Interactivity in the teaching and learning of foreign languages: what it means for resourcing and delivery of online and blended programmes

ABSTRACT

University students who enrol in foreign language (FL) programmes are motivated by various needs, but in particular the need to achieve communicative fluency, which generally requires interaction with others. This study therefore explores the notion of ‘interactivity’, as conceptualised in second language learning theories and how it might be applied in online and blended delivery settings. It also considers whether current levels of resourcing of FL programmes in Australia and England reflect the unique needs of FL learners in these countries, where FLs are facing serious challenges. The requirement for interactivity in FL teaching and learning in fact reinforces the need for more favourable funding to FLs when compared to most other humanities disciplines, as already exemplified in Australian and English university funding models. Theoretical constructs suggest that to develop students’ interactional competence, programmes need to strike a balance between teachers’ direct instruction and students’ autonomous interaction with expert speaker peers. Guidelines derived from the theoretical exploration thus harness the potential for global connectivity and developing learner autonomy offered by communication technologies, to promote ‘interactive’ FL university programmes which are fundamentally social, intercultural and collaborative, with consideration for linguistic and technological-interactional constraints. Based on theories and current delivery practices, the study argues that interaction with native speaker peers would be facilitated through further streaming of beginners’ courses, the introduction of compulsory FLs to final year of high school level, and continued implementation of favourable funding ratios at the chalkface, to arrest the decline of FLs in English-speaking countries.

KEYWORDS:

• foreign languages (FLs)
• online and blended settings
• resourcing
• interaction

Acknowledgements

I express my appreciation to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier version of this study.

Notes

1. A few other humanities disciplines are also funded at a higher level. For further details see: http://www.innovation.gov.au/HigherEducation/ResourcesAndPublications/Resources/Documents/Allocation_units_study2013.pdf. Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) funding clusters have their origins in the Relative Funding Model (RFM) released in 1990 by the former Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET), though the distinction between ‘Arts’ and ‘Arts-Other’ goes back to the eighties, according to Professor Colin Nettelbeck (University of Melbourne, personal email communication).

2. In contrast to the Australian model, the Netherlands government funding bodies classify university FLs as ‘low cost programmes' (Ecker, Leitner and Steindl 2012: 7), which are funded at the same level as arts, humanities, law and social sciences.

3. Details of enrolments in beginners classes compared to intermediate are only available on the University of South Australia website (2014), as follows: French 1A (beginners): 65; French 2A (intermediate/post final year high school level, which may include beginners from previous year: 24; Japanese 1A (beginners): 141; Japanese 2A (intermediate): 27. It should also be noted that professionally oriented degrees at this university often present structural barriers to students who wish to proceed beyond beginner level.

4. It is beyond the scope of this study to describe all published educational theories and constructs which may be applicable to online teaching and learning of FLs. See Chapelle (2009) for an exhaustive account. Social constructivism is not only relevant to FL programs. CA on the other hand has been applied to classroom interaction in general, though it seems to have had a particularly strong influence on the teaching and learning of FLs (Firth and Wagner 1997; Koole 2012).

5. The use of the term ‘expert speakers’ rather than ‘native speakers’ acknowledges the value of FL learners’ interaction with expert speakers other than native speakers.

6. One of the most reliable websites based on the author's and her students’ experiences, is Sharedtalk http://www.sharedtalk.com, though the unicollaboration site www.unicollaboration.eu facilitates the establishment of telecollaborative exchanges between classes rather than individuals.

7. According to Clyne et al. (2007):

 …  half the children in compulsory education in Australia are not being taught a language other than English (LOTE) in a mainstream school. The majority of those taking a LOTE are in programmes with inadequate time allocation, and taught by teachers who have not received sufficient training or are not sufficiently proficient in the language they are teaching. Language teacher status and morale are low. Most schools do not require students to take a second language throughout the compulsory years of education. Many schools make it impossible or inconvenient to take a LOTE in Years 9 and 10 through the constraints of the timetable.

8. Martin and Jansen (2011: 188) argue, for example, that:

 …  students who had a good experience of language learning prior entering university or have been exchange students to a non-English-speaking country will have more language capital than those who had no or frustrating exposure to language learning and have not been exchange students.

9. See http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/the-international-baccalaureate-is-gaining-popularity-among-our-schools-heres-a-look-at-the-reasons-for-the-rise-in-participation/story-e6frebxc-1225773724508.