Second Language Teaching and Learning through Virtual Exchange

Shannon M. Hilliker

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2022
• eBook ISBN: 9783110727463
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Langues et linguistique
• Subtopic: Enseignement des arts du langage

Virtual exchanges provide language learners with a unique opportunity to develop their target language skills, support inter-cultural exchange, and afford teacher candidates space to hone their teaching craft. The research presented in this volume investigates the role of virtual exchanges as both a teaching tool to support second language acquisition and a space for second language development. Practitioners obtain guidance on the different types of exchanges that currently exist and on the outcome of those exchanges so that they can make informed decisions on whether to include this type of program in their language teaching and learning classrooms. To this end, this edited volume contains chapters that describe individual virtual exchanges along with results of research done on each exchange to show how the exchange supported specific second language teaching and learning goals.

Language and virtual exchange

Chapter 1 Learning-oriented assessment in an international virtual exchange

Paul Wicking

Meijo University, Faculty of Foreign Studies

Acknowledgements: This paper uses data gathered as part of a project supported by a grant-in-aid from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI), no. 18K00802.

Within the relatively short history of international virtual exchange (IVE), assessment has long proved a challenge. The inherent messy nature of bringing together classes from diverse cultural contexts and often with differing course goals has made traditional assessment approaches problematic. Further complications arise with mismatching program schedules (Bueno-Alastuey and Kleban 2016), the huge volume of data that can be assessed (Andresen 2009), institutional constraints which limit teachers’ freedom to choose assessment methods (Nissen 2016), and the practical demands of overseeing the exchange which may leave little time available for comprehensive assessment. Moreover, if the exchange involves a genuinely collaborative task, distinguishing one learner’s work from another for assessment purposes can further exacerbate the problem. Çiftçi and Savaş (2018) have therefore concluded that assessment is one of the key challenges facing language and intercultural learning in virtual exchange. After outlining the various challenges that assessment poses to IVE programs, O’Dowd (2010) noted that because many teachers are unsure how telecollaborative tasks should be assessed, the common default position when it comes to assessment is often a participation grade. Yet even though practical realities have often made this the case, a more satisfactory approach is warranted, as merely taking part in a virtual exchange cannot be equated with having learned something.

International virtual exchange, also known as telecollaboration (O’Dowd 2018) and online intercultural exchange (OIE) (Lewis and O’Dowd 2016), is a pedagogical practice that engages geographically and culturally distant learners in collaborative work. The desired learning outcomes of IVE can be many and varied. They are largely contingent upon the course goals of each class, but in addition to second language acquisition, they may also include the development of digital literacy, cross-cultural understanding, creativity, and collaboration skills. This is one of the strengths of telecollaboration, as it is able to actively promote the development of multiple skills needed to succeed in the modern interconnected world – skills identified by Guth and Helm (2010) as foreign language skills, intercultural communicative competence, and new online literacies. Ideally, the methods of assessing such outcomes would support and propel learners toward greater achievement; in other words, assessment would be learning oriented. Assessment exerts a strong influence over classrooms by focusing learner effort, guiding the paths of learning, measuring educational attainment, and increasing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. If assessment methods are poorly aligned with desired outcomes, the risk is that learners would be distracted, demotivated, and discouraged in their learning paths.

Improved assessment practice can have a dramatic and positive effect on the amount of learning that takes place (Black and Wiliam 1998; Pereira, Flores, and Niklasson 2016). The last two decades have seen a surge in research concerning effective assessment theory building and practice, which can provide a framework for IVE practitioners when using assessment tasks to support second language acquisition. The broad trend of this research has been to take the focus away from the summative purposes of assessment (i.e. quantifying and measuring learners’ level of achievement) and instead emphasize the formative purposes (i.e. supporting learners to progress to a higher level of knowledge and ability). Following this trend, the present study is an investigation of assessment for second language acquisition, rather than assessment of second language acquisition. This chapter firstly presents the theoretical background of learning-oriented assessment (LOA), and secondly explores data collected from a case study of a program guided by LOA principles.

1 Literature review

1.1 Theoretical background of learning-oriented assessment

The term learning-oriented assessment refers to a way of conceptualizing and practicing assessment which prioritizes learning above all other considerations (Carless 2015; Jones and Saville 2016; Turner and Purpura 2016). It rejects the notion that summative and formative assessments are in opposition to each other but sees them working together to aid learning. LOA seeks to make learning the highest priority in the classroom, so that all other activities including assessment serve the purpose of learning. As such, it draws from a wide pool of formative assessment frameworks, such as authentic assessment (Frey et al. 2012), dynamic assessment (Poehner 2007), assessment for learning (Assessment Reform Group 2002), and teacher-based assessment (Davison and Leung 2009).

Within the field of SLA, there is no widely accepted model of LOA. Although Jones and Saville (2016) proposed a model of LOA that considers evidence of learning at the micro and macro level, their model makes little allowance for the highly situated and contextualized nature of learning environments. Turner and Purpura (2016: 260) noted, “Due to the variability in and unpredictability of context and the diverse characteristics of classroom agents in classrooms, it appears unrealistic to propose a model of LOA”. Any educator who attempts to develop assessment methods that are effective in promoting learner growth will have to pay careful attention to the particular cultural systems of relations and social structures of the context within which that assessment takes place (Elwood and Murphy 2015). However, while sociocultural particularities preclude the creation of a one-size-fits-all model of LOA, there do exist some generally agreed-upon principles, as outlined below. These principles informed the methods of assessment that were implemented in the case study which follows.

1.2 Principles of learning-oriented assessment

1.2.1 Creating authentic and cognitively complex tasks

Tasks used in IVE must be well-constructed, as participation in a virtual exchange by itself is not a sufficient condition for effective and motivated language learning (Hauck and Youngs 2008). As authentic assessment is a feature of LOA, assessment tasks should be aligned as closely as possible with the real world, and so reflect what learners will be doing once they leave the classroom (Lynch 2003). In the post-COVID-19 world with reduced opportunities for travel, this would likely entail virtual meetings, collaboration on online documents, video presentations, text chat, and other activities that are a staple of international virtual exchanges.

In addition, authentic assessment tasks are also performance-based, cognitively complex, and require collaboration among students or with the teacher (Frey et al. 2012). When undertaking assessment which is performance-based (or task-based), information is elicited that is both product-based and process-based. In other words, it examines whether the outcome of the task was achieved, and whether the students were actively engaged when they performed the task (Ellis 2018). Cognitive complexity comes from having learners participate in the manipulation of information and ideas as they co-construct knowledge, as opposed...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Introduction
• Language and virtual exchange
• Culture and virtual exchange
• Teacher education and virtual exchange
• Index