Teletandem Project and Transculturality:
foreign languages on-line interactions
University of Essex
Beatriz de Paiva
1. What is Teletandem?
2. Essex- University of the Estado of São Paulo
(UNESP)Teletandem framework for collaboration
3. Teletandem impact on FL learning: how can it be
measured?
What is Teletandem?
 Teletandem is an online video-mediated language
collaboration program.
 Students collaborate via Skype and other video
conferencing applications.
 Students spend half of each session conversing in the target
language and the other half sharing their own language with
their partner.
Essex- UNESP Teletandem framework for collaboration
Number of sessions – Duration:
 1 tutorial plus 5 sessions
Approach:
 Text topic based
Participants’ Proficiency level:
 Proficiency level 5 (C1 ERF)
3. Teletandem impact on FL learning: how can it be measured?
Frequent claims by participants (partner institutions):
 Teletandem is mutually beneficial for the students on both
ends.
 Teletandem enables learners to develop linguistic and
cultural competencies.
 Teletandem is mutually beneficial for the students on both
ends?
Corpus of studies: investigations of e-collaboration or online
interactions:
1. Do all languages (combinations) benefit the same?
2. Do beginners benefit more or less than more advanced learners?
3. How can we measure aspects of participation (e.g. language
switching, topic management, conversation management)?
Aim: Suggestions for investigations in specific areas
of FL learning
 Discourse competence: how do FL learners manage and
participate in online conversations?
1. Participation: passive/active roles in the conversation.
2. Management of conversation.
Participation:
1.Passive/active roles in the conversation
2.Management of conversation
Discourse analytical model (Trosborg, 1995)
Communicative acts and exchange structure: discourse strategies in interaction
 Interactional moves
I-initiation
I- Inform
R- Response
R/I- Response/Initiation
F-Follow up
F/Com – Follow up/Comment
F/I – Follow up/Initiation
Preliminary analysis
Results are in line with findings of previous studies
1. Learners used a wide range of discourse moves and their participation
cannot be regarded as predominantly passive, although not symmetrical
either in relation to NSs’ participation.
2. A further analysis of individual acts revealed that NSs used a higher
number of Initiation moves, especially I-inquire. Learners presented the
majority of R-moves.
3. With regard to F-moves, NSs tended to used more F-acknowledge than
learners (but as the interaction develops there seems to be an increase of
F- acknowledge moves by learners).
5. NSs seem to contribute more to the structuring of the conversation by
providing more I-inquire and Follow up moves.
A more complex picture
Illustration User 1 (MC) 4 GRAV01 QUI
UNESP NS: native speaker Portuguese
Essex PL: Portuguese learner
Transcript: 3’15
Portuguese interaction
Participation:
1.Passive/active roles in the conversation
2.Management of conversation
A more complex picture
 Learner shows a predominantly passive participation (high number
of Response moves plus low Initiation and Follow up moves)
 NS shows a predominantly active role (high number of Initiation
moves)
 NS seems to have a more substantial role in the management of
the conversation (a high number of I – initiation plus F – Follow
up moves - especially F- acknowledge moves which contribute to
the ongoing of the interaction)
English interaction
Caveats: issues to consider
 Role of expert
 Preparation for the Tandem participation: role/quality of the
tutorial session
 Individual learner differences
 Individual learner motivation
 Personality
References:
Braidi, Susan M. (1995). “Reconsidering the Role of Interaction and Input in Second Language
Acquisition” in: Language Learning 45:1: 145-175.
Carrol, Susanne E. (1999). “Putting ‘input’ in its proper place” In: Second Language Research 15:4, 337388.
De Paiva, B. (2010). “Theoretical and Methodological Approaches in Interlanguage Pragmatics” in
Trosborg, A. (ed.) Pragmatics Across Language and Cultures HoPsVII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 261286.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Long, M. (1985). “Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory” in Gass, Susan and Madden, Carolyn
(eds.). Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Pica, Teresa (1994). “Research on Negotiation: What does It Reveal About Second-Language Learning
Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes?” in: Language Learning 44:3, 493-527.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Zuengler, J. and Bent, B. (1991). Relative Knowledge of Content Domain. An influence on native-nonnative conversations” in Applied Linguistics 12, 4, 397-413.