1
The influence of intercultural communication on secondary school students and their
acquisition of English speaking and discussion skills in a 3D virtual world environment: A
case study.
MA thesis
Names:
Pim Bastian.
Dennis Reinhardt.
Student Numbers:
3718247.
3863468.
Supervisor:
Dr. K. Jauregi-Ondarra.
Second supervisor:
Dr. R. van den Doel.
Date:
04-01-2016
Degree:
M English Language and Culture: Education and Communication.
University:
Universiteit Utrecht.
2
Abstract.
The present study investigates the effect of an OpenSim (virtual world) course, designed for
this research, on the general English speaking competence and English discussion skills of the
enrolled secondary school students, the influence of these factors on intercultural interaction,
and the students’ experience of the course. Seventeen secondary school students, six from
Finland and eleven from the Netherlands participated in the course. No studies have been
carried out into second language learning in virtual worlds at secondary school level, and
between non-native speaker cultures. The students carried out Tasks that used the OpenSim
environment, and allowed them to practise their discussion skills amongst themselves, with
limited teacher input. Their discussion and English abilities were tested before and after the
course, and analysed by impartial pre-service teachers of English, two from Finland and two
from the Netherlands. Further results were gathered through the use of questionnaires and
interviews. The results indicate that the overall effect of the course on the students was
predominantly positive, particularly regarding the students’ learning outcomes, but a better
screening for differences in communicative competence is important to both learning
outcomes and the way the course is experienced. The intercultural interaction in the course
was seen as a positive element, but differences between the experimental groups led to
problems related to the amount of communication. An appropriate match between the
competence level of the participants and the course, as well as between the participant groups,
is important for the success of OpenSim courses. As long as these requirements are met,
similar courses could be implemented in a secondary school English language learning
curriculum.
3
Index.
1. Introduction. Task-Based Language Teaching ............................................................................. 5
2. Theoretical Framework.................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Task-Based Language Teaching ....................................................................................... 8
2.2 Advantages of the use of virtual worlds in a language learning setting. .......................... 9
2.3 Task design and Second Life / OpenSim ........................................................................ 13
2.4 English as a Lingua Franca ............................................................................................. 15
2.5 Willingness to communicate .......................................................................................... 16
2.6 English discussion skills ................................................................................................. 17
3. Research Question .......................................................................................................................... 17
4. Method ............................................................................................................................................. 18
4.1 Subjects ........................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Materials ......................................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1 Tasks. ....................................................................................................................... 20
4.2.2 Pre- and Post-test for English discussion skills. ...................................................... 22
4.2.3 Pre- and Post-Questionnaires ................................................................................... 22
4.3 Procedures ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.3.1 OpenSim course procedure ...................................................................................... 23
4.3.2 Pre- and Post-test procedure .................................................................................... 24
4.3.3 Questionnaire procedure .......................................................................................... 26
4.3.4 Interview procedure ................................................................................................. 26
5. Results.............................................................................................................................................. 27
5.1 Pre- and post- tests. ......................................................................................................... 27
5.1.1 English speaking skills. ............................................................................................ 28
5.1.2 English Discussion skills. ........................................................................................ 30
5.2 Questionnaires. ............................................................................................................... 33
5.2.1 Closed questions. ..................................................................................................... 33
5.2.1.1 OpenSim and Tasks. ......................................................................................... 34
5.2.1.2 Intercultural communication ............................................................................ 36
5.2.1.3 The project as a whole. ..................................................................................... 41
5.2.2 Open questions. ........................................................................................................ 42
5.2.2.1 OpenSim and Tasks. ......................................................................................... 42
5.2.2.2 Intercultural communication. ........................................................................... 43
5.2.2.3 The project as a whole. ..................................................................................... 43
5.3 Interviews. ...................................................................................................................... 44
5.3.1 OpenSim and Tasks ................................................................................................. 44
5.3.2 Intercultural communication .................................................................................... 45
4
5.3.3 The project as a whole ............................................................................................. 46
6. Discussion. ...................................................................................................................................... 48
6.1 First and second sub-questions. ...................................................................................... 48
6.2 Discussion of the first two sub-questions. ...................................................................... 49
6.3 The third sub-question. ................................................................................................... 53
7. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 63
7.1 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 65
7.2 Suggestions for further research ..................................................................................... 67
References: .......................................................................................................................................... 69
Appendix A: Tasks ............................................................................................................................. 73
Appendix B: Oral Proficiency and Discussion Skills Assessment Grid. .................................... 95
Appendix C: Pre- and Post-Questionnaires ..................................................................................... 96
Appendix D – Results. ..................................................................................................................... 135
Appendix E: TILA Feedback Interview with Students Guiding Questions .............................. 141
5
1. Introduction.
The world of language teaching has been undergoing large and rapid developments in the first
decade of the 21st century. The overall aims of foreign language education have changed as a
result of globalisation, and the rise of the internet. These changes have coincided with an
increased interest in other cultures, and a discussion about the controversial role of English as
a global language (O’Dowd, 2007), and English as a Lingua Franca (van den Doel, 2007). At
the same time, English language teachers in secondary education are still required to prepare
students for their final examination, for example their oral exam. One of the recently devised
teaching methods that make use of this increased intercultural interest is telecollaboration,
which allows students to learn while completing a Task with students from another culture
through technology (Ware & Kramsch, 2005). In language teaching, this has often translated
into a pairing between non-native and native speaker students (e.g. Canto, de Graaf, and
Jauregi, 2014). These groups would communicate in an online environment such as a blog
(writing), Skype (speaking while seeing each other) or a virtual world (speaking while seeing
a digitally rendered visual environment).
The present study has been envisioned as part of the TILA (Telecollaboration for
Intercultural Language Acquisition) project (www.tilaproject.eu). Two of the TILA project
aims are:
1) to innovate and enrich language teaching programmes at secondary schools, and
make them more motivating and effective by stimulating telecollaboration for
intercultural awareness with peers of other cultures, [...] [and] 3) to study the possible
added value telecollaboration might have in language learning for intercultural
understanding of younger learners. (TILA, 2015)
6
These TILA project aims were central to the rationale behind the present study. The study is
specifically aimed at secondary school teaching innovation, as opposed to tertiary education in
previous telecollaboration studies. In addition, the present study focuses on intercultural
communication (communication between people from different cultural backgrounds) in a 3D
virtual world setting between non-native speakers of English from different cultures, as
opposed to a non-native and native speaker pairing in previous telecollaboration studies.
Recent TILA project studies into 3D virtual worlds have been conducted in OpenSim
(OS). A virtual world is an environment in which people can create an avatar to represent
themselves. This avatar can move freely through the world, and interact with objects and other
avatars. The world of OS is divided into so-called ‘grids.’ Each grid is managed separately,
and requires a login account, which assures that only associated members can log onto the
environment, adding to the safety of those logging onto the environment. The TILA project
owns such a grid, which is divided again into certain ‘islands.’ Each island can be explored
using avatars, and has a separate theme. For instance, Arcadia, which has a medieval theme, is
a tutorial island, on which users can learn to use the environment through their avatars. The
island used most throughout this study, however, is Chatterdale; an island with a British
theme. The 3D virtual world environment does not feature Tasks or educational content,
similarly to other telecollaboration programmes, such as Skype or a blog. Consequently, a
course of six Tasks was created for the present study. The Tasks were designed to elicit
communication from the students in the target language, English. The course featured
activities that would raise the need for discussion, in order to enhance both the general English
speaking competence, as well as the discussion skills of the participants. Observations in
Dutch secondary school education warranted this focus, as discussions are part of the
language teaching curriculum.
7
The present study features a number of elements that make it particularly relevant to
the academic discussion regarding virtual worlds. Firstly, the virtual world course that has
been created for this study features original Tasks, which can be used and expanded by others
in the future. In addition, the island of Chatterdale was updated for this course, and now
features a courthouse, so that future participants in similar courses can deal with their
criminals. Secondly, the research focuses on participants in secondary education, as opposed
to tertiary education. Thirdly, the present virtual world course investigates the influence of
intercultural interaction on the enhancement of communicative competence, and, uniquely,
discussion competence. Finally, the present study is the first that focuses on interaction
between two groups of non-native speakers of English, as opposed to a pairing between a
non-native and native speaker group.
The aims of the present study are, firstly, to further the collective understanding of the
effects of OpenSim in the second language learning curriculum in secondary education.
Secondly, it aims to investigate whether the designed course enhances general English
speaking competence and discussion skills. Thirdly, it aims to investigate the difference in
skill enhancement between participant groups that feature intercultural communication, and
groups that do not. For this purpose, a control group was added to the study. This control
group will participate in the same virtual world course, but without intercultural
communication. Students in this control group will communicate with their own classmates
instead. Fourthly, this study aims to investigate the experience of the students in this specific
OpenSim course. Lastly, it also aims to ascertain whether the designed OpenSim course can
be employed in a secondary school English language learning curriculum in the future.
This will accomplished by, firstly, outlining the literature in the theoretical framework.
Then, the research question will be formulated, illustrated by various sub-questions. Thirdly,
the method of the current study will be presented, which will include sections on the subjects,
8
materials, and procedures used. Fourthly, the results will be presented. Fifthly, a discussion
will follow that analyses the results in detail, based on the sub-questions. Finally, we will
present our conclusion, which will answer the research question based on the answered subquestions, followed by limitations of the current study and suggestions for further research.
2. Theoretical Framework.
2.1 Task-Based Language Teaching
Interest in TBLT (Task-Based Language Teaching) has increased over the last thirty years,
due to the importance that TBLT has had for both second language acquisition researchers,
and language teachers (Ellis, 2000). Different views regarding TBLT resulted in a variation of
theories and perspectives on TBLT research. Meskill (1999) believes that socio-collaborative
Tasks should: “provide ample opportunities for differing perspectives and opinions […]
motivate active participation [...] offer some form of problem-solving designate roles for
individual learners […] include a motivated awareness of the forms and functions of language
used (156).” Ellis (2003) has expanded on Meskill, and concluded that an effective Task: is a
work plan that uses real-world processes with realistic language, focuses on meaning, and
uses cognitive processes to complete an assignment with a communicative outcome. To
design such a Task, a more detailed overview of Task specifics is needed. Ellis (2003)
provides a framework, which includes five design features necessary for designing effective
Tasks. These features are: clear goals, conditions and procedures, together with sufficient
input and predictable outcomes. In recent years, TBLT has often been researched in
conjunction with technology and internet. A collection of research on technology mediated
TBLT, edited by Gonzáles-Lloret & Ortega (2014), shows a wide variety of research that has
been conducted in that area. The collection shows that the combination of technology and
TBLT allows for synchronous and asynchronous interaction via the internet during second
9
language acquisition. However, actual integration between TBLT and technology in general
still seems to be under-researched, especially within the realm of virtual worlds.
2.2 Advantages of the use of virtual worlds in a language learning setting.
Peterson (2008) provides an overview of early research on text-based, online CALL
(Computer-Assisted Language Learning), and explains that computer-based communication
has several advantages over face-to-face conversation, including enhanced motivation (Kelm,
1992), wider participation patterns (Warschauer, Turbee & Roberts, 1996), reduced anxiety
(Hudson & Bruckman, 2002), increased linguistic output (Kern, 1995), and more student
autonomy (Chun, 1994). Virtual Worlds differ from traditional text-based CALL, since they
allow their users to create and control avatars. These avatars offer an enhanced sense of
immersion (diminishing awareness of the physical self as a result of being within a virtual
world), telepresence (feeling present / somewhere else through technological appliances) and
copresence (being a part of multiple occurrences or situations at once) (Schroeder, 2002).
Svensson (2003) researched the use of Active Worlds (a Virtual World that only
features a communication channel for written language, as opposed to speech) in language
teaching, and reported that personalised avatars increased the degree of telepresence, that the
relaxed atmosphere of the Virtual World was shown in the informal register of the subjects,
and that the subjects used keyboard symbols (smileys) to make up for the lack of facial
expressions of their avatars, which showed that they adapted to the environment. Toyoda and
Harrison (2002) researched Japanese language acquisition through Virtual World
Communication. They reported that the computer skills of the subjects were rather poor, that
mistyped messages were difficult to understand for some subjects, and that communication
gaps occurred due to inter-cultural differences. However, according to the researchers, the
students dealt with the communication issues through negotiation of meaning, which is
10
thought to play a central role in second language learning (Chapelle, 1998). Peterson (2006)
introduced two orientation sessions for the subjects, as it was considered to be beneficial for
the subjects of Toyoda & Harrison’s study (2002) to become more familiarised with the
programme prior to the study. Peterson’s observed that, from the third session onwards,
learners had become proficient users of the programme (Peterson, 2008: 34). Furthermore,
most learners felt that their avatars improved the interaction. The avatars enhanced the
learners’ sense of telepresence and immersion, which enhanced involvement, enjoyment, and
interest (Peterson 2006). The findings mentioned above can be found, in a summarised
overview, in Table 1 below, based on which Peterson (2008) calls for research into Taskbased language learning, the influence of culture on real-time CMC, and the potential of
Active Worlds in language education.
Table 1
Limitations and advantages of learner interaction in Active Worlds.
Limitations
Need for training in system use
Advantages
Personal avatars appear to enhance learners’
sense of immersion, presence and
copresence.
Need for basic computer skills
Opportunities to engage in negotiation of
meaning
Communication features of avatars are
Reduction of social context cues that can
limited. They lack facial expressions, for
inhibit communication
example.
Interaction management may prove
Learner-centred interaction
11
challenging for pre-intermediate learners
Tasks that are not appropriate to the context
Opportunities to develop autonomy
of use may fail to stimulate beneficial types
of interaction
In international projects, intercultural
Opportunities to develop cross-cultural
communication gaps can occur
knowledge through interaction with
interlocutors from diverse backgrounds
Opportunities to develop collaborative
interpersonal relationships
Enhanced motivation
Note. Adapted from “Virtual Worlds in Language Education” by M. Peterson, 2008, The
JALT CALL Journal, 4, p. 35.
However, instead of Active Worlds, recent studies into virtual worlds use Second Life (SL)
and OpenSim (OS), which allow for verbal Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC).
Recently, the lower cost of maintaining an OS grid and increased safety of this online
environment has made it a safe and useful tool in language education research. However, until
very recently, most research has been conducted in SL.
Deutschmann, Panichi, and Molka-Danielson (2009) compared two oral proficiency
courses aimed at doctoral students in SL. The aim of the virtual world courses was to practice
the target language through virtual world participation. The researchers changed the method
of the second course, based on the first course, to test whether the changes were successful in
increasing student motivation and eliciting production in the target language. The changes
included a reduction in the number of teachers present, and the inclusion of a test session to
12
assist students in mastering the programme. They compared the first and last session of both
courses to see how their changes influenced learner participation. The changes increased
student motivation and target language production, showing that appropriate teacher presence
and a familiarisation session can have a positive influence on the students.
Deutschmann et al. (2009) also discussed the role-playing elements of their Tasks in
Course 1, and observed that students often did not enter the right mind-set that role-playing
requires. The students in the first course stressed that they would have liked to get to know
their fellow students better than they eventually did. The researchers suggest the use of an
introductory Task that covers the programme basics and gives students time to get to know
each other, as these factors might have negatively influenced the role-playing activities. Other
research shows that role-playing can prove useful in similar situations. According to
McCaslin (1990), role-playing could lead to “social growth” of students. Role-playing
students are able to see certain dilemmas from different perspectives through the roles they
are portraying, which could broaden their social perspective. In addition, Bastian (2014, BA
thesis) showed that role-playing games (in real life) can contribute positively to the language
acquisition of students at a B2/C1 CEFR level. It seems that role-playing is useful, as long as
the input and output retain some authentic and realistic value. In a virtual world, this means
that the setting needs to feel realistic and that actions need to have realistic consequences.
Jauregi & Canto (2012) show that students who participated in a Second Life course,
engaged in meaningful interaction, and negotiated meaning, both social and cultural.
Moreover, Jauregi & Canto used questionnaires to show that the networked sessions had a
positive impact on motivation, especially of foreign language learners, and on the way foreign
language learners perceived their own competence in the target language. These results have
been confirmed once more, after a similar experiment in Canto et al. (2014). Jauregi & Canto
(2012) also showed that students reported positive attitudes towards interacting with native
13
speakers, and had reduced speaking anxiety. In a follow-up study by Canto, Jauregi and van
den Bergh (2013), the results of a Second Life group were compared with a video-web
communication (VC) group and a control group after all students had taken pre- and post-tests
that evaluated their speaking skills. There appeared to be no major differences between the SL
and VC groups. However, both the SL and VC groups performed better than the control
group. The control group had performed the same Tasks, but in groups of four language
learners in the language classroom. These results show that the addition of interaction with
native speakers of the target language is valuable for non-native speaker second language
acquisition.
In conclusion, virtual world interaction between non-native and native speakers of the
target language has numerous advantages. However, if TBLT and virtual worlds are to be
combined, appropriate Task design is required.
2.3 Task design and Second Life / OpenSim
In 2011, Jauregi, Canto, de Graaf, Koenraad and Moonen created a design framework for
intercultural communicative language teaching Tasks. The design principles in this
framework aim at maximising authentic social interaction, and intercultural awareness, while
exploiting the benefits of the virtual environment used. These principles are based on Willis
(1996), Ellis (2003) Doughty & Long (2003), Westhoff (2004), and Ware & O’Dowd (2008).
The principles consist of four components which promote communicative competence: rich
authentic input, meaningful and appropriate language use, focus on language alongside
meaning, and a clear communicative outcome.
Virtual world Tasks often feature a focus on intercultural competence, in addition to
communicative competence. According to Jauregi et al. (2011), intercultural competence is
crucial to virtual world Tasks, as it increases awareness of differences and similarities
14
between cultures. The promotion of intercultural competence in Jauregi et al. (2011)’s Tasks
are based on Byram (1997)’s five “saviors” (50-54). Following that study, Jauregi & Canto
(2012) used the term intercultural communicative competence (ICC): a combination of
communicative, and intercultural competences. This required a framework that combined the
individual competences. In this framework, an effective intercultural communicative Task:
1. exposes the learners to rich target language input;
2. elicits meaningful target language use;
3. requires the learners to focus on form;
4. has a clearly defined communicative outcome;
5. enhances strategic awareness on language learning and use;
6. enhances focus on intercultural communicative competence (ICC);
7. takes into account the affordances of the multimodal environment. (112)
The Tasks created based on this grid have shown to trigger meaningful interaction among the
participants. Canto et al. (2013) claim that the “added value of networked interactions points
towards cultural, linguistic, interpersonal and motivational benefits” (116). For example, the
students' willingness to communicate increased, and they evaluated the experience very
positively. In later research, Canto et al. (2014) mention that Tasks that focus on intercultural
communication should make use of topics which require participants to compare and contrast
their respective cultures, as this inspires the use of negotiation of intercultural meaning.
An important topic in virtual world Task design is complexity, which can influence the
amount of student interaction elicited by the communicative Task. Robinson (2001) has found
a connection between cognitive complexity and second language (L2) speech production and
reception. Tasks that are more cognitively complex are often perceived as more difficult and
15
stressful; this could lead to lower self-confidence of the participants. A higher self-confidence
before engaging in a cognitively complex Task can also result in a higher fluency during
speech production. However, Robinson (2005) suggests that increased Task complexity can
generate more interaction, due to the requests of clarification and negotiations of meaning
(directed at the teachers) which the completion of a cognitively complex Task requires.
Robinson and Michel (2011) point out that cognitively complex, interactive foreign language
Tasks are expected to encourage a more accurate and fluent, but less linguistically complex
use of the foreign language in question (149). According to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal
development (ZPD), teachers should teach what a learner could understand with guidance, in
order to keep the learning experience exciting and challenging (Woolfolk, Hughes, &
Walkup, 2008).
2.4 English as a Lingua Franca
The students in the experimental groups of the present course will use English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF), which is a frequently debated topic. ELF is English used for the purpose of
intercultural communication, often between non-native speakers, but also in communication
with native speakers of English. Jenkins (2000) created the Lingua Franca Core (LFC), which
aims to describe the preferred phonological forms for the use of ELF, in order to maximise
effective communication. Jenkins (2000) prefers not to see the LFC as a model, yet the
phonological forms are not merely described, but also prescribed by the LFC. As van den
Doel (2007) puts it, “ELF is supposedly based on description of non-native interaction, but it
also implicitly prescribes to non-natives how this interaction should take place.” This ELFmodelling has generally been carried out by native speakers, while it mainly concerns nonnative speakers, which led Holliday (2005) to imply that it might be an attempt by native
speakers to control the non-native variety of English used in ELF contexts (van den Doel,
16
2007). Whether it is appropriate to see ELF as a prescriptive model is still up for debate, and
researchers such as Hülmbauer, Böhringer, and Seidlhofer (2008) prefer to see ELF as a
language mode that is switched on during intercultural interaction. In this sense, ELF speakers
should primarily be seen as users of the language, rather than learners striving to conform to
native-speaker norms (Hülmbauer, et al., 2008). The ELF mode is activated by non-native
English speakers in situations where they use English, and it is “one of several options
multilinguals have at their disposal in today’s globalized world” (Hülmbauer, et al. (2008).
Their cultural background could have an effect on their specific use of ELF. Finnish
communication, for instance, is stereotypically associated with silence (Sajavaara &
Lehtonen, 1997). The Dutch, on the other hand, stereotypically communicate in a very direct
manner. These differences in communication styles might influence the intercultural
communication between the experimental groups.
2.5 Willingness to communicate
The process that determines whether an L2 learner will be an L2 user is described by
MacIntyre (2007) as Willingness to Communicate (WTC). It is essentially a conflict between
numerous influences on L2 learners that are related to the concepts of anxiety and motivation.
This conflict is represented by a pyramid model of WTC, created by MacIntyre, which
includes six layers. WTC is the second layer from the top, that of the II behavioural intention,
which is influenced by the levels below (top to bottom): III situated antecedents, IV
motivational propensities, V affective-cognitive context, and VI social and individual context.
The highest layer of the pyramid is that of I) communication behaviour, or, in other words, L2
use. Some elements in these layers are set, such as intergroup climate and personality in the
layer of VI) social and individual context. Others, such as communicative competence (V
17
affective-cognitive context) and L2 self-confidence (II motivational propensities), can change
over time.
2.6 English discussion skills
According to van der Geer (2001), discussion practice should enhance “listening skills,
critical thinking skills, response time, improvisation skills, opinion forming, and eloquence
(Our translation, pp. 163).” In addition, most schools in the Netherlands require students of
English to partake in a debate that determines their final oral mark. As such, discussion
practice plays an important role in secondary language education within the Netherlands. The
combination of English discussion and speaking skills will henceforth be referred to as
English discussion skills.
3. Research Question
The current paper aims to investigate whether the designed OpenSim course could be
implemented in a secondary school English language learning curriculum. The benefits of the
project, the influence of the discussions, and the influence of intercultural communication
could all contribute to this aim. This led to the main question: ‘what is the effect of an
OpenSim course on the English speaking competence and English discussion skills of the
enrolled secondary school students, does intercultural interaction influence these factors, and
how do the students experience the course?’ In order to answer this question, the following
sub-questions have been formulated:
1. To what extent has the course had an effect on the general English speaking
competence of the participating students, who used English as a Lingua Franca, in
different research contexts (control versus experimental)?
18
2. To what extent has the course had an effect on the English discussion skills of the
participating students, who used English as a Lingua Franca, in different research
contexts?
3. How do students experience OpenSim, the Tasks, intercultural communication and the
project as a whole, and how does this experience differ between the various groups?
4. Method
This section will show the subjects, materials and procedures used to answer the research
questions. The method is based on former studies, such as those by Jauregi & Canto (2012),
Canto et al. (2013) and Canto et al. (2014).
4.1 Subjects
The two schools that provided subjects for the experiment were the Einstein Lyceum,
Hoogvliet, The Netherlands (originally 12 students, 4 male and 8 female) and the Kastelli
School, Oulu, Finland (6 students, all female). The students will remain anonymous here, we
will simply refer to their usernames in OpenSim: EL1-12 (Einstein Lyceum) for the Dutch
students, and FN1-6 (Finland) for the Finnish students. One of the female Dutch participants
(EL6) quit after two sessions, as she believed she was too busy to continue. The participating
students (n=17) were selected based on their enthusiasm to participate, as well as their general
level of English (B1/B2 level, according to their English teacher) and approximate age (1518). The average age (at the start of the course) of the Finnish students was 15,3 and the
average age of the Dutch students was 16,3. The overall average age of both groups was 15,9.
The subjects were distributed among three research groups. The first group consisted
of 6 Finnish students (FN group). The second group consisted of 6 Dutch students (NLIC
group: average age 16), who participated in intercultural communication during the Tasks,
19
with the FN group. The third and final group consisted of 5 Dutch students. These students
communicated without intercultural communication, and formed the control group (NLC
group: average age 16,5). The research groups were redistributed to carry out the Tasks: three
FN students were linked to three NLIC students, to form group 1, and three other FN students
were linked to three other NLIC students, to form group 2. The NLC group remained the
same. This group distribution is illustrated in Table 2. The control group was added to test the
effect of intercultural interaction on English discussion skill enhancement. Due to
organisational circumstances, all male students were part of the NLIC group, along with two
female students, whereas the FN and NLC groups contained only female students.
Table 2
Group Distribution of the Subjects.
Task Group
FN Students
NLIC Students
Group 1
FN1, FN2, FN3
EL3, EL7, EL12
Group 2
FN4, FN5, FN6
EL4, EL5, EL10
Group 3
NLC Students
EL1, EL2, EL8, EL9, EL11
Note. EL6 is missing, as this subject stopped participating.
We performed the role of teachers in the OpenSim environment. Our role was to guide the
students through the course and the discussions, and provide appropriate input and feedback.
In addition, all sessions were recorded using the free version of the video streaming software
xSplit, which was used to create local files in mp4 format. We also had to organise online
meetings for assessment of the pre- and post-test and were present during these tests.
20
4.2 Materials
4.2.1 Tasks.
We created a course which consisted of 6 Tasks. Task 0 was an introductory Task, designed
to help the participants become familiar with OpenSim, and each other. Task 1 was set on the
local campsite in Chatterdale (the English island in OpenSim), and directed the students to
communicative and intercultural goals, such as becoming more culturally aware and learning
to avoid stereotypes. The introductory Task and Task 1 were designed with Deutschmann et
al. (2009)’s suggestion in mind. They recommend giving participants the opportunity to
socialise at the start of the course. This should help students feel less anxious about speaking
English to strangers. Task 2 was set in Chatterdale’s church, where a discussion was held
about traditions and cultural differences. This Task focused on teaching the participants to
become more adept at communicating respectfully. Task 3 aimed to teach the participants to
cooperatively weigh up positive and negative aspects of a problem to come up with a wellconsidered solution. The assignment entailed debating whether the mayor of Chatterdale
should build an airport on the island. Task 4 involved a murder case and taught the
participants to form a hypothesis, in this case about who the killer might be based on witness
statements. Task 5 took place in the courthouse and dealt with the murder case encountered in
Task 4. Here, the participants learnt to have an authentic discussion in an official setting: they
had to reach a verdict regarding the suspect of the murder case.
The Tasks featured cognitively complex discussion topics to make sure the complexity
level required for Vygotsky’s ZPD was reached, as that would increase meaningful interaction
through an attempt to understand the Tasks (Robinson & Michel 2011; Robinson 2005). In
terms of spoken English, the participating students were required to be at B1/B2 CEFR level
prior to the experiment. Consequently, the Tasks were designed to be around the B2/C1 level
regarding input and discussion topics. This was accomplished by including discussions of a
21
sufficiently high level, both culturally, and intellectually. The Tasks required students to think
and debate about academic topics, such as cultural diversity, prejudice, and justice systems.
The Tasks were designed with CEFR “Can-do statements” in mind, and the appropriate
statements were matched to the Tasks (ALTE). All Tasks can be found in Appendix A.
The designed TBLT Tasks were connected to the Jauregi & Canto (2012) Task-design
grid in order to show how Jauregi & Canto (2012)’s visions were implemented in the Task
design for this study. Firstly, Jauregi & Canto (2012) emphasise the importance of exposing
learners to rich target language input; discussions amongst peers, and communication
management by the teachers should provide this rich input during the Tasks. Moreover, the
level of input was around B2/C1 to maintain the zone of proximal development. Secondly,
meaningful language use was encouraged through the use of a variety of profound real-life
topics. These topics should stimulate realistic conversations between participants. Thirdly,
participants were required to focus on form before the Task began; useful phrases, vocabulary
and assignments were presented in order to help the students. Negative feedback was
provided during the Tasks. Fourthly, every Task had a clearly defined communicative
outcome; for each Task this was a correctly handled and concluded discussion on a different
topic. Fifthly, discussions, and discussion guidelines, enhanced strategic awareness of
language use during the Tasks. Sixthly, intercultural communicative competence was
incorporated in the topics (cultural differences), which focussed on the cultural backgrounds
of the participants (Finnish and Dutch). Finally, possibilities of the virtual world were taken
into account; all participants were trained in the use of OpenSim and all its functions. An
entire pre-Task (Task 0) was set up just for this purpose.
22
4.2.2 Pre- and Post-test for English discussion skills.
A pre- and post- test were designed to assess English discussion skills, and discover whether
the designed Tasks can improve these skills. The design was based on the assessment grid
used by Canto et al. (2013). Van der Geer (2001)’s suggestion regarding benefits of debate
practice, was translated and reshaped into a column which was added to the grid. This
column, titled “Discussion Skills,” replaced Canto et al. (2013)’s “Thematic Development”
column. In addition, the columns in the grid were ranked from 1 to 10. The final version of
the adapted grid, used for the analysis of the pre- and post- test, can be found in Appendix B.
4.2.3 Pre- and Post-Questionnaires
Pre- and Post-questionnaires were designed to extract the opinions of the subjects about the
English language aspects, the intercultural aspects, the technological aspects, the interaction
in the Tasks and the project as a whole. It was largely based on questionnaires used by Canto
et al. (2013). The Pre-questionnaire contained 28 items: 24 closed and 4 open questions,
distributed among the subjects of English, culture and technological aspects. This
questionnaire was carried out in order to chart the background of each participant. One postquestionnaire contained 29 items: 22 closed and 7 open questions, for the FN and NLIC
groups, distributed among the topics: English, intercultural aspects, technological aspects,
interaction in the Tasks and the project as a whole. The control group received a different
post-questionnaire with 28 items, 21 closed and 7 open questions, with replacement questions
for the “intercultural aspects” section. Similarly to the questionnaires used in Canto et al.
(2013), all closed questions for both questionnaires had to be answered using the Likert scale
from 1 to 5. The scale ranged from “strongly disagree” for 1 to “strongly agree” for 5. Both
questionnaires were completed using SurveyMonkey. The Dutch students filled in a Dutch
version, and the Finnish students an English version. Unfortunately no resources were
23
available to translate the survey into Finnish, but the students’ English teacher was present
while they filled in the questionnaire to make sure questions were fully understood. The prequestionnaires were filled in by the students before Task 0, and the post-questionnaires after
the course had been completed. The Pre- and Post-questionnaires were prepared prior to
arriving at a thoroughly specified research question and, consequently, most of the categories
used by Canto et al. (2013) were copied. However, not all categories proved useful for our
research questions, and, as a result, some were excluded from the results. Both questionnaires
can be found in Appendix C.
4.3 Procedures
4.3.1 OpenSim course procedure
Prior to starting the course, the Dutch students were informed by their English teacher
that they would receive a grade for the project (based on the post-test grade). The English
teacher of the Finnish students did not create similar circumstances for his students. For
introductory Task 0, the Dutch pupils tried to access OpenSim during school time, at the
Einstein Lyceum. Researcher Bastian was physically present during this Task, and Reinhardt
was present in OpenSim and recorded the session. However, the Task did not go as planned,
due to a lack of equipment, laptop issues (some students could not access their laptop, since
they had not received the required information to log in), and a failing internet connection. As
only 6 laptops were available, the 12 students had to work in pairs; however, after a while, all
Dutch students were able to carry out Task 0. The Finnish students carried out Task 0 during
school hours as well, at the Kastelli School in Oulo. The researchers were only present in
OpenSim during this Task. The FN and NLIC groups met for the first time during Task 1. The
technical problems continued during Task 1, and the decision was made to continue the
course from home. The following sessions from home were directed and planned through a
24
Whats-App conversation with the participants of the individual groups. All Dutch participants
used their own computers, while the Finnish participants borrowed laptops from school. Task
2 was carried out from home and went quite well. A few technical difficulties were
encountered, such as three Finnish participants having to log in on one account, since only
one laptop was working. Due to personal circumstances, two Dutch participants (EL3 and
EL4) were unable to participate in the third Task, but it was still carried out. Task 4 and 5
went well, and no significant technical difficulties were encountered.
4.3.2 Pre- and Post-test procedure
The oral proficiency pre- and post-tests were conducted in OpenSim, while the students were
physically at home or in a classroom at school. We recorded the tests in OpenSim, and
analysed the results afterwards. For both the pre- and post-tests, participants engaged in
debates about two topics in groups of three. The topics were chosen to be formal yet familiar
for the students; one of the two topics dealt with education in the European Union, the other
with democracy. The EU education topics were: “It should be obligatory for students to spend
part of their secondary school years/time in another EU country,” and “The European Union
should force EU countries to spend a certain minimum on education.” The topics about
democracy were “Voting should be possible via the internet and/or smart-phones,” and “The
government should be able to observe the entire country using cameras.” Five minutes were
given for each topic, resulting in 10 minute tests. If the discussion came to a quick halt,
students were assigned a side (one student had to be opposed to the other two, in favour or
against the statement, whichever was applicable). We tried to minimise our influence on the
discussion by only stepping in when absolutely necessary (for example: after about 20
seconds of silence).
25
The analysis of the pre- and post-test recordings was carried out by four English
teachers-in-training. Two from a Dutch teacher-training MA programme at Utrecht
University, and two from a similar programme at the University of Oulo. The use of both
Dutch and Finnish teachers in training should have reduced the amount of bias in the grading
of the students. To analyse the tests, they reviewed the recordings, and used the assessment
grid in Appendix B. These analyses provided two grades: the general English speaking
competence of the students was calculated by taking the averages of the first four sections of
the rubric (Range, Accuracy, Fluency, and Coherence), and the discussion skill grades
originated from the final section of the grid. The averages of each analyst’s grades, which
ranged from 1 to 10, determined the overall grades of the students. The analyses were
conducted after all pre- and post-tests had been recorded. The researchers and the analysts met
three times, through Skype conference calls, to review the grades, and discuss causes of
potential large differences between grades. During the first meeting, only two videos had been
graded by the analysts, so that the assessment grid itself could be discussed, and any questions
could be asked. During the next two meetings, five videos were discussed each time. The
order in which the videos were sent to the analysts was randomised. In addition, the file
names were randomised using a string of 5 numbers. Furthermore, the topic selection during
the pre-test was randomised and noted down for each group of students. The post-test covered
the two topics that remained. This randomisation was an attempt to prevent the analysts from
being able to distinguish the pre-tests from the post-tests. However, the footage of the tests
did show the user names of the participants. These did not include names, but codes (EL1-12
for Einstein Lyceum, and FN1-6 for Finnish), which revealed that all students had been tested
twice. However, the analysts were not certain about this until it was acknowledged, after the
grading process had been completed.
26
4.3.3 Questionnaire procedure
The questionnaires were filled in using a website called SurveyMonkey. Subsequently, the
results were collected in a Microsoft Excel sheet. The closed questions were put into graphs,
divided by category. However, these categories were later adapted to suit the newly designed
research questions. They then became: OpenSim and Tasks, Intercultural communication and
The project as a whole.
4.3.4 Interview procedure
The participants were asked to participate in a final interview after the course. The Dutch
students that participated in the interviews, did so voluntarily, and were interviewed by us,
through Skype. On the other hand, the Finnish students were interviewed by their English
teacher during class. As a result, five out of eleven Dutch students and all six Finnish students
participated in the interviews. For the Finnish students, the topics were taken from a pre-made
“TILA Interviews” document, which contained topics about: overall impression,
telecollaboration environment, communicative interaction, intercultural communication,
foreign language learning, preparation/support, and finally outlook/suggestions (Appendix E).
The participants answered the questions in pairs and summaries of their answers were sent to
the researchers. The Dutch participants were interviewed using only a few categories from the
document, namely: overall impression, intercultural communication, and outlook/suggestions.
The other categories were redundant, as the information had already been provided in the
post-questionnaire. All interview results were summarised and divided amongst the three
categories used to answer the third research question; OpenSim and Tasks, Intercultural
communication and The project as a whole.
27
5. Results.
In this section the results of our study will be presented. Firstly, the results of the pre- and
post- tests will be shown. The results in this section will be divided into two categories,
namely: general English speaking competence, and English Discussion skills, to suit the
research sub-questions. The participating groups are described as the FN group (Finnish
students), NLIC group (Dutch group with Intercultural communication) and NLC group
(Dutch control group). Secondly, the questionnaires will be addressed, starting with the closed
questions (presented in graphs), followed by the open questions (presented as summaries).
The categories used in the second and third section will be, OpenSim and Tasks followed by
Intercultural communication and The project as a whole. Thirdly, the interview results will be
presented in small summaries per category (similar to the previous section), starting with FN
then NLIC and finally NLC.
5.1 Pre- and post- tests.
Figures 1-6 below show the grades of the pre- (in blue) and post- (in orange) tests. The grades
have been based on the analyses. The grades for the general English speaking competence
have been based on the first four sections of the assessment grid (Range, Accuracy, Fluency,
and Coherence, see Appendix B). The grades for the English discussions skills have been
based solely on the final section of the assessment grid: Discussion Skills. These results show
the improvement or decline of English proficiency grades (on a scale of 1-10) that the
students received. On average, the participants scored higher on the post-test than on the pretest. However, some participants have received a lower grade for the post-test.
28
5.1.1 English speaking skills.
Figures 1-3 below show the overall English speaking skills of the students before and after the
course. On average, the participants have received higher grades on the post-test than the pretest.
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.3
5.7
6.0
4.5
4.1
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.6
4.7
4.5
4.3
3.7
3.4
3.23.4
Pretest
Posttest
3.0
1.7
2.0
1.0
0.0
FN1
FN2
FN3
FN4
FN5
FN6
Average
Figure 1. FN group general English speaking skills.
This graph shows that FN1, FN2, FN5, and FN6 all improved their English speaking skills
during the OpenSim course. FN3 and FN4, on the other hand, deteriorated. The increases for
FN5 and FN6, and the decrease for FN4 are rather substantial: FN5 went up by 2,0, FN6 by
4,0, and FN4 went down by 1,3, whereas the differences for FN1 – FN3 do not exceed 0,4.
On average, the group shows an increase in their English speaking skills of +0,8.
29
10.0
9.0
8.5
8.0
8.8
8.9
7.9
7.4
7.9
7.3
7.4
7.1
8.8
8.2
8.2
7.5
7.0
6.0
5.8
5.0
Pretest
4.0
Posttest
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
EL3
EL4
EL5
EL7
EL10
EL12
Average
Figure 2. NLIC group general English speaking skills.
This second graph shows that EL3, EL4, EL5 and EL7 improved their grades during the
OpenSim course. EL10 and EL 12 scored slightly lower. The largest increases within this
group are EL3 with +2,7 EL4 with +1,4, and EL5 with +1,0. On average, the group shows an
increase in their English speaking skills of +0,7.
10.0
9.0
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.4
7.3
7.0
7.1
7.4
6.6
7.0
5.9
6.0
5.0
7.0
4.9
4.6
Pretest
Posttest
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
EL1
EL2
EL8
EL9
EL11
Average
Figure 3. NLC group general English speaking skills.
This third graph shows that all but one participant improved during the OpenSim course. EL 1
deteriorated with -3,2. All other participants in this group show a large increase in English
30
speaking skills grades, ranging from +0,3 for EL 11, +0,9 for EL2 to +2,7 for EL8. On
average, the group shows an increase in their English speaking skills of +0,4.
Table 3
Average results for general English speaking skill grades per group, including increases and
decreases.
Group
Pre-test grade
Post-test grade
Difference
FN
3,7
4,5
+0,8
NLIC
7,5
8,2
+0,7
NLC
6,6
7,0
+0,4
Table 3 shows that, on average, the grades of the FN group increased with +0,8, the grades of
the NLIC group with +0,7, and that the NLC group increased by +0,4. The NLIC group
started and ended with the highest average grade (7,5 and 8,2) while the FN group started and
ended with the lowest grades (3,7 and 4,5). The NLC group started and ended between the
other groups (6,6 and 7,0).
5.1.2 English Discussion skills.
Figures 4-6 below show the English discussion skills of the students before and after the
course.
31
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
4.9
4.4
4.0
4.54.4
4.7
4.5
4.0
4.4
3.8
3.3
3.0
Pretest
Posttest
2.3
2.3
2.0
1.0
0.0
FN1
FN2
FN3
FN4
FN5
FN6
Average
Figure 4. FN group English discussion skills.
Regarding their English discussion skills, Finnish participants FN1, FN2, FN5, and FN6
improved during the course, while FN3 and FN4 showed a decrease instead. The differences
between pre- and post-test are quite large for all students, apart from FN2 and FN3: FN1
increased by +1,6, FN4 decreased by -2,3, FN5 increased by +2,0, and FN6 by +2,2. The
average increase in English discussion skills for this group was +0,6.
10.0
9.5
9.0
9.0
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.0
9.3
9.0
7.8
7.9
7.5
8.3
8.5
7.5
6.4
6.0
5.3
5.0
Pretest
4.0
Posttest
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
EL3
EL4
EL5
EL7
EL10
Figure 5. NLIC group English discussion skills.
EL12
Average
32
Within the NLIC group, increases could be found for EL3, EL4, EL5, and EL7. EL10 (-0,3)
and EL12 (-1,0) decreased. Some differences are rather large in this group as well, ranging
from +0,9 for EL5 and +1,2 for EL4 to +2,5 for EL7 and +3,6 for EL3. The average increase
of this group was +1,0.
10.0
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.4
7.0
7.5 7.5
6.8
6.4
7.2
6.0
5.0
4.8
Pretest
4.0
Posttest
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
EL1
EL2
EL8
EL9
EL11
Average
Figure 6. NLC group English discussion skills.
For the NLC group, only EL1 went down, and the other participants went up. EL1 went down
by 3,2. Large increases can be found for EL8, who went up by +3,4, and for EL9 by +1,5.
EL11 remained exactly the same. The average increase for this group was +0,5.
Table 4
Average results for English discussion skills per group, including increases and decreases.
Group
Pre-test grade
Post-test grade
Difference
FN
3,8
4,4
+0,6
NLIC
7,5
8,5
+1,0
NLC
6,8
7,2
+0,5
33
These averages in Table 2 show that the Finnish ICC students received lower pre- and posttest grades (3,8 and 4,4) than the Dutch control group (6,8 and 7,2), which received lower preand post-test grades than the Dutch ICC group (7,5 and 8,5).
5.2 Questionnaires.
5.2.1 Closed questions.
The results of the closed questions are divided by topic; OpenSim and Tasks followed by
Intercultural communication and The project as a whole. They are displayed as group
averages of the students’ answers in that group, and the standard deviations of these averages
are included.
All closed questions are displayed in graphs, beneath each graph the content of the
graph is explained. The horizontal axis of each graph covers 1.0 to 5.0 (0.0 and 6.0 are
included only show the extent of the standard deviations) and represents the students’ answers
in terms of agreement with the statements in question according to the Likert scale; 1.0
represents “Strongly disagree” and 5.0 represents “Strongly agree”.
34
5.2.1.1 OpenSim and Tasks.
0.0
Task 1: Campsite
3.8
3.3
3.4
Task 2: Church
3.8
2.7
3.8
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
FN
Task 3: Airport/Vacation
3.7
3.3
2.6
Task 4: Police station
3.3
4.2
4.0
Task 5: Courthouse
3.2
4.0
4.6
NL IC
NL C
Figure 7. Enjoyment of the individual Tasks. The question asked to the participants was
formulated as “I enjoyed participating in the following Tasks”.
Figure 7 shows that the FN group had a declining rate of enjoyment for each Tasks; the first
Task was rated at a 3,8 while the final Task was rated 3,2. The NL C group showed an
opposite trend (with the exception of Task 3) where they rated Task 1 at 3,4 and the Task 5 at
4,6. NL ICC does not show a similar trend.
35
0.0
1. The tasks were harder than
assignments in my English class.
4.0
2.0
2.0
2. I believe that some tasks should be
changed.
2.8
4.0
4.0
3. I would have preferred to have had
different kinds of tasks.
2.2
3.0
2.8
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
FN
NL IC
NL C
Figure 8. Changes and preferences for Tasks.
Question 8.1 shows that the Finnish students found the Tasks more difficult than their regular
English Tasks (4,0 instead of 2,0); far more so than the Dutch students (a difference of 2,0).
8.2 shows that the Finnish students did not believe that the Tasks should be altered as much as
the Dutch students did (difference of 1,2). 8.3 shows that both Dutch groups more strongly
agree with the preference for different Tasks (3 and 2,8) than the Finnish students (2,2).
36
5.2.1.2 Intercultural communication
0.0
1. I feel uneasy whenever I have to
speak English.
1.5
2.2
2.5
1.5
3.0
1.6
2. I am confident about my English
speaking skills.
3.5
3.0
3.3
3.7
3.0
3.4
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
FN B
FN
NL IC B
NL IC
3. I am confident about my English
discussion skills.
3.7
3.3
3.2
3.5
1.8
3.0
4. I feel more at ease when I cannot
be seen (on a webcam) while
communicating.
2.3
3.0
3.5
3.7
1.8
3.2
NL C B
NL C
Figure 9. Attitudes towards English before and after the OpenSim course. In this graph a “B”
behind the group name indicates that it is the background/pre-questionnaire.
Figure 9 shows that after the course (9.1) the Finnish students reported that they felt more
uneasy when having to speak English, they went from 1,5 to 2,2, whereas both Dutch groups
reported that they felt less uneasy after the course. Question 9.2 shows that the Finnish
confidence in English speaking skills decreased with -0,5 while both Dutch groups increased
37
with +0,4. In addition, (9.3) the Finnish students’ confidence about their English discussion
skills has also declined after the course (-0,4), whereas the NLIC group (+0,3) and Dutch
control (+1,2) students’ confidence increased. Finally, (9.4) All groups felt more at ease not
being visible on a webcam while communicating, after the course; FN +0,7, NLIC +0,3 and
NLC +1,4.
0.0
1. I know much more about
Finnish/Dutch culture now that I
finished the course.
3.8
3.0
2. My opinion of Finnish/Dutch
people has changed during this
course.
3.2
3.0
3. My opinion changed in a positive
way.
3.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
FN
NL IC
Figure 10. Questions related to intercultural communication between Dutch and Finnish
participants.
Question 10.1 in Figure 10 shows that, after the course, the Finnish students graded their
knowledge of Dutch culture higher than vice versa (FN 3,8 and NLIC 3,0). For 10.2 and 10.3
both groups’ their average answers remained in the middle (around 3,0), however the large
standard deviation in 10.2 for the NLIC group shows that the average 3 was not unanimous.
38
0.0
1. It was interesting for me to
communicate with the Finnish/Dutch
students.
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
FN
3.3
NL IC
3.7
Figure 11. Interest in intercultural communication after the course, for FN and NLIC groups.
This figure shows that the NLIC group found communicating with the Finnish more
interesting than vice versa. A difference of 0,4.
0.0
1. I enjoyed communicating with
classmates.
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
4.0
NL C
2. I would have preferred to
communicate with students from
another country.
4.8
Figure 12. Replacement questions for NL C group.
This figure shows that the NL C group liked to communicate with classmates (4,0), however
they would have preferred to communicate with students from another country (4.8) showing
a +0,8 difference.
39
0.0
1. I allow people from another
culture to see who I really am.
4.0
3.7
3.3
3.7
2. When interacting with people
from another culture, I reveal how I
feel to them.
3.3
3.5
3.2
3.7
3. I know exactly what people from
other cultures are feeling.
2.0
2.2
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
FN B
4. In conversations with someone
from another culture, I perceive not
only what the person says but what
the person does not say.
2.8
3.5
3.5
4.0
5. It is difficult to find the right
words to express myself in
intercultural interactions.
2.5
3.0
3.2
2.2
6. When meeting people from
another culture, I have trouble
standing up for myself.
2.0
2.5
1.6
2.0
7. I am comfortable with cultural
differences that come up in social
situations.
3.8
3.5
4.5
4.3
FN
NL IC B
NL IC
Figure 13. Intercultural questions before and after the course. In this graph a “B” behind the
group name indicates that it is the background/pre-questionnaire.
40
The NLC group is excluded from the results presented in figure 13. In the interviews, the
students in this group expressed their inability to answer these questions, as they had not
experienced intercultural communication during the course. This resulted in unusable
questionnaire responses.
Questions 13.1 and 13.2 show that no major differences are felt in terms of revealing
who you are to people of another culture (around 3,3/4,0). In addition, 13.3 shows the Finnish
participants believe that they cannot perceive feelings of people from another culture that well
(pre =2,0 and post = 2,2), whereas the Dutch participants respond with a more neutral 3,0 in
both the pre-and post-test. Furthermore, 13.4 shows that both the FN (2,8 to 3,5) and NLIC
(3,5 to 4,0) groups reported an improved understanding of verbal and non-verbal
communication when interacting with people from another culture. 13.5 Shows that the NLIC
group has less difficulty finding the right words/expressions in intercultural interactions, after
the course (3,2 to 2,2), while the FN group found it more difficult (from 2,5 to 3,0). In
addition, 13.6 shows that the Finnish students have more trouble standing up for themselves,
rather than less, after the course (2,0 to 2,5). The NLIC group shows the same trend (1,6 to
2,0). Finally, 13,7 shows a slight decrease in comfort for both groups when cultural
differences are brought up in social situations (FN = 3,8 to 3,5 and NLIC = 4,5 to 4,3)
41
5.2.1.3 The project as a whole.
0.0
1. To be aware of cultural contrasts and
similarities.
3.8
2.5
2.4
2. To talk more fluently.
3.0
2.8
3.4
3. To become confident talking in English.
2.8
3.0
3.4
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
FN
NL IC
4. New words.
3.7
3.0
3.2
5. To use grammar more accurately
3.0
2.2
2.0
6. English discussion skills
3.3
3.3
4.4
NL C
Figure 14. Components learnt during the OpenSim course. The question asked to the
participants was formulated as “What have you learnt during the sessions?”
14.1 shows that the Finnish students have learnt to be aware of cultural contrasts and
similarities more than the other groups; a difference of 1,3/1,2. The NLC students believed
they had improved more than the FN and NLIC groups regarding English fluency in 14.2 (3,4
vs. 3,0 and 2,8) and English speaking confidence in 14.3 (3,4 vs. 2,8 and 3,0). Moreover, 14.4
and 14.5 show that the FN group feels that they have improved their vocabulary (3,7) and
grammar skills (3,0), more than the other groups. Finally, the NLC group (4,4 vs. 3,3 and 3,3)
experienced the biggest improvement in English discussion skills in 14.6.
42
0.0
1. I valued the project in which I have
participated highly (it was good).
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
3.3
3.5
3.2
FN
2. I would to participate in a similar
project again in the future
3.2
4.0
4.6
3. I would recommend other
students to participate in a similar
project.
3.2
4.0
4.8
NL IC
NL C
Figure 15. Questions about the project as a whole. The question asked to the participants was
formulated as “How do you value the project?”
15.1 shows that the project was valued between a 3,2 and 3,5 for all groups. Statements 15.2
and 15.3 show that the Finnish group would not like to participate again or recommend the
project to friends (both 3,2), as much as NLIC (4,0) and NLC (4,6 and 4,8) groups would.
Simultaneously, the NL ICC group would do so less than the NL control group.
5.2.2 Open questions.
The following paragraphs are summaries of the answers given by the participants, to the open
questions, divided by category.
5.2.2.1 OpenSim and Tasks.
Answers to open questions of the FN group.
FN1 believed that the final Task should be changed, and FN3 that the vocabulary should be
made easier to follow.
Answers to open questions of the NLIC group.
43
The students believe that a number of things would have been impossible without OpenSim:
talking about the environment (EL12), role-playing (EL3), feeling comfortable (EL5), the
realistic vibe (EL4), and hearing and seeing responses of other people (EL10). EL3 and EL5
would have liked the initial Tasks to be more like the final two Tasks, and EL10 would have
liked more Tasks similar to real life situations. Finally, some NLIC students believed that
OpenSim influenced the conversations. EL3 believes they became less personal, and EL5
believes that the environment provided opportunities to go to locations, which made it feel
less like an online conversation.
Answers to open questions of the NLC group.
EL8 and EL9 believe that OpenSim influenced the conversations by providing more liveliness
and atmosphere, and EL11 that the virtual environment played an important role during some
of the assignments. EL2 mentioned instead that visiting locations that matched the subject
would have been impossible. EL1, EL8, EL9, EL11 agreed that the airport Task should be
changed, since it was boring and less interesting than the other Tasks.
5.2.2.2 Intercultural communication.
Answers to open questions of the NLIC group.
EL5 believes, after the course, that Finnish people are shy, and EL4 that they have poor social
skills.
5.2.2.3 The project as a whole.
Answers to open questions of the FN group.
Various aspects of the project were mentioned as the most positive by the Finnish students.
FN1, FN2, and FN3 mentioned meeting and conversing with people from another culture. On
44
the other hand, FN2, FN3, and FN6 answered that planning was the most negative aspect,
while FN4 and FN5 mentioned doing the Tasks during school hours as most negative.
Answers to open questions of the NLIC group.
According to the NLIC group, the most positive aspects of the course were: the experience
within OpenSim (EL5, EL4), getting to know more about other cultures (EL7, EL10), and
being in contact with people you would normally never get into contact with (EL12). The
most negative aspects of the course were: the organisation (EL7, EL10, EL12), not
participating in the course during school hours (EL3), and the lack of
interaction/communication by the Finnish students (EL4, EL10).
Answers to open questions of the NLC group.
The NLC group mentions the virtual world (EL1, EL8, EL9, EL11), learning to discuss
(EL2), and the avatars (EL8), as the most positive elements of the course. EL9 and EL11
agreed that creating an avatar would have been impossible without OpenSim. At the same
time. EL8, EL9, EL11 think the most negative aspect was the planning difficulties that
resulted from continuing the course from home, whereas EL2 expressed her disappointment at
not being able to talk to people from another country. Further comments about the project
were that ‘the project was fun’ (EL9), and that ‘the environment should be used more’ (EL2).
5.3 Interviews.
5.3.1 OpenSim and Tasks
Interviews with the FN group.
45
When asked if they would have preferred Skype over OpenSim for the course, FN4 and FN5
said they preferred OpenSim, as they felt more secure when they did not have to communicate
face-to-face with the Dutch students. FN1, FN2, FN3, and FN6 said they would have
preferred skype, since that would have enabled them to see the other participants. FN2, FN4,
FN5 and FN6 felt that the level of the course and the topics was too high, since they had little
knowledge about the issues that were discussed and many words and terms were unknown to
them. On the other hand, FN1 and FN3 believed that only Task 5: Courthouse was too
difficult.
Interviews with the NLIC group.
EL10 felt that the crime scene Tasks were more fun than the first awkward 1-on-1 talks
during Task 1. Furthermore, it was difficult to plan the sessions after deciding to do them
from home. Even so, the Tasks were fun, especially the ones where the students had to think
about situations that were authentic and could happen in real life.
5.3.2 Intercultural communication
Interviews with the FN group.
According to FN4 and FN5, the Dutch students were not always easy to understand.
Moreover, FN2, FN4, FN5 and FN6 had felt a bit uneasy during the course, as they thought
that the Dutch students were much more fluent in English, and consequently better prepared
to discuss different topics. FN1, FN2, FN3, and FN6 believed that this led to situations where
the Finnish students could only agree or disagree with what the Dutch students had already
said. Furthermore, FN2 and FN6 claimed that the Dutch students often interrupted and talked
over them. FN1 and FN3 also felt that the Dutch students were more formal, less relaxed, less
reserved, and straighter to the point than the Finnish students, and that they spoke fast and a
46
lot, and that they showed more initiative and confidence in their English speaking skills,
which could make them feel overwhelmed.
Interviews with the NLIC group.
EL10 mentioned that the interaction with the Finnish students was both positive, as well as
negative. EL10 believes that it was negative that the Finnish students did not say much during
the Tasks. However, she did believe that the addition of Finnish students was positive in terms
of the intercultural aspects, although their lower English skills diminished this effect. This
might have intimidated them, but the Dutch students decided to talk to each other instead.
EL10 does not believe that the Dutch students were too assertive, just that they had to talk
since the Finnish students did not. Trying to let the Finnish students go first did not appear to
improve the situation. Even in the WhatsApp group the Finnish students merely responded,
but rarely started or continued conversations. For EL4 and EL12, the interaction with the
Finnish students was seen mostly as negative, as they did not say much and slowed down the
conversations rather than advancing them. EL4 thinks the Dutch students might have been too
assertive during the conversations, but EL12 believes that they had to be, since the Finnish
students did not speak much.
5.3.3 The project as a whole
Interviews with the FN group.
Finnish pupils FN1, FN2, FN3 and FN6 did not feel the project had much effect on their
language skills. FN1, FN2, FN3 and FN6 suggested that the project could use a turn-taking
mechanism in order to control the communication output. Finally, all Finnish students
mentioned that they would participate in a similar project again if various requirements were
met (better session planning, different/easier topics, and fewer technical problems).
47
Interviews with the NLIC group.
Regarding the project as a whole, EL10 thinks that it would be a good idea to test the English
levels of students in advance, to prevent people from being scared to talk. EL12 believes that
arranging the times could have been better organised, but that the project was fun to
participate in. EL4 (like EL10) recommended measuring the English proficiency levels of the
pupils in advance.
Interviews with the NLC group.
EL 9 and EL11 believed the project should be changed to make the Tasks more suitable for a
group without intercultural interaction, while the project as a whole was fairly enjoyable and
did not need any extra adaptations.
48
6. Discussion.
The research question of the current study is: “what is the effect of an OpenSim course on the
English speaking competence and English discussion skills of the enrolled secondary school
students, does intercultural interaction influence these factors, and how do the students
experience the course?” This research question is divided into three sub-questions, regarding
the effect of the course on the general English speaking competence of the participants; on
their English discussion skills; and regarding the experience of the participants during the
course. The answers to these sub-questions should also provide an answer to the research
question. The first and second sub-questions will first be reviewed separately, based on the
pre- and post-test grade results. These questions will then be combined for further discussion,
as many of the elements related to the questions overlap. Subsequently, the third sub-question
will be reviewed, followed by an attempt to answer the research question.
6.1 First and second sub-questions.
The first sub-question is: “To what extent has the course had an effect on the general English
speaking competence of the participating students, who used English as a Lingua Franca, in
different research contexts (control versus experimental)?” The results show that the English
speaking competence of all groups has increased: the FN group with +0,8, from 3,7 to 4,5; the
NLIC group with +0,7, from 7,5 to 8,2; and the NLC group with +0,4, from 6,6 to 7,0 (see
Table 3). The NLIC group started and ended with higher grades than the other groups, the FN
group with the lowest. The NLC group increased the least of all groups.
The second sub-question is: “To what extent has the course had an effect on the
English discussion skills of the participating students, who used English as a Lingua Franca,
in different research contexts?” The discussion skills have also improved for all groups: for
the FN group with +0,6, from 3,8 to 4,4; for the NLIC group with +1,0, from 7,5 to 8,5; and
49
for the NLC group with +0,5, from 6,8 to 7,2 (see Table 4). As with general English
proficiency, the NLIC group has started and ended with the highest grades, the FN group with
the lowest. However, the FN and NLC groups show similar improvements regarding
discussion skills, and the NLIC group improved the most.
6.2 Discussion of the first two sub-questions.
As the results show, the intercultural communication groups, FN (+0,8) and NLIC (+0,7),
show similar improvements regarding general English speaking competence, while the Dutch
control group improved with +0,4. This suggests that intercultural communication benefits the
learning process of general English speaking competence.
This increase in English speaking competence for intercultural communication groups
is not reflected in the perception of the students on their own learning. In the questionnaire the
students were asked whether they believed their abilities increased during the course, as
shown in figure 14. The Finnish students were more positive about the improvement of their
vocabulary (figure 14, question 4) than the NLIC and NLC groups (3,7 vs. 3,0 and 3,2), as
well as grammar (14.5: 3,0 vs. 2,2 and 2,0). On the other hand, the NLC students believed
they increased more than the FN and NLIC groups regarding English fluency (14.2: 3,4 vs.
3,0 and 2,8), English speaking confidence (14.3: 3,4 vs. 2,8 and 3,0) and English discussion
skills (14.6: 4,4 vs. 3,3 and 3,3). However, the NLIC groups’ grades, increased more for
English discussion skills that the other two groups (+1,0 vs. +0,6 for FN and +0,5 for NLC).
The fact that the FN group feels they have improved more in terms of vocabulary and
grammar might be related to their relative lack of confidence regarding their more
communicative skills such as English fluency, speaking confidence and discussion skills. It
might feel like both vocabulary and grammar can also be learned by just listening, while
fluency, speaking and discussion need actual communication in order to improve. The
50
averages of the NLIC group shown in figure 14, questions 2 to 6, are neutral when compared
to than their general English and discussion skill grade increases (Tables 3 & 4), and there is
always another group in the questionnaire results that believes they learned more. This might
have to do with the high grades that the NLIC group started out with; they already felt their
English was quite good, and might have been less positive in terms of how much they have
learnt during the course.
The fact that the NLC group feels they have improved more regarding the
communicative skills of English fluency, English speaking confidence and English discussion
skills than the other groups, might be because the NLC subjects knew each other prior to the
start of the experiment. Figure 12.1 shows that the NLC group was unanimous about liking to
communicate with classmates, as no standard-deviation was present (4,0), while the FN (3,3)
and NLIC (3,7) groups show a standard-deviation in a similar question regarding intercultural
communication in figure 11. The NLIC group even shows a standard-deviation of 1,5, which
shows that this grade of 3,7 was not unanimous. This could mean that the NLC students felt
more comfortable communicating compared to the FN and NLIC groups. Just as
Deutschmann et al. (2009) suggest, students should be able to get to know each other before
the TBLT course starts. The NLC group had an advantage over the other groups, as they
already knew each other prior to the introductory Task that had been designed in order to let
the students get familiar with each other and OpenSim (Appendix B, Task 0). Whether this
has had any effect on the results would have to be studied in future research.
For both research questions, the grade difference between the NLIC and NLC groups
could have been influenced by the general proficiency shown by the NLIC group. For both
English proficiency and discussion skills the NLIC group received the highest grades. For
English proficiency the NLIC group average pre-test grade was 7,5 while the NLC group
average post-test grade was 7,0. Similarly, the NLIC group pre-test grade for discussion skills
51
was 7,5 while the NLC group’s average post-test grade was 7,2. The FN group scored lowest
on the post-test; an average of 4,5 for English proficiency and 4,4 for discussion skills. This
shows that the NLIC group started at a higher average level than the other groups. The higher
proficiency level shown by the NLIC group in the pre-test might explain the higher increase
in the English discussion skills (+1,0) in comparison to the other groups (FN +0,6 and NLC
+0,5). This seems to suggest that a higher level of English speaking and discussion skills is
beneficial for the improvement of discussion skills.
The increase of the English discussion grade for the NLIC group is an example of
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximate Development; the OpenSim course was designed for
participants of approximately B1/B2 level, however it did contain C1 input, which can
stimulate learning if the participants are nearing this level, but have not reached it yet
(Woolfolk, Hughes, & Walkup, 2008). Age can be ruled out as an influencing factor for the
NLIC group’s grades or increases. This has to do with the average age of 16 years for the
NLIC group and 16,5 years for the NLC group.
The lowest grades for both general English speaking competence and English
discussion skills were received by the Finnish students; several factors might have influenced
these low grades. Firstly, the average age of the FN group at the start of the experiment was
15,3, while the Dutch students were 16,3 on average. This one year difference could have
influenced the English level of the participants prior to the course and consequently, their
grades. Secondly, this mismatch might have resulted in the FN group finding the Tasks too
complex. As the Finnish students mentioned in the questionnaire (figure 8.1); they found the
Tasks more difficult than their regular English classes (4.0), while the Dutch students felt the
Tasks were less difficult (2.0). Cognitively complex Tasks were used in order to create an
effective Task (Ellis, 2003). This level of complexity might have been too high for the FN
group, and could have resulted in more stress, less self-confidence and even less speech
52
production (Robinson, 2001). In addition, the topics used during the pre- and post-tests might
have also been too complex and result in underperformance during the assessment.
As mentioned in the results, some students’ grades declined after the pre-test. The
students are FN3 and FN4 from the FN group, EL10 and EL12 from the NLIC group and EL1
from the NLC group. FN3 only decreased with -0,3 for English proficiency and -0,1 for
discussion skills. However, FN4 decreased with -1,3 for English proficiency and -2,4 for
discussion skills. EL10 and EL12 only slightly decreased on English proficiency, however
EL12 decreased with -1,0 on discussion skills. EL 1 decreased with -3,2 for both English
proficiency and discussion skills. The possibility of a performance-malfunction on the posttest and our possible influence as teachers has to be considered. Moreover, the randomised
choice of two of the four topics might have influenced the results.
Another possible explanation for some of the declines in grades can be found in the
assessment grid (Appendix B), the grade differences between the rows/categories (for
example grades 7 to 8 as second to last, and 9 to 10 as last row) make it difficult to account
for minor details. For example; in the “fluency” column the difference between the final two
rows is described as: “can produce stretches of language with a fairly even tempo,” versus:
“can fluently and spontaneously almost effortlessly express himself” (Appendix B). The
description used in the assessment grid, might have influenced the rate of improvement
measured in the NLIC group. This might explain the slight decrease of some grades.
In short, the course had a positive effect on the general English speaking competence
and English discussion skills of the participating students, as all average grades increased.
Both intercultural communication groups (FN and NLIC) increased their English speaking
competence more than the Dutch control group. This suggests that intercultural
communication is beneficial for the development of general English speaking competence. At
the same time, the NLIC group received the highest grades for English discussion skills (in
53
both pre- and post-test) and increased the most (+1,0) of the participating groups. This
suggests that a higher English speaking and discussion competence is beneficial for further
development of English discussion skills. Furthermore, the NLIC and NLC students’
perception on their own learning (figure 14) might have been influenced by the higher level of
the NLIC group and the fact that the NLC students knew each other beforehand, respectively.
In addition, age does not seem to have influenced the NLIC and NLC grades, while the low
FN grades might be explained by a mismatch regarding age and skill with the NLIC group.
Finally, unforeseen grade declines for the post-test could be influenced by teacher presence,
complexity of the discussion topics and/or the lack of description detail in the assessment
grid. To answer the sub-questions, both general English speaking and discussion competence
increased for the participating groups; the control group increased less in speaking than the
experimental groups, as their Tasks featured no intercultural communication; and the NLIC
group increased the most for discussion skills, due to a higher speaking and discussion
competence at the start of the course.
6.3 The third sub-question.
One of the reasons the FN students did not improve more throughout the course, while
starting at a lower level of competence than the Dutch students, is related to the way they
experienced the course. This is essentially the third sub-question: ‘How do students
experience OpenSim, the Tasks, intercultural communication and the project as a whole, and
how does this experience differ between the various groups?’
The students were positive about OpenSim, as they believed that a number of things
would have been impossible without it; for instance, talking about the environment (EL12)
and role-playing (EL3). Role-playing is believed to broaden students’ social perspectives
(McCaslin, 1990). EL3 also believes that the conversations became less personal due to
54
OpenSim, and EL2 and EL5 that OpenSim provided opportunities to go to locations, making
it feel less like an online conversation. EL8 and EL9 felt that OpenSim provided more
liveliness and atmosphere to the conversations, and EL11 mentions that the environment was
important during some assignments. In addition, the use of OpenSim over Skype has created a
greater disparity between feeling at ease when not being seen and being seen while
communicating (figure 9, question 4), for all groups: 2,3 to 3,0 for the FN group, 3,5 to 3,7 for
the NLIC group, and 1,8 to 3,2 for the NLC group. The avatars of OpenSim were seen as a
positive element, mostly by the NLC group. EL9 and EL11 agreed that creating an avatar
would have been impossible without OpenSim. These students, and EL1 and EL8 from the
NLC group, as well as EL4 and EL5 from the NLIC group, believed that the virtual world was
one of the most positive elements of the course, including the avatars. EL8 even mentioned
the avatars specifically as being the most positive element of the course. However, students in
the FN group (FN1, FN2, FN3, and FN6) thought that communication over Skype would have
been more beneficial to language learning, while FN4 and FN5 preferred OpenSim, as they
felt more secure without being able to see their speech partners. The generally positive
association with the avatars, in addition to the advantages of avatars mentioned by Svensson
(2003) and Peterson (2008), argues in favour of using OpenSim for telecollaborative Tasks, as
was done in this course.
Regarding the enjoyment of the Tasks, the FN group showed a decline in enjoyment
after the first three Tasks (figure 7). Their attitudes towards the final two Tasks were more
neutral (3,3 and 3,2) when compared to the first three Tasks (3,8, 3,8, and 3,7). In the open
questions, FN1 mentioned that the final Task should be changed. Both FN1 and FN3
confirmed this opinion in the interviews, as they agreed that Task 5 was too difficult. FN3
also mentioned in the open questions that the vocabulary was too difficult. In contrast, EL1,
EL8, EL9, EL11 from the NLC group believe that Task 3 should be changed, as it was less
55
interesting than the other Tasks (open questions). In addition, EL3 and EL5 from the NLIC
group would have liked the initial Tasks to be more like the final two. EL10 agreed, as she
felt that the crime scene Tasks were more fun than the first “awkward” talks in Task 1. This
shows that the Finnish students thought the difficulty level was higher than the Dutch
students, which has been confirmed in the closed questions (figure 8, question 1), in which the
students were asked to compare the Tasks to their English lessons. The FN group provided an
average answer of 4,0, whereas both Dutch groups had an average response of 2,0. In the
interviews, FN2, FN4, FN5, and FN6 confirmed once more that the course was too difficult.
At the same time, the Finnish students did not think the Tasks should be changed (2,8) as
much as the Dutch students (both groups 4,0), and would not have preferred different kinds of
Tasks as much as the Dutch students (2,2 FN against 3,0 NLIC and 2,8 NLC). This suggests
that the FN group enjoyed that the Tasks were slightly too complicated for them.
However, an effective Task should feature appropriate input (that is not too complex)
for the participants (Ellis, 2003; Jauregi & Canto, 2012). This suggests that the Tasks were
not effective, which is reflected in the grades of the FN group. In addition, Tasks that are too
cognitively complex can result in more stress, lower self-confidence and lower speech
production, which could lead to less enjoyment (Robinson, 2001). The complexity of Task 5
mentioned by FN1 and FN3 was reflected in their enjoyment of the Task, as the FN group
rated it 3,2 on the Likert scale, on average, in the closed questions (figure 7), while the NLIC
group rated it 4,0 and the NLC group 4,6. The complexity that the Finnish students
experienced with Task 5 was not reflected in the other groups. This implies that the
complexity of the Tasks was a better match with the Dutch students than the Finnish students
during the course.
The intercultural communication in the course yielded some interesting observations,
divided into participants’ attitudes towards English, intercultural communicative competence
56
before and after the course, attitudes towards intercultural conversations between the FN and
NLIC groups, and questions about the other culture for the intercultural interaction groups and
similar questions for the NLC group. The attitudes towards English use has changed for all
groups during the course (figure 9). The Finnish students reported feeling more uneasy when
having to speak English after the course (1,5 to 2,2), while the Dutch students reported feeling
less uneasy (question 1) (2,5 to 1,5 NLIC; 3,0 to 1,6 NLC). In addition, confidence regarding
English speaking, as well as discussion skills has declined for the FN students (3,5 to 3,0
speaking; 3,7 to 3,3 discussion), but increased for the Dutch students (questions 2 and 3) (3,3
to 3,7 NLIC speaking; 3,2 to 3,5 NLIC discussion; 3,0 to 3,4 NLC speaking; 1,8 to 3,0 NLC
discussion). The differences in confidence may have been influenced by the complexity of the
Tasks, but also by a disparity in the communicative competence and L2 use of the
experimental groups.
The course has, in some respects, been successful in increasing intercultural
communicative competence (ICC; Jauregi & Canto, 2012) of the experimental groups (figure
13), but unsuccessful in others. The NLIC students allow people from another culture to see
who they really are (question 1) more than before (3,3 to 3,7), but the FN students less (4,0 to
3,7). Furthermore, the FN group now finds it less difficult to find the right words during
intercultural interaction (question 5) than before the course (2,5 to 3,0), while the NLIC group
now finds it more difficult (3,2 to 2,2). In addition, students of both groups find it harder to
stand up for themselves during intercultural situations (question 6) than before (2,0 to 2,5 FN;
1,6 to 2,0 NLIC). Both groups are somewhat less comfortable with cultural differences that
emerge in social situations (question 7) (3,8 to 3,5 FN; 4,5 to 4,3 NLIC). However, their
ability to determine what people from other cultures are feeling (question 3) remained
unchanged (2,0 to 2,2 FN; 3,0 to 3,0 NLIC). At the same time, both groups now find it easier
to express their feelings in the company of people from another culture (question 2) than
57
before (3,3 to 3,5 for the FN students; 3,2 to 3,7 for the NLIC students). In addition, both
groups increased their ability to understand what people from another culture do not say
(question 4) (2,8 to 3,5 FN; 3,5 to 4,0 NLIC). The decreases in ICC that occurred in the
experimental groups may be accounted for by the disparity in the Willingness to
Communicate (MacIntyre, 2007) that was observed during the course.
This disparity has mostly been referred to in the interviews with the students. For
example, FN2, FN4, FN5, and FN6 thought the Dutch students were much more fluent, which
FN1, FN2, FN3, and FN6 thought led to situations where the Finnish students could only
agree or disagree with what had been said. Similarly, EL10 was disappointed with the lack of
Finnish interaction, and thinks the Dutch students had to talk where the Finnish students
neglected to and that they were not too forward. EL4 and EL12 were even more negative,
claiming that the Finnish students slowed down, rather than advanced, the conversations. The
disparity was caused by a number of reasons, which can be clarified using MacIntyre (2007)’s
pyramid model of WTC. This model also contains intercultural differences and the use of
English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) (as described by Hülmbauer et al., 2008). Stereotypically,
Finnish communication is associated with silence (Sajavaara & Lehtonen, 1997), and
therefore contrasts strongly with the stereotypically direct Dutch style of communicating. The
ELF usage of the NLIC and FN groups seems to have incorporated the L1 communication
aspects of both groups, resulting in a lower WTC in the Finnish students. Furthermore, the
disparity in communicative competence between the groups, which may have influenced the
learning of English discussion skills for the NLIC group compared to the other groups, may
also have influenced the students’ WTC.As they mention in the interviews, the Finnish
students believed the Dutch students were far more fluent. This led to less self-confidence for
the Finnish students, and a lower WTC. Differences in age between the two groups may have
increased this effect even further, as the Finnish students were younger than the NLIC
58
students (15,3 to 16,3 on average). Task complexity, in relation to age, or in other words the
mismatch between the Finnish students’ skill level and the complexity of the Tasks, may also
have influenced the confidence of the Finnish students during the Tasks, leading to a
diminished WTC. In addition, the extrinsic motivation (Woolfolk, Hughes, & Walkup, 2008)
the Dutch students received by way of a participation grade, compared to the lack of one for
the Finnish students, may have increased the disparity in WTC even further. Finally, another
factor that may have influenced the students’ state communicative self-confidence is that of
teacher influence. As shown by Deutschmann et al. (2009), reducing the amount of teachers
present can increase student motivation and production in an online course. In their study, this
increase was found through a reduction from a ratio of 1 teacher for 1 student (1:1) to a ratio
of 1:1,5. The ratio of the current study was already lower than that, namely 1:3, yet a further
reduction could nonetheless increase student motivation and production. However, teachers
can exert a certain amount of influence regardless of the amount of teachers present, and
perhaps the teachers have been too present. Further research is required into optimal teacherstudent ratios and teacher influence.
Regarding the questions about the cultural other, the NLIC and FN groups reported
having learned about the cultural other during the course. The Finnish students (3,8) reported
they had learned more than the Dutch students (3,0) (figure 10). This could be explained by
the fact that the Dutch students spoke more during the course than the Finnish students, which
gave the latter group more opportunity to learn about Dutch culture. For some NLIC students,
the lacking interaction of the Finnish students may have translated into the development of
negative opinions about the Finnish students, since EL5 believes, after the course, that Finnish
people are shy, and EL4 that they have poor social skills (open questions). At the same time,
the NLIC group found communicating with the FN group more interesting (3,7), on average,
than vice versa (3,3) (figure 11). The NLC group did enjoy communicating with their
59
classmates (4,0) (figure 12), but they would still have preferred to communicate with students
from another country (4,8). This feeling was probably strengthened by the fact that their
English teacher had not clearly told them that there would be a control group that would not
interact with Finnish students.
The project as a whole was considered to be very positive by all participants. The
experience of the project will be discussed first, followed by the influence it has had on the
students, the answers to the open questions of the questionnaire, and, finally, the interview
responses. Judging from the closed questions, the students were fairly positive about the
project as a whole. Figure 15 shows the answers to these questions. The first question, about
whether the students liked the project, tended toward the positive side for all groups. (3,3 FN;
3,5 NLIC; 3,2 NLC). When asked whether the students wanted to participate in a similar
project again in the future (question 2), the FN students responded fairly neutrally (3,2), while
the NLIC students were fairly positive (4,0), and the NLC students very positive (4,6). Similar
numbers emerged when the students were asked whether they would recommend a similar
project to other students (question 3): 3,2 for the FN group and 4,0 for the NLIC group again,
but 4,8 for the NLIC group this time.
According to the participants, the project as a whole has had a positive influence on
them. Figure 14 shows which skills the students believe they have improved during the
course. The FN group believes they have learned to be aware of cultural contrasts and
similarities (question 1) more so than the other groups (3,8 FN; 2,5 NLIC; 2,4 NLC). They are
fairly indifferent when it comes to being able to talk more fluently (question 2) (3,0), while
the NLIC group tends more toward the negative side (2,8), and the NLC group more to the
positive (3,4). The NLC group is most positive when it comes to having learned to become
confident talking in English (question 3) (3,4), followed by the NLIC group (3,0), and the FN
group (2,8). Regarding vocabulary, the FN group is most positive (question 4) (3,7), followed
60
by the NLC group (3,2) and the NLIC group (3,0). Question 5 regarding the learning of
grammar has been answered more negatively by the Dutch groups: 2,2 for the NLIC group
and 2,0 for the NLC group, while the Finnish students were indifferent (3,0). All groups are
somewhat positive regarding the improvement of their English discussion skills (question 6).
The NLC group is the most positive (4,4), followed by the NLIC and FN groups (3,3 for
both). Apart from the answers given by the Dutch students for questions 1 and 5, the
responses to these questions ranged from neutral to positive. The students’ belief that there is
some progress in skills as a result of the course, is likely important to their enjoyment of the
course as a whole.
In the open questions, the students mentioned that the intercultural interaction was
seen as one of the most positive aspects of the course. For the NLIC group, getting to know
more about another culture (EL7, EL10) and being in contact with people you normally never
get into contact with (EL12) were mentioned as some of the most positive aspects of the
course. However, they also mention that one of the most negative aspects was the lack of
Finnish communication (EL4, EL10). The Finnish students do not feel the same way, as they
mentioned that the most negative aspects were planning difficulties (FN2, FN3, FN6) , and
not being able to do the Tasks during school hours (FN4, FN5). Instead, they believe that
meeting and conversing with people from another culture was one of the most positive aspects
of the course (FN1, FN2, FN3).
During the interviews, all Dutch students that participated confirmed once more that
they had had fun participating in the project. EL4 and EL12 mentioned that having another
culture to interact with is a very positive addition to the course, as long as they actually
interact. FN1, FN2, FN3, and FN6 mentioned in the interviews that the course had not had
much effect on their English language skills. EL 9 and EL11 did mention that the project
should be changed to make the Tasks more suitable for a group without intercultural
61
interaction, while the project as a whole was fairly enjoyable and did not need any extra
modifications. An additional suggestion, made by FN1, FN2, FN3, and FN6 was to include a
turn-taking mechanism to control the communication output. EL4 and EL10 suggested testing
the English skills of students in advance. Finally, EL10 and EL12 mentioned that the
organisation of the sessions that they had to be carried out from home could have been
executed better.
In short, the students were positive about OpenSim and the Tasks in general, but
enjoyed certain Tasks more than others. The most positive aspects about OpenSim were the
virtual environment and not being visible while present in OpenSim. The use of avatars was
also seen as very positive, and the enjoyment associated with OpenSim and the avatars, in
addition to the benefits of avatars mentioned by Svensson (2003) and Peterson (2008), argue
in favour of using OpenSim for telecollaborative Tasks. Furthermore, Task complexity
influenced enjoyment: when a participant found a Task too difficult, their enjoyment
decreased, but when a participant considered a Task only somewhat difficult, their enjoyment
increased. The Finnish participants found some Tasks too difficult, while the Dutch
participants enjoyed the most complex Tasks the most. In addition, the course has been
successful in enhancing intercultural communicative competence (ICC; Jauregi & Canto,
2012) for the experimental groups, and allowing students to learn about another culture.
Decreases in ICC can be explained by the disparity in Willingness to Communicate
(MacIntyre, 2007) between the two experimental groups, which caused discomfort for both
groups. Intercultural differences, communicative competence, age, extrinsic motivation, and
teacher influence could all have attributed to this disparity. Regarding the project as a whole,
the students were rather positive, as they were positive about most aspects of their education
during the course. However, the intercultural interaction was seen as both positive and
negative by the experimental groups. Finally, not being able to do the Tasks during school
62
hours and the resulting planning issues were seen as very negative. To answer the subquestion, the students in the NLIC and NLC groups were quite positive about the final Tasks,
while the students in the FN group were more positive about the first Tasks; the NLIC
students were less positive about the intercultural communication than the FN group, while
the NLC group would have preferred intercultural interaction; and all groups were positive
regarding the project as a whole: the NLC students more so than the experimental groups, as a
result of issues with the intercultural communication.
63
7. Conclusion.
The main research question of the current study has been ‘what is the effect of an OpenSim
course on the English speaking competence and English discussion skills of the enrolled
secondary school students, does intercultural interaction influence the above factors, and how
do the students experience the course,’ which was to be answered based on three subquestions. The first two sub-questions focus on the effect of the course, and intercultural
communication, on the general English speaking competence and the discussion competence,
of the participating students. On average, both general English speaking competence and
discussion competence increased for all groups, with important differences between the
groups. Firstly, the Finnish students received lower average grades for both English speaking
and discussion competence, showing that the overall complexity of the course (Robinson,
2001; Robinson & Michel, 2011) did not match the age and competence of the Finnish
students, while it did coincide with the age and level of the Dutch students. Secondly, the
experimental groups showed more improvement in general English speaking competence than
the control group, showing that intercultural communication (Jauregi et al., 2011; Jauregi &
Canto, 2012; Canto et al., 2013; Canto et al., 2014) can assist the acquisition of general
English speaking competence. Thirdly, the NLIC group improved more in English discussion
skills than the other two groups, suggesting that a higher English speaking and discussion
competence can enhance Willingness to Communicate (MacIntyre, 2007), and therefore the
acquisition of discussion skills. The third sub-question focused on how the students
experienced OpenSim, the Tasks, intercultural communication and the project as a whole, and
how this experience differs for the various groups. Firstly, the Dutch students were more
positive about the final Tasks, while the Finnish students were more positive about the first
Tasks. The Finnish students found the final Tasks too difficult. Secondly, the NLIC students
were less positive about the intercultural interaction than the FN students, as a result of
64
limited English speech production from the FN students (Sajavaara & Lehtonen, 1997). In
addition, the NLC group would have preferred intercultural interaction to communicating
with their classmates. Thirdly, all groups were positive regarding the project as a whole, the
NLC group more than the experimental groups, as a result of the communication issues
between the experimental groups.
In answer to the main question, the course has had a positive effect on the participants,
as the average grades for speaking and discussion skills have increased for all groups.
Furthermore, the intercultural communication has influenced this in two ways. Firstly, it has
had a beneficial effect on the acquisition of speaking competence for the experimental groups.
Secondly, it has caused certain problems regarding the Willingness to Communicate
(MacIntyre, 2007) of the FN group, which led the FN group and the NLIC to have a less
positive experience of the experiment compared to the control group, even though the NLC
students would have preferred to have had intercultural interaction during their Tasks as well.
The intercultural communication has had a positive effect on the learning outcomes, and both
a positive and negative effect on the enjoyment of the course. However, this negative effect
cannot be attributed to intercultural communication alone, as the complexity of the course
also had a substantial influence on the Willingness to Communicate. The complexity level of
the course was too high for the Finnish students, who were younger and displayed weaker
communicative competence than the Dutch students, whose proficiency levels were wellmatched to the Task complexity. This was illustrated by the fact that the Dutch students were
more positive about the final Tasks, while the Finnish students were more positive about the
first Tasks, as the Tasks were created to become more difficult over the course. The
communicative competence of the experimental groups proved important for their
Willingness to Communicate, which caused the disparity in the intercultural communication,
and negatively influenced the way these groups experienced the course. The initial
65
competence level affected the results in another way, since the NLIC group showed a larger
increase in their discussion skills, as a result of a higher English speaking and discussion
competence at the start of the course. The overall effect of the course on the students was
predominantly positive, particularly regarding their learning outcomes, but a better screening
for differences in communicative competence is important to both learning outcomes and the
way the course is experienced. An appropriate match between the competence level of the
participants and the course, as well as between the participant groups, is important for the
success of OpenSim courses. As long as these requirements are met, similar courses could be
implemented in a secondary school English language learning curriculum.
7.1 Limitations
This section will describe the limitations of the current study and reflect critically on the
chosen approach. The planning of the course was the first limitation that was encountered, as
the course had to be continued from home due to technical issues. This was seen as one of the
most negative aspects of the course, since the students had to participate in the Tasks outside
of school, and because of the ensuing planning issues. Secondly, the composition of the
participating groups was not ideal. There was a considerable age and skill difference between
the Dutch and Finnish participants, which negatively influenced the course in many ways.
Moreover, male students were underrepresented in the project and study. All male participants
were from the Dutch school, and all were put in the NLIC group, as a result of their school
schedule. In addition, the Dutch participants had an additional extrinsic motivation, as they
were graded for the project by their English teacher, while the Finnish were not. Another issue
was related to the group formation. Firstly, all participants of the NLC group knew each other
before starting the course, while the intercultural groups only knew the students from their
own school. A solution would have been to use another Dutch control group, made up of two
66
groups of three from different locations in the Netherlands. Secondly, a similar Finnish
control group should have been added to account for cultural differences when comparing
groups that featured intercultural communication with groups without intercultural
communication. Thirdly, the groups of participants were too small to draw generalised
conclusions about the research. Larger groups would have been impossible within the scope
of this research, though they would have enhanced the validity of the results. A third
limitation was the rubric used for the pre- and post-tests. It was used as a guideline to reach an
agreement about the students’ grades via online meetings over Skype. However, the analysers
had some difficulty interpreting the rubric. Elements, such as the students’ participation
during the discussion, were not clearly defined. Discussion about these elements did not rule
out any inconsistencies that might have occurred during the grading process. A calculation of
interrater reliability of the analysers would have to have been executed in order to ascertain
whether the grading process was reliable. The same goes for the discussion topics used in the
pre- and post-tests. These four topics were randomly assigned to the pre- and post-test and
were not assessed in terms of complexity. In effect, these topics might have been too complex
for some of the students and could have influenced the results. Another limitation is that the
influence of the teachers/researchers on the students during the Tasks, as well as the pre-and
post-tests, has not been measured during the course. The teacher to student ratio was lower
than that in Deutschmann et al. (2009), but a further reduction could still have benefited the
students. Similar issues occurred for the results shown in figure 13, from which the NLC
group was excluded. The NLC group mentioned during the interviews that they did not know
how to answer the questions regarding intercultural communication, as they had not
experienced intercultural communication during the course. This resulted in unusable
questionnaire responses and led to the decision of excluding these results from the graph
shown in figure 13. In addition, the interviews with the Dutch participants were held four
67
months after the course, due to planning issues. Moreover, only 5 out of 11 students
responded to the invitation for a final interview, while all 6 of the Finnish students were
interviewed shortly after the course was finished. The long time in between, and low turnout,
might have influenced the validity of the interview results.
7.2 Suggestions for further research
This section gives suggestions for further research in the same research area. Future research
should incorporate groups that share more similarities. For example, including a similar
number of male and female participants across the groups, and students of similar age and
skill, should increase the validity of research in the future. Furthermore, additional control
groups could be added in future research; firstly, to account for the difference between
cultural background when comparing experimental and control groups (as this study only
featured a Dutch control group), and, secondly, to exclude the possibility that students’
English speaking and discussion competence improved as a result of their regular English
lessons. In addition, our recordings could be used for further analyses. For instance, floor
space measurements, similar to those in Deutschmann et al. (2009), could be conducted on the
Task recordings, in order to map the amount of time each person was able to speak, which can
illustrate the disparity in communication of the experimental groups of the current study.
These measurements could be compared to the results of the pre- and post-tests in this study,
to ascertain whether the amount of time spent speaking and the Willingness to Communicate
(MacIntyre, 2001) has influenced participants’ English discussion skills. Another suggestion
to further research is related to teacher influence. The teacher to student ratio in the current
study was already lower than that in Deutschmann et al. (2009), but a further reduction could
still have benefited the students. A floor space measurement could also be used to investigate
the influence exerted by the teachers during a similar OpenSim course, regardless of teacher
68
to student ratio. Another suggestion is to include the influence of familiarity on students. The
question whether knowing each other before the course influenced the control group in the
current study can be researched by comparing pre- and post-test results of groups with similar
cultural backgrounds. In one of these groups students already know each other prior to the
experiment, and in the other group they do not. Furthermore, intercultural communication
should be explored in settings with different kinds of Tasks, in order to ascertain whether
similar benefits occur (for instance, those in Ware & O’Dowd, 2008). In addition, further
analysis could be conducted on the Task recordings, regarding English as a Lingua Franca
(ELF). The Tasks are an example of communication in English between two non-native
speaker cultures, and further investigation could shed light on differences in phonology,
pragmatics, and lexicogrammar between the ELF interaction and other varieties of English
(see also Jenkins, 2000; Meierkord, 1996; and Seidlhofer, 2004; van den Doel, 2007).
Another suggestion would be to research the effects of intercultural communication across a
longer span of time, to see whether continued TBLT in virtual worlds has any worthwhile
effects on the English speaking and discussion skills of the participants. More research should
also be conducted with the remaining levels of secondary education, with and without
intercultural interaction. As shown in the current study, students of different levels respond
differently to a virtual world course.
69
References:
ALTE. (2002). The ALTE Can Do Project. Produced by members of ALTE. 38-99.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Canto, S., Jauregi, K., & van den Bergh, H. (2013). Integrating cross-cultural interaction
through video-communication and virtual worlds in foreign language teaching
programs: is there an added value? ReCALL, 25, 105-121.
doi:10.1017/S0958344012000274
Canto, S., de Graaf, R., & Jauregi, K. (2014). Collaborative Tasks for negotiation of
intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and videoweb communication. In M. GonzálezLloret, & L. Ortega (Eds.) Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and
Tasks (pp. 183-211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networks to facilitate the acquisition of interactive
competence. System, 22(1), 17–31.
Deutschmann, M., Panichi, L., & Molka-Danielson, J. (2009). Designing oral participation in
Second Life – a comparative study of two language prociency courses. ReCALL, 21,
206-226. doi:10.1017/S0958344009000196
Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign
language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 50–75.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based Research And Language Pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research, 4(3), 193-220.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press.
Gonzáles-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT Researching
Technology and Tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
70
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hülmbauer, C., Böhringer, H, & Seidlhofer, B. (2008). Introducing English as a lingua franca
(ELF): Precursor and partner in intercultural communication. Synergies Europe, 3, 2546.
Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A.S. (2002). IRC Francais: The creation of an Internet-based
SLA community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(2), 109–134.
Jauregi, K., & Canto, S. (2012). Enhancing meaningful oral interaction in Second Life.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 111-115.
Jauregi, K., Canto, S., de Graaf, R., Koenraad, T., & Moonen, M. (2011). Verbal interaction
in Second Life: towards a pedagogic framework for Task design. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 24(1), 77-101. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2010.538699
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language: New models, new
norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language
instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(2), 441–545.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects
on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal,
25(5), 441–454.
McCaslin, N. (1990). Creative Drama in the Classroom. 5th ed. New York: Longman. Print.
McIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding
the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4),
564-576.
Meierkord, C. (1996). Englisch als Medium der interkulturellen Kommunikation.
Untersuchungen zum non-native-/non-native speaker—Diskurs. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.
71
Meskill, C. (1999) Computers as Tools for Sociocollaborative Language Learning. In: K.
Cameron (ed.), Computer assisted language learning (CALL): media, design and
applications (pp. 141–162). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
O’Dowd, R. (2007) Introduction. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.) Online Intercultural Exchange: An
Introduction for Foreign Language Teachers (pp. 3-16). Clevedon: Multilinguals
Matters Ltd.
Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual
world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 79–103.
Peterson, M. (2008). Virtual Worlds in Language Education. The JALT CALL Journal, 4, 2937.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task Complexity, Task Difficulty, and Task Production: Exploring
Interaction in a Componential Framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive Complexity and Task Sequencing: Studies in a Componential
Framework for Second Language Task Design. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 43(1), 1-32.
Robinson, P., & Michel, M. C. (2011). Chapter 6. Effects of Task complexity and interaction
on L2 performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language Task complexity:
researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.
Sajavaara, K. & Lehtonen, J. (1997) The silent Finn revisited. In Jaworski, A. (Ed.) Silence:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 263-284). New York: Mouton de Gruyter..
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–39.
72
Schroeder, R. (2002). Social interaction in virtual environments: key issues, common themes,
and a framework for research. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars:
Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 1–16). London: Springer.
Svensson, P. (2003). Virtual worlds as arenas for language learning. In U. Felix (Ed.),
Language learning on-line: Towards best practice (pp. 123–142). Lisse: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
TILA. (2015). Project summary. Retrieved from
http://www.tilaproject.eu/moodle/mod/page/view.php?id=1409
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between
learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 82–
99.
van den Doel. (2007). International intelligibility in EIL. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 28-38.
Retrieved from http://70.40.196.162/December_2007_EBook.pdf#page=28
van der Geer, P. (2001). De Kunst van het Debat (2nd ed.). Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.
Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and
English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190-205.
Ware, P. D., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration.
Language Learning and Technology, 12(1), 43–63.
Warschauer, M.,Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student
empowerment. System, 24, 1–14.
Westhoff, G. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective
SLATasks. Babylonia, 12(3), 58–62.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for Task-based learning. Harlow, UK: Longman
Woolfolk, A., Hughes, M., & Walkup, V. (2008). Psychology in Education. Harlow: Pearson
Longman, Print.
73
Appendix A: Tasks
Tasks take up 90 minutes, of which 60 minutes are planned, and 30 minutes are for setting up,
and difficulty-anticipation. (If the lesson hours at both school are very different, the time
planning has to be adapted)
Task 0 Template
Getting Started
Summary:

15-30 min preparatory phase
(This Task may take longer than expected due to the introductory nature of the Task)
In this phase the students and teachers are communicating via Skype on how to get into the
world of OpenSim, including the TILA grid. All instructions on how to properly access
OpenSim via the TILA grid can be found on a handout sheet provided by TILA and included
in this research (links below). The group is welcomed into OpenSim and receives instructions
for the main phase.
Connecting to OpenSim:
http://www.tilaproject.eu/moodle/pluginfile.php/82/mod_resource/content/6/TILAHowToGetOnTheTILAOpenSimGrid.pdf
Movement in OpenSim:
http://www.tilaproject.eu/moodle/pluginfile.php/2102/mod_resource/content/2/TILABasic3Dskills-v1.pdf

30-40min main phase
The group is educated on using the voice communication tool of OpenSim, through a tutorial
sheet created by Nick Zwart (links above).
The group is led by one or two teachers to the island of Arcadia. Here they will be introduced
to the controls of the virtual world and instructed on how and when to use these controls. The
Island of Arcadia is specially designed for the purpose of explaining the controls of OpenSim
74
and does most of the work without the teacher having to interfere. However, some parts of the
introduction in Arcadia can be left out (how to build within OpenSim for instance) and the
students have to be alerted of these points in the tour.
After the controls have been explained the students receive some time to get to know each
other on an informal basis. Depending on the familiarity amongst the students an introduction
round can be used. Other than that, a game can be played (next to the Arcadia castle) by one
or more students at the same time in order to give them some time to work with the controls
and talk to each other on an informal basis. Finally, the students are transported to
Chatterdale, given a little tour of the Island, and receive some free time to explore the
surroundings.

5-10 min post phase
All students are gathered at a TILA meeting point on the main island and asked if they have
any questions about OpenSim and the following project. Details for next meetings and ways
of contact (Skype or e-mail) are addressed. A vocabulary sheet is provided to help the students
prepare for the upcoming Task.
Useful Phrases for Discussions (vocabulary sheet)
http://giselagoldstein.de/english/phrases_discussions.pdf
Title of TILA Task
Partner team
(schools and teachers)
Thematic description
Target language
CEF level
Learning objectives
(linguistic,
communicative, and
intercultural)
See the CEF and ICC
“can do” statements
Description of blended
learning approach
Task outcome(s)
(products produced by
students)
Technical specifications
Getting Started
Einstein Lyceum
Kastelli
An introduction to OpenSim and the participants
English
B2/C1
Communicative and intercultural: Getting to know each
other and the OpenSim tools.
No official “can do” statements needed.
Instructions on how to get into OpenSim via Skype, and inworld instructions are given within OpenSim.
Know how of OpenSim. Social acquaintanceship between
participants.
OpenSim, Skype and e-mail
75
(tools that will be used)
Preparatory Phase
Description of
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework,
forum etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Main Phase
Description of
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools:
synchronous (e.g.
OpenSim,
BigBlueButton) or
asynchronous (e.g.
forum)
Form and organisation of
telecollaborative
interaction:
Number and size of
telecollaboration groups;
other participant roles
Expected outcome(s)
Post Phase
Description of post Task
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework
etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Preparation, getting into OpenSim + Welcome
Becoming more technically proficient
OpenSim, Skype and e-mail.
All students
All participants are welcomed in OpenSim, and are able to
repeat the process of getting into OpenSim
Arcadia, getting to know the controls.
Becoming more technically proficient and becoming familiar
with the other participants
Synchronous: OpenSim (Skype if necessary)
6 students in total per group. Two groups in total: NL-NL &
NL-EU.
2/3 teachers.
Students will have become familiar with OpenSim
Q&A
Becoming more technically proficient and becoming more
familiar with the participants
OpenSim (Skype and e-mail are mentioned)
All participants
Questions asked by students and answered by teachers.
76
Task 1 Template
Campsite
Summary:

5/10 min preparatory phase
In this phase the students are gathered in the viewing theatre in Chatterdale, once all the
students are present the main Task is introduced and an instruction video is shown. The video
gives an example of how the main Task should be performed. The vocabulary and structure
sheet provided at the end of the former session is addressed again in order to provide help for
the participants.
Link to youtube intro video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=442Mp0SXebs
Useful Phrases for Discussions
http://giselagoldstein.de/english/phrases_discussions.pdf

30/40min main phase,
The group is split into three groups of two and each group is asked to portray a different
nationality. For instance, 2 French, 2 German and 2 Dutch tourists all on vacation in
Chatterdale ( in the NL-EU group, only two students will pretend to be of a different
nationality than their own). The two instructors play a Chatterdale local checking up on the
tourists and an American inhabitant of Chatterdale, they both provide input to spark a lasting
discussion about cultural-backgrounds and differences.
Each pair (NL-NL = One German pair, one French, one Dutch. NL-EU = One French pair,
one Dutch and one Finnish) shortly discusses how they would like to present themselves and
what they know/think is important about the culture they are representing.
Questions given to the students (in print just before the assignment) to aid the conversation:
Discuss how you want to introduce your culture? Discuss with your partner for about 5/10
minutes:
77
How are you going to present your culture? What is important? What do you know?
Etc…
Now ask the other pairs for some personal information, think about your own introduction as
well. 5/10 mintutes:
Who are you? Where are you from?
Why have you come to Chatterdale?
Etc…
Now you ask the group about their opinions. 10/15 minutes:
What do you think of Chatterdale and the UK in general?
Do you like it? Why/Why not?
Is it comparable to your homeland? Are there many cultural differences?
What did you think of the UK before you came here?
Any stereotypes? And are they confirmed?
How about your fellow travellers?
Do you know anything about their homeland/culture?
Are there any stereotypes regarding your homeland? If so, are they true? Why/why not?
Do you think some stereotypes are justified? Or are all stereotypes false? If so, why are they
still used?
Etc…

5-10 min post phase
All students are gathered to discuss the usefulness of the main-Task performed. The Berkley
University sheet on how to communicate respectfully is provided to help the students prepare
for the upcoming Task.
Title of TILA Task
Partner team
(schools and teachers)
Thematic description
Campsite
Einstein Lyceum
Kastelli
Conversing with different nationalities on the local campsite
78
Target language
CEF level
Learning objectives
(linguistic,
communicative, and
intercultural)
See the CEF and ICC
“can do” statements
Description of blended
learning approach
Task outcome(s)
(products produced by
students)
Technical specifications
(tools that will be used)
Preparatory Phase
Description of
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework,
forum etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Main Phase
Description of
English
B2/C1
Communicative and intercultural: Becoming more culturally
aware and learning not to think in stereotypes.
CEF B2
CAN keep up a conversation on a fairly wide range of topics,
e.g. personal and professional experiences, events currently
in the news.
CAN handle most of the requirements of entertaining or
being entertained.
IS LIKELY to appear awkward when talking about complex
or sensitive issues.
CAN express opinions on abstract/cultural matters, and
defend them.
CEF C1
CAN keep up conversations of a casual nature for an
extended period of time and discuss abstract/ cultural topics
with a good degree of fluency and range of expression.
CAN participate in casual conversations with appropriacy
and good understanding of humour, irony and implicit
cultural references.
CAN pick up nuances of meaning/opinion.
(ALTE, 49, 63)
None. Use of Youtube in OpenSim to show example videos,
apart from that, everything is within the virtual world of
OpenSim
A successful interactive conversation with various
nationalities conversing about cultural differences
OpenSim (all three phases take place in the virtual
environment of OpenSim)
introduction
Learning to use appropriate vocabulary in discussions.
In OpenSim viewing theatre, Chatterdale (Receiving useful
chunk via e-mail or Skype beforehand)
Teacher centred
Understanding of the main Task
Intercultural conversation
79
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools:
synchronous (e.g.
OpenSim,
BigBlueButton) or
asynchronous (e.g.
forum)
Form and organisation of
telecollaborative
interaction:
Number and size of
telecollaboration groups;
other participant roles
Expected outcome(s)
Post Phase
Description of post Task
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework
etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Learning to use appropriate vocabulary in discussions.
Becoming more culturally aware and learning not to think in
stereotypes
Synchronous: OpenSim
6 students in total
2/3 teachers.
A completed group discussion between several fake and real
nationalities.
Evaluation
Learning to critically think in order to develop and alter
one’s own opinion
OpenSim
Small groups of 4
Discussion of the usefulness of intercultural-conversations in
OpenSim and a short summary of the opinions of all
participants.
Task 2 Template
Church
Summary:

5/10 min preparatory phase
In this phase the students are gathered in the viewing theatre in Chatterdale, once all the
students are present the main Task is introduced and an instruction video is shown. The video
gives an example of how the main Task should be performed. The Berkeley University sheet
80
on how to communicate respectfully provided at the end of the former session is addressed
again in order to provide help for the participants.
Link to youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rQ6XGDRFP0

30/40min main phase,
All students gather in the church where one or two teachers are playing vicars/priests who ask
the students about their opinions on traditions such as weddings/funerals (religion). The
teachers try to spark a discussion among the students, and should only give discussion topics
and assist where needed. The role of the teachers is to lead the discussion, and not to
participate.
Questions given to the students (in print just before the assignment) to aid the conversation:
In the church you discuss wedding traditions. 5/10 minutes:
Do you know any traditions for weddings?
Do these differ in different countries?
Do you know some examples of wedding traditions that were typically Dutch/Finnish?
What are your opinions about such traditions? Should they be kept or renounced? Why?
In the graveyard you discuss other traditions. 15/20 minutes:
Do you know any funeral traditions?
Do these differ in different countries?
Do you know any examples of funerals that are traditionally Dutch/Finnish? Discuss with
peers.
What are your opinions about such traditions? Should they be kept or renounced? Why?
What other traditions are important in your homeland?

5-10 min post phase
All students are gathered to discuss the usefulness of the main-Task performed. No
vocabulary sheet is needed for the following Task.
81
Title of TILA Task
Partner team
(schools and teachers)
Thematic description
Target language
CEF level
Learning objectives
(linguistic,
communicative, and
intercultural)
See the CEF and ICC
“can do” statements
Description of blended
learning approach
Task outcome(s)
(products produced by
students)
Technical specifications
(tools that will be used)
Church
Einstein Lyceum
Kastelli
Conversation within the Church about traditions
(weddings/funerals).
English
B2/C1
Communicative and intercultural: Becoming more adapt at
communicating respectfully.
CEF B2
CAN present her/his own opinion, and justify opinions.
CAN distinguish main themes from irrelevancies and asides.
CEF C1
CAN follow the development of a discussion -.
CAN follow up questions by probing for more detail.
CAN reformulate questions if misunderstood.
CAN make critical remarks / express disagreement without
causing offence.
(ALTE, 88)
None. Use of Youtube in OpenSim to show example videos,
apart from that, everything is within the virtual world of
OpenSim
A successful conversation/discussion between the students
about Faith and religion.
OpenSim (all three phases take place in the virtual
environment of OpenSim)
Preparatory Phase
Description of
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
Introduction
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework,
forum etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Teacher centred
Main Phase
Description of
Learning an appropriate vocabulary and style to use in
discussions about a semi-controversial topic.
In OpenSim viewing theatre, Chatterdale (Receiving useful
chunk via e-mail or Skype beforehand)
Given example, developing understanding of the main Task
Church conversation about traditions (weddings/funerals).
82
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools:
synchronous (e.g.
OpenSim,
BigBlueButton) or
asynchronous (e.g.
forum)
Form and organisation of
telecollaborative
interaction:
Number and size of
telecollaboration groups;
other participant roles
Expected outcome(s)
Post Phase
Description of post Task
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework
etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Learning to use appropriate vocabulary in discussions about
a semi-controversial topic. Becoming more adapt at
communicating respectfully.
Synchronous: OpenSim
6 students in total
2/3 teachers.
Discussion completed: A successful conversation/discussion
about traditions. Students are aware of different opinions
regarding traditions (and intercultural differences).
Evaluation
Learning to critically think in order to develop and alter
one’s own opinion
OpenSim
All participants
Discussion of the usefulness of conversations about
traditions within OpenSim and a short summary of the
opinions of all participants.
Task 3 Template
Airport/Vacation
Summary:

5/10 min preparatory phase
83
In this phase the students are gathered in the viewing theatre in Chatterdale, once all the
students are present the main Task is introduced and an instruction video is shown. The video
gives an example of how the main Task should be performed.
This video on critical thinking is shown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg

30/40min main phase,
The Mayor (a teacher) of Chatterdale considers building an airport on the island. The students
are asked to discuss the consequences this might have on the community. Globalisation being
the main issue. The group will gather near the train-station where the Mayor is introducing the
case-study that has to be solved. A list of some advantages and disadvantages of building an
airport is presented to the students.
Mayor’s speech:
Dear group of young eager students! I have an issue that needs to be solved. As Mayor of
Chatterdale I have decided that the Island needs to be updated in terms of accessibility. The
old train line is our only connection to the rest of the world, apart from the occasional cruise
ship sailing by, and that just doesn’t seem to do justice to this wonderful Island. Therefore, I
suggest we build an Airport! And I would like you to advice me on this issue. Should
Chatterdale build an Airport? Should Chatterdale Globalise? Here is a list with a few
advantages and disadvantages I thought of myself, but there should be more. Present your
solution to me in about 20 minutes time. Good luck!
Discuss the following advantages and disadvantages and come up with more if possible:
Advantages Chatterdale Airport:
Globalisation
Accessibility
Tourism
…
Disadvantages Chatterdale Airport:
Noise pollution
Building space
Cost
84
…
Now speak to the mayor and collect your reward!
After 25 minutes the students have to present their solution and are surprised with a vacation
to Niflar Spain by the Mayor. The students are asked to meet the teachers in the DISCO. Here
they find a crime scene, corpse and puddles of blood etc.
Teachers playing police officers come in (because of an anonymous call) and take the students
back to Chatterdale. Next lesson will take place around the police station and involve what the
students have witnessed on their virtual vacation.

5-10 min post phase
All students are gathered to discuss the usefulness of the main-Task performed. An exercise
on how to form a hypothesis is provided to help the students prepare for the upcoming Task.
Title of TILA Task
Partner team
(schools and teachers)
Thematic description
Target language
CEF level
Learning objectives
(linguistic,
communicative, and
intercultural)
See the CEF and ICC
“can do” statements
Airport/Vacation
Einstein Lyceum
Kastelli
Discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of
building an airport in order to solve the case study presented
by the Mayor of Chatterdale.
English
B2/C1
Communicative and intercultural: Learning to cooperatively
weigh positive and negative aspects of a problem to come up
with a well-considered solution.
CEF B2
CAN present her/his own opinion, and justify opinions.
CAN distinguish main themes from irrelevancies and asides.
CAN ask for clarification and further explanation, and is
likely to understand the answer.
CEF C1
CAN follow the development of a discussion -.
CAN follow up questions by probing for more detail.
CAN reformulate questions if misunderstood.
CAN make critical remarks / express disagreement without
causing offence.
85
Description of blended
learning approach
Task outcome(s)
(products produced by
students)
Technical specifications
(tools that will be used)
CAN show visitors round and give a detailed description of a
place.
(ALTE, 61, 88)
None. Use of Youtube in OpenSim to show example videos,
apart from that, everything is within the virtual world of
OpenSim
A successful conversation/discussion between the students
about problem solving and a solution to the problem.
OpenSim (all three phases take place in the virtual
environment of OpenSim)
Preparatory Phase
Description of
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
introduction
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework,
forum etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Teacher centred
Main Phase
Description of
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools:
synchronous (e.g.
OpenSim,
BigBlueButton) or
asynchronous (e.g.
forum)
Form and organisation of
telecollaborative
interaction:
Number and size of
telecollaboration groups;
other participant roles
Expected outcome(s)
Learning the appropriate language to present the positive and
negative aspects of a proposed solution in a discussion.
In OpenSim viewing theatre, Chatterdale (Receiving useful
chunk via e-mail or Skype beforehand)
Given example, developing understanding of the main Task
The Mayors problem.
Learning to cooperatively weigh positive and negative
aspects of a problem to come up with a well-considered
solution.
Synchronous: OpenSim
6 students in total
2/3 teachers.
Discussion completed: A successful conversation/discussion
about the case study presented by the Mayor of Chatterdale
resulting in a well considered solution. Introduced to the
topic for next Task and Final Task.
86
Post Phase
Description of post Task
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework
etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Evaluation
Learning to critically think in order to develop and alter
one’s own opinion
OpenSim
All participants
Discussion of the usefulness of conversations about
globalisation within OpenSim and a short summary of the
opinions of all participants.
Task 4 Template
Police station
Summary:

5/10 min preparatory phase
In this phase the students are gathered in the viewing theatre in Chatterdale, once all the
students are present the main Task is introduced and an instruction video is shown. The video
gives an example of how the main Task should be performed. The exercise provided at the
end of the former session is addressed again in order to provide help for the participants.
Forming a hypothesis:
http://go.hrw.com/resources/go_sc/ssp/HK1BSW09.PDF

30/40min main phase,
All students gather at the police station where one of the teachers is playing the
suspect/prisoner and the other the police officer, both characters had been introduced in end of
the main phase of Task 3. The students are allowed to ask one question a person to the suspect
and have to examine pictures of the murder. Afterwards they are asked to come to the park for
87
questioning. The teachers, now both switched to police officers try to spark a discussion
among the students about what might have happened to the murder victim and ask them to
form a hypothesis. The role of the teachers is to lead the discussion, and not to participate.
(For the students) Questions that need to be considered:
Who, what, where and why?
Who might have done it?
What did the murder use for murder weapon?
Why was the victim murdered?
Use the given information to form an hypothesis.
Murder info (people who were in Niflar Spain):
Marcus Taylor; The victim was the owner of several clubs and pubs, including disco in
Niflar spain and the pub in Chatterdale. Door was found unlocked by Shaun (hit by blunt
instrument)
Shaun; prime suspect, nephew of Marcus, DJ, came by to bring talk about the demo he had
made. Found on the scene of the crime. Claimed Marcus was already dead when he arrived.
Did not call the police because he was too shocked/scared and did not know the code to the
safe. No money was found on him.
Clarice: Underpaid cleaning lady. Had access to the building but not to safe.
Extra info:
Money was taken from the safe in the office of Marcus Taylor. The lock wasn’t forced so it
had to be someone who knew the code.
After the first 5 minutes new forensic information is uncovered and a new person is
introduced (after the next 5 minutes another person is introduced from top to bottom)
88
Geoffrey; loan shark, name that was found as “last called” in Marcus’s mobile phone. Not
sure if he knew the safe code. Was on a business trip to Niflar Spain. Was doing other boring
bureaucratic stuff.
Heather: Marcus’s ex-girlfriend. Her and Marcus had a temporary break. She needed some
space to breathe. Stayed in the same hotel as Stephen, but in a separate room. Claims that
Stephen wasn’t on the beach that day, but went shopping for his wife.
Stephen: Former owner of the Chatterdale pub, who was bought out by Marcus and felt
swindled. Knew the code to the safe. Claims he was on the beach all day.

5-10 min post phase
All students are gathered to discuss the usefulness of the main-Task performed. An
assignment and some short wordlists form the Lawyer’s English language Coursebook are
suggested, in order to help the students prepare for the upcoming Task. (Helpdesk page 4 & 5,
and exercise 3 on page 6)
Lawyer’s English language Coursebook, (Helpdesk page 4 & 5, and exercise 3 on page 6)
http://www.britishcouncil.org/ZH/lawyer_s_coursebook_cht.pdf
Title of TILA Task
Partner team
(schools and teachers)
Thematic description
Target language
CEF level
Learning objectives
(linguistic,
communicative, and
intercultural)
See the CEF and ICC
“can do” statements
Police Station
Einstein Lyceum
Kastelli
Discussion in the park about the murder. Who might have
done it? How? And why? A hypothesis needs to be formed.
English
B2/C1
Communicative and intercultural: Learning to form a
hypothesis.
CEF B2
CAN present her/his own opinion, and justify opinions.
CAN distinguish main themes from irrelevancies and asides.
CAN ask for clarification and further explanation, and is
likely to understand the answer.
CAN give a report of an emergency incident, e.g. describe
89
the circumstances of a theft to the police, give details of
vehicle breakdown.
Description of blended
learning approach
Task outcome(s)
(products produced by
students)
Technical specifications
(tools that will be used)
Preparatory Phase
Description of
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework,
forum etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Main Phase
Description of
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools:
synchronous (e.g.
OpenSim,
BigBlueButton) or
asynchronous (e.g.
forum)
Form and organisation of
telecollaborative
interaction:
Number and size of
telecollaboration groups;
other participant roles
Expected outcome(s)
CEF C1
CAN follow the development of a discussion -.
CAN follow up questions by probing for more detail.
CAN reformulate questions if misunderstood.
CAN make critical remarks / express disagreement without
causing offence.
(ALTE, 59, 61, 88)
None. Use of Youtube in OpenSim to show example videos,
apart from that, everything is within the virtual world of
OpenSim
A successful conversation/discussion between the students
and a hypothesis is formed.
OpenSim (all three phases take place in the virtual
environment of OpenSim)
introduction
Learning what a hypothesis is and how to form one.
In OpenSim viewing theatre, Chatterdale (Receiving useful
chunk via e-mail or Skype beforehand)
Teacher centred
Understanding of the main Task
Whodunit?
Learning to form a hypothesis
Synchronous: OpenSim
6 students in total
2/3 teachers.
Discussion completed: A hypothesis is formed to explain the
90
murder that occurred in the former Task. Introduced to the
topic for Final Task 7.
Post Phase
Description of post Task
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework
etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Evaluation
Learning to critically think in order to develop and alter
one’s own opinion
OpenSim
All participants
Discussion of the usefulness of conversations about justice
within OpenSim
Task 5 Template
Courthouse
Summary:

5/10 min preparatory phase
In this phase the students are gathered in the viewing theatre in Chatterdale, once all the
students are present the main Task is introduced and an instruction video is shown. The video
gives an example of how the main Task should be performed. The assignment and short
wordlists form the Lawyer’s English language Coursebook suggested at the end of the former
session are addressed again in order to provide help for the participants. General UK Jury
instructions and an explanation of what happens in the Jury room is also provided.
General UK Jury Instructions:
91
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/engb/publications/usefulinformationleaflets/documents/juror%20information%20booklet/juror%
20bookletnew.htm
and for the deliberation itself: What happens in the Jury room
http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/deliberations-in-the-jury-room.html

30/40min main phase,
All students are asked to participate as a jury in an official courthouse hearing where the case
of the suspect, kept in the police station, is treated. The case, crime scene and suspects, were
introduced in the former two Tasks 3 and 4. The 2 to 3 teachers have prepared videos of the
hearing and show them beforehand, one teacher is the judge, one the accuser, one the accused.
After the hearing the jury is asked to move upstairs and to discuss if the accused is guilty or
innocent. After 20 min they are asked to come down and pronounce a verdict. On account of
their verdict the accused is either pronounced guilty or innocent.
Link to youtube video of the hearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EThLqLep0lk
Instructions given to the students (in print just before the assignment) to aid the process.
Jury instructions:
Step 1:
Who is the presiding juror, or foreperson?
Step 2: discussion

Let everyone have a chance to speak

Respect all opinions and viewpoints

Review and follow the jury instructions

Examine all the evidence

Discuss each crime one at a time
Step 3: voting
92
Although jurors can take a vote as soon as they enter the jury room, it's usually best to first
hear all the jurors' viewpoints and review the evidence and the law. The jurors can take a vote
in any manner they want, including written ballots and raising their hands.
Step 4: verdict
A verdict must be reached: Guilty or Innocent. (within 20 minutes)

5-10 min post phase
All students are gathered to discuss the usefulness of the main-Task performed and the entire
course.
Title of TILA Task
Partner team
(schools and teachers)
Thematic description
Target language
CEF level
Learning objectives
(linguistic,
communicative, and
intercultural)
See the CEF and ICC
“can do” statements
Description of blended
learning approach
Task outcome(s)
(products produced by
students)
Courthouse
Einstein Lyceum
Kastelli
Discussion about the innocence of a suspect in an official
courthouse setting
English
B2/C1
Communicative: Learning to perform an important
discussion in an official setting.
CEF B2
CAN present her/his own opinion, and justify opinions.
CAN distinguish main themes from irrelevancies and asides.
CAN ask for clarification and further explanation, and is
likely to understand the answer.
CEF C1
CAN follow the development of a discussion -.
CAN follow up questions by probing for more detail.
CAN reformulate questions if misunderstood.
CAN make critical remarks / express disagreement without
causing offence.
(ALTE, 61, 88)
None. Use of Youtube in OpenSim to show example videos,
apart from that, everything is within the virtual world of
OpenSim
After the discussion, the accused is either pronounced guilty
or not guilty according to the jury’s verdict.
93
Technical specifications
(tools that will be used)
OpenSim (all three phases take place in the virtual
environment of OpenSim)
Preparatory Phase
Description of
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
introduction
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework,
forum etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Teacher centred
Main Phase
Description of
subTask(s)
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools:
synchronous (e.g.
OpenSim,
BigBlueButton) or
asynchronous (e.g.
forum)
Form and organisation of
telecollaborative
interaction:
Number and size of
telecollaboration groups;
other participant roles
Expected outcome(s)
Post Phase
Description of post Task
Learning objective(s)
Environment and tools
(classroom, homework
etc.)
Form of interaction (pair
work, small groups,
teacher centred)
Expected outcome(s)
Learning the appropriate vocabulary needed to perform an
important discussion in an official setting
In OpenSim viewing theatre, Chatterdale (Receiving useful
chunk via e-mail or Skype beforehand)
Understanding of the main Task
Courthouse hearing
Learning to perform an important discussion in an official
setting.
Synchronous: OpenSim
6 students in total
2/3 teachers.
Discussion completed: A verdict is reached. The suspect is
either guilty or not guilty.
Evaluation
Learning to critically think in order to develop and alter
one’s own opinion
OpenSim
All participants
Discussion of the usefulness of simulation courthouse
94
hearings within OpenSim and the entire OpenSim course.
95
Appendix B: Oral Proficiency and Discussion Skills Assessment Grid.
96
Appendix C: Pre- and Post-Questionnaires
Pre-questionnaire English (for Finnish participants)
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
Pre-questionnaire Dutch (for both Dutch ICC and Dutch C groups)
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
Post-questionnaire English (for the Finnish participants)
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Post-questionnaire Dutch (for the Dutch ICC participants)
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
Post-questionnaire Dutch (for the Dutch Control group)
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
Appendix D – Results.
Questionnaire:
Results of the Open Questions in the Questionnaire. FN = Finnish students, NL ICC = Dutch interaction group, NL C = Dutch control group. B at
the end for groups = Background questionnaire results (next page). Mean = average result of this group for this question. StDev = Standard
deviation of this group for this question.
136
137
138
139
Pre- and Post-test grades:
Pre-test above, post-test below. Results divided into groups and displayed per analyser (coded to assure anonymity). AV ALL = average of all
grades including Debate Skills (not used in study), Av En ski = Average English skills (Debate skills excluded). Average at the end = including
debate skills. See Appendix B for assessment grid parts.
140
Appendix E: TILA Feedback Interview with Students Guiding Questions
The interview refers to one or several telecollaboration exchanges the respective pupils were
involved in. Focus is on the pupils’ perception regarding

type and quality of the telecollaboration environment

type and quality of communicative interaction

value/impact of the communicative interaction for intercultural insights

value/impact of the communicative interaction for language learning
The interview should be carried out following each (major) telecollaboration exchange.
The interview should be accompanied by a description and documentation of the Tasks
referred to.
****************
Your overall impression

How did you like the telecollaboration exchange? (scale 1 – 5)

What did you like best?

What did you NOT like?

Do you have other preferences?
Telecollaboration environment

Was the technological quality sufficient for the Task?

Was the technology appropriate for the communicative interaction?

Did you enjoy working with this kind of technology? (scale 1 – 5)

Would you have preferred a different kind of technology? (Which one and why?)
Communicative interaction

Were you satisfied with the communicative interaction? Why (not)? (scale 1-5)

Did you like the topic(s)? Why (not)?

Did you encounter any communication problems? (Please specify)

Were you satisfied with your contribution in the communicative interaction? Why
(not)?
STC Sprachlernmedien
Document1
141

If tandem: (a) Did your you like to communicate with a native speaker? (b) How was
your communicative interaction affected by the tandem constellation? (e.g. mismatch
between native speaker and non-native speaker proficiency, accommodation to nonnative speaker partners’ proficiency level, production and learning support by native
speakers)

If lingua franca: (a) Did you like to communicate with another non-native speaker? (b)
How was your communicative interaction affected by the lingua franca constellation?
(e.g. more relaxed and less worried about making mistakes, stimulating effects)
Intercultural communication

Do you feel you learned something about the other country/culture and/or the other
pupils?
o concerning things that are different
o concerning things that are the same

Do you feel you and the other pupils communicated in (slightly) different ways? (e.g.
direct/indirect; polite/impolite, formal/informal, friendly/unfriendly)
Foreign language learning

Do you feel the telecollaboration Task had positive effects on your language and
communication proficiency? Why and in what respects?

Do you feel the telecollaboration Task will have positive effects on your language and
communication proficiency if it is continued? Why and in what respects?
Preparation and support

Is it important (for you) to prepare for the telecollaboration?

How did you prepare for the telecollaboration event?

Was the preparation particularly difficult / time-consuming?

What kind of preparation or support would be particularly helpful?
Outlook and suggestions

Which aspects of the telecollaboration exchange should be changed and improved?
STC Sprachlernmedien
Document1
142

Which topics and Tasks would be particularly interesting?

Would you like to participate in such a telecollaboration again?
STC Sprachlernmedien
Document1
143