STRONG SIGNALS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION, WITH A VIEW TO FUTURE VISIONS

Transcription

1 Reference: Harjanne, P., & Tella, S. (2008). Strong signals in foreign language education, with a view to future visions. In S. Tella (Ed.), From Brawn to Brain: Strong Signals in Foreign Language Education. Proceedings of the ViKiPeda-2007 Conference in Helsinki, May 21 22, 2007 (pp ). University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report Abstract STRONG SIGNALS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION, WITH A VIEW TO FUTURE VISIONS PIRJO HARJANNE & SEPPO TELLA RESEARCH CENTRE FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION (REFLECT) DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED SCIENCES OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI Foreign language education (FLE) is generally expected to reflect current conceptions of human beings, knowledge, teaching, studying, learning, and knowing. Today s FLE can be characterised, for instance, as socio-culturally oriented, communicative and transcultural. In this article, we will study some strong FL-specific signals that characterise this kind of FLE. The notion of weak signals refers to those barely noticeable signals that surround us and are likely to become important trends or phenomena at a later stage. However, we prefer to talk about strong signals that are clearly perceivable in current FLE and are likely to have a strong impact on future FLE, provided that they are allowed to grow steadily and taken into account properly by increasing numbers of FL teachers and teacher educators. As strong signals, we discuss (i) the holistic view on language exemplified through language as an empowering mediator; (ii) the holistic view on language proficiency; (iii) the holistic view on language learning focusing on interaction and participation, exemplified through scaffolding, collaborative dialogue and affordance; (iv) the holistic view on language teaching exemplified through task-based language teaching (TBLT) and LanguageQuest, and (v) information and communication technologies (ICTs), with a view to Web 2.0. We argue that dealing with strong signals is of primary importance. in order to understand the current nature of FLE and to be able to envision future FLE. We also acknowledge that these strong signals might, at their best, lead to or, at their worst, partially shadow some weaker signals that only perspicacious persons can sense at the moment. We also argue that by analysing strong FL-specific signals, we can approach more easily certain future visions of FLE, which may then become a spectrum of different options and opportunities to us. Visions almost always imply an idea of a more desired future. Three visions, based on the strong signals analysed in this article, are presented: Brusselisation, Fraglargement, and Rejuvenation of the old continent. The future is seen as an opportunity, not as a threat. Keywords: communicative, transcultural foreign language education (FLE); weak and strong signals; holistic view; empowering mediator; participation; interaction; scaffolding; collaborative dialogue; affordance; TBLT; LanguageQuest; ICTs; Web 2.0; future visions. Introduction It is a current belief that foreign language education (FLE) should reflect deeply enough current conceptions of human beings, knowledge, teaching, studying, learning and knowing. Current FLE may well be characterised, for example, as socioculturally oriented, communicative and transcultural. In this article, we will study

2 (24) some strong FL-specific signals that characterise this kind of current FLE. Usually, the notion of weak signals is used to refer to those barely noticeable signals that surround us and are likely to become important trends or phenomena at a later stage. Weak signals are signs of the future, foreshadowing emerging developments. In this article, we prefer to talk about strong signals that are more than likely to have a strong impact on future FLE, provided they are allowed to grow steadily and taken into proper account by increasing numbers of FL teachers and teacher educators. To some, these are still weak signals; to us, they already represent important FLE trends. Although conceptually somewhat diverging, these signals clearly characterise present-day FLE. To us, they are already adequately visible and concrete enough to allow the development of current-to-future FLE built on them. To our way of thinking, through an analysis of strong FL-specific signals we can approach more flexibly certain future visions of FLE, which may then become a spectrum of different options and opportunities open to all of us. Visions to us are opportunities to visualise and envision the future. And visions almost always imply an idea of a more desired or desirable future. Strong Signals Strong signals in other words, highly prominent trends in current FLE are likely to have an impact on future FLE if they are allowed to grow steadily and taken into proper account by increasing numbers of FL teachers and teacher educators. As strong signals, we will discuss (i) the holistic view on language exemplified through language as an empowering mediator; (ii) the holistic view on language proficiency; (iii) the holistic view on language learning focusing on interaction and participation, exemplified through scaffolding, collaborative dialogue and affordance; (iv) the holistic view on language teaching exemplified through task-based language teaching (TBLT) and LanguageQuest, and (v) information and communication technologies (ICTs), with a view to Web 2.0. We have come to these strong signals through a pragmatically-informed selection between various options. These signals appear frequently in the research literature and they are being discussed at length at international conferences and workshops. More important, in our opinion, they all represent overarching constructs that have a certain impact, even when considered on their own. Together, we argue, their compound impact is highly substantial indeed. One extra asset is that each of these can play an important role in any of the three major components of the teaching studying learning (TSL) process we have been analysing before (cf. Tella & Harjanne, 2004; Harjanne & Tella, 2007). Admittedly, there are other strong signals as well, such as teaching and studying practices with an emphasis on learner autonomy, to mention just one example. We also acknowledge that any strong signals might, at their best, lead to or, at their worst, partially overshadow some weaker signals that could also point to future megatrends or other important developments. Nevertheless, we feel that dealing with

3 (24) strong signals is of primary importance in order to understand the current nature of FLE and to be able to envision future FLE. The Holistic View on Language One of the prominent strong signals in FLE is the holistic view on language. According to the socio-cultural view, language has both intellectual and social significance and is a primary mediator of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Language is thus seen as a socio-cultural medium, which helps people to act in social situations (Säljö, 2000, pp ). The socio-cultural view can be seen in the current conception of foreign language. The view on foreign language has widened considerably over the last few decades, from language as a tool or an instrument to language as empowering mediator. Foreign Language As an Empowering Mediator One strong signal over the past couple of decades has been the increasingly growing importance of foreign language(s) in human beings growth process. In another context (Harjanne & Tella, 2007), we have analysed this trend that shows how foreign languages, seen as instrumental subjects still as late as the 1980s, are now regarded as skills subjects, knowledge subjects and cultural subjects in our upper secondary schools national core curriculum (LOPS, 2003), and as skills subjects and cultural subjects in the basic education curriculum (POPS, 2004). As a comparison, we would also like to point out that mother tongue and literature are regarded in basic education as life-mastery subjects as well as central knowledge, skills, cultural and art subjects (POPS, 2004). Foreign language, seen as an empowering mediator, is one example of this chain of conceptual changes. We argue that, in the beginning, the question was mostly of a weak signal, but which has gradually occupied the centre stage and can now be considered as something that has a major impact on people s conceptions of languages, language proficiency and language teaching. As early as 1999, Tella (1999) argued that speaking of foreign languages exclusively as instrumental subjects was too biased a standpoint that badly jeopardised the potential of foreign languages in people s minds. He further contended that, in addition to the instrumental use of function, languages should also be regarded as intellectual partners, as creators and maintainers of new studying, learning, working and communication contexts, and at their best, as empowering mediators that would have a multiple impact on human beings whole personalities (Tella, 1999). What does it mean if a foreign language is seen as an empowering mediator? Then language is seen to enhance, amplify and strengthen in many ways a human being s mental, social and interactive capacity to work, to communicate and to act. We felt the temptation to start to talk of agency in the spirit of, say, van Lier (2007, p. 16) when he defines agency, according to Ahearn (2001, p. 112), as the socio-culturally mediated capacity to act, but as our definition of an empowering mediator is much wider, we content ourselves with this note. Language as an empowering mediator enables various functional interfaces between different actors, such as teachers and students, among students, but also, importantly, between human beings and content

4 (24) as well as target cultures. Equally important is the fact that the metaphor of an empowering mediator encourages language users to pay more conscious attention to the role, significance and potential of foreign languages. This new attitude towards language may also have an effect on how language teaching, language studying and language learning should be thought of. When seen from an empowering mediator s point of view, certain old statements do not hold true any more: foreign languages are not just tools; they are much more. English (Swedish, German, French ) is not just the medium or the object of instruction; rather, it is an interfacing facilitator between one language and the culture embedded in it, and another language and culture. The Holistic View on Language Proficiency In the same way as the view on language has widened, the views on language proficiency have expanded, too, which we regard as a strong signal in FLE. Today we speak of communicative language proficiency, or even more widely of [ ] intercultural or transcultural language proficiency that is, crossing different cultural boundaries when exchanging ideas and experiences with people from near and afar (Tella, 1999; Harjanne & Tella, 2007). One of the latest descriptions of communicative language proficiency representing a holistic viewpoint is to be found in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR, 2001). It takes into consideration three very comprehensive dimensions that partly overlap and interact with each other: the language learner s and user s general competences, communicative language competences and the strategic dimension. It is believed that all the knowledge and skills of a language learner and user influence his ability to communicate in a foreign language. Thus, for instance, communicative proficiency also significantly comprises a language learner s and user s attitudes, motivations, values, beliefs, personality factors, intercultural skills, and study skills including, among other things, co-operative skills and heuristic skills. Heuristic skills, which refer to the ability of the language learner and user to cope, for instance, with new languages, people, and ways of behaving, are crucial to him/her in intercultural communication situations. The present view on communicative language proficiency is thus not only limited to linguistic knowledge and skills, but takes into account the language learner and user with his/her knowledge, skills, awareness, qualities and personality factors holistically. Communicative transcultural language proficiency must be seen as a whole. Even if oral proficiency occupies centre field in FLE, we must bear in mind that the ultimate goal is multi-faceted language proficiency, consisting of both oral and written receptive and productive skills (see Harjanne & Tella, 2007). The holistic view on language proficiency takes thus into account the real life language using situations where listening, speaking, reading and writing interact and intertwine. The Holistic View on Language Learning

5 (24) One strong and remarkable signal in FLE is the present holistic views on language learning. Today it is fairly generally agreed that reflecting on learning merely through one single approach is not sufficient to describe the whole complex phenomenon (e.g., Swain 2000, p. 103; Säljö, 2001, p. 109; Puolimatka, 2002, p. 83). From the language-didactic perspective, humanistic-experiential, cognitive-constructivistic, socio-constructivistic and socio-cultural approaches do not compete or rule out each other but are complementary. Learning communicative language proficiency is understood as a complex process where cognitive, social and affective functions intertwine with each other. The holistic view on learning a foreign language requires thus that enough attention is paid to the cognitive, social and affective dimensions of language learning when planning and realising teaching, studying and communicative practice. A foreign language cannot be studied or practised as units detached from the context, but it requires that the students elaborate and autonomously generate language in context-based and meaningful communication in social interaction (see Harjanne, 2006). Interaction Interaction can be seen as a crucial strong signal in current views on foreign language teaching, studying and learning. The role of interaction takes different manifestations and can be seen from different perspectives, which we deal with next. The role of interaction is very dominant in foreign language learning from many perspectives. The socio-cultural view, which represents a holistic perspective, emphasises social factors (Sfard, 1998, p. 12; Ohta, 2000, p. 53). Even according to the latest cognitive research, the origin of cognition, which emotion is closely linked with, lies in the social interaction (see e.g., Watson-Gegeo, 2004). There are, however, different conceptions of the ways interaction is linked to the uses of a foreign language and its learning. The acquisition metaphor is related to the cognitive-constructivistic conception of learning, where learning a language is understood as an individual s internal processes, in which processing the input, noticing and paying attention are central. According to the acquisition metaphor, interaction offers a means to make the linguistic input understandable (Krashen, 1985; input hypothesis) and produce language (Swain, 1985; output hypothesis), which are considered to have an effect on the learning of a foreign language. Long s (e.g., 1996) interaction hypothesis suggests that one way of making the input comprehensible is to modify the input in the negotiation of meaning which arises from a communication break between the speakers. According to the acquisition metaphor, interaction thus relates to learning only in an indirect way. According to the participation metaphor, interaction is seen as a central factor in learning a foreign language. According to this metaphor, related to the humanisticexperiential and socio-constructivist conception of learning and to the socio-cultural view on learning, learning takes place as participation in communal activity (see e.g., Eteläpelto, 2002, p. 17). The participation metaphor emphasises social factors and language learning is taken as participation in social interaction (e.g., Sfard, 1998; Donato, 2000). The basis of the socio-cultural view on learning is Vygotsky s (1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD) whereby interaction stands in the centre. In socio-cultural theories interaction is seen widely (e.g., Platt & Brookes, 2002), involving both the social dimension and the verbal dimension, which intertwine with each other.

6 (24) Interaction is considered to be much more than just a negotiation of meaning: the role of interaction is regarded as crucial in the learning of a foreign language. According to the socio-cultural view, it is foreseen that we learn a foreign language in interaction rather than through interaction (Ellis, 2003, pp ). Learning is seen as occurring in interaction and appearing as interaction. In an ecological approach, [.] the verbal and nonverbal interaction in which the learner engages, are central to an understanding of learning. In other words, they do not just facilitate learning, they are learning in a fundamental way, as van Lier (2000, p. 246) aptly puts it. According to the participation metaphor, interaction thus relates to learning in quite a direct way. In Table 1 we will present the different views on learning, interaction, knowing and reasons for failure, according to the acquisition and the participation metaphor primarily relying on Donato (2000; widened by Harjanne, 2006, p. 183). Table 1. Learning, interaction and knowing a foreign language and reasons for failure in it, according to the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor (widened by Harjanne, 2006, p. 183; visual design by Harjanne & Tella). << Table 1 tähän >> The meaning of social and verbal and nonverbal interaction, as well as the meaning of co-operation, has increased in the attempt to understand and promote the studying, practice and learning of a foreign language. Nevertheless, it is also generally admitted that mere interaction or discussion is not a sufficient context for the development of a foreign language, but such communicative tasks are needed which make the students negotiate meaning and pay attention to the language as a formal system, too (e.g., Long, 1996; Skehan, 2003). In the cognitive perspective, reasons for the significance of selective attention are given by noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990) and is considered to take place in the negotiation of meaning (e.g., Long, 1983, 1996). According to the socio-cultural view, paying attention takes place in social and verbal interaction mediated, for instance, by scaffolding. Interaction as Scaffolding The socio-cultural view on the mediating role of social and verbal interaction in language learning manifests itself clearly in the concept of scaffolding (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976). Scaffolding refers to handing a ladder at the right moment by an expert, in a dialogic interaction, in those parts of the task that are beyond the novice s reach regarding his level of proficiency. Interaction requires reflective orientation and enables scaffolding, which is considered useful from the point of view of learning a foreign language. The concept of scaffolding is closely related to Vygotsky s interpsychological and intrapsychological developmental levels, and scaffolding is often used with the zone of proximal development (ZPD) or instead of it (see Glassman, 2001, p. 9). Wood s et al. (1976) concept of scaffolding refers originally to the interaction between an expert and a novice, which thus involves a clear difference in their expertise. Further, the core of the concept of scaffolding is the function of teaching and withdrawal of the scaffolding when the novice can have control of the task and manage autonomously (see e.g., Wells, 1999, p. 249). It may be good to remember that, according to Wood et al. (1976, p. 90, p. 98), scaffolding strengthens and maintains the learner s interest and goal towards the task, makes the task easier, as well as demonstrates an ideal result and thus shows the contradiction between the pro-

7 (24) duced result and the ideal result. The concept of scaffolding is therefore fairly comprehensive. It refers not only to the cognitive aspects of language learning but also to the social dimension of the development of a new skill and involves both the cognitive demands of the task and the affective state of the person who performs the task (see Ellis 2003, p. 181). It is to be noted that successful scaffolding does not necessarily require an actual expert; rather, it can equally arise from the dialogic interaction between the students (e.g., Ohta 1995, p. 109). In other words, an expert and a novice are flexible concepts. Scaffolding can be seen as a crucial way for the students to construct dialogic and coherent discourse in social interaction (van Lier, 1992; see also Harjanne, 2006, pp ). According to Lantolf (2000), peer scaffolding supports the development of everyday functional language. On the other hand, it is worth remembering that there are research results (e.g., Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Harjanne, 2006) which show that peer scaffolding is not always successful. One of the problems is that peer scaffolding may be contingent instead of being systematic (see also Prabhu, 1987, p. 63). As a conclusion, we would like to argue that scaffolding provided by a real expert, a mentor or a language teacher, is indispensable in a foreign language classroom. Scaffolding as an interactional process can, according to van Lier (2007, p. 59), be seen as a practical pedagogical tool that is supportive as well as autonomysupporting. van Lier (2007, p. 60) describes pedagogical scaffolding as consisting of continuity (task repetition, connections, variation), contextual support (a safe, supportive environment), intersubjectivity (mutual engagement, encouragement), contingency (task procedures, the teacher s actions depending on the learners actions), handover/takeover (a growing role for the learner, attending to emergent skills and knowledge) and flow (skills and challenges are in balance, participants are in tune with each other). Thus, interaction as pedagogical scaffolding covers a wide field of the foreign language teaching studying learning process. Interaction as Collaborative Dialogue Collaborative dialogue refers to the students supportive interaction and reciprocal scaffolding while performing communicative tasks. It implies dialogic mediation coconstructed by the actors. Ellis (2003, p. 24, p. 182) prefers the term collaborative dialogue to scaffolding. He states that dialogic mediation should be seen as an activity constructed by the participators together in a dialogue, not only as a contribution brought by one participant (cf. scaffolding). The term collaborative dialogue mediates better the reciprocity involved in the concept of scaffolding. We like to agree with Ellis. To become collaborative dialogue, reciprocal scaffolding in foreign language communicative tasks should focus on problem-solving and therefore contain knowledgebuilding, which enables the participants to go beyond their current level of performance in line with Vygotsky s zone of proximal development (ZPD), as Swain (2000) argues. It is to be noted that all dialogue is not knowledge-building. In collaborative dialogue it is essential that the students also reflect on linguistic form while communicating meanings. In other words, collaborative dialogue facilitates solving a linguistic problem while supporting language learning. Collaborative dialogue is at once a cog-

8 (24) nitive and social activity language-focused problem-solving through social interaction. (Swain, 2000; see also Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Antón & DiCamilla, 1999.) Interaction as scaffolding or collaborative dialogue can be seen as a powerful factor in the foreign language teaching studying learning process. Interaction as Affordance In our analysis, affordance is one of the strongest signals accessible to FL teachers and users at the moment. To start with, affordance provides language learners and users with one new perspective to interaction. Affordance is a reciprocal relationship between an organism and a particular feature of its environment (Gibson, 1979). van Lier considers it as a particular property of the environment that is relevant for good or for ill to an active, perceiving organism in that environment (van Lier, 2000, p. 252) and as relationships of possibility (van Lier, 2007, p. 53). We have argued elsewhere (Tella & Harjanne, in press) that affordances can be seen as an alternative approach to a holistic view on language, FL teaching, studying and learning, and the interaction related to them. In our opinion, the notion of affordance is powerful enough to crystallise the key principles of communicative, transcultural language education. The relation to learning is also quite clear if we follow Segalowitz s (2001, p. 15) train of thought: [a]ffordances are important for learning because it is only by being able to perceive affordances that an organism is able to navigate its way around the environment successfully. Language, as we argue in the next paragraph, is like any other environment through and in which we will have to be able to navigate with success. What is relevant in the notion of affordance is that it serves as a bridge to individually-perceived action environments, such as teaching, studying, learning and communication environments. A good example of these kinds of action environments is a foreign language classroom, brimming with opportunities for action at any one time, in other words, full of affordances. The teacher must realise, however, that different pupils perceive different affordances and act differently, despite the fact that the language classroom remains the same or even when the linguistic tasks given to pupils look the same. It is also worth noticing, as Harjanne (2006, p. 170) has pointed out, that language classroom affordances are at once linguistic and social. Harjanne (2006) showed how her active and engaged pupils first perceived and then utilised as possibilities to participate, interact and communicate all those social and linguistic affordances that the practice context provided them within the teaching studying learning (TSL) process. We may then conclude that the more active pupils the more they are prepared to meet and to benefit from affordances around them. In addition to this, Singleton and Aronin (2007, p. 83) have noted that language users knowing more than two languages (multilinguals) have a more extensive range of affordances available to them than other language users. We believe that it is easy to see the link between affordances and what we earlier argued about languages also being empowering mediators: by utilising linguistic and social affordances to an increasing extent, language learners are bound to realise that languages are not just tools but also intellectual partners that amplify their intel-

9 (24) lectual capacity, new context creators that allow them to work, communicate and study in new emerging environments both physical and virtual and, finally, that languages can also become empowering mediators in both communication and social interaction. As one of our strong signals points to the educational use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), we would like to combine that signal with affordance and finish with a concrete example of a technological jungle of affordances, capable of combining all four language skill components (listening, reading, speaking, writing) in one single environment: a modern cell phone. A cell phone is undoubtedly a(n affordable) jungle (Tella, 2005) of functionalities that we could use at our leisure. A cell phone is an affordance jungle that smartly combines various language components, such as speaking (using the cell phone as a phone, which still happens to many from time to time), listening (to another person, music or the radio) as well as reading and writing (SMS, MMS, , voice messages and different kinds of textual and graphical services). Reading in this context should be understood more broadly to include viewing as well, such as watching TV or different video clips on the cell phone. These new languages embedded in current smart telephones allow us to play and to work with joint linguistic activities. Think of using a GPS navigation system on your phone. Then you would need all language components when reacting to the instructions given, shown or announced by the navigation system. All the different affordances provided to us by a modern cell phone can be divided into dormant and dominant affordances (Tella, 2005). Dormant affordances represent a new language, those properties and functionalities of a cell phone that the users are not fully aware of. Dominant affordances are those properties and functionalities that we know are accessible to us and between which we have created a conscious and functional relationship. Using the language metaphor, that relationship represents a language we can be at ease with, something we master, something we like to use. In this sense, the linguistic and social affordances allowed through the jungle of a cell phone are likely to lead to a new kind of learning, as seen through ecological theories of language: learning is no longer only processing the linguistic input exclusively or exploiting the linguistic intake at a personal, contextual or environmental level, but preferably developing, furthering and endorsing increasingly effective ways of dealing with the surrounding world and its meanings (Tella, 2005). In other words, a cell phone offers affordances, that is, learning opportunities through participating in interactive communication at both receptive and productive levels. The Holistic View on Language Teaching At the same time as the views on language, language proficiency and language learning have widened, the view on language teaching has also changed and been updated. To our way of thinking, contemporary foreign language teaching needs always to imply communicative language teaching, which is seen as holistic pedagogy. In another context (Tella & Harjanne, 2004), we have combined communicative language teaching with our attempt to develop a deeper understanding of other people and cultures together with critical and methodological eclecticity. This wide conception of language teaching is shared, among others, by Kohonen (2004), who, in lieu of communicative language teaching, speaks of language education, which repre-

10 (24) sents holistic language teaching and growth concerning the student s whole personality. The basis of communicative language teaching is the view on language as contextbased communication and the view on language learning as an interactive, cooperative, experiential and context-based process (e.g., Ellis, 2003). Communicative language teaching as a methodological approach covers many schools of thought, which share the same basic principles but contain different kinds of philosophical details or teaching practices. However, it is common to the different interpretations and applications of communicative language teaching that they represent the idea of learning by doing and the direct practice of communication (e.g., Richards & Rodgers, 2001, pp ; Rodgers, 2001). In order to be communicative, foreign language teaching has to follow certain principles. The main principle is the objective to develop the students ability to express meanings and use a foreign language for communication in social interaction. Communicative language teaching represents learner-centred teaching, which requires that the students interact with each other. Tasks that represent interactive communicative language teaching include, for instance, pair and group work, assignments that are connected with language using situations outside the classroom and those that are meaningful from the point of view of the student s life circle. Further, the tasks should lead to authentic communication and spontaneity in conversations (Brown, 2001, p. 48, p. 166). Communicative language teaching is divided into two versions: weak and strong (Howatt, 1984). The strong version is represented for instance by task-based language teaching (TBLT), whereby the use of a foreign language means learning it (Howatt, 1984, p. 279). TBLT is based on second language acquisition theories and builds itself, as the name indicates, exclusively on tasks (see e.g., Ellis, 2003). It is based on the use of tasks as a core unit of planning and instruction in language teaching. It includes several slightly diverging approaches, but its basis is on the theory of language learning. Edmondson (2005, pp ) aptly divides these approaches into three schools as follows: (i) the procedural syllabus approach, initiated by Prabhu (e.g., 1987), the British school of task-based instruction (e.g., Skehan, 1998), and the focus on form paradigm, centred around the work of Long (1985; Long & Norris, 2000). Within TBLT, a current belief is that students learn a foreign language by using it creatively for communication and that trial and error are an essential part of this learning process (Rodgers, 2001). One of the key principles of TBLT states that language learning is promoted by authentic communication and through using meaningful language in meaningful tasks by the learners (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 223). A communicative task, which can be either authentic or pedagogical, is the core unit in planning and implementing teaching (e.g., Richards & Rodgers, 2001, pp ). What makes a task communicative, then? A communicative task has been defined and described in many different ways (e.g., Skehan, 1998, 2003; Brown, 2001). According to the definition of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR, 2001, p. 158), both authentic and pedagogic tasks are communicative when they require understanding, negotiation of meaning and expressing thoughts to reach

11 (24) the communicative goal. What the various definitions of a communicative task have in common is that they underscore the pragmatic language use focusing on meaning, the communicative goal and the connection of communication with life outside the classroom. The input of the communicative task can be derived from a large number of sources belonging to the student s environment, in other words by using various linguistic and social affordances around the students. These affordances make it possible for the students to bring their own experiences and contents into practice. It should also be noted that, as is the case in communication outside the classroom, in practice the communicative task is always made up of several subskills of the language, in other words listening, reading and writing in addition to speaking. In task-based language teaching (TBLT), direct communication is primary, but a remarkable consensus holds that mere interaction is not sufficient: the tasks are supposed to draw and focus the attention on the critical features of the language, too (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, pp ). There is a need for communicative tasks that make the students negotiate the meaning and pay sufficient attention to the language as a formal system also while communicating (with the focus on meaning) (e.g., Long, 1996; Skehan, 2003). The building of co-operational knowledge, scaffolding, private speech and creating intersubjectivity (i.e., shared understanding of a task and its goals and performance as defined by Antón & DiCamilla, pp. 1999, ) are further coupled with task-based language teaching (Ellis, 2003, p. 253, pp ). Task-based language teaching can be seen as a holistic approach to language education. It includes foreign language teaching, studying and learning in a language classroom and outside. The tasks are often integrated tasks, i.e. they include both a subject, such as history, and a foreign language. An example of task-based language teaching is LanguageQuest, which is based on network-based education (NBE; aka blended learning). LanguageQuest is an approach to using the Internet as an integral part of language teaching. LanguageQuest is a Dutch (TalenQuest) Web- and learner-centred classroom project ( based on an American project WebQuest by Dodge ( and March ( A LanguageQuest is an inquiry-oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by the students is drawn from the Web. It is a scaffolded learning structure that uses links to essential resources on the Internet and an authentic task to motivate students investigation of a central, open-ended question, development of individual expertise and participation in a group process. The students process the information found on the Internet, or in the real world, by transforming it into a more sophisticated understanding and context-related form. They make sense of the information and demonstrate their understanding by creating Web pages. Task-based language teaching, as a form of content-based instruction, is a challenge for present-day language teaching and studying, and can be seen as a possibility and even one of the strongest signals in future foreign language education.

12 (24) Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) One of the backdrop themes in this article has been the duality of weak signals versus strong signals. As we mentioned in the beginning, weak signals originally referred in radio astronomy to barely noticeable signals over a fairly large frequency range. Figuratively speaking, weak signals have then been used to indicate some new emerging phenomena that only the most perspicacious persons have been able to see or to sense as important future developments. Weak signals have often been on centre stage when information and communication technologies (ICTs) are referred to, and even more frequently, when they have been incorporated into education in general and into foreign language education in particular. One example of a modern cell phone was given earlier in this article in connection with affordance. A few more will be given below, although the main focus will then be shifted towards one recent development, namely Web 2.0. One of the weak signals in the domain of ICTs has been the notion of a virtual school, first launched by Paulsen (1987) and then introduced to Finnish educational parlance by Tella (e.g., 1992, 1995). It was only since the mid-to-late 1990s that the virtual school became a strong signal in Finland, especially after the Finnish Ministry of Education and the Finnish National Board of Education started using it more and more extensively. Another weak signal was recognised in 1996 by a Finnish team of educators (cf. Nummi et al., 1998; later reported in Sariola et al., 2002) when the first models of Nokia communicators were put into the hands of primary and lower secondary school pupils for various kinds of tasks. These weak signals were gradually strengthened and finally became better known as e-learning or m-learning (mobile learning) in the early 2000s. In both cases, educational applications were already thought of and implemented before the signals could be recognised as strong by larger audiences. At this very moment, Web 2.0 represents a weak signal in foreign language education, though it is certainly much more widely known in circles of media educationalists, for instance. On writing this article (November, 2007), we are of the opinion that not too many foreign language teachers or teacher educators are aware or cognisant of the emerging impact of Web 2.0. Nevertheless, we believe that it represents a quantum leap ahead and is bound to become a strong signal, even in FLE, in a number of years. Therefore, Web 2.0 is something we very much like to present as a strong signal. Web 2.0 What could be a better way to define Web 2.0 than consulting and quoting Wikipedia, one of the best-known examples of Web 2.0 applications: Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2003 refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services such as social-networking sites, wikis and folksonomies which facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. (Wikipedia on Web 2.0) Indeed, technically, we are still using the Internet as everybody knows it. Yet, Web 2.0 (pronounced, by the way, [web tu: ou]), represents a social revolution, as it is

13 (24) geared towards facilitating collaboration and social sharing. This is why many regard Web 2.0 as social media or social networking, which aptly describes its intrinsic character. Why and how does Web 2.0 then look revolutionary and not only evolutionary? It might help to refer to a table contrasting our present modes (Web 1.0) of using the Internet as opposed to modes put forward through Web 2.0 (Table 2). Table 2. Some Salient Features of and Differences Between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 (as conceptualised by O Reilly, 2005). Most Finnish language teachers, we argue, are using Web 1.0 or as most of them would describe their practice: the Internet. Some if not most of them would have recourse to their own personal home pages. Some of them might have downloaded the Encyclopedia Britannica onto their laptops though, we might add, without any irony, not too many. Some of them might be enjoying MP3 music on their ipods or some other multimedia players. Again, some of them (might) use content management systems (CMSs) or IDLEs (integrated distributed learning environments), such as BSCW, BlackBoard/WebCT or Moodle. They would also use different kinds of taxonomies, such as diverse library databases and, for that matter be quite happy about their present status quo while, we might add, being blissfully ignorant of any other state of the art in this field. We could continue to analyse the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 (3.0, 4.0 and so on ad infinitum), but we prefer leaving it to the readers own amusement (or irritation), as this also exemplifies the new world of Web 2.0; not everything is explained thoroughly or even sufficiently: it is up to our reader(s) to decide whether s/he//they want(s) anything more. When seen from the perspective of emerging Web 2.0 applications, many FL colleagues of ours would probably be interested in and keen on learning about the potential impact that Web 2.0 applications might have on their professional habits and lives. Let us just point to some, partly based on our own experience when coming across Web 2.0. For instance, Wikipedia Encyclopaedia is something that most of us use, in lieu of previously popular albeit high-priced online encyclopaedia. Admittedly, Wikipedia contains mistakes and errors together with biased articles, but think about

14 (24) it, very often so do even highly-respected printed encyclopaedias, especially when the current theory is challenged by others. Some of the major conceptual changes are about to take place once you realise that static home pages you have been creating cannot give the flexibility that any blog affords. Blogging, in other words writing one s own interactive web pages or diary on the web, has become very important in many areas, not only in education. Think of how media reports what some politicians write about their opinions on their personal blogs (Teachers of Swedish: have a look at Carl Bildt s blog at or any of us, view Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen s blog at Publishing something on one s own home page is no longer enough. Publishing has changed to participation, as Web 2.0 applications allow others to comment on what you have written yourself. This is clearly seen on wikis, which have started to replace more rigid and inflexible course management systems (CMSs). Wikis, on the other hand, allow others to comment and participate. From our point of view and from the point of view of foreign language education in general this is something quite revolutionary, and even fascinating. An increasingly growing number of people can and will communicate with one another via Web 2.0 applications. Let this also be a good reminder of the fact that it is no longer crucial to only promote oral skills; preferably, as language teachers and teacher educators, we should know as we always should have known how to promote multifaceted, many-sided language proficiency, both written and oral skills. The latest developments of ICTs in the form of Web 2.0 are most likely to activate all language skills in us. One more clarification of Table 2: Web 2.0 also invites and encourages us to use taxonomies of our own, now called folksonomies. Users on Web 2.0 no longer rely on top-down established taxonomies; they prefer to classify and categorise things as they like themselves. These new categories are called tags think of them as Web 2.0 descriptors or keywords and tagging is one of the major and most empowering features on Web 2.0. Let us give an example of language teaching. Imagine a language teacher (educator) writing an article about, say, Web 2.0. What very often happens right now is that the writer goes to Google and thus tries to find relevant sources. Very often, what follows is that Google (or any other search engine) gives (hundreds of) thousands of sources, out of which the majority are secondary or completely useless. In the world of Web 2.0, however, many of these articles are tagged. This means that if you locate an article that has been tagged by some of the experts in the field, then you might consider using that article yourself. Tagging gives some added value in indicating that these articles have been regarded as important and deemed as useful by some other experts as well. Wikipedia, blogs, folksonomies, wikis, tagging, RSS, on-demand video, file-sharing, blogs and podcasting, CmapTools yes, these are some of the terms and concepts embedded in Web 2.0. When getting familiar with Web 2.0, we also need to familiarise ourselves with new lexis. This is of course partly a reason for magnetism of the past, in other terms, reluctance to adopt new ideas: even new terms always call for extra work in order to understand what it is all about. However, we believe that effort is needed and not unnecessary at all. The seven key characteristics of Web 2.0 are as follows: participation, standards, decentralisation, openness, modularity, user control and identity. The heart of Web 2.0 is how it converts inputs (user-generated con-

15 (24) tent, opinions, applications), through a series of mechanisms (technologies, recombination, collaborative filtering, structures, syndication) into emergent outcomes that are of value to the entire community. Let us summarise what some of the benefits of Web 2.0 might be from the perspective of FLE. First, Web 2.0 implies a more intensive use of language, both receptive and productive, both oral and written. Second, it brings with it many new affordances, new opportunities, to participate socially over the web. Instead of just publishing static information pages, such as home pages, it gives ample opportunity to share experiences with others, to send and receive comments from other communicators. In other words, Web 2.0 emphasises collaborative and community-building aspects of communication, which, at the same time, also underscores the importance of socioconstructivist and socio-cultural learning approaches. Third, it means giving up dinosaur-types of ICT applications, often called CMSs, and replacing them with more flexible, open-ended and truly interactive wikis. Fourth, Web 2.0 encourages us to rely on and contribute to open source software such as Wikipedia, at the cost of commercially-produced products. Finally, Web 2.0 means open source, open content and open courseware. The net is full of various services, applications and programs that can substantially contribute to foreign language teaching, studying and learning in novel ways that have not been realised or even conceptualised so far. These materials are often referred to as Open Educational Resources (OER 1 ) or Free and Open Source Software (FOSS 2 ). What, then, are the prerequisites of having a fair command of Web 2.0? First, getting familiar with new terminology (blogs, tagging, wikis, RSS, etc). Second, not being afraid of something novel that has not traditionally been part of FLE. This is something completely different from easygoing learner autonomy, European Language Portfolios or CEFR proficiency scales now familiar to most informed language teachers and language educators. Web 2.0 calls for an extra effort, but so have educational uses of ICTs since the early 1980s, when it all officially started in Finland. At the same time, Web 2.0 gives all language teachers breathtaking new affordances that should be part of any teacher education course now and in the future. Think of shared files on the web (cf. for instance, that gives a language teacher a free-of-charge opportunity to co-author an article on the web. In the same way, a joint presentation can be coauthored on the web without having to buy any extra software, and the authors can be located all over the world, for that matter. This is something completely novel when compared to process-writing on pen-andpaper. Another key concept is open source courseware, in other words, learning materials available on the net free of charge, opening new avenues for language learning as well (cf. e.g., Vuorikari, 2004). What Web 2.0 fundamentally does is to afford a myriad of ICT applications that make language teachers work much more versatile and dynamic than ever before. 1 Cf. e.g., or 2 Cf. e.g.,