line at the same time. Due to different timetables, this had not been possible neither with the Clemson and Michigan groups, nor with the students in Dublin. Furthermore, synchronous communication carries with it a substantial amount of risk as the teacher and students may find that the internet connection has crashed just moments after having started their session with their partner group. If groups are only scheduled to meet each other only once a week, this can be demotivating for the students and nerve-racking for the teacher. (This had been my own experience several times during a previous videoconferencing project.) However, apart from this reason, some pedagogical issues had also influenced my choice of tools for telecollaboration.
Previously, I had believed that asynchronous tools (such as e-mail and message boards) were more suited to my research’s focus on intercultural aspects of foreign language learning. Firstly, the asynchronous nature of the media would allow learners to take their time and to reflect more carefully on the comments and questions of their foreign partners than if they were dealing with interaction taking place in a chat. Secondly, asynchronous tools also allow learners to print-out and share with their classmates the texts which they are sending and receiving. This supports group work and facilitates the teachers’ task of integrating exchanges into their classrooms. Although this is also possible with MOO’s and some chat programs, I felt there was something more manageable and concrete about the texts which learners would receive by e-mail. Finally, I also felt that asynchronous communication was more suited to intercultural learning as my experience had been that learners produce more detailed and in-depth content in these environments hence supporting the ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973) of their home culture.
Despite these beliefs, when the opportunity arose in this project to combine an e-mail exchange with videoconferencing sessions I eagerly accepted for various reasons. Firstly, as mentioned in the previous section, I identified synchronous communication as playing an important role in helping students to carry out ethnographic research with their partners. I also believed that face-to-face communication would add a realistic element to the process of classroom-based intercultural communication. While e-mail gives learners time to reflect carefully on what they write to their partner, normal intercultural communication does not allow for this luxury. Videoconferencing would prepare learners to employ their skills of intercultural communication in real time, thereby reflecting Byram’s skill of discovery and interaction which involves the ability to acquire knowledge about the target culture “under the constraints of real-time communication and interaction” (1997a: 52).
Much of the recent CALL literature has spoken about the imminent arrival of videoconferencing technology into the language classroom and about the benefits that this will have for both teachers and learners (Moore, 2002; Fürstenberg et. al., 2001). For many, the technology has come to be seen as the next logical addition to student interaction via e-mail or chat programs and MOO’s. Using this technology, students will not only be able to interact and to write to their teachers or virtual classmates, but will also be able to hear and see them as well. However, despite much talk of its potential, the literature is still lacking many examples of good practice. Wilcox suggests: “The stigma of videoconferencing is that, throughout its history, next year has always been the year it was going to ‘really take off’” (2000: 17). Problems such as the high cost of hardware and software and the poor quality of sound and images have meant that few language teachers have so far experimented with videoconferencing in their classes. Nevertheless, isolated reports of videoconferencing are beginning to appear in the area. Therefore, after identifying what videoconferencing actually involves, the different approaches to implementing the technology in the foreign language classroom will be looked at and various issues related to applying the medium in this context will be discussed.
1.2 What is videoconferencing?
First of all, it is important to clarify what is meant by the term videoconferencing. Videoconferencing can be defined as a point-to-point closed communications system connecting computers that are equipped with video (Roblyer, 1997: 58). In order to take part in a videoconference, users require a camera, a screen, a microphone, loudspeakers and the necessary software. Communication usually takes place via ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) lines or over the Internet, using IP (Internet Protocol) addresses. Both systems can suffer from low quality visual images and sound, however ISDN is considered more reliable due to its greater bandwidth. Although using the internet to carry out videoconferences generally involves low quality, the low cost tends to make it the more popular option with educational institutions.
In the context of foreign language education it is also important to distinguish between room-based and desktop videoconferencing. Desktop videoconferencing involves carrying out a videoconference using a camera, microphones etc. which are connected to a personal computer (see fig. 6.1 below). This is suited to one-to-one communication. Videoconferencing software applications such as NetMeeting allow users to combine the videoconference with a shared whiteboard on their screens where each participant can write, draw diagrams and make changes to what the other has written. As the bandwidth of the Internet is often too low to support good quality interaction, many users opt to freeze the picture image of their partner on the screen and simply use the audio and whiteboard functions.
Alternatively, room-based videoconferencing is generally organised on a group-to-group basis. In this case, a class sits in front of a large screen where they can view the participants at the other site as well as a smaller image of themselves. It is common in higher education institutions to use this form of the technology for distance learning programmes. In this way, students or lecturers far away from the home campus can take part in classes. In this case, the system usually employs an ISDN connection to transmit information from one site to another. The quality of the set-up is usually quite good, although the gap between sound and picture can be up to 1.5 seconds depending on the number of ISDN lines used in the exchange.
 |
Fig. 6. 1. Desktop
Videoconferencing via mini-camera, speakers and microphone.
6.3.3 Videoconferencing and Foreign Language Learning.
So far reports in the literature show that videoconferencing technology has been exploited by foreign language educators in a variety of ways. To get a clearer picture it is useful to classify these reports according to the way that the interaction was organised.
Teacher-to-Class: Some institutions have tried using videoconferencing to provide teacher-centred classes to students who were not at the same location as the teacher. The ReLaTe project (Buckett and Stringer, 1997) was carried out by the University of Exeter and University College, London and involved a small group of students at one site receiving French classes from an instructor at the other. Students made use of a whiteboard which they shared on their screens with their instructor to take a more active role in the class. The value of the live visual images in videoconferencing-based language instruction is highlighted in one of the many reports that have been published on the ReLaTe project:
“Both tutors and students do value it [i.e. the visual element]; crucially, it provides a way of gauging reactions (e.g. frowning, smiling, puzzlement), of clarifying meaning (e.g. by mime) and as a way of learning some of the non-verbal gestures relevant to the language being taught.” (Buckett and Stringer, 1997)
Goodfellow et al. (1996) report on a similar set-up, this time involving students of Professional English in Norway attending videoconference-based classes given by instructors and experts who were based in London. However, their conclusions about the value of videoconferencing for teacher-student based language instruction were quite different. They found that the technology did not facilitate natural group discussion, that it prohibited the teacher from exploiting the group dynamic and that, to a great extent, body language such as gestures and expressions were distorted.
Private language schools that offer on-line courses via the Internet have also exploited videoconferencing to connect teachers and students, both on a one-to-one basis and also with groups of students in a “virtual classroom”. NetLearn Languages[1] and LearnOnLine[2] are just two examples of the many schools using the technology in this way.
Student-to-Student: Many videoconference exchanges have left the teacher out of the equation completely and have enabled students to practise their language skills with native speakers from the target culture. Following in the style of Tandem exchanges, Butler and Fawkes (1999) relate how students of French at Monkeaton High School in England conversed every week on a one–to–one basis with students of EFL in a partner school in Lille, France. The students were given access to desktop computers with videoconference capabilities and interacted with a prearranged partner, taking turns to speak in French and English. The students were given task sheets before each session which they had to complete by asking their partners questions about their lives in the target culture. One of the advantages of this project was that students reported finding it less intimidating being corrected by their foreign peers than by their teachers. The research also showed that the majority of learners involved had improved their pronunciation, accuracy and fluency in the target language. McAndrew, Foubister and Mayes (1996) also engaged their students in one–to–one videoconferences, however this time all the participants were English students of French and the exchanges were used to allow students at distant sites to co-ordinate and prepare presentations and role-plays which they were going to have to perform together at a later date. To assess the value of videoconferencing for carrying out such collaborative tasks, control groups were set up to collaborate on a face-to-face basis. The conclusions were the following:
“No significant difference was
found between the presentation scores of pairs of students who had used
Hipernet [i.e. videoconferencing] and those who had worked under the no-computer
condition. This suggests that collaborative task based learning is adequately
supported by videoconferencing, with the important implication that such
methods may be appropriate for distance learning.” (
McAndrew, et al., 1996)
Finally, Zähner, Fauverge and Wong (2000) report on the Leverage Project which involved connecting teams of two learners of French and two learners of English together via videoconference. In the sessions the students had to collaborate together (using both languages) in order to prepare presentations. The authors found several drawbacks in the technology. Firstly, transmission delays interfered with the natural turn-taking process. Secondly, students found it difficult to signal when they wanted to take the floor and speak. Thirdly, despite the video channel, students reported receiving limited visual feedback from partners. Nevertheless, the students also notes that they found speaking to peers in the foreign language as being less stressful than talking to teachers. Also, tutoring and error correction were not explicit. Instead, learners corrected each other indirectly during their interaction. The authors conclude that the success of videoconferencing technology depends on three important aspects. Firstly, students should be given appropriate, engaging tasks which will give them a reason to interact together. Secondly, a writing tool (such as a shared whiteboard) should be available to support the oral interaction. Finally, tutors should be on hand in order to step in when problems emerge.
Class-to-Class: Finally institutions equipped with suitable technology have brought videoconferencing into their own classrooms where groups of students have been able to interact with and make presentations to a partner class from the target culture. The Mission – Mendocino Exchange described on the web pages of Pacific Bell (1997) shows how young children in Elementary schools in the USA and Mexico used videoconferencing to improve their presentation skills and find out about life in their partners’ country. One of the teachers involved in the exchange says the following on the effects of videoconferencing on his students:
“The kids couldn’t stand still at first. Then they see themselves on camera and see the other students and begin to change their behaviour. They begin to enunciate and to express themselves in a more organised way. It has really helped them to enhance their public speaking skills using a new medium.” (Pacific Bell, 1997)
In an interesting intercultural activity, Kinginger, Gourvés-Hayward and Simpson (1999) used class-to-class videoconferencing to bring together French and American language learners and allow them to compare interpretations of parallel texts, i.e. films, children’s fairy tales and other texts which had been written for one of the culture’s involved and then adapted for publication in the other. The authors found that the interaction with individual native speakers via videoconferencing allowed learners to check their developing theories about the target culture and also reminded them not to make overgeneralisations.
Schlikau (2000) reports on a class-to-class videoconferencing exchange between learners of German in Ohio, USA and future teachers of German as a foreign language at the University of Munich in Germany. The author highlights the many difficulties which the medium can cause for intercultural communication. Firstly, students often found it hard to see and judge the non-verbal behaviour of their distant partners. Secondly, as time was limited to a 60 minutes, it was necessary to plan the content of the session carefully and there was little room for spontaneity in the interaction. Similar to Zähner, Fauverge and Wong (2000), Schlikau suggests combining this technology with asynchronous, written communication in order to clear up any misunderstandings which arise during the videoconferences.
A final example of class-to-class videoconferencing comes from my own research which involved an exchange between EFL students at the University of León in Spain and learners of Spanish at the University of Northern Michigan in the USA. This exchange involved students comparing reactions to Spanish and American films which they had sent to each other as well as discussing the results of surveys which they had carried out in their home towns (O’Dowd, 2000). My research into this exchange revealed the value of videoconferencing for intercultural learning. Students were forced to reflect on aspects of their own culture when they were asked by their partners about their choice of films or the outcomes of their surveys. Furthermore, students also became aware of cultural differences in appropriate classroom behaviour as well as in posture and appearance.
Based on my research, I drew up a list of guidelines for good practice which can be summarised as follows. Firstly, the frequent use of visual materials such as photos and videos can reduce some of the pressure which the non-stop interaction often involves. Secondly, videoconferences are not suited for casual chatting and both groups should come to the session with an agreed agenda and timetable. Thirdly, when speaking or asking questions, students should address one member of the other group in order to make clear who should answer. Finally, students should clearly use non-verbal signals to show agreement, understanding etc. as verbal responses may interrupt speakers or lead to confusion.
1.4 Drawbacks of the medium for Foreign Language Education.
Sound delay: Videoconferencing on the internet often suffers from bad quality sound and vision, depending on how busy the communication lines are and how many participants are taking part in the conference. The late arrival of sound after the image can give an effect similar to a badly dubbed film and can be very confusing for non-natives. For this reason, ISDN or MBone technology (a form of communication using the Internet which provides slightly quicker access than a traditional Internet connection) are seen as more reliable and better suited for the needs of language learners. ISDN offers what is known as a “dedicated connection” meaning that when two participants make an ISDN connection to carry out a videoconference they do not share the link with anyone else, unlike traditional internet connections whose speed depends on the number of users on-line at that time. However, as was pointed out earlier, issues of cost mean that internet-based conferencing has become the more popular option.
Differences to face-to-face communication: Although videoconferencing allows participants to see and hear each other in real time, the medium does not completely reproduce normal face-to-face interaction. In fact, many important aspects of face-to-face communication such as lip reading, eye contact and other aspects of body language are often hidden or distorted by the blurry images and the sound delay in the technology. These missing cues can sometimes lead to misunderstandings, interruptions and lack of comprehension. In contrast to McAndrew et. al., O’Malley, Bruce and Langton (1994) state that the intercommunication time delay which occurs even on high-quality videoconferencing means that collaborative tasks carried out in this medium may not be up to the standard of face-to-face interaction. Elsewhere, O’Malley, Langton, Anderson, Doherty-Sneddon and Bruce (1996) also point out that due to the lack of fluidity in handovers, videoconference-based conversations tend to be characterised by longer lengths of turn and more formal language when compared with face-to-face interaction.
The effects of ‘distance’: Following on from the quality of the technology, another important issue for language educators using videoconferencing is how to deal with the effects of psychological distance on the content and style of the language used during the conferences. Although videoconferencing permits visual communication, it has already been shown that this does not mean that interaction will be the same as when participants are physically present at the same location. Rutter (1984) argues that a low number of social cues in a conversation (“cuelessness”), resulting from the lack of either physical presence or visual communication contributes to psychological distance among participants and this leads to more depersonalised content, a possible change in the outcome of the exchange and a more elevated degree of formality in interaction:
“At the start of the encounter, subjects make use of whatever social cues they can to form an impression of psychological proximity or distance – the feeling that the partner is ‘there’ or ‘not there’ – and it is this which determines the content of what is said, and so the style and the content of the interaction.” (Rutter, 1984: 154)
In the case of videoconferencing, although the participants are visible to each other, they remain physically distant and this is therefore likely to affect the content, outcome and style of the interaction. Esch (1995) asserts that the effects of such psychological distance can be a major barrier to language learning. The consequences are particularly important when the focus is on the affective, intercultural aspects of language acquisition. The use of both a formal style and depersonalised content could lead to learners getting a negative impression of the other group, making them believe they are over-formal, cold or simply uninterested in the conversations.
Passive viewing: In group to group conferencing students may have a tendency to sit back and participate little in the exchange with the partner group. This may be due to shyness and awkwardness with the new medium, or it can be because they are simply not accustomed to interacting with a TV screen. Ostendorf (1993) warns that most students expect to be entertained by the TV and may expect the same from their colleagues on the conference screen.
Practicalities: The organising of a videoconference exchange, especially on a class to class level, holds many practical problems for any unwary school or teacher. Covering the initial costs of ISDN based hardware and software, overcoming installation and technical problems and finding a suitable partner class are the initial challenges that must be faced. Then, the teachers involved must consider how many students will be involved in the exchange, when a session can be timetabled to suit everyone involved (a major problem for trans-Atlantic exchanges!) and of course what the students are going to discuss when they finally do meet.