A Comparative Analysis of Two Online Videoconferencing Initiatives for Conversational Practice with Native Speakers

  • Megan Mercedes EchevarríaEmail author


This chapter describes and comparatively analyzes two online videoconferencing initiatives carried out in Spanish courses at the University of Rhode Island (URI), grounding the analysis in current Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), telecollaboration, and language pedagogy research. The study analyzes the similarities and differences between the two experiments and the two courses in which they were integrated, underscoring limitations faced in the planning and implementation of both programs as well as strategies used to overcome challenges and actively engage learners in meaningful and productive conversation practice with native speakers of their L2. Using a multifaceted theoretical framework, the chapter situates these initiatives both in the unique contexts of the courses in which they were integrated, as well as in the broader context of large-scale programmatic goals. The study provides an outline and analysis of the specific features of each of the two experiments in order to illustrate the advantages that telecommunication tools and design options may offer in different settings. The primary purpose of the chapter is to underscore the benefits and challenges associated with the design and implementation of online interpersonal communication initiatives. The goal is to help language educators make well-informed decisions as to which tool and design features will be most useful toward achieving concrete learning outcomes in particular learning contexts.


  1. Belz, J. A. (2006). At the intersection of telecollaboration, learner corpus analysis and L2 pragmatics: Considerations for program direction. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 207–246). Boston: Thomson-Heinle.Google Scholar
  2. Belz, J. A., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Introduction. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. viii–vxxv). Boston: Thomson-Heinle.Google Scholar
  3. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dooly, M. (2008). Understanding the many steps for effective collaborative language projects. The Language Learning Journal, 36(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Guth, S., & Helm, F. (2010). Introduction. In Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 13–35). Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harris, J. (2002). Wherefore art thou, Telecollaboration? Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(6), 55–59. Available at: Accessed 5 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
  8. Hatch, E. M. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 64–86). Cambridge: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  9. Helm, F., & Guth, S. (2010). The multifarious goals of telecollaboration 2.0: Theoretical and practical implications. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 69–106). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  10. Kurek, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2017). Task design for telecollaborative exchanges: In search of new criteria. System, 64, 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1982). ETS oral proficiency testing manual. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  13. Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  14. New London Group. (1996). Pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Education Review, 66(1), 60–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Dowd, R., & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context. Boston: Thomson-Heinle.Google Scholar
  17. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Thorne, S. L. (2006). Mediating technologies and second language learning. In D. Leu, J. Coiro, C. Lankshear, & M. Knobel (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 417–449). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations