A Tale of Two Communities: Group Dynamics and Community Building in a Spanish-English Telecollaboration

MARK DARHOWER
North Carolina State University

Abstract:
This study provides a theory-driven account of community building in a bilingual telecollaborative chat setting. A symmetrical arrangement of 70 L1 English learners of Spanish and L1 Spanish learners of English engaged in weekly Internet chat sessions in small groups. The learning metaphors of community and participation serve as the theoretical framework to describe linguistic and social behaviors and interpersonal relationships among participants in two ongoing chat groups, while, at the same time, discourse data are used to build upon theory of (virtual) community. Based on Brown's (2001) classification of levels of online community, the findings illustrate the discursive construction of one community that reached the third, cooperation/camaraderie, level and another that struggled to maintain the second, membership, level.

KEYWORDS

Chat Communities, ESL, Participation Metaphor, Spanish, Telecollaboration

These are early days in the exploration of the concept of community … in the emerging hybrid worlds in which people live … . Conversations and relationships are, for a growing number of people, mediated through new tools enabled by computing and telecommunications. These are exciting times, akin to the first decades of the written word … (Barab, Kling, & Gray, 2004, p. xiii)

INTRODUCTION

'Telecollaboration' (known as 'tandem learning' in Europe) has been an active area of second language acquisition (SLA) research in recent years. A telecollaboration consists of groups of geographically separated learners in which half of the learners are native speakers of the language the other half are learning, and vice versa. Telecollaborations are by nature virtual learning communities (Renninger

561

& Shumar, 2002). 'Community,' a metaphor oft employed in scholarship throughout the humanities and social sciences, is especially robust in SLA research as the field increasingly embraces the social, as well as cognitive factors involved in learning languages (Block, 2003; Firth & Wagner, 1997). Much of this research has been cast in the Vygotsky-inspired sociocultural theoretical framework (for an overview, see Lantolf & Appel, 1994) complemented with constructs such as 'community of practice' (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Although recent SLA studies have been carried out in the context of virtual learner communities (e.g., Belz, 2001, 2002b), research has yet to sufficiently define a role for community in L2 learning (Darhower, 2006). Studies are needed to enlighten the specific processes by which learners become full fledged members of L2 discourse communities (or not).

The current study analyzes a virtual community named the¹ Bilingual Chat Community (BCC). This collaboration between the North Carolina State University and the University of Puerto Rico unites L1 English speakers learning Spanish with L1 Spanish speakers learning English. The purpose is to initiate learners into a bilingual discourse community in which they can coconstruct meaning with native speakers in the L2 and share with each other aspects of their respective cultures. This study explores linguistic and social behaviors involved in community building in two groups of the BCC who chatted for a 10-week period. One of the groups constructed a cooperative, cohesive communicative environment in their chat room, whereas the other group established a very different type of communicative environment. Discourse analysis will illuminate the trajectory of each group as it constructs the communicative norms of its community.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Community as Language Learning Metaphor

According to Lantolf (1996), SLA research is largely metaphorical. Metaphors applied to the field range from single constructs (e.g., input/output) to theories of language and language acquisition (e.g., information processing or mind = computer). Metaphors help researchers conceptualize abstract ideas in a more concrete way. Community is a metaphor currently of great interest to academics across the humanities and social sciences. A related metaphor in learning theory is participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991), which views learning as a process of becoming a participant in a community of practice (CoP). This contrasts with other common learning metaphors, such as the acquisition metaphor which equates the human mind with a container to be filled with certain materials of which the learner is then the owner (Sfard, 1998, p. 5).

The CoP is perhaps the most developed concept of community in psychology and learning theory. A CoP consists of individuals who interact on a regular basis around a common set of issues, interests, or needs. Wenger (1998) established three criteria for defining a CoP. When members of the CoP accomplish something on an ongoing basis, they have a 'joint enterprise.' Members have 'mutual engagement' when they interact with one another to clarify their work and to

562

define and even change how the work is done. Through this mutual engagement, members establish their identities relative to the community. A 'shared repertoire' refers to the methods, tools, techniques, language, and behavior patterns that comprise the cultural context for the members' work.

In the participation view of SLA, learners ideally integrate themselves as full participants in some type of community that employs the L2 as its means of communication. As Sfard (1998, p. 6) puts it, "learning a subject is now conceived of as a process of becoming a member of a certain community. This entails, above all, the ability to communicate in the language of this community and act according to its particular norms." Defining whether a collection of human beings constitutes a community or not is an elusive endeavor, however. Some theorists establish specific criteria for community, such as Wenger's CoP. Riel and Polin (1994, p. 18) make the distinction that "a community differs from a mere collection of people by the strength and depth of the culture it is able to establish and which in turn supports group activity and cohesion."

The social activity that occurs in CoPs is inherently tied to group membership and identity (Riel & Polin, 1994). Norton (2001) argues the importance of understanding how learners develop identities as 'legitimate speakers,' that is, how they come to be accepted as fully functioning members of different CoPs with which they engage. The process of becoming a "fully functioning member" implies that learners evolve over time in their social roles and identities relative to the group. Rogoff (1994, p. 210) considers this process of "transformation of participation" an essential part of learning.

However, not all members of a community actively participate or necessarily enjoy participating. Some group members might not develop strong connections with each other, especially if the groupings are involuntary. As Riel and Polin (1994) point out, communities do not always entail healthy contexts of close interpersonal relationships but rather may be dysfunctional, scattered, or otherwise troubled.

As participant roles develop and are played out through discourse practices, the social history of the group is created and stored (Hall, 1993). Such history can then be brought forth for reconstruction. 'Historicity' (and futurity) can be noted in groups that have a mutual engagement as they build on their past and plan and prepare for their future.

Linguistic and Social Affordances

According to Wenger (1998, p. 72), "The negotiation of meaning is the level of discourse at which the concept of practice should be understood." In the L2 context, learners attempt to coconstruct meaning with each other or with more proficient speakers of the L2. Proficient speakers can offer linguistic resources to learners. Borrowing from psychologist James Gibson, Van Lier (2000) refers to linguistic resources available to learners as 'affordances.' Affordances can include such familiar SLA constructs as comprehensible input (Krashen, 1981, and elsewhere), negative feedback ( Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994), and scaffolding

563

(Donato, 1994; Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Additionally, affordances are aspects of the linguistic world which can be "demands and requirements, opportunities and limitations, rejections and invitations, enablements and constraints (Shotter & Newson, 1982, as cited in Van Lier, 2000, p. 253). These can be considered 'social affordances.' In a social view of SLA, participation in a CoP is the activity of language learners. As learners participate in CoPs, affordances are available for them to make use of--or not.

Virtual Communities and Telecollaboration

Rheingold (1993) is credited with pioneering the concept of 'virtual community,' which he describes as social aggregations that emerge on the Internet when enough people carry on discussions long enough to form personal relations in cyberspace. In her extensive research into online community-building, Brown (2001) delineates three levels in the evolution of online communities. In the 'acquaintance' level, participants get to know each other. Brown refers to the 'community conferment or membership' level as the "membership card" for the community. Learners usually feel that they are members when they are part of long, thoughtful discussions with each other. The final level is 'camaraderie,' which is achieved after "long-term and/or intense association with others involving personal communication" (Brown, 2001, p. 24). These levels are not necessarily linear. In other words, a community that reaches camaraderie level could regress to membership level, and individual community members can be on different levels at different times. Brown also pointed out that community can be present for some individuals but not for others who for whatever reasons do not engage well with their counterparts.

In observing hundreds of online communities, Kim (2000) noted that participants always fit into some type of role, ranging from 'visitor' to 'novice,' 'regular,' 'leader' and eventually to 'elder.' Many participants evolve from the visitor or novice role to regular member, and most communities have one or more individuals in a leader role at any given time. Renninger and Shumar (2002, p. 298) note that "learners play a variety of roles and may participate in various ways, from active to passive."

SLA scholars remain intensely interested in the emergent culture of electronically mediated discourse (e.g., Belz & Thorne, 2005), although studies that specifically address community as a construct are relatively few. Darhower (2006) made a case for a stronger role for community in National Standards-based L2 learning. Arnold, Ducate, Lomicka, & Lord (2005) demonstrated the unique types of learning that take place when teachers in training from geographically dispersed places unite in an online community.

Studies of telecollaborative learning communities highlight linguistic, social and cultural factors of the communities, providing information on both the benefits and potential disadvantages of telecollaborations (Belz, 2001, 2002a; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Schneider & von der Emde, 2005). In telecollaborations between American and German students, for example, Belz (2001) found that such factors

564

as language valuation, access to technology, and matching of proficiency levels have a profound effect on the linguistic and interpersonal nature of telecollaborative learning environments. Belz's conclusion was that "telecollaboration does not unproblematically afford target language interaction in all cases" (p. 229).

The current study seeks to complement extant research on telecollaborations by illustrating the specific social discursive processes involved in participating in and acquiring membership to virtual bilingual language communities.

THE STUDY

Context and Participants: The Bilingual Chat Community (BCC)

The BCC is a web-enabled community which provides a forum for English-speaking learners of Spanish to communicate in weekly chat sessions with Spanish-speaking learners of English. The physical space of the BCC resides in the chat rooms hosted by the WebCT server at the North Carolina State University and the BCC web site containing photographs and biographical information on the participants, as well as information they need to be productive members of the community, such as weekly topic assignments (see topics list in Appendix A) and the chat schedule. The participants in the semester's BCC were approximately 35 Spanish students from North Carolina State University (NCSU) and 35 English students from the University of Puerto Rico (UPR). Those included in the study were 12 members of two different groups. Four of the 12 were male, and 8 were female. All 12 members were the traditional university age (19-22), and all were estimated to be somewhere in the intermediate-mid to intermediate-high ACTFL oral proficiency level.

Research Question

The general research question driving this case study is: What linguistic and social behaviors define the process of forming a community and becoming full participants in the community?

Data Collection

Weekly transcripts collected by the chat server were the principal data source. In qualitative research, it is often necessary to reduce large quantities of data. With 11 groups chatting for 10 weeks, there were a total of 110 chat episodes, each consisting of anywhere from 5 to 11 pages of text. To reduce the enormous amount of data collected, the researcher employed purposive sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994), selecting two groups for analysis: Group E and Group D. The participants in Group E appeared to form a cohesive community throughout their ten weeks of chat, developing meaningful interpersonal relationships mediated by electronic discourse. Group D, at the other extreme, did not appear to form a tight social bond. The two groups were selected to contrast levels of community development. The researcher does not wish to give the impression that these two groups are representative of the BCC as a whole. The remainder of the 11 groups

565

fell somewhere between Group E and Group D in terms of a cohesion continuum, based on the researcher's impressionistic review of the 110 chat logs.

To answer the research question, the researcher made reiterative passes through the data, viewing the chat scripts through the lens of the three-level framework established by Brown (2001) (i.e., acquaintance, membership, and camaraderie levels). Within that framework emerged several categories of analysis: experiences with the L2, historicity and futurity, integration of new members, member roles and regulatory behaviors, members versus nonmembers, and linguistic and social affordances. Discourse excerpts were selected to illustrate each category.

DATA ANALYSIS: GROUP E

Five learners were assigned to Group E: two from NCSU and three from the UPR. There were also six visitors who joined the group for one to three sessions, but the analysis focuses on members originally assigned to the group. Group E had an attendance rate of 88%, that is, a total of only six absences dispersed among the five participants over the course of 10 weeks. Table 1 shows which participants attended each weekly chat session.²

Acquaintance Phase (Weeks 1 and 2)

Experiences with the L2

In Week 1, Bob, Manuela, and Ricardo become acquainted with each other. (It is noteworthy that these three participants had excellent attendance, so they chatted with each other all 10 weeks.) In Excerpt E1, the chatters discuss the extent of their experience with their L2 (lines 1-7) and aspects of using the L2 that are most challenging for them (lines 8-20). In lines 22-24, they look favorably upon their chat experience in helping them develop their L2 skills.³

566

Excerpt E1 (Week 1): Experiences with the L2

Discussing their experiences with their L2 sets the stage for the bilingual social relationships that the participants will develop throughout ten weeks of chatting together.

Historicity and Futurity

After the first moments of their initial chat, the chatters not only have a present but also a past and a future. In other words, they possess historicity and futurity. An example of this is found in Excerpt E2 in which Ricardo remembers that Bob had a birthday (line 2), then both Bob and Lisa wish Ricardo a happy birthday (line 10). (Coincidentally, three of the group members had a birthday during the semester.) Later, in Week 10 (not included in this excerpt), the other birthdays are remembered.

Excerpt E2 (Week 10): Historicity/Futurity

567

The group's sense of historicity and futurity is a good indicator that by Week 2 they were already developing a sense of community.

Integration of New Members and Establishment of Roles

In Week 1, Bob, Manuela, and Ricardo are novices since they had never chatted together before. Since the BCC has preestablished rules governing chat topics and equal use of English and Spanish, somebody must take on the role of initiating and maintaining the topic, switching languages, and ending the chat session. Bob fulfills this role in the first chat. Interestingly, as shown in Excerpt E3, Manuela (the only female in the group) asks the two gentlemen to change the topic of discussion to something to which she can relate (line 1). In doing so, she asserts her rights as a full member while still a novice in the community. In lines 3, 5, and 6, Bob demonstrates that he is happy to accommodate Manuela's request.

Excerpt E3 (Week 2): Manuela's request to change topics

Later in Week 2 (not illustrated in the excerpt), Lisa and Nilsa integrate themselves into the community. Nilsa enters and greets the others, then asks to be initiated: es la primera vez que entro asi que ubiquenme 'it's the first time I'm entering, so orient me.' Lisa enters and greets the community members, then instantly integrates herself into the discussion by exchanging introductory information with her fellow chatters. Manuela is pleased that she is no longer the only female in the chat: chicas nuevas en la sala … al fin no me siento sola jejeje 'new girls in the room … at last I don't feel alone hahaha.' Bob directs the group to get to know the newcomers before continuing the conversation: Parece que tenemos que empzar a conocernos otra vez! 'It looks like we have to get to know each other again!'

All assigned participants have chatted at least once by the end of Week 2. The requirements for membership seem to be clear to them, so the community enters the community membership level.

568

Community Membership Level

By the third chat session, most members of Group E become regulars of the community (except Nilsa, who is absent the third and fourth weeks), meaning that they are initiated into the norms and communicative patterns of the community.

Roles and Regulatory Behaviors

Wenger (1998, p. 74) notes that "The kind of coherence that transforms mutual engagement into a community of practice requires work. The work of 'community maintenance' is thus an intrinsic part of any practice." During the membership level, participant roles evolve. As shown in Table 2, Lisa picks up the regulatory functions soon after she enters her first chat (Week 2, to which she was 19 minutes late) and maintains these functions almost exclusively throughout the 10 weeks, except for the week she is absent (Week 6). It can be said, then, that Lisa fulfills the leader role, taking this over from Bob after Week 1.

Members and Nonmembers

After a few weeks of chatting, the group members know who is part of their community and who is not. Excerpt E4 shows what happens when a visitor (Adalia) enters.

Excerpt E4 (Week 3): Entrance of a visitor

569

Ricardo simply greets Adalia (line 2), but Manuela must make it a point to find out who Adalia is and if she is male or female (lines 3-8) before she and Ricardo can integrate Adalia into their discussion.

Linguistic Affordances

Beginning the first week, the chatters provide linguistic affordances to each other, which have the potential to aid in the development of their L2. In just one example of this, Excerpt E5 shows Ricardo requesting the meaning of the expression "lift weights" (line 2). Bob explains the meaning in lines 4 and 5, and by line 6, Ricardo seems to understand and thanks Bob for the linguistic affordance.

Excerpt E5 (Week 1): Request for meaning (I)

In Excerpt E6, line2, Ricardo returns the favor, although he provides the meaning in Bob's L1 (English) instead of explaining it in Spanish. The provision of such linguistic affordances is an important function of the reciprocity of the chat community. That is, each member of the community can alternate between the language expert and language learner roles.

Excerpt E6 (Week 6): Request for meaning (II)

Throughout the 10 weeks, one of the chatters in particular (Bob) makes abundant use of affordances provided by the Spanish speakers. In Week 2, for example, Bob begins using the conditional tense verb debería 'ought,' a tense generally not yet employed by learners at this (intermediate) level, after seeing Ricardo use the verb form. In Excerpt E7, Bob repeats the conditional tense verb twice in response to Ricardo's question and then uses the form once again in a question directed back to Ricardo. Bob eliminates the preposition de from the verb form;

570

presumably because he does not think it necessary, and, in fact, it is not. He may have lifted the word debería from Ricardo as a lexical item rather than analyzing it as a conjugated verb form because he did not change the verb ending to the second person familiar form (deberías).

Excerpt E7 (Week 2): Bob's use of a linguistic affordance

Bob also employs circumlocution to help the Spanish speakers provide him the linguistic affordance he needs. In Excerpt E8, Bob negotiates the word anestesiológo 'anesthesiologist.' In lines 5 and 6, Josefina and Manuela indicate that they do not understand what Bob means in line 2 by "she makes sure you don't have pain." When Bob adds "person who gives medicine" to this in line 7, the Hispanophones figure out what he means and give him the word in Spanish (line 10).

Excerpt E8 (Week 2): Negotiation of a lexical item

571

This circumlocution, coupled with Bob's independent use of affordances as illustrated in Excerpt E6, demonstrates that Bob has appropriated chat room discourse as a mediator of his L2 development, a desirable accomplishment for chatters to attain.

One type of linguistic affordance widely believed to aid acquisition is negative feedback or error correction. BCC members were not specifically instructed on how and when to correct L2 errors because the instructors wanted to allow learners the autonomy to determine for themselves what the communicative norms would be in their chat rooms. As a result, a range of error correction patterns emerged from group to group. In Group E, there seemed to be an implicit norm that errors would not be corrected unless the speaker requested correction or if the error impeded comprehension. While the lack of negative feedback makes for fewer interruptions to the flow of conversation, there were a number of opportunities to provide such affordances which could have helped the learners in their L2 development. For example, Manuela says in Week 8, "lisa did u saw havanna nights?" The same week, Ricardo says, "Did every vary saw "Dance with me"?" Neither time was "saw" corrected, and, in fact, Ricardo misspells every "vary" (everybody) throughout the entire chat without anyone bringing it to his attention. This is one area, provision of negative feedback, in which instructors might want to intervene to guide chatters in providing and taking advantage of linguistic affordances in their chats.