Presentation with Linda Gijsen at Fontys University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands on French-Dutch EFL teacher telecollaboration.

1. TELECOLLABORATION FOR LANGUAGE
LEARNING IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Shona WHYTE, Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France
Linda GIJSEN, Fontys University of Applied Sciences,Tilburg, Netherlands
promoting interaction in the EFL classroom
via a blended teacher education course
New Directions in Telecollaborative Research and Practice:
The Second Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education
Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

2. TELECOLLABORATION FOR LANGUAGE
LEARNING IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
promoting interaction in the
EFL classroom via a blended
teacher education course
1. overview of project
2. EFL classroom outcomes
3. teacher reflections
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T
wp.me/p28EmH-8T

3. TELECOLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
Telecollaborative research has
focused on
learning about the target language
culture (Kramsch, 2014)
understanding those from other
cultures as a window on one’s
own culture (Guth & Helm, 2010)
the mediating role of technology
itself (Kern, 2014)
limitations and drawbacks of online
communication
• technical constraints and problems
• artificial exchanges limited to
personal registers (Hanna & de
Nooy, 2009)
• unchallenging task design which
fails to engage participants in
genuine collaboration (Ware &
O’Dowd, 2009)
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

4. OUR CONTRIBUTION
focus on language learning and
use
teacher education for
secondary school or
vocational EFL contexts
task-based orientation in
cognitivist-interactionist
framework
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

5. 1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT
blended course using Google
applications for synchronous
and asychronous
collaboration
a. teacher education course
b. participants
c. project tasks
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

6. 1ATHE COURSE
France: University of Nice/School of Education (ESPE)
12h course on technology for (language) teaching
second year Masters in Teaching English
9h/week teaching placement + academic/pedagogical training
Netherlands: Fontys University of Applied Sciences,Tilburg
8h course on technology in language teaching
second year Masters (open only to qualified teachers)
20h/week teaching positions
2014-15 pilot project: student teacher collaboration
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

7. COURSE ORGANISATION
preliminary group meeting: Adobe Connect/Skype (December)
initial tasks: video selfie presentation, Google community
membership, enter teaching details on shared Google document
(Christmas break)
creation of FR-NL teams: 3-5 teachers in 9 teams; shared folder on
Google Drive; 6-8 week course (March-April)
weekly face-to-face class sessions in each country: group
interactions - Google chat/hangout; one online session in France
final session to share teams’ results and reflections: synchronous
video connection and separate presentations on each side

8. 1B PARTICIPANTS
characteristics of student teacher groups in each country
pre-course questionnaire
attitudes to teaching/learning languages
view on technology for language teaching
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

9. PARTICIPANTS
characteristics of student teacher groups in each country
French: more homogeneous, younger, less (specific) training and teaching
experience
Dutch: both younger and older participants, more (specific) training and
more experienced teachers
pre-course questionnaire
attitudes to teaching/learning languages
view on technology for language teaching
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

10. PRE-COURSE QUESTIONNAIRE
online form
attitudes to teaching/learning languages
Lightbown & Spada
views on technology for language teaching
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

11. 1
2
3
4
5
imitation
correction
intelligence
L1interference
grammarpractice
grammarsyllabus
errorcorrection
gradedmaterials
junkydata
OVERALL
FRENCH DUTCH
LANGUAGE LEARNING &TEACHING BELIEFS
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T
attitudes to teaching/learning
languages
Lightbown & Spada
1. Languages are learned mainly
through imitation
11.Teachers should teach simple
language structures before
complex ones.
12 items 5-point Likert scale
misguided beliefs
5 = very traditional/outdated
1 = very well-informed/up to date

12. 1
2
3
4
5
imitation
correction
intelligence
L1interference
grammarpractice
grammarsyllabus
errorcorrection
gradedmaterials
"junkydata"
OVERALL
FRENCH DUTCH
LANGUAGE LEARNING &TEACHING BELIEFS
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

13. 1
2
3
4
5
search(self)
seach(teaching)
e-mail
LMS
internet
blog
audiorecording
videorecording
slideshow
onlinehelp
helpcolleagues
OVERALL
FRENCH DUTCH
TECHNOLOGICAL SELF-EFFICACY PERCEPTIONS
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

14. 1
2
3
4
5
6
personalskills
technologyforteaching
orientation
O
VERALL
4.334.384.234.38
3.934.05
3.7
4.05
FRENCH DUTCH
TECHNOLOGICAL SELF-EFFICACY PERCEPTIONS
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

15. PROJECTTASKS & DATA
Objectives for student-teachers:
share information about their learners
devise learning tasks involving interaction between learners in
different countries
document instances of target language communication and learning.
Data:
student-teacher contributions during the course
the teaching and learning materials they designed
their reflection on the implementation of activities from a TBLT
perspective.

16. 2 EFL CLASSROOM OUTCOMES
promoting classroom
interaction
a. teaching/learning activities
b. task analysis
c. learner productions
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

17. 2A ACTIVITIES
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T
TEAM INFORMATION EXCHANGE COLLABORATION &
PRODUCT CREATION
1 Learners work in groups to exchange e-mails
2 Learners in pairs to exchange e-mails with self-selected partners
3 Learners work in groups to exchange video presentaNons to
prepare and take quizzes
final quiz
4 Learners exchange by e-mail to make and confirm hotel
reservaNons (tourism vocaNonal educaNon)
5 Learners work in groups to exchange e-mails (final quiz/video
presentaNons separately)
6 Learners work in pairs by e-mail to plan weekend in partner
country
7 Learners work in groups to exchange e-mails to work on wriNng
skills
8 Learners work in groups to create common producNon digital poster
9 Learners create a collaboraNve short story, group work collaboraNve stories
O’Dowd & Ware 2009

18. 2BTECHNOLOGY
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T
TEAM COMMUNICATION OTHER TECHNOLOGY
1 gmail Skype
2 e-mail video selfies
3 learner video
4 e-mail YouTube
5 e-mail learner video
6 e-mail
7 e-mail digital poster so`ware, ppt/Prezi
8 Padlet
9 Google documents Padlet, website

19. 2BTASK CRITERIA
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T
TEAM MEANING
FOCUS
“GAP” LEARNERS RELY ON
OWN RESOURCES
OUTCOME/PRODUCT
1 No InformaNon exchange Yes, but pre-task final leaer/e-mail, presentaNons
2 Yes InformaNon exchange Yes, but pre-task e-mail summary (3 mails)
3 Yes Reasoning gap Yes, but pre-task class quiz
4 Yes InformaNon exchange Yes, but pre-task e-mail confirmaNon
5 Yes InformaNon exchange Yes, but pre-task e-mail feedback on paper, learner
presentaNons
6 Yes InformaNon exchange Yes wriaen reports
7 Yes InformaNon exchange Yes, but pre-task learner presentaNons
8 Yes Reasoning gap Yes, but pre-task A4 poster presentaNon
9 Yes Reasoning gap Yes class discussion

20. 2B REPORTED OBJECTIVES
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T
AIMS CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE •pracNce four skills
•acquire vocabulary
•pre-task acNviNes to prepare
learners
•no focus-on-form acNviNes
CULTURE •learn about other
cultures
• no focus on intercultural
competence
TECHNOLOGY •collaborate in a safe
learning environment
•learn to idenNfy and
apply new informaNon
•failure to exploit potenNal of
technology
•no specific digital literacy
goals

21. 2C LEARNER PRODUCTIONS
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T
teachers were
• satisfied with learner
involvement in tasks in
general
• often pleased with quality of
learner productions
• sometimes surprised at
learner insights during task
activities or in later discussion
teachers had difficulties
• handling and exploiting large
quantities of learner
productions
• managing different levels of task
engagement among learners
and scheduling contraints
• selecting examples of learner
productions to share as data

22. 3TEACHER REFLECTION
promoting interaction in the
EFL classroom via a blended
teacher education course
a. final course session
feedback
b. written reflection
c. conclusions
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

23. LEARNER OUTCOMES
FRENCH DUTCH
learner
perspectives
•pupils enjoyed exchange
•parents/schools also
supporNve
• similar opinions
social
relations
• greater learner freedom in
project acNviNes allowed
more personalised teacher-
learner relaNons
• similar opinions
intercultural
concerns
•some reNcence about non
target cultural exchange
• pupil insights about own
culture and similariNes with
Dutch
•no such reNcence
•greater experience with
English as lingua franca
exchanges
•some reNcence about non
target cultural exchange

24. TECHNOLOGICAL CONCERNS
FRENCH DUTCH
technical
issues
•minor difficulNes
•choice of familiar tools
•anNcipaNon of problems
• avoidance of interacNve
tasks due to lack of
internet access and
privacy issues
transitions
from digital to
face-to-face
environments
• teachers spent Nme
reformaeng/prinNng
online work for classroom
exploitaNon
• some found Padlet
collaboraNons “messy”
•disagree
•no reformaeng
•unNdiness viewed as part
of learning process
•unNdiness viewed as part
of learning process

25. PRACTICAL DIMENSIONS
FRENCH DUTCH
teacher
collaboration
•difficulty of scheduling and
updaNng planned acNviNes
•some misunderstandings
only became apparent once
acNviNes were underway
•success aaributed to
similariNes in goals and
aetudes (e.g., creaNng fun
acNviNes)
•less successful teams were
imbalanced, with one side
more commiaed
classroom
management
and
discipline
•some concerns about lack
of moNvaNon and/or
inappropriate behaviour
• difficulNes concerning
grading as usual incenNve
for effort and achievement
•novice teachers agreed
•others underlined difficulty
of implemenNng TBLT
without good class
management
•difficulty of implemenNng
TBLT without good class
mangement

26. OVERALL AIMS
FRENCH DUTCH
using
versus
learning
English
•some difficulNes deciding
when to correct learners
•limited exploitaNon of
learner producNons
•saNsfied with process rather
than product
•focus on meaning rather
than accuracy
•desire for outcome (joint
producNon)
innovation
and project-
based
learning
•not always easy to fit
telecollaboraNve tasks into
ongoing teaching units
•not immediate professional
priority
•greater interest/
experience/incenNve for
innovaNon and PBL
•would have preferred more
flexibility regarding Nming
•not immediate
professional priority

27. OVERALL AIMS
FRENCH DUTCH
using
versus
learning
English
•some difficulNes deciding
when to correct learners
•limited exploitaNon of
learner producNons
•saNsfied with process rather
than product
•focus on meaning rather
than accuracy
•desire for outcome (joint
producNon)
innovation
and project-
based
learning
•not always easy to fit
telecollaboraNve tasks into
ongoing teaching units
•not immediate professional
priority
•greater interest/
experience/incenNve for
innovaNon and PBL
•would have preferred more
flexibility regarding Nming
•not immediate
professional priority
• limited exploitation of
learner productions

28. CONCLUSIONS
wide variation across and within groups, consistent with different training,
experience, beliefs about language learning/teaching
value of (inter)cultural exchange is different for English studies versus EFL
graduates
views of feasible learning tasks differ for novice versus experienced teachers
differences in institutional contexts in France and the Netherlands
NL: university delivery of in-service teacher education combined with pre-service
teacher education; incentives for project-based learning and innovation
FR: more recent integration of university and school-based components of
teacher education; less concrete support for task-based approaches or
innovation
most productive teams in terms of task design and collaborative outcome were
most or least motivated participants at the start of the project

29. AND SO …
teachers did focus on language
use, although tasks offered limited
opportunities for interaction
for teachers: rich, nuanced
reflection on opportunities and
challenges of telecollaboration
for teacher educators: questions
about role of telecollaboration
in formal teacher education
programme
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T

30. TELECOLLABORATION FOR LANGUAGE
LEARNING IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
promoting interaction in the
EFL classroom via a blended
teacher education course
Shona Whyte (Nice)
Linda Gijsen (Fontys)
Conference on Telecollaboration in University Education, Dublin, 21/04/16 http://wp.me/p28EmH-8T
wp.me/p28EmH-8T