Enhancing intercultural communication via the ENACT Web App in language teaching

Abstract

Abstract Digital language learning provides an immersive context for language learners to engage in intercultural communication (Liaw, 2019; Dooly & Vinagre, 2021). This study investigates the impact of a digital tool, the ENACT web app (Communities, Languages, and Activities), on intercultural language learning from the pre-service English language teachers’ perspective. The ENACT web app, which embraces the intercultural, digital, and communication skills of language learners, aims to develop the intercultural awareness and understanding of language learners through two-way knowledge-generating task-based activities. Ten pre-service English language teachers, who participated in the project as workshop facilitators, were initially engaged with the web app as users by completing a 2-week online training. After the training, they facilitated intercultural pairs in producing cultural activities in a task-based digital learning pedagogy in 3-5 hour sessions. They also completed final reflection papers at the end of the entire project engagement as a culminating product. To this end, this study presents mixed-method research with quantitative survey data and qualitative reflections of the pre-service teachers: (1) descriptive scores from pre and post-training responses to digital skills assessment and cultural awareness questionnaires, (2) reflective answers to open-ended questions about their gains in the e-portfolio in the middle and end of the online training, and (3) final reflection papers on intercultural understanding after the facilitation of the workshops. The survey findings showed that the pre-service teachers increased their cultural and digital knowledge through digital materials on the web platform. The thematic analysis of the reflections also indicated that they found the use of the task-based language teaching methodology effective in offering an interactive learning experience and enhancing learner involvement. The study suggests that integrating cultural tasks into the curriculum for language learning offers real-life learning experiences and contributes to both the language and content knowledge of the students.

Keywords

• Technology-mediated task-based language teaching
• intercultural communication
• digital language learning
• teacher education

Supporting Institution

European Commission, Erasmus Key Action 2 Strategic Partnerships for Higher Education

Project Number

2019-1-UK01-KA203-061567

Ethical Statement

This research study was conducted with the Research Ethics Committee approval of Boğaziçi University, dated 18.12.2020, and numbered E-84391427-050.01.04-20432.

Thanks

The ENACT project was co-funded by the European Commission, Erasmus Key Action 2 Strategic Partnerships for Higher Education, project number: 2019-1-UK01-KA203-061567. The project is led by Newcastle University (UK), and the consortium partners are: Boğaziçi University (Turkey), Cultura Foundation (Finland), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain), and University of Helsinki (Finland). In the UK, our associated partners are Action Foundation and North East Solidarity Teaching.

References

1. Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J., & Redmond, M. V. (1999). Interpersonal communication. Allyn & Bacon.
2. Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 381–400.
3. Byram, M. (1993). Language and culture: The need for integration. In M. Byram (Ed.), Germany: Its representation in textbooks for teaching German in Great Britain (pp. 3-16). Diesterweg.
4. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
5. Byram, M., Bolubeva, I., Hui, H., & Wagner, M. (2017). From principles to practice for intercultural citizenship. Multilingual Matters.
6. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1999). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness. Human Communication, 2, 27-54.
7. Chen, G.M., & Starosta, W.J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. Communication Yearbook, 19, 353-384.
8. Chong, & Reinders (2020). Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A qualitative research synthesis. Language Learning and Technology, 24(3). 70-86.

9. Cornillie, F., & Desmet, P. (2016). Mini-games for language learning. In L. Murray & F. Farr (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 431-445), Routledge.
10. Davis, N. E. & Tearle, P. (1999). The research and development of an international core curriculum for information and communications technology in teacher training. In J. Price, J. Willis, D. Willis, M. Jost & S. Boger-Mehall (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 1999--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 887-892). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
11. Deardorff, D.K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241-266.
12. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Collier Books.
13. Diaz, A. R. (2012). Intercultural language teaching and learning: Is it possible to bridge the gap between policy and practice? MLTAQ Journal, 153, 30–36.
14. Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (2005). Intercultural communication in English language teacher education. ELT Journal, 59(2), 99-107.
15. Dooly, M., & M. Vinagre (2021). Research into practice: Virtual exchange in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 55(3), 392-406.
16. Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50–80.
17. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University Press. East, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective: Insights from New Zealand. John Benjamins.
18. East, M. (2012). Addressing the intercultural via task-based language teaching: Possibility or problem?. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(1), 56-73.
19. Egbert, J., Hanson-Smith, E., & Chao, C.C. (2007). Introduction: Foundations for teaching and learning. In J.
20. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (2nd ed., pp. 1–18). TESOL.
21. Egbert, J. L. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In J. L. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 3–8). Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Ellis, R. (2017). Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50 (4), 507–526.
23. Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19, 221–246.
24. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
25. Fantini, A. E. (2000). A central concern: Developing intercultural competence. Available at https://agustinazubair.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/6-developing-intercultural- competence1.pdf
26. Flynn, S., & Korcuska, J. (2018). Credible phenomenological research: A mixed-methods study. Counselor Education & Supervision, 57, 34-50.
27. Gedik-Bal, N. & Savaş, P. (2022). Intercultural language teaching and learning: Teachers’ perspectives and practices. Participatory Educational Research, 9(6), 268-285.
28. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Sociology Press.
29. Gonzáles-Lloret, M. (2017). Technology and task-based language teaching. In S. Thorne & S. May (Eds.), Language, education and technology, Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 193-205). Springer.
30. González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT. John Benjamins.
31. González-Lloret, M., & N. Ziegler (2022). Technology-mediated task-based language teaching. In M. Ahmadian & M. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 326–345). Cambridge University Press.
32. Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 205-218.
33. Kessler, G. (2013). Collaborative language learning in co-constructed participatory culture. CALICO Journal, 30, 307–322.
34. Kessler, M., Solheim, I., & Zhao, M. (2021). Can task-based language teaching be “authentic” in foreign language contexts? exploring the case of China. TESOL Journal, 12(1), e00534.
35. König, C., & Frey, A. (2022). The impact of COVID-19-related school closures on student achievement —A meta-analysis. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 41(1), 16–22.
36. Kramsch, C. (1995). The cultural component of language teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(2), 83-92.
37. Kramsch, C. (2009). Cultural perspectives on language learning and teaching. In K. Knapp, B. Seidlhofer & H.
38. Widdowson (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 219-245). Mouton de Gruyter.
39. 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). Routledge.
40. Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521.
41. Lamy, M. N. (2004). Oral conversations online: Redefining oral competence in synchronous environments. ReCALL, 16, 2, 520-538.
42. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning (3rd ed.). Open University Press.
43. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). Call dimensions: Options and issues in CALL. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44. Liaw, M.-L. (2019). EFL learners’ intercultural communication in an open social virtual environment. Educational Technology & Society, 22 (2), 38–55.
45. Liddicoat, A., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell.
46. Linn, M. C., Donnelly-Hermosillo, D., & Gerard, L. (2023). Synergies between learning technologies and learning sciences: Promoting equitable secondary school teaching. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 447-498). Routledge.
47. Linn, M. C., Gerard, L., Ryoo, K., McElhaney, K., Liu, O. L.,& Rafferty, A. N. (2014). Computer-guided inquiry to improve science learning. Science, 344(6180), 155-156.
48. Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58, 319-326.
49. Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.
50. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
51. Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 226–253). Routledge.
52. Oskoz, A. & Elola, I. (2014). Integrating digital stories in the writing class: Toward a 21st-century literacy. In J. Pettes-Guikema & L. Williams (Eds.), Digital literacies in foreign and second language education (pp. 179-200). CALICO Monograph Series.
53. Park, M., & Slater, T. (2014). A typology of tasks for mobile-assisted language learning: Recommendations from a small-scale needs analysis. TESL Canada Journal, 31(8), 93–115.
54. Petersen, K., & Sachs, R. (2015). The language classroom in the age of networked learning. In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), Technology and L2 learning: A psycholinguistic approach (pp. 3-22). De Gruyter Mouton.
55. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
56. Reinders, H., & Hubbard, P. (2012). CALL and autonomy. Affordances and constraints. In M. Thomas, H., Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary CALL (pp. 359–375). New York: Continuum.
57. Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2015). Affect and willingness to communicate in digital game-based learning. ReCALL, 27(1), 38–57.
58. Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today (RELC portfolio Series 13). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
59. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Satar, M., Seedhouse, P., Kharuffa, A., Ganassin, S., Dooly, M., Buitrago Peña, J., Öztekin, E., Akcan, S., Haznedar, B. (forthcoming). Migrants’ digital skills development: Engaging with and creating digital cultural activities on the ENACT web app. ReCALL.
60. Satar, M., Seedhouse, P., Whelan, A., Ganassin, S., Sidorova, A., Sundqvist, A., Kotilainen, L., & Kurhila, S., Dooly, M., Buitrago Peña, J., Akcan, S., Haznedar, B., Erçetin, G.,Öztekin, E. (2022). Co-production workshops: Developing high-quality content for the Communities, Languages, and Activities App.Output Report.
61. Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks, and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 391–411.
62. Sotillo, S. M. (2010). Quality and type of corrective feedback, noticing and learner uptake in synchronous computer-mediated text-based and voice chats. In M. Putz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 351-270). John Benjamins Publishing.
63. Tavakoli, H., Lotfi, A.R. & Biria, R. (2019). Effects of CALL-mediated TBLT on motivation for L2 reading. Cogent Education, 6, 1580916.
64. Thomas, M. (2013). Task-based language teaching and CALL. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 341–358). Continuum.
65. Tsai, S. (2011). Courseware integration into task-based learning: A case study of multimedia courseware-supported oral presentations for non-English major students. ReCALL, 23(2), 117–134.
66. UNICEF. (2022). COVID:19 Scale of education loss ‘nearly insurmountable’, warns UNICEF. https://nnn.ng/covid-scale-education-loss/
67. Unterhalter, E. (2019). The many meanings of quality education: Politics of targets and indicators in SDG 4. Global Policy, 10, 39–51.
68. Van den Branden, K. (2006). Introduction: Task-based language education in a nutshell. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 1–16). Cambridge University Press.
69. Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers & Education, 52(4), 820–833.
70. Zhai, X. (2021). Advancing automatic guidance in virtual science inquiry: From ease of use to personalization. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 255-258. Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163.