Internationalization in teaching

Based on Alena Hradilová and Kirby Vincent
Daring to videoconference: Ideas for teachers

Alena Hradilová, Language Centre, Masaryk University: alena.hradilova@cjv.muni.cz

Kirby Vincent, Language Centre, University of Helsinki: kirby.vincent@helsinki.fi

Stand-alone VC technology

In language education, Virtual Communication (VC) can manifest in diverse formats. Specifically, in our context, we refer to broadband VC, representing a standalone technology generation. This encompasses small- and medium-sized systems adept at enabling high-speed, synchronous, interactive audio-visual communication using Internet Protocol. Notably, our definition excludes synchronous web conferencing that relies on desktop computers equipped with a camera and related software, as per Smyth's (2005: 806) classification. Instead, we focus on large-room systems where two groups of students from different geographical locations convene in a virtual classroom. This is what it looks like:

Figure 1: Videoconferencing suite (illustration by Barbora Chovancová).

Course overview
This case outlines a Virtual Communication (VC) course conducted collaboratively by the University of Helsinki (Finland) and Masaryk University (Czech Republic). This course follows a technology-enhanced approach, as per the framework proposed by Ross and Gage (2006 in Caulfield 2011). While the class convenes regularly, what sets it apart is the incorporation of a VC component, distinguishing it from conventional courses.

To strike the right balance between traditional and ICT-enhanced methods, as previously discussed in publications like Štěpánek and Hradilová (2013), we experimented with various combinations. Our conclusion was that both methods hold equal importance in our legal English course. Consequently, VC makes up approximately half of the total teaching time.

Course participants diversity
The course caters to law students who voluntarily enrol, specifically those in their second year at Masaryk University and fourth or fifth years at the University of Helsinki. Notably, while Masaryk University students take the course to fulfil language requirements, their counterparts at the University of Helsinki already meet this criterion and participate for extra credits. All participants fall within the B2–C1 proficiency levels according to CEFR, ensuring homogeneity in linguistic competencies. However, there are slight variations in age, maturity, study skills, work experience, and background legal knowledge among the students, making classroom dynamics a crucial consideration. Striking a balance in roles and challenges is essential for motivating all students, given their diverse backgrounds.

The VC partnership selection poses challenges due to differences in participant characteristics. Nevertheless, careful task preparation, role division, and challenge selection can mitigate this issue, fostering a valuable match among participants.

In terms of class size, each VC side accommodates a maximum of twelve students. Past experiences with larger classes have proven challenging to manage (Morgan 2008, DeHaaff 2008). To ensure effective engagement, maintaining a total participation below 24 students in the entire video conference is recommended. However, cost-effectiveness in university language education also influences decisions, making twelve students per language teacher a reasonable and practical compromise.

Course Development
The course development commenced in 2009, with regular revisions of materials and methods (Hradilová, Chovancová & Vincent, 2012). Individual sessions are recorded, and the corpus is utilized by one of the teachers to identify potential areas for improvement and examples of good practice. In this chapter, we share our teaching journey, providing insights into the rationale behind the course's structure and delivery, aiming to assist curious educators in streamlining their VC course design.

The current state of the course is characterized by a seven-week core teaching period. During this time, students convene via videoconference once a week, with additional opportunities to prepare for videoconferences and engage in other English for law activities during six non-videoconference sessions — five before and one after the VC. The course's duration is practically determined, considering the distinct time schedules of Helsinki and Masaryk, where Masaryk University follows a 13-week structure with one 90-minute session per week, while Helsinki courses span seven weeks with 90-minute sessions twice a week.

To accommodate these structural differences, students in Helsinki benefit from additional support, meeting for a non-VC session weekly to discuss tasks and prepare for videoconferences. In contrast, Masaryk University students manage preparations independently, with no between-session support. However, they attend five traditional preparation sessions before the VC, focusing on raising awareness about potential issues and developing skills needed for the VC experience. Details about these sessions are provided in the Learning Cycles in the Course Syllabus section of this chapter. Students also undergo a reflection and evaluation session post-VC. Addressing the asymmetry in the distribution of teacher-and-student time together sessions was a key consideration in the course design.

Syllabus development and teaching methods
Crafting the course syllabus emerged as a key early agreement in our collaboration, though it began with ambitious goals. Our primary focus was on efficient session delivery, maximizing the meaningful use of the limited time students spend together. Initially lacking expertise in Virtual Communication (VC), we structured the course around traditional methods, relying on our own research findings and resources such as methodology guides, coursebooks, and VC quick guides (De Haaff, 2008; Morgan, 2008; Katrňáková et al., 2008). Despite the helpfulness of these resources, the overall literature on VC in language learning was limited, and even after eight years, little peer-reviewed empirical research on student learning outcomes was available (Lewis and O´Dowd, 2016: 48). Moreover, narrow understandings of VC often depicted it solely as a tool for autonomous learning, a perspective not aligned with our approach.

Remaining willing to experiment within defined parameters, we acknowledged Cuban's (2001) observation that teachers tend to adapt technology to their teaching routines. Although neither of us favoured a teacher-cantered approach, our initial VC experiences were influenced by our preferred conventional teaching methods. Over time, as our confidence as VC teachers grew through experience, we simplified the syllabus, reducing both the number of skills practiced and tasks performed. This evolution reflected our ability to align teaching practices with technology, leading to a current syllabus that is more flexible, with fewer planned activities. Teachers take a more backgrounded role, providing students with increased autonomy.

An essential component is a shared learning platform, enhancing the course structure and serving as a meeting place for students beyond videoconferences.

Syllabus Layers
The course syllabus is structured with three main layers: soft skills practiced by students, topics for discussion, and modes of communication both within and outside the classroom. These layers are interconnected, reinforcing each other and progressively challenging students to enhance their skills continually. Details regarding the course structure, topics, and modes of communication are elaborated later in the text and are also available in Table 2 in the Appendix.

Soft skills form a significant part of the syllabus, primarily involving mini-presentations via VC, negotiating and mentoring through case studies, and courtroom behaviour, which includes giving speeches and cross-examination in mock trials. The objective is for students to experientially learn these skills during VC classes. The VC environment serves as a natural space for students to observe their colleagues actively, discuss their observations and experiences, and then reflect on and conceptualize their learning. Following this, students actively practice again, completing the full Lewinian Learning Cycle (Kolb et al., 2001: 229; Dewey, 1938; Caulfield, 2011).

Table 1 Course structure.

Learning Cycles in the Course Syllabus
Describing one of the Learning Cycles embedded in the syllabus, let's delve into the detailed process of acquiring negotiation principles, a key skill relevant to various parts of the course syllabus. This cycle differs for students at Masaryk and Helsinki due to disparities in course length and intensity.

At Masaryk University, students undergo five traditional preparation sessions at the course's outset. These sessions raise awareness of VC specifics and introduce topics related to various branches of civil law, civil procedure, and essential soft skills for negotiations. The focus includes negotiation and argumentation principles, language functions, formality levels, and politeness principles in English. Students engage in traditional language skill practice exercises using texts and videos on these topics. The initial theoretical understanding is supplemented with a few simulated role-plays, allowing students to practice negotiations with peers and reflect on their achievements through written letters and reports.

The second stage unfolds during the first two VC sessions. The first session serves as an informal meeting for students from Masaryk and Helsinki, involving getting-to-know-each-other activities and a Questions and Answers Session. The students engage in their first (easy and informal) negotiation to form teams for mini-presentations and divide topics. Due to practical and pedagogical reasons, teachers provide a list of subjects relevant to the skills aimed at and the legal cases students will discuss.

The difference in course structure between Masaryk and Helsinki becomes apparent again. Masaryk students, with a basic awareness of target skills, distribute soft skills topics among themselves asynchronously during the week before the next VC session. Helsinki students, being more experienced, research and present more complex legal topics collaboratively before the next VC session. They also have an additional session between videoconferences.

The second VC session is dedicated to mini-presentations, where each student engages in a five-minute presentation, followed by plenary discussions. Having shared relevant topics, students shift their focus to negotiations using three case studies, with students acting as lawyers representing different clients. Each student takes a role in one case study, forming groups of 2-4 students for negotiations.

The negotiation sides are split geographically, one from Brno and the other from Helsinki. However, a Helsinki student acts as a "coach" to the Czech students, working with others not directly involved in the case study during the session between videoconferences. This coach provides advice to the Masaryk group, aiding them on legal questions and best practices.

The following three videoconferences are assigned to negotiating the cases. Teams introduce themselves, present their claims and positions, negotiate, and the rest of the students play the role of active observers. Observers study how their peers adhere to negotiation principles, cooperation principles, and politeness principles, making notes on effective and ineffective strategies.

Once negotiations conclude, a discussion follows, inviting reflections from various perspectives. The discussion, semi-chaired by teachers, involves self-reflection, peer-reflection, and may include complementary questions or opinions from the teachers. Students collaborate to voice their "ideal" solutions to the case, discussing local legal norms relevant to the cases to add authenticity. They reflect on social justice issues, such as employee rights, gender pay gaps, and benefits for parents of disabled children, comparing the quality of social justice in their environments.

Based on Alena Hradilová and Kirby Vincent

Alena Hradilová, Language Centre, Masaryk University: alena.hradilova@cjv.muni.cz

Kirby Vincent, Language Centre, University of Helsinki: kirby.vincent@helsinki.fi

Teams, Zoom, individual computers

Synchronous web conferencing that uses desktop computers fitted with a camera and appropriate software, as defined by Smyth (2005: 806).

Course overview
This case describes a VC course conducted collaboratively between the University of Helsinki (Finland) and Masaryk University (Czech Republic). The course was fully online, operated independently at both universities, incorporating an international component. Some sessions were conducted jointly with the international partner, while others were conducted without the international component.

Course participants diversity
Course participants are law students who enrol in the online course, including second-year students at Masaryk University and fourth or fifth-year students at the University of Helsinki. A notable distinction between the two groups is that Masaryk University students take the course to fulfil language requirements, while University of Helsinki students, having already met this requirement, enrol for extra credits. With language proficiency ranging from B2 to C1 according to CEFR, the class exhibits homogeneity in linguistic competencies. However, there are slight differences in ages, maturity in study skills, work experience, and background legal knowledge. Addressing classroom dynamics is crucial for student motivation, ensuring each student gains an appropriate and challenging role. While finding a perfect match for VC partnerships can be challenging, careful task preparation, role division, and challenge selection help mitigate this issue and foster a valuable match. The participant limit was set at 36 students to accommodate team performance within the given timeframe.

Course development
Course development commenced in 2020 in response to the sudden shift to online education. The course structure spans a seven-week core teaching period, where students convene via Zoom once a week. Additionally, students engage in six other sessions within their Teams videoconference environment, with five sessions held before and one after the main videoconference (VC). The course duration is pragmatically determined by the distinct time schedules of Masaryk and Helsinki. Masaryk University follows a 13-week structure with one 90-minute session per week, while Helsinki courses span seven weeks, with students meeting for ninety minutes twice a week. Consequently, students in Masaryk and Helsinki receive different support between VC sessions. Helsinki students meet weekly between videoconferences for task discussions and preparation. Conversely, Masaryk University students handle preparations independently, attending Teams preparation sessions before engaging in VC with their Finnish partners. Detailed descriptions of session content can be found in the Learning Cycles in the Course Syllabus section. Students also partake in reflection and evaluation sessions post-VC. Addressing the asymmetry in the distribution of teacher-and-student time together sessions was a key challenge addressed in the course design.

Syllabus development and teaching methods
The course syllabus was intentionally not overly ambitious. Emphasis was placed on running sessions efficiently to make the most of the limited time students spent together, focusing on synchronous discussions and collaborative work in breakout rooms. The development of tasks for breakout rooms and the subsequent sharing of outcomes were key considerations in syllabus preparation.

The syllabus maintained simplicity in both the number of skills practiced by students and the tasks performed. It adopted a loose and flexible structure with few planned activities, allowing students a degree of autonomy while placing teachers in a more backgrounded role.

A common learning platform, Zoom, was agreed upon, serving as the primary tool for Helsinki and accommodating guests from Masaryk University. Students from Masaryk University used Teams, as it was compulsory at MU, and could join the Zoom sessions with the other group.

Syllabus layers
The structure of the course syllabus is designed with three main layers: soft skills, topics for discussion, and modes of communication, both in and outside the classroom. These layers are interconnected, reinforcing each other and challenging students to continuously develop their skills.

Soft skills primarily involve mini-presentations via VC, as well as writing an academic abstract and conference presentation. The goal is for students to experientially learn these skills in the VC environment. The VC classroom serves as a platform where students naturally encounter these skills, actively observe their peers, engage in discussions to conceptualize, and reflect on their experiences, and then actively practice again to complete the full Lewinian Learning Cycle.

Table: Course structure to be placed here

Learning Cycles in the Course Syllabus
In preparing for their conference presentation, students are guided to approach their research question, structure their thoughts, and organize information from multiple perspectives. The process involves several stages:

Summarizing the Area of Interest: Students begin by formulating a research question and summarizing their area of interest.

Abstract Writing: They then articulate their presentation proposal in writing, crafting an abstract that concisely represents their research.

Transposing to Oral Invitation or Teaser: The next step involves transforming their abstract into an oral invitation or teaser. This serves as the first opportunity for students to present their topics to an audience, gauging reactions and assessing their own performance.

Full Presentation: The final step is the delivery of the complete presentation.

Throughout these stages, students are provided with space for conceptualization, peer and teacher feedback, and reflection on their performance. This iterative process allows each step to influence their subsequent performances, fostering continuous improvement.

Throughout this learning cycle, students engage in repeated experiences, reflections, and conceptualization of skills, activating various types of learning. Laurillard (2012) provides a table outlining "types of learning and the different types of conventional and digital learning technologies that serve them" (Laurillard 2012: 96). Table 1 adapts this idea to our specific cases. Notably, the cycle aligns with effective educational practices defined by Umbach and Wawrzynski (2005), particularly the use of "active and collaborative learning techniques" as articulated by Laurillard (2012):

Group collaboration in our context works towards a clear endpoint, a shared understanding that necessitates confronting discrepancies and contradictions in discussions. This collaborative learning engages both social constructivism and experiential learning, proving to be a powerful form of learning (Laurillard 2012: 57). Other activities within the cycle involve high-order cognitive activities like critical and analytical thinking, synthesizing and interpreting ideas, and solving real-life problems (Umbach and Wawrzynski 2005).

Table 2 Types of Learning

Technical issues during our conferences have been rare, typically resolved by ensuring all equipment is functioning properly. Both universities have technical staff available for assistance if needed.

Effective coordination and timely communication between teachers are crucial for the success of a VC course, supported by the alignment of teachers' teaching philosophies. Coordination becomes more complex due to time zones, which must always be considered and can limit potential partners. In cases with significant time differences, finding mutually acceptable class times becomes increasingly challenging.

Both we and our students have found these courses to be rewarding. The courses will continue to evolve as we explore new ideas and respond to institutional requirements. We also believe they will provide us with a space to conduct further research, addressing the pressing needs in this field.

• Belz, J. A. & Thorne, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Thomson & Heinle.
• Bonk, C. G. (Ed.), The handbook of blended learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
• Bransford, J.A., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2003). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
• Caulfield, J. (2011). How to design and teach a hybrid course. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.
• Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• De Haaff, J. (2008). Methodology Quick Guide. Available online at http://invite.lingua.muni.cz/material/method/Qmeth_en.pdf (accessed 13 March 2017).
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.
• Frith, C. D. (2007). Making up the Mind: How the Brain Creates Our Mental World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Grice, P. (1991). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: Harvard University Press.
• Hanna, B. & de Nooy, J. (2009). Learning language and culture via public internet discussion forums. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Helm, F. & Guth, S. (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacy and intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Lang.
• Hradilová, A., Chovancová, B. & Vincent, K. (2012). Videoconferencing for students of law. Brno: Masarykova univerzita. Available online at: https://www.cjv.muni.cz/old/cs/projekty/projekt-compact/leporela/videoconferencing-for-law/index.html (accessed 13 March 2017).
• Katrňáková, H., Morgan, J., de Haaff, J., Štěpánek, L., Hradilová, A., Budíková, B., Ashe-Jones, M. & Eastlake, J. (2008). Videoconferencing Quick Guide. Available online at https://invite.cjv.muni.cz/material/VC_guide_EN.pdf (accessed 13 March 2017).
• Kidd, K. (2004). How relevant is relevance? Activities in the language classroom. In Honk, J., Aalto, N., Heap-Talvela, E., Kjisik, F. and Nordlund, J. (Eds.) Celebrating the Second 10 Workshops. Estonia: The Communications Workshop.
• Knowles, M.S. (1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston: Gulf.
• Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E. & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential Learning Theory: Previous research and new directions. In Sternberg, R. J. & Zhang, L. (Eds.) Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles. New York, London: Routledge.
• Krois-Lindner, A. & Firth, M. (2008). Introduction to international legal English. Cambridge University Press and Translegal.
• Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.
• Lewis, T. & O´Dowd, R. (2016 a). Introduction to online intercultural Exchange and this volume. In Lewis, T. & O´Dowd, R. (Eds.) Online Intercultural Exchange. New York and Oxon: Routledge, 3-20.
• Lewis, T. & O´Dowd, R. (2016 b). Online intercultural exchange and foreign language learning: a systemic review. . In Lewis, T. & O´Dowd, R. (Eds.) Online Intercultural Exchange. New York and Oxon: Routledge, 21-66.
• Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. New York: Routledge.
• Morgan, J. (2008). Effective communication in videoconferencing: Methodology handbook. Available online at http://invite.lingua.muni.cz/material/method/meth_en.pdf (accessed 13 March 2017).
• O´Dowd, R. (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Berlin: Langenscheidt.
• O´Dowd, R. (2016). Learning from the past and looking to the future of online intercultural exchange. In Lewis, T. & O´Dowd, R. (Eds.) Online Intercultural Exchange. New York and Oxon: Routledge, 273- 293.
• Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT and our customers in higher education. In C. G. Bonk (Ed.), The handbook of blended learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer, 155-168.
• Smyth, R. (2005). Broadband videoconferencing as a tool for learner-centred distance learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology 36 (5), 805-820.
• Štěpánek, L. & Hradilová, A. (2013). Designing ICT-enhanced language programmes: Academic writing for postgraduate studies. Language Learning in Higher Education, 2(1), 163-172.
• Umbach, P.D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184.
• Victoria Law Foundation (2011). Death at the Blue Hill. 3rd edition. Melbourne: Victoria Law Foundation.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.