Native & non-native speaker interactions through video web communication and Second

Life: a clue for enhancing motivation?

Kristi Jauregi, Rick de Graaff, Sterre Krooshof, Huub van den Bergh &

Silvia CantoUtrecht University

Structure• Introduction to NIFLAR • Results research on impact of video web

communication on motivation• Experiences with virtual worlds • Conclusions

Background to NIFLAR

Europeans’ language skills far from being optimal (EUDICE, ELISE, CILT)

Limitations in FLL & teaching contexts:• FLL > teacher, book and grammar oriented• Scarce opportunities for FL learners to engage in meaningful interaction

with native peers • Low motivation, low levels of achievement, possible drop outs (Final Report

High Level Group of Multilingualism, 2007)

• Intercultural awareness insufficiently addressed (Lace Report, 2007) • ICT underused (ICT-Impact Report, 2006)

NIFLAR• Time span: 1 January 2009 – 31 December 2010• Lifelong Learning Programme• Partners: Universities of

– Utrecht in the Netherlands– Granada and Valencia in Spain– Coimbra in Portugal – Palacky in Olomouc the Czech Republic,– Nevsky and Novosibirsk in Russia– Concepción in ChileTELL Consult (Netherlands)2 secondary schools, in Spain and The NetherlandsCoordination: Utrecht University

• Target languages: Dutch, Portuguese, Russian & Spanish

To enrich and innovate academic programs of foreign languages and make them more rewarding and relevant enhance motivation

Using two virtual environments:– Video web communication (Adobe Connect) – 3D Virtual Worlds (Second Life / Open SIM)

Two target groups: – FL learners at secondary and tertiary levels – Pre- (in) service teachers

Main objective of NIFLAR:

Second Life

Open Sim

Adobe connect

Actions to enhance motivation of FLls in NIFLAR (1):

1. Enriching the context of FLL: putting the learner (Tudor, 1996) and interaction (van Lier, 1996) at the heart of the learning process.

2. Providing challenging and innovative learning environments (video-web communication and 3D virtual worlds, which facilitate synchronous (native-non-native) speaker interaction (Jauregi & Bañados, 2008; 2010).

3. Promoting collaborative networked learning (Warschauer 1997) and action learning (Molka Danielsen & Deutschmann, 2009).

Actions to enhance motivation of FLls in NIFLAR (2):

4. Favouring experiences of enjoyment and success (interaction with native peers, participation in simulated target language culturally relevant contexts and events through relevant tasks).

5. Enhancing the learner’s willingness to communicate (MacIntyre et al. 2001)

6. Supporting authenticity of learning by favouring Integrative motivation (learner's positive attitudes towards the target language group and the desire to integrate into the target language community) (Gardner, 1985) Dörnyei & Csizér, 2005).

NIFLAR stimulates positive intercultural contacts respecting conditions reported to be essential in

successful exchanges (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2005)

(a) equal status between the individuals/groups within the contact situation;

(b) shared pursuit of common goals; (c) perception of common interests; (d) intergroup cooperation; (e) authority support; (f) friendship potential; (g) possibility to share and empathize with others.

Actions to enhance motivation in NIFLAR (3):

7. Developing tasks, which require active participation with peers and dynamic communication exchanges and which involve a combination of entertainment, leisure, game as meaningful ways of learning the target language and its culture (High Level Group of Multilingualism, 2007).

8. For the pre-service teachers: providing opportunities to interact with 'real' foreign language learners, to be engaged in task design and action research.

Task design principles for ICC in VWC & VW

• Communicative competence in L2 acquisition (Willis, 1996; Doughty & Long, 2003; Ellis, 2003; Moonen, 2007; Long, 2009)

• Intercultural competence in L2 acquisition(Byram, 1997; Müller-Jacquier, 2003; Zarate et al 2004)

• The application of VWC and VW in L2 acquisition (Jauregi & Bañados, 2008; Deutschmann, Panichi & Molka, 2009; Hauck, 2010)

The impact of video web communication on motivationResearch questions:• Does native – non-native speaker interaction

through VWC affect motivation?• Is this effect different for lower vs. higher

proficiency level language learners?

Participants and procedure• 36 Czech students of Dutch L2 (A2; B1)• 35 Dutch student teachers• 3 VWC sessions during a 10 weeks’ course• Weekly questionnaires on willingness to

communicate

Examples of video-web communicationFirst Second

My competence in the TL is sufficient to communicate with native speech partners

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Week

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Mea

n S

core

A2A2

A2A2

A2A2

A2A2

B1 B1 B1 B1B1

B1 B1B1

Because of my positive attitude I can communicate well with native speech partners

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Week

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5M

ean

Sco

re

A2A2

A2A2

A2

A2A2

A2

B1 B1 B1 B1 B1B1 B1 B1

I like speaking to native speakers in the target language

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Week

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Mea

n S

core

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

B1B1

B1B1

B1 B1B1 B1

I can explain myself well in the target language

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Week

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Mea

n S

core

A2A2

A2A2

A2

A2A2

A2B1

B1B1

B1B1 B1

B1B1

I understand (almost) everything when communicating with my native speech partner

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Week

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Mea

n S

core

A2A2

A2A2

A2

A2A2

A2B1B1

B1B1

B1 B1B1

B1

I enjoy the language course this semester

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Week

3.0

3.4

3.8

4.2

4.6

Mea

n S

core A2 A2

A2 A2 A2A2 A2 A2

B1 B1B1 B1 B1

B1 B1 B1

I get worried when I make mistakes when interacting in the target language

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Week

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Mea

n S

core

A2A2

A2A2

A2

A2A2

A2

B1 B1B1 B1 B1

B1 B1 B1

Evaluating experiences: FLl learning processTL:Dutch // N: 25

Questions over the FL learners’ learning process

(1 disagree … 5 agree)

T (UU)N=25Mean StDev

FL (PU)N=25Mean StDev

38 a. They/I have learned to talk more fluently 4,0 0,7 3,5 0,9*

38 b. They/I became more confident talking in the TL 4,1 0,7 4,0 0,4

38 c. They/I became more aware of cultural contrasts & similarities

3,7 0,9 3,2 1,3

38 d. They/I have learned new words 3,7 0,6 3,2 0,7*

38 e. They/I can talk more accurately 3,0 0,6 2,6 1,7

Experiences with Second Life

• February – April 2010• Part of a bigger research study (2 exper. gr & 1 cotrl gr)

• TL: Spanish, B1• Participants: 14 FLls (UU) & 7 pre-service teachers (UV)• Interaction formats: trio’s• Tutorials + 5 interaction sessions (1-2 hours)• Tasks integrated in academic curricula (obligatory for FLls)

• Data: recordings, pre-mid- and post-questionnaires, interviews

Tasks in Second LifeTask 1

Task 2

Task 3

Task 4

Task 5

Example in Second Life

Results post-questionnaires:The environment

X: 3,64; N:14)

Results post-questionnaires:Tasks

Results post-questionnaires: speech partner

Results post-questionnaires: learning

Results post-questionnaires: learning

To ta

lk m

ore

fluen

tly

Conclusions:The added value of integrating virtual interaction in education

1. Challenging, motivating and innovative learning environments.2. Offer opportunities for real-life and virtual synchronous communication with

native speakers of the target language.3. Rich linguistic and intercultural learning sequences emerge.4. Collaborative learning and learner autonomy are enhanced.5. They favour experiences of enjoyment and success. 6. Support authenticity of learning by favouring Integrative motivation.7. Significant impact of VWC and SL tasks on willingness to communicate.8. Impact on motivation in VWC was greater with lower level (A2) than with

higher level (B1) students: proficiency effect or novelty effect?9. Intersubjectivity and social empathy are enhanced: participants do not just

carry out pedagogical tasks together but work also to create intersubjectivity and friendship.

Would you like to know more about NIFLAR?

Join us in niflar.ning.comwww.niflar.eu

k.jauregi@uu.nlrdegraaff@uu.nl