El coleccionismo como hecho social e histórico

In recent years some researchers and practitioners have expressed their disapproval of the class-to-class confi gurations which are still quite prominent in networked classrooms. First, there has been criticism of the underlying belief in the research on online intercultural exchange that members of different cultures use different genres and cultural communication styles in their online intercultural interactions and that it is this ‘clash of genres’ which often leads to breakdowns in online intercultural interaction.

Kramsch and Thorne, for example, describe the breakdown in communication which occurred between classes of French and American students as ‘two local genres engaged in global confrontation’ (2002, p. 99). However, Goodfellow and Lamy warn that ‘the assumption that a coherent “genre” or “style” is characteristic of national cohorts is rarely interrogated’ (2009, p. 6). The authors question whether it is possible to speak about a ‘French communicative style’ and whether it is not an over-simplifi cation to describe one monolithic cultural communicative style clashing or causing misunderstandings with another. Inevitably, the truth may lie somewhere half-way between the position that culture determines how people communicate and the other that suggests it is incorrect to say that members of a particular nationality exhibit a common communicative genre or style in online communication. Cultural differences in online communicative style have been clearly demonstrated by Belz ( 2002 ) and elsewhere, but research by O’Dowd and Ritter suggests that this should be seen as just one of an interconnected number of reasons why online intercultural communication can break down.

A second criticism of class-to-class exchanges comes from Hanna and de Nooy ( 2009 ), who lamented what they viewed as the limited authenticity of simply engaging L2 learners with other classrooms. They proposed as an alternative the activity of requiring learners to participate in the online asynchronous discussion forums which are provided by the websites of international newspapers such as Le Monde and the Guardian . The authors suggested that getting learners to take part in such forums would take them beyond the limitations of learner-to-learner communication and provide them with opportunities to join with native speakers in authentic interaction which required an awareness of the cultural rules and register of this genre of communication.

Against this background, recent years have seen the emergence of a third

‘generation’ or model of telecollaborative exchanges which refl ects in many ways a more fl exible and adaptable interpretation of how online intercultural interaction and exchange can contribute to FL learning. Described by Guth and Helm as Telecollaboration

2.0 (2010), this model focuses not only on the development of learners’ linguistic and intercultural competence, but also on developing the online literacies necessary to socialize, learn and work in today’s information society. The model is based on the

‘social Web’ that has emerged with the rise of Web 2.0 tools such as blogging, wikis and social networking sites, and is characterized by a less text-based and more multimodal form of communication (see Guth & Helm, 2010 ; Hauck, 2010 ). Certain variations of this model also involve a type of intercultural exchange that is more classroom independent than previous models and therefore allows for a much greater spectrum of possible partners, language set-ups and forms of interaction. For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Universidad Politécnica de Valencia Project (MITUPV project) brought together Spanish and North American students in a Web 2.0-based exchange which allowed students to share, annotate, restructure and analyse thousands of different multimedia objects (usually photos and videos) which they themselves had created using their own digital video recording devices (Morgenstern, 2009 ). However, in an interesting twist change from ‘traditional’ telecollaborative exchanges, this project platform was open to the general public as well as to classes at both institutions and this meant that the intercultural exchange benefi ted during its ten-year existence from the participation of students in other universities as well as of non-university-based participants.

Examples are also emerging of new-style telecollaborative exchanges which move completely away from the ‘traditional’ class-to-class set-ups and which engage learners in specialized interest communities or environments that focus on specific hobbies or interests. Thorne et al. ( 2009 ), for example, describe the potential for intercultural contact and learning in online fan communities, where learners can establish relationships with like-minded fans of music groups or authors and can even use Web 2.0 technologies to remix and create new artistic creations based on existing books, films and music.

Learners also have increasing opportunities to use their FL skills and hone their intercultural communicative competence through participating in online multicultural communities such as multiplayer online games and public discussion forums, such as those described by Hanna and de Nooy ( 2009 ). Researchers working in this area are fi nding a complex range of data sources emerging from telecollaborative exchange taking place completely outside the context of formal education. Pasfi eld-Neofi tou ( 2011 ), for example, analysed a corpus of blogs, emails, SNS interactions, chat conversations, game profi les and mobile phone communications between 12 Australian learners of Japanese with Japanese partners they had contacted outside of their formal learning environment, in order to explore issues of language choice, identity construction and feelings of national identity and ‘foreignness’ online.

Inevitably, this emerging model of telecollaboration requires learners to assume greater responsibility for how their linguistic and intercultural learning progress online as they are given greater freedom in their choice of potential intercultural learning partners and learning environments – many of which, as has been shown, may be completely independent of organized classroom activity. Thorne describes this form of telecollaborative learning as ‘intercultural communication in the wild’ (2010, p. 144) and

speculates that this learning may be ‘situated in arenas of social activity that are less controllable than classroom or organized online intercultural exchanges might be, but which present interesting, and perhaps even compelling, opportunities for intercultural exchange, agentive action and meaning making’ (Thorne, 2010 , p. 144).

Although this is undoubtedly true, increased attention to informal and independent telecollaborative activity may inevitably clash with attempts by educators and educational institutions to integrate and ‘normalize’ CALL activity within FL programmes (Bax, 2003 ; O’Dowd, 2011 ). Stephen Bax defi nes the normalization of computer-assisted learning activity in the following way:

when computers . . . are used every day by language students and teachers as an integral part of every lesson, like a pen or a book . . . without fear or inhibition, and equally without an exaggerated respect for what they can do. They will not be the centre of any lesson, but they will play a part in almost all . . . They will go almost unnoticed. (2003, p. 23)

To achieve the integration of telecollaborative exchanges in formal education contexts, it is likely that educators will need access to regular and dependable virtual partnerships, easily observable and assessable student activity, tasks which are easily integrated into normal classroom interaction, and exchange structures which can be understood and adapted even by educators who have relatively low levels of electronic literacy.

These requirements are likely to be diffi cult to meet in telecollaboration 2.0 activities involving the remixing of multimedia objects and participation in public-access ‘fan sites’ and public internet discussion forums. Finding models to accommodate both these trends is undoubtedly a challenge for future research in the area.

Conclusions

After almost two decades of practice and research, it is still diffi cult to assess the impact which telecollaboration has had on FL education. While research has demonstrated the contributions that online intercultural exchange can make to the language learning process, it appears that many FL educators are unwilling or unable to integrate such exchanges into their classrooms for various reasons. Many educators, for example, have highlighted the organizational complexity of these exchanges and the diffi culties which they encounter when trying to dedicate time to the organization of an exchange while attending to their other duties and obligations. Warschauer and Ware, for example, suggest that the type of learning which telecollaboration involves can often be at odds with the institutional demands within which teachers are working:

classroom teachers . . . are under pressure to raise test scores, and most thus shy away from creative project-based instruction in order to concentrate on more narrowly focused interventions related to state examination material. (2008, p. 231)

A survey of practitioners reported by O’Dowd ( 2011 ) also revealed other obstacles to the long-term ‘normalization’ of telecollaboration. These included a lack of stability in project partners, the limited interest of colleagues and the diffi culties in integrating online exchanges into course syllabi and into course evaluation schemes. These fi ndings would seem to suggest that unless action is taken from a top-down policy level, telecollaboration is destined to remain on the periphery of FL teaching and that its potential will only be exploited by teachers and students who are willing to take it as an addition to traditional skills-based language activities.

Nevertheless, examples do exist of initiatives which are providing telecollaborative projects with the curricular time, space and recognition they deserve. An example of an initiative that can facilitate the normalization of telecollaborative exchange into curricula is the Connect Programme run by the NGO Soliya ( http://soliya.net/?q =connect_

program). The organization brings together students from universities all around the world in a highly structured exchange set-up for which participating students can receive credit from their own universities.

Furthermore, the integration of telecollaborative projects with physical student mobility programmes such as the European Union’s Erasmus programme may also facilitate the development of more stable partnerships among European classrooms.

A European Commission Green Paper on promoting the learning mobility of young people refers to online exchange as a tool for preparing physical mobility and as a viable alternative for those students and young people who are unable to engage in traditional mobility programmes (Commission of the European Communities, 2009 , p. 18). The report of the High Level Expert Forum on mobility also suggests the following: ‘Virtual mobility is widely available, quick and cheap. Nevertheless, physical mobility provides a more intensive and deeper experience and is, therefore, irreplaceable. Developing the synergies between virtual and physical mobility is a central art of a new way of life’ (2008, p. 11). Various projects and initiatives are currently exploring how telecollaboration can be integrated with physical mobility (see Zeiss & Isabelli-García, 2005 ; and the Mobi-blog project ( http://mobi-Mobi-blog.eu /) for two examples of these initiatives). In relation to this area, Kinginger suggests the following:

A particularly intriguing application of this approach, as yet undocumented in the literature, would be to establish telecollaborative courses linking students at home to their in-country peers in the precise locations where they will study abroad and thereby to establish contacts through prior, institutionally sanctioned interaction.

(2009, p. 111)

Undoubtedly, the greater integration of online technologies in students’ social lives and study activities should also contribute to the consideration of online intercultural exchange as being a normal part of educational practices. Nevertheless, there is still a need for a virtual platform (similar to the ePals and eTwinning sites available for primary and secondary school educators) where university FL teachers can easily fi nd potential partner classes as well as tools and resources for integrating and evaluating

telecollaboration. There is also a need for greater awareness-raising among the FL teaching community of the advantages of telecollaborative activity and for a greater focus on training teachers in the pedagogical applications of new technologies rather than in their technical aspects. With this in mind, there is a growing body of research which aims to introduce future FL educators to telecollaboration by engaging them in online exchanges during their own training programmes (Dooly, 2011 ; Grosbois, 2011 ; Müller-Hartmann, 2007 ). With effective training practices such as those outlined in these studies, and a realistic awareness of its potential and limitations, telecollaboration stands to become an important part of CALL practice in the decades to come.

References

Audras, I., & Chanier, T. (2008). Observation de la construction d’une competénce interculturelle dans des groupes exolingues en ligne. Revue Apprentissage des Langues et Systeme d’Information et de Communication (ALSIC), 11 , 175–204.

Bax, S. (2003). CALL – past, present and future. System , 31 (1), 13–28.

Beauvois, M. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology for improving speaking and writing. In M. Bush & R. Terry (Eds.), Technology enhanced language learning (pp. 165–83). Illinois: National Textbook Company.

Belz, J. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL , 13 (2), 213–31.

— (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology , 6 (1), 60–81.

— (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 68–99.

— (2005). Telecollaborative language study: A personal overview of praxis and research.

Selected Papers from the 2004 NFLRC Symposium. Retrieved from http://nfl rc.hawaii.

edu/networks/nw44/belz.htm

Belz, J., & Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59 (2), 189–214.

— (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German. The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53 , 591–647.

Belz, J., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers negotiating German-American telecollaboration: Between a rock and an institutional hard place. Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 71–89.

Belz, J., & Thorne, S. (Eds.) (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Brammerts, H. (1996). Language learning in tandem using the internet. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 121–30). University of Hawaai’i:

Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Commission of the European Communities (2009). Green paper: Promoting the learning mobility of young people. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0329:FIN:EN:PDF

Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural literacy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Donath, R., & Volkmer, I. (Eds.) (1997). Das Transatlantische Klassenzimmer . Hamburg:

Koerber-Stiftung.

Dooly, M. (Ed.) (2008). Telecollaborative language learning: A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online . Bern: Peter Lang.

— (2011). Divergent perceptions of telecollaborative language learning tasks:

Tasks-as-workplan vs. task-as-process. Language Learning & Technology, 15 (2), 69–91.

Eck, A., Legenhausen, L., & Wolff, D. (1995). Telekommunikation und

Fremdsprachenunterricht: Informationen, Projekte, Ergebnisse. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.

Fischer, G. (1998). E-mail in foreign language teaching: Towards the creation of virtual classrooms. Tuebingen: Stauffenburg Medien.

Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The culture project. Language Learning & Technology , 5 (1), 55–102.

Goodfellow, R., & Lamy, M.-N. (2009). Introduction: A frame for the discussion of learning cultures. In R. Goodfellow & M-N. Lamy (Eds.), Learning cultures in online education (pp. 1–14). London: Continuum.

Grosbois, M. (2011). CMC-based projects and L2 learning: Confi rming the importance of nativisation. ReCALL , 23 (3), 294–310.

Guth, S., & Helm, F. (Eds.) (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st Century. Bern: Peter Lang.

Hanna, B., & de Nooy, J. (2009). Learning language and culture via public internet discussion forums. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hauck, M. (2010). Telecollaboration: At the interface between multimodal and intercultural communicative competence. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0:

Language and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 219–48). Bern: Peter Lang.

Hauck, M., & Lewis, T. (2007). The tridem project. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange (pp. 250–9). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

High Level Expert Forum On Mobility (2008). Making learning mobility an opportunity for all . Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/2008/mobilityreport_en.pdf Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243–60.

Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research.

Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kohn, K., & Warth, C. (2011). Web collaboration for intercultural language learning . Münster: MV-Wissenschaft.

Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning and Technology , 7 (2), 145–72.

Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 83–100). London: Routledge.

Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in

computer-assisted language learning . New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meagher, M., & Castaños, F. (1996). Perceptions of American culture: The impact of an electronically-mediated cultural exchange program on Mexican high school students.

In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication. Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 187–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

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.

Morgenstern, D. (2009). ITUPV: Language, media, and distance in an online community.

In I. Lancashire (Ed.), Teaching literature and language online (pp. 190–202). New York:

Modern Language Association of America.

Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology , 4 (2), 129–47. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/ muller/default.html

— (2007). Teacher role in telecollaboration: Setting up and managing exchanges. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange (pp. 167–93). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding ‘the other side’: Intercultural learning in a

Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 118–44.

— (2005). Combining networked communication tools for students’ ethnographic research. In J. Belz, & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Computer-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 86–120). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

— (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Berlin: Langenscheidt.

— (Ed.) (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

— (2011). Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign language education? Language Teaching , 44 (3), 368–80.

O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘Failed Communication’

in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal , 23 , 623–42.

O’Dowd, R., & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 22(2), 173–88.

O’Rourke, B. (2007). Models of telecollaboration (1): eTandem. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange (pp. 41–61). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Pasfi eld-Neofi tou, S. (2011). Second language learners’ experiences of virtual community and foreignness. Language Learning and Technology , 15 (2), 92–108. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/pasfi eldneofi tou.pdf

Riel, M. (1997). Learning circles make global connections. In R. Donath & I. Volkmer (Eds.), Das Transatlantische Klassenzimmer (pp. 329–57). Hamburg: Koerber-Stiftung.

Roberts, B. (1994). What works? Retrieved from www.iecc.org/discussion/what-works.html Schwienhorst, K. (2000). Virtual reality and learner autonomy in second language

acquisition . Unpublished PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin.

Stickler, U., & Emke, M. (2011). Literalia: Towards developing intercultural maturity online.

Language Learning & Technology , 15 (1), 147–68.

Telles, J. A. (Ed.) (2009). Teletandem: Um contexto virtual, autônomo e colaborativo para aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no século XXI . Campinas: Pontes Editores.

Thorne, S. (2006). Pedagogical and praxiological lessons from internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education research. In J. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 2–30). Boston, MA:

Heinle & Heinle.

— (2010). The intercultural turn and language learning in the crucible of new media. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 139–65). Bern: Peter Lang.

Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in internet interest communities and online games. Modern Language Journal , 93 , 802–41.

Vilmi, R. (1994). Global communication through e-mail: An ongoing experiment at Helsinki University of Technology. Paper presented at TESOL 94 Conference, Paris. Retrieved from: www.hut.fi /~rvilmi/Publication/global.html

Vinagre, M., & Muñoz, B. (2011). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchange. Language Learning & Technology , 15 (1), 72–103.

Ware, P. (2005). Missed communication in online communication: Tensions in fostering successful online interactions. Language Learning & Technology, 9 (2), 64–89.

Warschauer, M. (Ed.) (1995). Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners . Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

— (Ed.) (1996). Telecollaboration in foreign language learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

— (2003). Technology and equity: A comparative study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 24 April 2003. Chicago,

— (2003). Technology and equity: A comparative study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 24 April 2003. Chicago,

In document 72 Daniela Santonocito (página 46-54)