Innovating with etandem language learning in a Quebec high school class: an activity theory perspective

5.2.1. Tension 1: tools – community (inter-activity tension)

Initially, Mr. B. had hoped to carry out the exchange using the forum or wiki tools of the Tandem Canada Platform. However, due to the fact that the FSL teacher could not have access to computers for her students, the exchange started out by having them write on paper; their copies were then scanned and sent by mail. As such, this incident represents the emergence of a tension between activity systems. Eventually, this tension was resolved as after Christmas the FSL teacher was able to get computers and students began exchanging via email. Although at various points Mr. B. suggested moving to the Tandem Canada platform, when a response from his colleague was not forthcoming, he decided ‘not to push it’. As Mr. B. wished to enhance the writing process, a curricular objective and his personal goal, such use could have facilitated feedback and revision as all texts could be archived; such a change could have been potentially transformative. Although previous research has emphasized the importance of communication with the teacher partner (O'Dowd Citation2015), this incident brings into sharper focus how agency and tool preference were mediated by the teacher’s personal goals.

5.2.2. Tension 2: tools – community (intra-activity tension)

The decision to move to email had repercussions within the ESL class activity setting, specifically in regard to the tool-community constituents. Surprised at the numerous gaps in his students’ digital competencies, Mr. B. intervened to help students use email properly (i.e. typing in an address, using the subject line, CCing). Some students were observed to write their entire texts in the subject line! As the school technology resource teacher, Mr. B. seized the opportunity to discuss this problem with the school committee mandated to provide action in regard to the Quebec Digital Competency Framework (Ministère de l'Éducation et de l'Enseignement supérieur Citation2019). As a result of his intervention, the committee decided to move forward with the integration of specific digital-related goals for each grade level. In addition to demonstrating the importance of personal agency, this incident also illustrates how the successful resolution of tensions in one activity system may require interventions in other activity systems (Engeström and Sannino Citation2010). Of note too is that Mr. B’s ability to intervene and be listened to was facilitated by Ministry directives, thus demonstrating how hierarchically nested activity settings play a mediating role.

5.2.3. Tension 3: rules – community – outcomes (language learning)

As shown in Table 2, students viewed the English part of the exchange very favorably. All students except one liked writing to their partners in English very much or rather much. All enjoyed reading their partners’ texts and finding out about them. In terms of students’ global evaluation of the project (Table 3), the combined scores for the very much and rather much evaluations indicated that students liked communicating with their partners (88.3%), viewed the exchange as helping them to become more confident with communicating in English (70.6%) and recommended this type of activity for students’ their age (88.2%). However, with respect to the usefulness of the exchange for learning English, the responses were more mixed; although over half responded very much or rather much, 41.2% answered only a little. As well, a majority (76.4%) reported that the exchange had enabled them to learn new words/ expressions only a little (58.8%) or not at all (17.6%).

Within TLL, the bilingual principle maintains that students should communicate in both the L1 and the L2 in equal proportions. However, as revealed during the interviews with the case study participants, the students in this exchange wrote only in their target language. This meant that even if they were corresponding with native/competent speakers, the latter never reciprocated by writing in their L1. In this regard, previous studies (Arellano-Soto and Parks Citation2021a; Giguère and Parks Citation2018; Priego Citation2011) have underscored the usefulness of the L1 part of the exchange in terms of providing L2 partners with potentially rich input in terms of vocabulary/expressions and grammar.

Discussion with Mr. B. confirmed that he had been aware of the bilingual principle, but did not ask students to write in their L1 as first and foremost doing so was not supported by the Quebec Ministry ESL curriculum. In line with a general tenet in L2 teaching, the curriculum emphasized maximizing the L2 while keeping L1 use to a minimum. Thus, for Mr. B. and in his opinion his FSL colleague, asking their students to write in the L1 in their L2 classes flew against the grain – a ‘slippery slope’ – to the point that the viability of doing so was not even discussed. For Mr. B., the avoidance of L1 use was also bound up with his professional identity and a ‘fear of being judged’ if colleagues became aware of French usage in his class.

Concretely, this conflict foregrounds what in AT is referred to as multi-voicedness as it brings into play two competing discourses implying deeply held beliefs as to the use of the L1 in the L2 classroom. Within L2 teaching, there has in recent years been renewed discussion as to L1 use. Proponents of translanguaging pedagogy have criticized the widely advocated use of separate spaces for each language of instruction as a ‘monolingual ethos’ (García and Tupas Citation2019, 390). In view of this critique, however, Lyster (Citation2019) argues that such a pedagogy does not favor language acquisition of the minority language (which within in Quebec would be the case for English). Rather, what he and others advocate is the use of activities aimed at promoting cross-linguistic awareness while maintaining separate spaces for each language of instruction. The TLL bilingual principle appears aligned with this recommendation as the two languages are kept separate but used in equal proportion to further the goals of language acquisition by both partners. To incorporate the bilingual principle, the TLL exchange would need to be reconceptualized as follows:

Although ESL-FSL teachers in Quebec schools where emphasis is placed on maximizing the L2 may react differently (Giguère and Parks Citation2018; Priego Citation2011), the present study nonetheless underscores a possible source of tension for those who wish to implement TLL exchanges, which to our knowledge has not been evoked in previous research. To provide a more comprehensive resolution would in our opinion require curriculum revisions at the Ministry level. In short, to normalize TLL as a valued pedagogical strategy, the use of the L1 in the L2 classroom would need to be re-articulated to better account for emerging practices with potential for language acquisition and enhanced learning outcomes. Within AT, such dilemmas constitute double binds as they require action within other activity systems and thus prevent expansive learning and the creation of new objects.

5.2.4. Tension 4: division of labor – rules (giving feedback on French)

With regard to the reciprocity principle, students within a TLL exchange are supposed to give each other feedback. In line with research (Arellano-Soto and Parks Citation2021a; O'Dowd Citation2015), both instructors had agreed to have their students do so. As shown in Table 4, the ESL students generally perceived themselves positively in this regard. For the combined very much and rather much categories, over 76% perceived themselves as helping their partner learn new French words/expressions, as helping their partner to write correctly, and liking to help their partner learn French. In terms of encouraging their partner to write in French, this ranking fell to 64.7%. However, the case study interviews revealed that in instances when their students partners appeared highly motivated, they did not feel the need to motivate them further. Despite the fact that giving feedback on French departed from the normal classroom routine, the students demonstrated a willingness to do so, thus suggesting in line with research (Yang and Yi Citation2017) how the L1 expert role facilitates the development of a more confident identity.

Despite the ESL students quite positive evaluation of their efforts at giving feedback in French, Mr. B. nonetheless observed that some students had difficulty and sought to involve the L1 language arts French teacher – ‘a lot of untapped potential’. Although this initial attempt at interdisciplinary collaboration was not successful, he intended to pursue it in the future. From an AT perspective, this incident illustrates once again how the resolution of a problem arising in one activity setting might require changes in another activity setting. If successful, such interdisciplinary collaboration would constitute a transformative boundary breaking move with potential for enhancing students’ metalinguistic knowledge and thus expanding opportunities for learning. To date, no TLL research has reported on initiatives to involve colleagues in such a role and thus expand the community constituent of the activity system.

5.2.5. Tension 5: division of labor – rules (receiving feedback on English)

Although students were generally satisfied with how they gave feedback on French, they were much less satisfied with their partners’ efforts to correct their English. Indeed, in Table 2, over half indicated that their FSL partners had corrected their English only a little (47.1%) or not at all (11.8%). Interviews with the case study students helped shed light on how a partner’s lack of implication in the expert/helper role could impact on the exchange and create tensions. A case in point is Olivia whose partner was Wade. As required, Olivia confirmed how for French she had helped Wade learn words and expressions and provided feedback; on the questionnaire, she had checked rather much for both items. As she pointed out, ‘j’aime ça aider les gens’ [I like to help people]. Nevertheless, for the questionnaire item which specifically pertained to liking to help her partner learn French, she had only checked a little. What she found frustrating was that Wade did not appear to make use of her feedback: ‘il faisait tout le temps les mêmes erreurs … c’est comme s’il n’apprenait pas’ [he kept making all the time the same errors]. As for Olivia getting feedback on her English was also important, she was thus disappointed that Wade appeared not to make an effort in this regard. When asked whether she would want to do another exchange in the future, she responded:

5.2.6. Tension 6 subject – object/ outcomes

Interviews with the case study participants brought to light two tensions which originated in individuals and how they oriented to the TLL tasks. The first tension related to anxiety, a feeling which Olivia experienced prior to participating in the exchange. However, as has been previously noted (Jauregi and Melchor-Couto Citation2017), once the exchange got underway, the anxiety disappeared:

As recommended by research, follow-up tasks could have helped Jacob become more aware of these gaps, for example, asking him to note feedback received on a reflection form or revise his texts using the feedback (Priego Citation2011). Indeed, as pointed out by Mr. B., even though the writing process was an important curricular objective, revising was often given short shrift:

5.2.7. Tension 7 rules – object/outcomes

As previously noted, the exchange took place during the COVID pandemic, an event which was highly disruptive within the educational domain generally. During the interview, Mr. B. emphasized how it had negatively impacted on the number of exchanges he had hoped to do. Indeed, three of the case study students also commented on this problem and emphasized that the exchanges be conducted more frequently. In particular, one of the least enthusiastic case study students attributed the dissatisfaction reflected in his questionnaire responses to this very fact. In reality, he recognized the potential for this activity for learning English. He recommended 10–15 exchanges and thought such projects should begin to be implemented in Grade 4.