1. University of Essex Beatriz de Paiva
Teletandem Project and Transculturality: foreign languages on-line interactions
University of Essex
Beatriz de Paiva

2. 1. What is Teletandem? 2. Essex- University of the Estado of São Paulo (UNESP)Teletandem framework for collaboration 3. Teletandem impact on FL learning: how can it be measured?

3. What is Teletandem?
Teletandem is an online video-mediated language collaboration program.
Students collaborate via Skype and other video conferencing applications.
Students spend half of each session conversing in the target language and the other half sharing their own language with their partner.

4. 2. Essex-UNESP Teletandem framework for collaboration Essex- UNESP Teletandem framework for collaboration
Number of sessions – Duration:   
1 tutorial plus 5 sessions
Approach:
Text topic based
Participants’ Proficiency level:
Proficiency level 5 (C1 ERF)

5. 3. Teletandem impact on FL learning: how can it be measured?
Frequent claims by participants (partner institutions):
Teletandem is mutually beneficial for the students on both ends.
Teletandem enables learners to develop linguistic and cultural competencies.

6. Teletandem is mutually beneficial for the students on both ends?
Corpus of studies: investigations of e-collaboration or online interactions:
Do all languages (combinations) benefit the same?
Do beginners benefit more or less than more advanced learners?
How can we measure aspects of participation (e.g. language switching, topic management, conversation management)?

7. Aim: Suggestions for investigations in specific areas of FL learning
 Discourse competence: how do FL learners manage and participate in online conversations?
1. Participation: passive/active roles in the conversation.
2. Management of conversation.

8. Participation: 1. Passive/active roles in the conversation 2
Participation: 1.Passive/active roles in the conversation 2.Management of conversation
Discourse analytical model (Trosborg, 1995)
Communicative acts and exchange structure: discourse strategies in interaction
Interactional moves
I-initiation
I- Inform
R- Response
R/I- Response/Initiation
F-Follow up
F/Com – Follow up/Comment
F/I – Follow up/Initiation

9. Preliminary analysis
Results are in line with findings of previous studies
1. Learners used a wide range of discourse moves and their participation cannot be regarded as predominantly passive, although not symmetrical either in relation to NSs’ participation.
2. A further analysis of individual acts revealed that NSs used a higher number of Initiation moves, especially I-inquire. Learners presented the majority of R-moves.
3. With regard to F-moves, NSs tended to used more F-acknowledge than learners (but as the interaction develops there seems to be an increase of F- acknowledge moves by learners).
5. NSs seem to contribute more to the structuring of the conversation by providing more I-inquire and Follow up moves.

10. A more complex picture Illustration User 1 (MC) 4 GRAV01 QUI
UNESP NS: native speaker Portuguese
Essex PL: Portuguese learner
Transcript: 3’15

11. Portuguese interaction

12. Participation: 1. Passive/active roles in the conversation 2
Participation: 1.Passive/active roles in the conversation 2.Management of conversation
A more complex picture
Learner shows a predominantly passive participation (high number of Response moves plus low Initiation and Follow up moves)
NS shows a predominantly active role (high number of Initiation moves)
NS seems to have a more substantial role in the management of the conversation (a high number of I – initiation plus F – Follow up moves - especially F- acknowledge moves which contribute to the ongoing of the interaction)

13. English interaction

14. Caveats: issues to consider
Role of expert
Preparation for the Tandem participation: role/quality of the tutorial session
Individual learner differences
Individual learner motivation
Personality

15. References:
Braidi, Susan M. (1995). “Reconsidering the Role of Interaction and Input in Second Language Acquisition” in: Language Learning 45:1:
Carrol, Susanne E. (1999). “Putting ‘input’ in its proper place” In: Second Language Research 15:4,
De Paiva, B. (2010). “Theoretical and Methodological Approaches in Interlanguage Pragmatics” in Trosborg, A. (ed.) Pragmatics Across Language and Cultures HoPs VII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter),
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Long, M. (1985). “Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory” in Gass, Susan and Madden, Carolyn (eds.). Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Pica, Teresa (1994). “Research on Negotiation: What does It Reveal About Second-Language Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes?” in: Language Learning 44:3,
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zuengler, J. and Bent, B. (1991). Relative Knowledge of Content Domain. An influence on native-non- native conversations” in Applied Linguistics 12, 4,