高中生透過視訊會議學習文化之經驗

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩士論. 文. Master’s Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 高中生透過視訊會議學習文化之經驗. EFL Senior High School Students’ Cultural Learning Experiences in Videoconferences. 指導教授：林至誠博士 Advisor: Dr. Chih-cheng Lin 研究生：王青怡 Ching-yi Wang 中華民國一○ㄧ年六月 June, 2012.

(2) 中文摘要過去十年來文獻上對於視訊融入外語教學的興趣有增無減。將視訊融入外語教學顯而易見的益處有：使學習者擁有更好的語言使用能力、低度焦慮感、還有更棒的跨文化理解能力。成功的跨文化視訊交流可定義為：交流者高度的參與行為、視訊中友善的氛圍、參與者正向的評價、以及跨文化溝通能力的啟動。除此之外，新興議題像「失敗的溝通」、「表面性」也開始在文獻中被學者所探討。本研究旨在探討英文學習者對於跨文化視訊交流的觀感，以及在跨文化視訊交流中語言及文化兩方面的行為表現及其原因。四十六位來自東臺灣一所高中的學生參與為期六週的文化交流課程。文化交流課程於每週一堂英文課及每週一天放學後的一小時實施。六週後，學生們便和美國高中生進行三次的視訊文化交流。對於如何於視訊中互動與交流，教師也給予訓練並指導如何用英文介紹臺灣文化。三次視訊會議過程皆有錄影。三次視訊之間及結束後，學生也填寫回饋單和與研究者面談。錄影中顯示，在語言方面，這四十六位臺灣學生多有在視訊前稱讚美國學生的外表，也常用實物和中文取代英文單詞。在訪談中，臺灣學生表達有些時候他們不夠有自信使用英文單詞，且有時臨時想不到該單詞的英文說法；就文化行為方面，臺灣學生在回饋單中表達他們的情緒在視訊會議中是興奮的，而錄影中也可看出臺灣學生常使用問句和廣告式的語言推銷臺灣文化。學生在回饋單中提出他們一方面崇尚西方文化，但另一方面又以臺灣文化為榮，且因急於把對方納進內在團體的關係中，導致對方似乎覺得自己太過熱情；其它零星的個案如臨時表演中國樂器、即席用短劇表達溝通不良的單詞更呼應了臺灣學生在訪談中提到的「非語言溝通」在視訊會議中的重要性。而錄影、訪談和回饋單也皆顯示個性開放度對於跨文化學習之不可或缺性。本研究也提出上了教學上的建議，也提出了可改善的地方，以提供將來研究之參考。關鍵字: 文化教學、視訊交流、跨文化學習. i.

(3) ABSTRACT The past decade has witnessed a growing interest in integrating videoconferencing into foreign language classrooms. Benefits such as improved language skills, lower-level anxiety, and better intercultural understanding have been reported in various studies. Successful videoconferences are those involve high level participation, friendly atmosphere, positive evaluation, and promotion of intercultural communicative competence. Issues such as “failed communication” and “superficiality” have started emerging in the field. The current study probes into learners’ perceptions of intercultural videoconferences, learners’ language and culture behaviors. Forty-six participants from a senior high school in eastern Taiwan participated in culture-learning English courses, which were instructed one hour in class and one hour after school each week, lasting for six weeks. During the six weeks, students were trained and given tips on how to introduce Taiwanese cultures in English, and participated in three intercultural videoconferencing activities with students in U.S.A. The process of the three intercultural videoconferences was videotaped. Written feedback and interviews were administered between first and second, and, between the second and third videoconference. From the videotapes, results show that in language aspect, the forty-six Taiwanese students compliment a lot on American students’ appearances, and the use of real objects and Chinese to replace English words is frequent. In the interviews, they reported that they are not confident enough to use English vocabulary, and still often think in Chinese. In cultural perspective, Taiwanese point out in their written feedback their excited emotions. Constant use of questions and commercial-style language is also shown in the videotapes. Possible causes may be on the one hand, students possess admiration toward western cultures and on the other hand, students are proud of Taiwanese cultures. Taiwanese students are too eager to draw American students into their “in-group” relationships while American students find them too passionate. Other incidents happened in the videoconferences such as impromptu Chinese music display and unprepared mini drama to bridge the miscommunication gap correspond to students’ mentioning of the importance of “non-verbal communication”. Videotapes, interviews, and written feedback all reveal the indispensability of openness in intercultural learning. The study also proposes suggestions regarding cultural teaching and room for improvement for future study. Keywords: Cultural Teaching，Videoconferencing Interaction、Cross-Cultural Learning ii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My deepest gratitude goes to my advisor Dr. Chih-Cheng, Lin. Dr. Lin has always shown patience and tolerance during the process of my thesis writing. He gives me support both in my personal and academic life. Being a full-time teacher in senior high school, I was burning the candle at both ends. It was because of my advisor’s encouragement that I was able to remain optimistic and finish my thesis. My gratitude also goes to my two committee members, Dr. Chin-Chi Chao and Dr. Howard Chen. They read my draft thoroughly and carefully, offering me insightful and useful suggestions. I learn a great deal from them. They kindly pointed out improvements in logic and writing, which gave me motivation to pursue further learning. I realized from them that learning is an endless road. My great thanks go to my beloved family members. My parents support me both emotionally and financially whilst studying my degree. Their encouraging phone calls always cheer me up. My older sister, who is also a full-time elementary school teacher and a graduate of NTNU, teaches me a good deal about time management and problem solving. My husband Andy, whilst busy planning our wedding, has been a great supporter and driver. He always quotes famous people to me in order to push me forward and “delivers” me back and forth between Yi-Lan and Taipei. My thanks go to my beloved students. Without their obedient behavior, consideration and diligence, I could not have found the time to finish my thesis. Without my advisor, committee members, family members, and my beloved students, I could not have reached the point I am now at--- full of joy, satisfaction, and most importantly of all, achieving a dream that I once thought was impossible.. iii.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables vi CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Motivation 2 1.3 Purpose 4 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 6 2.1 Cultural Learning 6 2.1.1 Cultural Instruction: Definitions, Importance, and Problems 6 2.1.2 Intercultural Learning in Technology-Enhanced Environment 9 2.1.3 Benefits and Cautions of Integrated Cultural Learning 11 2.1.4 Intercultural Communicative Competence and Cultural Learning Assessment 13 2.1.5 Cultural Tasks and CALL activities 15 2.2 Computer-Mediated Communication and Videoconferencing Technology 18 2.2.1 Computer-Mediated Communication 18 2.2.2 Culture Issues in CMC Interaction 21 2.2.3 Telecollaboration and Intercultural Projects 22 2.2.4 Videoconferencing Technology 24 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 28 3.1 Participants 28 3.2 Procedures 29 3.3 Culture Course Design 31 3.4 Instruments 33 3.4.1 Videotape 33 3.4.2 Post-session Written Feedback 33 3.4.3 Other Supplementary Tools 34 3.5 Data Collection Procedure and Analysis 35 3.5.1 Data Collection Procedure 35 3.5.2 Data Analysis 36 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 38 4.1 Language Behavior of Taiwanese Students in Videoconferences 39 4.1.1 Language Behaviors 39 4.1.2 Causes of Taiwanese Students’ Language Behaviors 39 4.2 Cultural Behavior of Taiwanese Students in Videoconferences 42 4.2.1 Taiwanese Students’ Cultural Behaviors 42 4.2.2 Factors in the Cultural Behavior of Taiwanese Students 45 iv.

(6) 4.3 Special Case and Strategies Used 4.4 Taiwanese Students’ Evaluation and Researcher’s Observation CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 5.1 Research Background and Summary of the Findings 5.2 Pedagogical Implications 5.3 Limitations, Suggestions, and Future Research Reference Appendix A. E-mail Lesson Plan Appendix B. Taiwanese Culture Lesson Plan Appendix C. Post-session Written Feedback Questions Appendix D. Oral Interview Questions. v. 49 53 61 61 63 65 68 89 91 96 97.

(7) List of Tables Table 3.3 List of tasks used in culture course Table 3.5 Data Collection Procedure Table 4.1 Taiwanese Students’ Language Behaviors and Possible Causes Table 4.2 Taiwanese Students’ Cultural Behaviors in Videoconferences Table 4.4 (a) Results of Post-Activity Written Feedback (Taiwanese Students) Table 4.4 (b) Results of Post-Activity Written Feedback (American Students). vi. 32 35 42 48 54 56.

(8) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Background Due to globalization in the 21st century, English learners increasingly sense the urgent need to introduce their own cultures and to reflect critically on their own social identities in English (Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001). However, being only proficient in English without solid intercultural understanding is insufficient for communicating with native speakers (Fantini, 1997). While language learners are starting to sense the need to communicate in English about cultural issues, teachers are puzzled by how to teach cultures in language courses, where schedules are tight and learning situations are inauthentic. On the other hand, in the era of the 21st century, the high-speed innovation and the rapid growth of technology are offering new approaches for language learners to practice the target language. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools, such as e-mail, chatroom, Multi-User Domain Object Oriented (MOO), and discussion forum, have given learners opportunities to use language in authentic contexts. The synchronous audio-visual CMC tool, videoconferencing, has even been described as the “imminent arrival of technology into language classroom” (Moore, 2002; Furstenberg et al., 2001). In education, the technology provides help conveniently and economically for both teachers and learners, and facilitates distance learning and cross-cultural communication for language learners (Martin, 2005; Chen, 2004). Since the past decade or so, videoconferencing in language classrooms has started to gain attention and importance. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) literature has spoken out the imminent arrival of intercultural videoconferencing (McAdrew, Foubister, & Mayes, 1996; Salaberry, 2001) into 1.

(9) language classroom and the benefits it will have for both teachers and learners. Specifically in foreign language classrooms, the benefits, including improved language skills, lower-level anxiety, and better intercultural understanding have been reported in various studies (Glisan, Dudt, & Howen, 1998; Kinginger, 1994). Preparations and rehearsals before the videoconferences drive students to sharpen their four skills, and the actual meetings improve their strategy use and negotiation abilities. As immediacy and interactivity of cross-cultural communication emerge, students’ language proficiency is challenged and thus improved, and so is the case with the fifth skill, the intercultural communicative competence, that modern EFL learners need (Byram, 1997).. 1.2 Motivation In the last two decades, increased attention has been given to how understanding of a culture facilitates acquisition of a foreign language (Papademetre, 2000). It is well accepted that one can not learn a language well without learning its culture. Theories of second language pedagogy suggest that teachers should offer learners opportunities to learn in communicative and meaningful context (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Consequently, the communicative approach redirected teachers’ attention to the importance of culture in language classrooms. However, in EFL classroom, although culture instruction has been named as “the fifth dimension” (Damen, 1987), it is least implemented compared with listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills. Byram (1989) observed that culture represented hidden curriculum in school and noted that schools had long been aware of culture differences but the teaching of it had long been invisible. Even nowadays, foreign language teachers do not instruct culture often. They complain about the difficulties to “teach culture” for three reasons: inauthentic learning situations (Peterson & Elizabeth, 2003), overcrowded course schedules (Tsai, 2.

(10) 2001), and students’ de-motivated behaviors (Peng, H. et al., 2009). Foreign language teachers usually claim that it is awkward to discuss culture practices “inside” the classroom without letting students practice at the “outside” world. It is awkward to set up an intercultural situation in class without a real interaction with target culture speakers. At the same time, other teachers find it difficult to “squeeze” culture courses into regular classes, when assigned readings in the textbooks are already abundant. In addition, students seem to lack motivation to learn “culture”, because questions regarding culture seldom appear in school midterms or high-stake entrance examinations. Although definition of culture varies, defining cultures as rote learning of factual knowledge of highbrow (e.g., literature and the arts) and lowbrow information (e.g., customs, habits, and folklore of everyday life) has dominated the teaching of culture for many years (Thanasoulas, 2001). Though this approach was criticized for downplaying the meaning of culture, for beginning culture learners and low-intermediate EFL learners, factual knowledge serve as a basic and well-organized information getting to know the cultural aspects shared by a particular society. Again, when considering the difficulties in teaching culture, videoconferencing is the light at the end of this tunnel. In culture instruction, using videoconferencing technology as a tool and holding intercultural videoconferences as a goal lead to numerous strengths. Living in a digital age, students hold more positive attitudes and are motivated in technology-enhanced environments (Peng, Lu, & Wang, 2009). Being required to present, interact, and pose questions in intercultural communication, students will want to learn more about cultures (Steelye, 1989). In addition, two advantages for the use of the technology are reported: the availability of communication with a person who speaks the target language, and the interactivity of the interface (Coverdale-Jones, 2000). Without much cost and the need to go 3.

(11) “outside”, videoconferencing offers authentic situations “inside” the classroom. Furthermore, teachers can design conference topics regarding different culture aspects that are related to the readings in textbooks. In this way, the culture course can be integrated into regular classes and the “tight-schedule” issue can be solved (Goodfellow et al., 1996).. 1.3 Purpose Due to the strengths in immediacy, economy and interactivity, and the benefits videoconferencing brings, the past decade has witnessed a growing interest in integrating videoconferences into foreign language classrooms. Nevertheless, issues such as “failed communication” (O’Dowd, 2006) and superficiality (Warschauer, 1999) have started emerging in this field. In 2006, O’Dowd established factors attributing to the failure of communication in telecollaborative exchanges: individual, classroom, socioinstitutional, and interaction. Though students were more inclined to comment on the advantages of cultural learning and cross-culture project, the feasibility,. the. consequences. of. cultural. learning. in. technology-enhanced. environments, and the dynamicity of students’ perceptions deserve further investigation. Moreover, in 1999, Warschauer already criticized that many practitioners were simply engaging learners in superficial culture projects which involved an unreflective exchange of information and did not exploit the activity to the maximum. Learners did not engage in a critical reflection of their social identities, and the role of the teacher was neglected (Belz & Muller-Hartmann, 2003; Muller-Hartmann, 2000). To sum up, videoconferences consist of high-level participation, friendly atmosphere, positive evaluation, promotion of intercultural communicative competence and more, but what specific ones contribute to successful videoconferences are still unknown. Personal factors deciding the “life or death” of an 4.

(12) intercultural videoconference deserve further investigation. Thus, the current study aims to explore students’ behaviors in intercultural videoconferences, their perception of the videoconferencing process, and if possible, what contribute to successful videoconferences if the process effectively result in intercultural communication. The research questions are: 1. What are EFL senior high school students’ language behaviors in intercultural videoconferences and what are the causes? 2. What are EFL senior high school students’ cultural behaviors in intercultural videoconferences and what are the causes? 3. How do EFL learners evaluate their cultural learning experiences in videoconferences?. 5.

(13) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW The following literature review will first explore cultural learning and its related issues in this study. What follows is a review of computer-mediated communication and videoconferencing technology in EFL contexts. The benefits and the characteristics of intercultural videoconferencing are then explored. In the second section, the researcher reviews intercultural videoconferencing projects, followed by probing into factors influencing the success of a videoconference. Finally, the niche of the current study is pinpointed.. 2.1 Cultural Learning This section explores the importance and problems of cultural instruction, cultural learning situations in technology-enhanced environments, and the definition of intercultural communicative competence. Finally, the researcher offers a review of task designs on using technology to instruct cultures and intercultural projects in the literature.. 2.1.1 Cultural Instruction: Definitions, Importance, and Problems Culture is a complex term to define precisely. In the 1950s and early 1960s, it tended to reflect the big C’s philosophy, which was refinement or sophistication within a society, to help students in reading literature with the target language (Gee, 1988). In the late 1960s, culture was seen as “small cs” – everyday culture and behavior culture (Grittner, 1996). Nowadays, culture can be categorized as notions of personal space, appropriate gestures, and even time (Eli Hinkel, 2000). It can also be far more than a mere catalogue of rituals and beliefs, serving as a background in which a person’s subjectivities and expressions are relied on (Hymes, 1996). 6.

(14) As early as thirty years ago, Thomas (1984) had already claimed that violations of cultural norms in interaction between nonnative and native speakers often result in communicative breakdowns and mutual stereotypes. She pointed out that teachers must develop ways of heightening and refining students’ metapragmatic awareness, so they are able to express themselves as they choose. At that time, cultural teaching focused on the effects of body language, eye contact, and other overt behavioral and communicative means (Morain, 1986). In the late 1980s, Damen (1987) briefly touched on cultural values and beliefs and implies that teachers can examine beliefs and values intellectually by offering tests and giving scores. Years later, Kramsch (1991) stated that the impact of culture on language learning is more complex than “the four Fs” (i.e. foods, fairs, folklore, and statistical facts). She emphasized that culture teaching needs to be linked with the language; culture and language actually constitute “a single universe or domain of expertise” (Kramsch, 1991, p. 217). Furthermore, Kramsch (1991) claims that a foreign a language learner’s understanding of foreign culture is fundamentally influenced by his or her native culture, in which many aspects toward the target one are affected by interpretive principles in their own culture. Foreign newspaper headlines or menus are suggested as appropriate but not the sole materials of the instruction; rather, more in-depth cross-cultural discussions should be carried out (Moerman, 1988). Numerous Taiwanese educators rethink the role of culture in foreign language learning as well. Dai (2003), for example, indicates that traditional methods of English instruction focus on vocabulary identification, grammar analysis and word-to-word translation. Literacy skills and grammar are prioritized over cultural awareness, with the result that students see little or no connection between language and culture. Wang (2004) suggests that incorporating culture into FL classes can enhance students’ understanding of other cultures, broaden their perspectives and 7.

(15) illuminate how they are connected to the world. Damen (1987) reasoned that the classroom is only an unreal situation as opposed to the real world outside the classroom, so the practice of intercultural communication and experiential culture learning projects is mere practice and simulation. In addition, teachers’ limited foreign experiences, limited knowledge of the target culture, lack of methods and materials, lack of time, and fear of controversy over teaching values and attitudes are all obstacles in successfully conducting cultural lessons in EFL classrooms. (Arries,. 1994;. Bragaw,. 1991;. Damen,. 1987;. Hadley,. 1993;. Mantle-Bromley, 1993). Instructors also face the dilemma of choosing “what aspects of culture to teach and how to measure what students have learned” (Lee, 1997, p. 358). For beginning culture learners and low-intermediate EFL learners, factual knowledge serve as a basic and well-organized information getting to know the cultural aspects shared by a particular society. Two important approaches are provided (Tsou, 2005): task-oriented and anthropology-process approaches. The task-oriented approach sets up cooperative learning tasks where students work together, and the anthropology-process approaches focusing on students’ self awareness of how much they already know about home culture and foreign culture. The trend of cultural instruction in language classrooms has shifted from one-way, teacher-oriented, and paper-based teaching, to a more group-worked, student-involved, and context-situated “cultural learning”.. 2.1.2 Intercultural Learning in Technology-Enhanced Environments Language learners are now defined as “boarder-crossers”, “cultural mediators”, or “intercultural speakers” (Liaw, 2005). The notion of “intercultural learning”, “intercultural communication”, or “intercultural competence” has become fashionable (O’Dowd, 2003). Overviews of cognitive, affective, and skill-based aims, 8.

(16) interculturally-oriented curricula, and activities for developing intercultural competence are all well-explored (Hu, 2000; Neuner, 1997; Sercu, 1998). The use of the term “interculturality” then reflects the view that foreign students need to gain insight into both their own and the foreign cultures (Byram & Morgan, 1994). They need to also be aware that the meeting of cultures often takes place in communicative situations in foreign languages (Krmasch, 1993). Risager (1998) explains that students are no longer expected to simply take on positive attitudes towards the target culture and its member, since even positive prejudice can hinder mutual understanding. Foreign language teachers should help learners reorganize their own complex cultural elements and promote cultural curiosity and tolerance (Byram, 1997). Globalization brings people from different countries closer together, especially through medium such as the Internet. The beginning of the 2000s saw a number of attempts to investigate the potential of computer networks for ESL/EFL culture courses. Language learners with access to the Internet can now communicate with native speakers around the world twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, from school, home, or work (Blyth, 1999). Valuable resources via the Internet can be used to bridge the gaps of international communication and help raise the cultural boundaries between countries (Szente, 2003). Learners can communicate either on a one-to-one or a many-to-many basis in local-area network conferences, further multiplying their opportunities for communicative practice (Kern & Warschauer, 2000). As a result, a growing number of classrooms, especially language classrooms, in universities are joining online learning networks and communities where teachers and students from different countries are able to carry out cross-cultural projects (Greenfield, 2003). Numerous researches have focused on the field as well. For instance, Kotter (2003) analyzed negotiation of meaning and code-switching between 29 language students from classes at a German and a North American 9.

(17) university. They teamed up with their peers to collaborate on projects and present them to the other groups in the MOO (a text-based environment similar to chat rooms) during the final weeks of the whole project. The result shows online tandems can contribute to successful second language acquisition and the development of learners’ metalinguistic abilities. Zahner et al. (2000) tested the audio/video-conferencing LEVERAGE system. The participating students have to complete two simulated tasks: the university French learners in Cambridge have to bid for a business contract, and the engineering students from Cambridge and Paris have to make a 20-minute presentation. The analyses of students’ behavior show that the system effectively offered an environment for collaboration. O’Dowd (2003) demonstrated a year-long e-mail exchange between Spanish and English second year university language learners. Using the results of qualitative research, O’Dowd identified key characteristics of successful e-mail exchanges, such as building personal relationships with their foreign partners, sensitivity to their partners’ needs, and capacity to produce in-depth correspondence.. 2.1.3 Benefits and Cautions of Integrated Cultural Learning The emergence of technology seems to bring new lights on culture courses in language classes. Students hold more positive attitudes and are motivated in technology-enhanced environments (Peng, H. et al.,2009) ; with prevalence and flexibility, culture courses can also be carried out after class at home by self-learning and through individual willingness. Positive affective benefits for students using technology to learn culture are also reported (Sanauoi & Laplin, 1992). As students’ interests and confidence are aroused, the language proficiency can even be greatly enhanced. In a study of student perceptions about a videoconferencing project between students of German and native speakers in German (Coverdale-Jones, 2000), 10.

(18) the students cited two advantages for the use of the technology: the immediacy of communication with a real person from their own age group and the interactivity of the net tool. As immediacy and interactivity come, students’ speaking and listening are challenged and thus improved, coupled with intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997). Moreover, preparation and rehearsals before the videoconference also drive students to sharpen their reading and writing skills. While pursuing the benefits of cultural learning in technology-enhanced environments, researchers have not failed to note that it is important to instruct in an integrative fashion and avoid fostering stereotypes (Lafayette, 1988). Damen (1987) provides two distinct advantages of integrating culture instruction into language classrooms. First, as an artificial community, the classroom draws a culturally protective wall around those within, bestowing less severe punishment for the commission of linguistic and cultural errors that could be met outside its walls. Second, the classroom community is managed, unreal, forgiving, and protective, but it is also an environment that provides unique opportunities for experimental intercultural communication. If administered well, this community may provide the first step on a long voyage of cultural discovery that will end in the world outside the classroom. Osland and Bird (2000) have discussed the potential risks of sophisticated stereotyping in intercultural communication, a situation which they define to occur when people make inferences about someone from a different culture, based on their preexisting academic knowledge about this culture. The authors mention that cross-cultural communication research has mostly compared different cultures by using on a number of limited concepts and samples, which might not truly reflect the paradoxes that exist within these cultures. To illustrate one of these paradoxes, for instance, they gave an example from the U.S. culture, by posing the questions: “If U.S. 11.

(19) Americans are so individualistic and believe so deeply in self-reliance, why do they have the highest percentage of charitable giving in the world?” (p. 65). Osland and Bird (2000) have argued that the education curriculum tends to gloss over such nuances and complexities that exist in different cultures, resulting in a rather simplistic view of these cultures. In a similar manner, Adler and Graham (1989) have criticized the research on cross-cultural negotiation by suggesting that most of the studies in literature have focused on describing a single culture or comparing multiple cultures, rather than investigating people’s actual interactions in cross-cultural contexts. The authors argue that, as a result of the dynamics emerging from these interactions, people’s behaviors in cross-cultural negotiations can significantly differ from those in intra-cultural negotiations, and they provide empirical support for their argument. In line with this argument, Millhouse (1996) has suggested that intercultural learning would be more effective if it leads to practical competency in cross-cultural interactions, which requires both a more comprehensive understanding of the other cultures and a critical reflection on one’s own culture. Peterson and Coltrane (2003) recommend that culture be instructed without preconceptions. In other words, they indicate that cultural information should be provided in a nonjudgmental fashion that does not place value or judgment on distinctions between the students’ culture and the culture being explored in the classroom. Recent approaches have also subordinated the memorization of cultural facts to the acquisition of “communicative competence” or “intercultural communication” (Savignon & Sysoyev 2002, 2005; Saphonova 1996) and “intercultural competence” (Dahl 1995; Kramsch 1999). Both approaches, based on an understanding of culture as dynamic and variable, suggest that learners should develop intercultural knowledge and communication needed for participating in diverse and changing cultures. In order to avoid misunderstanding and intercultural conflict in the present and future, the 12.

(20) instructor should provide learners with meaningful interaction and contact with native speakers. Sysoyev (2002) assert that effective intercultural communication exists only when learners assume their role both as open-minded representatives of their first language community and as subjects engaged in dialogue tasks of cultures. Dialogue tasks of cultures can occur wherever cultures are in contact, “they can be seen to be at the very core of culture, where culture is understood as a dialogical self-consciousness of every civilization” (p. 510). Therefore, contact between members of the first and second language communities produces both a cross-cultural dialogue and a more complete understanding of both cultures (Savignon & Sysoyev 2002).. 2.1.4. Intercultural Communicative Competence and Cultural Learning Assessment Future residents of the world should develop a level of intercultural. communicative competence (ICC), in which they possess “the knowledge, motivation, and the skills to interact effectively and appropriately with members of different cultures” (Wiseman, 2002, p. 208). Byram (1997) defines ICC as “individual’s ability to communicate and interact across cultural boundaries” (p. 17). Fantini (1997) suggests that the development of ICC requires “insights drawn from both language and intercultural areas” (p. 27). In other words, ICC is the competence that enables learners to convey and interpret messages and negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific context, be it with people from another country or culture in a foreign language (Brown, 1993). Byram (1997) also defines four ICC dimensions elaborately and well-organized as knowledge, skills, attitudes, and awareness. He mentions that the assessment of ICC will benefit assessor, teacher, and learner, in that their agreed aims and purposes become clear. 13.

(21) In earlier time, Hymes (1972) once stated that foreign language learners should take native speaker as a model and should be transferred into the description of the aims and objectives of foreign language teaching. Decades later, however, Byram (1997) insists that this transfer is misleading, because it implicitly suggests that foreign language learners should model themselves on first language speakers, ignoring the significance of the social identities and cultural competence of the learner in any intercultural interaction. It is proposed that instructors pay more attention to methods of teaching ICC, focusing on “critical” and “comparative” ones that turn learners’ attention back on their own practices, beliefs, and social identities. Instruments used to determine ICC level have been rare. The Your Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment (YOGA) formed by Fantini (2000) was the only famous one created to determine a people’s developmental levels in accordance with the time frame in which learners are exposed to an intercultural environment. The assessment categorized four levels of intercultural communicative competence from low to high: education traveler, sojourner, professional and intercultural specialist level. Byram (1997) points out that the assessment of ICC has been long neglected because many scholars think that such assessment is not possible, or not reliable or valid enough to be used when learners are to be given certification of their abilities. This argument is also common when discussing the validity of the assessment of attitudinal objectives, as these cannot be measured quantitatively by means of objective tests but rather demand qualitative measuring by means of alternative methods of assessment (Cunningham, 1998). Byram (1997) also mentions the question of whether it is ethically desirable to carry out the assessment of aspects of ICC such as students’ autonomy or social responsibility at all, questioning ‘the right of an institution and its members to make judgments about an individual’s degree of social responsibility’, and concluding that “it may ultimately be appropriate to assess only part of what we 14.

(22) define as ICC’ (p. 9). These drawbacks may explain why most assessment of ICC carried out is typically focused on one or two aspects of ICC, rather than comprehensive or integral, and why assessment is used as a formative tool rather than as an instrument for certification of achievement. The assessment of cultural learning is also problematic. Seelye (1984) found that only “big C”, or, the factual knowledge, were regularly being tested. Kramsch (1991) also found that many foreign language textbooks encourage this type of learning and teaching by including a disproportionate number of topics on literature, art, and statistical facts. Because facts are easy to prepare, to test, and to score, teachers tend to avoid assess attitudes and behaviors, which are extremely complex and fraught with many pitfalls (Byram & Morgan, 1994). Though scholars have identified the enormous challenges associated with the assessment of culture learning and provoked dropping the idea of testing culture (Kordes, 1991; Meyer, 1991), some interesting assessment models still appear in literature (Grice, 1934; Brislin, Cushner, Cherrie, & Young, 1986; King, 1990). Some include 100 episodes with three to four answers for students to choose the beset explanation of that particular cross-cultural situation (Young, 1986). Others are mini-dramas promoting students with various verbal and nonverbal cues (King, 1990). And still others are paper-and-pencil tests with items measuring different intercultural components. However, “impossible objectivity” (Kramsch, 1999) has still remained as an issue.. 2.1.5 Cultural Tasks and CALL Activities Ruling out the assessment problems, cultural learning can still happen in formative and process-oriented ways. In 1989, Candlin affirmed the importance of incorporating learner’s personal, social and cultural identity in the process of language learning. In his language-culture curriculum model, he put a range of problem-solving 15.

(23) classroom tasks at the center. Through the tasks, learners access and understand language data socially and culturally. Although not offering a clear definition of what tasks are, Candlin (1989) made early claims that it is necessary to put language, culture, and tasks together. Lee (2000) defines a task as a purposeful activity that requires and utilizes language comprehension and production. In order for a task to be successful and effective, the instructor must have a clear idea of what the expected outcome is and must ensure that the instructions, the tasks, and students’ subsequent behavior match this outcome. Problem is that the teachers’ expectation does not always match what students produce during a given task. Slimani-Rolls (2005) argues that the students’ personal characteristics, their perception of the task, and their relationship with their peers may affect the learning outcome. Still, most teachers and researchers believe that learners’ best acquire the target language by engaging in tasks, especially in authentic ones. Egbert (2005) defines an authentic task as “one that learners perceive they will use outside of class in their real world or that parallels or replicates real functions beyond the classroom” (p. 6). Connecting with target language speakers through technology is an example of authentic task (Egbert, 2005). Technology-mediated tasks afford a wide of variety of opportunities for producing comprehensible output or co-construct meaning in authentic situations (Chapelle, 2003). Three aspects of CALL tasks are evident (Chapelle, 2003): planning, correcting, and being helped. One of the benefits for tasks constructed through computer-mediated communication is that learners have the opportunity for planning before producing language. Also, through self-evaluation or interlocutors’ feedback, learners can easily notice their linguistic errors (Chapelle, 2003). In 2000, Muller-Hartmann (2000) investigated the role of tasks in promoting 16.

(24) cultural learning in learning networks based on qualitative research from three e-mail projects between EFL high school classes in Germany and English classes in United States. The joint reading of literary texts formed the basis for discussion on the networks. A comparison between intercultural learning in the actual reading process and the negotiation of meaning in the network phases shows a close resemblance in the structure and use of tasks. Task properties, such as activity, setting, and teacher and learner roles in the asynchronous e-mail exchange, proved to be especially influential for intercultural learning. In the questionnaires, learners highlighted the difference between the two settings: the classroom and the computer lab. While learner-centered tasks in classroom work were attempted, students felt that work in the computer room was freer and more productive. Asked about their cooperative works in front of the computer, they answered that this situation proved to be a lot of fun, allowing for more and different opinions, the negotiation of the different views, as well as the opportunity to help each other in writing process. Task-based learning from a perspective is quite different from that of the traditional FL classroom (O’Dowd, 2009). He claims that there are three categories of task-design in CALL or telecollaborative projects. The first is information exchange task, where learners provide their telecollaborative partners with information about their personal information or home cultures. These tasks function as introductory activities for two groups of learners who are still not familiar with each other. Tasks in this category may generally be monologues or presentations since there is little negotiation of meaning. The second task type is comparison and analysis. It is more demanding because it requires learners not only to exchange information. This type of task requires learners to carry out comparisons and analyses critically on cultural products from both cultures (e.g. books, surveys, films, newspaper articles). The tasks also ask learners to offer their partners linguistic explanation or cultural significance 17.

(25) regarding cultural products and practices. Later, the two groups can engage in dialogues to discuss the similarities and differences between the two cultures. The third task type, collaborative tasks, requires learners not only to exchange and compare information but also to work together to produce a joint product or project.. 2.2 Computer-Mediated Communication and Videoconferencing Technology This section first defines computer-mediated communication (CMC), provides advantages and disadvantages of CMC tools, and discusses CMC-related projects. The second part explores the idea of videoconferencing technology, describing what videoconferences are, illustrating advantages and disadvantages of holding videoconferences, and finally introducing intercultural projects conducted through videoconferencing technology.. 2.2.1 Computer-Mediated Communication Herring. (1996). provides. a. useful. definition. for. computer-mediated. communication (CMC): “communication that takes place between human beings via the instrumentality of computers” (p. 1), while Murray (2000) restricts it to “include only text-based modes” (p. 399). Santoro (1995) has a more elaborative definition: “the use of computer systems and networks for the transfer, storage, and retrieval of information among humans” (p. 11). No matter how researchers define it, CMC itself is multi-dimensional, and apparently, takes in many forms. In general terms, CMC may include chatting, MOOs (Multiple Object Oriented Domains), bulletin boards, classroom discussion, and e-mail (Paramskas, 1999). These forms of CMC may be categorized as either synchronous, where all participants are on-line at the same time, and interactions occur in real time, or, asynchronous, where the participants need not to be on-line at the same time, and can send and receive messages at any time 18.

(26) (Grunner, 1999). Synchronous CMC includes chatting, MOOs and more. It has been described as being at the “most interactive end of the CMC spectrum” (Levy & Stockwell, 2006). The most common form of synchronous CMC is chatting. In particular, two aspects of chatting have been reported in research as especially effective in promoting language learning: being a bridge to face-to-face interaction and an optimal environment for SLA (Warschauer, 1996). On the issue of chatting as a bridge to face-to-face interaction, Sotillo (2000) compared synchronous and asynchronous CMC and identified a much stronger resemblance to spoken language in the former. She found that synchronous CMC presented discourse functions “similar to the types of interactional modifications found in face-to-face conversations that are deemed necessary for second language acquisition” (p. 82). On the other hand, asynchronous CMC, including the most popular one, email, and the bulletin boards, is well-known for its time-independent feature. The most commonly cited advantages of e-mail are that it provides access to authentic language and serves as a means to learning more about the target culture (Levy & Stockwell, 2006). Researchers hold different opinions toward CMC learning. Some believe it brings benefits while others see the shortcomings. There are a number of advantages to language learners which have been identified in the literature (Chappelle, 1998; Paramskas, 1999; Zeiss & Isabelli-García, 2005), including motivational increases and reduced anxiety through more anonymous exchanges (Beauvois, 1995; Kinginger, 1994), provision of authentic communication (Saita, Harrison, & Inman, 1998), and an equalizing effect of the participation (Warschauer, Turbee, & Roberts, 1996). Other than benefits in the language learning classrooms, a number of studies have also demonstrated an enhanced cultural awareness in CMC (Calvi & Geerts, 1998; Gray & Stockwell, 1998; Zeiss & Isabelli-García, 2005). Lee (1997) described how the Internet and CMC assisted learners of a language in expanding their cultural 19.

(27) knowledge. In a series of surveys into Spanish learners’ opinions of using such tools, they claim that CMC increased their interest and motivation for learning both the culture and the language in a dynamic rather than passive way (p. 421). Also, according to Zeiss & Isabelli-García, “engagement in CMC activities corresponds to higher awareness of certain aspects of the target culture over students who did not participate in CMC (p. 13).” There comes with shortcomings as well. Researchers found that while enthusiasm is high at start, the number of CMC communications between the learners tends to drop off, sometimes completely, after the initial enthusiasm has passed (Tella, 1991; Warschauer, 1995), leaving a potential enthusiasm-drop in CMC learning. Another difficulty is that writing/speaking of CMC messages to native speakers can be a demanding task, requiring sufficient levels of proficiency and motivation on the part of learners (Saita, Harrison, & Inman, 1998). Moreover, the reduced affective filter can also take on a negative aspect. For example, Kelm (1992) warned of the possibility of “flaming” in CMC, which is characterized as bold, offensive, or crude comments, not typically found in oral conversations. In addition, the lack of complete visual contact and individuals’ lack of interest can also impede good communication. It is possible that the attitudes of the students themselves can be a deciding factor in the success or failure of CMC in language teaching (Stockwell, 2000). Computer-mediated communication has now advanced rapidly from first generation tools (e-mail, chat, discussion board) to the so-called Web 2.0 generation vehicles (wiki, blog, podcasting). Although the existing research is valuable to our understanding of CMC in L2, the majority of the findings are drawn from the application of Web 1.0 technology. With widespread popularity, Web 2.0 tools including blogs and podcasts will continue to evolve in L2 instruction (Lee, 2009). Future research is clearly needed to investigate the role of digital technology in 20.

(28) language learning contexts.. 2.2.2 Culture Issues in CMC Interaction Characteristics of CMC in foreign language learning are: allowing collaborative learning activities (Meskill & Mossop, 2000), encouraging participants to take active roles in communication (Bikowski & Kessler, 2002), learners’ addressing a specific audience for purposes other than demonstrating a skill, and expanding the network of peers (Bates,1995; Berge & Collins,1995; Steinberg,1992). CMC seems suitable in cultural learning. Learners from different cultures seem to exhibit different patterns in their online interactions with their teachers or peers.. Freedman and Liu (1996). studied American middle school students who corresponded electronically with culturally dissimilar students. Their findings suggest that students of different ethnic backgrounds may have different learning processes. The Asian students tended to ask fewer questions from either teachers or students, were less likely to use trial-and-error or experimental methods in their work processes, and they were more hesitant to being watched when working with computers than their non-Asian American counterparts. Similarly, Lian and McQueen (1999) compared interaction patterns among Asian and Western adult learners who participated in a Web-based interactive learning via e-mail. They found that the learners from Asian and Western cultures differed in their expectations about the role of tutors and their learning styles. Thus, most of the Asian students had been tutor-oriented learners in their native countries and tended to rely heavily on direction from their teachers even in the interactive online learning environment. In contrast, most of the Western students tended to be peer-oriented and believed that more interactions among students should be encouraged. Some studies have revealed that online learners use different communication 21.

(29) styles across cultures. For instance, in a study of college students from Denmark and the U.S. who collaborated via electronic mail, Bannon (1995) found that the Danish students teneded to be rather reserved in terms of social communication, while Americans were more expressive of their thoughts. In another case, Livonen, Sonnewald, Parma, and Poole-Kober (1998) studied Finnish and American college students who collaborated online in a common course. Their study revealed that American students posted more messages to the electronic discussion group than the Finns. They argued that Finnish students tend to keep silent and not to speak too much whereas the silence is not habitual with most Americans. In a study of Filipino, Chinese, and Vietnamese students enrolled in an American community college, Warschauer (1996) found tendencies toward unequal participation across cultures in face-to-face and electronic discussion. His study revealed that in face-to-face discussions, Filipino students tended to dominate discussions and the other students, especially the Japanese, spoke much less. However, he also found that the discrepancy in participation across cultures was lower in online discussions—for instance, Japanese students showed more active participation in online discussions than in face-to-face discussions. Warschauer (1996) argues that cultural factors and the lack of oral communication practice prohibited Japanese students from participating in face-to-face discussions.. 2.2.3 Telecollaboration and Intercultural Projects As a result of the developments in networked communication technologies, foreign language learners have the opportunity to break down the confines of traditional face-to-face classroom settings and to gain access to target languages and cultures in ever more varied ways. The world wide web is a rich source of cultural information and authentic language resources, and the Internet has become 22.

(30) increasingly important as a dynamic arena for intercultural communication between individuals from different language and cultural backgrounds, also referred to as “telecollaborative. language. Learning”. (Belz,. 2002). or. “telecollaboration”. (Warschauer, 1996; Belz, 2003; O’Dowd, 2005). In formal telecollaborative partnerships, internationally-dispersed learners in parallel language classes use Internet communication tools such as e-mail, synchronous chat, threaded discussion, and MOOs, to support social interaction, dialogue, debate, and intercultural exchange’ (Belz, 2003, p. 1). Together with the linguistic benefit, the potential increase in the participants’ intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997) is thus generally seen as the main attraction of such projects (see, e.g., O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). Thus Telecollaboration projects, which involve ‘internationally dispersed students of language who use Internet communication tools to support social as well as academic interaction and intercultural exchange’ (Belz, 2004, p. 578), are gradually being introduced into the foreign language classroom (Belz, 2005; Liaw, 2006). The concept is virtually based on the view that language and culture are inextricably linked, and the focus is on intercultural learning (for more information about telecollaboration projects, see Belz & Thorne, 2005). Language learning and language use are interdependent and language is conceptualized as social practice. Telecollaboration is an approach that is ‘blended’, not only in combining e-learning technology with traditional methods, but also ‘internet-mediated intercultural sessions and face-to-face intercultural sessions’ (Belz, 2005). In a recent article on the acquisition of French versus German, Kinginger and Belz (2005) relied on interviews, students’ emails in online exchanges with native speakers, and pretests and posttests to trace students’ pragmatic development. They found that learners developed pragmatic awareness and the ability to use the pronouns appropriately in context due to various factors, including native speakers’ explicit 23.

(31) input during interaction, the learners’ own noticing (Schmidt, 1993), and social encounters in diverse settings during a study abroad program. Although offering detailed descriptions of the learners’ progress over time, Kinginger and Belz’s study focused more on the product of learning than the meaning negotiation that takes place at the micro level of social interaction that may lead to language learning. They also list the following factors of successful sociocultural information exchange: learner exposure to a broader range of L2 discourse options, opportunities to engage in authentic discourse in which issues of face are at stake, opportunities for critical moments of noticing, and opportunities for peer-assisted performance.. 2.2.4 Videoconferencing Technology Videoconferencing can be defined as a point-to-point closed communications system connecting computers that are equipped with video (Roblyer, 1997). In order to take part in a videoconference, users require a camera, a screen, a microphone, loudspeakers and the necessary software. Communication usually takes place over the Internet. Although to carry out videoconferences generally involves equipment, the low cost of computer hardwares/softwares nowadays tends to make it a popular option in educational institutions (O’Dowd, 2003). In the context of foreign language classroom, it is also important to distinguish between room-based and desktop videoconferencing.. Desktop. videoconferencing. involves. carrying. out. a. videoconference which is connected to a personal computer (Guichon, 2010; Wang, 2006). This is suited to one-to-one communication. Alternatively, room-based videoconferencing is generally organized on a group-to-group basis (Thurstonm, 2004). In this case, a class sits in front of a large screen where they can view the participants at the other site as well as a smaller image of themselves. The nature of videoconferences creates an environment for two groups of 24.

(32) students to communicate, negotiate, and interact (Wang, 2004). In addition, it adds a realistic element to the process of classroom-based intercultural communication (Wu & Marek, 2009). Online communication provided by videoconferencing has become a useful service for language researchers to explore issues related to learners’ communicative competence (Belz, 2003). The advantages of videoconferencing, therefore, include the creation of social presence and an environment for learning, the reduction in travel time, effort, and expense, and finally collaborations and partnerships (Mason, 1994). However, this most interactive synchronous CMC tool does not come without problems. Its disadvantages are the cost of equipment (to some institutions), more preparation time and risk-taking for teachers, more attention and pressure for students, and the chance of lack of interactivity (Bloomberg, 2007). O’Dowd (2003) also enumerated five problems: sound delay, some differences in face-to-face communication, the effects of distance (or time differences), passive viewing, and practicalities. The incorporation of a videoconferencing activity into a language classroom, then, requires the teacher to solve problems related to the equipment and the preparations (before the conferences) and those concerning students’ learning (during conferences) to ensure the success of the collaboration. Videoconferencing technology is best used to carry out a communication task designed for two dedicated groups of learners with the hope that they will not only improve their language skills but also increase their understanding of each other’s culture. Kinginger (1998) held videoconferences for two language classes: a French language class in the U.S. and an English language class in France. The teaching approach is based on a series of parallel tasks on the theme of intercultural communication between the French and Americans. Using a series of conceptual tools for cultural analysis, the students analyzed a range of texts: Hollywood remakes of French films, children’s literature, and television series. Both classes designed web 25.

(33) pages for publication of their work (writing, film, and photo essays) and all students were assigned an email partner in order to engage in dialogue about the tasks. In addition to the other course activities, there were two 60-minute videoconferences during which the students were to ask and answer questions about the course materials. The results show that students enjoy the whole activities and that the videoconferencing is effective and acceptable as an alternative to face-to-face communication. Bulter and Fawkes (1999) set up an international videoconference, inviting students, French class students in England and English students in France, to engage in practices with their partners. Students took turns in French and English to ask prepared questions about the target culture on an one-to-one basis. Because students felt less intimidated when being corrected by their peers, verbal presentation skills, pronunciation, accuracy, and fluency, improved to a great extent. However, there are some projects that lead us to think about improvements. In the videoconferencing system HIPERNET (McAndrew et al., 1996), the participants reported problems such as having no eye contact, feeling uncomfortable with wearing headsets, dealing with the cognitive load in real-time conversation, finding it hard to share material, and feeling uncertainty about partners’ thinking. O’Dowd (2003) study attempted to develop learners’ intercultural communicative competence, exploring the possibilities of using videoconferencing (synchronous CMC tool) and e-mail (asynchronous communication) between two classes across the Atlantic Ocean (25 German students and 21 American university students). The study asserted the Internet services of synchronous videoconferencing together with asynchronous e-mail as effective tools for helping students develop their intercultural communicative competency. However, it also reported that the German students were reluctant to act the role of interviewers and kept some distance due to the inferior beliefs and behaviors. 26.

(34) Issues on holding videoconferences intended to increase intercultural interaction are still unsolved and complicated, and they deserves more attention and investigation. Generally speaking, students lack the opportunity to practice outside of class the language they are studying. It is therefore a good idea to arrange for culture exchanges at school so that students can get the hands-on-practice they need. Videoconferencing is an innovative way of providing students an opportunity to interact with the target language without leaving the school, thus solving the problems of conflicting schedules, transportation, and bureaucracy. However, there are some factors need to be taken into consideration. First of all, the videoconferencing systems of the institutions must be compatible. In addition, a date and time must be agreed on that is convenient for both participating groups. External factors such as sound quality and. classroom. distribution. also. play. an. important. part. in. interactive. videoconferencing, and internal factors such as students’ preparation and attitudes must be well-instructed by teachers. Students’ proficiency, interests, needs, and age all need to be taken into account. The success or failure of a videoconference can be determined by all those advanced planning. It is necessary for the instructors to work together to determine the objectives, types of interaction desired, and the procedures to be followed (Cortes & Galindo, 1998).. 27.

(35) CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY. The present study investigated how technology-enhanced culture instruction was implemented to help EFL senior high school students in learning cultures. More specifically, the study probed into the process of how students evaluated the preparation of and the presentations in intercultural videoconferences, how they behave in videoconferences regarding cultural and linguistic aspects. Participants, the procedure of the study, and the instruments were elaborated in this chapter. Instruments including videotaping, interviews, and written feedback were employed. Those qualitative illustrations will be presented as useful information for interpreting and explicating phenomena found in the process. Data collection procedure and analysis were then presented.. 3.1 Participants There were two groups of participants, one in Taiwan and the other in the U.S.A. The participants in Taiwan were 46 senior high school students (all females) in a public high school in Eastern Taiwan. Students dwelling in east Taiwan have a different subculture compared to city students. They lack cultural and information resources to a great extent compared to city students. Their English proficiency level was low-intermediate. Thirty-one of them had passed the basic level of GEPT (General English Proficiency Test). All of them had learned English for five to six years. When the cultural instruction and videoconferencing activity took place in fall, 2009, they were in the first semester of the 10th grade English course. The objectives of the 10th grade course were the same as other regular public senior high schools, which include possessing intermediate grammar and vocabulary competences, and 28.

(36) cultivating reading, listening, speaking and writing skills at intermediate levels. The English class met five hours per week, and the researcher used one class hour every week and an extra one after school for cultural instruction and videoconferencing rehearsal. The other class participating in the videoconferencing activity was from Westlake Senior High School in Austin, Texas, U.S.A. The school has been making efforts in recent years to introduce its students to intercultural programs and projects, like the Global Leader Program (exchanging students to South Korea) and the Virtual Vietnam Program, and putting emphasis on global thinking. This high school has focused on intercultural courses and thus is considered to be suitable for the activity. The American students were learning Chinese and had taken Chinese courses for two years. In fact, their instructor was their Chinese teacher. These students received cultural instruction in their high school as well. Taiwanese and American classes were paired because the two instructors knew each other and were both interested in intercultural instruction. Taiwanese students were the main focus of the study, and data from American students would be auxiliary to understand the whole process of intercultural communication in the videoconferences. The focus of the study is to observe Taiwanese participants’ behaviors and to record their cultural experiences. American students’ feedback and action would serve as supplementary data for better understanding of cultural learning experiences.. 3.2 Procedures The participants in Taiwan were asked to attend culture courses, which were mainly about writing English e-mails to e-pals and learning Taiwanese cultures. Those courses were conducted one hour in class and one hour after school each week, lasting for six weeks. After the six weeks, when students were given tips on how to orally 29.

(37) introduce Taiwanese cultures in English, they participated in three intercultural videoconferences with students in the U.S.A. Videotapes were recorded in three videoconferences. Written feedback worksheets and interviews were administered between the first and second, and, between the second and third videoconference. In the first week, after the instruction syllabus and explanations were given, forty-six Taiwanese students were divided into groups of five. Then, the teacher-researcher used culture lesson plans (see Appendices A and B) to teach students for six weeks. Next, students were instructed to prepare for intercultural videoconferences. The assignments for each group were as follows: one student wrote scripts that introduce Taiwanese cultures, one student presented the topic, one prepared the visual aids for the presentation, and the other two asked questions to the American participants after their presentation session. Although each student was assigned a specific task in the group, they were allowed to assist their group members and collaborate to bring their presentation to perfection. The topics of the presentations. were. festivals,. cuisine,. calligraphy,. and. campus. life.. The. teacher-researcher would give comments during the presentation rehearsals. The American participants were trained likewise, only that they had to present home cultures in Chinese. In the videoconferences, each group (five of them) of Taiwanese students shared one personal computer in the computer lab. When the group was called upon to present, they would go on stage using the teacher’s personal computer to interact with the American students. The teacher’s personal computer screen was broadcast to the whole class. Therefore, how American students interact with the group was seen by the whole Taiwanese classmates (either through their group PC or classroom projecting screen). However, because American students were not allowed to use the computer lab, the place they held their videoconferences was in their Chinese 30.

(38) classroom, where it only contained one teacher personal computer, a projector, and a big projecting screen. When they presented, they would go up to the teacher’s personal computer, and the whole class would see one Taiwanese group interacting with their peers. Taiwanese students can sometimes see the whole American class (sitting) while they were switching groups; American students usually can only see one Taiwanese group presenting in front of teacher’s personal computer.. 3.3 Culture Course Design The culture instruction of this study was a six-week culture-related English course. The goal of this course was to let students hold three intercultural videoconferences successfully in a semester. Taiwanese participants received a total of twelve-hour cultural instruction in six weeks. In these six weeks, participants were instructed to perform different computer-related tasks and cultural activities to help them familiarize themselves with computer tasks (e.g. e-mailing) and become aware of cultural differences. These tasks and activities included writing e-mails to English native speakers, making friends with international e-pals, and introducing home cultures to them (see Table 3.3 for an overview, Appendix A and B for lesson plans). Then, participants were informed that they would hold three intercultural videoconferences with students from the U.S.A. In the following weeks, rehearsal sessions were designed to teach them how to present home cultures and to pose questions in English. The rehearsal sessions included introducing Taiwanese festivals; cuisine, Chinese calligraphy and campus life. In the first two intercultural videoconferences, participants were expected to present home cultures and take notes while others were presenting. In the last intercultural videoconference, participants from the two cultures were expected to interact with and pose questions to each other. The following is the list of the tasks used in the culture course. 31.

(39) Table3.3 List of tasks used in culture course Week. Task Title. Description. Aims. 1. Videoconferencing Attitude. Students fill out videoconferencing attitude questionnaire.. Understand students’ attitudes toward videoconferences.. 2. Getting Started: Writing an E-mail. Students write English e-mails to each other.. Familiarize students to integrating e-mail with learning.. 3. Hello Stranger: Making International e-pals. Students write English e-mails to people from other countries.. Accustom students to writing in correct formats.. 4. The Way We Are: Introducing Ourselves to the World. Students write English e-mails and introduce home cultures to students worldwide.. Instruct the Students to learn how to present home cultures to foreigners in texts.. 5. Being Proud of ourselves (1) : Taiwanese Festivals. Students complete worksheets on the topic about Taiwanese festivals.. Enable students to introduce Taiwanese festivals in English.. 6. Being Proud of ourselves (2) : Taiwanese Cuisine. Students complete worksheets on the topic about Taiwanese cuisine.. Enable students to be able to present Taiwanese cuisines in English.. 7. Being Proud of ourselves (3) : Chinese Calligraphy. Students complete worksheets about the topic of Taiwanese calligraphy.. Help Students reflect on their knowledge of calligraphy in English.. 8. Being Proud of ourselves (4) : Campus Life. Students complete worksheets about the topic of their campus life.. Ask students to brainstorm on cultural differences when it comes to school systems.. 9,11,13. Presenting ourselves : Video-Conference Rehearsal. Students present home cultures in English to their peers.. Accustom students to public speaking.. 32.

(40) 10,12,14 Videoconferences with American students. Students rehearse and prepare culture-related questions and answers for American students.. Accustom students to carrying on English conversations.. Students present, interact, pose questions, and take notes during the conferences.. Use videoconferences as a means to let students interact with native speakers at real time and learn interculturally.. 3.4 Instruments This study investigated how EFL participants perceive the experience of cultural instruction and intercultural videoconferences. Videotape recording, interviews, and written feedback were data collected and used in the present study.. 3.4.1 Video-taping The three sessions of intercultural videoconferences and the twelve-hour cultural instruction were mostly videotaped. This served to be the main data source for observing students’ language and culture behaviors.. 3.4.2 Post-session written feedback The participants were asked to write down their opinions on culture learning process after three intercultural videoconferences. To help them reflect on their experiences, some guided questions were given: a) what did you think about the videoconferences? b) what did you learn from the videoconferences? c) what were some improvements that could be made in the future? d) did videoconferences help you with your English learning? e) what was the skill/knowledge you felt that you. 33.

(41) lacked during the three videoconferences? The participants could use either Chinese or English to answer those questions. The Feedback Questions is in Appendix C.. 3.4. 3 Other Supplementary Tools Semi-structured interviews During the weeks of the experiment, the researcher asked students to come to her English office and carried out 20-minute interviews about their experiences. These interviews were recorded and later transcribed into paper forms. Questions regarding intercultural instruction, videoconferencing, and overall opinions about the course were posed by the researcher. Participant Observation In this study, the researcher played the role of the instructor and observer at the same time. E-mail Data Taiwanese participants were asked to send copies of all messages they had sent to their international e-pals (during intercultural instruction) to the researcher. American. participants. were. also. asked. to. send. their. opinions. on. the. videoconferencing activity through e-mail afterwards. Note-Taking Data The participants were asked to take notes while the other students were presenting or interacting. Researcher’s Reflective Journal The teacher-researcher wrote her reflections on her own blog every week.. 34.

(42) 3.5 Data Collection Procedure and Analysis 3.5.1 Data Collection Procedure Five kinds of data were collected in this present study, which stemmed from the following sources: (1) videotapes during the culture instruction and the videoconferences (2) participants’ written feedback after the videoconferences, (3) interview recordings between the videoconferences, (4) instructor’s reflective notes and observation toward the course, and (5) e-mails between American and Taiwanese students during cultural learning classes. The collection procedure was summarized and illustrated in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 Data Collection Procedure Class Week. Procedure of the Study. Data Collected. 1~6. Twelve-hour Cultural Instruction. Interviews Videotape E-mails. 7. 1st intercultural videoconference rehearsal. Interviews. 8. 1st intercultural videoconference. Videotape Observation Notes. 9. 2nd intercultural videoconference rehearsal. Interviews. 10. 2nd intercultural videoconference. Videotape Observation Notes. 11. 3rd intercultural videoconference rehearsal. Interviews. 12. 3rd intercultural videoconference. Videotape Observation Notes Written Feedback. 35.