1. P a g e
|
1
E.
Cutmore
NOT
FOR
DISTRIBUTION
Rationale for Videoconferencing in Language Learning IVIDEO.
It is well established in the literature that learning a second language is of great benefit to
students, not only educationally, but also socially and culturally (MCEETYA, 2005; Collins,
2007; Horst, White & Bell, 2010). The primary school that I have been allocated for
practicum is a bilingual school where classes are taught across the curriculum in both English
and French. The teachers at the school are also predominantly technophobic, and as such I
wanted to explore how ICT could assist with teaching and learning of Languages Other Than
English (LOTE).
As long ago as 1916, John Dewey lamented the gap between school based learning and real-
world learning, describing it as “...an undesirable split between the experience gained in
direct association and what is acquired in school” (as cited in Jonassen, Howland, Marra &
Crismond, 2008, p.153). Nowhere is this divide more noticeable than in LOTE classrooms,
where language can be taught in relative isolation and often not used anywhere outside the
room. The most effective way of bridging that divide is to provide as much access to native
speakers as possible for LOTE students. This is supported by Cummins (2000), when he
states “L2 acquisition will remain abstract and classroom-bound unless students have the
opportunity to express themselves - their identities and their intelligence - through that
language”, and “In order to motivate language use, there should ideally be an authentic
audience that encourages two-way communication in both oral and written modes.” (p.544).
One ICT educational tool that would allow increased access to two-way conversation with
native speakers is videoconferencing. As such, in my iVideo response I have attempted to
demonstrate the benefits in utilising videoconferencing in LOTE classrooms, whilst
acknowledging some of the challenges teachers face in embracing these new technologies.
Videoconferencing is “...a form of two-way interactive communication [which] allows those
involved to see and hear each other” (Roblyer, 2006, p.240). It is not a particularly new
technology, however through free access to applications such as Skype and Google Talk, it is
now much more accessible and cost effective. In fact, videoconferencing technology is
widely available to NSW schools through the State Government’s 2007 Connected
Classrooms initiative. This program plans to provide videoconferencing facilities to over
2200 schools throughout NSW (NSW DET, 2010). However, just because the technology is
there is not a reason to use it.

2. P a g e
|
2
E.
Cutmore
NOT
FOR
DISTRIBUTION
Students learn best when they are “wilfully engaged in a meaningful task” (Jonassen et al,
2008, p.2). Therefore it is the nature of the task in which we ask students to participate that is
instrumental to the learning outcomes. Tasks need to be active, constructive, intentional,
cooperative and authentic in order to facilitate meaningful learning (Jonassen et al, 2008).
Videoconferencing can provide an avenue for just such an activity.
According to Sylvia Tolisano (2010), videoconferencing can be a task that engages students
in meaningful learning. This can be achieved by treating the video conference as if it were an
excursion. She states “The actual experience should be framed by pre-activities that activate
prior knowledge and post-activities that give students the opportunity to reflect, create and
connect these new experiences” (http://langwitches.org/blog/2010/11/20/assessment-of-
learning-via-skype/). On her ‘Langwitches’ blog, Tolisano (2010) shares about student
reactions to the use of effective videoconferencing by stating “I see motivation in their
eyes… I feel excitement in the air…I hear them say: ‘How cool’, ‘That was awesome’ or
‘When are we skyping again?’” (http://langwitches.org/blog/2010/11/20/assessment-of-
learning-via-skype/). This demonstrates a high level of engagement with the task. Tolisano
(2008) also describes successful LOTE Skype conferences in Spanish and English with
students as young as five engaging in language activities ranging from singing songs in both
languages to playing instructional games bilingually
(http://langwitches.org/blog/2008/11/16/videoconferencing-with-elementary-school-
students/).
Language learning in primary school is underpinned by the study of the culture specific to
that language. All NSW Language syllabuses divide outcomes into three strands. The first
two relate to language use and linguistic connections while the third is called Moving
Between Cultures (Board of Studies NSW, 2003). Videoconferencing allows for exchange
not only of language practice and utilisation, but also for a cultural exchange. Brian Crosby
(2009) supports videoconferencing as more than just a language tool in his “Learning is
Messy” blog. In one of his posts ‘Making videoconferencing more than just cool’ he states
“Students are learning to communicate effectively while learning about a different
geographic area and culture” (http://learningismessy.com/blog/?p=573). And Tolisano (2009)
also cites her main reason for utilizing videoconferencing as “…to connect my students
with students from other countries in order to raise global cultural awareness”

3. P a g e
|
3
E.
Cutmore
NOT
FOR
DISTRIBUTION
(http://langwitches.org/blog/2009/01/02/reasons-for-skyping-in-the-classroom/). Thus
videoconferencing can potentially address learning in all three aspects of the LOTE
curriculum.
Videoconferencing however, can be problematic. There are issues of management, teacher
attitudes and student reactions to consider. BECTA (2003) noted that “Interactivity can be
problematic” (p.3) as managing a whole class interacting through one webcam necessitates
fairly strict behaviour management for the interaction to be successful. Also, many teachers
feel that the time commitment required to facilitate a truly collaborative LOTE
videoconferencing experience is too much to ask of an already stretched curriculum (Harris,
2002). Finally, not all students respond well to this medium of exchange. BECTA (2003)
states that “It should not be assumed that all students will react well to a proposed video
conference, especially if it contains the added strain of being conducted across language
barriers” (p.3).
However, LOTE is an area where videoconferencing could make a real difference to
students’ learning outcomes as it can provide a vehicle for meaningful learning through a
collaborative, active and authentic environment. As teachers our aim is to enhance students’
learning outcomes and so it is worth the extra time and effort to harness the potential of this
technology for the benefit of our students. Hunter and Beveridge (2008) state that the real
challenge with videoconferencing is not in operating the equipment, but “...in using it to
exploit its potential to enhance and enrich teaching and learning” (p.4). I hope that my
iVideo has challenged you to reconsider your thinking about the use of videoconferencing in
effective LOTE instruction. As Harris (2002) notes “If [the] superior educational benefits of
telecollaborative learning activities are perceived clearly by teachers... telecollaborations will
flourish” (p.6). May it be so.

4. P a g e
|
4
E.
Cutmore
NOT
FOR
DISTRIBUTION
References:
BECTA (2003). What the research says about videoconferencing in education. BECTA:
Coventry. Retrieved 28th February 2011 from UTSOnline database at
https://online.uts.edu.au/bbcswebdav/courses/021702/wtrs_vidconf.pdf
Board of Studies NSW. (2003). Italian K-10 Syllabus. BOS NSW: Sydney.
Collins, R. (2007). Learning a second language. Why bother? In Professional Educator 6(4).
pp 32-35. Retrieved February 24th 2011 from A+ Education database.
Crosby, B. (2009). Making videoconferencing more than just cool. Learning is Messy blog.
Retrieved February 26th 2011 from http://learningismessy.com/blog/?p=573
Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy and information
technology: Towards a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly,34, 537-547. Retrieved
February 23rd 2011 from Australian Premier Education database (EBSCOHost).
Harris, J. (2002). Wherefore art thou, Telecollaboration? Learning and leading with
technology. International Society for Technology in Education: Oregon. Retrieved
February 18th 2011 from UTSOnline database.
Horst, M., White, J. & Bell, P. (2010). First and second language knowledge in the language
classroom. International Journal of Bilingualism 14(3) pp. 331-349. Retrieved from A+
Education database February 23rd 2011.
Hunter, J. And Beveridge, S. (2008). Connected classrooms creating learning communities
using videoconferencing technology and quality teaching. In SCAN 27(4) pp.4-7.
Retrieved March 24th from A+ Education database.
Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R. & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with
technology. (3rd ed.) Pearson Education: New Jersey.

5. P a g e
|
5
E.
Cutmore
NOT
FOR
DISTRIBUTION
MCEETYA (2005). Languages Education in Australian Schools: National plan for
languages education in Australian schools 2005-2008. SA DECS: Adelaide. Retrieved
24th February 2011 from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/languageeducation_file.pdf
NSW DET (2010). Connected Classrooms Program in action. Connected Classrooms
Program: Sydney. Retrieved February 28th 2011 from
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/detresources/ccp_in_action_compendium_FNOouLXKim.pdf
Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. (4th ed.). Pearson
Education: New Jersey
Tolisano, S. (2010). Assessment of learning via Skype. Langwitches blog. Retrieved 24th
February 2011 from
http://langwitches.org/blog/2010/11/20/assessment-of-learning-via-skype/
Tolisano, S. (2009). Reasons for Skyping in the classroom. Langwitches blog. Retrieved 24th
February 2011 from
http://langwitches.org/blog/2009/01/02/reasons-for-skyping-in-the-classroom/
Tolisano, S. (2008). Videoconferencing with elementary school students. Langwitches blog.
Retrieved 24th February 2011 from
http://langwitches.org/blog/2008/11/16/videoconferencing-with-elementary-school-students/