Understanding and Working with 'Failed Communication' in Telecollaborative Exchanges
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v23i3.623-642Keywords:
Intercultural Learning, Online Pedagogy, Telecollaboration, Failed Communication, Computer-mediated CommunicationAbstract
It is by now well established that telecollaborative exchanges frequently end in "failed communication" and do not automatically bring about successful negotiation of meaning between the learners. Instead, the intended pedagogic and linguistic aims of online interaction are repeatedly missed, and projects may end in low levels of participation, indifference, tension between participants, or a negative evaluation of the partner group or their culture. The reasons offered in the literature are rather diverse in nature, and there has so far been no attempt to offer a comprehensive overview of such areas of dysfunction. Starting from a review of the existing body of research, this paper develops a structured inventory of factors which may lead to cases of failed communication in online exchanges. In sum, 10 different factors are suggested at four different levels: individual, classroom, socioinstitutional, and interaction. Examples of communication failure taken from two exchanges will be used to illustrate how these factors are interconnected and influence each other. It is concluded that a more discriminating perspective of such problem areas, both among the tutors and the students, can help to further increase intercultural awareness and lead to a better understanding of the dynamic nature of online communication.
References
Appel, C., & Mullen, T. (2000). Pedagogical considerations for a web-based tandem language learning environment. Computers & Education, 34 (3-4), 291-308.
Belz, J. A. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL, 13 (2), 213-231.
Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6 (1), 60-81. Retrieved August 17, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/BELZ/default.html
Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 68-99. Retrieved August 17, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/BELZ/default.html
Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review/Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 59 (2), 189-214.
Belz, J. A., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2002). Deutsch-amerikanische Telekollaboration im Fremdsprachenunterricht—Lernende im Kreuzfeuer der institutionellen Zwänge. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 35 (1), 68-78.
Belz, J. A., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers negotiating German-American telecollaboration: Between a rock and an institutional hard place. Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 71-89.
Brammerts, H., & Kleppin, K. (Eds.). (2005). Selbstgesteuertes Sprachenlernen im Tandem. Ein Handbuch. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools. Challenging cultural literacy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Fischer, G. (1998). E-mail in foreign language teaching. Towards the creation of virtual classrooms. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura project. Language Learning & Technology, 5 (1), 55-102. Retrieved August 17, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/ furstenberg/default.html
House, J. (2000). How to remain a non-native speaker. In C. Riemer (Ed.), Cognitive aspects of foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 101-118). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in on-line pedagogy and research. Annual review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260.
Kramsch, C., A’Ness, F., & Lam, W. S. E. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in the computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (2). Retrieved January 17, 2006, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/kramsch/de fault.html.
Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Language learning and teaching in the age of globalization (pp. 83-100). London: Routledge.
Meskill, C., & Ranglova, K. (2000). Sociocollaborative language learning in Bulgaria. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 20-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000a). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (2), 129-147. Retrieved August 17, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/muller/default.html
Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000b). Wenn sich die Lehrenden nicht verstehen, wie sollen sich dann die Lernenden verstehen? Fragen nach der Rolle der Lehrenden in global vernetzten Klassenräumen. In L. Bredella, H. Christ, & M. K. Legutke (Eds.), Fremdverstehen zwischen Theorie und Praxis (pp. 275-301). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
O’Dowd, R. (2000). Intercultural learning via videoconferencing: A pilot exchange project. ReCALL, 12 (1), 49-63.
O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding ‘the other side’: Intercultural learning in a SpanishEnglish e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 118-144. Retrieved August 17, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/odowd/default.html
O’Dowd, R. (2005). Negotiating sociocultural and institutional contexts: The case of Spanish-American telecollaboration. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5 (1), 40-56.
O’Dowd, R. (2006). The use of videoconferencing and e-mail as mediators of intercultural student ethnography. In J. A. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 86-120). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
O’Dowd, R., & Eberbach, K. (2004). Guides on the side? Tasks and challenges for teachers in telecollaborative projects. ReCALL, 16 (1), 129-144.
Riel, M. (1997). Learning circles make global connections. In R. Donath & I. Volkmer (Eds.), Das Transatlantische Klassenzimmer (pp. 329-357). Hamburg: KörberStiftung.
Sayers, D. (1991). Cross-cultural exchanges between students from the same culture: A portrait of an emerging relationship mediated by technology. Canadian Modern Language Review/Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 47 (4), 678-696.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2000). Culturally speaking. Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum.
Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 38-67. Retrieved August 17, 2005, from http://llt. msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne
Ware, P. (2005). ‘Missed’ communication in online communication: Tensions in a GermanAmerican telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9 (2), 64-89. Retrieved August 17, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/ware/default.html
Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89 (2), 190-205.
Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
