Intercultural competence in synchronous communication between native and non-native speakers of Spanish

Susana S. Fernández; María Isabel Pozzo

doi:10.1515/cercles-2017-0003

Article

Intercultural competence in synchronous communication between native and non-native speakers of Spanish

Susana S. Fernández
Susana S. Fernández is associate professor and study coordinator at the Department of Spanish and Latin American Studies at Aarhus University, Denmark. She conducts research in the field of foreign language acquisition and pedagogy.
and María Isabel Pozzo
María Isabel Pozzo is a researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council of Argentina, and Associate Professor at National University of Rosario, where she is the head of the Center of Studies on Spanish as a Foreign Language.

Published/Copyright: May 9, 2017

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Language Learning in Higher Education Volume 7 Issue 1

Abstract

This paper discusses to what extent synchronous communication via Skype by Argentine university students of History and Danish university students of Spanish contributed to fostering intercultural competence in the two groups of participants. Intercultural gains are considered both as part of the planned tasks to be solved by the participants (intentional learning) and in the spontaneous communication that arose in the course of the Skype conversations (incidental learning). The overall objective of this telecollaboration project has been the promotion of intercultural competence, with particular focus on the learning and teaching of Argentine regional history. Several tools, synchronous and asynchronous, were used for this purpose. The focus of the present paper will be the analysis of instances of intercultural awareness observed in Skype conversations, and of the affordances and obstacles that this modality of communication seems to pose for the native and non-native participants.

Keywords: intercultural competence; computer mediated communication; synchronous communication; telecollaboration; native/non-native communication

About the authors

Susana S. Fernández

Susana S. Fernández is associate professor and study coordinator at the Department of Spanish and Latin American Studies at Aarhus University, Denmark. She conducts research in the field of foreign language acquisition and pedagogy.

María Isabel Pozzo

María Isabel Pozzo is a researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council of Argentina, and Associate Professor at National University of Rosario, where she is the head of the Center of Studies on Spanish as a Foreign Language.

References

Belz, Julie A. 2003. Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology 7(2). 68–99.Search in Google Scholar

Belz, Julie A. 2006. At the intersection of telecollaboration, learner corpus research, and L2 pragmatics: Considerations for language program direction. In Julie A. Belz & Steve L. Thorne (eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education, 207–246. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Search in Google Scholar

Belz, Julie A. & Steve L. Thorne (eds.). 2006. Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education, 207–246. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Search in Google Scholar

Belz, Julie A. & Celeste Kinginger. 2003. Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German. The case of address forms. Language Learning 53. 591–647.10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00238.xSearch in Google Scholar

Belz, Julie A. & Celeste Kinginger. 2005. Socio-cultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: Microgenetic case studies from telecollaboration and residence abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(4). 369–421.10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.369Search in Google Scholar

Belz, Julie A. & Nina Vyatkina. 2005. Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review 62(1). 17–48.10.3138/cmlr.62.1.17Search in Google Scholar

Belz, Julie A. & Nina Vyatkina. 2008. The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning & Technology 12(3). 33–52.Search in Google Scholar

Bermúdez Brínez, Nilda & Marisol Rodríguez Arrieta. 2009. Fuente oral en la reconstrucción de la memoria histórica: Aporte al documental Memorias del Zulia Petrolero. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 15(2). 317–328. http://www.scielo.org.ve/pdf/rcs/v15n2/art11.pdf (accessed 22 June 2016)10.31876/rcs.v15i2.25447Search in Google Scholar

Byram, Michael. 1997. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Byram, Michael. 2000. Evaluering af interkulturel kompetence [Evaluation of intercultural competence]. Sprogforum 18. 8–13.10.7146/spr.v6i18.116742Search in Google Scholar

Bysted, Hanna. 2013. Mødet med andetheden i fremmedsprogsundervisningen – Den etiske dimension af interkulturel kompetence [Meeting with otherhood in foreign language teaching. The ethical dimension of intercultural competence]. Aarhus University Unpublished Master’s thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Canale, Michael & Merril Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1. 1–47.10.1093/applin/1.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Cerezal, Fernando (ed.). 1999. Enseñanza y aprendizaje de lenguas modernas e interculturalidad. Madrid: Talasa Ediciones.Search in Google Scholar

Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/framework_en.pdf (accessed 22 June 2016)Search in Google Scholar

Dervin, Fred. 2016. Interculturality in education: A theoretical and methodological toolbox. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-54544-2Search in Google Scholar

Dooly, Melinda & Randal Sadler. 2013. Filling in the gaps: Linking theory and practice through telecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL 25. 4–29.10.1017/S0958344012000237Search in Google Scholar

Egido León, Ángeles. 2009. El testimonio oral y las historias de vida: El exilio español de 1939. Migraciones y Exilios 10. 83–100.Search in Google Scholar

Félix-Brasdefer, Julio César. 2008. Pedagogical intervention and the development of pragmatic competence in learning Spanish as a foreign language. Issues in Applied Linguistics 16(1). 49–84. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/03r9m3zb (accessed 22 June 2016)10.5070/L4161005093Search in Google Scholar

Fernández, Susana S. & María Isabel Pozzo. 2015. La telecolaboración como herramienta para la enseñanza /aprendizaje de la historia regional argentina en Dinamarca: Un proyecto de intervención didáctica. In María Isabel Pozzo (ed.), Construcción de espacios interculturales en la formación docente: Competencia comunicativa intercultural, cultura regional y TIC, 155–180. Rosario: Laborde Editor.Search in Google Scholar

Griffiths, Carol. 2013. The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847699428Search in Google Scholar

Guth, Sarah & Francesca Helm. 2010. Telecollaboration 2.0: Language literacies and intercultural learning in the 21^st century. Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0351-0013-6Search in Google Scholar

House, Juliane. 2008. What is an “intercultural speaker”? In Eva Alcón Soler & María Pilar Safont Jordà (eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning, 7–21. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_1Search in Google Scholar

Hulstijn, Jan H. 2003. Incidental and intentional learning. In Catherine J. Doughty & Michael H. Long (eds.) The handbook of second language acquisition, 349–381. Berlin: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756492.ch12Search in Google Scholar

Hymes, Dell H. 1966. “Two types of linguistic relativity”. In William Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics, 114–158. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Instituto Cervantes. 2006. Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes. Madrid: Edelsa.Search in Google Scholar

Kramsch, Claire. 2011. The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural. Language Teaching 44(3). 354–367.10.1017/S0261444810000431Search in Google Scholar

Kumaravadivelu, B. 2003. Beyond methods. Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2000. Techniques and principles in language teaching. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lévinas, Emmanuel. 1996. Totalitet og Uendelighed [Totality and infinity]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Search in Google Scholar

Liaw, Meei-ling. 2006. E-learning and the development of intercultural competence. Language Learning and Technology 10(3). 49–64.Search in Google Scholar

Løgstrup, Kari. 2010. Den Etiske Fordring [The ethical demand]. Aarhus: Forlaget Klim.Search in Google Scholar

Morollón Martí, Natalia & Susana S. Fernández. 2016. Telecollaboration and sociopragmatic awareness in the foreign language classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 10(1). 34–48.10.1080/17501229.2016.1138577Search in Google Scholar

O’Dowd, Robert. 2006. Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Berlin: Langenscheidt.Search in Google Scholar

O’Dowd, Robert. 2007. Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon, Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847690104Search in Google Scholar

O’Dowd, Robert. 2015. The competences of the telecollaborative teacher. The Language Learning Journal 43(2). 194–207.10.1080/09571736.2013.853374Search in Google Scholar

O’Dowd, Robert & Paige Ware. 2009. Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning 22(2). 173–188.10.1080/09588220902778369Search in Google Scholar

Phipps, Alison. 2013. Intercultural ethics: Questions of methods in language and intercultural communication. Language and Intercultural Communication 13(1).10–26, DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2012.748787 (accessed 22 June 2016).Search in Google Scholar

Porto, Melina. 2013. Language and intercultural education: An interview with Michael Byram. Pedagogies: An Intercultural Journal 8(2). 143–162. doi:10.1080/1554480X.2013.769196 (accessed 22 June 2016).Search in Google Scholar

Pozzo, María Isabel & Susana S. Fernández. 2008. La cultura en la enseñanza de español LE: Argentina y Dinamarca, un estudio comparativo. Diálogos Latinoamericanos 14. 99–127.10.7146/dl.v9i14.113595Search in Google Scholar

Richards, Jack C. & Theodore S. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667305Search in Google Scholar

Risager, Karen. 2012. Intercultural learning: Raising cultural awareness. In: Maria Eisenmann & Theresa Summer (eds.), Basic issues in EFL-teaching and learning, 143–155. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Search in Google Scholar

Rose, Kenneth & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524797Search in Google Scholar

Appendix. Evaluation questionnaire (version presented to Danish students, translated into English)

Aarhus University

Department of Aesthetics and Communication

History I - 2014

Final evaluation of the telecollaboration project between Danish an Argentine students

During this semester, you have participated in a telecollaboration project with Argentine History students. Your work included the following elements:

You read texts that the Argentine students wrote for you
You communicated with the Argentine students through Skype and you discussed the texts (and talked about your respective contexts)
You interviewed a son of disappeared political dissidents about his life experience with the Argentine military dictatorship

Evaluation:

Content aspects:
Write a few lines on each of the three elements mentioned above and about your experience with each of them. You can take the following questions into account in your reflection:
1. Can you name positive aspects of each element?
2. Can you name negative aspects?
3. Which of these elements was the more/less useful (or beneficial) and why?
4. What have you learned working with each of these elements?
Linguistic reflection:
1. Was it difficult to communicate with your Argentine interlocutors? Why/why not?
2. Have you learned something concrete about the language in your conversations with the Argentine students? For instance, a new grammatical construction or a new expression that your interlocutors used? Do you have any concrete examples?
Practical aspects:
1. Write a few lines on the more practical aspects of telecollaboration: for instance, did Skype work as it should? Was it easy to keep meeting agreements with your Argentine partners? Were all members of the group active and did they all contribute to the work?
Emotional aspects:
1. Explain how you experienced this telecollaboration from an emotional point of view: Was it easy to talk (keep a conversation) with your Argentine interlocutors? Was there anything that you found shocking or difficult? How were your Argentine partners in your opinion? (open, interested, closed, (im)patient, etc.) Was it easy to communicate through a medium such as Skype?

Published Online: 2017-5-9

Published in Print: 2017-5-24

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2017-0003

Keywords for this article

intercultural competence; computer mediated communication; synchronous communication; telecollaboration; native/non-native communication