COIL Initiatives across University Education: Learning to learn from each other The European COIL Conference 2 December 2016 09.15-10.00 Virtual Exchange is clearly the future… Virtual Mobility is clearly the future… Telecollaboration is clearly the future…

My plan for this morning… Carry out a short overview of the different fields of “COIL” practice and research Identify where there appears to be consensus in good practice Look to the future: How can the different fields of practice learn from each other?

What exactly are we talking about?

Looking for least common denominators…. The engagement of groups of students in online intercultural interaction and collaboration… …with students/ peers from other cultural contexts or geographical locations…. …as an integrated part of course work…. …and under the guidance of educators and/or expert facilitators. What do all these names/monikers have in common? Internet-mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education (Belz & Thorne) COIL (Collaborative Online International Learning) Virtual Exchange – (Soliya / EU) Telecollaboration eTandem (Europe)/ Teletandem (Brazil) OIE (Online Intercultural Exchange) eTwinning / ePals (secondary education)

The danger of having “un diálogo de besugos” COIL is clearly the future… Virtual Mobility is clearly the future… Telecollaboration is clearly the future… Virtual Exchange is clearly the future…

So, while I’m not delighted about the idea… Virtual Exchange is becoming a widely accepted as an umbrella term Why? Increase mutual comprehension across disciplines (How many here today knew the term telecollaboration?) It’s transparent and self-explanatory: It will facilitate our activity’s promotion among a wider academic public (although it ignores the intercultural/international element). It’s increasingly being used by our sources of funding such as foundations, governmental and inter-governmental bodies such as the Stevens Inititiative (http://stevensinitiative.org/), the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the USA (http://eca.state.gov/gallery/virtual-exchange) and the European Commission.

Let’s look briefly at differing approaches to Virtual Exchange …

Differing Approaches to Virtual Exchange (1) Foreign Language ‘Telecollaborative’ Models

Telecollaborative Foreign Language Learning Models Well known examples: e-Tandem, teleTandem, Cultura Main goals: Provide opportunities for authentic foreign language practice with native speakers / speakers of other languages Provide experience in intercultural communication and collaboration in digital environments Main characteristics: Interaction is often based on personal or cultural themes (not based on ‘curricular content’) Interaction is often organised in pairs or small groups to encourage interaction Partnerships are usually practitioner-initiated (‘bottom-up’ approach) Research findings: Awareness raising of cultural differences in communicative practices – Partners = ‘people who matter’ . The key is to combine online interaction with stages of preparation and then reflection.

Simultaneous teletandem sessions between Georgetown University, USA; Universidad Autonoma de Mexico (Mexico) and Universidade Estadual Paulista (Brazil)

2: The Cultura Model http://cultura.mit.edu/

UNICollaboration.eu: A virtual hub for finding partners, tasks and resources

Differing Approaches to Virtual Exchange (2) Shared Syllabus Models

Shared Syllabus Models to Virtual Exchange Well known examples: COIL, XCulture Main goals: To give students intercultural experiences based on online collaboration about shared curricular content To provide different cultural perspectives on curricular content Main characteristics: Collaborative tasks are based on shared syllabus Usually introduced into universities from the top-down (initiative of senior management) Research findings: COIL interactions make abstracts subjects more real and tangible for students Potential for overcoming student stereotypes The importance of task design – “Tasks must be designed so that students depend on one another to complete the task” (Guth and Robin, 2015).

Differing Approaches to Virtual Exchange (3) Facilitator-led Models

Facilitator–led Models to Virtual Exchange Well known examples: Soliya, Sharing Perspectives Main goals: To develop students’ intercultural understanding and tolerance To develop students’ 21st century skills – critical thinking, media literacy Main characteristics: Projects use specially designed synchronous communication tools and platforms Interaction is facilitated and led by trained intercultural facilitators Interaction is based around a syllabus designed by the organisation Universities usually ‘sign up’ cohorts of students to participate Research findings: “The critical role of being heard” – Developing positive attitudes to other cultural groups through dialogue (Bruneau & Saxe, 2012) Development of 21st century skills such as critical thinking, cross-cultural collaboration skills (van der Heijden & Ploss, 2014)

The Soliya Model – East-West Negotiations http://www.soliya.net/ Soliya connects over 200 students from over 30 different universities in the US, Europe and the predominantly Arab and/or Muslim worlds. Students are placed into small groups of 8-10 students and guided through a 9-week, English language dialogue program by pairs of trained facilitators.

Stage 1: Presentation of academic content via video lectures Stage 2: Facilitated online interaction between students in different universities Stage 3: Online collaborative project between participating students

Differing Approaches to Virtual Exchange (4) Intregrated Approaches

Integrated Models of Virtual Exchange Well known examples: VE combined with physical-mobility, MOOC’s, work placements Main goals: To enhance existing educational programmes To increase fluidity between ‘class work’ and ‘field work’ Main characteristics: Virtual Exchange is one part of a larger educational programme, course or initiative Online interaction is considered an ‘add-on’ or enhancement to main activity Research findings: The online interaction facilitates greater reflection on what students are doing in their ‘fieldwork’ (e.g. physical mobility, work placements) (Vriens & Van Petegem, 2012; Kinginger, 2009) Virtual connections allows non-mobile students to benefit from those who are mobile or from people in distant locations (Huber, 2015)

There is so much going on…. Is there anything we can all agree on?

1. Simply achieving “Contact” between students is not sufficient Richardson: “…the espoused benefits from [physical] mobility do not derive from the act of crossing borders but instead from two other factors. First, the encounters that students have. And second, the influence on their psychological make-up on responding to these encounters” (Cosmopolitan Learning for a Global Era, 2016, p.54). Task Design Tasks should enable students to go beyond simply exchanging information and to actually engage in genuine intercultural collaboration. Allport (1979!!!): “The nub of the matter seems to be that contact must reach below the surface in order to be effective in altering prejudice. Only the type of contact that leads people to do things together is likely to result in changed attitudes.”  

2. Students need a gradual immersion into online intercultural interaction Richardson: “[Virtual Exchange] activities need to ensure that students are given a gradual introduction to online learning and are allowed to engage in relatively low-risk …activities before they are called on to engage with peers on a deeper basis” (Cosmopolitan Learning for a Global Era, 2016, p.124). Tasks should introduce learners to online intercultural interaction step by step: Guth & Rubin (2014)

3. Students need support through facilitation or pedagogical ‘interventions’ Reid & Spencer-Oatey: To be most effective, intercultural activity also needs to be located in a context of experiential learning where the participants are properly prepared and where they have the opportunity to reflect on their experiences and consciously develop new knowledge and skills. (Towards the Global Citizen, 2012, P126) Pedagogical Interventions in Telecollaboration: Cunningham & Vyatkina (2012), Cunningham (2016) : Interaction between German and American FL learners combined with instructional interventions focusing on pragmatic competence The role of the teacher in COIL courses: Guth & Rubin (2014): “The partner teachers will play a fundamental role in helping students interpret and understand not only the origins of their peers’ responses to a given task but the cultural assumptions behind their own responses” (p.38).

We all have something to learn from each other: Telecollaboration: A large body of practitioner-based research to provide evidence of Virtual Exchange’s value COIL: An institutional ‘top-down’ approach to promoting and introducing Virtual Exchange across universities Soliya/ Sharing Perspectives: Importance of on-line intercultural facilitation Physical mobility organisations: Integration of virtual and physical exchange

Join the Community and Get Involved! UNICollaboration.org An academic organisation to support researchers and practitioners through publications, training and research initiatives

Thank you for listening! Contact: robert.odowd@unileon.es Publications: http://unileon.academia.edu/RobertODowd See this presentation again: http://www.slideshare.net/dfmro Join UNICollaboration: www.unicollaboration.eu

All the links and resources you see here today can be found in this Google Collection: https://goo.gl/XLhP7k