Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice [1 ed.] 1138932876, 9781138932876

Citation preview

Online Intercultural Exchange

This volume provides a state-of-the-art overview of Online Intercultural Exchange (OIE) in university education and demonstrates how educators can use OIE to address current challenges in university contexts such as internationalisation, virtual mobility and intercultural foreign language education. Since the 1990s, educators have been using virtual interaction to bring their classes into contact with geographically distant partner classes to create opportunities for authentic communication, meaningful collaboration and first-hand experience of working and learning with partners from other cultural backgrounds. Online exchange projects of this nature can contribute to the development of learner autonomy, linguistic accuracy, intercultural awareness, intercultural skills and electronic literacies. OIE now has reached a stage where it is moving beyond individual classroom initiatives and is assuming a role as a major tool for internationalization, intercultural development and virtual mobility in universities around the globe. This volume reports qualitative and quantitative findings on the impact of OIE on universities in Europe and elsewhere and offers comprehensive guidance on using OIE at both pedagogical and technological levels. It provides theoretically informed accounts of OIEs relevant to researchers in computer-assisted language learning (CALL), computer-mediated communication or virtual education. Finally, contributors offer a collection of practitioner-authored and practically oriented case studies for the benefit of teachers of foreign languages or in other subject areas who wish to engage in developing the digital literacy and intercultural competences of their learners. Robert O’Dowd teaches English as a foreign language (EFL) and trains teachers at the University of León, Spain (htttp://www.unileon.es), where he is also director of international training. He holds a PhD from the University of Essen. Key publications include Online Intercultural Exchange: A Practical Introduction for Foreign Language Educators (2007) and Researching Online Foreign Language Interaction and Exchange (2012). Tim Lewis has taught languages and cultures since 1980 in London, Sheffield, and elsewhere. He is currently director of postgraduate studies in the Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology at the Open University. Key publications include Autonomous Language Learning in Tandem (2002) and Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings (2008).

Routledge Studies in Language and Intercultural Communication Edited by Zhu Hua, Birkbeck College, University of London Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley

1 Language and Intercultural Communication in the New Era Edited by Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani 2 Reflexivity in Language and Intercultural Education Rethinking Multilingualism and Interculturality Edited by Julie S. Byrd Clark and Fred Dervin 3 Researching Identity and Interculturality Edited by Fred Dervin and Karen Risager 4 Online Intercultural Exchange Policy, Pedagogy, Practice Edited by Robert O’Dowd and Tim Lewis

Online Intercultural Exchange Policy, Pedagogy, Practice

Edited by Robert O’Dowd and Tim Lewis

First published 2016 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2016 Taylor & Francis The right of the editor to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lewis, Tim, 1951– editor. | O’Dowd, Robert, 1972– editor. Title: Online intercultural exchange : policy, pedagogy, practice / edited by   Robert O’Dowd and Tim Lewis. Description: New York : Routledge, [2016] | Series: Routledge Studies in   language and intercultural communication; 4 | Includes bibliographical   references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015043997 | ISBN 9781138932876 (hardback : alk. paper) |   ISBN 9781315678931 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages—Study and teaching. | Multicultural   education. | Language policies. | Intercultural communication. | Language and   languages—Computer-assisted instruction. Classification: LCC P53.45 .O57 2016 | DDC 418.0071—dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015043997 ISBN: 978-1-138-93287-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-67893-1 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

Foreword Acknowledgements

ix xiii

PART I An Overview of Online Intercultural Exchange   1 Introduction to Online Intercultural Exchange and This Volume

3

TIM LEWIS AND ROBERT O’DOWD

  2 Online Intercultural Exchange and Foreign Language Learning: A Systematic Review

21

TIM LEWIS AND ROBERT O’DOWD

PART II Integrating Online Intercultural Exchange in University Education   3 Internationalisation and the Role of Online Intercultural Exchange

69

HANS DE WIT

  4 Online Intercultural Exchange in Europe: State of the Art and Implications for the Future

83

SARAH GUTH

  5 Internationalisation, the Bologna Process and Online Intercultural Exchange: Seeking Common Ground

100

MELANIE H. WILSON

  6 An Overview of Online Intercultural Exchange in the Australian Context VINCENZA TUDINI

111

vi  Contents

PART III The Pedagogy of Online Intercultural Exchange   7 Virtual Group Formation and the Process of Task Design in Online Intercultural Exchanges

131

ANDREAS MÜLLER-HARTMANN AND MALGORZATA KUREK

  8 Facilitated Dialogue in Online Intercultural Exchange

150

FRANCESA HELM

  9 Combining Classroom-Based Learning and Online Intercultural Exchange in Blended Learning Courses

173

ELKE NISSEN

10 ‘Please Remove Your Avatar From My Personal Space’: Competences of the Telecollaboratively Efficient Person

192

MELINDA DOOLY

11 A New Approach to Assessing Online Intercultural Exchange: Soft Certification of Participant Engagement

209

MIRJAM HAUCK AND TERESA MACKINNON

PART IV Online Intercultural Exchange in Practice 12 The Clavier Network

235

TERESA MACKINNON

13 The Teletandem Network

241

PAOLA LEONE AND JOÃO TELLES

14 The Cultura Exchange Programme

248

GILBERTE FURSTENBERG

15 The Cultnet Intercultural Citizenship Project

256

MICHAEL BYRAM

16 The Collaborative Online International Learning Network: Online Intercultural Exchange in the State University of New York Network of Universities JON RUBIN

263

Contents  vii

PART V The Future of Online Intercultural Exchange 17 Learning From the Past and Looking to the Future of Online Intercultural Exchange

273

ROBERT O’DOWD

List of Contributors Index

295 303

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword The Virtual Internationalization Turn in Language Study

Online intercultural exchange (OIE hereafter, alternatively labeled virtual exchange, telecollaboration and e-tandem learning) involves instructionally mediated processes such as collaborative tasks, collective inquiry, and opportunities for social interaction between internationally distributed partner classes. OIE has been tremendously powerful in transforming participating language learners’ experiences from a predominate focus on ‘language’ and toward processes that makes salient the need to develop the linguistic, intercultural, and interactional capacity for creating and maintaining social relationships of significance (see in this volume Lewis & O’Dowd; Guth; Helm; Tudini). In this sense, I and the authors represented in this volume (many of whom I have had the honor of collaborating with through various projects) see OIE as a form of language-mediated social action that brings the complex reality of communicating across cultural and linguistic (as well as social class, gender and religious or spiritual) borders into direct experience. For foreign language students removed from everyday uses of their language of study, the power of OIE is that language comes alive as a resource for doing things. Subsequent to this realization, explicit instruction regarding linguistic form, pragmatic norms and genre precision can strengthen the capacity and desire for communicative action. This volume advocates for and pedagogically outlines OIE as a form of ‘virtual internationalization,’ a term that describes the use of OIE to bring together internationally dispersed classes to carry out academic cooperation for mutual benefit (De Wit; Wilson; Byram; this volume). A reorientation of language education to include the development of intercultural communicative competence is central to what internationalization actually means in terms of cultivating a broad-based and flexible disposition that prepares students for a wide array of challenges and complexities. The oft-stated themes of internationally oriented education form a productive unity with OIE as method-and-process. Goals of OIE-mediated virtual internationalization include global citizenship (which I  here non-bindingly define as a heightened capacity for interconnectedness and empathy that supersedes parochial nation state identifications), the ability to participate and responsibly contribute to decision making in intercultural professional and social contexts, factual and conceptual knowledge of diverse world languages and cultures and a critical understanding of histories of

x  Foreword colonialism and imperialism as they relate to contemporary areas of cultural, political and religious friction. Whereas not all of these themes will be present in all OIE projects, a strength of this volume is its breadth and sophistication in terms of addressing discrete, task-based language learning pedagogies whilst keeping in view a critically framed holistic perspective of human development (Mueller-Hartmann & Kurek; Dooly; this volume). Also addressed are necessary institutional concerns such as ‘soft certification’ (Hauck & Mackinnon; this volume) and useful descriptions of tested OIE models and approaches (MacKinnon; Leone & Telles; Furstenberg; Rubin; this volume) that pave the way for what I hope will be the logical next step forward in the evolution and amelioration of language education, namely scaling up OIE to become a routine and expected activity in world languages education. In summation, the rationale for the systemic implementation of virtual internationalization through OIE is multifold: Firstly, it is increasingly the case that contemporary academic networks, professional activity and career viability are progressively becoming international and intercultural in scope. Therefore, including opportunities for international engagement as part of university-level coursework increases the ecological validity of students’ campus-based learning as it relates to post-university life and thus better prepares them for full participation in future civic and work contexts. Secondly, many universities have a stated long-standing commitment to internationalization, thus including virtual international experience as part of routine coursework would serve to increase student (and faculty) opportunities for intercultural exchange and the transnational sharing of ideas. Thirdly, for students who may have practical or financial constraints that might otherwise preclude international travel or study, virtual internationalization would provide them with direct exposure to other cultures, perspectives, values and ideologies through engagement with speakers of languages they wish to learn, an experience that might otherwise not be available or financially possible. In this sense, virtual internationalization through OIE supports a social justice agenda of inclusion and participation for otherwise marginalised or excluded populations. Given its lengthy history, substantial and encouraging research base and the relative ease of access to and usability of contemporary communication media, it is surprising that OIE does not play a more central role in instructed language education curricula. In a recent article, O’Dowd (2011, p. 368) explores reasons for why OIE remains a ‘peripheral “add-on” activity in most foreign language classrooms,’ noting that ‘normalization’ of OIE as an integrated and high-frequency pedagogical activity remains a distant reality at most universities. Based on a survey of 73 university-level foreign language instructors working in Europe, all of whom had carried out OIEs, numerous mitigating conditions were expressed, such as lack of sufficient pedagogical training that would assist with the complexities of OIE planning and execution, the difficulty of finding partner classes and aligning curricula, and the variability and not fully controllable nature of OIE (in comparison to a closed classroom and syllabus) amongst others. These enumerated impediments are yet another

Foreword  xi indication of the need for, and value of, this strong collection of chapter and authors who represent the apex of the OIE expert community. To conclude, research has demonstrated that participants in OIE activities undergo substantial shifts in cultural openness (Bruneau & Saxe, 2012), become more adept at intercultural communication with international collaborators (O’Dowd, 2006), gain experience with diverse and globally distributed worldviews (Helm, Guth,  & Farrah, 2012) and build academic and interpersonal relationships of significance that can extend beyond the immediacy of the OIE activities themselves (Thorne, 2003). Accepting that I am perennially the optimist, OIE is poised to spark a transformational synergy within university education, one in which linguistic accuracy and discourse competence remain important but in the superordinate context of cultivating empathy and the ability to achieve interactionally emergent understanding in a linguistically and culturally super diverse and interdependent world. Steven L. Thorne Portland State University & University of Groningen October 30, 2015 REFERENCES Bruneau E., & Saxe R. (2012). The power of being heard: the benefits of ‘perspectivegiving’ in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4) 855–866. Helm, F., Guth, S.,  & Farrah, M. (2012). Promoting dialogue or hegemonic practice? Power issues in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 16(2), 103–127. O’Dowd, R. (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Berlin: Langenscheidt. O’Dowd, R. (2011). Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign language education? Language Teaching, 44(3), 368–380. Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67.

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements

The editors of this volume would like to thank the series editors Claire Kramsch and Zhu Hua for their support and feedback and for giving us the opportunity to publish our work in this series. We also wish to express our sincere gratitude to the following colleagues who invested time and energy reviewing and providing valuable feedback on the chapters: Michael Byram, Dorothy Chun, Celeste Kinginger, Francesca Helm, Nicholas Guichon, Marie Noelle Lamy, Linda Murphy, Shannon Sauro, Pascual Pérez Paredes, Sabine Levet, Breffni O’Rourke, Ursula Stickler, Markus Ritter and Paige Ware. We particularly would like to acknowledge the contribution of our colleague Sake Jager, who played an important role in the evolution of this initiative but was unable to contribute to this actual publication due to ill health. Finally, we would also like to acknowledge the funding received from the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme for the INTENT project: Integrating Telecollaborative Networks into Foreign Language Higher Education (517622-LLP-1–2011–1-ES-ERASMUS-ESMO). This project was the catalyst for much of the research and collaboration presented in this volume. However, the views reflected in this volume are the authors’ alone and the commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Our thanks also go to Susanne Winchester for compiling an index to this volume.

This page intentionally left blank

Part I

An Overview of Online Intercultural Exchange

This page intentionally left blank

1 Introduction to Online Intercultural Exchange and This Volume Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd

Online intercultural exchange (OIE), also referred to widely as telecollaboration or virtual exchange, is our preferred nomenclature for denoting the engagement of groups of students in online intercultural interaction and collaboration with partner classes from other cultural contexts or geographical locations under the guidance of educators and/or expert facilitators. In the context of university education, online exchange traditionally has involved bilingual and bicultural interaction between students in different countries who were studying each other’s languages. For example, students learning German at an Irish university may engage in communication on a weekly basis using email and Skype with students of English in a German partner institution. However, in more recent years an increasing number of new exchange models and constellations have begun to emerge in universities across the globe which engage learners in online intercultural communication in a myriad of ways. It is not uncommon, for example, to see students of business studies in different universities using a lingua franca such as English to work on collaborative projects in online platforms such as wikis or Second Life. There are also a growing number of facilitator-led models which have intercultural experts who take part in and guide the online communication between students (see Helm in this volume). In the area of university foreign language education, OIE has come to be seen as one of the main tools for developing intercultural awareness in the language classroom (Corbett, 2010; Thorne, 2006) as it allows educators to engage their learners in regular communication with members of other cultures in distant locations, and it also gives learners the opportunity to reflect on and learn from the outcomes of this intercultural exchange within the supportive and safe context of their classroom under the guidance of an informed languacultural expert—that is, their teacher or facilitator. Furthermore, Kern, Ware, and Warschauer (2004) suggest that online intercultural collaboration gives language educators the opportunity to put into practice innovative language learning approaches as it allows them to ‘use the Internet not so much to teach the same thing in a different way, but rather to help students enter into a new realm of collaborative enquiry and construction of knowledge, viewing their expanding repertoire of identities and communication strategies as resources in the process’ (2004, p. 21).

4  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd Over the past two decades, OIE has begun to receive a great deal of attention in the academic literature and in research circles. Several book publications have dealt exclusively with the topic (Belz & Thorne, 2006; Dooly, 2008; Guth  & Helm, 2010; O’Dowd, 2006, 2007; Warschauer, 1995) as well as two special editions of the journal Language Learning & Technology (volumes 7/2 and 15/1). Significant amounts of funding also have been made available for research projects dedicated to the area, including the European Commission’s projects Moderating Intercultural Collaboration and Language Learning (Dooly, 2008), Intercultural Communication in Europe (Kohn & Warth, 2011) and Integrating Telecollaborative Networks in Higher Education (O’Dowd, 2013a). In the United States, significant funding also has been invested in numerous projects in this area, including the Penn State Foreign Language Telecollaboration Project (Belz, 2003). There also have been chapters on OIE in many of the recent overviews of foreign language methodology including the Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (2007), the Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication (Jackson, 2013) as well as reflections on its application to intercultural foreign language education in publications such as Liddicoat and Scarino (2013) and Corbett (2010). From an institutional perspective, OIE has offered universities a new, lowcost tool for internationalising their curricula and providing preparation (and motivation) for student mobility. In the European Union, so much importance is attributed to the benefits of student mobility that the communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education in 2009 urged that by 2020 ‘at least 20% of those graduating in the European Higher Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad’ (2009, p. 4). However, despite the advances made in Europe as a result of the Bologna process and the establishment of the European Higher Education Area, achieving this aim is proving much more difficult than expected. Barriers such as the economic cost of mobility, the recognition of international qualifications and the lack of student proficiency in foreign languages have meant that currently only 4 percent of European university students are availing themselves of their institutions’ international mobility programmes. With this in mind, it is not surprising that universities are looking increasingly to online options such as OIE to support student mobility or to provide ‘virtual mobility’ alternatives for students who are unable or unwilling to take part in physical mobility programmes (Kinginger, 2009). OIE is clearly a form of online engagement which holds great potential for university education. Indeed, some authors have pointed out online exchange’s greater potential for interactive learning than massive open online courses (MOOCs)—a form of online learning which is currently popular in thirdlevel education. De Wit argues, ‘[w]hile in MOOCs the teaching stays more or less traditional, using modern technology for a global form of delivery, in COIL [Collaborative Online International Learning] the technology is used to develop a more interactive and collaborative way of international teaching and learning’ (2013, n.p.). Attempts to harness the power of MOOCs to an expanded set of intercultural learning aims or multilateral symbolic

Introduction to OIE and This Volume  5 competences (Kramsch, 2009) in the name of global citizenship are surely already afoot. But OIE will continue to exist alongside MOOCS, often in a relationship of complementarity. This makes it all the more important to reflect on the specific role of collaborative online exchange. Frustratingly, despite the widespread interest it has aroused, OIE continues to be a relatively peripheral activity, carried out by motivated practitioners who often struggle to maintain long-term exchanges without the necessary recognition, support and training from their institutions or their departments (Guth, this volume; Guth, Helm & O’Dowd, 2012; O’Dowd, 2011, 2013a). With this in mind, this volume sets out to provide a representative overview of how the activity of OIE or telecollaboration currently is being employed in university education around the globe. We will evaluate the contribution which this activity has made to language and intercultural learning in university classrooms, and we will look for ways to overcome the barriers to integration—institutional, practical and others—which it has encountered to date. We will also argue that the longterm success and mainstreaming of OIE will not only depend on innovation by practitioners and researchers but also on greater support and recognition at the policy level from university management and educational decision makers. SOME COMMENTS ON TERMINOLOGY It is important to begin this volume by discussing briefly the terminology used in this area as many terms have been employed to designate variants of the same activity, and this may cause confusion amongst newcomers to the field. The activity of OIE originally was referred to as ‘telecollaboration’ by Mark Warschauer in his publication Telecollaboration and the Foreign Language Learner (1996). The definition of telecollaboration was delineated in the special edition of Language Learning & Technology (2003) in which Belz identified the main characteristics of foreign language telecollaboration to be ‘institutionalized, electronically mediated intercultural communication under the guidance of a languacultural expert (i.e., teacher) for the purposes of foreign language learning and the development of intercultural competence’ (2003, p. 2). However, since the emergence of the Internet in the mid-1990s, this activity has gone under many other names, and it is worthwhile to identify them and review briefly their different connotations. The terms ‘e-pals’ or ‘key-pals,’ for example, were popular in the outset of these exchanges, and the terminology stems from the traditional activity of pen pals which linked together young learners in different countries through letter exchanges. As a result, these terms generally are used in primary and secondary school contexts and on websites which aim to link pre-university classes of learners in different countries (see, e.g., http://www.epals.com/). In more academic contexts, apart from ‘telecollaboration,’ terms such as ‘e-tandem’ (O’Rourke, 2007) and ‘Internet-mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education’ (Belz  & Thorne, 2006) all have been used. The term ‘e-tandem’ emerged from the work done in tandem learning in the 1990s, and as such,

6  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd e-tandem exchanges involve a specific bilingual, student-to-student model of exchange which will be outlined in more detail later in this chapter. Belz and Thorne’s term ‘Internet-mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education’ was an attempt to highlight the focus on both foreign language learning and intercultural exchange, aspects which, they argued, were missing from other terms such as ‘telecollaboration’ and ‘e-tandem’ (Thorne, 2006). In France the term Échanges Interculturels Exolingues en Groupe en Ligne (EIEGL) has been employed widely (Audras & Chanier, 2008), whereas in Brasil there is a growing body of work in this area under the umbrella term of ‘teletandem’ (Telles, 2009). In recent years, new terminology has begun to emerge, coming from areas of education which are not focussed necessarily on foreign language learning. For example, the SUNY group of universities in the United States use the term ‘collaborative online international learning’ (COIL) for their online international exchange initiatives, whereas the educational organisations involved in the Exchange 2.0 coalition use the term ‘virtual exchange’ to describe the engagement of students in online interaction for educational purposes. However, for the purposes of this volume, the term ‘Online Intercultural Exchange’ (OIE) (O’Dowd, 2007; Thorne, 2010) will be used, although we will treat ‘telecollaboration’ and ‘virtual exchange’ as synonyms. We find the term ‘OIE’ clearly highlights the virtual and intercultural aspects of this activity, and yet it is sufficiently inclusive as to act as an umbrella term for the many different incarnations and models of online educational collaboration which will be described and evaluated in this volume. WHY ENGAGE IN OIE AT UNIVERSITY LEVEL? Whereas this volume will take a realistic and critical approach to the contribution of OIE to the overall goals of university education, it is important at this stage to identify briefly some of the main reasons why educators are engaging their students in virtual collaboration with distant peers. Firstly, it has been argued that OIE can be an effective tool in the development of students’ foreign language and intercultural communication skills (see Lewis  & O’Dowd in Chapter  2 of this volume for a detailed review of this area). Being able to communicate effectively in two or more languages is seen as one of the basic competences necessary for full participation in the knowledge society. This is relevant not only for specialised ‘foreign language students’ per se but also for students of engineering, business and other vocational disciplines who need to be able to gain employment in a globalised labour market. The ability to communicate in foreign languages is one of the European Commission’s ‘Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning’ (2007), and publications have suggested that telecollaborative exchange is a powerful tool for the development of students’ language skills because it is motivating, engages them in using language that is more authentic than the discourse of classroom interaction, provides ample opportunities for spoken and written communication

Introduction to OIE and This Volume  7 with speakers of other languages and enables a relatively inexpensive form of elaborated contact with other cultures. Secondly, OIE also is seen as having the potential for developing various generic, interrelated and transferable skills that are invaluable for graduates entering the global workplace. These include intercultural communicative competence and e-literacies or e-skills. Intercultural communicative competence is the ability to establish relationships and work effectively with people of other cultural backgrounds using a second language (Byram, 1997) and has become a necessity for many professions where work involves travelling abroad and collaborating with colleagues and clients from other linguistic and cultural backgrounds. For example, Grandin and Hedderich (2009) suggest that in the case of 21st-century engineering, ‘the future belongs to those who learn to work or team together with other groups without regard to location, heritage, and national and cultural difference’ (p. 363). Similarly, the growing importance of online technologies for the ways in which we work and learn means that contemporary European students are obliged to learn how to combine foreign language skills and intercultural competence with electronic literacies to carry out a wide variety of activities in virtual environments. Electronic literacies include knowing how to carry out effective online research, create multimodal presentations in a foreign language using Web 2.0 applications and the ability to communicate clearly and effectively in a foreign language with distant collaborators through asynchronous tools such as email and through synchronous tools such as online telephony (e.g., Skype) and videoconferencing (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Shetzer & Warschauer, 2000; Thorne, 2013; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). With the increasing complexity of communication, as outlined, university educators are being challenged to create learning environments that integrate the tools and communicative practices which learners will later face in their working lives. The European Commission’s document “New Skills for New Jobs: Action Now,” for example, calls on educators to develop new methodological techniques which facilitate the integration of digital, linguistic and intercultural skills and competences. This goal, it is suggested, is best achieved by integrating ‘more cross-curricular and innovative approaches, such as learning-by-doing or project-based learning’ (2010, p.  26). OIE supports an approach to learning which combines the development of intercultural competence and e-literacies. Successful online intercultural exchange projects being carried out across the globe are bringing together students from distant international universities, helping them to use Web 2.0 tools to create digital artefacts for and with distant peers, and creating opportunities for collaborative project work. In this way, OIE provides students with hands-on experience that is directly related to successful professional practices in the global workplace. But OIE offers more than benefits to participating students. This activity also can support senior management at universities as they strive to develop a successful internationalisation strategy in their institutions. By engaging students in online intercultural projects with classes at other institutions, universities are bringing their students and teachers into contact with other perspectives and

8  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd practices and are providing them with the opportunity to learn from these in the supportive environment of their own classroom. In contrast to other internationalisation strategies, OIE also can be seen as a relatively ‘low-cost’ form of international activity as many of the online tools used in online exchanges are already freely available. In relation to student mobility, it has been suggested that OIE can be an excellent form of preparation for subsequent physical mobility, allowing students to engage in virtual interaction with partners in their future destination and raise intercultural awareness of daily life and educational systems in the target culture (Kinginger, 2009, p. 221). Not only does this better prepare them for the challenges of studying and living in the target culture, but it also can support greater integration between exchange students and local students, two groups that tend to remain quite separate. Of course, OIE also can serve as a viable alternative for those students who cannot take part in physical mobility programmes be it for personal, financial or any number of other reasons. The recent European Commission Green Paper on promoting the learning mobility of young people acknowledges the role of OIE as a tool for preparing for physical mobility and as a viable alternative for those students and young people who are unable to engage in traditional mobility programmes (Commission of the European Communities, 2009, p. 18). Unfortunately, reports of pre-mobility online exchanges remain quite rare (see Kinginger, 2009). Institutions also may consider that the integration of telecollaborative projects with physical student mobility programmes such as the European Union’s Erasmus+ programme can facilitate the development of more stable partnerships amongst European classrooms. The report of the High Level Expert Forum on mobility suggests the following: ‘Virtual mobility is widely available, quick and cheap. . . . Developing the synergies between virtual and physical mobility is a central part of a new way of life’ (2008, p. 11). With this in mind, various projects and initiatives are currently exploring how telecollaboration can be integrated with physical mobility (see the Mobi-blog project—http:// mobi-blog.eu/—for an example of such an initiative). In short, OIE has been shown to have great potential for enriching the learning of students in higher education institutions (HEIs) across the globe. Whether these claims are supported by rigorous research studies will be looked at in greater detail in the following chapter, which will provide a systematic review of the literature in the area. THE ORIGINS OF ONLINE INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE The origins of OIEs in foreign language education has been traced to the learning networks pioneered by Célestin Freinet in 1920s France and later by Mario Lodi in 1960s Italy, decades before the Internet was to become a tool for classroom learning (Cummins & Sayers, 1995, pp. 119–136). Freinet made use of the technologies and modes of communication available to him at the time to enable his classes in the north of France to make class newspapers with a

Introduction to OIE and This Volume  9 printing press and to exchange these newspapers along with ‘cultural packages’ of flowers, fossils and photos of their local area with schools in other parts of France. Similarly, Lodi motivated his learners and helped to develop their critical literacy by encouraging them to create student newspapers in collaboration with distant partner classes. The link between the principles and activities of these educators and the online work being carried out today are discussed in detail by Cummins and Sayers (1995) and by Müller-Hartmann (2007). Despite the emergence of the Internet and local area networks (LANs) in the early and mid-1990s, initially there was relatively little telecollaborative interaction between classrooms in different geographical locations as educators did not yet have wide access to partner classes in other locations, and students found it difficult to access the Internet outside of the classroom. In this context, online interaction was limited to learners in one class using synchronous text-based communication, such as chats, multi-user dungeon object-oriented (MOOs) and LANs, to interact together in the target language. The text-based nature of the communication was seen at the time as being a manner of allowing foreign language learners to create a ‘conversation in slow motion’ (Beauvois, 1997, p.  93), which allowed students time to reflect on and plan their utterances in the foreign language before committing them to the online interaction with their classmates. Nevertheless, some isolated examples of OIE in the early 1990s can indeed be found in the literature. Early reports include the work of the Orillas Network (Cummins & Sayers, 1995), the AT&T Learning Circles (Riel, 1997) as well as more in-depth research studies into tandem exchanges (Brammerts, 1996; Eck, Legenhausen, & Wolff, 1995). Warschauer’s publication, Virtual Connections: Online Activities for Networking Language Learners (1995), included a collection of ‘cross-cultural communication’ projects which reported on students creating personal profiles, carrying out surveys and examining cultural stereotypes with distant partners. At this stage a number of websites, including Intercultural E-mail Classroom Connections (IECC) and E-Tandem, also became available online to link up classrooms across the globe and to provide practitioners with activities and guidelines for their projects, whereas practitioners such as Ruth Vilmi (1994) in Finland and Reinhard Donath (1997) in Germany helped to make the activity better known by publishing practical reports of their students’ work online. Vilmi’s work focussed on online collaboration between technical students at universities across Europe, whereas Donath provided German secondary school teachers with a wide range of resources and information about how projects could be integrated into the curriculum. The IECC website also contained a very active discussion forum between 1994 and 1995 where practitioners were often asked by the moderator and IECC co-founder Bruce Roberts to react to questions related to how online intercultural exchanges could be integrated into the classroom and what type of tasks were successful in online exchanges. The responses to these questions reveal not only many of the challenges which pioneering telecollaborators were facing during the infancy of the Internet but also demonstrate that many of the key pedagogical principles of the time are still very relevant for 21st-century

10  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd telecollaborating teachers. Practitioners wrote about the need for adequate time for students to reflect on their email interactions as well as for adequate access to resources to ensure fluid communication between classes. They also mention the importance of pedagogical leadership on behalf of the teachers in organising and exploiting the exchange. Roberts summed up what he considered to be the key to success in email classroom connections as being the pedagogical integration of the activity into the class and the learning process: ‘when the email classroom connection processes are truly integrated into the ongoing structure of homework and student classroom interaction, then the results can be educationally transforming’ (1994, n.p.). Since this initial period, telecollaboration has gone on to become one of the main pillars of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) or networkbased language teaching (NBLT), and the contribution of online contact and exchange to the development of intercultural awareness and intercultural communicative competence (ICC) has been one of the main areas of research in this area (Müller-Hartmann, 2000; O’Dowd, 2003; Ware, 2005). Initially however, the intercultural learning outcomes of such contact tended to be at times exaggerated or oversimplified. For example, it was common to read that intercultural learning could be ‘easily achieved through [e-mail] tandem learning’ (Brammerts, 1996, p. 122). Soon however, a more critical and in-depth body of research was producing findings which demonstrated the difference between intercultural contact and intercultural learning. Kern suggested that in the context of online learning ‘exposure and awareness of difference seem to reinforce, rather than bridge, feelings of difference’ (Kern, 2000, p. 256). Similarly, Meagher and Castaños (1996) found in their exchange between classes in the United States and Mexico that bringing the students to compare their different attitudes and values may lead to a form of culture shock and a more negative attitude toward the target culture. Furthermore, Fischer (1998), in his work on German-American electronic exchanges, warned that very often students, instead of reflecting and learning from the messages of their distant partners, simply reject the foreign way of thinking, dismissing it as strange or ‘typical’ of that particular culture. By the start of the present century, OIE had clearly established itself as an important tool in many university foreign language classrooms. However, as will be seen in the next section, OIE has not been integrated consistently into foreign language education and its exploitation—although often strikingly innovative and successful—remains patchy. Although some models of OIE have been used as integral parts of language courses and even have received recognition and support at an institutional level, too often it has been regarded as a purely voluntary extracurricular activity. LEVELS OF INTEGRATION OF OIE Reviewing the different studies of OIE which have been reported in the literature over the past two decades, it is possible to appreciate three levels of

Introduction to OIE and This Volume  11 integration of this activity into university education—these can be described as ‘classroom independent,’ ’classroom integrated’ and ‘institution integrated’ levels. These will now be outlined in some detail to provide an overview of the different ways in which OIE is being adopted in universities around the globe. These three levels should not be seen as a progression from ‘bad’ to ‘good’ as universities and educators inevitably will have to adapt OIE to their needs and their possibilities. In the first of these levels of integration, ‘classroom independent OIE,’ the activity is seen as a supplementary activity which teachers do not actually incorporate into their study programmes and which takes place parallel to normal classroom work. The aim in this context is usually for OIE to provide opportunities for autonomous language learning and to find supplementary opportunities for language practice and authentic language use. Examples of this level of integration can be seen in many realisations of the e-tandem model as well as many reports of telecollaboration 2.0. The first of these, e-tandem, emerged from the tradition of tandem language learning, which has been widely practiced in many European universities. Tandem learning is essentially a language learning activity which involves language exchange and collaboration between two partners who are native speakers of their partner’s target language. Its online equivalent, e-tandem, thus involves two native speakers of different languages communicating together and providing feedback to each other through online communication tools with the aim of learning the other’s language. E-tandem exchanges are based on the principles of autonomy and reciprocity, and the responsibility for a successful exchange generally rests with the learners, who are expected to provide feedback on their partner’s messages and on their foreign language performance. In this sense, tandem partners take on the role of peer tutors who correct their partners’ errors and propose alternative formulations in the target language. In the e-tandem model, the teacher assumes a facilitating role, and learners are encouraged to take responsibility for finding their own themes for discussion, correcting their partners’ errors, and keeping a learner diary or portfolio to reflect on their own learning progress. E-tandem began to gain popularity throughout European universities in the early 1990s, and a centralised Internet site with resources, bibliography and guidelines was financed by European project funding during this time (O’Rourke, 2007). More recent examples also are emerging of new-style telecollaborative exchanges which function completely outside the ‘traditional’ class-to-class set-ups and which engage learners in specialised online interest communities or environments that focus on specific hobbies or interests. Thorne, Black, and Sykes (2009), for example, describe the potential for intercultural contact and learning in online fan communities, where learners can establish relationships with like-minded fans of music groups or authors and can even use Web 2.0 technologies to remix and create new artistic creations based on existing books, films and music. Learners also have increasing opportunities to use their foreign language skills and hone their intercultural communicative competence through participating in online multicultural communities such as

12  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd multiplayer online games and public discussion forums (Hanna & de Nooy, 2009). Researchers working in this area are finding a complex range of data sources emerging from telecollaborative exchange taking place completely outside the context of formal education. Pasfield-Neofitou (2011), for example, analysed a corpus of blogs, emails, social networking service (SNS) interactions, chat conversations, game profiles, and mobile phone communications amongst 12 Australian learners of Japanese with Japanese partners they had contacted outside of their formal learning environment to explore issues of language choice, identity construction and feelings of national identity and ‘foreignness’ online. Models of OIE which function at this level of integration require learners to assume greater responsibility for how their linguistic and intercultural learning progress online as they are given greater freedom in their choice of potential intercultural learning partners and learning environments—many of which, as has been shown, may be completely independent of organised classroom activity. Thorne describes this form of telecollaborative learning as ‘intercultural communication in the wild’ (2010, p. 144) and speculates that this learning may be ‘situated in arenas of social activity that are less controllable than classroom or organised online intercultural exchanges might be, but which present interesting, and perhaps even compelling, opportunities for intercultural exchange, agentive action and meaning making’ (Thorne, 2010, p. 144). The relationship between formal and informal learning will clearly evolve significantly. It would be unfortunate, however, if ready access to independent telecollaborative activity were to lead educators and institutions to neglect the need to integrate and ‘normalise’ CALL activity within foreign language programmes (Bax, 2003; O’Dowd, 2011). The second level of integration into university programmes, classroomintegrated OIE, reflects probably the most widespread approach to telecollaborative exchange where the tasks for the exchange are linked clearly to course syllabuses, class time is dedicated to analysing online interaction and students receive course credit for their online work. In this context, students often begin project work in class and then complete it by interacting with their distant partners, or reading or viewing the same cultural materials as their partner class and then engaging in online interaction to compare reactions and findings. Some of the better-known models of classroom-integration OIE require students to work together with their international partners to produce websites or presentations based on comparisons of their cultures. Belz (2002), for example, reports on a US-German exchange that involved developing a website which contained bilingual essays and a bilingual discussion of a cultural theme such as racism or family. Another popular intercultural task for classroomintegrated exchanges has been the analysis of parallel texts. Belz defines parallel texts as ‘linguistically different renditions of a particular story or topic in which culturally-conditioned varying representations of that story or topic are presented’ (2005, n.p.). Popular examples of parallel texts which have been used in telecollaborative exchanges include the American film Three Men and a Baby and the French original Trois hommes et un couffin. In German,

Introduction to OIE and This Volume  13 telecollaborative projects have engaged learners in the comparison of the German fairy tale Aschenputtel by the Brothers Grimm and the animated Disney movie Cinderella. A further task in this category was the application of ethnographic interviewing in synchronous online sessions. O’Dowd (2005) trained a group of German English as a foreign language (EFL) students in the basic techniques of ethnographic interviewing, and the students then carried out interviews with American informants in the United States using group-to-group videoconferencing sessions and one-to-one email exchanges before writing up reflective essays on their findings. The combination of synchronous and asynchronous tools allowed the students to develop different aspects of their intercultural competence. Videoconferencing was seen to develop students’ abilities to interact with members of the target culture under the constraints of real-time communication and also to elicit, through a face-to-face dialogue, the concepts and values which underlie their partners’ behaviour and opinions. However, email was employed to both send and receive much more detailed information on the two cultures’ products and practices as seen from the partners’ perspectives. In other words, email was suited to fostering cultural knowledge, whereas videoconferencing supported the development of students’ intercultural negotiating skills. Another integrated classroom practice which has become very popular in recent years is the Cultura exchange (Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001; O’Dowd, 2006). This intercultural exchange uses the possibility of juxtaposing materials from the two different cultures together on web pages to offer a comparative approach to investigating cultural differences. When using Cultura, language learners from two cultures (e.g., Spanish learners of English and American learners of Spanish) complete online questionnaires related to their cultural values and associations. These questionnaires can be based on word associations (e.g., What three words do you associate with the word ‘Spain’?), sentence completions (e.g., A good citizen is someone who . . .) or reactions to situations (e.g., Your friend is 22 and is still living with his/her parents. What do you say to him/her?). Each group fills out the questionnaire in their native language. Following this, the results from both sets of students are then compiled and presented online. Under the guidance of their teachers in contact classes, students then analyse the juxtaposed lists to find differences and similarities between the two groups’ responses. Following this analysis, students from both countries meet on online message boards to discuss their findings and to explore the cultural values and beliefs which may lie behind the differences in the lists. In addition to the questionnaires, learners also are supplied with online resources such as opinion polls and press articles from the two cultures which can support them in their investigation and understanding of their partner class’s responses. The developers of Cultura (Furstenberg et al., 2001) report that this contrastive approach helped learners to become more aware of the complex relationship between culture and language and also enabled them to develop a method for understanding a foreign culture. It is also important to point out that in this model, whereas the data for cultural

14  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd analysis and learning are produced online, the role of face-to-face teaching is considered vital in helping the learners to identify cultural similarities and differences and also in bringing about reflection on the outcomes of students’ investigations on the Cultura platform. The final level of integration, institutional-integrated OIE, refers to online exchanges which are fully recognised by the university institution as an important part of their internationalisation activities, and consequently, the teacher and students involved receive the necessary support and recognition to carry out the exchange. These exchanges are not dependent on the energy and enthusiasm of a lone committed teacher at the institution and may even be driven at policy level, by the institution itself, rather than by individual educators. There are currently few examples of institutionalised OIE in the literature; however, there are some reports emerging of models of OIE which integrate the potential of Web 2.0 technologies into institutionalised learning set-ups. These include ‘facilitated’ models of OIE where trained online facilitators are hired by universities to guide synchronous online discussions between learners in different universities. The project Perspectives on the Euro(pean) Crisis (Sharing Perspectives Foundation, 2013), for example, involves eight European universities and is coordinated by the Sharing Perspectives Foundation, a Dutch organization which has been set up purely to promote virtual exchange. During each week of this exchange, lectures on the theme of the European crisis are recorded and broadcast online to students from the participating institutions. These lectures are then followed by synchronous discussions amongst the participants using a unique web-based videoconference tool. These discussions are hosted by professionally trained facilitators. At the end of the project, two students from each university are selected to go to Brussels to present the results of their research to members of the European Commission. Another facilitator-based OIE project is the Soliya programme, which brings students from the East and West with the aim of developing a deeper understanding of the perspectives of others around the world on important sociopolitical issues and also to develop critical thinking, intercultural communication and media literacy skills (see Helm, this volume). Each iteration of the project connects more than 200 students from more than 30 different universities in the United States, Europe and the predominantly Arab and/or Muslim worlds. Students are placed into small groups of 8 to 10 students and guided through a nine-week, English language dialogue programme by pairs of trained facilitators. Students receive credit from their local institution for participating in the project, even though the facilitators and the online exchange environment are contracted from the Soliya organisation by the different universities. Other examples of how OIE can become an institutionalised activity can be found in O’Dowd (2013a), which reports on various case studies of telecollaboration in Europe. In this study, various examples can be found of a growing awareness amongst senior management in universities around Europe of the potential of OIE for developing physical student mobility and other aspects of internationalisation policy. For example, a member of senior management at Manchester University reported that ‘the University recognises the value of

Introduction to OIE and This Volume  15 online intercultural exchange as part of its growing internationalisation. . . . [T] his kind of project can also play a part in raising the institution’s international profile. It is conceivable, for instance, that links established via V-PAL could develop into full-blown ERASMUS exchange agreements’ (O’Dowd, 2013a, p. 52) Manchester was not the only institution which considered telecollaboration to be a concrete ‘first step’ on the way to developing physical mobility exchanges amongst institutions. This was also the case for the universities of Riga and Grenoble, who had signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ for staff and student mobility thanks to their telecollaborative partnerships. Practitioners at Clermont Ferrand also reported that, thanks to their virtual exchange, the university planned to formalise a three-year link with students of French at Warwick University, which would mean financial support to facilitate staff visits as well as providing higher visibility for the online initiative. Furthermore, the director of the Language Centre at Warwick recognised the possible link between virtual mobility projects and physical mobility: ‘Warwick already has one of the best records in of GB universities in terms of outgoing student mobility. This [OIE project] supports mobility with less outlay on the part of students who may be deterred from physical mobility for financial reasons’ (O’Dowd, 2013a, p. 52). THE CURRENT VOLUME This volume aims to provide the reader with an overview of how OIE is currently developing in university education around the globe. The chapters provide insight into the role OIE has to play in the internationalisation of university education and also explore some of the key themes related to the pedagogy of telecollaborative learning, including task design, assessment and recognition of learning and its integration into educational programmes. The volume provides comprehensive overviews of newly emerging models of telecollaborative exchange, including facilitator-led models, and also provides practical examples of how telecollaborative networks are being integrated into university education around the globe. However, readers will notice that the authors do not take a simplistic approach to OIE. Instead, we continue the critical approach which has characterised telecollaboration research to date, and we willingly recognise and tackle the problems and limitations of our activity. In Part I, we provide an introduction to the origins and principles which underline OIE before going on in Chapter 2 to carry out a systematic review of the literature to examine the claims which are habitually made about the benefits of OIE, namely that it promotes learner autonomy, leads to intercultural communicative competence, contributes to second language learning and encourages the development of digital literacies. In Part II we look at the level of impact which OIE can make at institutional levels, and we also examine the barriers which practitioners face as they strive to engage their students in telecollaborative learning. De Wit explores the role of online intercultural exchange in relation to university internationalisation

16  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd policy and looks at the added value of OIE to university education in general, whereas Chapters 4, 5 and 6 look at the impact of OIE initiatives in different geographical contexts. Guth, for example, explores the role currently played by telecollaborative exchange in European higher education, employing data gathered by the INTENT project in 2012 and 2013, whereas Wilson explores the intra-institutional dilemmas faced by would-be telecollaborators in North American universities, where internationalisation is often seen as a corporate branding strategy. Finally, Tudini provides an audit of teaching and research in online intercultural exchange in Australian higher education—a country where OIE is given considerable importance due to the great distances between educational institutions. Part III of the book then moves on to focus on the practical and pedagogic issues that need to be addressed by anyone seeking to set up an exchange, and broadly speaking, the chapters follow the sequence in which these dilemmas will be encountered in the course of conducting an OIE. These issues progress from the initial questions by Müller-Hartmann and Kurek in relation to task design to Helm’s study on supporting effective dialogue in online interaction and then to Nissen’s investigation of classroom integration of OIE projects. Dooly then explores the competences developed by learners in virtual exchange before Hauck and MacKinnon conclude this section by looking at badges and soft certification for learners who participate in OIE. Part IV of the volume is devoted to a collection of short reports of OIE initiatives from universities around the world which we believe are representative of good telecollaborative practice and provide insights into new trends in the application of telecollaboration in university education. The reports cover individual exchanges which can serve as examples of innovative practice (e.g., the Clavier Network) as well as well-known models of OIE which have been upscaled and implemented in different university institutions over a long period of time (i.e., the teletandem network and the Cultura exchange programme). However, we also include here examples of networks of institutional and academic collaboration which demonstrate how informal networks of practitioners (i.e., the Cultnet Intercultural Citizenship Project) and more formal organisations (i.e., the COIL network) can collaborate together to find partners and learn from each other’s experiences in online communities of practice. The volume concludes with a chapter by O’Dowd that carries out a review of the criticisms which have been levelled at OIE and then explores how practitioners and researchers can learn from these observations to make OIE a more effective learning tool in the future. Overall, the authors of these chapters approach OIE working from a series of beliefs and assumptions which can be summarised as follows: Firstly, telecollaboration has at this stage done much to demonstrate its educational potential and can make an important contribution to foreign language learning, intercultural competence and the development of international education policy in university education. Secondly, it is an extremely complex activity which is both time-consuming and challenging for teachers and for students to engage in successfully. Thirdly, for it to be sustainable, telecollaboration needs

Introduction to OIE and This Volume  17 to go beyond being an isolated activity pursued by practitioner researchers in the area of CALL and should instead form part of the common battery of educational tools (e.g., MOOCs and the flipped classroom) used by university educators across academic disciplines. Fourthly, the long-term success of OIE also depends on support by university management and policy makers in the form of training for staff, academic recognition of students’ work and acknowledgment of its value and importance in educational policy documentation. Finally, to achieve the wider mainstreaming of the activity, practitioners and researchers also have a role to play by providing transparent research into the educational value of telecollaboration and by developing models of telecollaborative exchange which are adaptable to a wide range of educational contexts and which explicitly attend to the transversal competences that university educators are currently required to develop in their teaching. REFERENCES Audras, I.,  & Chanier, T. (2008). Observation de la construction d’une comp´etence interculturelle dans des groupes exolingues en ligne. Revue Apprentissage des Langues et Systeme d’Information et de Communication (ALSIC), 11, 175–204. Retrieved from http://alsic.revues.org/index865.html Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13–28. Beauvois, M. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology for improving speaking and writing. In M. Bush & R. Terry (Eds.), Technology enhanced language learning (pp.165–183). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Belz, J. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60–81. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/ BELZ/default.html Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68–99. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/BELZ/default.html Belz, J. (2005). Telecollaborative language study: A personal overview of praxis and research. Selected Papers from the 2004 NFLRC Symposium. Retrieved from http:// nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/nw44/belz.htm Belz, J., & Thorne, S. (Eds). (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Brammerts, H. (1996). Language learning in tandem using the Internet. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 121–130). University of Hawai’i: Second language teaching and curriculum centre. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Commission of the European Communities. (2009). Green paper: Promoting the learning mobility of young people. Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0329:FIN:EN:PDF Corbett, J. (2010). Intercultural language activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J.,  & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural literacy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press. De Wit, H. (2013). COIL—Virtual mobility without commercialisation. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130528175741647 Donath, R., & Volkmer, I. (Eds.). (1997). Das transatlantische klassenzimmer. Hamburg: Koerber-Stiftung.

18  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd Dooly, M. (2011). Divergent perceptions of telecollaborative language learning tasks: Tasks-as-workplan vs. task-as-process. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2), 69–91. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/dooly.pdf Dooly, M. (Ed.). (2008). Telecollaborative language learning: A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online. Bern: Peter Lang. Eck, A., Legenhausen, L.,  & Wolff, D. (1995). Telekommunikation und Fremdsprachenunterricht: Informationen, Projekte, Ergebnisse. Bochum: AKS-Verlag. Fischer, G. (1998). E-mail in foreign language teaching: Towards the creation of virtual classrooms. Tuebingen: Stauffenburg Medien. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Culture Project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55–102. Retrieved from: http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/default. html Grandin, J. M.,  & Hedderich, N. (2009). Intercultural competence in engineering: Global competence for engineers. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 311–362). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Guth, S.,  & Helm, F. (Eds.). (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st Century. Bern: Peter Lang. Guth, S., Helm, F., & O’Dowd, R. (2012). University language classes collaborating online: A report on the integration of telecollaborative networks in European universities. Retrieved from http://intent-project.eu/sites/default/files/Telecollaboration_ report_Final_Oct2012.pdf Hanna, B., & de Nooy, J. (2009). Learning language and culture via public Internet discussion forums. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. High Level Expert Forum on Mobility. (2008). Making learning mobility an opportunity for all. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/2008/mobilityre port_en.pdf Jackson, J. (Ed.). (2013). The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication. Abingdon, GB. Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kern, R., Ware, P.,  & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243–260. Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. Basingstoke, GB: Palgrave Macmillan. Kohn, K., & Warth, C. (2011). Web collaboration for intercultural language learning. Münster: MV-Wissenschaft. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices & classroom learning (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill; Open University Press. Liddicoat, D.& Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching andlLearning. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Meagher, M.,  & Castaños, F. (1996). Perceptions of American culture: The impact of an electronically-mediated cultural exchange program on Mexican high school students. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 187–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129–147. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/muller/default.html Müller-Hartmann, A. (2007). Teacher role in telecollaboration: Setting up and managing exchanges. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange (pp. 167–193). Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding ‘the other side’: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English email exchange. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 118–144. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/odowd/default.html

Introduction to OIE and This Volume  19 O’Dowd, R. (2005). Combining networked communication tools for students’ ethnographic research. In J. Belz and S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Computer-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 86–120). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. O’Dowd, R. (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Berlin: Langenscheidt. O’Dowd, R. (2011). Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign language education? Language Teaching, 44(3), 368–380. O’Dowd, R. (2013a). Telecollaborative networks in University higher education: Overcoming barriers to integration. Internet and highereEducation. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.02.001 O’Dowd, R. (2013b). The competences of the telecollaborative teacher. The Language Learning Journal, 43(2), 194–207 (date of physical publication 2015). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.853374 O’Dowd, R. (Ed.) (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. O’Rourke, B. (2007). Models of telecollaboration (1): eTandem. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange (pp. 41–61). Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Pasfield-Neofitou, S. (2011). Second language learners’ experiences of virtual community and foreignness. Language Learning and Technology, 15(2), 92–108. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/pasfieldneofitou.pdf Riel, M. (1997). Learning circles make global connections. In R. Donath  & I. Volkmer (Eds.), Das transatlantische klassenzimmer (pp. 329–357). Hamburg: KoerberStiftung. Roberts, B. (1994). What works? Retrieved from http://www.iecc.org/discussion/whatworks.html Schwienhorst, K. (2000). Virtual reality and learner autonomy in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin. Sharing Perspectives. (2013). Perspectives on the Euro(pean) crisis. Retrieved from http://www.sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/eu-crisis Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-based language learning. In M. Warschauer and R. Kern (Eds.), Network based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 114–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Telles, J. A. (Ed.) (2009). Teletandem: Um contexto virtual, autônomo e colaborativo para aprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras no século XXI. Campinas: Pontes Editores Thorne, S. (2006). Pedagogical and praxiological lessons from Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education research. In J. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 2–30). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Thorne, S. (2010). The intercultural turn and language learning in the crucible of new media. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 139–165). Bern: Peter Lang. Thorne, S. (2013). Digital literacies. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially situated views and perspectives (pp. 193–219). New York: Routledge. Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W.,  & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online games. Modern Language Journal, 93, 802–841. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vilmi, R. (1994). Global communication through email: An ongoing experiment at Helsinki University of Technology. Paper presented at TESOL 94 Conference, Paris. Retrieved from: http://www.hut.fi/~rvilmi/Publication/global.html Ware, P. (2005). Missed communication in online communication: Tensions in fostering successful online interactions. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64–89. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/default.html

20  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and equity: A comparative study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 24, 2003. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/ docs/Tech-equity-aera.pdf Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1995). Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1996). Telecollaboration in foreign language learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

2 Online Intercultural Exchange and Foreign Language Learning A Systematic Review Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd

OIE has been employed as a pedagogical tool in foreign language education for almost 25 years. Whereas the first reports of OIE were primarily practitioner accounts of specific telecollaborative initiatives (Warschauer, 1995), these were soon accompanied by more generic studies of the affordances of particular online tools (e.g., email) or typologies of virtual collaborative projects (Eck, Legenhausen and Wolff, 1995; Fischer, 1998; Tella, 1992). Since then, there has been a proliferation of research publications which have explored the potential benefits of telecollaboration for different aspects of foreign language learning. Such studies deal with four broad topic areas: the role of online exchanges in developing second language proficiency; their capacity for fostering intercultural communicative competence; the relationship between online exchanges and learner autonomy; and more recently the part such exchanges can play in strengthening digital literacies. In recent years, telecollaboration has begun to move away from being a specialised activity carried out exclusively by experienced CALL practitioners and has begun to enter the mainstream of foreign language education. This is, perhaps, partly due to the publication of influential publications on culture in foreign language education such as Corbett (2010) and Liddicoat and Scarino (2013), which have identified telecollaboration as an essential tool for the development of intercultural awareness, whereas others (Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols, 2008) also have recommended its application in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) contexts. In university education, some isolated European policy documents have also identified the value of telecollaboration. For example, a recent European Commission Green Paper on promoting the learning mobility of young people acknowledges telecollaboration’s role as a tool for preparing for physical mobility and as a viable alternative for those students and young people who are unable to engage in traditional mobility programmes (Commission of the European Communities, 2009, p. 18). However, as telecollaboration begins to enter the mainstream, it is inevitable that educators and decision makers who are unfamiliar with this approach to language learning will be interested in learning more about

22  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd the specific contributions that this relatively new approach offers. It does, after all, differ greatly from traditional foreign language learning activity and its structure and modus operandi can, perhaps, be more difficult to conceptualise than other approaches to technology-based learning. With this in mind, we believe it is time to carry out a review of the literature on the contribution of telecollaboration to foreign language acquisition to date. In particular, we believe that it is necessary to ask the question: ‘In what ways does OIE contribute to the goals of foreign language learning in university education?’ We are, of course, not the first to enquire about the overall contribution of OIE to foreign language education. In 2000, Kern asked whether students engaged in telecollaborative exchanges actually gained a higher level of intercultural understanding (2000, p. 255). Three years later, Thorne extended Kern’s query, asking what evidence there was in such learners of language development in the form of linguistic and pragmatic performance (2003, p. 39). In 2008, Schwienhorst argued that with appropriate pedagogy, online exchange in immersive environments favoured the development of learner autonomy (2008, pp. 166–168), and in 2012, Fuchs, Hauck and Müller-Hartmann suggested that the development of autonomy in such exchanges was linked closely to gains in e-literacy (2012, p. 95). In the event, the last of these claims could not withstand prolonged scrutiny. We identified only three publications which dealt with the role of online exchanges in developing digital literacies. Whilst a potentially interesting topic for future empirical research, the current evidence base for such claims is insufficiently broad or substantial. The publications in question are identified in the Systematic Descriptive Map later in this chapter to enable readers to form their own judgement. However, our ensuing discussion will focus solely on establishing the extent to which online exchange can be seen to promote (a) second language development, (b) intercultural communicative competence and (c) learner autonomy by carrying out a systematic review of empirical research findings in university class-to-class telecollaborative initiatives.

CARRYING OUT THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW A systematic review is a common method in applied linguistics which is used to achieve the broadest possible coverage of empirical research evidence about a given area (Macaro, Handley, and Walter, 2013)—in this case language learning in university telecollaborative exchanges. To achieve this, we followed the EPPI reviewing system (EPPI-Centre March, 2007) for systematic reviews which proposes, firstly, a descriptive map (or overview) to categorise studies, followed by an in-depth review of a subset of studies selected according to specified criteria.

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  23 The descriptive map (also referred to as a ‘keyword map’) provides an overall description of the studies under review. The value of a systematic descriptive map is that, by simply describing, rather than attempting in-depth scrutiny and synthesis, it can address a broad expanse of research, charting both the work that has been done and the gaps in the field, thus identifying future directions and priorities (see EPPI, 2007, p. 12). After creating the systematic descriptive map, we present a list of conclusions and comments on what the table reveals in terms of types of studies which have been carried out, areas requiring further research and preferred methodological approaches to investigating telecollaborative exchange at university level. We then move on to an in-depth review where we summarise and evaluate the learning outcomes reported in a representative sample of studies.

The Creation of a Systematic Descriptive Map To create a descriptive map of publications on the learning outcomes of telecollaboration in university education, it was necessary to draw up a list of four inclusion criteria. These are listed below. Their breadth and our focus on outcomes differentiates our work from other recent attempts at synthesis, such as Carney (2006), which deals with telecollaborative projects relating to a single country (Japan), or Chapter 7 of Liddicoat and Scarino (2013), which explores the role of technologies (rather than pedagogies) in intercultural language teaching and learning, leading to predictably negative conclusions. Consequently, to be included in the review, studies needed to meet the following criteria: (a) Report on telecollaborative exchange between classes of university language learners in different geographical locations or from different cultural backgrounds (b) Be based on primary, empirical research (c) Report students’ learning outcomes related to the areas of autonomy, linguistic development, intercultural competence and digital literacies (d) Be peer reviewed Based on these criteria, it was necessary to discard various high-quality publications on other forms of telecollaboration such as Tudini (2010) and Hanna and de Nooy (2009), who had connected their students to native speakers who were not engaged in formal study, and also others which had studied the online interactions of different groups of language learners but which were either based on secondary school interaction (Tella, 2001) or included groups of university students from the same languacultural group

24  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd (Lee, 2001, 2008). It is not our intention to dismiss or take away from the value of these forms of telecollaboration. However, we believe that class-toclass OIE at university level brings with it a particular set of affordances and challenges which merit being reviewed in isolation from other forms of telecollaborative activity. The decision also was taken to exclude overview and thematic articles (e.g., Belz, 2007) as well as those articulating a theoretical position in relation to telecollaboration (e.g., Blin, 2004), however persuasive. In doing so, we doubtless forwent some fascinating insights. However, our goal lay elsewhere. We were seeking to establish what systematically conducted research (whether qualitative or quantitative) could tell us about the main outcomes claimed for OIE. Initially, a total of 76 articles and book publications were identified and added to the provisional descriptive map by both authors. When the process was complete, closer scrutiny of the publications’ contents had enabled us to reduce this number to 54 by excluding those studies which did not involve university-university interaction or which failed to present clear empirical findings.

The Search Strategy Databases used for searching for publication on telecollaborative research included Education Resources Information Center and Language and Linguistics Behavior Abstracts. The keywords ‘telecollaboration’ and ‘online intercultural exchange’ ‘e-tandem’ and ‘virtual exchange’ were all used to identify publications which may have used these different terms to describe their telecollaborative research. To increase reliability, selective manual searching was carried out additionally on the websites of Cambridge Journals and on widely used journals for telecollaborative research including the CALL Journal, ReCALL, Language Learning and Technology and CALICO Journal as well as on the bibliographies of significant overview publications on telecollaboration (Guth  and Helm, 2010; O’Dowd, 2012, 2013).

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH FINDINGS IN UNIVERSITY TELECOLLABORATIVE INITIATIVES The following systematic descriptive map presents the studies identified for the first part of this systematic review. The table outlines bibliographical details of the publications, the countries involved in the online exchange, the number of students involved in the collection of data, the research focus of the study and the research methodology used to obtain data. In accordance with standard bibliographical practice, the table is organised alphabetically

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  25 by first author. This enables the grouping of works by productive authors in the field. The basic types of learning outcomes identified in the studies were foreign language linguistic development), aspects of intercultural cultural competence (ICC), learner autonomy and digital literacies. (It is important to point out that the number of students involved in the reported exchanges does not necessarily coincide with the numbers involved in the data analysis. For example, from two classes involved in an exchange, perhaps the data from only two or three partnerships actually may have been used in the analysis.)

TRENDS AND THEMES DERIVED FROM THE SYSTEMATIC DESCRIPTIVE MAP After a slow start, the last two decades have witnessed a steady stream of journal publications exploring different aspects of learning through OIE. From 1990 to 1999 only three studies appear in the descriptive map. From 2000 to 2009 the number grows to 36. In the five years from 2010 to 2015, 15 studies are captured in our sample. Today’s language educators and their learners have vastly more opportunities to engage in online learning than did their predecessors even from a decade ago. In a world of LMOOCs (language massive open online courses), m-learning and social media for language learning, OIE faces stiff competition. The continued engagement of teachers and learners with OIE suggests that as a technology-enhanced approach to learning languages and cultures, it may offer advantages that others do not. The majority of online exchanges listed in the table involved German-American class partnerships (17 exchanges). These were followed at a distance by SpanishAmerican (6) and French-American (5) partnerships. There were also cases of German-Irish exchanges (4 studies) and multinational partnerships (4 studies). The remaining partnerships spanned a wide range of nationalities but involved predominantly European countries. In recent years a significant upsurge of interest in OIE has been evident in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The number of publications in our sample by authors from these countries is disappointingly small. If the current exercise were to be repeated five years from now, it is all but certain that scholars from Asia would be more fully represented. Our sample captures a snapshot in time. What follows is an attempt to identify some key patterns evident in the works we have been able to survey. The first part of what follows will address technology use, whereas the second charts the learning outcomes claimed for OIE. Themes and trends summarised here will be dealt with more expansively in the discussion section of the chapter.

Table 2.1  Systematic Descriptive Map of Research on University Telecollaboration

Author

Year

Title

Audras, I., and Chanier, T.

2008

Observation de la construction d’une competence interculturelle dans des groupes exolingues en ligne

Basharina, Olga K.

2007

An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration

Belz, J. A.

2003

Linguistic perspec­ tives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration

Belz, J. A.

2002

Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study

Belz, J. A.

2004

Learner corpus analysis and the development of foreign language proficiency

Bibliographical Details Revue Apprentissage des Langues et Syst’emed’ Information et de Communication (ALSIC), 11, 175–204. Retrieved from http://alsic.revues. org/index865. html Language Learning and Technology, 11(2), pp. 36–58. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol11num2/basha rina/default.html Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 68–99. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol7num2/BELZ/ default.html Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 60–81. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol6num1/pdf/ belz.pdf System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 577–591.

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange Audiographic conferencing (Lyceum), blogs

Virtual learning platform (Web CT)

Website publication, email

Email, synchronous chat, website publication

Email, synchronous chat

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies)

Research Methodology Used in the Study

GB, United States, France, Switzerland

Unclear

ICC (Byram’s model)

Transcript analysis, learner document analysis, interviews

Japan, Mexico, Russia

JP: n = 52 MX: n = 37 RU: n = 46

ICC (cross-cultural contradictions)

Questionnaires, transcript analysis, interviews, learner document analysis

Germany, United States

DE: n = 2 US: n = 2

ICC (expr. of affect)

Transcript analysis (thematic and quantitative)

Germany, United States

US: n = 16, DE: n = 20

FL/ICC (socio-institutional Participant obs., differences) interviews, transcript analysis, learner document analysis

Germany, United States

Unclear

FL—(German da- compounds)

Transcript analysis

(Continued )

Table 2.1 Continued

Author

Year

Title

Belz, J. A.

2005

Belz, J. A., and Vyatkina, N.

2005

Belz, J., and Kinginger, C.

2002

Belz, J. A., and Kinginger, C.

2003

Belz, J. A., and Reinhardt, J.

2004

Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in Internetmediated language learning partnerships Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet-mediated German language play

Bibliographical Details

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange

Language and Intercultural Communi­cation, 5(1), 3–39.

Email, synchronous chat

Canadian Modern Language Review 62(1), 17–48.

Email, synchronous chat

Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(2), 189–214.

Email, synchronous chat

Language Learning, 53, 591–647.

Email, videoconferencing, synchronous chat

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 324–362.

Email, synchronous chat

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies)

Research Methodology Used in the Study

DE: n = 20, US: n = 16 (focus on 2 German learners of English and their US interlocutor) US: n = 16, DE: n = 23

ICC—(intercultural questioning)

Transcript analysis (quantitative)

FL (pragmatic competence)

Transcript analysis (quantitative)

Germany and United States, France and United States

US: n = 2

FL (T/V distinction)

Transcript analysis, interviews, questionnaires

Germany, United States

DE: n = 16 US: n = 14

FL (T/V distinction)

Microgenetic analysis

Germany, United States

US: n = 1

FL (play)

Transcript analysis, learner document analysis, interview

Germany, United States

Germany, United States

(Continued )

Table 2.1 Continued

Author

Year

Title

Blake, R., and Zyzik, E.

2003

Bower, J., and Kawaguchi, S.

2011

Chun, D. M.

2011

Cunningham, D. J., and Vyatkina, N.

2012

Who’s helping whom? Learner/ heritage-speakers’ networked discussion in Spanish Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/ English e-tandem Developing intercul­ tural communicative competence through online exchanges Telecollaboration for professional purposes: Towards devel­ oping a formal register in the foreign language classroom

Díez-Bedmar, M., and PérezParedes, P.

2012

The types and effects of peer native speakers’ feedback on CMC

Dooly, M. A.

2011

Crossing the inter­ cultural borders into 3rd space culture(s): Implica­­ tions for teacher education in the twenty-first century

Bibliographical Details

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange

Applied Linguis­ tics 24(4), 519–544.

Synchronous, text-based chat

Language Learning and Tech­ nology, 15(1), 41–71.

Email, synchronous chat

CALICO Journal, 28(2), 392–419.

Discussion forum, synchronous chat

Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(4) 422–450.

Synchronous web con­ ferencing software— Adobe Connect Pro (including audio-, video-and text-based interaction) Asynchronous forums; wikis

Language Learning and Technology, 16(1), 62–90. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/issues/ february2012/ diezbedmarpe rezparedes.pdf Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(4), 319–337.

Skype, virtual learning platform (Moodle), VoiceThread, wikis, Second Life

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies)

Research Methodology Used in the Study

Heritage speakers of Spanish: n = 11 and students of Spanish: n = 11 JP: n = 21, AU: n = 21

FL (negotiation of meaning)

Transcript analysis (quantitative)

FL (peer corrective feedback)

Transcript analysis (quantitative and qualitative).

Germany, United States

DE: n = 23, US: n = 23

ICC (discourse features of) Transcript analysis (quantitative)

Germany, United States

US: n = 9

FL (pragmatic competence— register)

Microgenetic analysis

Spain, GB

ES: n = 10, GB: n = 10

FL (peer corrective feedback)

Transcript analysis (quantitative and qualitative)

Spain, United States

ES: n = 7, US: n = 13

ICC (identity in third space)

Transcript and image analysis (qualitative)

United States

Japan, Australia

(Continued )

Table 2.1 Continued

Author

Year

Title

Dussias, P.

2006

Morphological development in Spanish-American telecollaboration

Éneau, J., and Develotte, C.

2012

Fuchs, C., Hauck, M., and MüllerHartmann, A.

2012

Working together online to enhance learner autonomy: Analysis of learners’ per­ ceptions of their online learning experience Promoting learner autonomy through multiliteracy skills development in cross-institutional exchanges

Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., and Maillet, K.

2001

Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura Project

GarciaSanchez, S., and RojasLizana, S.

2012

Bridging the language and cultural gaps: The use of blogs

Bibliographical Details In J. Belz and S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 121–146). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. ReCALL, 24(1), 3–19

Language Learning and Technology, 16(3), 82–102. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/issues/ october2012/ fuchsetal.pdf Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 55–102. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/vol5num1/ furstenberg/ default.html Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(3), 361–381.

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange Email, synchronous chat tool

LMS (Dokeos)

Asynchronous forums, wiki

Asynchronous discussion forums, videocon­ ferences

Blogs

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies)

Research Methodology Used in the Study

Spain, United States n = 8

FL (linguistic gains)

Experimental study

France

FR: n = 27

Autonomy (collaboration and reflection)

Learner document analysis

United States and Germany, Poland GB

Project totals: Cycle 1 n = 78; Cycle 2: n = 101 (for case studybased findings and discussion, n = 8; Cycle 1, n = 4; Cycle 2, n = 4) US: n = 67, FR: n = 79

Autonomy (use of digital resources)

Questionnaire, learner document analysis, interviews

ICC (cross-cultural comparison)

Project description, transcript analysis

AU: n = 46, ES: n = 41

FL (peer corrective feedback)

Transcript anal­ ysis (quantitative and qualitative), questionnaire

United States, France

Australia, Spain

(Continued )

Table 2.1 Continued

Title

Bibliographical Details

Author

Year

Guth, S., and Helm, F.

2012

Developing mul­ tiliteracies in ELT through telecollaboration

ELT Journal, 6(1). doi: 10.1093/ elt/ccr027

Hauck, M.

2010

Telecollaboration: At the interface between multimodal and intercultural communicative competence

Itakura, H.

2004

Kessler G., and Bikowski, D.

2010

Kern, R.

2014

Changing cultural stereotypes through e-mail assisted foreign language learning Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning amongst students in wiki space Technology as Pharmakon: The promise and perils of the Internet in foreign language education

In S. Guth and F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 219–248). Bern: Peter Lang. System, 32, 37–51.

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange Audio and videoconferencing (Skype), wiki Virtual learning environment (Moodle), asynchronous  forums, blogs, wikis

Email

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41–58.

Wiki

The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 340–355.

Videoconferencing

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies)

Research Methodology Used in the Study

Italy, Germany

Unclear

Digital literacies (cultural, critical and operational)

Transcript analysis, interviews, learner document analysis Transcript analysis

United States: n = 27, Germany: n = 17, Poland: n = 14, GB: n = 8, Total: 66

n = 6 (from 4 groups)

Digital literacies—(multimodal awareness)

Hong Kong, Japan

HK: n = 30, JP: n = 4

ICC (cultural stereotypes)

Transcript analy­ sis, learner document analysis, interviews

Mexico and United States (Mexican teacher trainees learning at a US distance university)

Participants: n = 40, interview cohort: n = 20

Autonomy (individually defined)

Transcript analysis (qualitative), interviews

France, United States

Unclear

ICC (technological mediation)

Interviews

(Continued )

Table 2.1 Continued

Title

Bibliographical Details

Author

Year

Kötter, M.

2002

Tandem learning on the Internet: Learner interactions in virtual online environments (MOOs)

Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Kötter, M.

2003

Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems

Kramsch, C., and Thorne, S.

2002

Foreign language learning as global communi­ cative practice

Lee, L.

2006

A study of native and nonnative speakers’ feedback and responses in Spanish-American networked collaborative interaction

Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 145–72. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/vol7num2/ pdf/kotter.pdf In D. Block and D. Cameron (Eds.), Global­ ization and language teaching (pp.83–100). London: Routledge. In J. Belz and S. Thorne (Eds.), Internetmediated inter­ cultural foreign language education (pp. 147–176). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange MOO (in-house, purposebuilt, objectoriented synchronous chat environ­ ment: MOOsig­ gang) MOO— synchronous, textbased communication tool

MOO, email

Synchronous chat

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies)

Research Methodology Used in the Study

Germany, United States

DE: n = 14, US: n = 15

FL (bilateral language learning)

Transcript analysis, questionnaire, observation

Germany, United States

DE: n = 13, US: n = 12

FL (negotiation of meaning)

Questionnaire, transcript analysis

France, United States

1) n = 3, US/FR pairs; 2) US: n = 2, FR: n = 3

ICC (cross-cultural misunderstanding)

Transcript analysis

United States

Heritage speakers FL (error correction and feedback) of Spanish in the US: n = 13, students of Spanish: n = 13

Transcript analysis (qualitative)

(Continued )

Table 2.1 Continued

Bibliographical Details

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange

Author

Year

Title

Lee, L.

2009

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 425–443.

Blogs, podcasts

Liaw, M-L., and Bunn-Le Master, S.

2010

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 21–40.

Discussion forums

Little, D., Ushioda, E., Appel, M. C., Moran, J., O’Rourke, B., and Schwienhorst, K. Meagher, M., and Castaños, F.

1999

Promoting intercul­ tural exchanges with blogs and podcasting: A study of Spanish–American telecollaboration Understanding telecollaboration through an anal­ ysis of intercultural discourse Evaluating tandem learning by e-mail: Report on a bilateral project

CLCS Occasional Paper No 55. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies.

Email

1996

Perceptions of American culture: The impact of an electronicallymediated cultural exchange programme on Mexican high school students

Asynchronous forums

2009

Comparing protest movements in Chile and Cal­ ifornia: Inter­ culturality in an Internet chat exchange

In S. Herring (Ed.), Computermediated communication. Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 187–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(2), 105–119.

MenardWarwick, J.

Synchronous chat

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies)

Research Methodology Used in the Study

United States, Spain US: n = 10, ES: n = 23

ICC (topics and tasks)

Transcript analysis, questionnaire

Taiwan, United States

TW: n = 33, US: 33

ICC (discourse, lexis, Byram’s model)

Transcript analysis (quantitative and qualitative).

Ireland, Germany

DE: n = 24, IE: n = 24

FL (register, error correction)

Transcript analysis, questionnaire

United States, Mexico

US: n = 26, MX: n = 26

ICC (decentring, other-orientation)

Transcript ­analysis (qualitative), questionnaire, interviews, learner document analysis

Chile, United States US: n = 9, CL: n = 30

ICC (discourse, pragmatics) Transcript analysis

(Continued )

Table 2.1 Continued

Title

Bibliographical Details

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange

Author

Year

O’Dowd, R.

2003

Understanding ‘the other side’: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English email exchange

Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 118–144. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/vol7num2/ odowd/default. html

Email

O’Dowd, R.

2006

The use of videoconferencing and e-mail as mediators of intercultural student ethnography

Videoconferencing, email

O’Rourke, B.

2005

Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning

PasfieldNeofitou, S.

2011

Online domains of language use: Second language learners’ experiences of virtual community and foreignness

Sauro, S.

2009

Computermediated cor­ rective feedback and the development of L2 grammar

In J. A. Belz and S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internetmediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 86–119). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433–466. Retrieved from https:// www.calico. org/html/arti cle_144.pdf Language Learning and Technology, 15(2), 92–108. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/ issues/june2011/ pasfieldneofitou. pdf Language Learning and Technology 13(1), 96–120. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/vol13num1/ sauro.pdf

MOO

Blogs,email, synchronous chat, mobile phone SMS

Synchronous, text-based chat tool

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies)

Research Methodology Used in the Study

Spain, GB

ES: n = 5, GB: n = 5

ICC (Byram’s model)

Participant observation, transcript analysis, questionnaires, interviews, researcher document ­analysis, peer-group feedback Transcript analysis (qualitative), learner document analysis, interviews

Germany, United States

DE: n = 25, US: n = 21

ICC (ethnographic discovery)

Germany, Ireland

IE: n = 26, DE: n = 32

FL (negotiation of meaning)

Transcript analysis

Japan, Australia

AU: n = 12, JP: n = 18

ICC (identity, nationality, foreignness)

Corpus analysis (qualitative), interviews

Sweden, United States

SE: n = 23, US: n = 9

FL (peer corrective feedback)

Transcript analysis, pre- and post-tests

(Continued )

Table 2.1 Continued

Author

Year

Title

Schenker, T.

2012

Schneider, J., and von der Emde, S.

2006

Schwienhorst, K.

2002

Schwienhorst, K.

2008

Stickler, U., and Emke, M.

2011

Literalia: Towards developing intercultural maturity online

Thorne, S.

2003

Artifacts and cultures of-use in intercultural communication

Intercultural competence and cultural learning through telecollaboration Conflicts in cyberspace: from communication breakdown to intercultural dialogue in online collaborations Evaluating tandem language learning in the MOO: Discourse repair strategies in a bilingual Internet project Learner autonomy and CALL environments

Bibliographical Details

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange

CALICO Journal, 29(3), 449–470.

Email

In J. A. Belz and S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 178–206). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(2), 135–145.

MOO, asynchronous forums

MOO

New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.

MOO

Language Learning and Technology, 15(1), 147–168. Retrieved from http://llt. msu.edu/issues/ february2011/ stickleremke.pdf Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/vol7num2/ thorne/

Asynchronous discussion forums, wikis, synchronous chat

Email, instant messenger, chat

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies)

Research Methodology Used in the Study

Germany, United States

DE: n = 16, US: n = 16

ICC (decentring, other-orientation)

Transcript analysis, preand postquestionnaires

Germany, United States

DE: n = 2, US: n = 2

ICC Transcript analysis (Bakhtinian dialogic model)

Ireland, Germany

DE: n = 22, IE: n = 29

FL (repair strategies)

Questionnaire, transcript analysis

Ireland, Germany

IE: n = 22, DE: n = 29

Autonomy (reflection, ­interaction, experimentation)

GB, DE, PL, IT

Total unclear

ICC (perspective transformation)

Transcript analy­ sis, learner document analysis, questionnaire, interviews Questionnaire, interviews

Case study 1: United States and France, Case study 2 and3: United States and France

Undefined number of students in each case study

FL (T/V use)

Multiple case studies, transcript analysis

(Continued )

Table 2.1 Continued

Title

Bibliographical Details

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange

Author

Year

Toyoda, E.

2001

Exercise of learner autonomy in project-oriented CALL

CALL-EJ Online 2(2), n.p.

Asynchronous discussion forums, email

Tudini, V.

2003

Using native speakers in chat

Synchronous chat

Vinagre, M.

2005

Vinagre, M., and Muñoz, B.

2011

Fostering language learning via e-mail: An English-Spanish exchange Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchange

Language Learning and Technology, 7(3). Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/vol7num3/ tudini/default. html Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5),  369–388.

Email

Ware, P.

2005

Language Learning and Technology, 15(1), 72–103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/issues/ february2011/ vinagremunoz. pdf Language Learning and Technology, 9(2), 64–89. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/vol9num2/ default.html

Missed communication in online communication: Tensions in fostering successful online interactions

Email

Asynchronous discussion forum

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies) Autonomy (project completion)

Australia, Indonesia, China, Japan

Cohort studied: n = 55

Australia, Italy

AU: n = 9, IT: 49 FL (interlanguage development)

Research Methodology Used in the Study Questionnaire, interviews, teacher and researcher document analysis Questionnaire, transcript analysis

Spain, United States ES: n = 32, US: n = 32

FL (characteristics of success)

Questionnaire, transcript analysis (individual case study)

Spain, Germany

ES: n = 5, DE: n = 5

FL (error correction and feedback)

Transcript analysis, questionnaire, interviews, learner document analysis

Germany, United States

US: n = 9, DE: n = 12

ICC (attitudes, beliefs, expectations)

Transcript analysis, questionnaire, interviews

(Continued )

Table 2.1 Continued

Author

Year

Title

Ware, P., and O’Dowd, R.

2008

Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration.

Ware, P., and Kramsch, C.

2005

Zeiss, E., and IsabelliGarcía, C.

2005

Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration The role of asynchronous computermediated com­ munication on enhancing cul­ tural awareness

Bibliographical Details

CMC Tools Used in the Exchange

Language Learning and Technology, 12(1), 43–63. Retrieved from http://llt. msu.edu/vol12num1/pdf/ wareodowd.pdf Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190–205.

Asynchronous discussion forum

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3),  151–169.

Asynchronous discussion forum

Asynchronous discussion forum

Countries Where Classes Were Located

Number of students used in data analysis

Type of Learning Outcomes Reported (ICC, Foreign Language, Autonomy, Digital Literacies)

Research Methodology Used in the Study

Spain, United States Phase 1) US: n = 4, ES: n = 22; Phase 2) ES: n = 36, US: n = 36

FL (language-related episodes)

Transcript analy­ sis, questionnaire, learner document analysis

Germany, United States

US: n = 9, DE: n = 12; research focusses on 1 US/DE pair

ICC (cultural misunderstanding)

Transcript analysis (qualitative)

United States, Mexico

US: n = 23, MX: n = 23

ICC (awareness of current Experimental events) study, postquestionnaire

48  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd

Technologies The Persistence of Asynchronous Text The main communication tools employed by students in our sample were email (mentioned in 21 studies), synchronous chat (17) and asynchronous forums (14). Other tools which were used regularly included blogs (8), wikis (5) and virtual learning platforms (6). This means that, in terms of technology use, asynchronous, text-based communication has remained a staple of OIE from the 1990s to the present day, whether in the form of email or online discussion forums. Although five publications reported on the exclusive use of synchronous text chat, in roughly half our sample, online exchanges were based on a combination of synchronous and asynchronous communication. These appear to be rather conservative choices. The precise reasons for them are unknown, but reasonable speculation is possible. From a pedagogic perspective, whereas synchronous chat offers spontaneous, ‘live’ interaction, asynchronous textbased communication presents language learners with readier opportunities for post-interaction review and reflection. For busy practitioner researchers, voice- and video-based interactions, although easy enough to record, are time-consuming to transcribe and analyse. The latter require multimodal transcription and analysis, which is highly complex. Videoconferencing Despite anecdotal evidence of the increasingly frequent use of voice over Internet protocol (VOIP) telephony and desktop videoconferencing for OIEs, relatively little research into the use of these technologies is captured in our sample. The full popularity of the medium is almost certainly not fully represented here. Whereas some examples of the collection and post-class exploitation of videoconference recordings are present (Kern, 2014; O’Dowd, 2006), a number of articles on the topic fall outside the scope of the present review because they are not published in English (e.g., Dejean-Thircuir and Mangenot, 2011). Synchronous video communication tools such as Skype or Adobe Connect were used in only six of the studies we reviewed. In a thoughtful article, Kern (2014) warns that the attractions and benefits of desktop videoconferencing are offset by the fact that what appears real and authentic about such communication is in fact heavily mediated by a technology which is ideologically driven. He therefore advocates a relational pedagogy, based on retrospective reflection on online interactions, as a means of heightening learners’ critical and contextual awareness of their online communicative behaviour. An equally cautionary perspective is articulated in Malinowski and Kramsch (2014). Web 2.0 For a decade now, Web 2.0 has offered affordances for collaboration and for the creation of user-generated content. In our sample, the wiki, which is designed for collaboration, is the most favoured Web 2.0 tool. However, in the

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  49 studies we have reviewed, there is invariably more focus on the process of collaboration than on the artefacts that were created. Is something being missed? Virtual Worlds Immersive environments have been used for OIEs since the 1990s. Four publications in our sample deal with the use of MOOs, which were, for a time, championed for tandem learning (see Kötter, 2002, 2003; Schwienhorst, 2002, 2008). A number of MOOs (le MOOfrançais, MOOsiggang and shcMOOze) were developed for educational purposes, in particular for language learning and intercultural communication. The best known was Diversity University, established by Lonnie Turbee, of Syracuse University. Its domain name was allowed to expire on 26 October 2006. MOOs were heavily text based, which may have limited their popularity. Amongst the successors of MOOs are the massive multiplayer online games (MMOs) that furnish virtual reality gaming environments. Some of these, such as World of Warcraft are frequented by language learners (Thorne, 2010). Because the use of them for second language learning tends to be informal, they are not captured in our sample. The best-known virtual reality environment is Linden Labs’ Second Life. Despite recent enthusiastic advocacy of Second Life for online intercultural exchange (Sadler, 2012), only one study in our sample charts its use to build an online community of trainee teachers (Dooly, 2011).

Learning Aims and Outcomes Online Exchange and Second Language Learning From its inception, one of the primary aims of online exchange has been second language learning. Second language acquisition through OIE has been researched from interactionist as well as sociocultural perspectives. Studies of linguistic development use primarily quantitative data—especially those based on interactionist approaches and the negotiation of meaning. Data typically consists of counts of the occurrence of syntactic, morphological and lexical features in online interaction discourse. Meanwhile, studies looking at the development of aspects of intercultural competence tend to use qualitative data and employ a mixture of ethnographic and discourse analytic methods. Given that second language learning is a key driver, ‘traditional’ bilateral exchanges continue to be the dominant model of exchange—at least in studies where second language learning is a primary focus of study. Only 6 of the 54 studies reviewed here used a lingua franca. Only 2 reported on multilateral exchanges. The remaining 45 studies were bilingual or bicultural in nature. Studies in linguistic development focus principally on three main areas of research. They identify the value of telecollaborative interaction with peers for (a) negotiation of meaning (e.g., Blake and Zyzik, 2003); (b) peer corrective feedback (e.g., Diez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes, 2012) and (c) pragmatic competence development (e.g., Belz and Kinginger, 2003).

50  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd From Cultural Misunderstanding to Intercultural Pragmatics Acquainting second language learners with the L2 culture was initially a secondary aim of online exchange but rapidly assumed primary importance for many telecollaborators. Initial assumptions about the efficacy of intercultural contact online were over-optimistic and naive. As a consequence, early researchers into online exchange were disconcerted by the frequency of communication breakdown between participants. Cultural misunderstanding, miscommunication and conflict appear early in the literature. A succession of publications (Basharina, 2007; Belz, 2002; Kinginger, Gourvès-Hayward and Simpson, 1999; Kramsch and Thorne, 2002; Ware, 2005; Ware and Kramsch, 2005) explore the reasons for this, which range from socio-institutional factors to broader cultural differences, especially in relation to discourse norms. To account for the intercultural difficulties encountered by participants in online exchanges and gauge the extent to which these were capable of being surmounted, practitioner researchers made frequent use of offline models of ICC to evaluate intercultural learning in online environments. The most popular was Byram’s (1997) five savoirs model (see Audras  and Chanier, 2008; Hauck, 2010; Liaw, and Bunn-Le Master, 2008; O’Dowd, 2003). Other models used have been those of Bennett (Dooly, 2011; Stickler and Emke, 2011) and a Bakhtinian dialogic model (Schneider and Van der Emde, 2006). The extent to which offline models are appropriate to online intercultural interactions remains uncertain, but—to the best of our knowledge—no model of intercultural competence specific to online encounters has yet been devised. Perhaps for this reason approaches to intercultural learning in telecollaborative exchanges target a broad range of learning outcomes. Some conceptualise intercultural learning in cognitive terms, others prioritise decentring and critical reflection, whereas yet others aim at discovery. Desired learning outcomes are correspondingly varied, ranging from the exchange of cultural information (Zeiss and Isabelli-Garcia, 2005) through the study of the construct of ‘foreignness’ (Pasfield-Neofitou, 2011), the relativising of one’s own culture (Meagher and Castagnos, 1996; Schenker, 2012) and the deconstruction of stereotypes (Itakura, 2004) to the cultivation of an ethnographic stance (O’Dowd, 2006). Cultural and socio-institutional differences undeniably continue to pose problems in OIEs. But they are, in one sense, merely facts of life to be surmounted or circumvented rather than bewailed. Likewise, the communication failures which some depicted as betraying the weakness of OIE in fact led to the realisation of one of its key strengths. In the long term, more productive than identifying cultural differences has been the recognition that communication breakdown in OIEs has both linguistic and cultural dimensions and that the two are intertwined inextricably. This awareness has led to a third major thread in the literature on the intercultural dimension of online exchanges which addresses the discursive and pragmatic features of intercultural communication. The discourse of online intercultural exchange is explored in Belz (2003), Chun (2011), Dooly (2011), Menard-Warwick (2009) and Liaw and Bunn-Le Master (2010). Intercultural pragmatic competence is the focus of Belz and Vyatkina (2005) and Thorne (2003)

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  51 Amongst studies of the linguistic aspects of communication breakdown in OIE, two broad approaches are discernible. One is located at the macro level of genre. Kramsch and Thorne (2002) conclude that German and American students espouse fundamentally different concepts of communication, one based on a discourse of truth, the other, a postmodern one based on a discourse of trust (pp.98–99). A similar diagnosis is to be found in Ware and Kramsch (2005), where communication breakdown is attributed to uncertainty and confusion about discourse genre (p.199). Useful as it is to alert second language learners to the issue, the pedagogic challenges of teaching the effective use of genre to L2 learners remain considerable. In the work of Julie Belz and collaborators, one finds instead a painstaking micro-level analysis of the specific linguistic features which cumulatively embody these generic differences. Belz (2002) focusses on attitudinal appraisal (the relative frequency of positive and negative judgments) and epistemic modality (the use of intensifiers or mitigation strategies to ‘harden’ or ‘soften’ value judgments). Belz and Vyatkina (2005) report on an intervention study exploring whether the appropriate use of culturally specific linguistic features such as modal particles (ja, mal, denn and doch) can be taught to American learners of German engaged in OIE. Rather than on genre, Belz’s focus is on pragmatics. Significantly, her work offers the prospect of teachable ‘bottom-up’ remedies to languacultural difference. A focus on the linguistic features of culturally specific discourses in OIE is continued in publications such as Menard-Warwick (2009) and Liaw and Bunn-Le Master (2010). This work underlines the value and potential centrality of OIE to learners of second languages and cultures. It does so by giving scrutiny to intercultural interactions that are linguistically realised. Equipping learners with the pragmatic resources needed to communicate effectively across cultures is to offer tangible and specific opportunities for learning that is simultaneously linguistic and intercultural. The importance of approaching intercultural communication through language use is warranted by Liddicoat (2014), who asserts that ‘language itself can be the focus of intercultural learning related to mediation . . . [P]ragmatics especially has particular relevance for interculturally oriented language teaching as it represents a fundamental point of interaction between language and culture’ (p. 276). If there were no other justification for engaging in OIE, the opportunities it affords for developing intercultural pragmatic competence would suffice. Learner Autonomy and Digital Literacy There is some evidence that working together in online environments can help learners to become more autonomous (Schwienhorst, 2008). Definitions of learner autonomy remain highly variable and to some extent problematical in articles seeking to relate autonomy to OIE: Kessler and Bikowski (2010) define learner autonomy as ‘whatever an autonomous person thinks it is’ (p.  42), whereas Fuchs, Hauck, and Müller-Hartmann (2012) seek to characterise it as ‘the informed use of a range of interacting resources in context’ (p. 82). This effectively equates learner autonomy with digital literacy, which is justifiable only

52  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd in a highly specific set of circumstances. There is currently a lack of empirical studies to support the claim that digital literacies are an inevitable benefit of OIE. Only three studies were identified which actually operationalised the concept. DISCUSSION In this section of the review, we discuss approximately 30 studies which represent salient exemplars of the treatment of particular topics and themes associated with those learning outcomes of OIE for which a substantial number of empirically based claims have been made. Our purpose here is to explore recurrent trends and commonalities emerging from our reading of the articles we have reviewed. However some articles stand out as addressing particular issues in strikingly individual ways. They will be treated in somewhat greater depth if we feel that their significance warrants it.

Studies in Linguistic Development Those studies which focus on students’ linguistic development in telecollaborative exchange dealt with the following dominant themes: The Importance of Offline Reflection and Study As some researchers of telecollaborative interaction have observed, although students are exposed to a great deal of L1 input in their OIEs, this does not necessarily lead to second language development (Belz and Vyatkina, 2005, 2008). With this in mind, to support ‘noticing’ (Schmidt, 1993) and a more effective focus on form, online intercultural interaction has regularly been downloaded and recorded for later study and exploitation in classroom contexts. This practice has been particularly common in the case of text-based interaction, but it also applies to videoconference interaction, which can be recorded and multimodally transcribed (although the process for this is more complex). Toyoda and Harrison (2002) support this approach, arguing that studying chat logs can help students learn to analyse difficult grammatical and syntactical features of the target language, develop communication strategies for coping with the short reaction time of synchronous discussion and reflect on how particular words can trigger cultural misunderstandings. With this in mind, in telecollaborative studies looking at students’ linguistic development, authors regularly recommend combining students’ online interaction with either reflective reviews of transcripts or recordings of the online interactions. Belz refers to this as ‘the alternation of Internet-mediated intercultural sessions with face-to-face intracultural sessions” (2006, p. 214). Relating to videoconference-based interactions, Kern (2014) refers to using ‘la salle de rétrospection’ in his online exchanges where French and American student partners were given tasks requiring them to review recordings of their telecollaborative videoconferences. Other examples of this can be found in the work of Cunningham and Vyatkina (2012), who describe ‘pedagogic

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  53 interventions’ where the teachers transcribed and coded relevant extracts of politeness markers from students’ telecollaborative videoconferences and reviewed these transcripts with their students with the help of pragmatic awareness questionnaires. However, undoubtedly the most extensive work in this area comes from the work of Belz and colleagues (Belz, 2004, 2005; Belz and Vyatkina, 2005), who have provided an extensive collection of studies where the linguistic development of students of German in the United States was supported through the use of pedagogical interventions based on data from a corpus of telecollaborative interactions. This contrastive corpus of learner and expert speakers of German was collected from a series of GermanAmerican telecollaborative exchanges over a two-year period and contained data taken from both email and chat-based interactions. In Belz and Vyatkina (2005), the authors identified the underuse of modal particles in the American students’ interventions in German in the opening parts of their exchanges and therefore carried out a pedagogical intervention using linguistic data culled from the exchange to draw the American students’ awareness to differences in their performance and their native-speaking partners’ use of this linguistic feature. Other educators have tried to combine online interaction with offline focus on form in other ways. Bower and Kawaguchi (2011), for example, required their Australian and Japanese students to send their partners, via email, language corrections taken from the transcripts of their synchronous online interactions, whereas Vinagre and Muñoz (2011) asked their students to keep a language learning diary in which they could record information about new vocabulary they had encountered and also to carry out error recycling exercises. The precise means used to promote the noticing of salient linguistic features (including errors) is less important than the process it triggers, which is one of active reflection, leading to second language development. Peer Feedback, Task Design and Focus on Form An important question related to language learning in telecollaborative exchange is why this type of language learning activity is likely to have a significant impact on learners’ linguistic development. In response to this question, many authors have suggested that the fact that they are interacting and receiving feedback from peers (as opposed to teachers) may lead learners to pay greater attention to linguistic form, accuracy and appropriateness. Ware and O’Dowd (2008) reported that their Spanish students found that the corrections which they received from their American peers made a greater impact on their learning than traditional teacher-based feedback and that the corrections were experienced in a more personalised and unthreatening way. Other researchers have found that peer-based feedback is particularly valuable when it comes to helping learners develop aspects of pragmatic competence such as appropriate use of T/V forms in languages such as French and German. One of the case studies presented by Thorne (2003), for example, illustrates considerable gains in T/V usage in French by one American student, and the author argues that the role of peer interaction is key to this success ‘because students are engaging

54  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd in age-peer contact under less controlled conditions that would normally be the case in intra-class small group or class discussion’ (2003, p. 50). Similarly, Belz and Kinginger (2003), based on their research studies into T/V development in both learners of German and French, suggest that the learning context of peer-based telecollaboration can stimulate the appropriate use of pragmatic aspects of language in a way which would be very difficult to reproduce in the traditional language classroom. There is apparent consensus amongst researchers of linguistic development in telecollaborative contexts that sufficient opportunities for focus on form, negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback do not occur naturally in online exchange and need to be promoted through careful task design and training of the learners to work as linguistic guides and tutors for their partners. The importance of the choice of task to support focus on form and languagerelated episodes (LREs) is highlighted by Bower and Kawaguchi (2011), who conclude that carefully structured activities such as jigsaw tasks are likely to foster more negotiation than free conversation or discussion (p. 60). In her study of the impact of corrective feedback on L2 grammar development, Sauro went a step further to get her students to focus on specific forms in their online interactions with their partners by requiring them to incorporate words and phrases from a bank of lexical items into their written assignments (2009, p. 114–115). Apart from the careful design of tasks, other techniques have been used to encourage a focus on form in telecollaborative interaction. Some studies, for example, report giving students explicit instructions and training for providing linguistic feedback to their telecollaborative partners. Vinagre and Muñoz provided their German and Spanish e-tandem students with ‘specific guidelines with regard to error correction which included an error classification table’ (2011, p.  75). Similarly, Ware and O’Dowd (2008) carried out a study comparing the level of peer feedback provided by students who had been requested and trained to provide feedback to their partners on linguistic form (‘e-tutors’) to that of students who hadn’t (‘e-partners’). These authors found a much higher percentage of LREs occurred in the e-tutoring condition. They also reported that students who had received explicit feedback from their partners responded very positively to this aspect of the exchange and that the corrections they received from their online partners, although personalised and unthreatening, made a greater impact on their learning than normal classroom feedback (see p. 53). However, despite students’ positive reactions to receiving feedback on their use of the L2 in their online interactions, numerous studies also have identified the reluctance of students to assume the role of linguistic tutor (Bower and Kawaguchi, 2011; Ware and O’Dowd, 2008). Some authors, such as Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes, report that even when students were required to provide linguistic feedback, ‘participants failed to comply with instructions’ (2012, p. 71). Various reasons have been proposed for this unwillingness to provide corrective feedback or engage in the negotiation of meaning in telecollaborative

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  55 exchange. The most commonly cited explanation is a clash between the educators’ pedagogic aims for the exchange (e.g., linguistic development through peer feedback or negotiation of meaning) and the students’ perception of the exchange as a communicative activity and an exercise of cross-cultural friendship making (Schwienhorst, 2000). It is only when students are clear that the function of a particular telecollaborative task is to provide feedback on their partners’ language that this will take place on a regular basis. Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes (2012) found in their wiki-based task, where students clearly understood that their function was to provide linguistic feedback on their international partners’ drafts of tourist brochures, that the amount of LREs increased significantly in comparison to other tasks which had more communicative goals. A second explanation for students’ reluctance to provide feedback is proposed by Ware and O’Dowd (2008), who suggest that culturally divergent perspectives on what was appropriate online behaviour had influenced students’ attitudes to providing and receiving explicit linguistic feedback from their partners. They found that, in contrast to the Spanish students who had expected to receive feedback on their use of English from their partners, American students often were uncomfortable about providing this. The authors suggested that this was due to the widely held view amongst American students that online interaction took place in ‘informal spaces for sharing ideas, and most evaluative feedback remains the role of the course instructor, so the US students’ concerns centred mainly on fears of transforming their online conversations into less informal sessions’ (p. 52). Whereas many authors highlight the need to train their students to be productive telecollaborative partners in a linguistic sense, other studies report relatively high levels of focus on form. Koetter (2003) notes that ‘many students were keen to provide their partners with authentic input in their respective L2 and to model the use of their L1 for their partners’ (2003, p.154); in addition Tudini (2003) found that negotiation sequences in synchronous, text-based Italian online interaction occurred in more than 9 percent of total turns and that language learners received both implicit and explicit feedback on their language from their partners. Whereas it is not clear in these two particular studies whether students were encouraged explicitly to focus on form, the general trend in the literature would appear to suggest that when tasks are carefully designed to require linguistic accuracy and when students are aware of their role as language expert or tutor, then telecollaboration has strong potential as a tool for linguistic development.

Online Exchange and Intercultural Communicative Competence This section of the review now moves on to answer the question: ‘In what ways does online intercultural exchange support the development of intercultural communicative competence?’ Contrary to some assumptions (Liddicoat and Scarino, 2013, p. 111), not since the earliest days of online exchange have its organisers assumed that simply bringing members of different cultures into social contact online would

56  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd result in effective intercultural learning. In fact, telecollaborators have pursued a number of approaches to developing intercultural competences, either by seeking to adapt offline models and methodologies or, more recently, by recognizing that the technologically mediated nature of the experience meant that online intercultural encounters were qualitatively different from what might occur within the compass of, say, a study abroad programme. This involves the recognition that online environments have cultures of their own and that the frequenters of these may feel a stronger affiliation to their virtual worlds than to their offline cultures of origin. In this section we shall explore three different ways of conceptualizing the development of ICC online. The first is an ethnographic approach which equates effective learning with informing oneself as fully as possible about another culture whilst suspending judgment. The second takes a relational view, in which ‘decentring’ (i.e., relativising one’s own culturally determined attitudes and behaviours) is as important as acquiring the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed to interact effectively with members of another culture. The third envisages online learners not as quasi-representatives of two separate cultures but as denizens of a single hybrid ‘contact zone’ (Pratt, 1991) or ‘third space’ (Bhabha, 1994; Kramsch, 1998) where the potential for conflict is rivalled by that for creativity and where the close sharing of tasks, goals and aspirations, often in immersive environments (e.g., MOOs, virtual worlds and games) drives behavioural change and may lead ultimately to transculturation (Ortiz, 1995). We shall discuss examples of each of these three different approaches, which to some extent mark the stages of an—as yet unfinished—journey. Ethnography O’Dowd (2006) reports on a telecollaborative project inspired by the work carried out at Ealing College, GB, in the 1990s (see Roberts, Byram, Barro,  and Jordan, 2001 and Roberts, 2002), in which advanced students of English at the University of Essen were trained in ethnographic interviewing for an eight-week exchange with counterparts at the Ohio State University at Columbus. Participants in the exchange used a combination of integrated services for digital network (ISDN)-based group videoconferencing and email. O’Dowd’s focus is to a large degree on the roles played by synchronous and asynchronous tools in serving the development of ICC. Conveniently for us, O’Dowd himself asks the question ‘in what ways does ethnography contribute to developing ICC?’ (2006, p. 89). He concludes either that it is only partially successful in doing so or that his German learners have been unable, in the time available, to become fully fledged ethnographers. Although the data shows ‘ample examples of the German students using the techniques of ethnographic interviewing in their online interaction’ (p. 108), O’Dowd concedes that it was extremely difficult to develop deep-seated ethnographic understanding in his German students ‘in the short time-span of the current online exchange’ (p. 108). Consequently, ‘many students found themselves drawn into discussions on which culture was “better” ’ (p. 108). Ultimately O’ Dowd judges that ‘[i]n their final essays and on the feedback forms,

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  57 they often judge or criticise the target culture instead of trying to understand and describe it from the native’s point of view’ (p. 108). O’Dowd ascribes the partial failure of this initiative to two reasons. Firstly, a telecollaborative exchange is by definition a reciprocal interaction in which participants do not merely observe and ask questions but also are required to express their own opinions. By contrast, ethnographic interviewing requires an asymmetrical approach in which the researcher’s role is indeed to participate but not actually to become either a protagonist or antagonist (p. 113). Secondly, O’Dowd ascribes the difficulties encountered to the ‘more direct, more explicit, more self-referenced and more content-oriented’ pragmatic strategies which, according to House (2000, p.  162), characterise German discourse norms. Ultimately O’Dowd (a) concedes that ‘it can be quite difficult for teachers to develop in learners a critical cultural awareness during the necessarily short duration of a telecollaborative exchange’ (p.  115), (b) laments that his German group was relatively unsuccessful in developing ‘the ability to take the others’ perspective and see things through their eyes’ (p. 116) and (c) suggests that ‘explicit guidance and further training in ethnography’ are likely to help develop [the] attitude of openness to alternative perspectives on one’s own and the target culture’ (p. 116). The short duration of most telecollaborative exchanges and the continued resistance of many HEIs to incorporating them into the mainstream curriculum may mean that implementing an ethnographic inquiry model—however great its potential—is likely to remain challenging. To the best of our knowledge, this remains a bold, but isolated, attempt to do so. An attempt at replication nonetheless would be welcome. Relational Approaches to Intercultural Communicative Competence Development The practicalities of online exchange have meant that exchanges based on comparison and analysis have been attempted much more frequently than online ethnographic inquiry. The best known of these is the Cultura project (Furstenberg, Levet, English, and Maillet, 2001). However, only a relatively small number of such endeavours have been subjected to empirical evaluative research. This frequently involves the use of existing frameworks as a yardstick. Frameworks used include Byram’s (1997) Intercultural Communicative Competence Model, Chen and Starosta’s (2000) Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, or for adult learners, King and Baxter-Magolda’s (2005) Intercultural Maturity Model. For applications of the last two of these in online exchanges, see Jin and Erben (2007) and Stickler and Emke (2011). Despite recent caveats (Helm and Guth, 2010), Byram’s model of Intercultural Communicative Competence has established itself as dominant in both offline and online intercultural learning. In the case of online exchange, it has served as a point of reference to Audras and Chanier (2008), Belz (2003), O’Dowd (2006), Menard-Warwick (2009) and Stickler and Emke (2011). Schenker (2012) finds no evidence for the acquisition of Byram’s competences by her learners. A brief account of Byram’s model follows as a prelude to discussion of studies that have employed it.

58  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd According to Byram, ICC comprises five components for which he employs the word savoirs, a French term which goes some way to capturing the different entities involved: knowledge, attitudes, skills and awareness. If there is an entry point to intercultural learning, for Byram it lies in savoir être, an attitude which involves relativising one’s cultural self and valuing others. This is often characterised as curiosity and openness towards other cultures. Some commentators refer to this as ‘decentring.’ Secondly, the term savoirs itself refers to sociocultural knowledge about the behaviour of self and others. Savoir comprendre is defined by Byram as the skills of interpreting and relating (e.g., texts but also events and behaviours), whereas savoir apprendre/faire designates the skills of discovery and interaction, which involve an ability to acquire and operationalise new knowledge of cultural practices. This includes the acquisition of intercultural pragmatic strategies. If Byram’s model has an apex, it is represented by savoir s’engager: critical cultural awareness, which he equates with political education. This, for Byram, is where intercultural learning culminates (1997, pp. 34–38). Using Byram’s model, Audras and Chanier (2008) report on a 10-week, three-way Tridem exchange between adult learners in France and the GB and undergraduates in the United States, which was based on analysing and comparing culturally loaded concepts such as freedom, identity and diversity. Using qualitative analysis of the transcripts of both audiographic conferences and wiki postings, they offer convincing evidence that participants in telecollaboration are capable of demonstrating all five of Byram’s savoirs, concluding that the range of competences on display depends on (a) participants’ prior experience and (b) their degree of participation in the exchange (p. 190). Cross-referencing transcript data against information from a pre-project questionnaire, Audras and Chanier (2008) conclude that participants with no previous experience of intercultural encounters tend to display the more basic competences such as savoirs (knowledge of self and others) and savoir-être (the ability to relativise self and value others). More experienced participants demonstrated not only savoirs (knowledge) but also savoir-comprendre (skills of interpreting and relating) and savoir apprendre/faire (skills of discovery and interaction) (p. 191). Savoir s’engager (critical cultural awareness) was demonstrated only by participants who—on the whole—were already expert (p. 190). Thus, of 18 active participants whose contributions were subjected to analysis, five demonstrated all five of Byram’s savoirs, either in their wiki postings or in audiographic conferences. Four of these participants identified themselves as experienced in intercultural encounters. One was a novice. Three out of 18 demonstrated four of Byram’s savoirs (the missing competence being savoir s’engager/critical cultural awareness). Of these, two reported that they were new to intercultural learning (p. 191). Menard-Warwick (2009) reinforces Audras and Chanier’s findings, reporting on a project linking American and Chilean students, which appears to have combined information exchange and comparison and analysis. She too analyses a series of extracts from the chat transcripts of her students, demonstrating the presence and linguistic realisation of: (a) an intercultural attitude (savoir être),

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  59 (b) intercultural knowledge (savoirs), (c) a capacity for intercultural interpretation (savoir comprendre), (d) for intercultural discovery (savoir apprendre) as well as (e) critical cultural awareness (savoir s’engager) (pp. 109–114). This suggests that in appropriate circumstances, OIEs based on comparison and analysis have the capacity to develop the ICC of learners, as specified in one of the most widely accepted current models of ICC. Working Together in the ‘Contact Zone’ From the outset, joint project work has been used, with varying success, by organisers of online exchanges, in an attempt to develop intercultural competences at a practical, behavioural level. The joint tasks involved have varied in complexity, whilst over the years, the collaborative tools available have evolved significantly. Toyoda (2001) describes a web page creation project involving Australian, Indonesian, Chinese and Japanese students, which used a bulletin board and email. Belz’s (2003) German and American learners also undertook joint website design and development using a learning management system (‘First Class’). Such initiatives have been particularly favoured by teacher educators, whose aim has been to train their charges to develop online learning activities for their future students. An illustration of this is provided by Fuchs, Hauck, and Müller-Hartmann (2012), whose students used Moodle-based discussion forums, a wiki, and social bookmarking sites to evaluate online learning tools and design sample learning activities making use of them. The Web 2.0 environments now employed in such projects are inherently collaborative and increasingly immersive. This raises the question of whether working together in virtual reality might constitute an entirely different kind of experience, which would be not so much intercultural as a- or post-cultural. Dooly (2011) deals with just such a year-long telecollaborative exchange amongst trainee teachers at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and students in an MA TESOL course at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The exchange in question was devoted to the design of ‘teaching units’ in English (UAB) and other languages (UIUC), for primary and/or secondary education. Participants employed several tools and environments, including online discussion forums, Skype, Moodle, VoiceThread and Second Life. The text of the article suggests that participants also used Zoho and other forms of email. Citing in particular the reservations of Helm and Guth (2010), Dooly questions the relevance of conventional models of ICC to the kinds of virtual environments inhabited by her learners. She raises the question of whether they might instead be operating in a kind of ‘third space,’ using a concept originated in postcolonial theory by Bhabha (1994) and applied to the learning of languages and cultures by Kramsch (1998). Dooly cites transcript evidence which clearly suggests that when working together in immersive environments, participants tend to construct identities for themselves as ‘teachers in an online virtual community’ rather than primarily in terms of their offline cultural affiliations. If participants do refer to cultural difference, it tends to be in relation to their students rather

60  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd than themselves. Whereas one of the tropes of early studies of OIE was the frequency of cultural misunderstanding, which all too often resulted in the breakdown of communication (Belz, 2003; Kramsch  and Thorne, 2002; Ware, 2005), Dooly (2011) claims to observe no evidence of this in her data (pp. 326–327). Further, if disappointment is expressed by participants about their partners, it is based on ‘personal (or working group) expectations of the other’ (p. 327). Dooly concedes that ‘there is a general disappointment at the online behaviour of some of the members of the virtual community of teachers’ (her emphasis, p. 328), but this apparently does not take the form of a blame game between groups of participants defined by institutional provenance or cultural affiliation. Whether what Dooly observes actually constitutes a ‘new third space culture,’ as she is tempted to speculate, is open to question. But it does appear that any misunderstandings or failings that do occur are not attributed automatically to extraneous cultural factors (see p. 331). This suggests that it is perfectly possible to construct virtual communities in which online identities and allegiances outweigh existing cultural adherences. The studies scrutinised here offer empirical evidence—largely in the form of qualitatively analysed transcript data—that, whereas ethnographic approaches to intercultural learning may be difficult to operationalise telecollaboratively, online exchanges involving comparison and analysis activities are capable of supporting the development of ICC. Dooly’s (2011) account of the use of a virtual environment to support the development of a communal online identity, rather than ICC as classically defined, is intriguing. As far we are aware, it is the only study to make this claim. Accordingly it has been treated in extenso. However, it requires replication to enable one to be confident of citing it as evidence of the ways in which collaborative exchanges might be able to support the construction of online third cultures.

Learner Autonomy and Online Intercultural Exchange This section of the review aims to answer the question: ‘Can and does participation in an online exchange foster the development of learner autonomy?’ Despite frequent claims, actual studies of learner autonomy in OIE are limited in number. Only a few are empirical. These include Fuchs, Hauck, and Müller-Hartmann (2012); Kaur, Singh and Amin Embi (2007); Schwienhorst (2008) and Toyoda (2001). Some rely on small or selective evidence samples. The most extensive empirical contribution to the systematic study of the relationship between learner autonomy and computer-mediated communication (CMC) is Schwienhorst (2008). Learner Autonomy and the Digital Revolution The digital revolution has transformed the nature both of language learning and of learner autonomy. The global shift to online learning makes it impossible any longer to conceive of learners as unconnected individuals whose sole concern is ‘to take charge of one’s own learning’ (Holec, 1981, p. 3). Toyoda,

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  61 reporting on a project-based online exchange, clearly addresses the social dimension of online learner autonomy and recognises the role of technology in enabling hitherto unavailable forms of social learning. Accordingly she defines learner autonomy as ‘an ability and a willingness to learn both independently and in cooperation with others as a responsible learner’ (2001, p. 2). Schwienhorst too identifies collaborative social interaction as one of three constituents of learner autonomy in online environments: Learners need to become communicators and collaborators with other learners, teachers and native speakers when they are learning a second language. They need to understand that actively seeking opportunities for collaboration and interaction will not only help them as language users, but also as language learners who progress through meaningful contact with more knowledgeable learning partners. This capacity and goal can thus be summarised as interaction. (2008, p. 9) Finally, Éneau and Develotte (2012), studying the self-analyses of adult distance learners in an online masters’ course, emphasise ‘the importance of the role that peers play . . . in the construction of . . . autonomy’ (p. 2) and conclude that ‘in online distance learning, individual and group autonomy develop together’ (p. 14). In short, in online exchanges, it is clear that ‘the ability to take charge of one’s own learning’ (Holec, 1981, p. 3) is linked indissolubly to a capacity for social and cognitive interaction. Learner Autonomy in Online Environments One of the abiding questions about learner autonomy and online environments is whether the ability to use technology successfully for online learning is a cause or a consequence of learner autonomy. Toyoda (2001), whose findings are based on 55 student interviews, takes the view that information technology literacy is a prerequisite of learner autonomy, suggesting that there is a correlation between information technology literacy levels and favourable perceptions of technology and development as an autonomous online learner (p.1). In fact, she concludes that ‘three conditions (are) necessary for successful autonomous learning: 1) accessible and reliable technology, 2) sufficient computer literacy in students, and 3) good communication with and support from peers.’ Kötter (2002), giving an account of an early e-tandem exchange, fudges the question of causality, suggesting at one point that learner autonomy is a prerequisite for a successful online exchange (‘tandem learners must . . . command at least a minimum level of autonomy’ (p. 39) but elsewhere suggesting that it is an outcome of such an exchange (‘participants in a tandem exchange develop their capacity for autonomy’ [p.36]). Writing in a context informed by the Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council, Kaur, Singh and Amin Embi (2007) are unequivocal in viewing information technology literacy as a component of online learner autonomy:

62  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd Learning how to learn means to build up learners’ ‘capabilities to learn independently (e.g. creative and critical thinking, mastering of Information Technology, Communication), to become self-reflective on how to learn and to be able to use different ways of learning . . .’ (Curriculum Development Council, 2000, p. 3). All these skills have been identified as components of autonomy. One tool that has been closely linked with aiding the development of learner autonomy is CMC. (p. 101) The most extensive account of the role of online exchange in supporting the development of learner autonomy is offered by Schwienhorst (2008), reporting on a German-Irish, MOO-based e-tandem project. Schwienhorst does not view digital literacy as an aspect of learner autonomy, but he does argue that immersive environments can provide propitious settings for the development of learner autonomy and identifies eight conditions for this. In particular, he argues, when used for online exchange, virtual reality environments: • Allow for greater self-awareness and encourage learners to experiment with different roles through the use of virtual representations, thereby reducing the affective filter • May go beyond face-to-face communication in the way they can enhance linguistic and cognitive awareness of the learning process, especially through the medium of writing • Support interaction by locating participants in a shared environment, thus allowing for a common linguistic reference point • Enhance conversation management and group work by allowing for collaboration in a variety of rapidly changing group work scenarios • Are based on spatial metaphors which offer a more natural way of organizing information resources than an interface that relies solely on the use of buttons and/or menu bars • Enable learners to collaborate on resources in real time • Encourage and enable learners to participate actively in the creation and organization of their learning environment • Provide an ideal support for the teacher as facilitator, counsellor, and resource; in addition, they provide the teacher with a large number of research tools (p. 59). Schwienhorst sees online learner autonomy as manifested in a readiness to engage in experiment. In a MOO context he equates this with creating objects, manipulating online and offline identities, using indexical language and expressing a sense of being in control. He offers extensive transcript evidence of all four behaviours (pp. 124–133) in support of his claim that online exchanges in virtual environments offer particular scope for the development of learner autonomy. Fuchs, Hauck and Müller-Hartmann (2012), recounting the use of an online exchange for the purpose of teacher development, seek to explore the

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  63 relationship between multimodal competence and learner autonomy in an OIE. They define ‘learner autonomy,’ following Palfreyman (2006) as ‘the informed use of a range of interacting resources in context’ (p. 82). The online exchange they report on was sizeable and complex, bringing together 179 trainee teachers and foreign language learners from the GB, the United States, Poland, and Germany in two project cycles. Participants were asked to evaluate educational websites, identify appropriate online tools and design tasks to develop ‘multiliteracy,’ which the authors equate with learner autonomy (p. 82). One ‘crossinstitutional group’ (of four people) from each project cycle is subjected to closer scrutiny. In group discussions, participants express their awareness of the scope learners will have in working with websites ‘for controlling the pace and the direction’ of their learning, for being ‘autonomous in choosing and checking content’ and for choosing whether to ‘work on their own or in pairs’ (p. 90). They also see Web 2.0 tools such as wikis as ‘democratic’ spaces for ‘collaborative work,’ where ‘the teacher needs to give it over fully—not have control’ (p. 93). However, whereas participants’ discussions express awareness of the potential of the web to support learner autonomy, they do not demonstrate its actual development. Though strong arguments are made by Schwienhorst and—to a lesser extent—Fuchs, Hauck and Müller-Hartmann, for the potential of online environments for the development of learner autonomy, evidence of such development remains in short supply. Kötter (2002) does not make autonomy the focus of his research but makes assumptions about it. Kaur, Singh and Amin Embi (2007) report on failure: They conclude that their students did not feel that they were capable of managing their own learning and that they were not particularly reflective (p.108). Fuchs, Hauck and Müller-Hartmann (2012) suggest only the potential of the web for learners to develop and exercise autonomy. They use a highly circumscribed definition of autonomy and analyse only a small sample of evidence. Éneau and Develotte (2012) collect the reflections of their online learners on the nature of autonomy rather than evidence of its actual occurrence. However, Toyoda (2001) and Schwienhorst (2008) do both offer evidence that learners demonstrate autonomy in the process of (and as a result of) online exchanges, whether this is simply in the form of successful task completion (as in Toyoda’s case) or by means of specified behaviours (as identified by Schwienhorst). CONCLUSION The purpose of this chapter was to present a systematic review of empirical research findings related to the development of aspects of language learning in university class-to-class telecollaborative initiatives. The study initially identified 54 publications for the review and then studied approximately 30 of these as the basis for an in-depth discussion of findings. In general, the systematic review reveals a steady growth of research into OIE. It also betrays the predominance of studies based on interaction between

64  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd ‘Western’ classrooms based in North America and Europe. The field undoubtedly would benefit from more research into exchanges between the West and the Arab world or Asian countries. A great deal also would be gained by increased research into synchronous, video-based interaction between students, especially as the growth in availability of desktop videoconferencing tools such as Skype mean that they are increasingly likely to become one of the default platforms for future online exchanges. The research methodologies and paradigms used in the studies we have reviewed vary to such an extent that it is difficult to reach entirely definitive conclusions or always to trace specific causalities. Nonetheless, in our view, positive evidence exists in the literature to suggest that telecollaborative exchanges support second language development, particularly when tasks are carefully designed to encourage focus on form and when online exchange is combined with offline reflection and study. The literature also contains evidence, in the form of corpus data, that online exchanges can contribute to intercultural learning, as measured by established models of ICC. There is also an initial indication—which requires replication—that immersive environments may act as ‘third spaces’ for a technologically mediated variant of intercultural learning. The role of online exchange in generating gains in learner autonomy has received less attention. This is in any case a topic that is dogged by definitional disparities and disputes about causation. In spite of this, a small number of authors have produced evidence that telecollaborative exchanges can foster the development of learner autonomy and that immersive environments may offer particularly favourable conditions for this. As always, the effectiveness of telecollaboration will depend on a host of factors both inherent and contextual (task design, student motivation, access to technology etc.), but we trust that the many research findings which have been reported in this study will serve as launch pads for further studies which will seek to confirm, correct or expand our current state of knowledge. REFERENCES (Includes works cited in this chapter but not listed in the Thematic Map) Belz, J. A. (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education and the intercultural speaker. In J. A. Belzand and S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. viii–xxv). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Belz, J. A. (2007). The development of intercultural competence in online interaction. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), On-line intercultural exchange: A practical introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 163–215). Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Belz, J. A.,  & Vyatkina, N. (2008). The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning and Technology, 12(3), 33–52. Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity theoretical Perspective. ReCALL, 16, 377–395. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence, Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters.

OIE and Foreign Language Learning  65 Carney, N. (2006). Telecollaboration for intercultural learning: and overview of projects involving Japan, The JALT CALL journal, 2(1), 37–52. Chen, G.-M. & Starosta W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3, 1–15. Commission of the European Communities. (2009). Green Paper: Promoting the learning mobility of young people. Brussels: European Commission Corbett, J. (2010). Intercultural language activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Curriculum Development Council. 2000. Learning to Learn: The Way Forward in Curriculum Development. Consultation Document. In Autonomy and Information Technology in the Educational Discourse of the Information Age. Edited by P. Benson. University of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Government Printing Department. Dejean-Thircuir, C.,  & Mangenot, F. (2011). Apprendre à enseigner les langues via la visioconférence poste à poste. In F. Poyet & C. Develotte (Eds.), L’Éducation à l’heure du numérique: état des lieux, enjeux et perspectives (pp. 133–144). Lyon: ENS Éditions. Dooly, M.A. (2011). Crossing the Intercultural borders into 3rd space culture(s): Implications for teacher education in the twenty-first century. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(4), 319–337 Eck, A., Legenhausen, L.,  & Wolff, D. (1995). Telekommunikation und Fremdsprachenunterricht: Informationen, Projekte, Ergebnisse. Bochum: AKS Verlag. Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre. (2007). EPPI-Centre Methods for Conducting Systematic Reviews. Social Science Research Unit. London: Institute of Education. Fischer, G. (1998). E-mail in foreign language teaching. Towards the creation of virtual classrooms. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Guth S., & Helm, F. (Eds.). (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0. Bern. Peter Lang. Hanna, B., & De Nooy, J. (2009). Learning language and culture via public Internet discussion forums. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 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 (pp. 69–106). Bern: Peter Lang. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. House, J. (2000). How to remain a non-native speaker. In Riemer, C. (Ed.), Cognitive aspects of foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 101–118). Tübingen: Narr. Jin, L.,  & Erben, T. (2007). Intercultural learning via instant messenger interaction. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 291–311. Kaur, R., Singh, G. and Amin Embi, M. (2007). Learner autonomy through computer mediated communication (CMC). Jurnal Teknologi, 46, 99–112. Johor Bahru: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. King, P. M., & Baxter–Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571–592. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2), 232–244. Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53–72. Liddicoat, A. (2014). Pragmatics and intercultural mediation in intercultural language learning. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 259–277. Liddicoat, D.,  & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Macaro, E., Handley, Z., & Walter, C. (2012). A systematic review of CALL in English as a second language: Focus on primary and secondary education. Language Teaching, 45(1), 1–43.

66  Tim Lewis and Robert O’Dowd Malinowski, D., & Kramsch, C. (2014). The ambiguous world of heteroglossic computermediated language learning. In A. Blackledge and A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy (pp. 155–178). Dordrecht: Springer. Mehisto, P., Frigols, M. J., & Marsh, D. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. London: MacMillan. O’Dowd, R. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. In J. Jackson, (Ed,), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication (pp. 342–358). Abindgon, Oxon, GB: Routledge O’Dowd, R. (2013). Telecollaborative networks in university higher education: overcoming barriers to integration. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 47–53. Ortiz, F. (1995). Cuban counterpoint: Tobacco and sugar, translated from the Spanish by Harriet de Onís, introduction by Bronislaw Malinowski, prologue by Herminio Portell-Vilá, new introduction by Fernando Coronil. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. (Originally published 1940 as Contrapunteo cubano del tabaco y del azúcar) Palfreyman, D. (2006). Social context and resources for language learning. System, 34(3), 352–370. Pratt, M.-L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession. 33–40. Retrieved from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/25595469 Roberts, C. (2002). Ethnography and cultural practice: Ways of learning during residence. In S. Cormeraie, D. Killick & M. Parry (Eds.), Revolutions in consciousness: Local identities, global concerns in ‘Languages and intercultural communication (pp. 36–42). Leeds: International Association for Language and Intercultural Communication. Roberts, C., Byram, M., Barro, A., & Jordan, S. (2001). Language learners as ethnographers. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Sadler, R. (2012). Virtual worlds for language learning: From theory to practice. Bern: Peter Lang. Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226. Schwienhorst, K. (2000). Virtual reality and learner autonomy in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Trinity College Dublin. Tella, S. (1992). Talking shop via e-mail: a thematic and linguistic analysis of electronic mail communication. Research Report 99. University of Helsinki. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/~tella/99.pdf Tella, S. (2001). Language teacher education and the challenges of information and communication technologies (ICTs): Finnish perspectives. In R. Easton (Ed.), Collection of case studies on examples of good practice in Teacher Education with a focus on organisational aspects and integrated concepts of language education (pp. 50–60). Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages. Thorne, S. (2010). The “Intercultural Turn” and language learning in the crucible of the new media. In S. Guth and F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 139–164). Berne: Peter Lang. Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 82–99. Tudini, V. (2010). Online second language acquisition: A conversation analysis of online chat. London: Continuum. Warschauer, M. (1995). E-Mail for English teaching: Bringing the Internet and computer learning networks into the language classroom. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Part II

Integrating Online Intercultural Exchange in University Education

This page intentionally left blank

3 Internationalisation and the Role of Online Intercultural Exchange Hans de Wit

Internationalisation and online learning are two innovative trends which have characterised higher education in the past two decades but until recently have not been seen as closely linked. Whilst internationalisation was more connected in the 1980s and 1990s, at least in continental Europe, with cooperation and exchange of students and academic staff, online learning was seen as linked to open universities, distance education and traditional forms of learning using the Internet. The two did not meet much, and even currently they are not always seen as a potential match or even as offering added value to each other. It is only recently that this link is coming more to the forefront thanks to initiatives such as the Collaborative Online International Learning Centre of the State University of New York (De Wit, 2013) and the position paper “Virtual Exchange in the European Higher Education Area” (UNICollaboration, 2014). How has internationalisation in higher education evolved and what are the current main rationales and programme and organisational strategies for internationalisation? How does online learning fit this picture and how can the two not only finally meet but also strengthen each other in such a way that all students and academic staff participate and benefit from it? Will internationalisation provide new opportunities and perspectives for online learning and will online learning develop into new and innovative forms of international virtual exchange and cooperation? In this chapter I will address these questions and focus on the important role OIE can play in enhancing the internationalisation of higher education. INTERNATIONALISATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: AN EVOLVING CONCEPT Internationalisation as a concept and strategy in higher education is a relatively new phenomenon and has come to the forefront only at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. Its roots, however, lie in several manifestations of increased international orientations from the previous centuries, in particular in the period following the Second World War until the end of the Cold War.

70  Hans de Wit Universities always have had some form of international dimension, either in the concept of universal knowledge and related research or in the movement of students and scholars. Many publications on the internationalisation of higher education refer back to the days of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period. De Ridder-Symoens (1992) describes the impact of the mobility of students and scholars on higher education and society in that period in a way that reminds us of many of the arguments that are used to promote mobility today: the use of a common language, the recognition of degrees and the importance of bringing home different experiences and views. One can speak of a medieval ‘European space,’ defined by common religious belief and uniform academic language, programme of study and system of examinations (Neave, 1997, p. 6). This medieval European education space, although limited and scattered in comparison to present mass higher education, is relevant to the current debate on the development of a new European higher education area. One parallel may be discerned in the gradual growth of the English language as the common academic language today, resembling the role of Latin, and in a later period also French, albeit more moderately (De Wit and Hunter, in press). However, they also note that only a superficial resemblance and reference between the two periods is possible because of the very different social, cultural, political and economic circumstances. However, historical references to the university as an essentially international institution, quite common amongst both researchers and practitioners in higher education, ignore the fact that most universities originated in the 18th and 19th centuries with a clear national orientation and function (de Wit, 2002). In several countries study abroad was prohibited, and the universal language of instruction, Latin, was replaced by local languages. More recently, the 20th century, in particular the period between the two world wars, saw an increase in international cooperation and exchange in higher education, with a strong focus on stimulating peace and mutual understanding under the umbrella of the League of Nations. This trend received further impetus after the Second World War, first and foremost in the United States and primarily through the Fulbright Programme, given that Europe was still recovering from the devastation of two wars and concentrating its efforts on reconstruction. The Cold War was the principal rationale in the internationalisation of higher education in that period. It explains the dominance of national security and foreign policy as driving forces that stimulated area studies and foreign language programmes in the United States and accounted for increased attention to technical assistance and capacity building in developing countries in Europe and other parts of the industrialised world (Altbach & de Wit, 2015). It is in this period that internationalisation emerges as a process and strategy. The European programmes for research and education, in particular the ERASMUS programme, were the motor for an increased and more strategic approach to internationalisation in higher education in the second half of the 1980s, similar to what the Fulbright Programme was for the United States after the Second World War. Increased exchange of students and academic staff,

Internationalisation and the Role of OIE  71 joint curriculum development and research cooperation developed in the last decade of the 20th century. The focus was on cooperation and on short-term student and staff mobility. The GB was the exception to that rule, as in 1979 under the government of Margaret Thatcher, full-cost fees for international students were introduced, and the main focus of British universities became the active recruitment of international students for income generation. Australia and other Anglo-Saxon countries soon followed suit. In these countries only recently has the importance of cooperation and exchange of students and staff received similar attention as in continental Europe and the United States. In the second half of the 1990s, one can notice a gradual shift from political to economic rationales for internationalisation. Income generation through recruitment of international students, global competition for talented students and scholars for the knowledge economy, increasing global professional competencies and employability of graduates, national demand for higher education through degree mobility and cross-border delivery of education, as well as capacity building through higher education, are some of the key manifestations of the internationalisation of higher education in the past decade. The emergence of national and global for-profit higher education conglomerates and the development of franchise operations, articulation programmes, branch campuses and educational hubs are the ways this development expresses itself. More recently it also has manifested itself by an increased focus on distance education, blended learning and MOOCS. INTERNATIONALISATION ABROAD AND AT HOME Internationalisation has over the years been identified mainly with the mobility of students and staff as well as more recently the mobility of programmes (franchises, joint and double degrees and articulation programmes) and institutions (branch campuses), also referred to in literature as ‘transnational education.’ Not so much the outcomes as well as the input and output of internationalisation were considered relevant. This explains why online intercultural learning was not at the forefront of internationalisation strategies, and if reference was made to the role of online learning, terms associated with mobility were used: ‘virtual mobility’ and ‘virtual exchange’ (De Wit, 2013). Knight (2008) states that the following two components can be identified under the broad term of internationalisation: (a) ‘internationalisation at home’: curriculum-oriented activities that help students develop international understanding and intercultural skills and that prepare students to be active in a much more globalised world; and (b) ‘internationalisation abroad’: all forms of education across borders, including circulation of students, faculty, scholars and programmes. These two components are not mutually exclusive but closely intertwined. Whilst over the past decades the focus in internationalisation has been primarily on the abroad component, and to a certain extent continues to be so,

72  Hans de Wit more recently one can observe a stronger focus on internationalisation at home and more specifically on the internationalisation of the curriculum and learning outcomes. And this is where online intercultural learning comes into the picture. A comprehensive approach to internationalisation both abroad and at home is provided in “European Higher Education in the World,” in which the European Commission (2013) is striving for a comprehensive internationalisation with three key pillars: promoting the international mobility of students and staff; promoting internationalisation at home and digital learning; and strengthening strategic cooperation, partnerships and capacity building. The inclusion of internationalisation at home is a recognition of the increasing importance of the large proportion of non-mobile students and staff and their needs for intercultural and international competences. The ministers of the 47 European countries who signed the Bologna Declaration of 1999 agreed in 2009 to a mobility target of 20 percent in 2020 (EHEA, 2015), but in most countries student mobility is still below 10 percent. In the United States, the Institute of International Education (IIE) is advocating that universities double their study abroad, which currently for the whole country is also below 10 percent (IIE, 2015). In reaction to the increased commercialisation of higher education and its international dimensions as expressed in the focus on degree mobility of students and other forms of transnational education, there has been a call for more attention to social cohesion and to the public role of higher education as an alternative force to the growing emphasis on competition, markets and entrepreneurialism in higher education. As De Wit and Leask (2015) state, ‘Haphazard approaches to internationalisation focussed on a minority of students or on profit rather than education, are not consistent with such terms. In a globalised “super complex” world (Barnett, 2000) in which multiple dimensions of being are required of both individuals and institutions, we need coherent and connected approaches to international education that address epistemological, praxis and ontological elements of all students’ development’ (p. ix–x). The danger of such a limited approach is that students are seen more as targets than as future graduates who have to be prepared for life and work in an increasingly interconnected world. Knight (2008) has written in that context about the unintended consequences of internationalisation and (2011) about myths of internationalisation and de Wit (2011) about misconceptions of internationalisation. In the IAU Action Plan “Affirmative Values for Internationalisation of Higher Education” (IAU, April 2012), attention is given to the risks and challenges of higher education alongside the benefits of internationalisation. In these critical assessments of the development of internationalisation, four points emerge: an overly quantitative approach, an almost exclusive focus on mobility for the sake of mobility alone, the lack of outcomes and impact assessment and the notion of internationalisation as a goal in itself rather than a means to enhance the purpose, functions and delivery of higher education (De Wit & Hunter, 2016).

Internationalisation and the Role of OIE  73 Mobility is still the main focus of many institutional and regional approaches. This is in part because mobility is easy to translate into numbers, percentages and targets. Measurable targets are required for the rankings of universities, nationally, regionally and globally (De Wit & Leask, 2015). The ERASMUS Impact Study (Brandenburg, Berghoff, & Taboadela, 2014) has reemphasised the positive impact that mobility has on personal development, employability of students and career perspectives. However, even if the ambitious goals set by the ministers of education of the Bologna signatory countries (EHEA, 2015) are met, around 80 percent of students will not be able or willing to study abroad. As De Wit and Leask (2015) state, this highlights ‘the importance of the “at home” component of internationalisation; that is, the curriculum as taught and experienced by all students on the home campus. . . . A shift in focus is required—from a nearly exclusive focus on mobility for the elite to a focus on curriculum and learning outcomes for all students, mobile or not’ (p. xi). It will be clear that such a shift is not easy and requires a bottom-up approach in which not so much the institution as the disciplines, programmes, academics and students are the key actors. Only recently questions related to the relationships amongst the internationalisation of higher education, the curriculum and academic disciplines are explored. Online intercultural learning can play a crucial role in this process. To understand these new trends on internationalisation in higher education and the increasing importance of online international education, it is important to summarise the definitions and meanings of the key concepts of internationalisation: its generic definition, internationalisation at home (IaH), internationalisation of the curriculum (IoC), global citizenship and comprehensive internationalisation.

Redefining Key Concepts of Internationalisation Redefining Internationalisation The commonly accepted and used definition for internationalisation of higher education is the one by Jane Knight (2008), p. 48: ‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education has revised.’ This definition still has value as describing the process of internationalisation, but it does not reflect the current debate on what should be the outcomes of that process and how to reach those outcomes, already addressed. In the framework of a European Parliament study of 2015, through a Delphi panel process, the definition is redefined as follows: Internationalization of higher education is the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society. (European Parliament, 2015, p. 281)

74  Hans de Wit The rationale behind this definition, according to the authors of the European Parliament (2015) study is that this definition reflects the increased awareness that internationalisation has to become more inclusive and less elitist by not focussing predominantly on mobility but more on the curriculum and learning outcomes. The ‘abroad’ component (mobility) needs to become an integral part of the internationalised curriculum to ensure internationalisation for all, not only the mobile minority. It re-emphasises that internationalisation is not a goal in itself, but a means to enhance quality, and that it should not focus solely on economic rationales. Redefining Internationalisation at Home According to Beelen and Jones (2015a), the concept of IaH plays a useful role in certain contexts, particularly where the emphasis of internationalisation efforts traditionally has been on mobility. They state that since IaH has been included in the European Commission’s educational policy “European Higher Education in the World” (European Commission, 2013), it has gained momentum and has moved into the centre of the debate on the internationalisation of higher education. The original definition of IaH, dating from 2001 according to Beelen and Jones (2015a, p. 66) was not very helpful: ‘Any internationally related activity with the exception of outbound student and staff mobility.’ According to them, the real challenge is to contextualise internationalised learning outcomes in individual programmes of study and support academics in ‘crafting’ outcomes and assessment. With a new definition they intend to reach a common understanding of IaH which may assist this challenging task. The new definition they developed is: Internationalization at Home is the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments. (Beelen and Jones 2015a, p. 9) The definition stresses, as Beelen and Jones (2015a) state, intentional inclusion of international and intercultural aspects into curricula in a purposeful way, as adding or infusing random internationalised elements or electives would be insufficient to internationalise a programme. It also emphasises the role of internationalisation for all students in all programmes and does not simply rely on mobility to offer international and intercultural perspectives. Redefining Internationalisation of the Curriculum IaH and IoC are sometimes considered as being the same concepts. But there are subtle differences between them besides the fact that IaH, unlike IoC, does not entail mobility. The most essential is that whereas the former looks at the integrative process of international and intercultural dimensions in the formal and informal curriculum, the latter looks at content, process, learning outcomes and assessment. There is ample attention to and discussion of IoC but many misconceptions about its meaning. De Wit and Leask (2015) asked

Internationalisation and the Role of OIE  75 themselves the question: Can we come to some international, if not global, agreement on at least the general characteristics of the concept and the process of internationalising the curriculum? This definition needs to be broad enough to allow context-sensitive, discipline-specific interpretations and detailed enough to ensure key components of the curriculum are addressed and all students are influenced and included. The definition by Leask (2015, p.  69) addresses these points: Internationalisation of the curriculum is the process of incorporating international, intercultural and global dimensions into the content of the curriculum as well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods and support services of a program of study. As with internationalisation per se, there is no single universal model for IoC. Context inevitably determines the precise form it will take. As De Wit and Leask state: Disciplinary, institutional, local, national, regional and global factors interact in different ways to facilitate and inhibit, drive and shape approaches to internationalization, including the way in which learning outcomes are defined, taught and assessed. Hence we see approaches to internationalization of the curriculum that are both similar and different within and across disciplines. (2015, p. xi) Green and Whitsed (2015) in their book Critical Perspectives on Internationalising the Curriculum in Disciplines give examples from different disciplines on how those contexts influence the way to internationalise the curriculum. Meanings of Global Citizenship The term ‘global citizenship’ is being used increasingly to define the main outcome of international education: to educate graduates who will be able to live and work in the globalised world. ‘The notion of global citizenship has become part of the internationalisation discourse in higher education around the world . . . and is increasingly the focus of doctoral research and scholarly work’ (Deardorff & Jones, 2012, p. 295). Two components of citizenship—the social and professional—are seen as key aspects of living and working in a global society, and whilst the social may have dominated so far, the professional aspect (employability) has been moving more to the forefront recently. Although global citizenship is a highly contested and multifaceted term, three key dimensions seem to be commonly accepted: social responsibility, global competence and civic engagement, according to Morais and Ogden, who state that ‘[g]lobal citizenship is understood as a multidimensional construct that hinges on the interrelated dimensions of social responsibility, global competence, and global civic engagement’ (2011, p. 449).

76  Hans de Wit Lilley portrays global citizenship as ‘a disposition for critical and ethical thinking graduates.’ According to her ‘the term now is widely used in universities, vaguely understood, and tends to attract a great deal of scepticism’ (2014, p. 3). According to her (Lilley 2014, p. 4), global citizenship is: • An attitude or disposition towards others and the world • Underpinned by moral and transformative cosmopolitanism and liberal values (openness, tolerance, respect and responsibility for self, others and the planet) • More than a technical efficiency or competence • A mind set for mature, critical, ethical and interconnected thinking • Underpinned by ethical capacities that cannot be easily captured by surveys or quantitative measurement • Positioned along a continuum of development • A non-prescriptive and variable concept Comprehensive Internationalisation What strikes one in these four definitions and meanings is the strong relationship between these concepts, the importance of context (institutional, national, regional and global), the fact that internationalisation is not a goal in itself but a means to enhance the quality of education and the fact that there is not one model that fits all. Increasingly, curriculum and learning outcomes come to the centre stage of the internationalisation process. However, as mentioned before, this is a slow transition process, more expressed in intentions and perceptions than in practice, as the key developments in internationalisation of higher education in the world and in Europe illustrate. Together these four concepts can be seen as ‘comprehensive internationalisation,’ described by Hudzik as a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education enterprise. It is essential that it be embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. (2011, p. 10) The terms ‘internationalisation at home,’ internationalisation of the curriculum,’ ‘global citizenship,’ and ‘comprehensive internationalisation’ illustrate the shifting focus in the internationalisation debate from abroad to at home, from mobility to curriculum and learning outcomes, from quantitative outputs to qualitative outcomes and from marginal and ad hoc to integral and comprehensive. Online intercultural learning is in this comprehensive context a logical step towards a more inclusive, innovative approach to internationalisation.

Internationalisation and the Role of OIE  77 ONLINE INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE As described in the first part of this chapter, the internationalisation of higher education over the past decades is moving more from a focus on ‘abroad’ towards a focus on ‘at home,’ placing less stress on physical mobility for a small group of students and academics than on the redesign of the university curriculum itself. Though the imperative for this has been economic, rather than academic or social, the effect of such a shift of emphasis from mobility to income generation and employability should not be denied or underestimated. From macroeconomic, political, social and academic perspectives, in the current global knowledge society, there is a need for a more inclusive and broader approach to increasing the international and intercultural competences of students and academic staff. It is in this context that OIE enters the picture as a way of increasing opportunities for all students and academic staff to enhance their international and intercultural competences. As mentioned before, the European Commission refers to digital learning as one of the dimensions of the pillar IaH. Although MOOCs are the most impactful form of information and communication technology (ICT) development in higher education, in terms of the level of debate which surrounds them, many other approaches to technology-enhanced learning are being developed and deployed which are more focussed on cooperation and exchange between students and academic staff (de Wit, 2013). ‘Online intercultural exchange,’ ‘virtual exchange,’ ‘virtual mobility’ or ‘collaborative online international learning’ are terms emerging as part of internationalisation at home. They reflect the increasing links amongst ICT, social media and internationalisation. In the discourse about online learning, as previously stated, most of the attention is captured by MOOCs these days. A survey by the European University Association (Gaebel, Kupriyanova, Morais, & Colucci, 2014) amongst European universities shows a strong interest in e-learning and also an active use of it, including MOOCs, but joint inter-institutional collaboration in e-learning still receives limited attention. Only 8 percent (p. 47) see e-learning as an opportunity to embed internationalisation in their curriculum. As the authors of the study observe, this is remarkable as 70 percent (p. 48) see international collaboration as a perceived impact of e-learning, and they see MOOCs as an opportunity to enhance international visibility and reputation (p. 55). It is not the purpose of this chapter to focus on the role and perspectives of other forms of online learning such as MOOCs, which I have described elsewhere (de Wit, 2013) as more or less traditional in their teaching approach, using modern technology for a global form of delivery, more associated with globalisation in higher education or cross-border delivery than with internationalisation of the curriculum and learning outcomes. But although ‘revision of teaching methods’ (87 percent), ‘interactive collaboration amongst students’ (75 percent) and ‘developing students’ reflective learning and critical thinking’ (61 percent) were ranked high as perceived benefits of e-learning (p. 45), very little attention seems to be directed to the opportunities offered by online exchange, where these benefits can be reached in an intercultural and international context.

78  Hans de Wit ‘Virtual exchange’ or ‘virtual mobility,’ the more widely used terms in the European context, and COIL, the term more commonly used in the United States, fit the context of IaH and of the curriculum and learning outcomes. The term ‘virtual mobility’ has emerged from documents in Europe over the past few years, relating the virtual dimension to the strong focus on mobility of students and academic staff in European programmes and thus providing new forms of mobility other than the traditional forms of physical mobility and credit transfer by means of exchange and study abroad. The focus on virtual mobility is connected to the desire to focus on the rights and aspirations of the large body of students who are not physically mobile and to the call for diversification of international, collaborative experiences and projects. However, this focus on the mobility side of online learning ignores the potential of online intercultural learning as an integral part of the internationalisation of curricula and learning outcomes. Terms like ‘virtual exchange’ and ‘COIL’ combine four essential dimensions: they represent a collaborative, international exercise on the part of teachers and students; they make use of online technology to foster interaction; they have the potential to lead to active intercultural and international learning and learning outcomes; and they can be actively integrated into the learning process. The term ‘OIE’, used in this book, combines these elements and in that sense can be seen as an excellent alternative to the other terms used. Firstly, OIE is an important addition to the current forms of international programmes and activities because it provides opportunities for all students, including those who cannot or do not want to go abroad for a semester or longer (e.g., part-time students, those with disabilities, careers, etc.) but who would like to have an international and intercultural experience. Surveys show that there is a high discrepancy between the intentions of students to study abroad and the realisation of these intentions, which illustrates the intrinsic interest and relevance of an international experience. Secondly, online exchange not only offers the opportunity but it also makes it necessary for students and teachers to work closely together—an opportunity that in many cases is absent in physical mobility, where students and teachers do not necessarily collaborate inside or outside the classroom. Thirdly, virtual exchange or COIL draws attention to and provides the opportunity for teaching and learning of different national and cultural approaches to the subject taught. Fourthly, online exchange is a cost-effective alternative to physical mobility. Fifthly, online exchange can stimulate the interest of students in embarking on physical study abroad. Also the opportunity of combining study and language learning online is an added value. Several of these arguments in favour of more attention to virtual exchange can be found in the “Position Paper: Virtual Exchange in the European Higher Education Area” (UNI Collaboration, 2014), a paper that calls for: • A coherent strategy for virtual exchange in higher education on European, national and institutional levels in order to mitigate fragmentation

Internationalisation and the Role of OIE  79 and enhance consolidation of approaches and resources that will enable this practice to be mainstreamed in higher education. • A system of grants for virtual exchanges to cover the costs for the development and implementation of innovative online exchange projects. • The integration of virtual exchanges as an important component of quality higher education curricula, and their recognition with credits and inclusion in the European Diploma Supplement. • Support for more research into measuring the impact of virtual intercultural exchange programs. (UNI Collaboration, 2014, n.p.) These are all relevant calls, and it is promising to note that, as mentioned before, the European Commission is considering digital learning as a key dimension of its internationalisation policy, and that in the ERASMUS+ programme, actions are supported that underpin these calls. Does this imply that online exchange should replace study abroad? No, study abroad remains an important component of internationalisation, both for full degrees and for short-term credit mobility. However, blended learning, combining face-to-face classroom and online learning, in the context of internationalisation, is equally rich with possibilities. It is not difficult to envisage how the development of international blended learning opportunities, for instance, in joint or double degree programmes, or combining online exchanges with international study and work placements, could enrich both elements of the blend. One can even say that OIE combines the best of internationalisation at home and abroad and certainly in a blended learning form that contributes to the realisation of global citizenship for all students and academic staff. Still, there is a long way to go. Online intercultural exchange is still a marginal element in internationalisation strategies of universities. A Dutch study (Van Gaalen et al, 2014b) addresses the practice of IaH. The study observes that most practice is focussed on the development of an international classroom, using the presence of international students to develop an IaH environment. Other forms of IaH such as online digital learning or virtual exchange are little used yet. The study gives an example of OIE between Tilburg University in The Netherlands and the Universidad ESAN in Peru, in which psychology students from Tilburg and business school students from Lima work together in 12 video conferences for their joint course in cross-cultural psychology. Another example witnessed in The Netherlands is a course on European city marketing, where students from Amsterdam, Barcelona and Paris in a one-semester minor programme work together online on joint assignments for public and private entities from the three cities, supervised by teachers from the three institutions. Examples of assignments include how to attract younger people to museums or how to address the shortage of accommodations for international students. In this case of OIE, students, teachers and external stakeholders are interactively cooperating together, exploring cultural differences and similarities in teaching, learning and addressing social issues.

80  Hans de Wit There are many more cases of online virtual exchange in The Netherlands and elsewhere. Maybe more striking than the fact that there are already a substantive number of OIE experiences in place is the fact that these cases are not identified and recognised as innovative forms of joint curriculum development and internationalisation. This is why Sander Schroevers, a teacher at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, who uses OIE as much as possible in his classes, advocates a more strategic approach to virtual mobility and exchange, away from the current situation, where it is mainly the hobby of individual teachers who encounter all kind of obstacles in their efforts (Schroevers, 2015, p. 17). At the same time, also for OIE, there is not one model that fits all. Context, rationales and outcomes define which model fits best, including options for combining online and physical exchange.

Conclusion In this contribution, I have elaborated on the need to link the current focus on internationalisation in higher education, the call for more innovation in teaching and learning and the use of the opportunities that online technology and communication provide. Internationalisation remains too closely identified with the physical mobility of a relatively small number of students and academics, whereas the global knowledge society of today requires all students and academics to be more interculturally sensitive and competent. Intercultural exchange is one important tool which may enable us to reach that objective. Online intercultural exchange is better able than physical mobility to accomplish this on the scale required. In higher education, the new forms of digital technology and communication still are associated too readily with distance education in both its traditional form and in its new form, as MOOCs. By focussing on these opportunities only, the higher education community loses the change to give teaching and learning a fully international dimension. Global innovative and interactive forms of intercultural cooperation and exchange for all students and teaching staff are possible online. We have to learn from the increasing number of examples and models of OIE that already exist all over the world and scale them up from being the hobby of individual teachers to becoming strategic innovations in our institutions of higher education. This will bring internationalisation to the curriculum. REFERENCES Altbach, P. G and de Wit, H. (2015). Internationalization and global tension: Lessons from history. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(1), 4–10. Barnett, R. (2000). Realising the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham, GB: The Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015a). Redefining internationalisation at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi P. & Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 67–80). Dordrecht: Springer.

Internationalisation and the Role of OIE  81 Brandenburg, U., Berghoff, S., & Taboadela, O. (2014). The ERASMUS Impact Study. Effects of mobility on the skills and employabiity on students and the internationalisation of higher education institutions. European Commission, Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/study/2014/erasmus-impact_en.pdf Deardorff, D.,  & Jones, E. (2012). Intercultural competence: An emerging focus in international higher education. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl  & T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 283–303). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. De Ridder-Symoens, H. (1992). Mobility. In H. De Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A History of the university in Europe: Volume I. Universities in the Middle Age (pp. 280–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. De Wit, H. (2011). Internationalization misconceptions. International Higher Education, 64, Summer, 6–7. De Wit, H. (2013). COIL—Virtual mobility without commercialisation. University World News, Issue 274, 1 June. De Wit, H., & Hunter, F. (2016). Trends, issues and challenges in internationalisation of higher education: where have we come from and where are we going? In McGrath and Qing Gu (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of international education and development (pp. 340-358). London: Routledge. De Wit, H., & Leask, B. (2015). Foreword: Internationalization, the curriculum and the disciplines. In W. Green & C. Whitsed (Eds.), Critical perspectives on internationalising the curriculum and the disciplines: Reflective narrative accounts from Business, Education and Health (pp. ix–xv). Dordrecht: SensePublishers. EHEA. (2015). Bologna process, European higher education area. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/ European Commission. (2013). European higher education in the world. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions. Brussels, 11.7.2013 COM(2013) 499 final. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=COM:2013:0499:FIN:en:PDF European Parliament. (2015). Internationalisation of higher education. A study by Hans de Wit, Fiona Hunter, Eva Egron-Polak and Laura Howard. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540370/IPOL_STU%28 2015%29540370_EN.pdf Gaebel, M., Kupriyanova, V., Morais, R., & Colucci, E. (2014). E-Learning in European higher education institutions. Results of a mapping survey conducted in October– December 2013. Brussels: European University Association. Green, W. and Whitsed, C. (2015). Critical perspectives on internationalising the curriculum in disciplines: Reflective narrative accounts from business, education and health. Rotterdam: Sense. Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization. Retrieved from www.nafsa. org/cizn IIE. (2015). Generation study abroad. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Programs/ Generation-Study-Abroad Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil. The changing world of internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense. Knight, J. (2011). Five myths about internationalization. International Higher Education, 64, Summer, 14–15. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalization of the curriculum in context. London: Routledge. Morais, D. B., & Ogden, A. C. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 445–466. Neave G. (1997, April). In quest of a continuity: The European dimension in the history

82  Hans de Wit of higher education. Paper presented to the conference 'The Relation between higher education and the nation-state', Enschede, NL. Schroevers, S. (2015). Virtuele mobiliteit moet hobbyisme ontstijgen. Transfer, EPNuffic, 17. UNICollaboration. (2014). Position paper: Virtual exchange in the European higher education area, 2014. Retrieved from http://revistas.usc.es/export/sites/default/ gcompostela/en/descargas/COIL_Position_paper.pdf Van Gaalen, A., Roodenburg S., Hobbes, H. J., Huberts, D., & Gielesen, R. (2014). Studenten internationaliseren in eigen land. The Hague: Nuffic.

4 Online Intercultural Exchange in Europe State of the Art and Implications for the Future Sarah Guth The past two decades have witnessed consistent growth in the practice of telecollaboration, or OIE as it is referred to in this volume, and it has been accompanied by a good deal of scholarly research. Although the spread of access to the Internet across the globe has facilitated this process, in foreign language teaching (FLT) OIE has also prospered because it offers teachers the opportunity to implement authentic communicative language teaching (CLT), the most widespread approach used in language classrooms since the 1980s (Warschauer & Kern, 2000). By allowing students in different geographical locations to communicate directly with one another, OIE creates opportunities for authentic language use and practice. This authenticity is further strengthened by the fact that effective international online communication has become one of the many skills expected of students graduating from HEIs today. Indeed, more recent trends in OIE for FLT move beyond pairing two or more classes of foreign language learners to other configurations such as pairing a class of foreign language learners with a group of target language speakers in a content-based exchange (Guth & Helm, 2010). OIE also has taken hold in other disciplines such as the humanities and the arts (Schultheis Moore & Simon, 2015) and conflict resolution and digital media studies (Soliya Connect Programme, 2015). Despite this growth in the practice, with very few exceptions (Chia, Rosina, Poe,  & Wuensch, 2009; Furstenburg, Levet, English,  & Maillet, 2001), OIE has been and continues to be promoted and implemented from the bottom up in HEIs. In other words, individual teachers motivated by the desire to use technology to implement CLT or integrate intercultural learning into their content-based courses set up OIE projects with their international peers without institutional support. Doing so requires a teacher to find a suitable partner class, and then together partner teachers sort out the logistics, set their learning objectives, find the technology most suited for the project, and so on, all on their own time. This results in a lack of continuity in OIE projects over time: When one or both of these teachers have other obligations, be they professional (e.g., publishing research) or personal, and can no longer engage in the project, the OIE simply ceases to exist. As Rubin and Guth explain with reference to another form of OIE, COIL:

84  Sarah Guth [W]hat generally remained elusive until quite recently was the institutional understanding or will to normalise these efforts so they would iterate and could thereby benefit large numbers of students. In fact, at many campuses the successes of early adopter teachers did not lead to others following in their footsteps. (2015, p. 23) It would appear, therefore, that the normalisation of OIE depends to a certain degree on institutionalisation of OIE. In CALL and technological innovations in general, the term ‘normalisation’ is used to refer to ‘the stage when the technology becomes invisible embedded in everyday practice and hence “normalised” ’ (Bax, 2003, p. 23). It is safe to say that since 2003, the Internet and many digital tools and applications have become normalised in personal, educational and professional contexts. What has yet to become normalised is the pedagogy and practice of using technology to connect classes of learners and to promote intercultural learning. One reason may be that intercultural learning often is relegated to physical mobility programmes. Indeed study abroad also has become normalised but is only accessible to and exploited by a very small percentage of students in HEIs (OECD, 2013). Schultheis Moore and Simon argue that OIE, or globally networked teaching and learning as they call it, is more democratic ‘in that not every student has the opportunity to study abroad, despite the benefits that such immersion experiences may provide’ (2015, p. 6). The question, however, is why would or why should institutions be interested in normalizing OIE? One of the key reasons is that it may be one of the many means towards achieving a goal that has become a priority in many HEI mission statements and strategy plans: internationalisation. Internationalisation may refer to sending students abroad for an international experience, recruiting international students to increase diversity at home or establishing international partnerships for collaborative research, but more often than not, it is equated with physical mobility of students, staff and teachers. Another approach to internationalisation that does not involve physical mobility is what is called Internationalisation at Home (IaH) (Wächter, 2003) or Internationalising of the Curriculum (IoC) (Hudzik, 2011), where the whole educational organization is impacted from curricula and pedagogy to administrative and institutional structures. Hudzik defines IoC as follows: Internationalizing Of the Curriculum (IoC), also known as Comprehensive internationalization is a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education enterprise. It is essential that it be embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. It is an institutional imperative, not just a desirable possibility. (2011, p. 6)

OIE in Europe: State of the Art  85 OIE could be one of the main activities in an institution’s IoC plan. Unlike physical mobility programmes such as Erasmus, OIE is a networked approach to education, and without the contribution of all players, it is unlikely to succeed and expand over time. To understand how the normalisation of OIE might happen, it is important to understand what has been learnt about the practice up to now. OIE in FLT has established itself as a rich subfield of CALL and CMC, with numerous journal articles, dedicated volumes (Belz  & Thorne, 2006; Dooly, 2008; Guth  & Helm, 2010; Kern  & Warschauer, 2000; O’Dowd, 2007), journal special editions (Belz, 2003; Lewis, Chanier, & Youngs, 2011) and a book series, Telecollaboration in Education, edited by O’Dowd and Dooly. Most of the literature has dealt with in-depth studies of individual projects and contexts, focussing on pedagogic design, the technologies used, analyses of student interaction, linguistic and/or intercultural learning outcomes and difficulties and barriers rather than programmatic or institutional issues related to telecollaboration. Despite this extensive body of research, until 2011 there had been no investigation into the practice across universities in Europe. The Integrating Telecollaborative Networks into Foreign Language Higher Education (INTENT)1 project grew out of the need to fill this gap in the literature and to support the spread of OIE throughout Europe and beyond. In the first phase of the project, a survey was carried out to investigate the experiences of teachers who had or had not had experience with OIE and students who had participated in OIE. The results of the survey were analysed and used to provide recommendations for the greater integration of OIE throughout European HEIs. This information was then used to inform the creation and development of the UNICollaboration website (http://uni-collaboration.eu/). This chapter reports on the findings of the survey that made up the first part of the INTENT project.2 Responses from teachers with and without experience of OIE, students who had participated in OIE and case studies of contexts where OIE has been more thoroughly integrated or widely adopted provide a picture of the state of the art of telecollaboration in Europe as of 2012. The findings were analysed by INTENT team members and recommendations on how to more effectively integrate OIE into European HEIs were drawn up. THE INTENT PROJECT SURVEY The survey (made available in English, French, German and Italian) was created to address three groups: educators who had implemented OIE, those who had not, and students who had participated in OIE. The survey had three aims: • To determine what types of telecollaborative practices were being undertaken by European university educators • To explore the barriers practitioners encountered when organising online intercultural exchanges and their strategies to overcome these barriers

86  Sarah Guth • To gather the views and opinions of students with different experiences of telecollaboration to establish the impact online exchange can have on European students and whether this may have positive effects on attitudes toward physical mobility and foreign language learning

Survey Methodology The surveys were developed through a process of pre-piloting and piloting similar to that described by Nunan and Bailey (2009, p. 145). Initial drafts of the different surveys were drawn up by three project members. There were three types of questions: closed questions, Likert scale questions and open questions. The initial draft was then discussed and reviewed by the other project members, and based on their suggestions and comments, a second draft of the three surveys was drawn up. This second questionnaire was pre-piloted by the members of the project team, and suggestions were again shared and discussed using the project’s internal communication channels. When these changes had been carried out, a third version of the survey was then piloted by a group of 15 colleagues outside of the project team. Following this iterative development process, the survey was deemed to be ready for dissemination and made available in an online format in four European Union languages: English, French, German and Spanish. Given the fact that OIE is not a normalised practice across Europe, the team decided not to send out the survey to all HEI foreign language teachers but rather to draw up a list of telecollaborative practitioners around Europe based on their own extensive networks of contacts. Further potential informants were identified through academic publications, conference presentations and relevant mailing lists. Finally, a call for participation was published on the project website and in various academic mailing lists and relevant social networks. This asked for responses from those European university colleagues who had organised telecollaboration in the past or who were interested in this type of activity. This approach to data generation often is referred to as convenience sampling and involves the researcher contacting individuals who represent the target population and continuing until sufficient data has been collected for the purpose of the investigation. There is also an element of purposive sampling in this approach in which researchers select survey respondents on the basis of a characteristic that is essential to the study (Cohen & Manion, 1985; Nunan  & Bailey, 2009). Complete responses were obtained from 210 university educators in 23 European countries and 131 students who had participated in an OIE project. The team was also interested in the point of view of decision makers, from department heads to European policy makers but feared that these subjects would not respond to the survey. Therefore, the project team identified partnerships and telecollaborative networks which could provide a representative, qualitative picture of the type of OIEs that are being carried out around Europe and have achieved a certain level of integration in their institutions’

OIE in Europe: State of the Art  87 study programmes. The key players in these networks were interviewed and case studies drawn up. The responses to closed questions were reported with descriptive statistical data consisting of percentages. The open questions were analysed using systematic content analysis carried out by three researchers. The first researcher marked the distinct content elements or key points of the responses and inductively developed categories to ‘code’ the responses. The two other researchers then coded all responses, and the combined coding of the three researchers was checked for inter-rater agreement.

Teachers A total of 286 university educators from 142 institutions responded to the survey, but only 210 respondents were taken into consideration because 60 questionnaires were incomplete and 16 came from outside the European Union. Of these, 102 were teachers who had experience with OIE, and 108 were teachers with no direct experience of OIE. Responses were received from teachers in 23 different European countries, indicating a broad geographic distribution of respondents; a quarter of respondents were male and three-quarters female. Most respondents were language teachers, English as a foreign or second language being the main language taught, but nearly half of the respondents were teachers of French, German, Spanish and Italian as a foreign language. The rest were teachers of other languages and subjects areas such translation, intercultural studies, intercomprehension, ICT or teacher education. Teachers also were asked to indicate the faculties or schools they taught at, and the responses ranged from modern languages to science and technology to medicine. Despite the fact that most of the respondents were foreign language teachers, when asked about the principal pedagogic aims of their OIEs, the main pedagogic aim indicated was the development of students’ intercultural awareness and communication skills. This may in part be due to the fact that it is the opportunity for intercultural contact and authentic communication which distinguishes OIE from ‘traditional’ foreign language classroom practice and can be seen as a reflection of what has been described as ‘the intercultural turn’ in foreign language education (Thorne, 2010). In addition to these goals, nearly two-thirds of respondents mentioned the importance of developing students’ abilities to communicate and collaborate with others online. When asked to evaluate what they felt their students actually learnt through OIE, the main outcomes seemed to fall in line with the reported pedagogical aims and included: development of intercultural competence (75 percent), learning to communicate effectively online (63 percent) and improvement in foreign language (54 percent). These data indicate that teachers who take on the task of developing OIEs understand the importance of intercultural communication in the foreign language classroom and the opportunities that Internet technologies offer to accomplish this. It also would seem to indicate that this type

88  Sarah Guth of activity would be relevant across disciplines in any context where intercultural communication and gaining perspectives from people in other cultures are relevant to the learning process, from business to engineering to history, just to name a few. Respondents with no experience of OIE were also asked to indicate what their main pedagogical goals would be if they were to implement an OIE project. Their responses were similar to those already reported albeit with less differentiation between outcomes: 91 percent of respondents agreed that their students’ foreign language skills could benefit from online exchanges, whereas almost 90 percent felt their students’ intercultural awareness (89 percent) and their students’ online communication skills (88 percent) stood to be improved through OIE. Experienced teachers were also asked to indicate the language used as part of their OIE projects. Although English was the language most often used, nearly 50 percent of the respondents were engaged in lingua franca (a foreign language for all participants), multilingual or monolingual (a native language for one group and a foreign language for the other) exchanges. Exchanges with native speakers seem to be giving way slowly to exchanges between two or more groups of students studying the same target language (Guth & Helm, 2010). This may be partly because it is easier to find partners for exchanges but could also be because this communicative situation is seen to be more similar to students’ future communication contexts in which the majority of speakers will be non-native speakers. Another benefit of lingua franca exchanges is that all of the communication takes place in the target language, and students are on the same ground when using the target language rather than playing the dual role of either ‘expert’ or ‘student learner,’ as tends to be the case in bilingual exchanges. Future research will have to be carried out to verify this trend. None of the respondents indicated that there were institutional requirements to set up OIEs, and fewer than 50 percent of respondents said their students had received academic credit for their participation. Nearly three-quarters of respondents feel they need technical support, but a third explicitly stated that they had not received technical support. An overwhelming majority also reported having very few colleagues at their institutions who also engage their students in OIE. These data seem to indicate that OIE practitioners are outliers and that their projects are most often bottom-up initiatives. Further evidence of this comes from the fact that nearly three-quarters of respondents indicated that they had found their partners through their own network of colleagues and collaborators and nearly one-third through colleagues they had met at conferences. Only 17 percent reported having found partners through their university’s network of partner institutions. Finally, most respondents said they had been inspired to set up an OIE project after having learnt about OIE at conferences and workshops or through colleagues who had already implemented their own, not through departmental or institutional initiatives promoting this type of activity. It should come as no surprise, then, that many of the challenges teachers reported in carrying out OIEs could be overcome with the help of administrative,

OIE in Europe: State of the Art  89 financial, bureaucratic and technical support that were not received. Some of the more salient challenges resulting from the survey were these: • The amount of time required to set up and implement an OIE • The complexity of organizing an OIE • No recognition or reward for the time investment • No recognition in syllabus or credits awarded • Difficulty finding reliable partner classes • Challenges of collaborating with partner teachers • Logistical issues such as differences in institutional timetables • Lack of technical support • Varying levels of digital literacy on the part of both students and teachers • Different expectations both between groups as well as between students and teachers Despite these numerous challenges, the overwhelming majority of respondents agrees that carrying out OIE in their classes was a positive experience, repeatedly have organised such exchanges and believe that students find the exchanges relevant and important for their learning. There was general consensus that OIE is a valid learning experience that leads students to change their beliefs, or at least brings them into question in some way, rather than simply experiencing the OIE as an opportunity for language learning alone. This is confirmed by the data gathered in the student survey discussed next.

Students Although a total of 202 responses from students were received, 71 did not provide answers to a large number of items, and so only the data from 131 students were considered. These data were not gathered to present an overview of the experience of European students as a whole but rather to complement the data received from teachers. As with the responses from the teachers who had experience of OIE, the overwhelming majority of students also found it to be a positive experience, and three-quarters believed it should be compulsory for all foreign language students. A considerable majority said that they enjoyed using the Internet to connect and collaborate with peers in different countries. A French student summed this opinion up in a response to an open question by saying: ‘Collaborating is always useful, whether it’s at a distance or fact to face.’ Just over onethird of the respondents reported having kept in touch with their distant peers following the end of the project, and several had either visited one another or received invitations to do so. Although OIE never should be considered as a substitute for physical mobility, the fact is that many students will not study or work abroad, and this type of activity, especially if experienced by students more regularly at university, would provide them with real communication with peers abroad. Reasons students cited for reluctance to participate in a mobility programme were not related to lack of interest but rather family

90  Sarah Guth problems (e.g., older students with families), financial difficulties and time constraints (e.g., staying abroad for a significant period of time). Students were asked to indicate what they thought they had learnt or gained through the OIE they participated in. Three-quarters of respondents reported improved communication skills with people of other cultures, especially in online environments, as well as having improved foreign language skills. When questioned about possible changes in their attitudes and beliefs, there was less agreement: on average a third agreed, a third disagreed and the rest were undecided. This was not a surprise given that research into how to measure changes in attitudes, perspectives and beliefs remains a highly debated area in the field of intercultural learning and OIE (Belz, 2003; Guarda, 2013; Vogt, 2006). Attitude changes also may depend on the objectives and tasks that characterise a specific OIE, for example, whether discussion topics were aimed specifically at questioning one’s own belief system. Finally, the impact of any intercultural experience or encounter should be assessed through rigorous longitudinal studies because changes in attitude do not necessarily happen during an exchange but may manifest themselves over time. This was not the aim of this study, and students were not asked to indicate how much time had passed between their OIE experience and responding to the survey, but such research should receive greater attention in the future. The challenges and drawbacks to OIE mentioned by students in many ways mirrored those indicated by the teacher respondents. For example, students indicated that OIE projects were time-consuming, and when students are not granted credits for their participation, they will tend to prioritise their creditbearing courses over the OIE project. Lack of immediate responses from their partners was problematic for some and may very well have been problematic for their exchange peers as well, but the student respondents represented only one side of their OIE projects. Unfortunately, if OIE is not integrated into a syllabus or curriculum and no credit is assigned to participation, students may place their priorities elsewhere. This leads back to the issue of institutional support for and recognition of OIE that was mentioned in the previous section and will be discussed further.

Case Studies To complete the survey with more detailed qualitative data, the project team collected case studies of universities, partnerships and OIE networks in Europe that have achieved a certain level of institutional integration. Of particular interest was understanding how many of the challenges identified in the surveys are being dealt with in these institutions. A total of seven case studies were analysed and published as part of the INTENT Survey Report. Methodology The methodology used in collecting the case studies was that common to this area of research (Nunan & Bailey, 2009). Interviews were carried out face to face, synchronously using Skype or asynchronously using email, primarily with the OIE teachers but whenever possible with senior management as well. Any

OIE in Europe: State of the Art  91 available institutional documentation and/or the websites and platforms that had been developed for many of the projects were also examined to complement the interviews. Interviewees were sent drafts of the case studies and asked to confirm and/or add information. Findings The first thing worthy of note from the case studies is that only two of the projects were exchanges between language students (V-PaL and Le Francais en Premiere Ligne), whereas the others involved combinations of foreign language students in specific courses, such as translation studies (the Trans-Atlantic Network), German for business (SpEakWise) and engineering (the SW-US Exchange) with students from diverse disciplines. This would seem to verify the trends noted earlier in the chapter that OIE is relevant for any discipline where teachers in two or more cultures or countries believe that both groups might benefit from intercultural exchange. One of the reasons for creating the OIE between engineering students in Sweden and students of literature in the United States, was to enhance a specific requirement at the university in Sweden. As the teacher in Sweden reported: All engineering programmes have an MTS (Man, Technology, and Society) requirement. Courses offered under that requirement tend to be superficial attempts at showing engineering impact on society. The blog exchange gives students first a real authentic audience with which to interact in interpreting society. . . . Their encountering, sometimes for the first time since upper secondary, students from the humanities tends to serve as powerful insights into MTS and that their technologically infused perspective is fruitfully combined with other perspectives. (Guth, Helm, & O’Dowd, 2012, p. 51). Another positive outcome from the case studies is that in three cases, students do receive credits for their participation in the OIE (often as a percentage of a total course mark), and in the other four, credits are awarded only for one of the classes in the OIE. The interviewees reported that achieving such recognition for students’ participation in OIE was in most cases a ‘battle’ and certainly not a ‘given.’ This may be related to the fact that, as reported in the survey findings, all of the interviewees had initiated their OIE based on individual motivation and contacts as opposed to an institutional initiative. The advantage of a bottom-up initiative is that the teachers engaging in the projects are doing so of their own will and enthusiasm and take ownership of their work; in best-case scenarios they also use the OIE as an opportunity for research. The disadvantage is that they receive little to no institutional support or recognition. Finding the right mix between bottom-up teacher initiative, which is a fundamental aspect of their academic freedom, and top-down institutional initiative, which might limit academic freedom but provide administrative, technical, bureaucratic and financial support, is one of the challenges facing HEIs interested in working towards normalizing OIE. For example,

92  Sarah Guth several interviewees mentioned that when their colleagues became aware of their projects, they were impressed and understood the benefits but were not willing or able to make the commitment necessary to initiate similar projects themselves without time release from other courses or institutional obligations or financial incentives. Similarly, with reference to a series of OIE projects supported by the Center for Collaborative Online International Learning at the State University of New York, Rubin and Guth explain that rarely have these ‘heroic’ initiatives directly blossomed into a broad array of COIL university courses and coincident opportunities for students. Instead, and usually to the disappointment of the excited teachers who had worked so hard, the model presented seemed so unique, so free-standing and so outside of a traditional university niche, that other academics saw the model as at once challenging and unintentionally ‘owned’ by the innovating teacher. (2015, p. 23) There were, nonetheless, initial signs of institutional recognition. In the project Francais en Premier Ligne, the partner universities in France and Latvia have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that commits both institutions to carrying out the OIE on a regular basis and exploring possibilities for the physical exchange of students and teachers and research collaboration. If a project is solely dependent on one teacher and that teacher leaves the university for a short period of time, for example, for family or health reasons, or permanently, for example, for career change, where an MOU is in place, such an inter-institutional agreement makes it more likely that the OIE will continue with different teachers. In the case of SpEakWise, interviewees reported that the support of the department at the University in Germany ‘has meant that the exchange has been continued even when teaching staff have moved on’ (Guth et al., 2012, p.  55). Even those without official agreements to support their OIEs reported that institutional recognition is an important first step towards sustainability and normalisation. For example, in the case of the V-PaL project at the University of Manchester, Prof. Mathew Jeffries, assistant associate dean in the Faculty of Humanities, explained: [T]he University recognises the value of online intercultural exchange as part of its growing internationalisation. While much attention has been focused on the University’s research standing . . . this kind of project can also play a part in raising the institution’s international profile. It is conceivable, for instance, that links established via V-PAL could develop into full-blown ERASMUS exchange agreements. (Guth et al., p. 66) Undoubtedly this is a step in the right direction, but it also highlights the need to separate OIE clearly from physical mobility given the tendency, evident in this citation, to equate intercultural experience with study abroad,

OIE in Europe: State of the Art  93 international research, and so on. As a recent survey of the European Association for International Education found, even though universities include aspects such as internationalisation of the curriculum and internationalisation at home in their strategic internationalisation plans, ‘the most commonly featured activities in institutional strategies are reportedly incoming and outgoing student mobility, international strategic partnerships and international research and innovation’ (Engel, Sanstrom, van der Aa, & Glass, 2015, p. 6). Finally, the overall view of the interviewees for the case studies was similar to that of the respondents to the survey: positive and hopeful that things might improve. Many stated that OIE had improved the international profile of their institutions, for example, in Sweden, ‘the activity is mentioned in division assessment procedures and it is cited in department activity plans under the context of “continued international collaboration” ’ (Guth et al., 2012, pp. 51–52). This type of activity also helps increase the international experience of individual teachers and contributes to their professional development. For example, as a teacher from Denmark in the TransAtlantic Exchange explained: I have benefitted extremely from having these activities. I have been in contact with lots of people. I have had people visiting me, and scholars have visited my university because of these programmes. My students have got lots of connections in the English-speaking world, which might come in handy for them in the future. (Guth et al., p. 69) RECOMMENDATIONS The INTENT project team collected and analysed survey data from more than 200 university educators and 100 students with experiences of varied forms of OIE. These data were enhanced by seven case studies that were collected to provide ‘thick’ descriptions of different forms of OIE and to provide more insight into how practitioners are overcoming some of the barriers to normalising OIE that were identified in the survey data analysis. Based on these analyses the authors of the survey identified the most important outcomes to provide recommendations for teachers, researchers, decision makers and policy makers at institutional, national and also European levels. Although the survey focussed solely on European HEIs, many of the recommendations can be useful in informing practice and policy making in other non-European institutions and other national contexts as well.

Teachers As was seen in the previous sections, nearly all of the teacher respondents to the survey who had experience with OIE were innovators working alone with their partner teachers. Indeed, possibly the most important recommendation

94  Sarah Guth for teachers interested in setting up an OIE is to establish a solid partnership. This can mean working with a distant colleague they already know and feel comfortable with or dedicating time and, if possible, travel to getting to know the partner during the planning stage. Once the exchange between students begins, the teachers’ partnership and the way they manage the project serve as an excellent model of intercultural collaboration for the student participants. First-time projects should be kept simple: one partner, relatively small classes (maximum 25 students) and simple tasks based on shared goals. Although the respective courses may have their own learning outcomes that are not shared, partners should identify at least one shared outcome, for example, improving online intercultural communication. This is particularly important when the students come from different disciplines, such as in some of the case studies mentioned above. Partners also need to have an equal commitment to the project because if there is a significant imbalance, for example, participation is required on one side but not the other, there is a risk of student backlash. To determine the commitment, partners should discuss assessment criteria, participation requirements, departmental support, technical support, and so on. They also will need to share information (e.g., semester calendars and holidays), expectations (e.g., amount of time students and teachers can dedicate to the project per week) and resources (e.g., content and technical resources). It is useful to create a shared, online written document containing all of this information. Such a document also can be shared with students as they too need to be prepared for the exchange, especially if it is their first experience as well. Sufficient time, at least two weeks, should be allowed before the OIE begins to familiarise students with the technology that will be used, the project’s aims, the types of interaction they may expect, assessment modes and criteria. Although this careful planning is fundamental to the success of an OIE, once the students begin interacting, teachers need to be flexible. Even if the teachers have worked carefully on developing tasks and a timetable, a consequence of the authenticity of telecollaboration is that the progress of the exchange and student interactions cannot be predicted. Practitioners should be prepared to step away from lesson plans and be ready to adopt alternative plans in case of technical problems, discussions that are more or less active than expected and so on.

University Deans and Senior Management As has already been stated, HEIs across the globe increasingly are developing strategies and policies to promote internationalisation in response to the growing interdependence of nations. According to the European Association for International Education (EAIE) Barometer of Internationalisation in Europe, ‘[d]efinitions and rationales of internationalisation have evolved significantly as HEIs adapt their structures, staffing and curricula to meet the needs of the modern economy’ (2014, p. 2). Although this is taking place to different degrees according to national and institutional contexts, it does appear to imply that

OIE in Europe: State of the Art  95 the time to start normalising and institutionalising OIE is ripe. Internationalisation strategies are complex and multifaceted but as has been stated already, they tend to focus on mobility and research. However, the three top reasons given by HEIs in Europe to internationalise are to improve the overall quality of education, prepare students for a global world and attract more international students (Engel et al., 2015, p. 4). Arguments could be made that OIE can be one of the activities institutions invest in to achieve these goals. Mobility programmes tend to one of the primary activities in internationalisation policies, but engaging in OIEs before and after mobility experiences can enhance them. For example, OIEs can be set up to connect incoming foreign or international students with local students before their period of exchange to promote better integration in the host universities when they arrive. OIEs also can be used to continue communication and/or collaborative projects that students have begun to engage in during the period of mobility, especially when the study abroad period is short term. OIE, when well planned, implemented and supported, offers experiential intercultural opportunities to the majority of students who do not participate in mobility programmes. Just as the first step recommended for teachers is to establish a strong partnership, so can HEIs exploit existing inter-institutional partnerships. Although these may have been established for mobility programmes and/or collaborative research, given the existing relationship, there may also be practitioners on both sides interested in implementing OIE. Furthermore, existing partnerships may mean that there is funding to allow teachers and staff to visit each other’s institutions and establish personal, face-to-face connections with colleagues. Local leadership is also important ‘for the formation and continuation of GNLEs [another term for OIE] to be successful, there needs to be a responsible member of the administration to serve as the chief contact and leader’ (Jansen, 2015, p. 49), preferably at both partner institutions. One way to guarantee a certain degree of commitment and continuity in developing OIEs between partners is to draw up MOUs specifically for virtual mobility programmes as was cited in one of the case studies above. As was found in the study, lack of technical and administrative support can hinder the success of an OIE and deter teachers from taking on an initiative or continuing one over time. Therefore, institutions should commit staff to support teachers; this does not necessarily mean hiring new staff but could imply shifting job responsibilities or tapping into resources such as student workers. Supporting such international exchanges also can be motivating and a source of professional development for technical and administrative staff in the same ways it is for teachers and students. With reference to OIE projects promoted by the SUNY COIL Center ‘where instructional designers and other technical staff became directly involved, the course development and implementation process also opened their eyes to the different perspectives and responses that international engagement demands’ (Rubin & Guth, 2015, p. 23). A further way to justify investing human and financial resources in OIE is to implement it across disciplines. Knowing how to interact, communicate and work with people from different linguacultural backgrounds has become an important skill for all students. The more subject areas that adopt OIE, the

96  Sarah Guth more the practice will become normalised, offering students various opportunities during their studies to interact with foreign peers without having to participate in a mobility scheme. To be fully integrated into degree programmes, changes often must be made to curriculum. This process can be complex but becomes more feasible if there are institutional mandates to do so and it is backed by institutional support. Integrating OIE into the curriculum also makes it easier to provide recognition for both students and teachers. Recognition can and should come in many forms: academic credits for students’ participation in OIEs; explicit mention of the activity in course descriptions; integration of OIE into course syllabi; recognition of OIE implementation when considering career progression for teachers; course releases for teachers the first time they implement an OIE; funding for teachers to visit one another as part of an OIE project and so on. One final recommendation for decision makers is to integrate OIE in teacher education programmes. Teachers are more inclined to implement innovation such as OIE if they have already not only learnt about it but experienced it as well (Dooly & Sadler, 2013; O’Dowd, 2015). CONCLUSION In a world where global racism and xenophobia are on the rise (Hagopian, 2015), educational institutions should play a primary role in integrating activities to promote intercultural understanding and dialogue. OIE could be one such activity within a broader internationalisation plan at institutional, national and supranational levels. However, to have an impact on as many students as possible, the practice needs to be integrated into institutional curricula and courses. As the survey and case studies demonstrated, European HEIs are still very far from this state of normalisation of OIE. Nonetheless, the data collected allowed the INTENT team members to assess the current situation in Europe and offer recommendations about steps that can be taken to promote a process of normalisation. The survey and case study data presented in this chapter overwhelmingly indicate that teachers and students alike who have engaged in OIE believe in its potential for authentic intercultural learning. The data also made it clear that most OIE practitioners feel like outliers in their institutional context and lack technical, administrative and financial support to better integrate OIE into their courses and to guarantee continuity over time. Indeed, although not as costly as physical mobility, OIE is also not a no-cost solution to internationalisation. Funding is needed for technical staff and equipment: ‘[L]anguage teachers often find themselves dealing not only with teaching and learning issues, but also the technical issues. Consequently, teachers who do not feel technologically competent tend to avoid telecollaboration’ (Guth et al., 2012, p. 61). Finally, teachers need extra time and/or pay for their efforts because as one teacher respondent to the survey noted: ‘All telecollaboration projects require three times more work than a traditional course but the administration does not seem to understand this’ (p. 71).

OIE in Europe: State of the Art  97 There is often an assumption that study abroad inherently leads to intercultural learning, and teachers and institutions alike are often skeptical that virtual collaboration can provide authentic communication and intercultural learning. However, not only does study abroad impact very small numbers of students, but there is little research that proves it increases students’ intercultural competences. The results of a study by Soria and Troisi argue the opposite: [S]tudents’ participation in activities related to internationalization at home— participation in on-campus global/international activities such as enrollment in global/international coursework, interactions with international students, and participation in global/international cocurricular activities— may yield greater perceived benefits than study abroad for students’ development of GII [Global, International, Intercultural] competencies. (2014, p. 261) Although the study did not involve OIE, as was explained, OIE can be considered a form of IaH. Therefore, given the mandates for internationalisation in HEIs, the limited number of students who can engage in study abroad and the perceived intercultural learning teachers and students in the INTENT survey identified, the recommendations offered in this chapter may help teachers, departments and institutions to work together to integrate OIE as a part of their institutional strategy. As Bax (2003) stated regarding the history of CALL, to impact as many students as possible, we also can argue that in the case of OIE ‘our aim should be to attain a state of “normalisation” ’ (p. 13). There are certainly many barriers to this process, but the lessons learnt from the survey presented in this chapter and others in this volume provide possible ways to overcome them.

NOTES 1 See http://www.intent-project.eu/intent-project.eu/index.htm. 2 The full report in English and a summary of the report in English, French, Italian, German, Polish and Spanish can be found at http://www.intent-project.eu/intentproject.eu/@q=node-2f34.htm.

REFERENCES Bax, S. (2003). CALL—Past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13–28. Belz, J. A. (2003). From the special editor. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 2–5. Belz, J. A.,  & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Thomson Heinle. Chia, Rosina, C., Poe, E., & Wuensch, K. (2009). Attitude change after taking a virtual global understanding course. International Journal of Social Science, 4(2), 75–79. Retrieved from http://www.waset.org/publications/876 Cohen, L.,  & Manion, L. (1985). Research methods in education. London: Croom Helm.

98  Sarah Guth Dooly, M. (2008). Telecollaborative language learning. Bern: Peter Lang. Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2013). Filling in the gaps: Linking theory and practice through telecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL, 25, 4–29. Engel, L., Sanstrom, A., van der Aa, R.,  & Glass, A. (2015). The EAIE Barometer: Internationalisation in Europe, report. EAIE Publishing. Retrieved from http://www. eaie.org/home/in-the-field/barometer.html Furstenburg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a voice to the silent culture of language: The CULTURA Project. Language, Learning & Technology, 5(1): 55–102. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/ Guarda, M. (2013). Negotiating a transcultural place in an English as a lingua franca telecollaboration exchange: A mixed methods approach to the analysis of intercultural communicative competence and third space in an online Community of Practice. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Retrieved from http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd. it/5337/ Guth, S.,  & Helm, F. (Eds.). (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0. Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Peter Lang. Guth, S., Helm F.,  & O’Dowd, R. (2012). University language classes collaborating online. A report on the integration of telecollaborative networks in European universities. Retrieved from http://intent-project.eu/sites/default/files/Telecollaboration_ report_Final_Oct2012.pdf Hagopian, J. (2015). The hidden truth: The rising tide of “global racism” and xenophobia. Centre for Research on Globalization. Retrieved from http://www.globalresearch. ca/the-hidden-truth-the-rising-tide-of-global-racism-and-xenophobia/5428854 Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. NAFSA Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_ Home/Resource_Library_Assets/Publications_Library/2011_Comprehen_Interna tionalization.pdf Jansen, J. (2015). Globally networked learning environments: An administrator’s perspective. In A. Schultheis Moore  & S. Simon (Eds.), Globally networked teaching in the humanities: Theories and practice (pp. 46–57). New York and London: Routledge. Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, T., Chanier, T.,  & Youngs, B. (2011). Special issue commentary: Multilateral online exchanges for language and culture learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 3–9. Nunan, D.,  & Bailey, K. M. (Eds.). (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide. Boston: HeinleCengage Learning. O’Dowd, R. (2007). Online intercultural exchange. Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. O’Dowd, R. (2015). Supporting in-service language educators in learning to telecollaborate. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 64–83. Retrieved from http://llt. msu.edu/issues/february2015/odowd.pdf OECD. (2013). Indicator C4: Who studies abroad and where? OECD, Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.iie.org/research-and-publications/open-doors/data/ us-study-abroad/student-profile/2001–12 Rubin, J., & Guth, S. (2015). Collaborative online international learning: An emerging format for Internationalizing Curricula. In A. Schultheis Moore & S. Simon (Eds.), Globally networked teaching in the humanities: Theories and practice (pp. 15–27). New York and London: Routledge. Schultheis Moore, A., & Simon, S. (Eds.). (2015). Globally networked teaching in the humanities: Theories and practices. New York and London: Routledge. Soliya Connect Programme (2015). Retrieved from http://soliya.net/?q=what_we_do_ connect_programme

OIE in Europe: State of the Art  99 Soria, K.,  & Troisi, J. (2014). Internationalization at home: Alternatives to study abroad implications for students’ development of global, international, and intercultural competencies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(3), 261–280. Thorne, S. L. (2010). The ‘Intercultural Turn’ and language learning in the crucible of new media. In F. Helm & S. Guth (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 139–164). Bern: Peter Lang. Vogt, K. (2006). Can you measure attitudinal factors in intercultural communication? Tracing the development of attitudes in e-mail projects. ReCALL, 18(2), 53–173. Wächter, B. (2003). An Introduction: Internationalisation at Home in Context. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 5–11.

5 Internationalisation, the Bologna Process and Online Intercultural Exchange Seeking Common Ground Melanie H. Wilson As Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) work to adapt and thrive in the changing academic landscape of the 21st century (Altbach, 2004; Altbach & Knight, 2007), Online Intercultural Exchange (OIE), also referred to as ‘telecollaboration,’ ‘virtual exchange’ and ‘COIL,’ is increasingly being looked to as a way to internationalise campuses (de Wit, 2011). OIEs occur within what has been described as globally networked learning environments (GNLEs) (Starke-Meyerring, Duin,  & Palvetzian, 2007), learning spaces which have been developed primarily through grassroots partnerships between educators (in many cases university faculty members) who have used networking technologies to bring students together for joint learning experiences. In their inquiry into GNLEs, Starke-Meyerring et al. (2007) found in their survey of technical communication faculty and administrators engaged in global partnerships that institutional challenges were the greatest obstacle experienced. In descending order, challenges included a lack of resources, logistics, quality assurance concerns, cultural differences, language issues, organizational issues and a difficult political climate between partner countries (p. 160). Wilson (2013) later observed that when contending with these challenges, faculty would manoeuvre in unpredictable ways as they worked to ‘make do’ (de Certeau, 1984, p. 29) when policy environments constrained their efforts to innovate with GNLEs. This manoeuvring is not ideal, as purposeful design is an integral aspect of any pedagogical approach. In educator and philosopher John Dewey’s words, ‘we never educate directly, but indirectly by means of the environment. Whether we permit chance environments to do the work, or whether we design environments for the purpose makes a great difference’ (1961, p. 19). Hence, whereas the partnerships require policy environments to support and sustain GNLEs, to ensure purposeful design, the pedagogies that guide the learning experiences also require supporting policies in which to thrive. The different pedagogical approaches to OIEs, as described in this volume, are an integral aspect of GNLEs; as Starke-Meyerring and Wilson (2008) explain, they provide opportunities for students to ‘[interact] with diverse ways of knowing, diverse perspectives, and cultural identities, [enabling] new opportunities to understand and critically examine the ways in which their own identities, ways of knowing, and daily practices are rooted in and shaped by the social, cultural, and political conditions of their lived experience’ (p. 10). Institutional

Internationalisation, Bologna Process  101 policy environments that are not constructed with OIEs in mind can influence the outcome of the initiative in unexpected ways as faculty manoeuvre their unique institutional policy environments. The enabling and constraining influence of these policy environments are the focus of this chapter, where two case studies, initiated through SUNY’s COIL Centre, engaged European universities which had institutional policies influenced by the Bologna Process. These policies impacted on each collaboration in unique ways, and consequently these cases help to elucidate the need for policies aligned to GNLEs if OIEs are to be a sustainable and integral part of internationalisation efforts. The case studies differ in that one case looks at the impact of institutional policies within a university in Ireland, one of the first signatories to the Bologna Process, and Belarus, a country whose institutional policies have been considered misaligned to the Bologna Process’s strategic mission and which has thus not been granted signatory status despite numerous attempts. The institutional and national policy contrast provides a unique lens through which we can deepen our understanding of the consequences of top-down institutional policies and the implementation of OIEs in HEIs. The following section defines internationalization and discusses the current global landscape that has shaped the Bologna Process’s top-down approach to higher education policies to provide the policy context for each case study. INTERNATIONALISATION AND THE BOLOGNA PROCESS In 2008 when Knight asserted that ‘[t]he General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has been an important wake-up call for higher education’ (Knight, 2008, p. x), she was referring to the shift of influence of global economic factors on traditional academic mobility. This shift is evidenced in what has been described as the commodification of higher education (Olsson  & Peters, 2005), and treatment of education as a private good (Marginson, 2007) has made HEIs ‘subject to a multilateral set of trade rules’ (Knight, 2008, p. x). Universities have had little choice but to adapt to this changing landscape (Altbach, 2004), and internationalisation polices have been a driving force of this adaptation. ‘Internationalisation,’ a term whose very meaning is contested (Knight & de Wit, 1999; McCabe, 2001), in this chapter is understood as the ways that a college or university chooses to adapt to globalisation and the initiatives they choose in their adaptation. For universities in Europe, internationalisation has been influenced highly by the Bologna Process, a voluntary signatory process launched in 1999 with the Bologna Declaration aimed at standardizing European HEIs. The process had been initiated a year earlier with the Sorbonne Declaration with four nation signatories but was further expanded to include 29 European countries (the original signatories of the declaration). It has since grown to include 47 member states. As described by the EHEA, the stated goal of the Bologna Process is ‘to strengthen the competitiveness and attractiveness of European higher education and to foster student mobility and employability through the

102  Melanie H. Wilson introduction of a system based on undergraduate and postgraduate studies with easily readable programmes and degrees’ (EAHE, 2012). Both challenged by critics and welcomed by proponents (King, 2007), the Bologna Process is a driving force to the strategic mission of HEIs in Europe and has had far-reaching implications for universities in North America and around the world (Adelman, 2010; Haskel, 2006; Kehm, 2010). The 1999 Bologna Declaration had six primary objectives for European universities: (1) To standardise degrees (2) To establish two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate (3) To establish a standardised system of credits (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation [ECTS]) (4) To increase student mobility (5) To standardise quality assurance with comparable criteria and methodologies (6) To promote necessary European dimensions Over the years, new priorities and shifted emphases have broadened the scope of the process (Mernagh, 2010), with staff mobility being added, although recognised as ‘the least-reported and least-monitored’ (EHEA, 2007, p. 58) of mobility measures. Academic staff mobility provides ‘institutional anchoring,’ an essential aspect of the mobility dimension of the Bologna Process (Cradden, 2007). Though voluntary and not legally binding in itself, the process has influenced a number of national education policies in Europe, with some scholars suggesting that it has been used to legitimise national reforms (Ravinet, 2008) in support of the neo-liberal agenda in higher education and in lieu of civil engagement and global citizenship (Munck, 2010). The contested nature of the influence of the Bologna Process is not the focus of this chapter; however, it is helpful to understand that it is largely understood as a top-down approach to institutional policy development which has been influenced heavily by the economic landscape and strategic directives of Europe within the global economy. Clearly, if we understand GNLEs as an alternative to dominant, marketdriven approaches to internationalisation (Starke-Meyerring & Wilson, 2008), the misalignment is somewhat predictable. Regardless, useful insights can be derived from the ways in which internationalisation initiatives, focussed on breaking down the external institutional barriers across the continent, have specifically impacted courses. The following section contextualises the first case study by providing a brief history of Ireland and the Bologna Process to frame how the institutional policies driven by Bologna both enabled and constrained certain aspects of a telecollaborative exchange.

Ireland and the Bologna Process As one of the original 29 signatories, Ireland fared well in the earlier stages of the Bologna Process (McMahon, 2010); challenges experienced by other

Internationalisation, Bologna Process  103 European countries for initiatives, such as adapting the two- (and later three-) cycle degree offerings (bachelor’s, master’s and the doctorate), were in place within Irish HEIs before the Bologna signing. Countries such as Germany, Finland and Lithuania did not have bachelor’s or master’s degrees but instead had five-year diplomas that had thesis components and therefore had a much more challenging time adapting their systems. Additionally, the ECTS, a second Bologna proposal, was adopted by Irish universities prior to 1999, and thus Irish HEIs were able to meet this requirement with relative ease. However, as the Bologna Process shifted to include the National Framework for Qualifications (NFQ), which require all programmes to be based on learning outcomes, Irish HEIs began to experience challenges in their Bologna implementation. Prior to this inclusion, courses in Irish universities did not have specific, written learning outcomes as a requirement. The notion was deemed foreign and reflected a different cultural approach to teaching and learning which did not exist previously (McMahon, 2010). In addition to the challenges brought on by the NFQ, which now required HEIs to focus on learning outcomes as a central component of courses, another recent challenge has been faced by Irish HEIs: outward student mobility. Outward student mobility, referring to students studying abroad, has presented (and is expected to continue to present) a challenge to Irish HEIs (McMahon, 2010) because of observable trends in Irish student mobility. The current Bologna target of 20 percent of Irish students having a study abroad experience is in contrast to findings in a recent ERASMUS report, which found that outward student mobility was on the decline in Ireland (ERASMUS, 2010). Another issue for Irish universities is the Diploma Supplement (an add-on in 2003), which is a standard transcript and is required to be free of charge and issued automatically to students. Currently in Ireland, this Diploma Supplement is issued only for 5 percent of the student population, so Irish HEIs have much to do to meet these requirements. Overall, Ireland continues to do better than most countries in terms of its adaptation to the Bologna requirements, although there are still a number of issues that require continued attention by Irish university administrators. The following section presents the case study, a partnership between an Irish faculty member and an American faculty member who jointly developed and delivered a course on terrorism. Though initiated by the US faculty member as the collaboration was supported by a US grant, the issues that occurred were indicative of the misalignment between the policy environment at the US institution and that at the Irish university, as influenced by the Bologna Process. It further highlights how the Irish faculty member contended with this misalignment, which presented unique consequences.

Case Study #1: The Influence of Bologna Process-Driven Policies on a US-Irish Globally Networked Learning Environment This case study involves two early-career scholars, one in Ireland and the other in the United States, who participated in a semester-long GNLE. Initiated through the SUNY’s COIL Centre, the data that informed the insights included

104  Melanie H. Wilson institutional policy documents, the syllabi of each course, the joint collaborative online space, interviews with each faculty member as well as interviews from administrators from each university. At the time of the collaboration, the US professor was a tenure-track faculty member, and his partner was a male PhD student in an urban public university in Ireland. This collaboration was his first university teaching experience, and he was provided the opportunity through his PhD supervisor, who had previously taught the course (without the collaborative component). Neither instructor knew each other before the collaboration and, accordingly, established trust and a working relationship within their work and negotiation of the GNLE. This was facilitated primarily by face-to-face meetings; although both participants initially worked via email and Skype. The two institutions were very different in that the US institution was a rural liberal arts college which was part of a large state university system, whereas the Irish institution was three times as large and located in an urban area in Ireland. They were both relatively young colleges (less than 50 years old), and both institutions supported the collaboration. The Irish institution’s internationalisation directives fall under the auspices of their Civil Engagement Strategy as a means to prepare their students for civic engagement in the 21st century. As such, their internationalisation strategies are aligned directly with the university’s mission to advance global citizenship and civic engagement in their students. Financial support for the collaboration was received from the Irish institution as they coordinated and funded a visit by the US instructor to the institution and arranged lectures to graduate students in the university (in addition to students within the collaborative course). They also funded the Irish instructor’s visit to the US college, and so in terms of alignment to the Bologna Process, the policies which supported the academic anchoring helped to serve the GNLE development and partnership between the two faculty members. Face-to-face interactions are considered an important aspect of building trust between GNLE partners as recommended by SUNY’s COIL. COIL provides support and guidance for such exchanges in terms of recommended practices, and one such recommendation was to have fairly equal numbers of students in both classes. This was a challenge as the Irish institution’s policy was guided by the need to have as many students as possible enrolled on the course with no cap on numbers. To ensure that the learning experience was optimal, the Irish instructor needed to find a way to circumvent this particular constraining institutional policy that opened the course’s registration to unlimited numbers of students. The instructor had to employ nontraditional tactics to discourage students from participating by overemphasising how taxing the course was in the first lecture. He explained that this effort was done specifically to reduce numbers as much as possible to attain parity; however, this becomes counterproductive if a course’s success is based on registration rates. As a result of his actions class attendance was reduced from 76 to 27, which was closer to the 20 students in the US class and was considered closer to ideal for an online exchange. Here is an example of policy misalignment, where if courses involved in OIE could be exempt from this particular rule, this type of tactical activity could be avoided.

Internationalisation, Bologna Process  105 However, collectively the institutional policies from the Bologna Process did seem to encourage and reward the GNLE. For instance, an institutional strategy at the Irish university was their framework to recognise the global work being done in the class, and so after two iterations of the collaboration, the Irish instructor was granted a prestigious university award for excellence in teaching. This award was granted in recognition of his student-centred approach, his knowledge of the subject and his use of innovative teaching methods (i.e., specifically, the collaborative component). As McMahon (2010) notes, engagement in student-centred pedagogy is a priority for the Bologna Process, hence the Irish university with mature Bologna implementation was able to support and reward this collaboration. However, this case illustrates the fact that, although many top-down policies are aligned with the internationalisation components of GNLEs, and hence for OIEs, there are still policies in place that require faculty to engage in tactical actions to subvert institutional misalignment with recommended practices. Here on one hand we see strategies in place to support (and reward) GNLE work, but on the other, there is little oversight for the institutional strategies in terms of overarching registration policies that can serve to constrain this work. Without the instructor taking unprecedented actions to ensure relatively equal numbers, much of the investment the institution had committed to the collaboration could have been wasted, and this is one example of how a more detailed approach towards alignment of institutional policies is important for university administrators to adequately support GNLEs and OIEs as part of their internationalisation missions. The following section contextualises the second case study by providing a brief history of Belarus and the Bologna Process. This takes place in a markedly different situation, with Belarus being one of the only countries in Europe to be denied signatory status repeatedly; the context in which the GNLE emerged provides unique insights into institutional policies driven by national policies that are considered contrary to the Bologna strategy, which has both enabled and constrained certain aspects of this particular collaboration. Belarus and the Bologna Process Belarus is only country in Europe that has been denied inclusion in the EHEA, and according to Mundell (2012), it has requested inclusion on several occasions (the most recent in March  2012). In the past, rejections were due to requirements set out by the EHEA according to which ‘a country must be party to the European Cultural Convention and make a commitment to implement the area’s main objectives and policies’ (Mundell, 2012); however, the most recent rejection came from the Bologna Follow-Up Group, which is responsible for the preparation of EAHE summit agenda and its declarations. Currently chaired by Denmark and Azerbaijan, according to a statement from the Danish Education Ministry, the group removed Belarus’s application from the agenda at the latest (April 2012) meeting ‘because Belarus does not yet observe the principles and values of the Bologna process, such as academic freedom, institutional autonomy and student participation in higher-education governance’ (Mundell, 2012).

106  Melanie H. Wilson This decision was welcomed by critics of the Belarusian restrictions on academic freedom, such as the European University Association and the European Students Union, who stated that inclusion would serve only as a propaganda tool for the government and not help students and faculty; however, partisans of the Belarusian higher education system question the motive for this decision, stating that Belarus does ensure academic freedom and meets the standards required to be included as a signatory to Bologna. Further, the move is considered by the Belarusian Education Ministry as being ‘an unconstructive attempt to hinder the blossoming co-operation between Belarusian universities and their European partners, and to limit the possibilities for Belarusian students and professors to travel for academic purposes’ (Titovich, 2012). Consequently, it is not surprising that the second case study, which involves a Belarussian university self-described as being ‘in exile,’ had many unique challenges brought on by Bologna Process-driven policies. The following section provides some institutional context and describes how a few of these policies presented challenges as well as opportunities for this unique collaboration.

Case #2: The Influence of Bologna Process-Driven Policies on a US-Belarussian Globally Networked Learning Environment The Belarusian case is a unique one in that the Belarusian university is one self-described as being in exile. Closed by the authorities in the 2000s, the private institution currently is based in a neighbouring European Union country but servicing Belarusian students attending both high residence (face-toface) and low residence (distance) undergraduate and graduate degrees. It was founded in Belarus in the early 1990s, shortly after the country attained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. It was one of the few private universities that existed at the time but was shut down by the Belarusian authorities, and according to Tomusk (2003), this was the case for many private universities in Belarus at the time. Granted asylum and accredited in a neighbouring European Union member country, the college reopened in exile, and since then Belarusian students travel across the border to attend class or to participate in classes online. Currently there are no private universities in Belarus, and all functioning HEIs must adhere to the state-controlled curriculum and accreditation process. The institution was awarded the Erasmus Charter, a charter administered by the European Commission which provides guidelines for student mobility initiatives and the framework for European HEIs, so they may participate in internationalisation initiatives, apply for multilateral projects and support student and faculty exchanges across Bologna Process-member European countries. At the time of the collaboration, the Belarusian university had been working to harmonise its degree structure and adhere to the goals of the Bologna Process. The collaboration was part of a separate grant that had been attained specifically to help the Belarusian university continue to advance its goals of bringing a liberal education to Belarusians, and hence the funding secured by COIL facilitated several partnerships, of

Internationalisation, Bologna Process  107 which this was one. Subsequently, unlike the previous case, faculty travel was afforded by the COIL grant, which helped secure and sustain the partnership between the faculty partners. The collaboration involved a tenured faculty member from the US institution and a part-time faculty member at the Belarussian university jointly teaching a language course. This case study was informed by policy documents from both universities, historical context documents from the Belarussian university, the course syllabi for both institutions and interviews with members of both faculties as well as administrators from both universities. Both courses were English language courses, with an emphasis on intercultural communication and cultural exchange between students, with activities enquiring into different political and social contexts of the two sets of students’ experiences with the language. The US course had been offered in previous semesters as a three-credit, 13-week-long course, and the collaboration was considered one component within it. Due to markedly different semester start and end dates (the Belarusian university starting four weeks after and ending six weeks later than the US university), the collaboration took place in the six-week overlap, and as the core component of the Belarusian class, the course’s duration was six weeks. As a result students were granted one credit upon successful completion, which also meant that the collaboration could not be included as an elective course as a component of the students’ programme and subsequently not recognised within the Bologna Process’s ECTS model. The ECTS model has a complex structure of hours equating to credits (26.5 hours = 1 credit). The short duration of the ‘contact’ hours resulted in the course not being eligible to be considered as an elective course and thus not attributable for a diploma. To address this, the Belarusian university provided a certificate of completion; however, without the course being attributable to the student’s programme, this misalignment led to a contradictory message about the course. The Belarusian faculty partner suggested that the reduced credit weight impacted the motivation of students, and she found that although the course was a critical one in terms of developing online intercultural communication skills, the policies that framed it as not as important in terms of one’s diploma articulation had students not prioritizing the work required in the six weeks and impacted the overall efficacy of the course. This policy misalignment was an unfortunate one, especially given the overt alignment of the Belarussian university’s mission to the Bologna Process; the policies related to ECTS constrained the Belarussian university’s ability to provide equitable credit weight for the course. Perhaps an approach similar to what had been taken at the US institution (with increased contact hours) could have thwarted this; however, the collaboration itself was considered quite innovative, and at the time this was not considered a possibility for them. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Bologna Process is an internationalisation initiative aimed at standardising European higher education; however, there are aspects of its

108  Melanie H. Wilson implementation that create challenging circumstances for faculty engaged in developing globally networked courses to enhance students’ intercultural communication. Considered a necessity for European universities’ local, national and regional growth in response to globalisation (Knight, 2008), the Bologna Process continues to influence higher education policies which in turn can have contradictory influences on GNLEs. In the Irish case, the institutional strategies related to the Bologna Process mostly supported the engagement; however, those which encourage unlimited class enrolment constrained the need to have a similar number of students from each institution in the GNLE. In the Belarusian case, as the university worked to align with the Bologna Process; their GNLE had lower credit weight assigned for the collaboration because of the overlap between institutional semesters. This led to student demotivation in what was considered by the Belarusian administrators a critical course in their intercultural communication curricula. These two case studies highlight the need for university administrators to take a hands-on approach for courses involved in OIEs as they will be able to develop common ground between their internationalisation strategies and OIE only if they are open to revisit, make exceptions when need be and revise accordingly. For the Irish case, this seems a feasible approach, as alignment is present, although further work could be done to make it more seamless. The Belarusian university presents an even more challenging scenario due to the already precarious situation of the individual institution. By operating in a neighbouring country and working to apply a new and different system to their own, the Belarusian administrators were left to interpret and apply the credit weight system based on the current regulations and seemingly without much flexibility being available to them if they were to align their credit system to ECTS. This case reveals a need for specific guidance and protocol within the ECTS that attends to scenarios where this globally networked activity is a component. One possible solution could be that considering the additional out-of-class time required in GNLEs, an exception to the contact-hours rule could be applied or, alternatively, a different definition of contact hours for collaborative courses of this nature. Certainly this is an area of further debate and inquiry; however, what is not debatable is the need for this conversation to commence if internationalisation and all associated Bologna Process policies that impact OIEs are to find common ground. REFERENCES Adelman, C. (2010). The US response to Bologna: Expanding knowledge, first steps of convergence. European Journal of Education, 45(4), 612–623. Altbach, P., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305. Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.

Internationalisation, Bologna Process  109 Cradden, C. (2007). Constructing paths to staff mobility in the European higher education area: From individual to institutional responsibility. Retrieved from http:// www.ehea.info/Uploads/EI_study_mobility.pdf De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dewey, J. (1961). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: MacMillan. EAHE. (2007). Key issues for the European higher education area—Social dimension and mobility. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Social%20Dimension/ Socialdimensionandmobilityreport.pdf EAHE. (2012). History of the European Association of Higher Education (EAHE). Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/article-details.aspx?ArticleId=3 ERASMUS. (2010). The Erasmus Programme 2008/2009: A statistical overview. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/statistics_en.htm Haskel, B. (2006). The Bologna Process for a European higher education area: Implications for Canada? Proceedings from the Centre for European Studies, Carleton University Policy workshop: Social policy and labour market integration in the EU and Canada. Retrieved from http://canada-europe-dialogue.ca/events/Workshop-September8–2006/ PolicyMemo-BarbaraHaskel.pdf Kehm, B. M. (2010). The future of the Bologna process—the Bologna process of the future. European Journal of Education, 45(4), 529–534. King, C. (2007). The Bologna Process: Bridge or fortress? A review of the debates from a North American perspective. Institute of European Studies, University of British Columbia, Report for Canada-EU Bridge Project, URL: http://www.ccges.yorku.ca/ IMG/pdf/Conrad_King_Literature_Review.pdf. Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing of world of internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53(3), 307–333. McCabe, L.T. (2001). Globalization and internationalization: The impact on education abroad programs. Journal of studies in international education, 5(2), 138–145. McMahon, F. (2010). Ireland and the Bologna process: Recognition issues for higher education institutions. Proceedings from GB Bologna Conference—Recognition and the Bologna process through engagement with employers. Croydon, GB. Mernagh, E. (2010). Taking stock: Ten years of the Bologna process in Ireland. Retrieved from http://www.eurireland.ie/bologna-process/ireland-progress-to-date.314.html Munck, R. (2010). Civic engagement and global citizenship in a university context: Core business or desirable add on? Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9(1), 31–41. Mundell, I. (2012). No Bologna for Belarus. European Voice. Retrieved from http:// www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/no-bologna-for-belarus/74079.aspx Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. Ravinet, P. (2008). From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: Why European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna Process. European Journal of Education, 43(3), 353–367. Starke-Meyerring, D., Duin, A. H., & Palvetzian, T. (2007). Global partnerships: Positioning technical communication programs in the context of globalization. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 139–174. Starke-Meyerring, D.,  & Wilson, M. (Eds.). (2008). Designing globally networked learning environments: Visionary partnerships, policies, and pedagogies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Titovich, I. (2012). Academic freedom in Belarus. European Voice. Retrieved from http:// www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/academic-freedom-in-belarus/74472. aspx?bPrint=1

110  Melanie H. Wilson Tomusk, V. (2003). The war of institutions, Episode I: The Rise, and the rise of private higher education in Eastern Europe. Higher Education Policy, 16, 213–238. Wilson, M. (2013). An inquiry into faculty partners’ work and negotiation of globally networked learning environments in higher education institutions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, McGill University. Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from http://digitool. library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1431807508056~86

6 An Overview of Online Intercultural Exchange in the Australian Context Vincenza Tudini

This chapter provides a snapshot of telecollaboration or OIE initiatives in the Australian higher education context, in what was once one of the most isolated island continent countries in the world. In the teaching of foreign languages, OIE potentially builds bridges across the globe by providing opportunities for interaction with human beings through a computer, rather than interaction with computers (Warschauer, 2003), without the need to leave one’s own country physically. This study explores how Australian university foreign language (other than English) educators have taken advantage of OIE or telecollaboration opportunities, as described by Belz (2003): the engagement of groups of students in online intercultural interaction and collaboration with partner classes from other cultural contexts or geographical locations, under the guidance of educators and/or expert facilitators. (p. 2) THE AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT The Australian cultural context is characterised by a predominantly monolingual, English-speaking population (Clyne, 2008), despite the presence of communities which speak Mandarin, Italian, Arabic, Cantonese and Greek, which are the five most widely spoken languages after English (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). Given the dominance of English in the community, OIE therefore offers Australian foreign language teachers an unprecedented incentive to connect students with age-peer native speakers of the target language as an integrated component of foreign languages programmes. Australia’s geographical distance from target cultures has in fact promoted funding for a variety of study abroad initiatives, supported both by university budgets (cf. University of South Australia, 2015) and the federal government, which currently mainly supports study in the Indo-Pacific region through the recently established New Colombo Plan Mobility Program. In particular, the 2016 programme

112  Vincenza Tudini provides funding to Australian Universities (the Applicants and Funding Recipients) which in turn provide grants to Australian undergraduate students to enable their participation in Mobility Projects in the Indo-Pacific region. . . . Under the 2016 round, approximately $20 million in funding is available to support Mobility Projects through Student Grants and a contribution to Applicants’ administration costs. . . . This includes Mobility Projects that: support new student mobility and new and strengthened partnerships; facilitate longer-term study, language study, and Internships; and promote diversity in Host Locations. (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2015, p. 5) The necessity for Australian university students to travel by air impacts significantly on their budgets, hence extra support is deemed necessary to support foreign language teaching and learning and internationalisation of university programmes. Geographical distance also impacts Australian OIE initiatives due to the need for educators to consider time zone differences, which is a logistic constraint on telecollaboration. Australian OIE initiatives with certain countries tend therefore to favour asynchronous technologies such as discussion forums, blogs and social networking sites (SNS) including Facebook, to overcome time differences and the need for students to be online at the same time at odd hours, as might occur during synchronous exchange. Furthermore, although the author is unaware of OIE studies on Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) language, in-class synchronous exchanges in Indonesian language programmes are facilitated given the proximity of Indonesia and consequent reduction in time differences when compared with other countries. Despite this advantage however, it is likely that inadequate technological infrastructure has until recently been a constraint on telecollaborative initiatives with Indonesia, especially if Indonesian students are engaging in these activities on campus as a teacher-led activity in a university computer laboratory. Alternatively, time zone issues which discourage the use of synchronous technologies in foreign language programmes may be overcome through creative integration of OIE as an out-of-class activity or in-class work if timetabling of the synchronous interaction allows. Out-of-class interactions have implications in regard to the autonomy of students, who need to achieve a certain level of linguistic proficiency to be able to interact independently of the teacher and develop ICC (Byram, 1997). As noted by O’Dowd (2006), ‘interacting on-line in intercultural exchanges is not a natural skill, but one which must be explicitly developed by the teacher’ (p. 180). Some of the abilities foreign language learners need to develop, according to O’Dowd (2006), include questioning techniques and strategies for eliciting cultural perspectives as well as factual information, deducing cultural values from interlocutors’ responses, reflecting on and responding to arguments and comments to avoid negative reactions and keeping communication channels open. This suggests that a minimal level of linguistic proficiency is required as ‘what learners take away from their on-line work depends, to a great extent, on the skills and cultural awareness which they bring to it in the first place’ (p. 228). Liddicoat

OIE in Australia  113 (2013) also emphasises the importance of negotiation strategies in the autonomous acquisition of intercultural competence: ‘Because a learner can only ever acquire some of the cultural conventions, an important part of intercultural competence is having strategies for learning more about culture as they interact’ (p. 205). Australian university students’ proficiency levels are hindered by inadequate instruction time, lack of access to technology and status of foreign languages in Australian schools (cf. Norris & Coutas, 2014). In many Australian states foreign language study actually becomes optional at age 14, from the ninth year of schooling onwards, which promotes Australia’s monolingualism, and an influx of monolingual students to university, who either avoid foreign language programmes altogether or need extra time to achieve interactional proficiency in the target language. According to Clyne, Pauwels, and Sussex (2007), half the children in compulsory education in Australia are not being taught a language other than English (LOTE) in a mainstream school. The majority of those taking a LOTE are in programmes with inadequate time allocation and taught by teachers who have not received sufficient training or are not sufficiently proficient in the language they are teaching. Language teacher status and morale are low. Most schools do not require students to take a second language throughout the compulsory years of education. Many schools make it impossible or inconvenient to take a LOTE in Years 9 and 10 through the constraints of the timetable. One further related feature of the Australian context in relation to linguistic level required for autonomous, out-of-class interaction is the fact that Asian character-based languages such as Mandarin and Japanese are taught widely both in schools and universities. One of Australia’s OIE research strengths, compared with other countries, is therefore likely to be in Asian languages, given community interest and federal government policy which promotes these languages. Research strengths and excellence in teaching and learning may however be impacted by the cited monolingualism promoted by schools, linguistic distance of languages such as Mandarin and Japanese from English (Crystal, 1987) and the additional number of contact hours English speakers are likely to need to achieve fluency when compared to alphabet languages (cf. National Security Agency, n.d.). As indicated in Table 6.1, this review will therefore consider the linguistic level at which OIE is introduced across languages and the technological-interactional configurations (Tudini, 2014) on which the exchange is based. In addition to linguistic, logistic and institutional constraints such as time zones, infrastructure and timetabling, the academic calendar in Australia is likely to differ from that of most other suitable partner universities, as reported in other studies based on transoceanic exchanges (cf. Belz & Mueller-Hartmann, 2003). Hence Australian foreign language educators most likely need to deal with considerable institutional and linguistic, not to mention intercultural, constraints which however do not prevent quite a few of them from attempting OIE. Foreign language students’ perspectives on CALL in general have been surveyed recently at the University of Queensland (Steel & Levy, 2013) and provide some

114  Vincenza Tudini insights from one Australian university. This survey of 2,114 students with 587 respondents focussed on students’ reported use of technologies to support their learning, differentiating between in-class and out-of-class use. Although this study did not specifically deal with OIE, it indicates that when the survey was administered in 2011, students did not rate any social interaction tools which could potentially be used for OIE (social networking sites, instant messaging, discussion forums, Skype, wikis, blogs, chat rooms, microblogging and videoconferencing) as one of the top five most beneficial for language learning, preferring online dictionaries and web-based translators as the two most beneficial. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of respondents used social interaction tools outside the classroom, although there is evidence that discussion forums (n = 27), wikis (n = 29), blogs (n = 23) and videoconferencing (n = 23) were used by smaller groups in class. This evidence of social interaction tool use in class provides indirect evidence of potential OIE activity, although this may be carried out with other Australian students rather than native speaker peers, and a preference for asynchronous over synchronous technological tools by teachers, with three out of four technologies being asynchronous. Whereas this study presents important foreign language student perspectives on using technology for learning, no further detail is available regarding how students of specific languages used the various social interaction technologies. Taking these contextual considerations into account, this review presents criteria for selection and analysis of key Australian studies and then discusses apparent affordances and constraints of technological-interactional configurations revealed in the studies to develop an understanding of the unique Australian OIE context. REVIEW CRITERIA The six studies selected for this review were chosen above all for their significance and visible international impact in the literature on OIE since 2000, as indicated by a Google Scholar search using the terms ‘telecollaboration,’ ‘online intercultural exchange’ and Australia. This type of search clearly is limited as it tends to favour journal articles over book chapters; however, it provides a reasonably scientific though restricted measure of impact, as evidenced by the number of citations. This search yielded mainly Australian telecollaboration studies published in Language Learning and Technology, due in part to this journal’s open access. Hence, a further library search using the same terms was carried out within CALICO, CALL and ReCALL to balance the Google Scholar search; however, this search confirmed the validity of the Google Search. For comparability across studies, monograph studies by Australian researchers Hanna and De Nooy (2009), Pasfield-Neofitou (2012) and Tudini (2010) were excluded, although their international significance is signalled here in contributing to a deeper understanding of online intercultural interaction across languages respectively in social media, discussion forums

OIE in Australia  115 and text chat, with data derived from French, Japanese and Italian and implications for all foreign languages. For reasons of space, the review is limited to six studies which involved educators in Australia as initiators or partners in an OIE project, although the work of Cloke (2010) is acknowledged for providing important insights on an OIE project between Italy and Australia from an Italian student of English’ perspective. Other notable Australian studies which were not reviewed include Liddicoat and Tudini (2012) and earlier or later studies by authors of the reviewed journal articles. To adequately gauge Australian university educators’ levels of activity in this context, projects which involved at least one Australian university were included. Additionally, projects were selected only if they involved geographically dispersed participants and interaction with native speakers of the target language outside Australia. The review also notes whether activities were integrated in course assessment as this signals to students that the OIE activity is an integral rather than peripheral add-on component of the course. The only exception to these criteria is the case study by Australian researchers Hanna and De Nooy (2003), whose insightful research on the Le Monde discussion forum interaction between non-native and native speakers of French did not include students based in Australia. It was selected however because these Australian teacher researchers were amongst the first researchers in general to raise important issues about foreign language learning in an asynchronous institutional online context which go beyond linguistic considerations to discuss the impact of culture and genre on non-native speaker participation. Given the constraints of time zone differences in the Australian context, this project is also an insightful example of asynchronous OIE between students in Australia and countries with significantly different time zones. Australia-based e-tandem projects also were included where the term ‘e-tandem’ is used synonymously with OIE. Only projects focussed on languages other than English were included in the review, although they may involve partnerships with teachers and students of English outside Australia. Table 6.1 provides key information about articles which were selected for this review based on previously outlined features. Where this information is provided by the authors, it includes not just the technology used by participants but also the technological-interactional configuration (cf. Tudini, 2014) of the OIE setting as this is likely to shape interaction. For example, the interactions may be one-to-one or multiparty (large group, small group or one to many) in addition to being text, voice and/or video interaction. The overview also includes the foreign language used by Australian students, any identified or apparent constraints and affordances for learning of the technological configuration of the study, information on participants and the cited aims of the study. To gauge the level of institutional and public funding support to OIE researchers, type of funding support is included, where this information is provided by authors. The overview will proceed chronologically to provide a sense of historical development of OIE in Australia.

Out-of-class Stockwell and Levy one-to-one, (2001), Computer asynchronous, Assisted Language email social Learning, interactions PhD research (paired one-toone then two Australians to one Japanese student)

Article/Journal/ Funding source

Technological Configuration (in/out class, technological tool, one-to-one/one to many) 48 advanced learners of Japanese at Australian university with native speakers at Japanese university (assessment unclear)

Participants/ Language/Linguistic Level/Assessed or Not Constraints

Affordances

Facilitates sustained Differing academic interaction in calendar restricts high-proficiency exchange to 2 X 5 week students (n = 20) periods; some students’ inexperience with email and Japanese word processing; differing numbers of students in Australia and Japan: mismatch in dyads; insufficient/low interaction in low-proficiency students (n = 23); native speakers of Japanese less motivated than learners; differing online personality profiles of students may promote or hinder interaction; lack of intonation and body language

Table 6.1  Summary of Key Telecollaborative Projects Based in Australia

Investigate relationship between number and length of paired email interactions, L2 proficiency gains and sustainability

Aims of Study/ Type of Funding Support/ Department/ Course Level

Tudini (2003), Language Learning and Technology, private grant to department

Hanna and De Nooy (2003), Language Learning and Technology, internal university grant

5 advanced learners of Japanese in Australian university and native speakers of Japanese in Japan or US (possibly assessed in class)

(Continued )

Identify specific Negotiation of Likely disrupted and types of meaning; access to phantom adjacency communication aspects of language pairs (unrelated difficulties which are neglected utterances, p. 85); that trigger in teaching (e.g., lack of access to facial negotiation of sentences starting expressions exacerbates meaning with particles, confusion and p. 97) exacerbates intercultural misunderstandings (p. 98). Examine Opportunity to Requirement to follow 4 students of French Out-of-class participation practice target rules of genre of forum (2 US and 2 GB) asynchronous of language language under participation (follow and native speakers public discussion students certain conditions relevant topic), not of French (not forum (Le Monde in online language learning assessed) newspaper) discussion issues; need to work between unfamiliar group with within cultural and interlocutors; one native speakers generic mores of to many Le Monde forum subculture Usefulness of Negotiation of Differing time zone; 9 intermediate Out-of-class, public NS meaning, out-of-class interaction students of Italian synchronous, chat rooms to sometimes leading requiring learner in Australian one-to-one chat promote SLA to modified output; autonomy; university and 49 between unfamiliar for distance promotes attention public chatline (unfamiliar unfamiliar native interlocutors on language to grammar and interlocutors) may speakers in Italy public Italian learners vocabulary; involve contact (assessed 5–10%) chatline with offensive NS interlocutors;

Toyoda and Harrison In-class synchronous multiparty text (2002), chat between Language Learning 3 familiar and Technology, interlocutors; one internal university to many (triadic). grant

Bower and Kawaguchi (2011), Language Learning and Technology, internal university grants

Article/Journal/ Funding source

Table 6.1 Continued

Out-of-class, synchronous, oneto-one text chat (MSN messenger) plus subsequent email

Technological Configuration (in/out class, technological tool, one-to-one/one to many) Constraints

Affordances

native speaker educational venue for informal written background, conversation disposition, personality practice with and gender impacts speakers of target on likely provision of language linguistic feedback; lacks pronunciation and non-verbal dimension of conversation Chat: narrow time window (6 21 first-year general weeks) due to academic negotiation of English students in meaning (to calendar differences of Japan and 21 stuovercome 2 universities; dents of second-year communication Japanese in Australia dyads with asymmetrical difficulties more language abilities; plus 2 second-year frequent than task type impacts on English and 4 thirdcorrection); equal negotiation; issues of year Japanese as role (reciprocal power/politeness in chat backup (Japanese partnership leading students studied to less correction); English in high email with chat logs: school—Australians suitable vehicle for did not study Japapost-chat focus on nese in high school) form (assessed)

Participants/ Language/Linguistic Level/Assessed or Not

Investigate types of negotiations in English and Japanese chat sessions, types of and differences between corrective feedback during synchronous chat and later asynchronous email exchanges

Aims of Study/ Type of Funding Support/ Department/ Course Level

Pasfield-Neofitou (2011), Language Learning and Technology, PhD research

Out-of-class; various environments including chat, email, blogs, SNS (Mixi and Facebook), game profiles and mobile phone communication; case study mainly on Mixi and Facebook (asynchronous, one-to-many)

L2 university students of Japanese in Australia and their existing native speaker contacts in Japan: university year level not provided but identified themselves as L2 learners and users (not assessed)

Perception of being a foreigner or of trespassing on someone else’s space may hinder learner communication in L2 in Japanese domains and reinforces L2 outsider status

Social and educational Identify learner’s reported use affordances: of Japanese independent and/or English access to target in different language, popular technological culture and other domains authentic materials in Japanese native speaker domains (e.g., Mixi); social networking profiles for ongoing construction of identities; reciprocal English and Japanese learner/expert speaker roles

120  Vincenza Tudini OVERVIEW OF STUDIES

Online Intercultural Exchange Research Strengths in Japanese The selected key Australian studies provide evidence of good practice and insightful research on OIE, predominantly by individual Australian teacher researchers rather than departmental teams. Interestingly, four of the six selected studies are authored by teacher researchers of Japanese, three of whom established partnerships with colleagues based in Japan (Bower  & Kawaguchi, 2011; Stockwell & Levy, 2001; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002) and one who worked with students who had developed their own networks. This indicates that OIE is achievable in character-based languages, in differing time zones, despite possible linguistic, logistic, institutional and cultural constraints, including the requirement to interact independently of the teacher. This focus on Japanese is a unique contribution of Australian teacher researchers, given that character-based languages, amongst many other non-European languages, still remain underexplored in the CMC literature (see Sauro, 2011). It should be noted however that all students involved in these exchanges are either intermediate, advanced or sufficiently conversant in the target language to be able to engage in synchronous or asynchronous telecollaborative exchanges which are mostly conducted out of class without teacher supervision, with the exception of Toyoda and Harrison (2002). Impact of Technology and Linguistic Proficiency OIE activities in this sample are mostly institutionally organised, with the exception of Hanna and De Nooy (2003) and Pasfield-Neofitou (2011), and make use of a variety of networks, including native speaker forums (Hanna & De Nooy, 2003) and SNS (Pasfield-Neofitou, 2011), public native speaker oneto-one text chat (Tudini, 2003), multiparty text chat (Toyoda  & Harrison, 2002), email (Stockwell & Levy, 2001) and a combination of one-to-one text chat and email (Bower & Kawaguchi, 2011). These studies therefore present a variety of technological-interactional configurations, with important findings for the advancement of OIE, including incidental findings. According to Stockwell and Levy (2001), for example, there is a relationship between linguistic proficiency and sustained out-of-class social email interaction in Japanese by Australian students who were paired with native speakers of Japanese in Japan. Only advanced students of Japanese were involved in this project, yet only the more proficient of them produced the most sustained interactions, with the lower-proficiency students producing fewer interactions. The authors also note the likely lower motivation of the Japanese native speakers, who are using their own language, compared to the Australian learners of Japanese, who are motivated by their language learning objective (p. 431). This study provides online learner profiles which include the ‘low-motivation student, daunted student, struggling student, technophobic student, inconsistent or slow responder, ideal high performer’ (pp. 432–433), which reveal important personal and technological constraints and affordances

OIE in Australia  121 which may impact on sustained email interaction. Other affordances and constraints for learning highlighted in the study are evident at the interpersonal, dyadic level, where social interaction is affected by dyads’ abilities to find common ground, personality clashes, dealing only with set topics and the development of friendships (pp. 434–435). To promote a sustained high frequency of email interactions and likely benefits for language learning, the authors recommend that teachers ensure that students are conversant with the technologies, including Japanese word processing. They also suggest that in addition to the provision of a framework, topics or tasks, it would be beneficial to provide students with the ‘requisite language skills to seek out their own areas of common interest with their counterparts’ (p. 435). Students also would benefit from being taught ‘socio-pragmatic and socio-cultural skills associated with opening online conversations, seeking out areas of common interest and maintaining the online interaction’ (p. 435), which could draw on work in discourse or conversation analysis, especially pragmatics, paying attention to the unique online interactional environment which lacks intonation and body language as interactional resources. Hence these authors identify unique interconnected linguistic, technological, personal, institutional, cultural and interactional constraints and affordances for sustained interaction and learning through email. Negotiation of Meaning and Naturalistic Written Interaction Two of the earliest Australian studies on synchronous text chat interaction between native speakers and non-native speakers focussed on the benefits for second language acquisition of negotiation of meaning (Toyoda & Harrison, 2002; Tudini, 2003) during free online conversation respectively in Japanese and Italian. This is an innovative and unique contribution to understanding naturalistic online interaction by Australian researchers, given that research on negotiation of meaning in CMC previously was focussed mainly on structured tasks. Japanese and Italian are also previously under researched languages, which these Australian studies brought to scholars’ attention. The benefits of negotiation of meaning can occur only in synchronous contexts; hence, the fact that time zone differences between Australia and Japan are minor facilitates in-class synchronous exchanges for students of Japanese, as was possible in Toyoda and Harrison’s (2002) study. Tudini (2003) however overcame time zone differences of 7.5 to 9.5 hours by establishing out-of-class exchanges to achieve the reported benefits of negotiation of meaning for students enrolled by distance education. Toyoda and Harrison’s (2002) qualitative study involved advanced Japanese learners, as in Stockwell and Levy’s (2001) study. However the group of students was smaller (n = 6) than in Stockwell and Levy’s (2001) study (n = 48). The smaller number of participants may partly explain why proficiency level was not identified as a constraint in Toyoda and Harrison’s (2002) study, which involved Japanese native speakers based in Japan or the United States and advanced Japanese learners based in Australia. Greater homogeneity of proficiency level is likely in small rather than large student cohorts.

122  Vincenza Tudini This study used discourse analysis methods to identify triggers of negotiations in participants’ synchronous interactions. These were sorted into nine categories according to cause of difficulty in communication: recognition of new word, misuse or misunderstanding of a word, pronunciation or typing error, grammatical error, inappropriate segmentation, abbreviated sentence, sudden topic change, slow response and intercultural communication gap. Many of these communication difficulties led to modified output by both native speakers and non-native speakers, although intercultural misunderstandings were viewed by the authors as being exacerbated by lack of access to non-verbal feedback, such as interlocutors’ facial expressions of confusion, in text chat. They also note the technological-interactional constraint and confusion generated by ‘unrelated utterances’ (p. 85) or likely split and phantom adjacency pairs (Garcia & Jacobs, 1999), even in a small group configuration of three participants. This suggests that one-to-one interaction may be preferable for foreign language students, unless these utterances provoke a form of general interactional negotiation, which is worth probing further from a microanalytic perspective (cf. Tudini, 2010). It appears that despite the affordance of ‘visual saliency’ (Pellettieri, 2000) which is promoted by written interaction, group written interaction presents unique medium-related challenges and constraints for non-native speakers of Japanese. The authors’ findings nonetheless provide evidence that chat exchanges induce negotiation of meaning at the word, sentence and discourse levels in multiparty (groups of three) chat. In fact the study suggests that the higher the level of the negotiation, the less clear it becomes whether the negotiation is successful. Successfully negotiating the communication problems is essential to take advantage of comprehensible input and modified output (p. 95). Hence the authors recommend the review of the chat logs to facilitate the improvement of students’ interlanguage. They also found that some crucial aspects of language, such as sentences which start with particles, were only observable in text chat and rarely experienced in regular classes (p. 97), which suggests that online text chat with native speakers in free written conversation provides a key affordance for language learning and use through access to authentic naturalistic language, which prepares them for real-life, out-of-class interaction (cf. Tudini, 2003). Access to informal written conversation practice also is identified as a key affordance of synchronous chat in Tudini’s (2003) study, which is concerned with evidence of negotiation of meaning in one-to-one chat between native speakers on a public Italian text chatline and intermediate students of Italian. To test the suitability of chat interaction for distance education students, the interactions occur independently of the teacher in an out-of-class setting. The study indicates that the benefits of negotiation of meaning for second language acquisition are available to non-native speakers in the chat context, with evidence of modified output and short-term interlanguage development. The main triggers of negotiation were lexical in 30 out of 61 instances of negotiation, followed by morphosyntactic triggers in 14 out of 61 instances, which suggests that text chat interaction promotes language learning, although participants

OIE in Australia  123 lack practice in pronunciation and non-verbal interaction which is available in face-to-face interaction. Interactional Constraints in Semi-Institutional Virtual Spaces Hanna and De Nooy’s (2003) study also explores language learner interactions with native speakers in a public Internet space, except that it deals with a French newspaper online discussion forum, which is an institutional rather than social interaction space and an asynchronous technological-interactional configuration where individual contributions are one to many. This case study highlights the need for adequately preparing languages students for participation in this type of native speaker-dominated Internet space, where language proficiency is not necessarily an advantage if expectations of the discussion forum genre and culture are not respected. In fact, contrary to expectations, the least proficient students are more successful than the highly proficient French students because they signal their interest in relevant forum topics, such as racism and cultural imperialism, rather than using the forum to search for pen pals. This study provides previously undocumented insights on interaction with native speakers in a semi-institutional rather than social interaction environment. Power Relationships and Corrective Feedback Bower and Kawaguchi’s (2011) study of one-to-one synchronous text chat followed by email in language learning (e-tandem) partnerships highlights the importance of task type (free vs task-based conversation) and the role of politeness and power issues in preventing negotiation of meaning during chat interaction, given that whereas participants negotiated to overcome communication problems, very little corrective feedback was provided by the respective partners in Japan and Australia. Citing Zourou (2009), the authors suggest that ‘the symmetrical power relationship of eTandem tends to lead to less corrective feedback than studies . . . which have an asymmetrical power relationship of NS/NNS or teacher/learner’ (p. 61). The use of partners’ chat logs to provide feedback via email instead yielded substantial amounts of correction of linguistic errors, which suggests more use should be made of chat logs produced during synchronous exchanges in task design to promote focus on form in the target language. Japanese Social Networking Sites, Identity and Language Learning Pasfield-Neofitou (2011) analyses Japanese students’ reported language choice and identity in Internet-based contact situations in a variety of technological domains, including chat, email, blogs, SNS, game profiles and mobile phone communications, with a particular focus on out-of-class, asynchronous, technologicalinteractional configurations such as Facebook and Mixi. The study does not specify the Japanese language level of Australian participants, although they openly identify themselves as L2 Japanese learners, and appear to be sufficiently conversant to maintain online contact with Japanese native speakers and language specific environments such as Mixi, with few exceptions (see the case of Hyacinth, p. 100). Unsurprisingly the main language used on Mixi, a languagespecific Japanese SNS, was Japanese (63 percent), which according to Australian

124  Vincenza Tudini participants, gave them opportunities for authentic language practice by being ‘surrounded by the language’ (p. 105). In addition to social and educational benefits reported by participants, they also appreciated having greater access to popular culture and other authentic materials in Japanese native speaker virtual communities such as Mixi, which was the most frequently used domain. At the same time learners reported the perception of being outsiders or foreigners in Japanese virtual communities, although some of them identified themselves both as learners of Japanese and experts in English, and made use of their personal social networking profiles for ongoing construction of identities. A UNIQUE ONLINE INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE RESEARCH CONTEXT Given their geographical position and research strengths in Asian languages and cultures, Australian researchers are well placed to provide further insights into OIE in languages and cultures which are still underrepresented in the literature generated from other contexts like Europe and North America, which tend to dominate the CALL, applied linguistics and OIE literature in English language publications. Overall these researchers tend to favour and/or investigate independent, outof-class interaction in a variety of technological-interactional configurations, whether one-to-one, multiparty or in synchronous or asynchronous modes, although proficiency of students is likely to hinder or promote connectivity, interaction, focus on form and learning with native speakers. These teacher researchers and students appear to have overcome logistic and institutional constraints such as differing academic calendars and time zones by engaging in out-of-class online interaction, although two studies (Bower & Kagawuchi, 2011; Stockwell  & Levy, 2001) highlight the time constraint of conducting projects over a narrower time frame which overlaps Japanese and Australian academic calendars when both student cohorts are attending university. One important related finding of two studies (Pasfield-Neofitou, 2011; Stockwell & Levy, 2001) suggests that monolingual native speaker interlocutors tend to be less effective than multilingual ones, as in Stockwell and Levy’s (2001) study, where the Japanese native speakers were considered likely to be less motivated to interact than the Australian learners of Japanese, and in the case of Pasfield-Neofitou (2011), some participants assumed the identity of experts in English, as well as that of learner of Japanese, to encourage a reciprocal learning relationship with their Japanese interlocutors. This finding is however contradicted by Bower and Kagawuchi (2011), who claim that a symmetrical power relationship of Japanese/English speakers tends to lead to less corrective feedback in text chat than asymmetrical ones, although follow-up email activity based on chat logs resolved that issue. Clearly interactional issues related to the variety of possible technological-interactional configurations require further microanalytical probing to guide and support OIE initiatives.

OIE in Australia  125 CONCLUSION This brief overview of OIE research in Australia indicates that OIE initiatives are advanced by creative individual teacher researchers with institutional funding support in most cases. Australian teacher researchers’ work profiled in this overview clearly touches on interactional issues which suggest the need for an ongoing research agenda related to identification of constraints and affordances for learning of a range of possible technological-interactional linguistic configurations in a variety of languages, including character-based ones. There is no evidence in the literature of a systemic, or even whole department, focus on OIE, despite the global impact and implications of the research. Single teacher researchers, often in partnership with colleagues abroad, tend to initiate OIE projects without any apparent form of public funding, apart from internal university or indirect private funding. This link between funding, as modest as it may be, and significant OIE projects nonetheless clearly indicates that OIE initiatives are most likely to be promoted and disseminated with funding support, including national projects. The fate of OIE national research funding in Australia is likely however to be tied to political support of foreign languages in general, as from 2011 to 2013, Australian government funding bodies provided very little support to projects in this discipline area, with no Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery or Linkage grants (http://www.arc. gov.au/outcomes) and only two Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) grants (http://www.olt.gov.au/grants-and-projects/programs-and-applications), respectively, in Chinese and a national languages portal (http://www.ulpa.edu.au/). The fact that Australian university language programmes often are delivered by experts in areas other than language also may influence the ability of trailblazing tertiary foreign languages educators to effect systemic change. One possible solution to this would be for teams of teachers to apply a contentbased intercultural approach to telecollaboration projects where students could be connected with their target language peers abroad to collaborate on topics such as literature, film, or other professional areas of specialization (see Guth, Helm, & O’Dowd, 2012, for relevant cross-curricular case studies from business and engineering). The dominance of Language Learning and Technology in influential, groundbreaking studies by Australian teacher researchers signals this journal as a key vehicle for the dissemination of Australian OIE studies, especially in terms of national and international visibility. These findings reiterate the important role of quality, free-access international journals, in addition to the various other high-quality specialised CALL journals and conference initiatives, for dissemination of findings and networking with other innovative teacher researchers. In terms of current and future activities, it is heartening to see a small presence of Australian, Chinese and Japanese teacher researchers on the UNICollaboration website (http://uni-collaboration.eu/), which is a promise of further OIE teaching, learning and research activity in this unique part of the world, assuming it is adequately nurtured at an institutional level.

126  Vincenza Tudini REFERENCES Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Census of population and housing. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/census Belz, J. (2003). From the special issue editor. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 2–5. Belz, J. A., & Mueller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 71–89. Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning and Technology, 15(1), 41–71. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Cloke, S. (2010). The Italia-Australia Intercultural Project. In S. Guth and F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 375–384). Bern: Peter Lang. Clyne, M. (2008). The monolingual mindset as an impediment to the development of plurilingual potential in Australia. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2(3), 347–366. Clyne, M., Pauwels, A., & Sussex, R. (2007). The state of languages education in Australia. Curriculum Leadership, 5(19). Retrieved from http://cmslive.curriculum.edu. au/leader/the_state_of_languages_education_in_australia,19754.html Crystal, David (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2015). New Colombo plan mobility program guidelines. Retrieved from http://dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/new-colomboplan/2016-round/Documents/mobility-program-guidelines-2016.pdf Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turntaking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 337–367. Guth, S., Helm, F., & O’Dowd, R. (2012). University language classes collaborating online: A report on the integration of telecollaborative networks in European universities. Retrieved from http://www.ucml.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pages/162/Tele collaboration_report_Final_0.pdf Hanna, B. E., & De Nooy, J. (2003). A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: electronic discussion and foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7(1), 71–85. Hanna, B. E., & De Nooy, J. (2009). Learning language and culture via public internet discussion forums. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Liddicoat, A.J. (2013). Language-in-education policies : The discursive construction of intercultural relations. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Liddicoat, A. J., & Tudini, V. (2012). Expert-novice orientations: Native speaker power and the didactic voice in online intercultural interaction. In F. Sharifian & M. Jamarani (Eds.), Intercultural communication in the new era (pp. 166–180). New York/ London: Routledge. National Security Agency. (n.d). Foreign language learning: A comparative analysis of relative difficulty. Retrieved from https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/crypto logic_spectrum/foreign_language.pdf Norris, L., & Coutas, P. (2014). Cinderella’s coach or just another pumpkin? Information communication technologies and the continuing marginalisation of languages in Australian schools. Australian Review of Applied Linguists, 37(1), 43–61. O’Dowd, R. (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Munich: Langenscheidt. Pasfield-Neofitou, S. (2011). Online domains of language use: Second language learners’ experiences of virtual community and foreignness. Language Learning and Technology, 15(2), 92–108.

OIE in Australia  127 Pasfield-Neofitou, S. E. (2012). Online communication in a second language: Social interaction, language use, and learning Japanese. Bristol, GB: Multilingual Matters. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer and R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sauro, S. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 369–391. Steel, C. H., & Levy, M. (2013). Language students and their technologies: Charting the evolution 2006–2011. ReCALL, 25(3), 306–320. Stockwell, G., & Levy, M. (2001). Sustainability of e-mail interactions between native speakers and nonnative speakers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5), 419–442. Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 82–99. Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 141–159; reprinted in Hubbard, P. (2009). Computer assisted language learning: Critical concepts in linguistics, Volume III. In Computer mediated communication in language learning (chap. 49, pp. 292–316). New York and London: Routledge. Tudini, V. (2010). Online second language acquisition: Conversation analysis of online chat. London: Continuum. Tudini, V. (2014). Conversation analysis of computer-mediated interactions. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–7). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. University of South Australia. (2015). Travel grants. Retrieved from http://www.unisa. edu.au/student-life/global-opportunities/travel-grants/ Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Zourou, K. (2009). Corrective feedback in telecollaborative L2 learning settings: Reflections on symmetry and interaction. The JaltCallJournal, 5(1), 3–20.

This page intentionally left blank

Part III

The Pedagogy of Online Intercultural Exchange

This page intentionally left blank

7 Virtual Group Formation and the Process of Task Design in Online Intercultural Exchanges Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Malgorzata Kurek

Online Intercultural Exchanges (OIE) between learners of different cultural origins have shown a strong potential for supporting foreign language learning and the development of Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) (e.g., Belz  & Thorne, 2006; Helm  & Guth, 2010; O’Dowd, 2006). Their growing popularity has triggered research into misunderstandings, which are part and parcel of intercultural cooperation. In this context, attention is given to unequal participation (Basharina, 2007), reinforced cultural stereotyping (O’Dowd, 2006), failed communication (O’Dowd  & Ritter, 2003) or unmet pedagogical goals (Ware, 2005). These accounts shine a spotlight on the issue of online group collaboration, suggesting that it is the result of a complex interplay between numerous emic and etic factors such as group identity formation, workload distribution and educational background, whose impact is yet to be recognised fully. Byram’s (1997) model of ICC has been central to understanding learners’ foreign competence developments. It is a complex competence cluster comprising five factors (attitudes, knowledge, skills of interpreting and relating, skills of discovery and interaction and critical cultural awareness) to facilitate and analyse the dynamics of intercultural collaboration. At the same time, the increased cultural hybridization of learners’ identities warrants a fresh look at ICC, which has been provided by Kramsch’s (2009b) notion of Symbolic Competence (SyC). The process of developing ICC and SyC on the micro level of collaborative group work is a challenging endeavour. This chapter explores the processes taking place in intercultural groups during task-induced interaction, trying to understand how teacher trainees develop a new group identity and how their design of ICC tasks and negotiation of intercultural content is influenced by the task-as-process (see Ellis, 2003). The context of this study is an OIE between teacher trainees from Germany and Poland. We first look at the development from ICC to SyC before we explain our approach to teachers’ competence development through task design. We use Activity Theory (AT) for data analysis as it best captures the complex and dynamic impact that technology, language and the sociocultural context have on group formation and task design. Moreover, AT brings to the fore the processes taking place in the virtual community of practice and the dynamic roles played by its participants, assisting course instructors in diagnosing possible problems and implementing remedies (see Basharina, 2007; Blin & Appel, 2011; Ryder & Yamagata-Lynch, 2014).

132  Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Malgorzata Kurek Finally, we draw conclusions for guiding and monitoring the task-as-process to improve ICC and SyC development. FROM INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE TO SYMBOLIC COMPETENCE Whereas individual foreign language learners are still rooted in their local and national cultures, ‘today’s constant global and transnational cultural flows . . . have meant that language learners have become sophisticated “cultural mediators” ’ (Ros i Solé, 2013, p. 327). Going beyond Byram’s ‘intercultural speaker’ (1997, p. 32–33), who mediates and builds relationships between two interlocutors involved in interaction, Ros i Solé calls such a learner a ‘cosmopolitan speaker . . . who is defined by their [sic] multiple cultural alliances’ (2013, p. 327). To grasp the complexity of intercultural communication in such contexts— OIEs being a typical example—Kramsch (2009b) has developed the concept of the multilingual learner’s SyC, which she sees as an extension of Byram’s ICC model. As she explains, SyC expands far beyond expressing conventional meanings in communicative situations. Instead, it denotes one’s ability to interpret intentions behind the message, understand the use of symbolic systems and their social, historical and ideological significance and to imagine the influence of other languages on the way one thinks and communicates. The interculturally competent individual is ‘a symbolic self that is constituted by symbolic systems like language, as well as by systems of thought and their symbolic power’ (Kramsch, 2011, p. 356). ICC requires learners to change perspectives on their own and other cultural contexts, involving affective and cognitive changes. Kramsch extends these factors of Byram’s model into the discourse realm. Looking at Byram’s concept of knowledge, for example, she explains that it means ‘understanding the very historical and social conditions that make this savoir possible for some and not for others, and other savoirs impossible’ (Kramsch, 2009a, pp. 117–118). In terms of Byram’s skills of interpreting and relating, the following questions are asked from the perspective of SyC: ‘Who is speaking, for whose benefit, within which frame, on which timescale, to achieve what effect? What are the ideological value and the historical density of words?’ (Kramsch, 2009a, pp. 117–118). The meaning-making process is thus constituted through language and is culturally, socially and politically grounded. The agency of the individual foreign language learner, whose identity is constantly negotiated and co-constructed through its interaction with others (see Thorne, 2010), is central in this process. Learners’ agency in OIEs though is culturally and socially defined by the emerging groups or communities: ‘An individual is mediated not only by material and symbolic tools, but also always by social formations such as immediate communities of practice (in the sense of Lave & Wenger, 1991)’ (Thorne, 2005, p. 400). In the process, group formation and role distribution, which we will explain, are constituted through discourse and symbolic action and power.

Virtual Group Formation  133 For foreign language teachers to develop the intercultural and symbolic competences of their future learners, they need to become competent in these areas themselves; that is, they have to become aware of the processes involved, turning into critically minded ‘transcultural go-betweens’ (Kramsch, 2009b, p. 193). In the next section we are going to look at the role of tasks as central to teachers’ competence development. TASK DESIGN IN TEACHER EDUCATION: PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE OIE environments need a specific pedagogical approach. We concur with Kramsch (2009b, p. 202) that we do not necessarily need ‘new kinds of tasks or activities,’ but we do need to look critically at task design and the task-as-process. We subscribe to a broad definition of pedagogical tasks as ‘an activity in which a person engages in order to attain an objective, and which necessitates the use of language’ (Van den Branden, 2006, p. 4; see Müller-Hartmann & Schocker v. Ditfurth, 2011 for characteristics of good learning tasks). As Levy and Stockwell (2006, p.  248) point out, ‘in established CALL language-learning task design is very much at the heart of the matter.’ Indeed, appropriate tasks are the mainstay of collaborative interaction and with that ICC (see Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, forthcoming; O’Dowd, 2006; Thomas & Reinders, 2010). At the same time the interplay between tasks and tools is crucial, as ‘we have to ensure that tasks are appropriate to the medium used and that [they] take into account the affordances . . . of the modes available’ (Hampel, 2006, p. 111). The targeted teaching competences (TPACK) framework by Mishra and Koehler (2006) refers to teacher competence as integrating technological, pedagogical and content knowledge to be fostered through ‘design projects, microteaching activities and participation in communities of practice’ (Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2010, p. 64), such as OIEs. Research has shown that pedagogical knowledge is central to competence development (Chai et al., 2010). The general aim of the OIE described here was specifically to develop student teachers’ technology supported ICC task design, enabling them to become autonomous designers for intercultural contexts. To do so student teachers had to assume a reflective stance (Farrell, 2007) which was facilitated by our modelling innovative task-based uses of technology and by having the international teams evaluate each other’s tasks. The fact that the student-authored tasks often did not live up to expectations led to a closer look at the task-as-process and the interplay between group formation and task design on the basis of a case study. RESEARCH CONTEXT AND PARTICIPANTS This OIE was carried out between 25 teacher trainees from an MA course in the TESOL teacher training programme at the Pädagogische Hochschule (PHH) in Heidelberg, Germany, and 31 students of a similar MA TESOL at

134  Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Malgorzata Kurek Jan Dlugosz University (JDU) in Czestochowa, Poland. All students had extensive pedagogical preparation. The group consisted of 39 female and 17 male teacher candidates aged from 20 to 45. The students represented disparate levels of ICC, language proficiency and digital competence, which is why implicit rules of netiquette and politeness were explained at the outset of the course. The participants also were instructed to avoid communication lags and to be transparent about their intentions, absences and technical problems. The participants worked in intercultural teams. The exchange took place via an online Canvas platform (http://www. instructure.com) used as a central communication hub (forum and chat), a collaboration tool (Etherpad) as well as a storage space for supporting materials. Participants used other technology tools for task design (e.g., Glogster and Sliderocket), including Weebly (http://weebly.com/)—a website builder to host task sequences for prospective learners. Both courses were run in a blended format and took 16 weeks to complete. Online interaction was supported with weekly 1.5-hour meetings in the local classrooms. The participants used English as a lingua franca. There was no time overlap between face-to-face classes. The AT object of the course was to complete a sequence of teacher training ICC tasks of progressive complexity. The sequence was modelled on a typical teacher training OIE scenario in which the learners work in intercultural groups to accomplish the following: • Create a multimodal personal presentation (ice-breaking task) (T1) • Form a group identity (reflected in its name), and introduce it to other groups (T2) • Design an ICC activity (T3) • Evaluate a partner group’s ICC activity (T4) • Design a sequence of ICC online activities (delivered via a Weebly site) (T5) • Evaluate the sequence created by a partnering group (T6) • Reflect on one of the critical learning incidents in the course (T7) In this study, due to the limited space, only data analysis for T3 and T5 will be presented. The participants came from two different educational systems in which the concepts of task design and language learning turned out to be culturally laden. German national standards for foreign language learning explicitly include ICC which, therefore, plays an important role in the teacher education curriculum. Task-supported language learning is also a mainstay of foreign language education. At the same time, school curricula and language instruction in Poland clearly focus on skill development, whereas the cultural element tends to be limited to factual information. The system favours individual over collaborative achievement with relatively little attention paid to reflection and self-assessment.

Virtual Group Formation  135 METHODOLOGY To understand our students’ trajectories of group formation and task negotiation and their competence development in terms of ICC and use of SyC, we followed a specific action research format: Exploratory Practice (EP), which integrates teaching, learning and research (Allwright & Hanks, 2009) in the belief that teachers ‘need particular understandings that are directly appropriate to their unique situations, not high-level generalisation’ (p. 146). A decisive point of EP is the ‘use of familiar classroom activities as investigative tools’ (p. 14). All course tasks, being pedagogically integral to the course, thus represent ‘potentially exploitable pedagogic activities’ (pp. 155–157) that furthered our understanding of the complex processes involved. They provided the central process data without adding to students’ workloads through additional data collection. This is important because OIEs are highly demanding on students’ participation. Given the limited space, we provide an in-depth ‘multi-site action case study’ of one intercultural team (G8), setting out ‘to learn what is happening’ in our own practice (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, pp. 165, 158). Because case studies are about particularization, not generalization (van Lier, 2005), we invite readers to establish connections from our research results to their own specific contexts and draw their own conclusions. The research questions addressed in this study were as follows: • Which factors impact on task development in the group negotiation process? • Which instances of ICC and SyC can be seen in the process? To understand these complex processes and to establish a quality control strategy, we combined data triangulation (student and teacher researcher), researcher triangulation (two teacher researchers) and methods triangulation of data. The latter comprised teachers’ field notes and students’ dialogic interactions, such as the wiki-based task design process, including text, chat and forum posts on a learning platform, students’ IC (intercultural) task products and their evaluations. On the reflective level, portfolios written by the two German students provided a truly emic perspective as they gave detailed accounts of students’ perceived progress. Data coding was performed deductively in terms of ICC categories (Byram, 1997, pp.  34–38; Kramsch, 2009a, pp.  117–118) and inductively in terms of the group formation process and task-as-process. In the latter, two sets of codes emerged from analysis, one pertaining to students’ identity formation (personal attributes such as being flexible and reliable, cultural background, gender and professional issues, such as already existing teaching competences) and the other pertaining to the task design process (role and workload distribution, process of collaboration and task content, that is, extent of IC focus). The amount of codes in each set showed students’ preoccupation with identity

136  Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Malgorzata Kurek issues in the OIE environment and the attempt to handle complex ICC task design. To represent these processes we looked for critical learning incidents, that is, moments in which cultures, personal expectations, different uses of the same language or different individual motives were likely to trigger contradictions. In line with Belz (2002), Ryder and Yamagata-Lynch (2014) and Ware (2005), we see such moments as crucial for students’ intercultural learning. To pinpoint and contextualise these incidents and to make their interrelations visible in this complex learning environment, we used AT because it provides a comprehensive analytical framework to understand the reasons for these contradictions in on-task negotiation. Firstly, we explain and categorise the contradictions that exist in OIEs, and then we show how they emerged in the chosen case study. THE ACTIVITY SYSTEM Language learning is set in a sociocultural context and develops through interaction on the basis of pedagogical tasks (see Lantolf  & Thorne, 2006). In sociocultural or AT terms (see Engeström, 1987), on the micro level, the international team formed by learners is a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) characterised by participants’ personal motives and interaction. On the macro level, it is influenced by institutional (university, curriculum, etc.) and societal affordances and constraints. The aforementioned influences on learner interaction are represented by the three levels of the Activity System, (AS) and their interconnections. In our analysis we looked for contradictions on the different levels. In the group under study, contradictions appeared on Levels II and III and were prompted by role and workload distribution or by the level of intercultural focus in task design. Group members either resolved these contradictions through negotiation of

Level I

Level II

Level III

Mediational Means: Symbolic and Material Artefacts

Subject, Subject Collective

Community

Object

Rules

Division of Labor

Figure 7.1   Activity System (based on Engeström, 1987)

Outcome

Virtual Group Formation  137 meaning, developing their SyC in the process, or they failed because of constraints on different levels of the AS.

Level I: Artefacts Tasks are mediated through artefacts, the foreign language, but also by the materials or tools (i.e., the computer) that support the learning process.

Level II: Subject Collective The subject collective is represented in this case study by the two teachers and the group of learners, each of them bringing along their sociocultural identities. As a team working collaboratively on complex tasks, their multifaceted identities, including gender, ethnicity and professional orientation, find expression in specific leadership roles and role distribution (see also Level III: division of labour). The group formation process is constituted by the three core elements of social, cognitive and teaching presence (Garrison, 2006). The group formation process has to be driven by tasks. For example, selfpresentation at the outset of the exchange (T1-T2) establishes social presence, whereas academic tasks (T3-T6) foster cognitive presence. Self-presentation sets the stage for developing group cohesion with identity issues being central in this process: ‘social identity builds on shared characteristics (interest, attitudes, values) or shared social categories (gender, nationality, organizational affiliation) or on a common task or purpose’ (Schwämmlein & Wodzicki, 2012, p. 388). Students’ expectations, clear goals and the intended workload are also crucial. It needs time and a climate of trust to develop group cohesion, which also is influenced by the choice of communication tools (Level I) and the frequency of interaction (Bulu  & Yilidrim, 2008; Dawson, 2008). Group cohesion is also both a condition and an indicator for the quality of task negotiation (Darhower, 2007). Finally, sustaining ‘social presence while creating cognitive presence . . . necessitates strong teaching presence’ (Dawson, 2008, p. 233; see also Garrison, 2006; Savvidou, 2013), especially in weak groups (Darhower, 2007). Teaching presence denotes the ‘teacher’s visibility in the learning environment’ and is central for the process of task design (Savvidou, 2013, pp. 196–197) as teachers guide and monitor group formation and the task negotiation process.

Level II: Object and Outcome Each student in the AS supposedly pursues the same object, that is, the design of technology-based intercultural tasks. ‘The object refers to the “raw material” or “problem space” at which the activity is directed and which is molded or transformed into outcomes with the help of physical and symbolic, external and internal tools’ (Engeström, 1993, p. 67). In the teacher training OIE presented here, the pedagogical approach to task design is the ‘raw material’ that needs to be analysed from the participants’ emic perspective, as it is where competence development takes place. Eventually, students reach an outcome

138  Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Malgorzata Kurek which could be the TPACK. But there are also other individual objects and with that additional outcomes that might differ between students. Whereas some would like to establish intercultural friendships, others are mainly interested in developing their language competence (Ware, 2005). Competence development is best understood on the micro level, characterised by the relationship between the task-as-workplan and the task-as-process (Ellis, 2003). In our exchange we designed specific task sequences which the students adapted in the task-as-process. Depending on their sociocultural backgrounds and with that their cultural identities as language learners (see Level III community), their goal-oriented behaviour was different to that intended by the teachers.

Level III: Community, Rules and Division of Labour Students form part of a community comprising the international team, the two different university settings and students’ prospective professional field, and the school systems and educational standards, which all impact on ICC task design and may lead to contradictions during the task-as-process. Socio-historical context factors such as being defined by two different educational models (see research context) appeared central to understanding the process of task negotiation on Level II. Rules also function on the societal level. Netiquette and pragmatic rules of politeness, for example, play a decisive role in intercultural task negotiation and highlight the existence or development of SyC (see Belz, 2003). If these rules are not adhered to, intercultural misunderstandings can ensue (O’Dowd, 2006; Ware, 2005). The division of labour is influenced by ‘the vertical division of power and status’ (Engeström, 1993, p. 67) in the OIE, that is, the hierarchical relationships between students and teachers. The horizontal level focusses on students’ interactions characterised by their sociocultural identities and their interrelations in terms of role and workload distribution in the team, all of which decisively influence the task design process. In the following analysis we present the workings of one of the intercultural groups (G8), trying to capture the dynamic processes of negotiating meaning across cultures in connection with participants’ own intercultural experiences and their symbolic presence. Critical incidents could be found especially in the subject collective and the object. Particular attention will be paid to task-asworkplan and task-as-process.

DATA ANALYSIS—GROUP 8 ‘THE ENGLISH FANS’

The Subject Collective—Establishing Group Identity G8 consisted of four randomly allocated members (two from PHH and two from JDU), one of them female (Elke1). The first two tasks (T1, T2) were to

Virtual Group Formation  139 prompt bonding and trust building and, finally, foster the process of creating a collective identity. Students’ interactions on these tasks show strategic identity use: From their numerous identities they bring to the fore those which are culturally universal and likely to be shared in that context (pedagogical backgrounds and interest in English and family issues). The overlap between partners’ identities helps the team construct the collective identity of ‘The English Fans,’ that is, teacher candidates sharing their passion for English.

Table 7.1  Students’ Identities Overtly Voiced in Their Presentations Name

Age

Intercultural Experience

Self-Reported Identities

Elke PHH

24

extensive (the Philippines, Canada and India)

Stefan PHH

more mature than a “typical student” 45

—teacher trainee —keen on children —eager intercultural learner —comfortable technology user —family-oriented person —the only female —group social leader* —newly married father to a little girl —rich learning experience —a reliable local partner* —language teacher, translator —philosophy teacher —confident technology user* —preference for oral communication —group cognitive leader* —careful/tentative language user* —no siblings —comfortable with people who are similar —martial arts trainee —interested in psychology —group visitor, avoiding participation* —having little consideration for other group members* —unreliable contributor*

Robert JDU

Jacek JDU

23

travelled for a year

extensive—living for 4 years in the GB (associating ICC with ‘C’ulture)

none reported

The asterisk (*) marks the identities revealed through student in-project activity.

140  Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Malgorzata Kurek G8, with three participants reporting extensive intercultural experience and several of their identities matching, had a strong potential for achieving group cohesion and strong partnership. The process of trust building though was imbalanced by limited self-disclosure of male students who either did not reveal their pictures (Jacek and Stefan) or their ages. Both behaviours were perceived by Elke as disappointing and in conflict with her beliefs about the nature of partnership (‘It was hard for me to accept their way of presenting themselves.’ PF, p. 3). Jacek’s projection of his identities remains in stark contrast to the mutually respectful strategies used by other group members. Although being the last to introduce himself, Jacek clearly ignores the newly established common ground and neither alludes to the partners’ identities nor does he refer to his academic background, which would be a natural bonding strategy in this context. Instead, he stresses his limited social experience (‘the only child’) and a strong preference for the familiar rather than the new (‘I love to spend time with people who are similar to me’). This personal presentation, combined with an inconsiderate approach to group communication visible in his last-minute and usually impossibleto-implement task contributions, eventually lead to his non-participation. Group building in the ‘English Fans’ was afforded through the use of discursive strategies which both reflected and constructed students’ ICC attitudes, beliefs and identities. Table 7.2 Summary of Collaboration Strategies Used in Group Communication (E—Elke, R—Robert) Social Strategies

Managerial Strategies

Cognitive Strategies

Displaying emotions Emphatic use of capitals, exclamations marks, emoticons: I’m sorry for my late reply!!! (E)

Suggesting new mediational means Maybe we should establish some channels of communication. (R)

Nurturing dialogue Hooking on to others’ comments; inquiring and asking for elaboration Do you work as a teacher of English or as a teacher of Philosophy? (E)

Transparency of intentions I will be available for the next two days . . . so I will have enough time to work on our project. (R)

Observing the rules of the exchange Remember it is to be intercultural, so maybe some customs. (R) It’s not perfect but submitted on time ;-) (R) Managing and monitoring the activity; initiating and signaling the completion If everything is OK, you may submit everything and we will be through with the assignments. (R) I have finished the project. Now it needs checking, proofreading and publishing. That’s all folks. (R)

Virtual Group Formation  141 Social Strategies Social inclusion Reaching out for silent partners What do you think, Jacek? (E)

Acknowledging other partners’ contributions Thanks Robert for creating the page and the task. (E)

Promptness in replies

Managerial Strategies

Cognitive Strategies

Tentative use of language Perhaps it would be better. (E) We may choose the version you prefer. (R) Inviting partners’ feedback and modifications Feel free to change. (R) You may change whatever you want. This is a collaboration. (R) Announcing activities Now we are supposed to evaluate the task of Group 9. (E)

Taking a perspective Historic events shape our cultures and in some case define our differences. (R)

Suggesting technical solutions Change your notification settings to ASAP. (R) After finishing we have to check whether the links work. (R) Distributing the workload I expect you to smooth the thing out a bit and prepare the task for submission. (R) Your comments are interesting but I would welcome some addition to the project. (R)

Whereas Elke uses predominantly social strategies of displaying emotions, nurturing dialogue, or acknowledging contributions and, eventually, takes the social lead, Robert’s discourse makes him the cognitive leader. He monitors the activity, signals the next steps, assigns work to others and contributes with specific solutions. His dominance is softened by polite, tentative language and openness to feedback and possible modifications of his contribution. Elke’s and Robert’s rich intercultural experiences make them invest effort into building group cohesion despite their different discourse and working styles. They find common ground in the use of strategies facilitating collaboration such as showing the transparency of intentions, lauding the team for good work and encouraging their contributions. Even if Elke initially fails to use these strategies, she follows Robert’s lead, even though she finds his way of handling some of the tasks ‘reproachful’ (PF, p. 8). On the surface, then, their leadership styles seem complementary. In terms of SyC, the symbolic representation of their dialogue reveals the constant shuttling between the cultures that have shaped them. In Robert’s case it is visible in the reserved and formal discourse, clearly impacted by his long stay in England and his mature age. Elke’s rich multicultural experience transpires in her emotional and inviting style. When seen as symbolic action, Elke’s and Robert’s discursive negotiation reveals that they are driven by different motives.

142  Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Malgorzata Kurek Elke’s investment in nourishing the social well-being of the group reveals her interest in the interpersonal value of OIEs. This ICC focus also is expressed in her methodological interest in ICC task design, as she hopes ‘to understand your [Robert] ways of creating tasks and thinking through school matters’ (Canvas). On the other hand, Robert’s formal, on-task discourse shows that his priority is efficient task and course accomplishment. Finally, the distributed leadership also helps diffuse symbolic power, helping establish a group identity and thus securing the task outcome despite gender-related contradictions (e.g., an attempt to choose a literary male character to represent group identity). The Instructors’ Task-as-Workplan G8 accomplished jointly two acquaintance tasks (T1, T2), two tasks of task design for telecollaboration (T3, T5) and one evaluation task (T4), the aim being to develop competence in technology-based ICC task design (TPACK). When it comes to teaching presence, apart from direct instruction delivered during faceto-face meetings, it was articulated through sporadic interventions and especially through task announcements and task instructions. Especially the latter guided the task-as-process and served as a model for participants’ own tasks. We focus on the discussion of two complex ICC task instructions (T3, T5) and how they were interpreted by the group in question. The ICC Task (T3) T3 required teacher candidates to design an ICC activity for their prospective telecollaborating language learners. Task instructions highlighted three different ICC aspects, namely knowledge (‘help learners to get to know more about the online partner’ ”), interpreting and relating (‘the task should help the participants exchange information about their cultures’) and discovery and interaction (‘make them explore the cultures of their partner(s)’). The taskas-workplan promoted real-time interaction reinforced by explicit suggestion to choose collaboration tools (‘integrate different tools that allow learners to collaborate’). Task instructions thus clearly emphasised ICC. The Weebly Task (T5) The Weebly task was complex in terms of pedagogical, technical and procedural demands. Being aware of possible misunderstandings, we provided even more detailed instructions which accentuated (a) technology integration (‘make use of at least three different online tools’); (b) balanced language development by addressing all language skills (the task ‘should make the learners practice different skills or aspects of language (e.g., reading, listening, speaking, a particular vocabulary set’); (c) ICC development (‘On the content level the tasks should allow the learners to develop intercultural communicative competencies’); and, (d) methodology and alignment to general task criteria (‘follow the criteria for effective CALL tasks as well as general task criteria, such as . . .’). ICC development and students’ motivations were to be addressed through the choice of ‘an interesting contemporary topic.’ Focussing on traditional language skills and ICC created a problem, though, in terms of the task’s goal as we show.

Virtual Group Formation  143 The Object—The Task-as-Process When G8 negotiated T3 and T5 task instructions in light of their different cultural identities, students’ individual interpretations led to misunderstandings on the symbolic level, affecting the task-as-process. Contradictions corresponded with task complexity, developing from the subject collective and especially the division of labour (work distribution and group leadership), most of them being grounded in the different educational systems of the community. Division of Labour—Workload Distribution The G8’s ICC task (T3) had a very strong ICC focus. The task asked students to document and compare their nearest surroundings, which would assist them in developing their own identities and encourages young learners to join in an intercultural dialogue. Although task instructions suggest looking for differences, it is very likely that, due to the choice of universal topic (home and Table 7.3 Representation of ICC Components in G8’s Task Negotiation and Final Instructions

Knowledge

Interpreting and Relating

Discovery and Interaction

ICC Components Negotiated or Included in the ICC Task (T3)

Implemented in the Final Task?

• Remember it is to be intercultural so maybe some customs typical for respective students? (R) • What about the pictures of some architecture (clothes) typical for different cultures? (R) • Working with authentic images of one’s surroundings (R & E) • We might also use some pictures of historic buildings which characterise in a sense the cultures of our students. Historic events shape our cultures. (R) • Analyzing similarities and differences between the two places. • Formulating opinion on the images taken by their partners. • Writing and reading a text summarizing the difference between the two places and sharing them with the partner. (S & E) • Asking the partner to express an opinion on where he/she lives. • Exchanging pictures, recorded descriptions and summaries of the perceived differences. • Exchanging opinions with partners. (R, S & E) • Ask if your partner would like to visit your place.

No Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

144  Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Malgorzata Kurek neighbourhood), the learners will realise that despite superficial differences, they find common ground in shared values and experiences. The group’s task-as-process is characterised by an even workload distribution amongst Elke, Stefan and Robert, all of them contributing towards the ICC focus of the task and addressing three ICC aspects. In the process the German group made a well-outlined first suggestion, which Robert extended and further developed in terms of ICC. In this truly distributed leadership situation, Robert’s suggestions for the insertion of factual knowledge are not taken up by the partners, leading to the intended strong ICC task in terms of IC skills development (discovery and interaction and interpreting and relating). Elke’s emerging ICC clearly shows in her portfolio: ‘Having knowledge is less demanding than putting it into practice’ (p. 10). In the Weebly task, workload distribution was influenced by Robert’s dominant leadership role, which negatively impacted the task outcome. Division of Labour and Community—Horizontal Power Dynamics The task-as-process of the Weebly task (T5) evoked less intense task negotiation as intended in the task-as-workplan. Robert’s strong leadership, combined with his task-oriented motives and a temporary lack of partners’ contributions, led to his near-solo task accomplishment (‘Hi! I’ve done nearly the whole job.’; Canvas). Due to lack of sufficient negotiation, the task reflected Robert’s skills-focussed approach to teaching with a very directive teacher presence (as an assessor) and language skills development being the task’s dominant features. An ICC focus was only marginal, realised through the choice of topic (travelling), situation (hotel booking and checking in) and authentic materials (video clips), and as such it aligned with a communicative approach. In terms of discovery and interaction, intercultural pairs simply were to exchange individually created products rather than cooperate. ICC deficiencies were recognised by both German partners, who suggested including activities calling on the skills of interpreting and relating as well as discovery and interaction (emphasis by authors): I would prefer to make them write about a place they have visited in reality. Like this they can include ‘real’ material and don’t end up searching pictures on the web. So they collect impressions, maps, pictures, movies. (Stefan—Etherpad) The next step could be that they together discuss which place they would like to visit. This would make them start communicating. . . . They will also learn about a different point of view what people from another country like. (Stefan—Etherpad) Robert did not implement the suggestions, though, which bred partners’ unvoiced frustration (‘I did not express my frustration or questions.’ Elke, PF, p. 9). Their decision to restrain from conflict for the sake of group well-being affected the task’s ICC quality.

Virtual Group Formation  145 Unlike in the Weebly task, in the ICC one (T3), Robert’s skillful shuttling between cognitive and collaborative strategies (‘feel free to change’—see Table II) created an illusion of distributed leadership, which helped to soften his rather authoritative style. This expression of symbolic power, achieved through strategic language use, helps the partners accept Robert’s dominating agency and increased group cohesion, even if on an illusory level. Despite providing a detailed, step-by-step description of the task, T5 instructions allowed the task designer (Robert) to ‘wriggle out’ of the targeted ICC object and fall back on his subjective, culturally determined theories of language and culture learning. Robert’s perception of the task was very much in line with Polish educational traditions which favour individual over collaborative achievement, strong teacher presence and focus on language skills rather than their integration. When it comes to the ICC component, owing to Poland’s fairly monolithic cultural profile, it tends to be taught as factual information about history, arts and national festivals, something which Robert seemed to have truly internalised. CONCLUSION For our own practice, the case’s analysis produced some important insights. Although they are restricted to this case, they might prove worthwhile to consider in other OIEs as well, hopefully leading to more explorations of practice in other contexts. The analysis shows that teachers have to think carefully about task design and have to monitor the task-as-process more closely to facilitate group cohesion and ensure real collaboration so that the strengths of all partners can come to the fore and positively influence the intended outcome of ICC task design. They also have to strengthen reflection in the process to make students more aware of their ICC and SyC development. We discuss the significance of the findings for each of the research questions investigated.

Which Factors Impact on Task Development in the Group Negotiation Process? Task design is a major element of teaching presence in OIEs. Our observations confirm that in teacher training, apart from mediating students’ social and cognitive presences, task instructions additionally serve as a model for students’ own task design. Discursive features of task instructions, that is, explaining the task’s purpose, setting up the steps and procedures, and specifying the final product can affect students’ collaboration. Task instructions which clearly communicated task goals generated much more intense collaboration (T3) than tasks providing detailed procedural steps yet failed to ensure goal clarity (T5). When this was uncertain, task structure alone was not sufficient, and students resorted to their own objectives, relying on their culturally grounded subjective theories of teaching and learning which led to contradictions in the team.

146  Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Malgorzata Kurek Team effectiveness is also related to group leadership. As Chen, Wu, Yang, and Tsou (2008, p. 305) assert, ‘a shared or distributed leadership amongst team members rather than centralised leadership is more likely to achieve team success.’ This could be seen in the different task results for T3 and T5. When the group perceived their leadership as distributed, they engaged in productive task negotiation, even if the distribution was illusionary. Task negotiation also was affected by students’ varying beliefs about language learning as students with traditional views of what learning and culture are may not be able to notice the full potential of OIE for ICC development and, unless guided, use it for skill-oriented and teacher-controlled language instruction. Hence students’ individual interpretations of task-as-process can be very much under the influence of their own motives and expectations, showing that the outcome of the exchange can be prone to different cultural interpretations, too. In terms of pedagogy, Robert saw developing teaching competence through the lens of language skills, whereas the German participants looked at it from an ICC perspective. Whether such differences generate productive task negotiation or in contradictions depends very much on the instructor’s ability to channel them into learning.

Which Instances of ICC and SyC Can Be Seen in the Process? A functional group was formed when members facilitated their social presence by looking for possible common values and by orchestrating their identities to approximate those of their partners, Jacek’s non-compliance due to his limited self-disclosure rather proving the rule. Students with strong ICC proved more flexible in this regard than Jacek, showing very low ICC (see Belz, 2003). Students sought similarities rather than differences and suggested culturally universal values. Making the students adopt a group name as a marker of their collective identity, whilst triggering contradictions (here, the gender issue), clearly worked towards group cohesion. Thus teaching presence in the form of a task to initiate group formation supports trust and cohesion building. Ultimate success though depended on the partners’ use of social and collaborative strategies (see Table I), as they nourished a positive group feeling and bridged differences resulting from partners’ motives and working styles. A skilled use of managerial and mediational discourse, for example, encouraging feedback, lauding good work and acknowledging contribution, served a symbolic and performative function of enacting distributed leadership and, thus, enhancing group cohesion and productivity. Existing intercultural experience, as in Elke’s and Robert’s case, allowed for flexibility in using these strategies and helped them adjust their discourse to the situation at hand. Building group cohesion required team members to strive for SyC, especially in skills of interpreting and relating and skills of interaction, such as refraining from criticism and accepting a poorly designed task to preserve group cohesion. Task negotiation, thanks to contradictions, prompted the development of more refined forms of ICC and SyC than mere factual knowledge acquisition. Students had to navigate cultural misunderstandings, for example, by

Virtual Group Formation  147 clarifying one’s opinion as to gender representation, by restraining from criticism (skills of interaction) or by experiencing a situation from a culturally different point of view (skills of interpreting and relating). This was clearly visible in critical incidents such as Robert’s dominance in the Weebly task or Elke standing out for her inclusion in collective identity. The powerful impact of such situations was emotionally voiced in Elke’s portfolio rather than openly discussed with partners, presumably for fear of affecting group cohesion. They validate Kramsch’s call that ‘language is a living form, experienced and remembered bodily with a relation to an Other that is mediated by symbolic forms’ (2009b, p.190). Contradictions are central to learning and should not be avoided (Belz, 2002; Ryder & Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). There have been a number of suggestions of what teachers can do to better facilitate interaction and ICC in OIEs. They can sensitise students to cultural differences in terms of content and discourse at the outset of the project through expository materials or examples from earlier projects to model appropriate behaviour (Belz, 2002; O’Dowd, 2006). They need to model social presence by facilitating discourse and supporting student participation (Savvidou, 2013). Based on our findings, we would like to suggest some additional strategies. • Make sure task instructions explicitly point to the various aspects of ICC and/or SyC. • Because private communication channels prevent teachers from monitoring substantial parts of the interaction, establishing a safe learning atmosphere is crucial to help students feel confident enough to contact the teacher for support when tensions arise. • Make students’ expectations about project outcomes an integral part of the introduction, and have partners compare and react to this in a response focussing on the content, process and pedagogical competences both in terms of culture and language use they want to learn. • Nurture ongoing reflection triggered by tasks: ○ Introduce task-based forum discussions to assist students in comparing their educational communities and their rules. ○ Bulu and Yilidrin (2008) have shown that a project’s midpoint is especially critical. Here a simple questionnaire with a few open questions (e.g., What did you like so far? What would you change?) could focus on any sources of tension and allow for reflection. ○ Portfolios have proved to be a decisive reflection instrument to allow students become aware of ICC and SyC. In the process they wrote diaries to collect thoughts and impressions which were then later analysed on the basis of language, technology and IC categories of an e-portfolio tool (see http://www.uni-collaboration.eu/?q=node/835). Whereas we could pinpoint a number of instances where ICC and SyC development took place, and how this competence development was influenced by contextual factors and the teachers’ pedagogic skills, this is just a first look at

148  Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Malgorzata Kurek the complex interplay of the many discursive features that characterise the different factors of SyC. Obviously, the data presented here are limited to one case only, which makes the study suggestive rather than ultimate. Future research needs to further consider which pedagogical guidance and interventions facilitate the different elements of the SyC competence cluster. NOTE 1 All names have been anonymised.

REFERENCES Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 36–58. Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1): 60–81. Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Learning & Technology, 7(2): 68–117. Belz, J. A., & Thorne, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Thomson & Heinle. Blin, F., & Appel, C. (2011). Computer supported collaborative writing in practice: An activity theoretical study. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 473–497. Bulu, S. T., & Yilidrim, Z. (2008). Communication behaviors and trust in collaborative online teams. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 132–147. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating pre-service teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73. Chen, C. C., Wu, J., Yang, S. C.,  & Tsou, H.-Y. (2008). Importance of diversified leadership roles in improving team effectiveness in a virtual collaboration learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 304–321. Darhower, M. (2007). A  tale of two communities: Group dynamics and community building in a Spanish-English telecollaboration. CALICO Journal, 24(3), 561–589. Dawson, S. (2008). A study of the relationship between student social networks and sense of community. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 224–238. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsulat. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In J. Lave & S. Chaiklin (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London: Continuum Press. Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25–34.

Virtual Group Formation  149 Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105–121. Helm, F., & Guth, S. (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacy and intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Lang. Kramsch, C. (2009a). Discourse, the symbolic dimension of Intercultural Competence. In A. Hu & M. Byram (Eds.), Intercultural competence and foreign language learning (pp. 107–121). Tübingen: Narr. Kramsch, C. (2009b). The multilingual subject. What foreign language learners say about their experience and why it matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2011). The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural. Language Teaching, 44(3), 354–367. Kurek, M.,  & Müller-Hartmann, A. (forthcoming). Task design for telecollaborative exchanges: In search for new criteria. System. Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning—legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Mishra, P.,  & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A  new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-v. Ditfurth, M. (2011). Teaching English: Tasksupported language learning. Paderborn: Schöningh. Nunan, D.,  & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research. A comprehensive guide. Boston: Heinle. O’Dowd, R. (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Berlin: Langenscheidt. O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2003). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 623–642. Ros i Solé, C. (2013). Cosmopolitan speakers and their cultural cartographies. The Language Learning Journal, 41(3), 326–339. Ryder, L. H., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2014). Understanding tensions: Activity systems analysis of transpacific collaboration. CALICO Journal, 31(2), 201–220. Savvidou, C. (2013). ‘Thanks for sharing your story’: The role of the teacher in facilitating social presence in online discussion. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(2), 193–211. Schwämmlein, E., & Wodzicki, K. (2012). What to tell about me? Self-presentation in online communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 387–417. Thomas, M. & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2010) Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. London: Continuum Thorne, S. L. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. Modern Language Journal, 89, 393–409. Thorne, S. L. (2010). The intercultural turn and language learning in the crucible of new media. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 139–165). Bern: Lang. Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language education. From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Lier, L. (2005). Case study. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 195–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Ware, P. D. (2005). ‘Missed’ communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64–89.

8 Facilitated Dialogue in Online Intercultural Exchange Francesa Helm

OIE, as reported in the systematic review in Chapter 2 of this volume, has been found to contribute to the development of foreign language skills, intercultural competence and digital literacies. One area where it seems to fall short, however, is in the development of critical cultural awareness and deeper levels of intercultural understanding (Kramsch  & Thorne, 2002; Lewis  & O’Dowd, this volume; Ware  & Kramsch, 2005). This is in part due, it has been argued, to the questionable nature of some of the assumptions underlying the telecollaboration literature, for instance, the under-conceptualised notion of ‘intercultural’ and the ideologies of ‘communicative competence’ (Lamy & Goodfellow, 2010). Dialogic approaches to intercultural understanding have been developed and implemented in educational settings to foster mutual understanding between diverse groups, or groups in conflict with one another (Andreotti, 2005; Nagda, Gurin, & Lopez, 2003; Saunders, 1999). These approaches draw on theory from areas such as post-critical theory and critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970), postcolonial (Spivak, 1999) and postmodern studies (Burbules & Rice, 1991), cultural studies (Bhabha, 1994) and peace studies (Lederach, 1995). It has been argued that similar dialogic approaches also could be applied in foreign language education and OIE (Lamy & Goodfellow, 2010; Phipps & Levine, 2010; Schneider & von der Emde, 2006) if more in-depth intercultural understanding is to be achieved. This chapter will present a dialogic model of OIE and illustrate how it differs from the more established models in foreign language education. It will then focus on the role of facilitators in this form of dialogic exchange and look at how they discursively create an online environment where participants feel safe discussing issues that are seen to be divisive and that are often avoided in foreign language education. The chapter will draw on data from the online interactions of a group of students from the Middle East and the United States involved in a seven-week dialogic exchange, with the support of two facilitators. The chapter closes with a discussion of how this model of OIE could be implemented sustainably in foreign language education.

Facilitated Dialogue in OIE  151 INTERACTION AND TOPICS IN ONLINE INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE There are several different models of exchange which have become well established in foreign language teaching as the practice has spread. The earliest models to be established, such as the Cultura model (Bauer, de Benedette, Furstenberg, Levet, & Waryn, 2006; Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001) and institutional forms of tandem learning (Kötter, 2003; O’Rourke, 2005), involved two groups of language learners in geographically distant locations engaging in bilateral, bilingual exchanges. Over the years and with an increasing number of practitioners, these models have been adapted to various contexts and to meet diverse needs of learners and educators. New models also have emerged, for example, multilateral exchanges involving more than two groups (Hauck, 2007; Hauck & Lewis, 2007; Müller-Hartmann, 2006) and global networks of learners (Guth, Helm, & O’Dowd, 2012). In these cases exchanges may be monolingual, involving just one of the partners’ languages (Lee, 2006; O’Dowd, 2006) or a ‘lingua franca’ (Basharina, 2007; Guarda, 2013; Helm, Guth & Farrah, 2012). In most OIE projects reported in the literature, teachers organise the communication and tasks, motivate students, monitor activities and provide feedback and support for learners, but the communication between learners is not usually moderated. There is no intervention from teachers or facilitators in student interactions, whether they are communicating synchronously or asynchronously, in dyads or triads or having group discussions on fora. Topics that students are assigned for discussion are often quite ‘safe,’ for example, university life, family, pastimes, festivities, sports and music. This has led to a concern on the part of some language educators (Kramsch, 2014) that the content addressed in language teaching has become more shallow and that cultural difference is downplayed online (Kern, 2014) as the emphasis is on phatic exchanges between learners and a concern to avoid tensions and misunderstandings. Topics that are commonly held to lead to misunderstandings and failed communication include religion and politics. In O’Dowd and Ritter’s (2006) study, for instance, the second topic assigned to German and Australian participants in an OIE was called ‘the Pope and the media.’ The authors say that ‘the intended topic—a comparison of media coverage of a global event—was misinterpreted as an invitation to debate religion’ (p. 639), and they identify a series of problems including the task design and instructions in addition to limited pre-exchange negotiations between teachers which could have led to the misinterpretation of the task on the part of the students. Their study also produced an inventory of reasons for failed communication on the basis of a literature review; the four main levels on which these reasons lie are on the individual level (students and their level of ICC), the class level (the relationship between the teachers, task design and sequencing), the socio-institutional level and the interactional level.

152  Francesa Helm O’Dowd and Ritter’s study highlights one of the greatest challenges of telecollaboration, which is how teachers can get students to engage in deeper levels of interaction (Belz, 2001, 2003; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Ware & Kramsch, 2005) where they move beyond the ‘assumption of similarity’ (Ware, 2005, p.  66) and manage to take an intercultural stance. One of the problems, as Ware (2005) reports, is that to avert miscommunication, students can avoid deep engagement which, as she reports ‘while potentially helpful for saving face, can lead to “missed” communication, or missed opportunities for approximating the kind of rich, meaningful intercultural learning that instructors often intend with telecollaborative projects’ (p. 66). The INTENT survey, reported in Chapter 4 of this volume, addressed the issue of safe topics and tension in OIE and found that this was one of the areas in which there was the most uncertainty amongst educators. The survey did not ask specifically what kind of topics were discussed, but it did explore whether teachers chose topics which would avoid disagreement or conflict of opinion, and also whether they encouraged students to discuss ‘sensitive’ topics, such as religion, racism, terrorism. These survey items were an attempt to explore whether educators sought to avoid the risk of their students’ entering in conflict and thus kept them on a more superficial level of exchange, but risking ‘missed communication’(Ware, 2005), or whether they had them probe and truly engage with difference. The responses to these items were more varied than for most other items in the survey (Helm, 2015). Only 47 percent of educators with experience of telecollaboration said they had encouraged their students to discuss sensitive topics, and 36 percent of those without experience of telecollaboration would do so. The number of those who were undecided on this issue was high, with 25 percent of experienced and 38 percent of those without experience neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the statement in the survey. Recently, scholars (Kramsch  & Ware, 2005; Phipps  & Levine, 2010; Schneider  & von der Emde, 2006) have recognised that if more in-depth intercultural understanding is to be achieved, then sensitive issues can and indeed should be addressed. Tensions ought to be recognised as an inev­ itable part of intercultural dialogue and as transformative agents rather than as something to be avoided. Several suggestions have been put forward as to how this can be done; for instance, Ware and Kramsch (2005) suggest peer-reviewing student messages before they are sent, although this may remove the spontaneity and also the personal dimension of online exchange. O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) suggest engaging students in classroom analysis of a collection of examples of failed communication from previous exchanges and the adoption of an ongoing action research approach to classes which involves collecting and analyzing online interactions and subsequent feedback from their students. Another possibility, which comes from the field of conflict transformation and peace studies, is a dialogic approach to exchange.

Facilitated Dialogue in OIE  153 WHAT IS A DIALOGIC APPROACH TO ONLINE INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE? Before defining a dialogic approach to online exchange, it is important to conceptualise the notion of dialogue that it is based on. Dialogue is quite different from debate and discussion, the types of interactions that generally characterise educational practices. Drawing from accounts of practices such as Intergroup Dialogue (Nagda et al., 2003) and Sustained Dialogue (Saunders, 1999), dialogue is interpreted here as interaction which is not coercive or confrontational but which is instead collaborative and leads to a mutual learning process with participants working together towards understanding. In dialogue, participants explore identities and difference, personal experience and emotions, which contribute to awareness of self, others and political understanding. Dialogue entails critical thinking and aims to reveal assumptions and biases, so they can be re-evaluated. There is no single reality or truth, nor is there dualism with right and wrong answers but rather an acknowledgement of multiplicity and complexity (Helm, 2013). In educational settings in which dialogue is used, power issues are acknowledged and openly addressed, and conflict or dissensus is seen as a natural phenomenon and a transforming agent. The notion of ‘conflict transformation’ (as opposed to conflict resolution or conflict management), which is strongly influenced by the work of Paulo Freire, sees conflict as an agent of change: Transformation suggests a dynamic understanding that conflict can move in destructive or constructive directions, but proposes an effort to maximize the achievement of constructive, mutually beneficial processes and outcomes. (Lederach, 1995, p. 19) This view of conflict rarely is found in foreign language education, although educators are beginning to recognise the need for such an approach, also in OIE. Schneider and von der Emde (2006), for instance, write, ‘Ultimately, the risks of conflict in online collaborations are not only worth taking, but are in fact already imperative in the aftermath of September 11, 2001’ (p. 200). FACILITATED DIALOGUE IN THE SOLIYA CONNECT PROGRAM The Soliya Connect Program (SCP) is a seven- or eight-week telecollaboration project which is integrated in the curricula of several universities across the world and involves students from a range of disciplines such as political science, international relations, media studies and also English language programmes. Developed by an American nongovernmental organization (NGO) in the wake of 9/11, SCP’s interdisciplinary syllabus focusses on the relationship between the ‘West’ and the ‘predominantly Arab and Muslim world,’ which has been characterised by stereotypes and misrepresentations with vast gaps that need

154  Francesa Helm bridging. The aims of the programme, as stated on the website (see Figure 8.1) are for participants to establish a deeper understanding for the perspectives of others around the world on important sociopolitical issues and seek to comprehend why they feel the way they do. Furthermore the project aims to help students develop ‘21st-century skills’ such as critical thinking, cross-cultural communication and media literacy skills. SCP (http://www.soliya.net) has been described as a dialogic model of OIE (Helm, 2013), which differs from the established foreign language telecollaboration models already described in several ways. Firstly, communication takes place predominantly through synchronous videoconferencing, with a two-hour videoconference every week for eight weeks making up the core of the programme. Students are placed in groups numbering 8 to 10 for interaction, if possible with an equal division between participants from the ‘West’ and the ‘predominantly Arab and Muslim world,’ so that they can be exposed to a multiplicity of diverse viewpoints. In foreign language exchanges, synchronous communication tends to occur in dyads or triads (see, e.g., Belz, 2006; Jin, 2013; Schneider & von der Emde, 2006; Thorne, 2006), whereas group videoconferencing is rare and most commonly has occurred in class-to-class conferences (O’Dowd, 2006b). The main difference between SCP and foreign language models of telecollaboration, however, lies in the fact that in SCP, the interactions are mediated by facilitators who are directly involved in the interactions by opening the sessions, setting up activities and leading the discussion. In foreign language intercultural exchange, students generally interact directly with one another but with no facilitators present in the interactions. The language teachers of the partner classes do play a facilitating role, but this occurs indirectly, outside

Figure 8.1  Screenshot of Soliya’s Web Page About SCP (http://www.soliya.net)

Facilitated Dialogue in OIE  155 of the actual interactions, with the teachers designing the exchange, setting up tasks and topics for the interactions and engaging students in class discussions about the communication with their peers (Furstenberg & Levet, 2010; Müller-Hartman, 2000, 2006; O’Dowd & Eberbach, 2004). SCP facilitators are drawn from a community of Soliya-trained volunteers and selected SCP alumni who also have followed an online training programme. They come from all over the world, have a broad range of professions and backgrounds and include, for instance, master’s students in international relations and conflict resolution and English language teachers in Europe and the Arab and Muslim world. Most facilitate on a volunteer basis, reflecting their intercultural curiosity and a commitment to promoting constructive dialogue. When facilitating, they step out of their professional roles and personal beliefs and into the ‘institutional role’ of SCP facilitator. Each iteration of SCP initially had about 300 participants in 35 dialogue groups; more recently this has expanded to about 450 students per semester with 50 groups. All dialogue groups follow a shared calendar and an online curriculum which has a clear structure and progression, from getting to know each other to defining global challenges and planning for action (see Appendix 1). The facilitators plan and lead the sessions, choosing activities from the Soliya curriculum to achieve the objectives which the project sets out. Ideally, the facilitators in each dialogue group are paired, and where possible there is one from the Western world and another from the predominantly Muslim world, preferably an Arabic speaker. Facilitators also have a coach whose role is to provide advice and support and observe one of the sessions, providing feedback and opportunities for developing and improving their skills. Whilst recognizing that the world is marked by inequalities, facilitators seek to promote equality within their groups. This does not mean that everyone speaks to an equal degree but that there are not imbalances in the perspectives that are being presented and that everyone feels that his/her voice is welcome and supported in expressing his/her views. The aim is not for participants to end up agreeing with one another but rather to understand the origins of others’ opinions and ideas and be able to put themselves in each other’s shoes. The sequence of tasks and discussion topics in the curriculum has been designed to allow participants to get to know one another and feel safe before addressing the most personal and sensitive issues. As O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) observed in their study, and Müller-Hartmann and Korek in Chapter 7 of this volume, task sequencing is fundamental. Students cannot start an exchange with controversial topics; they need to have established a relationship with one another before more difficult topics can be addressed without leading to communication breakdown. EXPLORING THE INTERACTIONS In this section the role of facilitators in SCP will be explored by analysing some of the interactions which take place. Extracts will be taken from the dialogue

156  Francesa Helm

Figure 8.2  Screenshot of the SCP Audio and Video Interface (http://www.soliya.net/? q=what_we_do_connect_program)

sessions of one particular group which had two facilitators, Jessica, a Western facilitator based in Europe, and Ranà, who is an English and Arab-speaking facilitator based in Cairo. Both facilitators of this group recently had completed the Soliya facilitation training and were facilitating for the first time. The group had 10 participants: two male and one female participant from the United States (Jack, Brendan and Deni), three female participants from Jordan (Thamena, Doja and Maya), a female participant from Palestine (Fadela), a female Philippino based in Qatar (Kate), a male from Tunisia (Alef) and a male from Egypt (Mohammed). (All names are pseudonyms.) The space where the SCP takes place offers both audio and video communication and text chat, with the text chat box physically situated at the centre of the SCP dialogue space (see Figure 8.2). This study begins with an analysis of how the facilitators discursively establish their identities and create a safe space for dialogue to evolve. It then moves to analysis of the multimodal communication in what may be seen as moments of tension and explores the facilitators’ roles in shaping the dialogues that ensue. Analysis of the transcripts of the group sessions led to an initial classification of the facilitators’ discursive activities into three main functions: creating a friendly, safe space; supporting understanding; and fostering interaction. These activities can be found in each session but also across all sessions. Each of these activities will be explored more closely in the following sections.

Creating a Friendly, Safe Space The facilitators use a great deal of phatic communication to create a friendly space where participants feel welcome and gradually become comfortable and safe.

Facilitated Dialogue in OIE  157 Table 8.1  Openings of Sessions 2 and 6 Session 2 Jessica: Hi Fadela Ranà: Fadela u have the mic Jessica: can you press control again Jessica: Hi Jack Ranà: hey Jack Mohammed: hello everybody Mohammed: nice to meet u again Jessica: Hi Mohammed Ranà: hello mohammed Ranà: nice to meet u too Jessica: nice to see you again too!

Session 6 Mohammed: hi alaf Fadela: mmm Jessica: try your mike Fadela: studiying actually Fadela: but spent last saturday out with the family :D Alef: hey guys Alef: :) Mohammed: hi Jack Jessica: can you tell us what you did last weekend guys—to test your mikes Jack: Hi everybody!

One of the main activities in this respect is acknowledging participants as they enter the space and also as the sessions come to an end. In the first few sessions studied, the facilitators initiate greetings and individually welcome each participant, but as the sessions progress, participants begin to take over this activity, as we can see in Table 8.1, which contains the transcripts of the text chat from Sessions 2 and 6. We can see how in Session 6 Mohammed seems to have taken on this aspect of the facilitator role and initiates greetings to participants as they enter the online space, whilst the facilitators deal with technical issues. The facilitators explain their institutional role to the participants in the extract of text chat which follows, emphasizing their role in support and directing the group but encouraging them to express their opinions. The facilitators’ text chat also is characterised by the use of emoticons, a feature of phatic communication in CMC, which in the extract below serves to make the atmosphere less formal and creates a friendly, informal and also supportive environment. JESSICA: Ranà—a little more about our role JESSICA: We are here to support you JESSICA: give the group directons JESSICA: you’re totally free to express your opinoins JESSICA: ask what you want JESSICA: we’re here to help you along JESSICA: and organize sometimes :-)

Supporting Understanding Participants in the SCP are of varying levels of English proficiency, which can create inequalities of participation, as can the different qualities of Internet connections that depend on a large extent to geopolitical Internet governance and infrastructure issues as well as the socio-institutional contexts. The US participants were connecting from their homes or dormitory rooms, whereas

158  Francesa Helm most of the others were connecting from university libraries or laboratories or Internet cafés, which were at times quite noisy, making it difficult for participants to follow the discussion and also to be heard in the Soliya space. It is important for facilitators to support understanding as best they can to address these inequalities. One of the main ways this is done is through summarising what is being said in the text chat, so there is written support for comprehension. Some of the participants acknowledge this important aspect of the facilitator’s role, as in the extract from Session 7: JESSICA: how do you feel about using English as a language in this program JESSICA: and for video project JESSICA: are you happy with it? JESSICA: Mohammed: found it difficult at times, but facs made it easier :-) RANÀ: most welcome Mohammed Linked to this role of transcribing is the facilitators’ frequent checking of understanding. Summarising and transcribing real-time communication is not easy, and the facilitators often ask participants to confirm that what they are writing is correct, as in the extract from Session 6, where Brendan confirms that the facilitator indeed has interpreted correctly: JESSICA: Brendan: I think we all know or feel that 9/11 def changed the relationship JESSICA: Brendan: wants to ask people in Middle East if there are any events JESSICA: of the same caliber JESSICA: which affected your v iew of the US JESSICA: right? BRENDAN: you got it :)

Fostering Interaction and Dialogue The main way that facilitators foster interaction is by setting up activities which are part of the SCP curriculum and asking questions. There are several different types of activities, for example, ice-breaking activities which occur in the warming-up part of the session, more structured activities which may take over most of the session and closing round questions. The Soliya calendar and curriculum establish which themes facilitators are to address each week, so there is a degree of homogeneity across the many groups following SCP, but as said earlier, the facilitators can choose from a series of icebreakers and other activities for their sessions, and they are also free to abandon their session plan if the group is taking ownership and successfully engaging in rich dialogue. As an example of how facilitators foster interaction, a single session will be looked at, the third session of the group already described.

Facilitated Dialogue in OIE  159 The session begins with facilitators greeting participants as they arrive, dealing with technical issues and informal conversation. It takes nearly 10 minutes for an actual conversation to get started, but after a question about participants’ weekends, they start to talk about wedding ceremonies in the participants’ different countries because Thamena reports she had gone to an engagement party (see Table 8.2). Jack asks a question (Turn 55), but there is no response, perhaps due to lack of comprehension, so Ranà asks him to repeat the question (Turn 57) as Jessica, the other facilitator, writes the question in the text chat box. Following a further long silence, Ranà takes the floor and calls on Thamena to answer Jack’s question, which she does. Jessica transcribes what Thamena is saying but has to check her understanding and uses both the oral (Turn 62) and written modes (Turn 65) to do this. In the last turn of this extract, we see Ranà asking the American students to share information about weddings in the United States. This conversation continues with participants contributing to the discussion of wedding ceremonies in the United States, TV programmes about planning Table 8.2  Extract From Transcript Session 3 Part 1 Turn No.

Speaker

Audio

53

Thamena

54

Silence

erm this weekend I went to my friend engagement party ‘hh twas very very nice and (they) had a lot of fun (7s)

55

Jack

56

silence

57

Ranà

58

silence

Text Chat (with time indicator) 9:22 Doja: hi everyone

uuhh what are erm >I’m trying to (figure) how to word it< ‘hh what are the: like wedding ceremonies like (1s) over (1s) yonder (2s) yeah I mean I’m just kinda curious I guess cos (.) it varies differently (.) sometimes depending on the culture and yeah (21s) Jack I I think you have er question a specific question for someone now and please as (no one caught this) question would you repeat it please? (17s)

10:23 Jessica: What are the wedding ceremonies like Thamena?

10:40 Jessica: or in any of your different cultures? right Jack? (Continued )

Table 8.2 Continued Turn No.

Speaker

59

Ranà

60

Thamena

61

silence

62

Jessica

63

silence

Audio well Thamena I (think) that Jack wants to know more about the traditions of the er ‘hh wedding ceremonies in your er country or in your place would you tell (me) more about it? hh ok the (party) was separated er women were alone and erm men alone (..) and then there were er songs and we danced and erm ‘hh erm (2s) er: er they were they we there was a dinner (..) er:m (2s) for er (2s) for all the guests (2s) erm and that’s it (11s)

Text Chat (with time indicator)

11:40 Jessica: Thamena: dinner for all the guests

(2s)hh sorry I missed the beginning (2s) Thamena did you say ss at the beginning? there was separate for er the: bachelors er for the: bridegrooms and the future bride? celebrated separately ? (3s)

64

Thamena

yes hh that’s what I said hh

65

silence

(30s)

66

Ranà

well guys you want to share anything about your traditions for the wedding ceremonies in the United States ? (we’ll be) excited to know more about this (actually) he he

12:11 Jessica: did you say future bride and groom celebrated separately? 12:20 Thamena: yes 12:23 Jessica: at the beginning? 12:28 Jessica: ok 12:36 Fadela: hellooo 12:40 Jessica: Hi Fadela

Facilitated Dialogue in OIE  161 weddings in the United States, ceremonies in Jordan, the ‘henna party’ before the wedding as the brides’ hands are painted with henna and also celebrations in Egypt. Following this ice-breaking conversation, the facilitators set up a Word Associations activity. This activity has been used in many telecollaboration projects, starting from the Cultura project (Furstenberg et al., 2001), and the comparison of students’ associations with certain words has been found to offer rich opportunities for discussion. In the Cultura project the Word Associations activity is asynchronous; participants complete the word associations using a form, and when participants of both groups have completed their word associations, the separate classes analyse and discuss these with their peers and their teachers, identifying patterns and elaborating hypotheses and explanations before engaging in asynchronous online discussion about the responses with their partner class (Furstenberg & Levet, 2010). In SCP the activities and communication are all synchronous; hence, the activity needs to be set up quite differently. The facilitators here set the activity up through both spoken instructions and use of text chat. For the participants not to be influenced by what others have typed, the facilitator gives them time to think of their responses and type them but tells them to wait for her instructions before pressing the ‘Enter’ key so that all the words will appear more or less simultaneously. The first word selected was ‘Arab’ and the second was ‘Israel,’ and the words that appeared in the text chat window were as follows, with the time interval between the different parts indicated in brackets: JESSICA: First word: Arab (37 seconds) JACK: Person BRENDAN: desert KATE: tradition FADELA: generousity THAMENA: my culture DENISE: culture DOJA: civilization MOHAMMED: my people (39 seconds) JESSICA: word 2: Israel (32 seconds) BRENDAN: war KATE: female soldiers DOJA: enemy DENISE: palestine FADELA: criminals JACK: Fortunate THAMENA: blood MOHAMMED: terrorism (48 seconds) that one was pretty harsh BRENDAN:

162  Francesa Helm The activity was intended to start a discussion on the relationship between Arab/Muslim and Western societies, and the facilitators had selected a series of words that they see as central to this relationship. After responses to the first and second words, ‘Arab’ and ‘Israel,’ however, the activity stops, and a dialogue develops on the basis of participants’ responses to the words, prompted by Brendan’s text comment on the outcome (see Table 8.3). Jessica asks Brendan to use the audio/video channel to communicate (Turn 161), and the discussion moves to the audio/video channel with Brendan reformulating what he had written (Turn 162) and speaking in a soft, gentle tone. Table 8.3  Extract of Transcript From Session 3 Part 3 Turn No.

Speaker

160

Jessica

161

Jessica

162

Brendan

163

silence

164

Brendan

165

silence

166

Jessica

Audio . . . so Mohammed you heard me er ok you’ve heard the instructions . . . Maawa? are you there? (..) I think Maawa is having problems . . . ’hh. o::k:: (8 s)any question ? (. . .) any comments (8s) well Brendan ok speak (..) you can you can ask your question, use use the microphone err it looks like the (..) feelings associated with Israel we:re um (..) much more negative than (.) the Arab association (10s) ha that’s mainly all I wanted to say is more of an observation than uh (.) I guess a conversation starter ((sniff)).. and er.. (actually) . . . I guess people’s roots will dictate that an . . . er er . . . °which might be° obvious . . . (8s) (6s) does anyone want to comment on it? (1s) so guys.. erm it’s erm.. I’d like you to take over the conversations when you feel ready ‘hh without me having to intervene all the time (..) ok (.) so does anyone want to respond? to Brendan?

Text Chat (with time indicator) 5:24 Brendan: that one was pretty harsh

Turn No.

Speaker

Audio

167

silence

(6s)

168

Denise

169

silence

.(this one). I just wanna know why you put words such as criminals er and terrorism (. . .) erm (it’s) the harsh words that Brendan mentioned . . . (37s)

170

Ranà

171

silence

172

Fadela

173

silence

Text Chat (with time indicator)

7:09 Ranà: wnat to know why choose words like 7:10 Jessica: Denise: why did harsh words like criminal and terrorism appear 7:14 Ranà: terrorism

Well erm.er..I think Mohammed who (sees er) the word terrorism? er and Fadela (..) the word criminal? and they actually asking about these two. . . . words (specifically) why you choose terrorism and er criminal (does) anyone want to er er answer here or (specifically say) please go ahead now (12s) . for me I chose the (.) word criminals because I’m Palestinian.. (I’m erm) (..) I live (..) in Palestine and er in everyday life we see how those people are criminals (..) and I (..) heh (..) can prove to you that they are criminals . . . it’s the simple it’s the simplest word to describe them (3s)

8:21 Ranà: as palstinia 8:22 Jessica: Fadela: I chose the word criminals

(Continued )

Table 8.3 Continued Turn No.

Speaker

Audio

174

Brendan

175

silence

what actions rather than um (. . .) feelings would dictate . . . you::r (.) interpretation er of Israelis as criminals. . . . like what, what erm (. . .) what actions have they committed rather than like (..) everyday things (.) I dunno like yeah I guess like everyday proof (. . . . ) (3s)

176

Brendan

177

silence

178

Jessica

179

Silence

180

Fadela

I’m I’m not disagreeing I was jus’ I’m just curious (14s)

Text Chat (with time indicator) 8:36 Jessica: because I’m Palestinian and in our every day life 8:46 Jessica: we experience this 8:48 Ranà: everyday they proof that they are criminals

9:07 Jessica: Brendan: What actions have they committed? What kind of proof?

yeah in fact er Brendan I think said before that (..) you know that it’s it probably comes from our experience of the words that we say the associations we have with words erm and so Fadela your from your experience and others of you are Palestinian too right? can you give us some concrete examples? of your daily life how it affects your daily life ? to help understand (9s) erm I want to tell an example of that happened to me in my life, er we have err our house three times er deconstructed by the Israeli by the Israeli soldiers and er we have a lot of prisoners inside the Israeli jails and they suffer a lot they are a lot of a lot of them they have been there for more than 30 years, they have no families no friends nothing to do and erm from the roads between cities

10:05 Jessica: Fadela: an example that happened to me 10:15 Jessica: Our house has 3 times been

Facilitated Dialogue in OIE  165 After this there is further silence, so he takes the microphone again (Turn 164), acknowledging the awkwardness of the conversation and hypothesising as to why these associations emerged. There is again silence, about 10 seconds, after which Jessica intervenes, encouraging others to take over the conversation and to respond to Brendan. Deni, also from the United States, takes the floor, reiterating Brendan’s request and asking specifically why words such as ‘criminal’ and ‘terrorism’ appeared. There is another short silence (6 seconds) with participants looking slightly uncomfortable, what we might define as a moment of tension, before Ranà selects the next speakers by calling directly on the participants who used these words to explain their choices (Turn 170). After 12 seconds one of the addressees, Fadela, replies and makes salient her Palestinian identity to explain her choice of the word ‘criminal’ (Turn 172), saying she can prove that this is the case. Brendan responds asking what actions dictate her interpretation of Israelis as criminals (Turn 174), quickly adding that he is not disagreeing with her but is curious (Turn 176), thus framing what could have been interpreted as a face-threatening question to his personal curiosity. After a silence of 15 seconds, Jessica intervenes, seeking to encourage Fadela and perhaps to reduce the pressure on Fadela she calls on some of the other participants who have until now been silent by making relevant the role of personal experience and the salience of their Palestinian identity in helping others to interpret the word associations (Turn 178). Her choice of the first-person plural preposition ‘we’ at the beginning suggests that she is emphasising that all people make associations on the basis of their experience, as Brendan had already suggested. Fadela responds with the example of her house being ‘deconstructed’ by the Israeli army on three occasions, and also she mentions the many Palestinians being held in Israeli prisons and the road situation (Turn 180). After Fadela, Thamena and Doja also offer their experiences and views on Israel as Palestinians whose families were forced to leave Palestine and move to Jordan, making reference to the living conditions of their relatives in Palestine, whom they cannot visit, and also making references to the Cast Lead operation by the Israeli army in Gaza and the deaths of civilians, particularly women and children in Gaza. Subsequently the Palestinian students ask the American students about the responses they offered in the Word Associations activity, for instance, why Jack associated ‘fortunate’ with the word ‘Israel.’ After Jack’s explanation, Ranà asks the American students what kind of support Israel is receiving from the West, and then picking up on a comment made by Brendan about people not being happy about the political situation, she asks if he feels upset about it. The facilitators’ role in this session was fundamental in keeping the communication on this difficult topic from breaking down. As we have seen, they first of all created a friendly, relaxed environment in the session, welcoming participants and talking about wedding traditions in their respective cultures. After this they set up an activity which took the participants out of their comfort zones. The long silence after the associations with the word ‘Israel,’ the second of what was supposed to be a series of word associations, suggests that the facilitators too were perhaps unsure as to what to do next—whether to continue with the Word Associations activity or start a dialogue on the

166  Francesa Helm basis of the outcomes of this activity. Brendan offered the opportunity for the latter by commenting on the words which appeared, and the facilitators took up this opportunity to engage in deeper dialogue and understanding. The long silences and facial expressions and movements of some participants reflected a tangible discomfort. It is impossible to say what would have happened if the facilitators had not been present, whether Ware’s (2005) ‘missed communication’ would have occurred with the conversation moving to another topic when participants did not reply to Brendan and Denise’s questions. What we can observe, though, is that the facilitators’ calling directly on participants and repeatedly encouraging them to talk about their feelings and experiences served to take the dialogue on a sensitive topic further. The facilitators’ intervention gave voice to participants who had until that session been less active in the dialogue sessions than some of the other participants and also led them to actively seek the opinion of the American students on the issue. Whereas the participants may not have shared one another’s views and may even been shocked and upset at what was written and said, they managed to explore the reasons behind each other’s beliefs and to continue engaging with one another. After the dialogue stemming from the Word Associations activity linked to Israel, in which personal experiences and feelings were exchanged, the facilitators led the participants onto a more theoretical discussion based on assigned texts that dealt with a related, but broader, theme: the relationship between the West and the predominantly Arab and Muslim world. At the end of the session when the facilitators asked participants for their reflections on the session, an activity which is a regular part of most sessions, they acknowledged the strength and diversity of feelings, but this did not stop them from engaging with one another and sharing aspects of their personal lives, as this extract from the text at the end of the session illustrates: JESSICA: now I want to ask everyone what they thought about today if they learnt anything JESSICA: JESSICA: will go round, starting with Mohammed JESSICA: Brendan: learnt that feelings between Arabs and iIsraelis is strong JESSICA: maybe as strong as when conflict started JESSICA: Fadela: I think discussion today was serious somehow JESSICA: Fadela: I  knew before, and confirmed that peole inside societies have different opinions JESSICA: Fadela- will be graduating today JESSICA: this is her graduation dress BRENDAN: congratulations THAMENA: congratsss CONCLUSION In the introduction to a recent issue of the Modern Language Journal dedicated to foreign language teaching in an era of globalisation, Claire Kramsch

Facilitated Dialogue in OIE  167 (2014) discusses how globalisation has altered the contexts and conditions under which foreign languages are taught, learnt and used. She argues that the changes ‘call for a more reflective, interpretive, historically grounded, and politically engaged pedagogy than was called for by the communicative language teaching of the eighties’ (p. 296), and the special issue explores how this pedagogy is conceived. One of the points Kramsch (2014) makes in her introduction is that ‘[w]hile it is not the role of FL teachers to impose on their students their views on events, it is their responsibility to expose them to various perspectives (even controversial ones) and to help them discuss the points of view adopted by speakers, writers, and bloggers on these events’ (p.  307). OIE can do just this by engaging learners in dialogue with peers who have different perspectives on key, often difficult issues. In the dialogic exchange presented in this chapter, learners are supported first by facilitators who seek to create a safe space for participation and try to ensure that power issues are addressed and that participants contribute to dialogue. This is one way of ensuring that opportunities for communication and dialogue are not missed. SCP is a form of outsourced telecollaboration set up and run by a dynamic NGO that receives funding from various sources, including contributions from the universities that take part. Soliya has a number of staff dedicated exclusively to finding partner universities, recruiting and training facilitators, setting up, running and constantly evaluating and reviewing the SCP. The human and financial resources they have are thus much greater than those of individual language teachers at universities, and these allow for a programme which involves multiple partners, regular evaluation of the project and quality control mechanisms. The question thus arises of whether this model of facilitated group dialogue could be replicated by educators on a smaller scale. Would it be possible to design a sustainable project addressing perhaps other intercultural and/or global tensions which characterise our contexts? Should we be looking outside the box of foreign language education and adopt a more interdisciplinary approach, working alongside colleagues and practitioners from different fields such as conflict transformation and peace studies, development and environmental studies to develop new curricula which can engage our learners in intercultural dialogue on important global issues? Small consortia of university partners could be formed to develop online curricula for OIEs on global issues which are addressed in courses at all of the consortia members’ universities. These exchanges could thus officially become credit-bearing courses or parts of courses in the partner universities’ degree programmes. The consortia partners should, to a certain degree, come from diverse contexts either in terms of subject disciplines and/or geopolitical contexts for the exchange to bring in a myriad of perspectives. Issues such as migrations, inequalities and social justice, climate change and economic development, on which there are a diversity of viewpoints and which need to be addressed on a transnational level, would be ideal for such a project.

168  Francesa Helm The interdisciplinary curriculum for this type of exchange would be designed with input from academics of various fields of study and experts in OIE and dialogue processes. It would include both content for students to read, listen to and/or watch and discuss as well as activities for the dialogue sessions to foster the process of group development, intercultural awareness and the creation of a safe space for engagement with one another and with the issues at stake. A  pilot project would be carried out with groups of volunteer students at the partner universities, and this would be evaluated and adjusted for larger-scale adoption. An online training course would be developed for facilitators who could be recruited from those who participated in the pilot project or from higher-level university students, and their online facilitation could be recognised as an ‘online placement.’ The exchange would then run as an integrated part of degree courses in the different universities either as a course in its own right or as an integrated part of an existing course. An example of this kind of project is Perspectives on the Euro(pean) Crisis, which involved eight partner universities and was set up by the Sharing Perspectives Foundation (http://www.sharingperspectives.com) with funding from the European Commission. The project regarded the deep causes of and possible solutions to the Euro(pean) crisis and was structured around the major economic, political and sociocultural challenges that were at stake in the European Union. The exchange, which lasted 16 weeks, included two video lectures a week, mostly contributed by the partner universities; a twohour weekly dialogue session with 8 to 10 students from each university in the group which was led by trained facilitators; and a research component, with participants carrying out three surveys and gathering responses from peers and young people in their countries. Selected participants from each university were then invited to Brussels to present the research results. There is no reason why such exchanges could not be set up on other issues in other languages and with other partnerships. For example, an exchange on the issue of transnational migrations could be designed in French and involve students of sociology, economics, modern foreign languages and literature in French-speaking African countries, France and Canada and students of the French language in various parts of the world with curriculum input from sociologists, literature, economists, critical theorists and also NGOs involved in this issue. The same could be done for a series of other languages and topics not only for the participants to learn content and develop language skills and literacies to pass their university exams but also to activate global networks of young people who are equipped with the interest, knowledge and tools and committed to engagement with different perspectives, values and cultures to address pressing global issues.

Appendix Outline of the Soliya Connect Program Structure

Week 1: Online dialogue sessions begin • Introduction to group members and the online dialogue process • Introduction to Identity and Culture: Students participate in activities that enable them to explore identity issues and share cultural information • Identification of topics that students want to discuss Week 2: Engaging with difference through dialogue • What are some differences that exist between our communities and our societies? How do these differences manifest themselves? How do they impact the relationships and interactions between societies? • How would you characterise the relationship between our communities and societies? What are some key issues and challenges? • Discussion will be based upon the required readings for this week. Week 3: Group-selected topic • Culture and background: Students will engage in activities enabling them to get to know one another and one another’s backgrounds better • Investigating nature of the relationship—topics suggested by students in previous weeks, for example, immigration/integration, foreign policy, extremism, social movements, and so on. Week 4: Role of religion in society and students’ lives • Investigating the role of religion in society and students’ lives • What role does religion play in your life? What role does religion play in your society? • Does religion play a role in politics? What role does religion play in the politics of Western societies versus predominantly Muslim societies? • Discussion will be based upon the required readings for this week

170  Francesa Helm Week 5: Life stories • Culture and background: Students will engage in activities enabling them to get to know one another and one another’s backgrounds better • Exploring the connection between the personal and the political through the life stories activity Week 6: The role of the media • How do media impact our understanding of the differences that exist between our communities? How do media affect our understanding of global issues? • Is it possible to have unbiased media? • How does the portrayal of different communities and countries in mainstream media impact the way in which these communities are viewed? Week 7: Group-selected topic •  Group-selected topic Week 8: Youth empowerment and bridging the divide • Working for change: Group members formulate ideas as to what they can do individually and as a group to promote improved relations between Western societies and predominantly Muslim societies • Reflecting on the group process REFERENCES Andreotti, V. (2005). Briefing. Open spaces for dialogue and enquiry methodology. Retrieved from http://www.osdemethodology.org.uk/keydocs/osdebriefing.pdf Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82–103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/basharina/default.html Bauer, B., deBenedette, L., Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., & Waryn, S. (2006). The Cultura project. In J. A. Belz  & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 31–62). Boston: Thomson Heinle. Belz, J. A. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL, 13(2), 213–231. Belz, J. A. (2003). From the special editor. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 2–5. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/pdf/speced.pdf Belz, J. A. (2006). At the intersection of telecollaboration, learner corpus analysis and L2 pragmatics: Considerations for language program direction. In J. A. Belz,  & S. L Thorne (Eds.), Internet-Mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education (pp. 207–246). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge. Burbules, N. C., & Rice, S. (1991). Dialogue across difference: Continuing the conversation. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 393–416.

Facilitated Dialogue in OIE  171 Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin (reprinted 1996) Furstenberg, G.,  & Levet, S. (2010). Integrating telecollaboration into the language classroom: Some insights. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Languages, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 107–138). Bern: Peter Lang. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a voice to the silent culture of language: The CULTURA Project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55–102. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/default.html Guarda, M. (2013). Negotiating a transcultural place in an English as a lingua franca telecollaboration exchange: a mixed methods approach to the analysis of intercultural communicative competence and third space in an online Community of Practice. Unpublished PhD thesis. Guth, S., Helm F.,  & O’Dowd, R. (2012). University language classes collaborating online. A report on the integration of telecollaborative networks in European universities. Retrieved from http://intent-project.eu/sites/default/files/Telecollaboration_ report_Final_Oct2012.pdf Hauck, M. (2007). Critical success factors in a TRIDEM exchange. ReCALL, 19(2), 202–223. Hauck, M., & Lewis, T. (2007). The Tridem project. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 250–258). Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Helm, F. (2013). A dialogic model for telecollaboration. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 6(2), 28–48. Helm, F. (2015). The practices and challenges of telecollaboration in higher education in Europe. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 197–217. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2015/helm.pdf Helm F., Guth S.,  & Farrah, M. (2012). Promoting dialogue or hegemonic practice: Power issues in telecollaboration, Language Learning & Technology, 16(2), 103–127. Jin, L. (2013). Language development and scaffolding in a Sino-American telecollaborative project, Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 193–219. Kern, R. (2014). Technology as Pharmakon: The promise and perils of the Internet for foreign language education, Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 330–347. Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 145–172. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization. Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296–311. Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block  & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 83–100). London: Routledge. Lamy, M.-N.,  & Goodfellow, R. (2010). Telecollaboration and learning 2.0. In S. Guth  & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Languages, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 107–138). Bern: Peter Lang. Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace. New York: Syracuse University Press. Lee, L. (2006). A study of native and nonnative speakers’ feedback and responses in Spanish-American networked collaborative interaction. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 147–176). Boston: Thomson Heinle. Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129–147. Müller-Hartmann, A. (2006). Learning how to teach intercultural communicative competence via telecollaboration: A model for language teacher education. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 63–84). Boston: Thomson Heinle.

172  Francesa Helm Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., & Lopez, G. E. (2003). Transformative pedagogy for democracy and social justice. Race Ethnicity & Education, 6(2), 165–191. O’Dowd, R. (2006a). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Berlin: Langenscheidt. O’Dowd, R. (2006b). The use of videoconferencing and e-mail as mediators of intercultural student ethnography. In J. A. Belz, & S. L Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 86–119). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. O’Dowd, R.,  & Eberbach, K. (2004). Guides on the side? Tasks and challenges for teachers in telecollaborative projects. ReCALL, 16(1), 5–19. O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 61(2), 623–642. O’Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused Interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433–466. Phipps, A., & Levine, G. S. (2010). What is language pedagogy for? In G. Levine & A. Phipps (Eds.), Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp. 1–14). Boston: Cengage Learning. Saunders, H. (1999). A public peace process: Sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts. New York: Martin’s Press. Schneider, J., & von der Emde, S. (2006). Conflicts in cyberspace: From communication breakdown to intercultural dialogue in online collaborations. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 178– 206). Boston: Thomson Heinle Publishers. Soliya. (2010). Connect program facilitation training guide. Fall 2010. Unpublished training manual. Spivak, G. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a critique of the vanishing present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thorne, S. L. (2006). Pedagogical and proxiological lessons from internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education research. In J. A. Belz  & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 2–30). Boston: Thomson Heinle. Ware, P. D. (2005). “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64–89. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/pdf/ware.pdf Ware, P.,  & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190–205.

9 Combining Classroom-Based Learning and Online Intercultural Exchange in Blended Learning Courses Elke Nissen

The literature on OIE, also called ‘telecollaboration’ or ‘virtual exchange,’ has grown constantly over the last decade. Most of these publications have focussed on the actual online exchanges, analysing how they work, the kinds of tasks used, what students learn, what has failed (e.g., Guth  & Helm, 2010; Müller-Hartmann, 2007; O’Dowd  & Ritter, 2006; O’Dowd  & Ware, 2009) and so on. However, most OIE projects are devised as components of blended learning (BL) courses, where BL is defined as a combination of faceto-face, ‘classroom education’ (Bersin, 2004, p. 85) or ‘brick-and-mortar setting’ (Staker & Horn, 2012, p. 3) sessions and online learning (e.g., Charlier, Deschryver, & Peraya, 2006; Neumeier, 2005). As a result, OIE also can be examined from another perspective, that is, in terms of complete courses rather than in terms of the OIE project and the roles of the different partners. From this perspective, OIE is viewed as a component of a BL course and as a specific online learning mode that differs from other forms of online learning, such as individual online work and online interactions between students and their local teacher and/or their local peers, in that it involves online exchanges with geographically distant partners. As has been frequently pointed out (e.g., Deschryver  & Charlier, 2012; Garrison  & Vaughan, 2008; MacDonald, 2008; Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia,  & Jones, 2010), BL offers manifold possibilities for enhancing pedagogy in higher education because it allows learners to benefit from both faceto-face and online learning modes. Consequently, it has been embraced widely by teachers and learners. However, the broad variety of possibilities to mix both learning modes makes it difficult to design effective BL courses. Despite (or perhaps because of) this fact, most books describing guidelines and best practices in BL course design simply show the kinds of activities that can be used in each learning mode without suggesting how the learning modes can be linked coherently (e.g., Bersin, 2004). But, the effectiveness of BL courses cannot be taken for granted (Chew, Jones, & Turner, 2008; Means et al., 2010). They need to have a sound pedagogical design. The crux of BL design is the way the face-to-face and distant modes are combined. Furstenberg and Levet also highlighted this point when they stated that what made their BL course including OIE coherent was the ‘interplay between online and classroom work’ (2010, p. 305). With this in mind, this chapter addresses the question of how

174  Elke Nissen the interplay between the face-to-face and distant modes within blended learning courses works. HOW ARE FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE SESSIONS COMBINED IN EXISTING COURSES? To date, Furstenberg and Levet (2010) are the only researchers to have examined the issue of BL in particular reference to OIE. However, a small number of publications that have examined other forms of BL in higher education have looked at ways of best combining face-to-face and online sessions (e.g., Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, pp. 105–141; Murphy & Southgate, 2011). These publications implicitly consider the face-to-face sessions the lead (or dominant) learning mode and the online sessions a complementary mode. In fact, in the literature on BL, when one learning mode is considered to be central and dominant, this mode is often the face-to-face mode (e.g., Deschryver & Charlier, 2012; Haeuw, 2004). Nevertheless, two recent models of BL (the Flipped Classroom and Flex models; see Staker  & Horn, 2012, pp.  10–13) put the online component as the backbone of a BL course. Another taxonomy (Bersin, 2004)—elaborated in professional training contexts—does not focus in the first instance on which mode is the backbone of BL design but rather on how tight the modes are integrated and interwoven. This chapter examines whether these models apply to BL courses combining face-to-face and OIE sessions. The hypothesis underlying the present study is that in BL courses including OIE, the OIE component often becomes the central and lead mode because, firstly, designing and preparing a course with distant partners is both complex and time-consuming (Guth, Helm, & O’Dowd, 2012). Teachers who are prepared to invest a lot of time and energy in organizing and coordinating such exchanges do so because they believe it is important for the students’ learning and motivation. And, secondly, because they consider OIE as an effective means to achieve the learning aims, it would seem likely that they would give OIE a central role in the courses they design. The aim of the present study was to determine whether there are common denominators in the ways teachers with OIE experience design BL courses that combine face-to-face sessions and virtual exchange. The literature on BL identifies several aspects that have to be considered to combine face-to-face and online learning modes effectively (see Bersin, 2004; Degache  & Nissen, 2008; Deschryver & Charlier, 2012; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Neumeier, 2005; Singh, 2003). These aspects, which will structure Part 4 of this chapter, include choosing a lead mode that will form the backbone of the course design and determining the pedagogical function of each mode, the choices students can make within each mode and the teacher’s role in each mode. The teacher’s roles can include assessment, but it is essential to identify the mode(s) that give rise to the skills and contents assessed. Another aspect is the sequencing of the learning modes and the amount of time dedicated to each mode (see Nissen, 2014).

Blended Approaches to OIE  175

Data Collection As stated, the aim of this exploratory study was to identify any common approaches to designing BL courses involving an OIE component. To do this, I analysed and compared the designs of six BL courses that combine an OIE component with face-to-face sessions in what their designers consider a coherent way, that is, both modes being integrated and interdependent. To ensure the courses analysed would have comparable characteristics, I focussed on higher education language-training courses. All six course designers had experience in OIE (minimum experience: 3 years, mean experience: 9.5 years) and were involved in the course as teachers as well as designers. Consequently, they all had in-depth knowledge of the course they presented. In addition, they all teach and/or do research into OIE, so they had the awareness and expertise needed to reflect on the courses they had designed. Data on five of the six courses were gathered through semi-guided interviews (average length: 49 minutes), whereas data for the sixth course (21F.303) were obtained from a book chapter (Furstenberg & Levet, 2010) and via answers to questions sent to G. Furstenberg by email (Table 9.1). The interview questions focussed on the parameters that have to be taken into account to ensure the face-to-face and OIE components of a course are combined in a purposeful way. The interviews were analysed using content analysis. All the teachers also filled in a questionnaire giving factual data about their courses, such as course title, name of the institution, degree the course was delivered in, number of course hours and number of ECTS credits. In addition, course materials were obtained for four of the courses (see Table 9.1), so their designs could be examined in more detail. Table 9.1  Data Collection Course Title New Trends in Education (NTE) Spoken English (SE)

21F.303 (BL course linked to Cultura)

Person Interviewed Malgorzata Kurek Ciara Wigham

Gilberte Furstenberg

Data Interview 59 min., questionnaire Interview 46 min., questionnaire, example and assessment grid of study guide Book chapter Furstenberg and Levet (2010) & questions/ answers via email, questionnaire, open access to past sessions of Cultura (Continued )

176  Elke Nissen Table 9.1 Continued Course Title

Person Interviewed

English Language 1 (EL1)

Robert O’Dowd

English Language 3 (EL3)

Sarah Guth

Intercomprehension Between Romance Languages (IRL)

Yasmin Pishva

Data Interview 34 min., questionnaire, task description and assessment grid Interview 53 min., questionnaire, access to wiki Interview 55 min., questionnaire

Brief Presentation of the Courses An overview of the six courses (Table 9.2) shows that they displayed a number of differences and similarities. Differences included the fact that they were delivered in different countries, within different degree programmes and for different study years; similarities included the fact that all these courses including an OIE component have the same duration of one semester—even though the Intercomprehension Between Romance Languages (IRL) course incorporates a first semester of preparatory activities—they were assigned relatively few ECTS credits and they involved classes with relatively small numbers of students (from 7 to 20), except for EL1, which involved two classes of 40 students. New Trends in Education (NTE) The NTE course consists of nine units, all of which have the same structure. Each unit starts with a video clip the students watch online before individually answering comprehension questions and filling in a learning log. This is followed by a classroom, teacher-led pre-discussion about the clip to prepare the students for their online discussions about the clip, carried out in small groups, with distant peers. The students finish the unit offline with a reflective questionnaire and a reflective panel discussion. Every three units, the students use a new and more difficult tool for the OIE, starting with a written asynchronous tool (forum), followed by a written quasi-synchronous tool (chat) and then an oral synchronous tool combined with a chat tool (Skype). Spoken English (SE) The SE course is run in parallel to 13 other courses with the same title at the same university and with the same assessment criteria but integrates an OIE component and is offered to students with a higher level of English (higher intermediate level, B2, to bilingual). During the first six weeks, the students work exclusively face-to-face and do preparation work in small groups. They

Degree/Study Year 1 term (30h)

Duration/ Official No. of Hours

2 terms (48h)

10 weeks

English studies & 1 term Spanish studies, 1st year

1 term (20h) Applied foreign languages, 1st & 2nd year L2 course, 1 term 3rd semester

English Language 3 Univ. of Padua Modern (EL3) (Italy) languages, 3rd year Intercomprehension Univ. Grenoble L2 course, Alpes any level & Between (France) any degree Romance Languages (IRL)

Spoken English (SE) Univ. Blaise Pascal (France) 21F.303 (BL MIT (United course based on States) Cultura) English Language 1 Univ. of León (EL1) (Spain)

New Trends in WSL (Poland) Teacher training, Education (NTE) MA 4th year

Course Title

Institution (country)

Table 9.2  Overview of the Six Courses

3 (pass20 fail course) 6 (3 per 10 term)

40 x2

15

12 units

part of 6

12

7–8

No. of Students

2.5

3

ECTS

Galanet

PadovaDickinson

(no name)

Formulaic language use in virtual academic discussions Open learning project (tandem) Cultura

OIE Component

GB

Taiwan

Partner Countries

French, Italian, Brasil, France, Spanish, Mauritius, Portuguese Italy, etc. (L1)

French, France English (L1) English (& 1) United States Spanish in the forums) 2) Israel, United States English, United States Italian

English, French

English lingua franca

Language(s)

178  Elke Nissen start by choosing a topic together with a number of related video clips in English and in French. Then, they prepare an English and French study guide, focussing on language, and prepare discussion questions. During the final six weeks, they have online discussions with distant partners (in groups of four) based on these questions and the study guides. In parallel, they use a voice forum to record reflective messages focussing on language and intercultural issues. 21F.303 The course 21F.303 is based on the Cultura project (Furstenberg & Levet, 2010) in which face-to-face sessions add a language component to the project’s intercultural focus. In the initial phase of the course, the students use an online forum to complete three anonymous questionnaires on concepts (through word association), relationships (through sentence completion) and attitudes and values (through reactions to hypothetical situations). In the second phase, they compare the answers given by course members and distant partners to the same questionnaires. As homework, and with help from a detailed worksheet, every student chooses an item on one of the questionnaires and compares the answers given by French and American students. In the classroom, students who chose to analyse the same item work together, using a whiteboard, to identify what is said in the forums and how it is said. Then, they compare their results with those of the other local groups before discussing their findings online with the distant partners. The partners’ answers are analysed as another homework assignment, and the results are shared in the classroom. In the next project phase, the students carry out a search for specific data and then summarise, discuss and compare their findings on a forum before comparing and discussing them faceto-face. At the end of the course, the students give a reflective oral presentation. English Language 1 (EL1) The EL1 course follows the OIE project phases described by Müller-Hartmann (2007) and O’Dowd and Ware (2009). After an introductory and presentation phase, the students create a blog to exchange information with their distant partners. Then, with help from questions they had prepared beforehand, they interview their partners on cultural topics, mostly through a written asynchronous tool, but they also can choose to use other tools (e.g., Skype). Because of the limited overlap with the partners’ university calendars, the OIE then stops. Until this time, the face-to-face and OIE sessions alternate throughout the course. The semester ends with a face-to-face oral presentation based on critical reflection on the online exchange. English Language 3 (EL3) The OIE component of the EL3 course follows similar phases to EL1, but it is divided into two parts. In the first part, the students work face-to-face and use a wiki as a virtual learning environment to read articles, analyse two films that address intercultural issues and then prepare questions for an online discussion with the distant partners. This online discussion is carried out one-to-one using an oral synchronous tool (Skype). The face-to-face work and the wiki then form the basis for a Skype debriefing.

Blended Approaches to OIE  179 The second part of the course (Weeks 7 to 9) is a final collaborative project to write an essay. Students and their distant partners work in small groups, dividing up the roles and work required to complete the essay. Then, each student looks for resources, writes his/her part of the essay, corrects his/her peers and edits the text on the wiki. The course ends with a face-to-face reflective discussion about their online experiences. Intercomprehension Between Romance Languages (IRL) The aim of the IRL course is to enhance intercomprehension, that is to say, improve understanding of other languages within a language family. During the first semester, the students assess their skills in different Romance languages and work on similarities and differences between these languages to increase their ability to understand all of them. Face-to-face sessions are combined with individual online learning activities in a virtual learning environment. The OIE project, called Galanet, consists of writing a press file and starts in the third week of the second semester. It enables the students to practice intercomprehension by interacting with distant peers in many different countries. It is divided into four phases: (1) ice-breaking and choosing a topic for the press file, (2) discussing the topic, (3) choosing the columns to include and looking for resources and information and (4) writing and publishing a press file in four Romance languages (Degache, 2006). Face-to-face sessions during the second semester are devoted to tasks connected to each of the OIE phases. These tasks have the same objectives as the OIE phases. 1 unit (out of 9)

You Tube clip

comp. questions ind learning log ind

Prediscussion on clip coll

Reflective questionnaire (ind) & panel discussion (coll)

Discussion on clip coll gp

New Trends in Education (NTE) Reflective messages on Voice Forum

Introduction coll

Choose topic, videos, make English & French study guide Prepare discussion questions coll gp

Introduction TC coll

Discussions on study guides / topics 2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

2:2

11

12

1 topic every week Preparative activities Week

2

6

Spoken English (SE)

Figure 9.1 

Design of the Six Courses

7

8

9

10

completing 3 online questionnaires

Work on questionnaires

home work ind

OIE (f2f) ind

Reflective oral presentation f2f

Work with data

f2f coll

OIE

home work ind

f2f coll

Comparative work on a questionnaire e.g.

home work ind

OIE

f2f coll

Work on statistics 21F.303

Intro ind Course Prespres, ent warmyouring self up

coll

coll gp

Create blog & interact

Interview partner

Write essay

Presentation

English Language 1 (EL1)

Wiki ind

F2F coll

Skype preparation Wiki ind / coll • Work on topics, based on articles (ind) • Prepare possible questions (coll)

Skype debriefing

Skype 1:1 Week 6: Skype with external expert

F2F coll

Wiki ind

• Raise language & intercultural awareness • Listen to Skype recording • Learner diary (language & intercultural aspects)

Wiki Wiki Wiki coll gp ind ind F2F F2F coll coll

skype Wiki ind / 1:1 F2Fcoll gp coll

Find Write part Peer Edit text • Topic assignment resources of essay correction

Discussion

• Distribution of role & work

phases: Müller-Hartmann (2007) / O’Dowd & Ware (2009) Week 1

2

English Language 3 (EL3)

Figure 9.1  Continued

3−6

7−9

10

Blended Approaches to OIE  181

F2F Preparing TC

Week

2. Discussing the topic

1. Ice-breaking F2F 2h coll

3. Determining columns & searching resources / information

F2F 2h coll

F2F 2h coll

F2F 2h coll

F2F 2h coll

4. Writing & publishing press file in 4 romance languages F2F 2h coll

3

12 1 TC phase grafted task

preparative

Portal

reflective

F2F

F2F

Intercomprehension between Romance Languages (IRL), second semester ind = individual coll = collective coll gp = small group

F2F = Face-to-Face OIE at a distance (no OIE) homework

language focus thematic focus intercultural focus

Figure 9.1  Continued

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION These short descriptions of the six courses, as well as Figure 9.1, bring to the fore the variations in how they are structured, how the two learning modes are sequenced, the kinds of learning activities they include and the tools they use. The descriptions also highlight differences in the ‘main threads’ that form the backbones of the courses in terms of the combination and sequencing of faceto-face and OIE sessions. The main thread of a course (Nissen, 2014. pp. 89, 103) can be defined as a junction of the course’s methodological approach (e.g., communicative approach, task based learning, etc.)—that is largely determined by the principal course objectives—and the course’s communicational scenario (Kerres & De Witt, 2003; Tricot & Plégat-Soutjis, 2003). More precisely, two major components of this communicational scenario participate in the definition of the course’s main thread, which are with whom the students interact and in which learning modes they interact with these people. As stated in the introduction of this chapter, these two components allow consideration of BL courses integrating OIE as a specific type of BL courses, where students interact online with geographically distant students (and additionally with local students if they work together in groups). Focussing on the communicational scenario allows distinguishing between OIE phases, other distant phases, and face-toface phases of a course, and regarding the OIE phases, between communication or collaboration in a one-to-one constellation, in small groups and all-to-all.

182  Elke Nissen Table 9.3  Main Threads of the Six Courses Course Title New Trends in Education (NTE)

Spoken English (SE)

21F.303 (BL course based on Cultura)

English Language 1 (EL1)

English Language 3 (EL3) Intercomprehension Between Romance Languages (IRL)

Main Thread From oral comprehension and focus on form to oral fluency & multiliteracy (iteration of comprehension activities & discussions, with increasingly complex technical tools) Conversation on specific themes, prepared during f2f tasks (TBL [task-based learning] with local students then communicative approach within OIE) Intercultural learning: ‘[T]he students journey together through both cultural “lands” ’ (Furstenberg & Levet, 2010); language skills (iteration of intercultural comparison activities then focus on one specific topic) Blending through projects/tasks, with focus on developing intercultural awareness (finding the link between language & culture) and transversal academic skills From discussion to collaboration, with focus on building a relationship and fostering intercultural awareness TBL with focus on developing intercomprehension skills

Some of the courses have more than one main thread, which makes both their design and their analysis more complex. For instance, NTE uses a communicative approach, moving progressively and iteratively from a face-to-face discussion about an online video to a discussion with the OIE partners about that video. In parallel, the discussions become gradually more complex regarding multiliteracy because of the use of increasingly more multimodal tools and because of a shift from written asynchronous to oral synchronous communication. The six courses’ main threads are summarised in Table 9.3. Despite these apparent differences, analysis of the internal course design showed that the courses have a number of points in common in the way they are designed and in the way they combine the two learning modes. A first similarity is that all the courses follow Biggs’s ‘aligned teaching’ principle in that their teaching methods, activities and assessment methods are coherent with the courses’ learning objectives (Biggs, 2003, p.  27) as far as this is possible in the given context. Lead Mode Analysing the courses in terms of BL models also reveals similarities. For example, all six courses correspond to Bersin’s (2004) ‘program flow model,’ with quite rigid course scheduling compared to several courses run in business contexts, as all the learners on a course start and finish at the same time and most activities are obligatory. Bersin contrasts this model with a ‘core-and-spoke

Blended Approaches to OIE  183 model’ in which optional activities and media are added to a single main mode whenever the learner needs them. In the six courses examined in the present study, neither the face-to-face sessions nor the OIE components are optional; they are both integrated parts of the course. This is in line with Furstenberg and Levet’s affirmation that in their course, OIE ‘is not, as is often the case, merely an add-on’ (2010, p. 308). In addition, because the courses have a predominately common schedule for all students of one local class, they do not correspond to the Flex model in which ‘students [would] move on an individually customised, fluid schedule amongst learning mod[es]’ (Staker & Horn, 2012, p. 12). Even if both learning modes are integral parts of a BL course, one mode may still be dominant and more central to the course design. As stated, in nonOIE BL courses, face-to-face often is considered the lead mode. In contrast, the designers of all six OIE BL courses analysed here stated that OIE is the lead mode. For example, the first semester of the IRL course, which does not include any virtual exchanges, is considered preparation for the OIE sessions in the second semester; in the SE course, ‘the f2f part is just the lead-up to the OIE’; and in the 21F.303 course, ‘the whole language course is built around the [OIE] project’ (Furstenberg  & Levet, 2010, p.  308). If the OIE has synchronous and asynchronous parts, it is the synchronous part that everything is centred on: ‘The focus, particularly for the students, were the synchronous sessions’ (EL3). Nevertheless, although the distant OIE mode is the dominant one, these courses match neither with the Flex model nor with the Flipped Classroom model. In a flipped classroom, ‘the primary delivery of content and instruction is online’ (Staker & Horn, 2012, p.10), whereas face-to-face, students put into practice what they have learnt at a distance. In the six OIE BL courses, it is to a large extent the OIE online part that is dedicated to ‘putting into practice certain things that you want the students to learn about’ (EL1). It is interesting to note that, in terms of the time allocated to each mode, OIE would appear to be the subsidiary mode in three of the courses (NTE, SE and IRL), where fewer hours are allocated to online exchanges than to faceto-face (see Table 9.4). However, the estimated workloads for the OIE components of all the courses are at least as high as the estimated workloads for the face-to-face components. Although all of the teachers accepted to give such an estimation (see Table 9.4), some of them found it difficult to give percentages for the workload. This was because, firstly, it depends on how well the students do the online component and, more importantly, because it is often difficult to differentiate between face-to-face sessions, homework, and participation in virtual exchanges. A possible explanation for this is that synchronous OIE usually occurs during face-to-face sessions (NTE, EL3 and IRL) to ensure a common time slot and to be able to provide the students with technical help if needed. The only course where this is not the case is EL1, which has a large number of students. In this case, small groups of distant students agree on which communication tool and which mode (synchronous or asynchronous) to use. A further reason for not being able to give percentages was that, as the

21h

10h

4h/week

~15h (1h/week) 15h

16h/semester

Spoken English (SE)

21F.303 (BL course based on Cultura)

English Language 1 (EL1) English Language 3 (EL3)

Intercomprehension Between Romance Languages (IRL)

F2F

New Trends in Education (NTE)

Course Title

10 weeks, 8h (2nd semester)

5h/week; online: Cultura forums; offline: ‘homework’: preparatory or reflective (individual) work on the Cultura website 2.5 months ~20h (2h/week) 8 weeks/12h Skype (oral synchronous OIE) & 24h wiki (written asynchronous OIE)

9 weeks/9h (chat & Skype during f2f sessions but not forum) 6h

OIE (minimum)

No. of Hours

2nd semester: 50%

40%

-

Instructions for activities in between f2f sessions in a virtual learning environment

30%

60% (30% oral synchronous, 30% written asynchronous) 2nd semester: 50%

70%

60% (20% forums, 40% ‘homework’)

40%

-

50–60%

40–50%

Learning log & voice forum (4h)

80%

OIE

20%

F2F

Estimated Workload

Work on YouTube clips

Other Mode

Table 9.4  Hours Allocated to the F2F and OIE Modes and the Estimated Workloads for the Two Modes

Blended Approaches to OIE  185 teachers stated, OIE is not just an integral part of course design; it is the hub. This is another possible reason why the teachers had difficulty distinguishing between face-to-face and OIE modes and homework. Several reasons were given for the dominance of the online component: • The aims of all the courses are to improve communication skills or fluency, and/or intercultural skills. The best mode for practicing these skills is the online mode. ‘The telecollaboration is a way of putting into practice certain things that you want the students to learn about’ (EL1). • An OIE project is complex and needs explaining, for example, intercultural differences, troubleshooting and task instructions. This is time-consuming and does not leave time for many other things (NTE). • OIE clearly fosters student motivation: ‘The telecollaboration is the driving bit. It’s the motivational bit’ (EL1). • Most of the face-to-face work and homework are oriented towards preparing the virtual exchanges. Function of Each Mode These specifications show that OIE, in terms of estimated workload and setting the learning aims, is at the centre of the design of all six courses. ‘Even th[e] f2f sessions were telecollaboration-oriented,’ as the NTEteacher puts it. However, the OIE and face-to-face facets of the courses are tightly interwoven. The following section shows that the role of the face-to-face sessions in all six courses is to prepare for and/or reflect on the OIE sessions (see Figure 9.2). It is interesting to note that this applies regardless of their timely sequencing, either in rather regular intervals (NTE, 21F.303, EL1 and IRL), in separate blocks (SE) or in a combination of both (EL3). The particular types of activities included in each mode nevertheless depend on the main focus of the course, for example, language or intercultural awareness. OIE Online Discussions: Chosen Language and Aims In four of the six courses (NTE, SE, EL1 and EL3), at least part of the time, the students use a second language when interacting with their distant peers. All four courses aim at fostering oral fluency, developing communicative competence and/or enabling the students to carry on discussions in their L2. As a result, it is the OIE online discussions and interactions that the teachers feel are most important. In the other two courses (IRL and 21F.303), the students express themselves in the Romance language they know best (IRL) or in their

F2F preparative

OIE

F2F reflective

Figure 9.2  Relationship Between the F2F and OIE Modes in the Six BL Courses

186  Elke Nissen ‘mother’ tongue (21F.303). In the IRL course, the aim of the OIE component is to allow students to practice plurilingual written interactions, that is, to read and understand other Romance languages and to interact effectively. In 21F.303, the focus of the online exchanges is both expression—the content and form of which is used afterwards as input from local peers for a reflective activity—and discussion, with the aim of fostering intercultural awareness.1 Other courses also use OIE to improve intercultural skills (EL1 and EL3). Additionally, if exchanges include one-to-one synchronous oral sessions, they are considered opportunities to ‘develop some kind of very personal relationship’ (EL3). Preparatory and Reflective Face-to-Face Activities The face-to-face mode is complementary to the OIE component but necessary and irremovable. The two main functions of the face-to-face sessions are to prepare for the central mode of the course, that is, the OIE sessions, and to analyse the virtual exchanges in terms of what was said, how it was said and what happened. In both cases (i.e., in preparative and reflective sessions), the main focus of the course—whether it is language skills (e.g., listening skills, intercomprehension skills and strategies, vocabulary, form, academic discourse, etc.), intercultural awareness, academic skills, technical issues or several of these—determines the types of learning activities and the aspects of the OIE that the face-to-face sessions deal with. For example, a course with a focus on intercultural awareness, such as EL3, concentrates face-to-face sessions on behaviour during the OIE and on misunderstandings and hasty judgements, whereas a course with a focus on intercomprehension (IRL) includes face-toface work on how to express ideas related to the topics the students wish to choose for the collaborative OIE project in different romance languages. Face-to-face sessions often are based on various interactive learning activities: They include guided discussions (NTE, EL1 and EL3), either as preparation for distant discussions or to review things students noticed during their virtual exchanges, and small-group activities (SE, 21F.303, EL1 and IRL), such as brainstorming, comparing ideas, negotiating and collaborating. Several teachers emphasise that face-to-face sessions within these courses are very interactive, as the following two quotes illustrate: In class, [students] spend most of the time negotiating what they are going to use [within their collective task] (SE). The classroom is a highly interactive place where students, taking center stage and interacting with their classmates, develop insights and co-construct and expand their own knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. (Furstenberg & Levet, 2010, p. 333) In a less interactive part of the face-to-face sessions, teachers give instructions, for example, on how to accomplish a given task or on how to deal with technical problems.

Blended Approaches to OIE  187 A Supplementary Distant Mode Some courses combine the face-to-face and OIE modes with another distant mode (IRL first semester, NTE and SE), such as a virtual learning environment, a wiki, or videos or activities on other websites. This second distant mode is not integrated directly in the OIE, although it also is an integrated part of the course. It provides links to online videos and listening comprehension activities and hosts learning logs (NTE), makes available instructions and links to online language exercises (IRL) or allows the student to record and post an oral reflective production expressing a personal, metacognitive and cultural point of view to get a mark for his course (SE). According to the course designers, these distant learning activities using the supplementary mode could or do exist independently of the OIE sessions; nevertheless, they provide input for the virtual exchanges or allow students to work on the skills needed for these exchanges. These courses hence contain a double distant mode (one primarily dedicated to the virtual exchange with distant peers and the other one not) and a face-to-face mode. The Teacher’s Role Unsurprisingly, the teachers’ role in the OIE mode is almost exclusively proactive (organizing and coordinating online exchanges with distant partners). During the actual exchanges, their main role is to provide technical assistance. They also listen to or read students’ online discussions to identify points they think are interesting and important to discuss afterwards in class. Teachers’ interventions during virtual exchanges are mostly face-to-face. Their declarations show that these interventions may fulfill a number of roles, depending on whether the function of the face-to-face mode is to prepare the OIE session (give instructions, e.g., on how to use a tool and encourage students to interact), react to the OIE session (reassure students and identify critical points of the OIE), encourage students to reflect on the OIE session (discuss what happened during the OIE or problems during the OIE and act as a cultural moderator) or evaluation. Face-to-face sessions are dedicated largely to interactive activities such as discussions and group work. Nevertheless, the amount of guidance and input a teacher gives during discussions and group work depends on the teacher’s style. Assessment Another question that has to be addressed when analysing the combination of two learning modes into a BL course is how assessment takes into account the contributions of the two different learning modes. In many cases, teachers’ freedom to choose assessment methods is restricted, at least partly, by institutional constraints (e.g., SE, where the tasks assessed have to be the same as those assessed in parallel courses). Other factors constraining choices of assessment methods include general teaching practice, with students being unused to, for example, formative assessment (NTE), the number of students to be assessed (EL1), the different roles students may play in the online project, which makes it difficult to evaluate their contribution to the final collaborative task (IRL)

188  Elke Nissen Table 9.5 Assessed Items and the Modes They Relate to (SDM = Supplementary Distant Mode)

Course Title

Analytical/ Reflective Quality of Task Participation Skills Completion Portfolio

New Trends in OIE & f2f Education (NTE) Spoken English f2f (SE) 21F.303 OIE & f2f

OIE/SDM

f2f

OIE & f2f

English OIE & f2f Language 1 (EL1) English OIE & f2f Language 3 (EL3) SDM & OIE Intercomprehension Between Romance Languages (IRL)

Language Skills

Within task completion OIE & f2f

f2f

Within task completion

OIE & f2f

and the difficulty of assessing skills such as intercultural awareness (EL3). In addition, the skills and tasks assessed depend on the courses’ main objectives. Despite this long list of inherent differences, the items on which assessment is based generally bring together both modes of a BL course. For example, a portfolio may integrate reflection on what happened in both learning modes (21F.303). Improvements in language skills (assessed in IRL) or analytical skills (21F.303) also will be due to both modes. Other aspects that may be assessed include participation, task completion and reflection, as illustrated in Table 9.5. Student Choices The courses analysed here follow Bersin’s ‘program flow model’ and would therefore be expected to be quite rigid. This raises the question of whether or not students have the opportunity to make choices, for example, about which learning activities to use or time management. Giving students choices is a way of keeping transactional distance low (Moore, 1993) and helping them make the course their own. Of course, scheduling an OIE session with one or more distant partners requires tight planning of the OIE component but also of the related face-toface sessions. Analysis of the teachers’ statements on flexibility for learners showed that flexibility tends to be related mostly to the presence of larger tasks or projects that last longer than a week and that include several steps, where

Blended Approaches to OIE  189 the students are able to make choices. This is the case for both the OIE and face-to-face components of the courses. In three of the courses, these tasks form the hub of the virtual exchange (EL1, EL3 and IRL), with students being able to choose distant partners, online discussion questions, when to hand in work within a given deadline, topics, resources, tools and their role in the online project. In one course (SE), rather than the OIE component, it is the face-to-face component that is task based, with students able to choose their local partners, deadlines, topics and resources. Thus, whether a task is accomplished face-to-face or via OIE, it is within the task that students have the most choices. Two of the courses (NTE and 21F.303) do not include long tasks that can be divided into several steps and completed using a project-based approach. In these two courses, students are given fewer choices: They choose either deadlines or the topic to be addressed. Both courses are based on small tasks or activities that are repeated from week to week, with the aim of progressively developing certain skills either in the field of multiliteracy and oral fluency (NTE) or taking the students on an ‘intercultural journey’ (21F.303). CONCLUSION This chapter addresses the questions of how experienced OIE course designers combine OIE and face-to-face sessions into coherent BL courses and of the common denominators this blending shares. An analysis of six higher education language learning courses in different European countries revealed several major differences amongst them. These differences are due to external course contexts such as study year, degree programme and also due to constraints related to differing university calendars, the course objectives and inner elements such as different teaching styles and different methodological approaches. They result in various course structures and in various sequencing of the two learning modes. However, the courses also had numerous similarities including the facts that most of them lasted only one term and involved (with one exception) relatively small numbers of students (between 7 and 20). Like most higher education courses, all six of these followed a linear structure with learners starting and finishing simultaneously. As such, they fit Bersin’s (2004) ‘program flow model,’ in which learners tend to have little freedom to choose their learning activities. In the courses analysed, students were free to make choices, particularly when the course was based on a longer task and a project-based approach. However, this freedom to choose is not necessarily contradictory to Bersin’s ‘program flow model,’ as it extended only to aspects such as local or distant partners, online discussion questions, when to hand in work within a given deadline, the topics studied and the resources or tools the students used. Working on a joint topic or project, together with one or several other classes at a distance, which have their own constraints in terms of assessment, scheduling, and so on, makes it difficult to give larger choices to the students. In only one case (IRL) were students free to make choices about

190  Elke Nissen learning activities. Nevertheless, student choice is only one means to reduce transactional distance (Moore, 1993). Interaction is another one, which is central in these courses. Another result concerns the coherence of BL courses. Concordantly to Guth et al.’s (2012) finding that virtual exchanges tend to be integrated rather than add-on activities to other courses, both learning modes were inherent to the designs of all six courses analysed. This is maybe due to the fact that the teachers were asked to present a course that combines both modes in a way they considered coherent, which probably excludes simple add-ons. In addition, a common feature of all six courses is that the OIE mode is the central component of the design, with the face-to-face sessions being devoted mostly to preparatory and analytical activities relating to the virtual exchange. These courses’ designs differ from existing BL models that consider the online mode to be central (Flipped Classroom and Flex model). But, these courses integrating OIE fully meet a key design principle for BL courses that several authors claim with reference to Vygotsky’s Cultural-Historical Theory (Chew et al., 2008; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Nissen, 2014): facilitation through online interaction with peers and a tutor. The aim of this study was to examine the designs of different BL courses involving virtual exchanges to determine the factors that produce a coherent course design. This is an issue that, to date, has been little studied. The identification of parallels between these courses, regarding aspects such as using the OIE component as a lead mode, orienting the face-to-face classes towards the OIE component, assessing most often jointly both modes, and student choices, should help course designers and teachers develop effective BL courses that include OIE.

NOTE 1 In this course, the language objectives are addressed in the face-to-face sessions and as homework, not online.

REFERENCES Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE/OUP. Charlier, B., Deschryver, N., & Peraya, D. (2006). Apprendre en présence et à distance: une définition des dispositifs hybrides. Distances et Savoirs, 4(4), 469–496. Chew, E., Jones, N., & Turner, D. (2008). Critical review of the blended learning models based on Maslow’s and Vygotsky’s Educational Theory. Hybrid Learning and Education: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5169, 40–53. Degache, C. (2006). Aspects du contrat didactique dans une formation plurilingue ouverte et à distance. Le Français dans le monde. Recherches et applications, 40, 58–74. Degache, C.,  & Nissen, E. (2008). Formations hybrides et interactions en ligne du point de vue de l’enseignant: pratiques, représentations, evolutions. Alsic, 11(1). doi: 10.4000/alsic.797

Blended Approaches to OIE  191 Deschryver, N.,  & Charlier, B. (2012). HY-SUP—Dispositifs hybrides, nouvelle perspective pour une pédagogie renouvelée de l’enseignement supérieur. Rapport final. Retrieved from http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/vital/access/manager/Repository/ unige:23102 Furstenberg, G.,  & Levet, S. (2010). Integrating telecollaboration into the language classroom: Some insights. In S. Guth  & F. Helm (Ed.), Telecollaboration 2.0 (pp. 305–336). Bern: Peter Lang. Garrison, D. R.,  & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Guth, S., & Helm, F. (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0. Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Peter Lang. Guth, S., Helm, F., & O’Dowd, R. (2012). University language classes collaborating online. A Report on the integration of telecollaborative networks in European universities. Retrieved from http://intent-project.eu/sites/default/files/Telecollaboration_ report_Final_Oct2012.pdf Haeuw, F. (2004). Competice, outil de pilotage des projets TICE par les competences. Retrieved from http://www.centre-inffo.fr/Competice-outil-de-pilotage-des.html Kerres, M., & De Witt, C. (2003). A didactical framework for the design of blended learning arrangements. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), 101–114. MacDonald, J. (2008). Blended learning and online tutoring. Planning learner support and activity design. Farnham, GB: Gower Publishing Company. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M.,  & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policiy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved from http:// www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance: the evolution of theory of distance education. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). New York: Routledge. Müller-Hartmann, A. (2007). Teacher role in telecollaboration: setting up and managing exchanges. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange. An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 167–192). Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Murphy, L., & Southgate, M. (2011). The nature of the ‘blend’: Interaction of teaching modes, tools and resources. In M. Nicolson, L. Murphy and M. Southgate (Eds.), Language teaching in blended contexts (pp. 13–28). Edinburgh: Dunedin. Neumeier, P. (2005). A  closer look at blended learning—parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 163–178. Nissen, E. (2014). Modéliser le fonctionnement de la formation hybride en langues à travers des recherches ingénieriques. Unpublished higher dissertation, Université Grenoble-Alpes. O’Dowd, R. (Ed.). (2007). Online intercultural exchange. An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 623–642. O’Dowd, R., & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173–188. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43, 51–54. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www.blendedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ Classifying-K-12-blended-learning.pdf Tricot, A.,  & Plégat-Soutjis, F. (2003). Pour une approche ergonomique de la conception d’un dispositif de formation à distance utilisant les TIC, Sticef, 10, n.p. Retrieved from http://sticef.univ-lemans.fr

10 ‘Please Remove Your Avatar From My Personal Space’ Competences of the Telecollaboratively Efficient Person Melinda Dooly It is becoming increasingly common to hear of the need to educate ‘global citizens’ (UNESCO, 2014), which often is promoted as a means of creating bridges between imminent internationalisation (on all levels—individual, regional and national) and multicultural awareness (Olson, Evans & Shoenberg, 2007). Parallel to this, the use of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) to promote language learning (or, at least, to practice using a target language) has become accepted quite widely amongst both language educators and even the general public. Evidence of this is the fact that telecollaboration recently was featured in The Chronicle of Higher Education as an emerging practice (Perez-Hernandez, 2014). The two ideas are linked inherently: firstly, the use of CMC helps ensure that language learning activities are motivating and challenging and provide opportunities for meaningful language use (Abrams, 2003; Collentine, 2011; Ushioda, 2011). Secondly, through the use of CMC, language learners are acquiring skills they will need in the future (Davies, Fidler,  & Gorbis, 2011; Dooly, 2015). Most predictions about future jobs include descriptions of remote working, facilitated through online digital communities and crowd-sourcing techniques. The ability to cope personally and professionally with the conditions and challenges of working, communicating and ‘living’ with others online is a skill that will be necessary for all students currently enrolled in primary and secondary education (Wagner, 2011). Knowing how to collaborate—to work together towards a mutual goal— repeatedly has been deemed an essential skill for the 21st century (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008), and the use of communication technology to facilitate distanced collaboration is commonly known as ‘telecollaboration.’ As this practice has gained ground amongst language teachers, many different definitions have been proposed. A working definition of telecollaboration in education (it is acknowledged that telecollaboration can take place in environments outside of the educational field) is: an embedded, dialogic process that supports geographically-distanced collaborative work, intercultural exchange and social interaction of individuals or groups through synchronous and asynchronous communication technology (Internet, mobile services, etc.) so that they attain mutual objective(s) and shared knowledge is produced. This definition concurs with the previously cited reports and studies which underscore the notion that 21st-century communities will ‘hinge on

‘Please Remove Your Avatar’  193 collaborative relationships and social networking,’ and a successful workforce will have individuals who can ‘offer cross-border perspectives and solutions’ and ‘apply tangible skills such as language proficiency’ including ‘greater sensitivity to cultural differences, openness to new and different ideas, and the ability to adapt to change’ (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008, p. 7). Future skills can be divided into three principle domains: cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal; the latter include two clusters of competences—teamwork and collaboration and leadership—which are then subcategorised to include competences such as communication, collaboration, responsibility and conflict resolution (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2013). The role of education—and educators—in the promotion of these competences is patent. Of course, teaching about and through collaboration— between classes, between schools, between educational institutions and with outside individuals, entities or communities—is not a new activity. Documentation of formal educational collaborative practices can be traced back to the late 1800s and early 1900s (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998). In language education, fostering contact between language communities always has been a principal goal (as witnessed by international programmes of exchange, e.g., Erasmus programmes). However, with the increase of Internet connections, the use of telecollaboration for promoting language and intercultural learning is becoming more and more commonplace, providing teachers an economical and accessible means of contact and collaboration with speakers of other languages from around the world (Dooly & O’Dowd, 2012). Inevitably, being a telecollaboratively efficient person (TEP) includes having global competence as well as intercultural competence, along with new media literacy (Davies et al., 2011). Given that there is no universally accepted definition of these concepts, and furthermore, the idea of TEP has no precedents, this chapter aims first to revise current intercultural competence theories relevant to new understandings of networked exchanges and networked learning before outlining the rationale behind the TEP set of descriptors. The chapter also will provide practical examples of how the descriptors can be used in programmes that embed online exchange in language and intercultural learning. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND As indicated in the introduction to this book, telecollaboration, or OIE, involves digital collaborative interaction and exchange between individuals in geographically distant locations and is a type of interaction that is becoming more and more commonplace in language education. Along these lines, intercultural competences always have been a salient area of research for international exchanges (Audras  & Chanier, 2008; Belz, 2002; Belz  & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; Jin, 2013; Kinginger, Gourvès-Hayward, & Simpson, 1999; O’Dowd, 2003). Recently, research in this area appears to be moving away from the notion that ‘intercultural’ is limited to one specific target language focus towards more studies that hold a ‘global’ notion of the intercultural (Dubreil, 2012; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002). It is likely that this is related to the growing

194  Melinda Dooly ubiquity of online and mobile connection and the incremental possibilities of communicating with multilingual individuals that go beyond a single target language (Araújo e Sá, de Carlo, & Melo-Pfeifer, 2010; Kitade, 2012; Liaw & Bunn Le-Master, 2010). Within the scope of language teaching, the main idea of network-based language practice (telecollaborative language learning) is that computers, tablets and mobile devices provide a means of mediating authentic communication amongst persons across the globe, synchronously or asynchronously. As communication channels expand exponentially, the opportunities for transglobal contact between language learners from different cultures are inevitably much easier and faster. However, at the same time, the affordances of the different interactional modes available through the Internet and mobile devices may render ‘traditional’ categorisations of culture less salient to participants when engaged in ‘emergent’ cultures such as virtual communities. Inevitably, there is a need to revise current models of ICC and their application to such exchanges. Moreover, as ‘hypermobility leads to unprecedented encounters between people from different countries, whereas on the other, forms of rejection of and attacks on the “Other” increase on a daily basis’ (Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013, p. 1), the role that OIE can hold for improving and promoting intercultural awareness is patent. However, this is far easier said than done, as studies show that too often intercultural education falls into the concept of a fixed, static entity (see Barbot  & Dervin, 2011; Finch  & Nynäs, 2011). This is compounded by the difficulties of actually defining intercultural competences and intercultural awareness, as is witnessed by the many different terms that have been used in academic discourse: ‘multiculturalism,’ ‘cross-cultural adaptation,’ ‘intercultural sensitivity,’ ‘cross-cultural awareness,’ ‘cultural intelligence,’ ‘global citizenship’ and ‘global competences,’ to name a few examples (Fantini, 2009, p. 457). Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) underscore the inherent difficulties of defining, teaching and assessing intercultural competence. ‘If conceptualizing communication competence is difficult within a given culture, the challenge is clearly multiplied when extending such concepts across distinct cultural milieus’ (p. 2). In their review of conceptual models of ICC, the authors highlight the fact that ‘theories and models display both considerable similarity in their broad brushstrokes (e.g., motivation, knowledge, skills, context, outcomes) and yet extensive diversity at the level of specific conceptual subcomponents’ (p. 35). Indeed, their chapter includes a table of subcomponents that covers ‘300-plus terms and concepts’ (p. 45) and extends over eight pages. Their review of conceptual models provides five categories, three of which have been operationalised for the TEP suite of tools: compositional, co-orientational and adaptational (discussed in detail in the next section). According to Spitzberg and Changnon (2009, p. 10) the main features of these five categories include the following: • Compositional: Places emphasis on the various components of intercultural competence without specifying their relationships; in short, it tends

‘Please Remove Your Avatar’  195 to be lists or typologies of the relevant attitudes, skills, knowledge and behaviours which together make up intercultural competence. • Developmental: Outlines stages of evolution as intercultural competence is acquired. This model has a predominant focus on time dimension and a sense of progression or maturity. •  Co-orientational: Centres on the way in which communication—and subsequent perceptions, meanings and intercultural understanding—are co-constructed within intercultural interactions, focussing principally on shared meanings. • Adaptational: Considers how individuals adjust and adapt their attitudes, understandings and behaviours during encounters with cultural others, emphasizing the interdependence of multiple interactants through a process of mutual adjustment. • Causal path: Suggests explicit causal relationships between the different components of intercultural competence; usually path-like, moving towards specific outcomes that mark a particular competence. Apart from the many different conceptual approaches that have been taken with regard to intercultural competence, an additional challenge in pinpointing specific competences for telecollaborative environments is that, arguably, an ‘online’ culture is an emergent ‘third space’ that requires specific competences for individuals to be able to engage in dialogic interaction that is appropriate for the online context. ‘Newcomers to the Internet are expected to behave according to the “local customs” of the net’ (Shea, 2004), although they often are not aware or privy to the norms of such environments. This includes competences ranging from areas frequently associated with intercultural competence (and which can be developed in face-to-face contexts) to domains pertinent exclusively to online contexts, for instance, being able and willing to relativise personal experience, behaviours, and beliefs during online interaction that may or may not be related to ‘virtual’ features (e.g., dealing with ‘bots’ or interacting with a male avatar who is, in reality, female). Finally, it must be acknowledged that there are critical challenges inherent to any attempt at evaluating intercultural competences, including OIE contexts. Borghetti (2011) identifies five ethical issues in assessing intercultural competences: the lack of a reference model, as has been highlighted by Spitzberg and Changnon (2009); difficulties in assessing ‘internal outcomes’ (e.g., personal growth and maturity) and the contextual nature of these internal competences; the affective dimension; and inevitably the methods used for evaluating intercultural competences. There have been many suggestions for assessing intercultural competences (cf. Bennett, 1986; Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989; Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2006; Fantini, 1995; Griffith & Harvey, 2000; Kim, 1988; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Navas, Rojas, García, & Pumares, 2007; Ting-Toomey, 1999; to name a few). However, as Borghetti (2011) points out, many theoretical questions still are open for debate. For instance, the most common (and arguably easiest) way to measure competence is with individual

196  Melinda Dooly units (e.g., identified traits); however, the question remains as to what the exact relationship is amongst these components. How are they configured so that an individual can be considered ‘interculturally competent’ (or not)? What about the fact that each of these individual traits (attitudes, skills and know-how) may be more relevant to facilitating intrapersonal relationships at one time and not so operational at another moment due to the context of the interaction in question (what one might call an ‘episodic’ competence; for instance, what is a valuable knowledge, attitude or skill in a face-to-face encounter may not be effective in an online exchange). Moreover, intercultural competence is a co-construction of discourse and interaction (and inevitably a co-construct of the interactants, whether face-to-face or digital, human or ‘bot’). In this case, what is the role of the personal characteristics of each individual? Can these be assessed fairly? These are just a few of the many challenges that face language educators working in online environments. Nonetheless, it is usually the role of teachers and learners to assess (teacher, self and peer) their development in many different competences which are widely accepted as requisite for getting along in an increasingly interconnected, globalised world. ‘Models are necessarily simplified versions of the reality they seek to represent and therefore need to provide parsimonious guidance to theoretical and investigative pursuits’ (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 45). Inevitably the assessment tools that derive from these models will have theoretical weaknesses inherent to the models. The TEP suite of tools does not attempt to resolve all of these challenges; it merely serves as a guide for teachers and language learners to chart their evolution of the competences deemed necessary by today’s society. As (Byram, 2005, p. 4) exhorts, it is not ‘possible or necessary to produce an exhaustive description and definition of intercultural competence. What is needed is a description of elements which are “learnable/teachable” and form the basis of personal development.’ THE TELECOLLABORATIVELY EFFICIENT PERSON FRAMEWORK As the world becomes more interconnected, it is useful to identify common characteristics that can help individuals become more telecollaboratively effective. This is substantiated by a growing number of studies that highlight the apparent ‘disconnect between the parameters of the instructional setting’ (Cunningham, 2014, p. 1), for instance, language classrooms and the ‘target communicative register (p. 1), such as professional settings with their growing reliance on global CMC. It has long been pointed out by applied linguists that the concept of communicative ‘appropriateness’ depends, to a large degree, on both language knowledge (lexicon, morphosyntactic features, etc.) and strategic competence to engage and utilise this knowledge in ongoing communication (Bachman & Palmer, 1996) and that pragmatic failure can occur, even with L2 speakers who have excellent grammatical and lexical command of the target language (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Blum-Kulka, 1989; Kasper  & Rose,

‘Please Remove Your Avatar’  197 2002). In OIE, pragmatic complications may be exacerbated further by the complexity of using communication technology which may include obstacles such as unfamiliarity with technology features along with the diversity of individuals using CMC in terms of culture, age, perceptions, socioeconomic class and so forth. This can be compounded with assumed forms of ‘netiquette’ for different social media (see Preece, 2004, for more in-depth discussion). When an increasing number of web fora are multicultural, much of the potential of culturally diverse interaction may be lost due to clashes arising from problems in multicultural dialog. Similarly, legal and moral issues such as regulation, security, copyrights, ownership, free flow of information, and anonymity become increasingly contested due to the cultural and spatial distance of the users. (Tedre, Kamppuri & Kommers, 2006, p. 368) Of course, language classes, even those combined with OIE, cannot be expected to cover all potential communicative environments or all the pragmatic features that an individual might need for the increasingly multilingual, multicultural Internet. Nonetheless, with the right knowledge—what one might call ‘technopedagogical’ knowledge—teachers can support students’ awareness of the importance of sociopragmatics in online exchanges, provide them with a basis for understanding its role in effective online communication and promote learner autonomy to continue exploring the interdependence between linguistic forms and the sociocultural context they are functioning in. With this in mind, the INTENT team has developed a set of competences to identify what can be called the TEP,1 which consists of a set of descriptors (ideal competences to achieve) and strategies that teachers and learners can use to assess their growing awareness and development of these competences as they participate in OIEs. The descriptors are divided into four main domains: online language competences, social competences, technical competences and intercultural competences. (The online language competences were not intended as descriptors of general language learning levels; because these are covered amply in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2010), they focus specifically on language use during OIEs.) These domains subsequently are divided into three ‘macro’ areas of knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSAs) which are then divided into ‘micro’ KSAs. They are not set out in a hierarchal fashion in the sense of importance or order in which the competences should be assimilated because they are not perceived as competences to be assimilated linearly; their development inevitably is contextualised and will depend upon many diverse factors. The breakdown of the macro KSAs are designed to facilitate the identification of specific actions that are potentially demonstrative of the development and subsequent assessment of these competences (go to http://www.uni-collaboration.eu/sites/default/files/descriptors.pdf for all the descriptors).

198  Melinda Dooly Table 10.1  Sample Extract of TEP Descriptors

Online Language (these descriptors take consideration of online literacy needed for telecollaboration, not second or foreign language acquisition per se)

Knowledge

Skills

Attitudes

K.3. Knows that cultural and linguistic diversity exists and individual backgrounds will be brought into the online communication

S.3. Can build on the cultural and linguistic diversity of online communication to create empathetic and meaningful interaction Can participate in multilingual conversations

A.3. Holds a positive attitude towards cultural and linguistic diversity in online communication

Knows that online interaction may take place in more than one language

Knows that all languages are equally important Knows that the target language may not be the L1 of all participants Knows that online communication can be an environment for multiple language learning

Can negotiate the language(s) being used in the communication Can adapt own use of target language to speakers of different languages Can use online communication to access languages new to oneself

Does not feel uncomfortable or threatened when unfamiliar languages and online code are being used Does not impose the use of one language in the interaction Does not monopolise communication

Is open to multiple language learning, not just the target language in the exchange

As a tool designed to be used indiscriminately by any teacher or language learner around the globe, the descriptors, at first glance, follow Spitzberg and Changnon’s (2009) account of a ‘compositional model’ which aims only to identify the various attitudes, skills, knowledge and behaviours, which together make up a competence (in this case, telecollaborative competence) without conjecture on any interconnections, causal pathways or developmental interdependencies. As these authors point out, compositional models can be useful for defining the basic scope and contents of a theory of competences, even if

‘Please Remove Your Avatar’  199 they cannot ‘specify conditional relations amongst the components’ or ‘precise criteria’ concerning ‘levels of proficiency [and] combination of criteria or outcomes’ (p. 15). This model is complemented by ‘co-orientation’ and ‘adaptational’ features in the suite of tools—suggesting accompanying activities provided with the TEP descriptors, for instance, the personal reflection diary and personal ‘evidence’ collection. The diary supports individual reflection (based on evidence gathered during the OIE), along with iterative comparison with the descriptors, thereby promoting self-awareness of ‘individual dispositions (e.g., cultural/ethnic background, openness, resilience)’ that may affect OIE interaction (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 24). Finally, learners are encouraged to carry out their reflections in as many different modalities as they like, which allows them to explore different technology formats, thus promoting a recognition of the ‘emotion’ factor, which is often ignored in intercultural competence (and TEP) assessment. ‘[E]motion appraisal theories and affect theories may make important complements to existing models of intercultural competence’ (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 35). There is still little ‘practical’ application for language teachers to follow for teaching and assessing sociopragmatics (e.g., materials, handbooks, textbooks, etc.; see Kasper, 1997), and yet it is a key component of language proficiency. ‘In L2 learning contexts—especially at lower levels of proficiency . . . learners need to be able to meet the sociopragmatic demands of communication as well’ (Abrams, 2008, p.1). According to Takahashi (2010), high levels of attention-drawing activities are one of the most effective means for promoting sociopragmatic learning, more so, even, than exposure to examples. Language learner diaries have been endorsed as operational tools for getting students to ‘notice’ aspects of their language use (Kukulska-Hulme & Bull, 2008) and also in intercultural education as means of learner ‘articulation’ of the development process (Canning, 2004). Along these lines, students are encouraged to reflect about online events before (they can set short-term goals for the exchange based on the descriptors), during (quick notes of specific incidents that stand out during the exchange can be useful) and after each online encounter to record their thoughts and impressions (students are encouraged to ‘collect’ data from their interactions that allows them to return to the events immediately or after some time has passed). An essential aspect of the diary is that students link reflection to the TEP descriptors and with personal events or episodes and then correlate these with selected evidence of learning, largely based on a type of elenctic approach (the individual examines an initial statement through further questions to pursue self-dialogic thinking). Students are given some opening questions: What? So What? Now What? These subsequently are itemised into further points, as suggested here: What? Briefly describe the event(s) from an online exchange as objectively as possible. What happened? Who was involved? What did you observe?

200  Melinda Dooly So What? Analyse the experience objectively (e.g., with the TEP guidelines) and subjectively. What did you feel or do? Did something surprise you or feel unexpected? What was your perspective as the event was happening? What ‘lens’ were you ‘viewing’ from? Was there something you particularly liked or disliked? Why? Were there any particular challenges or difficulties? Now What? Did you learn anything from it? Where can you go from here? Did you learn a new skill or clarify an interest? How can you keep and apply this learning in the future? What more would you like to learn related to this type of exchange? How can you learn more? What information or advice would you like to share with your peers? If you could do the exchange again, what would you do differently? The questions can be made available to the students through handouts or as online documents that are always available to the students. These can be configured in an online document (randomly placed horizontally or vertically) to help students appreciate that there is no set hierarchy for the questions, promoting non-linear thinking in the learners (Lambert & Cuper, 2008). Student reflection is coupled with their ‘personal’ collection of learning evidence, consisting of samples from their online exchange. This compendium represents their learning process and provides the learners a means of demonstrating that they know how to make links between the theory (competences) and practice (the online exchange) and can then reflect on their own progress. There are many different modes of documentation such as text chat extracts, voice chat recordings, voice chat transcriptions, blog or forum entries, screen captures and so on. Learners are encouraged to collect data during the OIE to become ‘self-ethnographers’ (Gallinat  & Collins, 2013; Jordan, 2001; Spindler  & Hammond, 2000). Evidence can be stored in many different online repositories (cloud storage spaces such as Dropbox, video blogs, YouTube, Vimeo, etc.) which can then be shared with teachers or other peers, if the learner so chooses. Finally, teachers interested in using a suite of tools such as the TEP descriptors and learner diaries must be fully aware of ethical issues that can arise. The underlying (pedagogical) motivation of the reflection and collections should be made clear from the beginning, especially in cases where these instruments will be used for evaluative purposes. This may require an open discussion of what can be considered appropriate disclosure (on behalf of the student) to avoid embarrassing (and perhaps legally compromising) revelations. It also will help learners frame their discussions within an academic context so that they understand their underlying responsibility for recording events accurately, separating fact from fiction and refraining from disparagement of third parties mentioned in the reflection. The ‘trust factor’ must go both ways—teachers must be clear about their expectations concerning the use of output collection and reflection and state criteria from the beginning in the case that these instruments will be used for

‘Please Remove Your Avatar’  201 assessment. Given that participation in this process may not be voluntary (especially in the case of assessment), the percentage of the final mark must be defined from the beginning, along with agreed terms for ensuring original authorship. Lastly, if student output is going to be used for research purposes later on, this must be stated up front, accompanied with free and informed consent from the students, and all data must be anonymised for ensuing publications. TELECOLLABORATIVELY EFFICIENT PERSON IMPLEMENTATION: A SAMPLE COURSE The suite of tools described here has been implemented during three years in a teacher education course that involved two universities in a telecollaborative experience. The descriptors aimed to position the learning that took place during OIE within a basic framework of teacher and student expectations about the exchange concerning what they might learn as teachers and also as TEPs. These could then be correlated with evidence stemming from the OIE and student reflection, expressed in whichever manner the learners preferred. This allowed for some accommodation to learner styles (Kolb, 1984) as shown in the examples (see Figures 10.1 and 10.2).2 In both cases, the students chose mixed modalities of oral and written production (voice-embedded avatars in the largely text-based blog, Figure 10.1) and text- and voice-narrated testimony in the cartoon video, Figure 10.2). It is interesting to note that the student who created the blog appears deliberately to have chosen ‘multicultural’ avatars to narrate her thoughts.

Figure 10.1  Student Blog of TEP Self-Assessment and Reflection

202  Melinda Dooly

Figure 10.2  Student Video of TEP Self-Assessment and Reflection

Figure 10.3  Collaborative Online Peer Rubric

As seen in these examples, the descriptors were proposed as a guide for each learner to set their own goals for improvement. Development or enhancement of these competences could then be measured by specifically designed assessment tools (e.g., rubrics for self and peer and teacher assessment) as shown in Figure 10.3. In this example, the learners chose the competences that they were interested in evaluating and carried out self-assessment. At the same time, the student

‘Please Remove Your Avatar’  203 posted the same rubric in an online platform for her peers to provide feedback. In the case demonstrated in Figure 10.3, the peer assessment also involved online collaboration, as the group had to come up with one group-negotiated evaluation for each group member through an online, editable document. The process for the collaborative ‘group’ peer assessment included assigning a leader (a rotating role) who was responsible for carrying out the initial appraisal, which was then negotiated through online comments and changes by the rest of the group. The leader was responsible for getting a final assessment (with edited, ‘teacher-like’ comments) to the student who had chosen these descriptors. This telecollaborative experience (filling in a peer assessment through negotiation) was also part of the reflection on the learners’ own TEP competences as demonstrated in Figure 10.4 (in this case, the student, having identified herself as a ‘visual’ learner, preferred using an online cartoon tool for her reflective diary). Throughout the reflection, and in particular in periodic summaries of their ‘own learning,’ the students were encouraged to articulate their OIE experiences with ‘in situ’ professional experiences, all within a framework of theory provided during the course (Canning, 2004; Kroll, 2012). Because the content of this course consisted of methodologies for teaching foreign languages (the students were in their final year of a four-year teacher education degree), they were encouraged to examine the interrelationships amongst methodologies, approaches and practices to ‘develop theory with a small t’ (Kroll, 2012, p. 58). This helped them see how they could emulate and reconstruct (at least hypothetically) fruitful OIE learning environments in their future teaching, as shown in Figure 10.5. The student teacher demonstrates that she is able to distance herself from what one might call a ‘third-space sociopragmatic failure,’ see it as a critical incident that helps her gain insight into the complexity of OIE and pushes her towards a critical mindset about this type of exchange. Consequently, she

Figure 10.4  Student Cartoon Reflective Diary

204  Melinda Dooly

Figure 10.5  Student’s Online Portfolio Related to TEP descriptors

articulates her own theory (with a small ‘t’) concerning the need to ensure TEP in her own future students. CONCLUSION As it has been pointed out in the theoretical section of this chapter, academic debate on how to best measure intercultural competences (if there exists a ‘best’ way at all) underscores the inherent difficulties of assessment in intercultural education. Even if one can get past the point made by Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) that simply defining intercultural competence is problematic, there is the possible pitfall of conceptualising ‘intercultural’ as a fixed, static entity (cf. Barbot & Dervin, 2011; Finch & Nynäs, 2011). These theoretical questions are compounded by ethical issues when assessing intercultural competence as outlined by Borghetti (2011), not least of which are the complications of measuring ‘internal’ outcomes, individual traits, and the personalised way in which each person operationalises specified competences (which, in turn, is contingent upon the context in which the individual is interacting). This chapter has outlined further challenges involved in both defining and assessing the qualities or competences needed for successful OIEs and has outlined a set of tools to support the ‘technopedagogical’ knowledge needed for teacher and students to develop a set of competences to become a TEP. This

‘Please Remove Your Avatar’  205 suite of tools consists of a set of descriptors (ideal competences to achieve) and recommended formative assessment activities that teachers and learners can use to measure their emergent awareness and honed abilities to participate proactively and efficiently in OIEs. In a world where such skills are increasingly valued, at times even considered essential for workplaces, leisure activities or simply day-to-day tasks, the role of language teachers is fundamental for supporting the acquisition of these abilities. The TEP suite of assessment tools endeavours to go beyond ‘product-oriented’ evaluative practices through student-directed formative assessment in which the students are encouraged to establish their own targets and pathways to achieve those goals and through critical reflection on their experiences in OIE.

NOTES 1 Authors of the TEP are Melinda Dooly, Mirjam Hauck and Tim Lewis, with collaboration from Victoria Antoniadou, Dolors Masats and Claudia Vallejo. 2 The website for figures 10.1, 10.2, 10.4 and 10.5 can be found at http://tepbll.blog spot.com.es. Explicit consent was given to publish the materials, and all student identifiers have been removed from the examples given. Standard consent forms were signed at the beginning of the course acknowledging that anonymised student output might be used as the basis of research into teaching and learning. Students were informed that participation or non-participation would not affect their final marks in any way (it was not compulsory to agree to make their output available).

REFERENCES Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167. doi: 10.1111/ 1540–4781.00184. Abrams, Z. I. (2008). Sociopragmatic features of learner-to-learner computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 1–27. Araújo e Sá, M., de Carlo, M.,  & Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2010). ‘O que diriam sobre os portugueses?’ [What would you say about Portuguese people?]: Intercultural curiosity in multilingual chat-rooms. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(4), 277–298. Audras, I.,  & Chanier, T. (2008). Observation de la construction d’une compétence interculturelle dans des groupes exolingues en ligne. Alsic, 1(1) [Online Journal]. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barbot, M.-J.,  & Dervin, F. (Eds.). (2011). Rencontres interculturelles et formation. Éducation Permanente. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In G. Kasper & K. R. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Belz, J. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60–81. Belz, J. A., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 71–89. doi: 10.1111/1540–4781.00179.

206  Melinda Dooly Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179–196. Retrieved from http://www.DOI.org.are.uab.cat/10.1016/0147–1767(86)90005–2 Berry, J., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38(2), 185–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1464–0597.1989.tb01208.x Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 37–70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Borghetti, C. (2011). How to teach it? Proposal for a methodological model of intercultural competence. In A. Witte & T. Harden (Eds.), Intercultural competence: Concepts, challenges, evaluations (pp. 141–160). Oxford: Peter Lang. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. New York: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2005). European language portfolio. Theoretical model and proposed template for an autobiography of ‘key intercultural experiences.’ Language Policy Division. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Canning, J. (2004). Disability and residence abroad. Guide to good practice. Southampton: Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies. Collentine, K. (2011). Learner autonomy in a task-based 3D world and production. Language Learning and Technology, 15(3), 50–67. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/issues/october2011/collentine.pdf Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Language Policy Unit. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Cunningham, D. J. (2014). The development of pragmatic competence through telecollaboration: An analysis of requesting behavior. Unpublished PhD thesis, supervised by Nina Vyatkina. University of Kansas, Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures and the Graduate Faculty. Lawrence: University of Kansas. Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis, M. (2011). Future work skills 2020. Institute for the Future (IFTF). Palo Alto, CA: Institute for the Future for University of Phoenix Research Institute. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in Intercultural Education, 10, 241–266. Dervin, F., & Liddicoat, A. (2013). Introduction. Linguistics of intercultural education. In F. Dervin & A. Liddicoat (Eds.), Linguistics for intercultural education (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dooly, M. (2015). Learning to e-function in a brave new world: Language teachers’ roles in educating for the future. In A. Turula & B. Mikolajewska (Eds.), Insights into technology enhanced language pedagogy (pp. 9–24). Bern/Vienna: Peter Lang. Dooly, M.,  & O’Dowd, R. (2012). Researching online interaction and exchange in foreign language education: Introduction to the volume. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), Researching online foreign language interaction and exchange. Theories, methods and challenges (pp. 11–41). Bern/Vienna: Peter Lang. Dubreil, S. (2012). Identities, borders, change: A case study of (trans) cultural learning in mediated learning communities. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 3(3), 60–80. Fantini, A. E. (1995). Language, culture, and world view: Exploring the nexus. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19, 143–153. Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 456–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Finch, J., & Nynäs, P. (2011). Transforming otherness. New York: Transactions. Gallinat, A., & Collins, P. (2013). The ethnographic self as resource: Writing memory and experience into ethnography. New York and Oxford: Berghahn.

‘Please Remove Your Avatar’  207 Griffith, D. A., & Harvey, M. G. (2000). An intercultural communication model for use in global interorganizational networks. Journal of International Marketing, 9(3), 87–103. doi: http://dx.DOI.org/10.1509/jimk.9.3.87.19924 Jin, L. (2013). Language development and scaffolding in a Sino-American telecollaborative project. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 193–219. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2013/jin.html Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Jordan, S. A. (2001). Writing the other, writing the self: Transforming consciousness through ethnographic writing. Language and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 40–57. Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6). Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/ NetWorks/NW06/ Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. King, P. M.,  & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A  developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 571–592. doi: 10.1353/ csd.2005.0060 Kinginger, C., Gourvès-Hayward, A., & Simpson, V. (1999). A tele-collaborative course on French-American intercultural communication. French Review, 72(5), 853–866. Retrieved November 17, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/398359 Kitade, K. (2012). An exchange structure analysis of the development of online intercultural activities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 65–86. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. L. (2002). Foreign language learning as a global communicative practice. In D. Block  & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 83–100). London: Routledge. Kroll, L. R. (2012). Self-study and inquiry into practice. Learning to teach for equity and social justice in the elementary school classroom. Milton Park/New York: Routledge. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Bull, S. (2008). Theoretical perspectives on mobile language learning diaries and noticing for learners, teachers and researchers. Proceedings of the mLearn 2008 Conference. Ironbridge Gorge, Shropshire, GB: MLearn. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/15105/2/384A7259.pdf) Lambert, J., & Cuper, P. (2008). Multimedia technologies and familiar spaces: 21st-century teaching for 21st-century learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 264–276. Retrieved from, http://www.citejournal.org/articles/v8i3 currentpractice1.pdf Liaw, M. -L.,  & Bunn Le-Master, S. -L. (2010). Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 21–40. Navas, M., Rojas, A. J., García, M., & Pumares, P. (2007). Acculturation strategies and attitudes according to the relative acculturation extended model (RAEM): The perspectives of natives versus immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 67–86. doi: http://dx.DOI.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.08.002 O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural learning in a SpanishEnglish e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118–144. Olson, C., Evans, R., & Shoenberg, R. (2007). At home in the world: Bridging the gap between internationalization and multi-cultural education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st century skills, education and competitiveness. A resource and policy guide. Tucson, AZ: 21stcenturyskills.

208  Melinda Dooly Pellegrino, J. W.,  & Hilton, M. L. (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Committee on defining deeper learning and 21st century skills. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies. Perez-Hernandez, D. (2014, May 5). Technology provides foreign-language immersion at a distance. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved from http://chronicle. com/article/Technology-Provides/146369 Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette online: From nice to necessary. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 56–61. doi: 10.1145/975817.975845. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Shea, V. (2004). Netiquette. San Francisco: Albion Books. Spindler, G., & Hammond, L. (2000). The use of anthropological methods in educational research: Two perspectives. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 39–48. Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures. Handbook of pragmatics vol. 7 (pp. 391–421). Berlin: Gruyter Mouton. Tedre, M., Kamppuri, M., & Kommers, P. (2006). An approach to global netiquette research. In P. Kommers, P. Isaias,  & A. Goikoetxea (Eds.), IADIS International Conference on Web Based Communities (pp. 367–370). San Sebastian, Spain: International Association for Development of the Information Society. Retrieved from http://www.mif.vu.lt/~adam/iadis-wbc-2006/WBC2006.pdf. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford. UNESCO. (2014). Global citizenship education. Preparing learners for the challenges of the twenty-first century. United Nations Educational, Scientific, Education Sector. Paris: UNESCO. Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199–210. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2010.538701 Wagner, C. G. & Cornish, E. (2011). Emerging jobs and how to create them. The Futurist, 45(1), 30–33.

11 A New Approach to Assessing Online Intercultural Exchange Soft Certification of Participant Engagement Mirjam Hauck and Teresa MacKinnon The challenges to the adoption of telecollaborative activity, also known as virtual exchange or OIE, already have been well documented (see, e.g., Guth, Helm,  & O’Dowd, 2012; MacKinnon, 2013) and the complexity of shared electronic accreditation explained (Aguirre  & Quemada, 2012). Yet there is widespread agreement that OIE is a viable pedagogical model that provides rich intercultural experiences for those involved and serves the goal of virtual mobility in foreign language higher education (Sweeney, 2012). Those experienced in setting up and running OIEs are therefore constantly seeking ways of increasing and sustaining participation in OIEs as part of language curricula. Whereas assessment and official accreditation remain one of the main challenges faced by OIE practitioners, this chapter proposes a framework for recognition of learning efforts based on the use of Open Badges for soft certification of participant engagement and task execution. An Open Badge is a digital image with encoded metadata which can be displayed online as evidence of an achievement. We see this approach as an important next step to bring OIE closer into the mainstream of formal language education. Almost two decades of research in OIE for language and cultural learning are—as Lamy and Goodfellow (2010) remind us—characterised by an unusual willingness of those responsible to review the effectiveness of their work and by their readiness to document failure. The latter has been attributed to a variety of factors including differing approaches to interaction amongst participants, incompatible local learning values and mismatches between collaborative online activity and individually assessed outcomes (for a comprehensive overview, see Lamy & Goodfellow, 2010). It therefore comes as no surprise that navigating such a complex area of activity which usually revolves around the joint completion of several predesigned tasks requires significant motivational support for learners and educators alike. With the arrival of MOOCs on the educational scene and their seemingly low completion and high attrition rates, the question of how to support motivation that leads to sustained participation and interaction amongst online learning partners has received renewed attention. MOOCs offer a range of informal to formal learning opportunities and follow a spectrum of network-, task-, and content-based approaches (Lane, 2012). We propose that taskbased MOOCs which emphasise skill development through task completion,

210  Mirjam Hauck and Teresa MacKinnon particularly those which rely heavily on learner collaboration, are readily comparable to OIEs. Initiatives to foster learner motivation in MOOCs are therefore worthy of consideration when exploring how skills acquisition in OIE can at least be acknowledged in a semiformal way whilst the debate about appropriate assessment is ongoing and an agreed approach remains a desideratum. In this chapter we propose a framework for badging as an incentive for participant engagement with each other and with tasks during OIEs, drawing on Cross and Galley’s (2012) badge typology. To that effect we will take O’Dowd and Ware’s (2009) overview of the main categories of OIE tasks as a starting point and suggest a way in which the various roles of badges as identified by Cross and Galley (2012) can be mapped onto O’Dowd and Ware’s (2009) taxonomy. Our approach is informed by insights gained during a pilot implementation of Open Badges in the context of an established, large-scale OIE between a French and a British HEI called Clavier. In the next section we will discuss the significance of motivation in OIE activity. Following that, we provide a general introduction to badges and their use in education and present Cross and Galley’s (2012) typology of badges and the underlying pedagogical rationale for badge implementation in OIEs, drawing on O’Dowd and Ware’s (2009) typology of OIE tasks. We then briefly present the Clavier project and report on a pilot study believed to be the first of its kind where both tutors and learners were able to earn badges during the exchange. We go on to propose a framework for Open Badges in OIE before the final section draws this chapter to a conclusion with some recommendations for the successful integration of Open Badges in OIE. WHY MOTIVATION MATTERS For Downes (2011, n.p.) motivating participants to remain engaged in MOOCs is not an issue: One big difference between a MOOC and a traditional course is that a MOOC is completely voluntary. You decide that you want to participate, you decide how to participate, then you participate. If you’re not motivated, then you’re not in the MOOC. Whereas this observation might well hold true for the original connectivist MOOCs, also referred to as cMOOCs, which sit towards the network-based end of Lane’s (2012) spectrum, the same does not necessarily apply to xMOOCs, which operate at the opposite, content-based end. Education providers who offer xMOOCs primarily as an extension of their formal provision have to justify financial outlay and are concerned to maintain reputation. As a result course completion is high on their agenda. They are making increasing use of badges to enhance learner motivation and thus retention rates. Since 2013, as Sharples et  al. (2013) point out in the British Open University’s “Innovating Pedagogy” report, there have been ‘encouraging signs

A New Approach to Assessing OIE  211 that the tools and infrastructure for awarding badges in online environments are improving’ (p.12). Their report explores new forms of teaching, learning and assessment to guide educators and policy makers in productive innovation. They see a clear link between the increasing popularity of badges and the growing interest in MOOCs with badges providing ‘a way of recognising achievement within MOOCs as well as driving engagement with them’ (p. 13). However, incentivising learning activity is controversial. It is generally accepted that intrinsically motivated students learn better and are more likely to continue to access learning beyond and outside formal provision. According to Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination theory: [P]eople are motivated from within, by interests, curiosity, care or abiding values. These intrinsic motivations are not necessarily externally rewarded or supported, but nonetheless they can sustain passions, creativity, and sustained efforts. (2001, n.p.) This resonates with Downes’ (2011) claim cited earlier and suggests that implementing rewards potentially could reduce the learner’s ownership of their learning experience. In a meta-analysis of research into extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001) show that whereas there is a risk of undermining intrinsic motivation using reward systems, particularly in young people, there is also good reason to explore the use of creative tasks which provide meaningful learning opportunities, choice and challenge. To do so, one must think carefully about when and how to use rewards. Tasks which provide constructive alignment with desired learning outcomes and are situated within the relevant learning context can offer ‘a powerful new way to motivate learning’ (Hickey & Zuiker, 2005, p. 299). Open Badges, we propose, offer a new way of acknowledging successful execution of such tasks and can thus consolidate the motivational benefit. BADGES AND BADGING Soft certification in the form of badges offers a flexible mechanism for recognising achievements on the journey to more substantial goals in both formal and informal learning contexts. Recently the tools and infrastructure required for badging have attracted growing interest in the GB and beyond with implementations appearing for mainstream learning environments (Sharples et al., 2013). Badging also can provide an informal alternative to more traditional accreditation or enhance the recognition of learning efforts in areas where development of accreditation is slow to develop, such as OIE. Whereas a growing number of educators is turning to badging to help online courses run successfully and to motivate learners, greater awareness and understanding of badging is still developing with initiatives supported internationally by Mozilla’s Open Badges infrastructure and the Badge Alliance. The core technology

212  Mirjam Hauck and Teresa MacKinnon of a badge backpack which makes badges ‘portable’ is available to many virtual learning environments already such as the Moodlerooms Joule platform, which formed the backdrop for the pilot project presented later in this chapter. In their work in progress document the Mozilla Foundation and Peer 2 Peer University define a ‘digital badge’ as ‘an online record of achievements, tracking the recipient’s communities of interaction that issued the badge and the work completed to get it’ (Mozilla Foundation and P2P University, 2012, p. 3). This approach is aimed at motivating learning and signalling achievement both within particular communities as well as across communities and institutions. They distinguish between digital and Open Badges. Open Badges go beyond the concept of representing an evidenced skill online. They allow the badge holder to migrate badges earned from different badge awarders to evidence their skills and achievements through their chosen online channels such as personal blogs or e-portfolios. Open Badges are built on an open standard which enables learners to combine multiple badges from different issuers to best reflect their overall set of competences. A badge is made up of two main components: an image file (.png) giving a visual representation of the award and an electronic record which contains the criteria for award and the validator. The information becomes attached to the badge image file as hard-coded metadata which can be viewed. Those who award badges do so through an electronic mechanism which allows a badge to track back to the metadata. Badge creation can be very simple, using a free online design tool such as Mozilla’s online Open Badge designer. More complex images can of course be created in a variety of ways according to the awarding authority’s requirements. Badges typically reward the acquisition of micro-credentials and do not require corporate styles to be applied. The image file is then uploaded to the virtual learning environment at course or site level, associating it with the relevant issuing criteria. It is then available to learners who satisfy the conditions defined. The badge can be awarded automatically using completion information set within the course or site or manually awarded by those within the system who have the appropriate role in relation to the submission of the corresponding evidence. For example, an automated badge award through the completion of a particular activity (e.g., assignment submission or quiz completion) can recognise a waypoint on the learning journey, or evidence evaluated by a user with a specific role within the course (e.g., a tutor or mentor) can also trigger an award. The learner will get a notification as a result and further information regarding how to set up their own backpack to which they can export the badge. The learner adds badges to his/her individual backpack. They can control how and where they display the badges. All badges carry the trackback identifying how and where the badge was awarded and what exactly it has been awarded for. This flexible way of collecting recognition for an acquired competence takes account of the increased access to networked learning opportunities. Badges can be collected from a wide range of communities of practice, not only traditional educational establishments. cMOOC-style online courses are increasingly incorporating badges as recognition of engagement in continuing

A New Approach to Assessing OIE  213 professional development beyond institutional walls and schedules. They offer incentives which are particularly appealing for those who cannot access courses, extending learning opportunities to nontraditional audiences and connecting practitioners across geographical boundaries. Learning initiatives such as, for example, the Association for Learning Technology’s #octel course can serve the dual purpose of reskilling and acquiring new skills without which many would be unable to access work opportunities. Learning technologists who choose to participate in the course are rewarded for their engagement with Open Badges.

Roles of Badges and Online Intercultural Exchange Tasks Experimenting with badging for a task-based online open access course at the British Open University Cross and Galley (2012) argue that seeking out opportunities to acknowledge achievements may enhance participant motivation and learning in the following three key ways: • rewarding the attainment of a way point on a predetermined learning journey (passing a test, completing an activity); • rewarding effort (cumulative or threshold reached, e.g. number of hours committed, number of exercises completed); •  rewarding deviation from the main “learning arc” (see below) and hence encouraging and rewarding “exploration, deeper learning, and independence.” (2012, p. 2) They have identified a number of roles that badges can play within an informal learning journey (see Table 11.1). Most of these, we contend, also apply to learning at the interface between formal and informal educational contexts where OIEs often are situated in the wake of the Social Web (Lamy & Goodfellow, 2010). Not all of the roles identified are linked immediately to pedagogical goals. In fact, only the first three are related directly to learner motivation by the authors. Yet, motivational gain potentially also can result from using a badge to represent achievement or as an indicator of belonging to a group of learners with whom that achievement is being shared or, in contrast, to distinguish oneself from those who have not made the same achievement (Role 9, ‘as a symbol of identity,’ and Role 10, ‘as a means of association’). Moreover we propose that badge Roles 4 and 5, ‘meaning maker’ and ‘signifier of learning objectives’ may have some indirect motivational impact as they show that a learning objective deemed important by the awarder has been achieved, thus making the learning process itself more meaningful. The same indirect impact on learner motivation, we suggest, can be expected from Role 8, the badge as ‘a valuer,’ as it is supposed to raise awareness and appreciation of what has been learnt. Cross and Galley’s (2012) framework for badging draws on the idea that a course or module develops like a ‘learning arc’: ‘[A] course, just like a novel, a

Table 11.1  Roles of Badges (reproduced with permission from Cross and Galley, 2012) Benefit of the Badge Role of Badge

Receiver (Learner)

Creator (Awarder)

1. As a motivator 2. To promote engagement 3. To prevent withdrawal

Greater sense and understanding of achievements, skills learnt and progress being made; can set intermediate milestones and waypoints in the learning journey

4. As a meaning maker 5. Signifier of learning objectives

Badges help show learners what the awarder thinks are most important to the subject or competency being studied; it can give greater meaning to the learning

6. As a low-cost option

The learner does not have to pay for assessment or potentially even study (or pay for) a course to receive the badge

7. As a low-effort option

The learner does not have to enrol in a course if they have done something previously that demonstrates they meet the badge criteria In a similar way to a qualification or certificate, a badge can help the learner to value what is being learnt

A solution to the ‘motivation issue’ for open courses that have no formal assessment (or at least teachermarked, qualificationrelated assessment); the dropout rate for such courses is much higher than for traditional courses (even up to 90–95 percent of registrations) Badges can help describe what is important and can be constructively aligned with learning outcomes; achievement of a badge may be seen as evidence that an outcome also has been achieved Awarder does not need to mark, moderate, grade or award; this means less to no time spent on assessment and on maintaining the structures that support assessment and award Courses are repeatable with less effort from the awarder (less to no time required for assessment) Both the existence of a badge and uptake of it by learners, can help confer value to something that is clearly import to the awarder (otherwise why create the badge)

8. As a valuer

Benefit of the Badge Role of Badge

Receiver (Learner)

Creator (Awarder)

  9. As a symbol of identity 10. As a means of association

A shorthand to represent achievement, effort or skills and a way of associating with, and simultaneously distinguishing oneself from, others

11. As empowerment

Enables learner to gain status within a group by achieving badges deemed of value to the group

12. As an entrencher

Those learners who can gain badges sooner (e.g., who already have the skills) place themselves at a competitive advantage over those who cannot; rather than empower, this may simply entrench an existing hierarchy or social or professional structure

Helps tie the learner to the awarder and in so doing deepens the association between them and others holding the badge; for social or political groups for whom the goal of a qualification or award is not the primary purpose, badges can provide shared goals (or other foci) around which badge seekers and badge achievers can associate Awarder gains status by being seen as an awarder, and potentially, this may help challenge and shift the authority or power to recognise achievement and skills; the awarder does not need to have formal qualification-granting powers to create badges; may also allow individuals to attempt to determine the identity of a group Institutions, individuals or groups with established authority, status, wealth or power may use badges to entrench or even extend this; this privileges ‘super-players’ at the detriment of small independents

216  Mirjam Hauck and Teresa MacKinnon movie or a video game, contains a broad central “story arc”—a “learning arc” or journey with a start beginning (beginning of a course) and an end.’ Their conceptualisation of a course as a journey is apt for OIEs, often compared to joint learning journeys for the participants. Explaining the principles underpinning the Cultura project, for example, Furstenberg and Levet (2010) stress that understanding another culture goes well beyond simple accumulation of factual knowledge. It is rather the outcome of a dynamic, interactive process of joint knowledge construction which the students undertake together with their foreign partners. Hence, they compare their project website to a ‘road map’ for the learners as ‘they journey together through the other cultural land’ (p. 310). The Cultura project (Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001; Furstenberg, this volume) is one example of operationalising the learning needed to achieve ICC. ICC is the ability to interact appropriately and effectively with people from other cultures and requires a complex set of skills. Social psychological approaches to ICC draw attention to social identity management, which may have particular relevance to online settings, where presence and identity are mediated through technology. This approach could inform and complement the input from applied linguists who analyse linguistic products from interactions. A multidisciplinary perspective on the field of ICC is available in the Handbook of Intercultural Communication (Kotthoff & SpencerOatey, 2007). OIE does not seek to measure or assess ICC but rather to provide opportunities to experience and reflect upon intercultural encounters. O’Dowd (2011) explains how ICC can be developed through OIE tasks, drawing on the work of Byram (1997). Examples also are available on the UNICollaboration. eu platform, one of the outputs of the European Union-funded INTENT project (Guth et al., 2012). Learners engaging in OIE will undertake a learning journey which extends their field of activity beyond their geographical and contextual constraints. A simple task such as sharing with others online a photo of an aspect of a daily routine becomes a starting point for further exploration. Badges, then, can intersect with this journey at various points depending on the three key ways to enhance participant motivation and learning already mentioned. Type I is a badge that gets awarded when a learner has reached a specific predetermined point on his/her learning journey, such as the completion of

TYPE I Start

End Waypoint / Endpoint passed (e.g. passed a test, completed an activity, simply reached that point)

Badge recognises a point in the learning arc (the designed learning) that has been reached and passed. The badge may be defined in such a way that the learner can refer to previous work (dashed arrow).

Figure 11.1 

Learning arc with four waypoints and additional reward for starting the course and reaching the end

Type I Badge Awarded for Achievement (from Cross & Galley, 2012)

A New Approach to Assessing OIE  217 a single activity or task, or each time a smaller task which is part of a task sequence (represented as a single point on the arc) has been accomplished. A Type II badge gets awarded after a certain time of active participation in an online exchange for sustained effort and perseverance. Criteria which define the nature of such participation need to be published at the outset of the journey. Type III rewards learner behaviour that reflects willingness to engage with the content of an exchange and levels of collaboration with peers beyond immediate task requirements. The badge encourages learners to move outside the parameters of an online exchange and maybe even create their own learning path. Type 3 badges, Cross and Galley stress, explicitly ‘promote and reward exploration, deeper learning and independence’ (2012, p. 2). The methodological approach generally adopted in OIE is task-based language teaching (TBLT) (Mueller-Hartmann, 2007). The introduction of technology into TBLT has led to a broadening of our understanding of tasks. Lamy (2007) regards technology-enhanced tasks as a ‘more inquiry-based task space’ that ‘encourages learners to exercise agency and enact identities’ (p. 263), whereas Ortega (2009), drawing on Warschauer (2001), suggests we view tasks as projects and quests so as to realise the potential technology brings to language learning. This fits well with the conceptualisation of OIEs as learning journeys.

TYPE II Start

End Cumulative accomplishment or Threshold Exceeded (e.g. posted x times on forum)

Badge rewards the effort the learner invests in the main / core / recommended learning activities. Learners will achieve the badge at different times (some never) depending on when a specified threshold is reached.

Learner invests less effort and therefore takes longer to reach badge award threshold

Figure 11.2  Type II Badge Awarded for Effort (from Cross & Galley, 2012)

TYPE III

Start

Optional / Independence (e.g. performs optional activities that are not ‘essential’ for the course)

End

Badge is a reward for deviatation from the learning arc (not just stick to it). In this way optional activities and independent or social learning could be promoted.

Learners are set breadcrumbs in order to help stretch their abilities and create daisy-chain paths running in tandem to the core learning arc

Figure 11.3  Type III Badge Awarded for Initiative (from Cross & Galley, 2012)

218  Mirjam Hauck and Teresa MacKinnon Yet O’Dowd and Ware (2009) draw our attention to the need for a more thorough exploration of the available task design options in OIEs. They consider how decisions about tasks are reached between the teaching partners involved and what happens during the actual implementation of a task, focussing on aspects such as task negotiation and modification. On the basis of their review of more than 40 reports in the literature on OIEs, they synthesise the variety of tasks used into 12 general types which can be carried out both in isolation or as part of a task sequence. They fall into the following three broad categories reflecting the types of communicative activity involved: • Information exchange tasks where participants provide their telecollaborative partners with information, for example, about their personal backgrounds and their home cultures • Comparison and analysis tasks requiring learners to exchange information but also to go a step further and carry out comparisons or critical analyses of cultural products (e.g., books, surveys, films and newspaper articles) • Collaborative tasks requiring participants not only to exchange and compare information but also to work together to produce a joint artefact or reach a joint conclusion The task types identified by O’Dowd and Ware (2009) are not correlated with language proficiency, nor do they assume a particular combination of learner cohorts as task execution can involve multiple partners. The three broad categories identified in their taxonomy scaffold the complexity of the OIE activity, helping task designers to locate their interventions such as placement of an Open Badge according to their understanding of learner needs. Guth and Helm (2010) put forward the idea that in addition to the ‘traditional’ goals of telecollaboration, that is, the development of ICC and foreign language skills, ‘a distinguishing feature of telecollaboration 2.0  .  .  . is the inclusion of new online literacies as one of the goals’ (p. 69). Indeed, all OIEs now involve the immersive, experiential learning opportunities of CMC, which significantly can impact on transversal literacies as defined in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCO) project, that is, a set of skills required to operate effectively in a wide range of environments, both physical and virtual. The project identifies three broad categories of competence: to use tools (technology) interactively, to interact in heterogeneous groups and to act autonomously. OIE tasks often sit in the overlapping areas, requiring a combination of mastery of language and technical tools to interact within a heterogeneous group with a degree of autonomy. As a result OIE tasks provide opportunities for developing competences which—due to their very nature—can be captured and acknowledged more easily through Open Badges than traditional methods of assessment. In addition, badging can help to address potential pitfalls identified in the literature.

A New Approach to Assessing OIE  219

Use tools interactively (e.g., technology, language)

Interact with heterogeneous groups

Act autonomously

Figure 11.4  Key Competencies adapted from DeSeCo Project Report

How Badges Can Address Pitfalls in Online Intercultural Exchange As O’Dowd and Ware (2009) point out, approaches to task design vary, making it difficult to generalise and transfer experiences from one OIE context to another. This is in keeping with generally observed challenges of task-based learning (Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Informed by their synthesis of task types, O’Dowd and Ware (2009) have identified a number of potential challenges centred upon the decisions made by OIE facilitators as part of the learning design process for an exchange. The implementation of Open Badges, the process of choosing a badge type and positioning it on the envisaged learning arc, can help overcome difficulties by making learning design choices explicit to the learners and designers alike. Moreover using badges encourages reflection upon the facets of a task relevant to achieving the learning outcomes for a specific OIE cohort. Another challenge that recently has received renewed attention in the OIE literature are gaps in language tutor competences (for an overview, see O’Dowd, 2015). Based on his earlier work and feedback from more than 60 OIE practitioners and experts, O’Dowd (2015) has developed a four-way model of the different competences an OIE facilitator requires to organise and employ OIEs in the classroom: • Organisational competences • Pedagogical competences • Digital competences • Attitudes and beliefs such as willingness to look for compromise

220  Mirjam Hauck and Teresa MacKinnon He concedes that active participation of teachers is not always essential in OIE as students can interact independently online with their distant partners. Clavier is a good example to this effect and confirms the relevance of autonomy highlighted in the DeSeCo key competences. Yet, drawing on Furstenberg and Levet (2010), O’Dowd (2015) reminds us that it is ‘the teachers’ role to prepare students for their online interaction, to debrief following contact with their partners and to integrate the themes of the interaction into their classes’ (p. 66). We would argue that the use of badges in professional development for CMC-based language learning and teaching in general, and OIE in particular, could support the systematic acquisition and improvement of the aforementioned competences. This in turn is likely to have a positive impact on the normalisation of OIE activity as part of language learning and internationalisation in higher education. The use of Open Badges in higher education for recognition of professional development activities, such as use of social networking tools, already has yielded positive results (Hole, 2014). In the following section we will present Clavier and the experiences arising from the pilot project with badging during its fourth iteration in 2014 and 2015. IMPLEMENTING OPEN BADGES Clavier is a large-scale OIE involving more than 900 students a year between the Language Centre at the University of Warwick and Université Blaise Pascal (for a detailed description, see Guth et al., 2012). Participants have access to a shared course area, Echange Warwick Clermont (EWC) within Languages@ Warwick, an environment created to support multimodal interaction (MacKinnon, 2015). The task sequences used in Clavier are available on the UNICollaboration.eu site. Here we report on the data collected during the Clavier Open Badges implementation. Clavier’s primary aim is to incorporate CMC into language learning and to extend the learning beyond classroom walls into the informal spaces of social media. The inbuilt flexibility in terms of learning design allows participants to take greater ownership of the learning process and outcomes and made Clavier a good fit for the trial. Learners connect according to their shared interests as discovered through profile details, emphasising the importance of intrinsic motivation and creative tasks. Whereas participation is not assessed and task execution is not compulsory, engagement supports the participants’ wider learning goals, such as finding partners for interaction to improve speaking or writing skills online. Thus Clavier has much in common with task-based cMOOCs. The task sequences used in Clavier are evaluated collaboratively by staff from both institutions on an annual basis. The task design supports digital skills acquisition for successful CMC-based interaction and language learning. Task execution encourages tutors and students to try out new technologies. As a research-led project, it has been shaped by qualitative and

A New Approach to Assessing OIE  221 quantitative feedback gathered annually and shared on the UNICollaboration. eu site. Participants have access to EWC from October until the following June. Badges were piloted between October 2014 and April 2015 with the two task sequences, Building Connections (uni-collaboration.eu/?q=node/1068) and Consolidating Connections (uni-collaboration.eu/?q=node/1093).

Open Badge Pilot in Clavier The research relevant to this chapter and conducted during the trialling of badges in Clavier is summarised briefly in this section. The insights gained have been integrated into the design of the framework proposed later in this chapter. The technical aspects of badge deployment were largely unproblematic as the portal supports the Open Badges architecture described earlier. Essential information about awarding badges was shared with stakeholders including tutors, mentors and students. The greater challenge came in deciding how and where exactly badges should be awarded on the learning arc of this specific OIE. An action research methodology for piloting tasks and information gathering contributed to refining task design in Clavier. The Mediated Environments Reference Model (MERM) framework (Childs, 2010), a conceptual framework which merges the two models, available in Activity Theory and Community of Practice literature, provided a basis for the systematic review of the EWC portal, analysing the affordances of the online environment and guiding the task design process (MacKinnon, 2015). A mixed methods approach was adopted to review the impact of Open Badge implementation in EWC. As behaviour in an OIE is complex, the investigation was influenced by a structuralist perspective (Giddens, 1986) taking into account both what is done as captured by the analytics available and how participants describe their experiences. Quantitative information about engagement compared forum participation as reflected in number of views and postings for the same period before and after badge implementation. Qualitative survey responses were completed online by badge awardees to collect their perspectives on the experience. The survey was bilingual (French and English) and administered anonymously. A walk-through interview using a think-aloud technique (Garfinkel, 1967) was carried out with six volunteers to gather more detailed feedback. Quantitative results show the amount of activity recorded within the portal, including both ‘lurking’ (Nonnecke & Preece, 1999), where participants observe activity (Figure 11.6) and ‘active engagement,’ such as posting new contributions or replying to messages (Figure 11.7). Typically within EWC— and in line with what has been observed in MOOCs and other open access courses—we see much higher activity levels in the early stages of the OIE. Figure 11.6 shows the overall amount of posting in EWC during the same period. Qualitative insights were derived from the questionnaire and the walkthrough interviews. Furthermore, screenshots of forum activity document interest in how to earn a badge. The identities of the students are concealed.

0 1 April 2013 5 April 2013 1 May 2013 5 May 2013 1 June 2013 5 June 2013 1 July 2013 5 July 2013 1 August 2013 5 August 2013 1 September 2013 5 September 2013 1 October 2013 5 October 2013 1 November 2013 5 November 2013 1 December 2013 5 December 2013 1 January 2014 5 January 2014 5 February 2014 5 March 2014 5 April 2014 5 May 2014 5 June 2014 5 July 2014 1 August 2014 5 August 2014 1 September 2014 5 September 2014 1 October 2014 5 October 2014 1 November 2014 5 November 2014 1 December 2014 5 December 2014 1 January 2015 5 January 2015 1 February 2015 2 February 2015 5 February 2015 1 April 2015

0 1 April 2013 5 April 2013 1 May 2013 5 May 2013 1 June 2013 5 June 2013 1 July 2013 5 July 2013 1 August 2013 5 August 2013 1 September 2013 5 September 2013 1 October 2013 5 October 2013 1 November 2013 5 November 2013 1 December 2013 5 December 2013 1 January 2014 5 January 2014 5 February 2014 5 March 2014 5 April 2014 5 May 2014 5 June 2014 5 July 2014 1 August 2014 5 August 2014 1 September 2014 5 September 2014 1 October 2014 5 October 2014 1 November 2014 5 November 2014 1 December 2014 5 December 2014 1 January 2015 5 January 2015 1 February 2015 2 February 2015 5 February 2015 1 April 2015

8,800

7,040

5,280

3,520

1,760

Guest

Guest

Tutor Student

Student Non-editing teacher

Non-editing teacher

Teacher

Teacher

All

Figure 11.5  Activity Levels (Views) in EWC Pre-and Post-Badge Implementation 850

680

510

340

170

All

Figure 11.6  Posting Levels in EWC Pre-and Post-Badge Implementation.

Student 1

…There are currently five badges available. Watch this video to learn more…. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I won my first badge! (thumbs up emocon)

Student 2

I have two! You can not test me

Student 1

It’s a me queson for me

Tutor

Well done (student 1)!

Figure 11.7  Forum Discussion in EWC 1 (taken from the Languages@Warwick virtual learning environment: m2.warwicklanguage.org.uk)

Student 3

I need a person to explain me how I get a badge (smiley face emocon)

Student 4

(Offers instrucons and jokes about charging a fee)

Figure 11.8  Forum Discussion in EWC 2 (taken from the Languages@Warwick virtual learning environment: m2.warwicklanguage.org.uk)

A New Approach to Assessing OIE  223 When comparing overall levels of activity between the 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015 iterations of Clavier, it is clear that the EWC portal has had higher and more prolonged activity in the period after badges were introduced. This suggests that the award of badges contributes to creating a positive feedback loop which supports posting over lurking, that is, active engagement over passive viewing. The badge awardee feedback in the survey confirms this. Of 98 students invited, 60 completed the online survey on the badge award experience. Asked to rate their feelings towards badge award on a Likert scale (1 = low, 5 = high satisfaction), 75 percent reported feeling satisfied or happy (score greater than 3). Thirteen students reported that getting a badge motivated them to be more engaged, with one adding, ‘je pense que les badges peuvent motiver les élèves à s’impliquer’ (‘I think badges can motivate student involvement’). Conversation about badge awards in the EWC forum reflects a general interest in the concept and a desire (even a market, see Figure 11.8) to find out about how to get a badge. However participant feedback also indicates that badge award criteria and notification were not sufficiently visible. For example, only 17 of the 60 students (28 percent) reported that they fully understood why they got a badge, with only 28 (47 percent) reporting that they got a notification at the point when the badge had been earned, despite the system notifying all badge recipients. Unsurprisingly, follow-up interviews with those who had gained badges revealed a general lack of understanding of the concept of badging coupled with genuine curiosity to find out more. A  representative comment to this effect comes from the following participant reaction transcribed from one of the walk-through interviews: (User shows badge on her course profile) ‘I was quite surprised when I got it, I wasn’t sure what I got it for. . . . (Interviewer asks her to click badge. Clicks badge, revealing award information) ‘Now that makes sense!’

Figure 11.9  Badges Available and Awarded in EWC by April 2015 (taken from the Languages@Warwick virtual learning environment: m2.warwicklanguage.org.uk)

224  Mirjam Hauck and Teresa MacKinnon By April 2015 a total of 178 badges had been earned. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, the challenges presented by OIEs are as significant for educators as for students. This is particularly true when varying levels of digital literacy skills and familiarity with CMC for tutors have to be addressed alongside language and intercultural work for students (Kurek & Hauck, 2014). As well as introducing Open Badges, the current iteration of Clavier had to meet an additional dimension: the integration of French student teachers during Term 1. Some tutors felt overwhelmed by the technical aspects of the tasks they had intended to cover such as incorporating synchronous online sessions and—as a result—failed to initiate an opportunity which had a badge attached, such as the webinar badge (OIE3). One student reported in the survey: Les badges existent depuis octobre 2014 si j’ai bien compris, mais je trouve dommage que nos profs nous en aient parlé seulement 2 semaines avant la Deadline du Portfolio. (‘Badges exist since October if I understand correctly, but I think it is a shame that our teachers only spoke to us about them 2 weeks before the portfolio deadline.’) E-portfolio assessment for Clermont students is not connected to EWC participation. However, the badges could have been earned independently of teacher guidance if they had been given greater prominence on the EWC portal. The next section summarises some of the insights gained from running the pilot project.

Insights Gained and Recommendations The following technical aspects and learning design of badge deployment need to be taken into consideration when using this form of soft certification of participant engagement and task execution in OIEs. Technical Aspects The badge schema should be given a prominent place on the learning platform which forms the backdrop for an OIE so that it is accessible for participants throughout their learning journey and encourages badge collection. Moreover badge award messages need to be pushed out as soon as badges have been earned to establish a clear link between the award and the associated task execution. In this way the technical affordances can support the need for immediate feedback. The accessibility and reliability of the technology used in OIEs can significantly affect the outcomes for the individuals involved. Learning Design Aspects As the badges are designed to increase and reward engagement, Type 1 badges should be placed at the beginning of a sequence of tasks. This helps to establish the connection between engagement and recognition of such. The tutors’ role in communicating the badging message to students is crucial. Beyond the

A New Approach to Assessing OIE  225 need to make available and distribute the badge schema to be used in an OIE, they need to explain the value of earning badges during the exchange and beyond (e.g., long-term visibility of employability skills directly linked to evidence) to participants. Timing of tasks and badge placement requires negotiation amongst the main stakeholders, in the context of OIEs usually the tutors involved in setting up and running an exchange. This is particularly important when badges are awarded for pair or group efforts and require participants to be in step with each other. The resulting badge schema needs to show the following: • The title of the task or task sequence • The timings for each step • The position of badges and their respective purposes • The evidence required to obtain a badge Clearly establishing the overall purpose of an OIE and the objective of each task learners are asked to carry out during the exchange are preconditions for placing badges at the most appropriate waypoints of the envisaged learning arc. In Clavier the tasks are carried out largely asynchronously. In line with the goals of OIE tasks described earlier, the underlying aims of the exchange are to increase participant awareness of and familiarity with the various modes of CMC and explore ways of interacting online whilst learning a language. By designing numerous badge-earning opportunities at key points, particularly in the early stages of an OIE, it is possible to create a ‘buzz’ amongst participants which in turn reinforces the role and purpose of badging. Piloting the badge schema is recommended strongly to ascertain that the location of badges along an envisaged learning arc is realistic and meaningful. The importance of including time for tutor guidance and recognition of effective embedding of OIEs and innovative practices such as badging into established schemes of work should not be underestimated. A FRAMEWORK FOR SOFT CERTIFICATION OF PARTICIPANT ENGAGEMENT AND TASK EXECUTION IN ONLINE INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGES The implementation of badges is described by Halavais (2011, p. 269) as ‘a clear way of expressing what is valued by a community.’ He stresses that badge systems carry a set of ethical expectations which should be ‘consistent, cohesive and appropriate to the context’ (p. 371). It would therefore be desirable to define a framework for badging in OIE which is useful for any practitioner insofar as it brings the rationale underpinning the learning design to the fore and is applicable across contexts including those captured in Guth and Helm’s (2010) the concept of ‘telecollaboration 2.0.’ The proposed framework takes the task categories summarised earlier as a starting point. It uses examples mentioned by O’Dowd and Ware (2009)

226  Mirjam Hauck and Teresa MacKinnon and from the task bank on the UNICollaboration.eu site to illustrate at what point on the learning journey—or ‘waypoint’ (Cross  & Galley, 2012)—a badge potentially could be located and what role it could play in relation to learner motivation. The majority of badges are Type 1 and Type 2, that is, those that recognise a waypoint that has been reached or passed or acknowledge sustained learning effort. The framework also provides some indication of instances where Type 3 badges might be awarded in a meaningful way, that is, those badges that are attributed for engagement in the context of an OIE that stretches significantly beyond the parameters of a given task or task sequence. Thus the badges featuring in the framework are those identified by Cross and Galley (2012), which are immediately associated with pedagogical goals for OIEs. Within the framework the completion of each type of task can be perceived as a learning journey in itself or as part of a longer trajectory where two or even all three categories of OIE tasks are being covered within a task sequence. In this case a careful decision will have to be made regarding the

Figure 11.10  A Proposed Framework for Badging in OIEs (interactive version available http://tinyurl.com/ncpdq8j)

A New Approach to Assessing OIE  227 overall number of badges awarded in the context of a single OIE. Moreover, their individual or cumulative purpose(s) should not only be clearly distinguishable but also must be communicated to the learner in a comprehensible manner. As the proposed framework indicates, badge Roles 1 through 3 apply across all task types, whereas other roles associated with specific pedagogical goals— Roles 4 through 5, 8, and 9 through 10 as per Cross and Galley’s (2012) typology—are somewhat fluid and will need to be chosen carefully depending on the concrete task or sequence of tasks and contextual factors that shape a bespoke OIE. CONCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS There is a pertinent need for greater awareness raising of the benefits of Open Badges amongst educators. Badges offer ‘a new way to assess critical but hard to measure skills’ (Badge Alliance, 2014). Skills which come into play during OIEs such as ICC and navigating digitally mediated communication and collaboration fall into this category. Furthermore the Badge Alliance sees badges as ‘a tremendous opportunity to tell the story of learning across all spaces of a learner’s life’ (n.d.). The concept of telling the story of a learning process chimes with the idea of the learning journey which participants embark on together with their learning partners during OIEs. The requirements of OIE tasks include sustained determination to master the technical aspects of connecting online and the available communication modes to build presence and interact to succeed. Often this aspect of access to tasks as a precondition for task execution in increasingly multimodal online settings goes unrecognised, leaving only the digitally skilled able to interact and complete the tasks. In such instances there is a risk that badges could act as an ‘entrencher’ (Role 12) of the so-called second-level digital divide (Hargittai, 2002), widening the gap between those who are competent online and those who are not. A large-scale European study proposes a typology of Internet users which goes beyond the binary division and identifies a more granular set of user types, a phenomenon also referred to as the ‘new digital divide’ (Brandtzæg et al., 2011). It is clear from the OIE which has informed the framework for badging proposed in this chapter that even those who use the Internet perhaps for work or pleasure do not benefit necessarily from the learning potential offered by CMC across contexts. Using badges to recognise the incremental acquisition of sub-skills needed to carry out OIE tasks can help build essential digital literacies gradually. Open Badges can play a role in identifying these sub-skills during the learning design process and in motivating the learner during its implementation. At the same time factors influencing extrinsic and intrinsic motivation need to remain balanced so as not to allow badge collection to overwhelm the principal focus of the learning. When aligning badges with learning outcomes in OIEs, learning designers should be careful to avoid ‘pop behaviourism’ (Kohn,

228  Mirjam Hauck and Teresa MacKinnon 1993, in Halavais, 2011) and ensure that the learning remains meaningful. The psychology of collection is recognised as a powerful engaging force. Individuals who collect anything experience positive emotions connected to the thrill of the hunt, the happiness of adding a new find and the camaraderie of sharing with a collecting community (McHinkley, 2007). To ensure that such a powerful psychological force is used appropriately, the findings highlighted earlier should be observed. Otherwise motivation and engagement risk being replaced by experiences of bewilderment and frustration. How we feel when we experience any activity is widely accepted to have a bearing on our learning experience (Oatley & Jenkins, 1996), and the impact of such feelings has a particular relevance to language acquisition, as Krashen pointed out already more than three decades ago in his Affective Theory hypothesis (Krashen, 1981). The framework put forward here is specific to OIE and aims to help identify the most suitable approach to awarding badges in any given context. Suitably contextualised within the learning design, we expect to see badges ‘positively impact intrinsic motivation’ (Cross, Whitelock,  & Galley, 2014, p.  13). For those new to OIEs and the concept of soft certification in such exchanges, the tried and tested tasks available on the UNICollaboration.eu site offer a starting point. They provide pedagogically informed learning design choices and should make it easier for novices to decide where exactly on the learning journey badges could be placed. Further resources and principles for badge schema development are becoming available (e.g., Design Principles Card Deck) as Open Badge deployment grows. As Cross and Galley (2012) stresses, the overall number of badges and their positioning is vital for achieving the desired impact on participant motivation. The intended badge role could be compromised if placement were misjudged. Including badges as part of course design, however, offers an opportunity to the learning designer to reflect upon the assumptions that underpin the approach and to make explicit the intended learning outcomes. In Clavier in particular and OIEs in general, participant engagement and task execution can foster an increased awareness of digitally mediated forms of communication, and Open Badges can be aligned with this desired outcome. Ideally learners as co-designers should be part of the course design process. This pilot project suggests that the badge experience for tutors ideally should be separated from that of learners. A starting point could be the systematic introduction of badges in teacher education programmes where OIEs are enjoying increasing popularity as they allow pedagogically informed use of CMC and online tools whilst experiencing online language learning and teaching from a student’s point of view. The feedback from the pilot project underscores the importance of teacher engagement in promoting CMC-based language learning and teaching such as OIE and reflects the findings in CALL teacher education research to this effect (Guichon & Hauck, 2011; Levy, 1997). Lastly, but not least, Open Badges bring aspects of gamification to OIEs, providing a new bridge between the informal and formal learning opportunities they offer and thus increasing the potential for learners to take ownership of their progress.

Appendix Open Badges Schema in Echange Warwick Clermont

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oqq_i0jjsBhajp0mFogmA5SSowXA 21J2ZbHqdB5SkX8/edit REFERENCES Aguirre, S., & Quemada, J. (2012). E-learning systems support of collaborative agreements: A theoretical model. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 279–295. Association for Learning Technology. (2014). The open course in technology enhanced learning (ocTEL) [open course]. Retrieved from https://octel.alt.ac.uk/ Badge Alliance. (2014). Why badges? Retrieved May 15, 2015 from http://www.badge alliance.org. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Childs, M. (2010). A conceptual framework for mediated environments. Educational Research, 52(2), 197–213. Cross, S.,  & Galley, R. (2012). MOOC Badging and the Learning arc. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/42038 Cross, S., Whitelock, D.,  & Galley, R. (2014). The use, role and reception of open badges as a method for formative and summative reward in two Massive Open Online Courses. International Journal of e-Assessment, 4(1), n.p. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27. Design Principles Documentation Project. (2014). Card deck. Retrieved from http:// dpdproject.info/cards/ Downes, S. (2011). What a MOOC does. Retrieved from http://halfanhour.blogspot. com/2012/03/what-mooc-does-change11.html Furstenberg, G.,  & Levet, S. (2010). Integrating telecollaboration into the language classroom: Some insights. In M. Dooly  & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0 for language and intercultural learning (pp. 305–336). New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura project. Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 55–102. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Reissued 1984, Cambridge: Polity. Giddens, A. (1986). The constituents of society. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

230  Mirjam Hauck and Teresa MacKinnon Guichon, N., & Hauck, M. (2011). Teacher education research in CALL and CMC: More in demand than ever. ReCALL, 23(3), 187–199. Guth, S., & Helm, F. (Eds.). (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacy and intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Peter Lang. Guth, S., Helm, F., & O’Dowd, R. (2012). University language classes collaborating online. Intent Project. Retrieved from http://intentproject.eu/sites/default/files/Tele collaboration_report_Final_Oct2012.pdf Halavais, A. (2011). A genealogy of badges. Information, Communication and Society, 15(3), 354–373. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369 118X.2011.641992 Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills 2002. First Monday, 7(4). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/ article/view/942/864 Hickey, D.,  & Zuiker, S. J. (2005). Engaged participation: A  sociocultural model of motivation with implications for educational assessment. Educational Assessment, 10(3), 277–305. Hole, A. (2014). Open badges: Exploring the value, potential and practicalities of a new way of recognising skills in Higher Education. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special edition: Digital technologies in learning development, November 2014. Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kotthoff, H., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of intercultural communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kurek, M., & Hauck, M. (2014). Closing the “digital divide”—a framework for multiliteracy training. In L. Williams and J. Pettes Guikema (Eds.), Digital literacies in foreign language education: Research, perspectives, and best practice. CALICO Monograph Series. Retrieved from https://calico.org/page.php?id=649 Lamy, M. N. (2007). Interactive task design: Metachat and the whole language learner. In del P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 242–264). Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Lamy, M. N., & Goodfellow, R. (2010). Telecollaboration and learning 2.0. In S. Guth and F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0 (pp.  107–138). New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Lane, L. (2012). Three kinds of MOOCs. Retrieved from http://lisahistory.net/ wordpress/2012/08/three-kinds-of-moocs/ Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacKinnon, T. (2013). Using e-tools to facilitate international collaboration and enhance language teaching. Retrieved from http://www.ucml.ac.uk/sites/default/ files/pages/160/Using_e_tools.pdf MacKinnon, T. (2015). Learning to swim in new waters: A meta-narrative about the design and implementation of a virtual learning environment for language learning and teaching. In K. Borthwick, E.Corradini and A. Dickens (Eds.), Ten years of the LLAS e-learning symposium: Case studies in good practice. Dublin, Ireland: Research-Publishing.net Retrieved from http://research-publishing.net/content. php?doi=10.14705/rpnet.2015.9781908416230 McHinkley, M. B. (2007). The psychology of collecting. Retrieved from http://national psychologist.com/2007/01/the-psychology-of-collecting/10904.html Mozilla. (2014). Badges. Mozilla Wiki. Retrieved from https://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges MyKnowledgeMap. (2015). Mozilla open badge designer. Retrieved from https://www. openbadges.me/

A New Approach to Assessing OIE  231 Müller-Hartmann, A. (2007). Teacher role in telecollaboration: Setting up and managing exchanges. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange (pp. 41–61). Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (1999, 24–26 January). Shedding light on lurkers in online communities. In K. Buckner (Ed.), Ethnographic studies in real and virtual environments: Inhabited information spaces and connected communities (pp. 123–128). Retrieved from http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.94.4833&rep=rep1&type=pdf Oatley, K., & Jenkins, J. (1996). Understanding emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Dowd, R. (2015). Supporting in-service language educators in learning to telecollaborate. Language Learning and Technology, 19(1), 63–82. O’Dowd, R., & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173–188. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Definition and selection of key competencies. Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/ education/skills-beyond-school/definitionandselectionofcompetenciesdeseco.htm Ortega, L. (2009, September 13–16). Task and technology in language learning: Elective affinities and (dis)encounters. Plenary delivered at the 3rd International TaskBased Language Teaching Conference. Lancaster, GB. Samuda, V.,& Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T.,  & Gaved, M. (2013). Innovating pedagogy 2013. Retrieved from http://www.open. ac.uk/personalpages/mike.sharples/Reports/Innovating_Pedagogy_report_2013.pdf Sweeney, S. (2012). Going Mobile: Internationalisation, mobility and the European Higher Education area. HEA/British Council/EU Lifelong Learning. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/going_mobile_brochure_final_.pdf The Mozilla Foundation and Peer 2 Peer University. (no date). Open badges for lifelong learning. Working Document. Retrieved from https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/5/59/ OpenBadges-Working-Paper_012312.pdf Warschauer, M. (2001). Millennialism and media: Language, literacy and technology in the 21st century. In D. Graddol (Ed.), Applied linguistics for the 21st century (pp. 49–59). International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA) Review, 14.

This page intentionally left blank

Part IV

Online Intercultural Exchange in Practice

This page intentionally left blank

12 The Clavier Network Teresa MacKinnon

The Clavier Network is a large-scale exchange between the universities of Warwick, GB, and Clermont-Ferrand, France. The project has been running now for four years and involves 900 participants. The project also has led to physical exchanges taking place involving both staff and students, bringing practitioners from the two institutions closer together to share in professional development. The project arose out of a serendipitous exchange between the two lead partners on an education blog written by Steve Wheeler. The overall aim was to create a shared space for both sets of learners that allowed both formal and informal opportunities for connections and collaborations to emerge. As experienced teachers, both project leaders were aware of the developments and affordances arising for international communication online and wanted to explore how these may impact on the language learning of their students. An emphasis on informal interaction with minimal intervention from tutors was central to the design of the portal, called EWC. SOCIO-INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT The cohort of students on the Warwick side of the exchange initially was drawn from our institution-wide language programme. These students are not undergraduate linguists. Instead, they are on other degree courses (e.g., maths, history, politics etc.) who recognise that maintaining or extending their French language skills during their time at university will be helpful to their chances of employment or placement abroad. These students have very limited contact time, usually just two hours a week in class, and often feel the need to further practice their skills with native speakers. As more Warwick students have become aware of the opportunity for virtual exchange in Clavier, the cohort has increased to include undergraduates of French and mature learners. On the Clermont side, the initial group was from the large cohort of STAPs (Sciences et Techniques des Activités Physiques et Sportives) students who are training for careers in sport-related industries. These students have high-stakes assessments in English and a real need to improve their listening and speaking skills and confidence. Again this cohort has further extended as Clermont staff

236  Teresa MacKinnon responsible for other courses (e.g., science and teacher trainees on master’s-level courses) have become more involved. Clavier has not as yet been recognised officially as part of Warwick’s internationalisation agenda and has been carried out with minimal central support. The activity is seen as ‘a good thing’ by the department concerned and has benefited from the enthusiasm and contributions of the teaching teams on both sides, who have provided mutual support when challenges seem insurmountable. However, some Erasmus funding for staff development has been used to support travel and planning activities. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The originators of this project had several key objectives in mind which have characterised the nature of the network: • To facilitate the identification of synergies between participants so that they could determine the nature of the activities arising from the project • To encourage the use of social media and participants’ chosen channels for communication to blur the boundaries between formal and informal learning • To agree shared tasks which would support technical skills development in CMC for both students and staff • To actively research the Clavier project experiences to inform and contribute to the developing field of OIE As we are now in the fourth year of the project, we have further evolved some of these objectives to include the following: • Investigations into various assessment methodologies including the use of e-portfolios and open badges to support reflection and resilience in OIE • Collaborative OIE task design and investigations into continuing professional development (CPD) opportunities for teachers and trainee teachers These objectives arose from the concerns of the project leaders to reach those language learners or teachers who found it the hardest to change or progress. Technology-based approaches are known to be disruptive, and it was felt that there was a need to challenge the status quo to pave the way for new modes of working and learning and face the opportunities and challenges of the 21st century. PROJECT SET-UP AND IMPLEMENTATION In the planning of the Clavier project, it was decided to keep the technical barriers to interaction as low as possible, keeping a flexible approach to how and where interaction happened. However, having a single shared space at the

The Clavier Network  237 heart of the project facilitated finding each other online. It was agreed that EWC on Warwick’s virtual learning environment Languages@Warwick would provide this. Access to this environment was locally controlled at Warwick, and the portal integrates communication tools such as an Instant Messenger, forums which include voice recording, an online classroom and a streaming video management tool which would facilitate a wide range of creative tasks and communicative activities. Task design was agreed collaboratively between the tutor teams and reviewed after each year to inform further development. A shared Google docs ‘dashboard’ document each year allowed input from all teachers concerned and recorded the agreed time frame for activities. The task sequences used can be accessed on the UNICollaboration.eu website. The shared tasks were collated in sequences which allowed progressive development of digital skills as well as language skills. Planning meetings were held each year in an online classroom which recorded discussions and was integral to creating cohesion between the staff teams at a distance. Physical staff exchange followed by students’ visits to Clermont have been instrumental in consolidating the connections. Once students had access to EWC, we used aggregation tools and hyperlinks to connect to activity happening in social media such as Twitter and Google documents, developing official hashtags to support connections. An ‘official’ Facebook page was made available, as were groups in the photo sharing site Flickr and the music site Last.fm From the outset this approach blurred the lines between formal and informal interaction, encouraging students to connect with each other in their own ways. All participants in EWC had accepted the use of anonymised data for research purposes. In a large-scale project such as this one which allowed significant freedom of choice for participants, it was possible to collect quantitative data from the use of the EWC platform as an indicator of engagement each year. This data was used to inform the development of the project year-on-year. EWC includes access to an individual e-portfolio space which uses Mahara. Students participating in Level 5 French at Warwick are assessed partly through a reflective e-portfolio which can include experiences arising from the Clavier exchange, and this contributes 20 percent to their final module mark. On the Clermont side, too, some students are able to use their work arising from the exchange to help prepare a digital presentation for assessment. A recent development this year saw the integration of Open Badges in recognition of task engagement. OUTCOMES AND CHALLENGES Proxy activities in Clavier to help participants get to know each other have been key to drawing the cohorts together. A photo sharing task called ‘Mon petit plaisir’ was a new theme for an earlier image sharing activity (ma routine) which had proved popular the year before. Students were asked to share a picture which illustrated something they find relaxing or restorative. Images

238  Teresa MacKinnon submitted through the forums or shared on Instagram with the #monpetitplaisir hashtag included activities (such as walking in the countryside and cooking a new recipe) and favourite people, animals and objects (such as my dogs, my niece and a cup of tea). These were collected into a playlist and votes collected for them in EWC. Tutors were able to use the image sharing as a stimulus for intercultural reflection and discussion. Later in the task sequence, co-creation of stories (chain stories task) saw small groups of students from both institutions being responsible collaboratively for producing a story in English and in French. This produced some interesting interaction and a wide array of stories. This activity provided opportunities to negotiate meaning and bring language-specific queries back to the classroom. Over the four years that this project has been running, we have a wealth of quantitative and qualitative data. We have been able to evaluate task outputs and isolate factors which are illustrative of the nature of engagement. Annual surveys capture broad trends and attitudes to the opportunities presented by virtual exchange. Qualitative feedback from student reflections presented as part of their assessed e-portfolios has offered insights into how they had made sense of their experiences. The outcomes of engagement in Clavier have been transformative for many participants including the staff involved. Levels of staff engagement have increased gradually, and Clavier has evolved over time into a teacher network extending beyond the two institutions with participants all over the world. Thanks to the research and support available through the INTENT project and open education change discussions emerging online from the many MOOCs such as #change2011 #octel and #rhizo14, the project leaders were able to collaborate within a framework of helpful ideas which in turn were refined for our context and shared widely. The flexibility of this ‘always connected, always open’ approach has meant that the project is able to adapt to changing circumstances and evolve. High levels of trust exist amongst the participants who now have met each other and collectively want to support each other’s work. Using a proposed framework for analysing activity in mediated environments (Childs, 2010), it has been possible to draw out some key factors which have contributed to the success of the Clavier exchange which may be of use to others as we move towards virtual exchange as a mainstream activity. Collecting evidence of the impact of such a complex activity as virtual exchange is problematic as was clearly explained by O’Dowd (2010). MERM is a conceptual framework which merges the two models available in Activity Theory and Community of Practice literature, providing a basis for the systematic review of the various aspects of activity through mediated environments. Having considered the development of the project and the data produced, it was helpful to isolate individual aspects identified in MERM and note their relevance to the Clavier project. The project has not of course been without challenges. A thorough reflection on the activity that has taken place mediated through the EWC portal over past years shows that although we have been able to address many of the potential barriers to interaction and we have seen collaboration and co-creation resulting

The Clavier Network  239 from these opportunities, the impact upon individual participants varies. Of course, a willingness to engage with the opportunities available is crucial to the outcomes. Interaction is a complex social and psychological activity; computermediated interaction is no less complex even when the barriers to access are minimised. The characteristics of the participants themselves and how they manage their online presence account for the variation in individual impact. Some are clearly anxious about how others may feel if they edit a document, and some discouraged by lack of immediate response, but some are prepared to overcome those feelings and find creative ways to navigate interaction. In summary, it is clear that online environments are more likely to see prolonged engagement and support relationship building when they do the following: • Allow the flexibility to connect according to student preferences • Provide technologies that best reflect current trends in multimodal communication • Allow for reflection and creativity •  Support connection by proxy, allowing participants to discover each other through shared tastes in music, film and so on We have long known that computer-assisted learning engagement is connected to tutor attitudes to the activity (Levy, 1997). It is not unreasonable to suggest that over time, staff have become more comfortable with this activity and its value relevant to the learning of their students. More recently it is clear that this project is in tune with the gradual normalisation of technology use by students as described by Steel and Levy (2013) both in and outside the classroom. The Clavier OIE tasks both accept and encourage this. The EWC opportunity rewards engagement in external, informal activity, validating it both intrinsically by promoting transversal skills such as digital literacies and extrinsically as a means of capturing interaction beyond the classroom for accreditation in the e-portfolio. The implementation of Open Badges this year informed the development of a framework for soft certification of the skills required to maintain engagement in OIE and make explicit the attributes it fosters to incentivise engagement and counter some of the personality-influenced factors which can be pitfalls of this activity. CONCLUSION From the point of view of teacher development, the interactions amongst students have facilitated discussion between tutors and learners about how we communicate across cultures with respect. In Clavier, OIE is overcoming misunderstanding through good humour, connecting through shared experience and building resilience to overcome barriers to communication. Transferring the locus of control to the learners by incorporating social and informal learning as part of the core of their learning experience brings authenticity of context

240  Teresa MacKinnon which is both motivating and challenging, resulting in greater engagement and dialogue between teachers and learners. This model seems to resemble a collective as defined by Thomas and Seely Brown (2011) with students taking an active role in creating the learning. ‘Communities derive their strength from creating a sense of belonging, while collectives derive theirs from participation’ (p.  612). The Clavier project has allowed a fluidity of identity and agency which is unusual in online teaching contexts and helps realise the potential of CMC for language learning. REFERENCES Childs, M. (2010). A conceptual framework for mediated environments. Educational Research, 52(2), 197–213. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. O’Dowd, R. (2010). Issues in the assessment of online interaction and exchange in telecollaboration 2.0. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 337–359). Bern, Oxford: Peter Lang. Steel, C., & Levy, M. (2013). Language students and their technologies: Charting the evolution 2006–2011. ReCALL, 25, 306–320. Thomas, D., & Seely Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Online: Createspace. Wheeler, S. blog). Learning with e’s. Retrieved from http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/

13 The Teletandem Network Paola Leone and João Telles

Teletandem is a model of OIE that uses the resources of webcam images, voice and text offered by VOIP technology (e.g., Skype and Google Hangouts). Within this context, two students help each other to learn their native (or other) language through online synchronous intercultural and linguistic collaboration (Telles, 2009, 2015; Telles & Vassallo, 2006, 2009; Vassallo & Telles, 2008). The works by Brammerts and Kleppin (2001), Brammerts (2003) and Lewis and Walker (2003) on foreign language learning in tandem and the International Tandem Network served as inspiration for the creation of the Teletandem Brasil: Foreign Languages for All project (Telles, 2005). However, our project differs from e-tandem (Brammerts, 1996) and web-based tandem (Appel  & Mullen, 2000) once those projects focussed on written in-tandem interactions, whereas our teletandem model is characterised by the use of webcam images of the partners, along with synchronous voice and text interaction. As was the case of the original tandem project, teletandem started as a non-mandatory learning opportunity carried out in the institutional context (i.e., universities). Nowadays, teletandem is a part of the language teaching curricula of some university degree courses. Teletandem plus mediation sessions constitute a training programme which is ‘institutionally integrated’ (2014) for which credits are given. THE SOCIO-INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF THE NETWORK The Teletandem Brasil project was implemented in the second-largest university institution of Brasil—Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)—and was funded by FAPESP, the São Paulo State Foundation for the Support of Research. Initially the project was offered to economically challenged Brasilian university students to improve their oral competence in the foreign language. From 2005 to 2006 the partnerships between UNESP and universities abroad were completely autonomous. This means that as UNESP received registrations from institutions abroad, the Teletandem Brasil team immediately paired one foreigner with a local partner. From 2007 on, the project obtained funding from FAPESP, and two computers labs were installed with the necessary infrastructure. The site of the project functions as its main

242  Paola Leone and João Telles information source, including access to the project publications: http://www. teletandembrasil.org. Supervised by professors, the staff of the two new teletandem labs are composed of volunteer undergraduate and graduate students. Originally, UNESP’s first partners abroad were in the United States, Italy, France, Argentina, Mexico and Germany. Since then, the network has been growing, and many universities have contacted other institutions and developed a network and new forms of collaboration in Europe (7 universities), North America (12) and South America (2), according to their specific needs and educational contexts. These universities are involved in the project in two different ways: either exclusively for teletandem practice or for teletandem and the development of research. The educational and political dimensions of the Teletandem Brasil project are associated with pre-service and in-service teacher development of foreign languages. The geographical dimensions of Brasil and the economic constraints that determine access to travel and contact with other peoples of the world impose limitations on foreign language teacher education. Within such a limiting context, globalisation and internationalisation issues become important to foreign language teacher development. THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The Teletandem Brasil project aims at developing oral skills for L2 interactive and intercultural competence using no cost VOIP technology software (e.g., Skype and Google Hangouts). The project also aims at conducting graduate research in the fields of intercultural communication and the structure of computermediated oral discourse. Since the project started, the teletandem experience has been shaped differently to get adjusted to different learning aims and to each context of implementation. The early principle of ‘one language at a time,’ which means that each language must have its moment of practice, clearly refers to a context of an ‘alternate monolingual use’ (Leone, 2014). This criterion has been adapted to fit the practice of a lingua franca (i.e., English) and to develop intercomprehension abilities. English as lingua franca has been practiced during a teletandem experience of UNESP with a Swedish university. On the other hand, at the University of Salento teletandem has become a context by which learners practice intercomprehension strategies. This implies that each learner speaks in his/her native language which is of the same linguistic family of his/her interlocutor’s (Romance, Germanic, Slavic languages, etc.; FREPA, 2012). General project objectives are: (a) to join university academic research to intervening sociopedagogical actions in the area of foreign language education to youngsters and adults, and (b) to study, to apply and to disseminate online learning of foreign languages in tandem through an innovative pedagogical action—teletandem—in the area of foreign language education to university students.

The Teletandem Network  243 The project aims at investigating (a) the functioning of VOIP teleconference technology (e.g., Skype, Google Hangouts or Zoom) as multimodal tools and contexts for the distance learning of foreign languages in tandem, particularly its video and voice resources during online interactions in foreign languages; (b) the processes of interaction and learning amongst pairs of university students that practiced teletandem; and (c) the necessary requirements for pre- and in-service teacher education and the role of the teacher as the mediator of learning in online interactive contexts of teaching and learning foreign languages in teletandem. Currently publications of the teletandem project focus on a wide range of strands, such as: the cultural dimension of the teletandem exchanges (for a synthesis, see Telles, 2015; Telles, Zakir, & Funo, 2015) and the structure of teletandem discourse (Leone, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2014). Other research topics and related publications can be found on the mentioned project website. The project objectives are important because they reflect the needs of a changing society. Virtual contexts allow economically challenged communities to have democratic access to foreign languages, international relationships and intercultural contact at low cost. Being competent in more than one language is fundamental, the development of digital abilities is increasingly assuming relevance, and learning is a practical activity that goes on for life. With this in mind, the project aims to build the necessary knowledge for a thorough understanding of the cultural and communicative dimension of virtual interactions and collaboration in foreign languages. PROJECT SET-UP AND IMPLEMENTATION The project is based on principles of flexibility, reciprocity, collaboration and autonomy. Each teacher mediator develops his/her pedagogical strategies, with variations. Reciprocity, collaboration and autonomy are principles that guide not only students’ activities but also the language instructors, researchers and the activities of the teletandem research network. Teletandem has been experienced in higher education with both undergraduate and graduate students. An institutional teletandem programme can be both integrated and non-integrated in the foreign language curricula (Cavalari Aranha & Cavalari, 2014). By ‘integrated’ we mean that the interactions are part of the language syllabus. Interactions happen during class time, and they are assessed as any other component of the foreign language course. ‘Non-integrated’ teletandem sessions are extracurricular activities. They happen more autonomously; out-of-the-classroom lessons and students may or may not receive an institutional certificate. For institutionally implemented sessions, teachers get in touch and exchange a list of participants on an information table. This table shows: (a) students’ names, (b) students’ email addresses, (c) institutional Skype addresses that teachers have created for each computer available in the lab, (d) number of sessions that will occur during the semester, (e) days, days of the week and time of each session, (f) time difference between countries for each session (if that is

244  Paola Leone and João Telles the case, as it usually is), and (g) days of sessions that are considered holidays in both countries. Once the table is completed and confirmed by both sides, teachers are ready to have a teletandem orientation session. That is when both sides meet virtually to receive information about tandem learning, its principles, rules and communication and learning strategies. Orientation sessions also work for teachers to expose how they will assess teletandem sessions both quantitatively and qualitatively (through essays, blogs, Facebook and other instruments). After this preliminary work, teletandem sessions are conducted from the lab or from home. Both situations vary according to the resources offered by the institutions. Each of them has their strengths and weaknesses. We believe that the role of teacher mediator after the teletandem sessions is quite important to guide students in terms of language, culture and relationship with the partner abroad. Teletandem oral sessions are based either on free conversation or on the discussion of specific topics. Other forms of written OIE augment teletandem sessions, such as blogs or virtual social networks. Recently, the most-used communication tools are Skype, Google Hangouts and Zoom. The students’ virtual interactions in teletandem are frequently combined with ‘mediation sessions’: Mediation sessions are moments that follow interactions in teletandem. During these sessions, students have the opportunity to dialogue and exchange experiences with a mediator—a teacher of foreign languages. These discussions focus on (a) aspects of language, (b) culture and (c) partners’ relationship. The mediation activity aims at giving students a teacher supported context (scaffolding) to reflect on the teaching and the learning experiences during the teletandem sessions. (Telles, 2015) Teacher mediators do that by highlighting and problematising issues regarding important aspects of this mode of virtual intercultural contact (Kramsch & Uryu, 2014). Teletandem experience is assessed differently when it is institutionalised and integrated in a course than when it is not integrated but is a stand-alone programme. In the first case, the active participation is monitored by the teacher. Differently, when it is a stand-alone, programme participation, active participation and an oral presentation and discussion of the experience frequently are used for assessment. CHALLENGES AND OUTCOMES TO DATE The project has had to deal with problems at three levels: pedagogical, institutional and logistical. Pedagogically, one of the many challenges we have faced is the different views held by both teacher partners in regard to language and foreign language pedagogy. Other challenges include oral proficiency and interaction assessment tools (how to assess teletandem sessions). Although we

The Teletandem Network  245 have been experimenting the WebCEF resource (http://www.webcef.eu) lately, teachers are still reluctant to implement teletandem in the official curriculum of their courses because they do not know how to assess it. At the institutional level, the project had to deal with different views of curriculum implementation of teletandem (Telles & Ferreira, 2010), such as the differences between institutional and institution-integrated teletandem (Aranha & Cavalari, 2014). Finally, examples of logistic problems are technological equity on both sides of the collaboration and time differences between the countries. Flexibility (as willingness to compromise) and efforts to find alternative paths have been key words to overcome problems. For example, if days of classes in the semester do not match, teletandem sessions can be carried out in either the beginning or end of the course or semester; time differences may cause students to do their teletandem sessions autonomously and from home (e.g., between Brazil and Japan, with a 12-hour difference in time) instead of having the whole class together in a lab. Although such a measure may affect teachers’ scope and effectiveness of mediation actions conducted right after the sessions, they can overcome this limitation by conducting them in the following class or by creating an online forum elicited by reflective questions on the sessions. The impact of the project on both students’ learning and on the participating institutions is visible on Google, on Google Scholar and through the academic production that can be accessed on the Teletandem Brazil site. There has been an increasing number of students who ask to join the programme and an increasing number of institutions who want to join the network. In regard to the impact of the project on students’ learning, a research study has been carried out in all of the participating institutions using different assessment instruments. A quantitative and qualitative survey based on data collected from 134 university students through an online questionnaire containing dichotomous, multiple-choice and open-ended text questions is under way. Institutional assessments frequently show the content of students’ learning processes, students’ use of learning strategies during teletandem sessions and their definitions of good teletandem partners and successful teletandem processes. Qualitative assessments usually show problematisation of teletandem practice and discussion of results from the perspective of critical approaches to discourse and intercultural communication. CONCLUSION In this chapter we have offered an overview of a few dimensions of the online intercultural contact through the practice of teletandem. In the future, we would like to keep the project within the two directions that so far have characterised it: technology-based pedagogy and research in the field of CMC and language learning. Concerning pedagogy, we plan to develop technology-based tasks for distance mediation sessions. This implies

246  Paola Leone and João Telles that ‘technologies’ will ‘become part of the full programmatic cycle’ (GonzálezLloret & Ortega, 2014, p. 7) and not only limited to the teletandem sessions. Currently, initiatives of our research team have focussed on multiple dimensions of teletandem interactions as a mode of OIE from different theoretical perspectives. These and future perspectives will try to account for issues regarding performativity of national identities (Telles, 2015), gender performativity during teletandem sessions (Costa, 2015), misunderstanding (Souza, 2015), partners’ choices of controversial topics (Leone (2012b), in preparation; Marinoto, 2015), the evaluation of oral CMC interaction during teletandem sessions (Leone, in preparation b) and curriculum implementation and foreign language teacher development for teletandem mediation. We also are working towards sharing the data we have been collecting, considering problems connected with the annotation and analysis of multimodal corpora as well as ethical and rights issues related to publishing videorecorded teletandem sessions as open data. Finally, future plans include studies about the implementation of teletandem sessions in middle and high schools with the purpose of making intercultural contact and the teaching of foreign languages through teletandem available to both students and educators. REFERENCES Appel, C., & Mullen, T. (2000). Pedagogical considerations for a web-based tandem language learning environment. Computers & Education, 34(3), 291–308. Aranha, S., & Cavalari, S. M. S. (2014). A trajetória do projeto Teletandem Brasil: da modalidade institucional não-integrada à institucional integrada. The ESPecialist, 35(2), 70–88. Brammerts, H. (1996). Language learning in-tandem using the internet. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 120–130). Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press. Brammerts, H. (2003). Autonomous language learning in tandem: The development of a concept. In T. Lewis & L. Walker (Eds.), Autonomous language learning in tandem (pp. 27–36). Sheffield, GB: Academy Electronic Press. Brammerts, H.,  & Kleppin, K. (2001). Selbstgesteuertes Sprachenlernen im Tandem. Ein Handbuch. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Costa, L. (2015). Performatividade e gênero nas interações em teletandem. Tese de Doutorado em andamento. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos Linguísticos, UNESP—Universidade Estadual Paulista. González-Lloret, M.,  & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kramsch, C., & Uryu, M. (2014). Intercultural contact, hybridity and third space. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 211–225). New York: Routledge. Leone, P. (2012a). Content domain and language competence in computer-mediated conversation for learning. Apples, Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(2), 131–153. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/40863 Leone, P. (2012b). Leadership in multimodal computer-mediated second language communication for reciprocal learning. Je-lks, Journal of E-learning and Language

The Teletandem Network  247 Society, 8(3), 55–66. Retrieved from http://je-lks.maieutiche.economia.unitn.it/ index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/642/641 Leone, P. (2012c). Gestione e controllo del flusso conversazionale nel corso di dialoghi Teletandem. Je-lks, Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 8(3), 57–69. Retrieved from http://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_IT/article/view/778 Leone, P. (2014). Teletandem, video-recordings and usage based tasks: developing a socially situated scenario for learning. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 9(1), 41–50. Retrieved from http://ijlter.org/index.php/ ijlter/article/view/203/pdf Leone, P. (in preparation a). Developing and sharing teletandem data. Leone, P. (in preparation b). The evaluation of computer mediated oral interaction. Lewis, T., & Walker, L. (2003). Autonomous language learning in tandem. Sheffield, GB: Academy Electronic Press. Marinoto, D. N. (2015). Polêmica e Controvérsia nas Interações de Teletandem. Dissertação de Mestrado em andamento. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos Linguísticos. UNESP—Universidade Estadual Paulista. Souza, M. G. (2015). Mal—entendidos em parcerias colaborativas de aprendizagem de línguas no contexto teletandem. Tese de Doutorado em andamento. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos Linguísticos, UNESP—Universidade EstadualPaulista. Telles, J. A. (2005). Projeto Teletandem Brasil: Línguas estrangeiras para todos. Retrieved from http://www.teletandembrasil.org/site/docs/ProjetoTeletandemBrasilTELLES2006.pdf Telles, J. A. (2009). Teletandem: Um contexto virtual, autônomo e colaborativo para o ensino de línguas estrangeiras no século XXI. Campinas: Pontos Editores. Telles, J. A. (2015). Teletandem and performativity. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 15(1), 1–30. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1984– 63982015000100001&script=sci_abstract Telles, J. A.,  & Ferreira, M. J. (2010). Teletandem: Possibilidades, dificuldades e abrangência de um projeto de comunicação on-line de PLE. Revista Horizontes de Linguistica Aplicada, 9(2), 79–104. Telles, J. A., & Vassallo, M. L. (2006). Foreign language learning in-tandem: Teletandem as an alternative proposal in CALLT. The ESPecialist, 27(2), 189–212. Telles, J. A., Zakir, M. A., & Funo, L. A. (2015). Teletandem e episodios relacionados a cultura. DELTA—Revista de Documentação e Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 31(2), 359–389 Vassallo, M. L.,  & Telles, J. A. (2008). Aprendendo línguas estrangeiras in-tandem: histórias de identidades. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 8(2), 341–381.

14 The Cultura Exchange Programme Gilberte Furstenberg

Cultura (http://cultura.mit.edu) was created at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1996 out of an individual initiative from a French language instructor (the author of this article) then developed and implemented with the help of two other members of the French Group, Shoggy Waryn who went on to teach at Brown University, and Sabine Levet of MIT. After receiving funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the project was launched in 1997. Cultura was the product of two converging trends: firstly, the desire to make culture, and in particular the understanding of a ‘foreign’ culture, the focus of the language class at the earliest levels, thus reversing the equation between language and culture. It seemed unsatisfactory to provide students with an occasional study of authentic materials, however good and innovative they were. I wanted students to be deeply involved first-hand in the foreign culture and on an almost daily basis. Secondly, the simultaneous advent of online communication tools provided the perfect path towards that goal. The obvious synergy between the field of intercultural communication (which implies encounters between people) and the Internet (which facilitates the exchange of intercultural perspectives) became a key impetus as it allowed our students to be connected directly with students living in that other culture, thus affording both sides the opportunity to explore each other’s cultures. More specifically, the idea behind the project started germinating after I had taught a successful French course based on the comparison of French movies and their American remakes. This course turned out to be particularly effective in sensitising students to the cultural differences underlying the content and treatment of those films. After first identifying those differences, students naturally were led to speculate about the reasons behind the changes that were made when moving from the original French version to its American remake: What did those changes reveal and illustrate about both underlying cultures? Thanks to the advent of the online communication tools, it quickly became clear that this course would be greatly enriched if the two films were compared not just by our students within the confines of their French classroom at MIT but also by students in France—with both sets of students exchanging perspectives on those films. This seemed a very promising avenue for bringing to light

The Cultura Exchange Programme  249 key aspects of the underlying cultures—and a very auspicious approach for us, language teachers, for developing intercultural understanding and giving reality to what always has been our ultimate end goal: teaching both language and culture or, rather, culture and language. This initial idea formed the basis for our proposal to the National Endowment for the Humanities. However, we quickly realised that starting with film comparisons was not necessarily an ideal way of embarking on an intercultural journey because the subject matter is far removed from the students’ personal experiences. It seemed more logical to have students on both sides first answer a series of questionnaires that would engage them personally and directly in the subject matter. THE SOCIO-INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT In the last 20 years, in view of our increasingly connected world, one of the priorities in education has been to prepare our students to communicate and interact with people across different cultures. The stakes (political, economic and humanistic) are very high. Universities in the United States have taken many steps to internationalise the curriculum. Language associations have been very active in that arena. In 2007, the Modern Language Association published a report for making the development of students ‘translingual and transcultural competence’ a priority, adding that ‘it is one of five imperative needs to which higher education must respond in the next ten years if it is to remain relevant (MLA, 2007)’ In 2009, MIT itself published a report titled “Mens et Manus et Mundus” that focussed on ways to prepare ‘our students to work, lead, and thrive in cultures around the globe’ and equip them ‘with crucial skills for tackling the world’s great challenges’ (MIT Global Council, 2009). Although the push for internationalisation of the curriculum had not flourished fully at MIT in 1997 (when we started Cultura), the ease with which one could take curricular initiatives, and take advantage of available technical support and expertise at the time, played a large role in making this project come to life. Bringing the study of culture to the forefront of the language class also made us, we believed, a player (albeit a small one) in the internationalisation of the curriculum. In the end, it nicely dovetailed with MIT’s future mandate. Interestingly enough, however, Cultura has much more visibility outside MIT than inside. Many universities in the United States as well as abroad have adopted our methodology and adapted it to other languages, such as Russian and Spanish (Bauer, deBenedette, Furstenberg, Levet,  & Waryn, 2006) and Asian Pacific languages (see Chun, 2014). Cultura also often is quoted in scholarly language journals, which means that it has found great resonance in many language departments in the United States and abroad and that it is reaching a wide audience, whereas only one article about the project was written up in the MIT News (Ray, 2006)

250  Gilberte Furstenberg THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The main objective of Cultura is to develop students’ in-depth understanding of other cultures and in particular the attitudes, values, ways of thinking and interacting of those who live in these other cultures. Quite a challenge, as this is the ‘silent language,’ the ‘hidden dimension’ (Hall, 1959, 1966), namely the invisible part of culture. Having long worked with technology (and having created multimedia applications), it made perfect sense to use the emerging online communication tools for that purpose. We used them to bring together two classes of students enrolled in language classes in France and in the United States, who would analyse and compare a variety of materials. By having students exchange their perspectives with others who were born or live in another culture, the goal was to provide them with an authentic insider’s view of that ‘other’ culture and its multiple facets. Because our specific goal was/is to try and make the less visible aspects of culture accessible to students and allow them to understand the underlying values, an approach was needed. The one that made most sense was clearly the comparative approach as the juxtaposition process is very apt in allowing resemblances and differences to clearly emerge. As Bakhtin (1986) wrote: ‘It is only in the eyes of ANOTHER culture that foreign culture reveals itself fully and profoundly. . . . A meaning only reveals its depths once it has encountered and come into contact with another, foreign meaning.’ So, in Cultura, we have students compare what Julie Belz (2002) calls ‘parallel texts’—similar types of documents or texts drawn from the two different cultures—then discuss and exchange viewpoints with each other with the goal of understanding and reflecting about the other culture as well as their own. PROJECT SET-UP AND IMPLEMENTATION At MIT, Cultura situates itself within an intermediate French language class and presupposes a blended learning environment where students work both online and in class, with class activities and discussions enriching the online discussions and vice versa. Following a common calendar and a common itinerary, students on both sides gather around a website that contains a multiplicity of materials. This website can be seen as a road map for the collective journey on which they are embarking together for the duration of a semester—a journey that will lead them gradually to construct together—around a set of materials—an understanding of each other’s cultures, with the goal of developing a deeper understanding of each other’s cultural attitudes, values, representations and frames of reference. At the start of the journey, students answer (online and anonymously) a series of three questionnaires: a word association questionnaire, designed to fathom their views of basic concepts (such as freedom, individualism, success, etc.); a sentence completion questionnaire which has students define what they

The Cultura Exchange Programme  251 view as a ‘good’ friend, a ‘good’ parent, a ‘good’ neighbor or a ‘good’ boss; a third one where students are asked how they would react in situations such as these: if they see a mother slap her child in a supermarket or a student nearby cheats at an exam, and so on. We ensure that those questionnaires provide a variety of contexts and relationships: at home, in a public place in a work or business environment, and with a stranger, a friend, a parent or a teacher, and so on. The American and French students’ responses appearing side-by-side, students are then able to compare the differences, after which they engage in class discussions and online forums, sharing their observations and trying to understand the diverse points of view whilst explaining theirs to their peers abroad. The Cultura methodology requires students to work in a series of stages: (a) individually outside of class, they analyse the materials ‘du jour’; (b) back in the classroom, they share and discuss their observations (the similarities and differences they have observed), trying to uncover cultural patterns; (c) outside of class, they post individual comments in the online discussion forums (writing in their ‘native’ language), sharing their observations with their peers abroad in a constant and reciprocal process of inquiry; (d) in class they then bring back comments from their French peers that may have surprised or intrigued them or have particularly enlightened them. Those are then shared and discussed anew in class. The questionnaires are perhaps the most well-known feature and the most commonly used set of materials in Cultura, but they are intended only to be a point of departure. After working for three weeks with the questionnaires, students analyse a new set of materials, continuing their journey of exploration, analysing other kinds of materials that not only gradually broaden their sphere of inquiry but provide other lenses through which to look at each other’s cultures, such as: national French and American opinion polls on a variety of issues; films (comparing French films to their American remakes); media (e.g., comparing the New York Times and Le Monde); and literary or historical excerpts providing ‘des regards croisés’ (e.g., comparing The Bill of Rights and La Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme). They also work with images (and videos), which they themselves take or find on the Internet and then download, around topics they have chosen with students across the Atlantic. They may choose to illustrate, for instance, an aspect of their daily lives (e.g., their schedule, their activities, where they eat, where and when, etc.) or to compare advertisements on a same product. Now, understanding another culture is not a static phenomenon but entails a dynamic process of construction and co-construction (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2005). This will not happen on its own, however, and that is where the role of the teacher is key as only he or she can lead students through that path of discovery, exploration and inquiry. Their main role is to scaffold the learning process through a series of tasks that will build upon each other and gradually move students to an increasingly more complex and refined understanding of the other’s culture. As is well documented, tasks are crucial. In Cultura, they allow students to construct and co-construct their knowledge incrementally

252  Gilberte Furstenberg via a series of distinct steps. In that regard, the project has been touted, in the Language Learning and Technology Journal as ‘exceptional’ (Levy, 2007). At every step of the way, tasks are provided, both at the micro and macro levels. At the micro level, students are given a grid (in French) designed to help them analyse and compare specific documents (such as the answers to the questionnaires) and lead them to do a careful reading, not just a perfunctory one. We also provide specific and clear guidelines for the online discussion forums, prompting students to (a) share their observations, (b) make hypotheses, (c) ask questions and (d) raise issues, so as to create a real dialogue and avoid having the forums be a series of monologues. Students always are told clearly that the end goal of these online discussions is not to create a consensus but to be a forum where issues constantly are raised and debated. Students also always are encouraged to reveal their backgrounds (What state they are from? Do they come from a city or the country? What country they are from [quite a few of our students are foreigners]? How long they have been in the country?) so that it is clear they are not all cast in the same mold. Students are strongly encouraged not to feel pressured to join the online majority point of view, if there is one, and not to be afraid to present another less ‘popular’ or less obvious perspectives. Such guidelines are critical for ensuring that multiple perspectives emerge from these forums. Specific tasks for the classroom also are provided to help students collaboratively broaden their views, look across several materials, make connections, resolve contradictions and develop insights. At the macro level, students are given tasks designed to help them put their findings into a broader context and perspective. When exploring national opinion polls, for instance, they are instructed first to select an issue in which they became interested when analysing the responses to the questionnaires (e.g., family, work, concepts of authority and politeness, notions of freedom and respect, etc.) and then examine whether the national polls they read on that very issue (both in the United States and France) confirm or contradict their initial findings. They share their conclusions first in class with their classmates and then on the corresponding forums, thus starting new discussions. Often, when exploring these notions, the teacher (and the students themselves) also will include news items from current media that might happen to illustrate those concepts or notions. We also provide tasks to help students make connections across very diverse materials and see where perspectives intersect or differ and what may be contributing to them: different contexts, different backgrounds or other factors. One of the goals being to avoid stereotypes, it is crucial that students be able to look at opposing points of view and apparent contradictions and try to solve them. To that end we created a specific forum, which reads: ‘This forum is for (a) raising what you see as paradoxes in the other culture (which you have discovered across several questionnaire answers and other documents or the comments on the forums) and (b) for offering possible hypotheses and interpretations to your transatlantic partners’ own queries’.

The Cultura Exchange Programme  253 This kind of forum also happens to provide an apt way to deal with the issue of confrontation. Often seen as the reason for ‘failed communication,’ we circumvent that by encouraging students to raise what they see as contradictions so that they can try and solve them together. Another kind of task, but just as useful, will lead students to synthetise. At MIT, for instance, they are asked to write papers (in French) that will summarise some of their findings and to document them by providing specific examples and illustrations as well as opposing views. After working with the questionnaires for three weeks, for instance, they are given the following topic (in French): Basing yourself on the French answers to the three questionnaires and the comments by the French students on the forums, pick one notion or concept that seems to you central to French culture. State in what different contexts and under what forms this concept appears. Are there situations or examples that seem to contradict your conclusion, or does it seem to be a constant? Please elaborate. At the end of the semester, students are provided with tasks designed to help them bring together separate strands from the variety of documents they have analysed during the course of the semester. They do oral presentations, based on the comparison of French and American documents of their choice, and again say whether they see trends, patterns and/or contradictions that may or may not echo observations made earlier. Finally (let us not forget this is a language class!), all the materials are used for vocabulary enrichment, grammatical development as well as the study of discourse, which is made possible by the fact that students express themselves online in their ‘native’ language. Now, clearly, a project like Cultura brings about a new form of pedagogy, where students are put at centre stage, trying to understand, enquire and resolve; this is a pedagogy where under the guidance of their teacher as well as the help of their classmates and peers abroad, they constantly collaborate to explore and question anew. As other materials are offered to them, they learn that nothing is ever definitive but needs to be reviewed in the light of those new materials, very much like Simone de Beauvoir who wrote at the end of her stay in the United States that she ‘does not reach any definitive point of view’ (1948, my translation). In that sense, Cultura offers a decidedly constructivist approach to learning. The main communication tools are the asynchronous online discussion forums. This is where students debate issues. By virtue of using their ‘native’ language in the forums, and not being limited by their linguistic abilities in the target language, students can explore those issues in depth. The other added advantage is that these online discussions are archived easily and provide a great resource for researchers interested in intercultural communication (https://cultura.mit.edu/forums/forums). More recently, regular Skype sessions have been added throughout the semester, allowing students to get to know each other more and communicate orally half in the target language, half in the native language, also often continuing the online discussions, probing further, and so on. For these Skype sessions, students

254  Gilberte Furstenberg are asked to summarise what they have learnt from their encounters with the student(s) in France and assess the quality of the encounters themselves. In terms of assessment, what is evaluated (for the online postings) is not only the number of posts by each student but their quality: Did they really delve into the issue, or did they stay on the surface? Did they ask probing questions or superficial ones? Did they make interesting connections? Did they follow up on issues? Did they develop interesting insights? Students also are asked to reflect on what they have learnt in regular logbooks. We use a simple version of Byram’s self-assessment categories, having students write what they have discovered, what still seems difficult for them to understand, what questions they still have and to which they would like answers. Their remarks may then be brought back into the classroom by the teacher or the students themselves for further discussion. CHALLENGES AND OUTCOMES TO DATE One of the biggest challenges has been to find the right partner class, namely a class with similar goals. This is very hard to achieve because of competing priorities. Whereas Cultura is basically the sole material for the French class at MIT, it is often an ancillary in the institution abroad. Also, students on the other side of the Atlantic often have a more stringent curriculum and may have to prepare for a specific exam which Cultura does not prepare them for. This often results in an unfortunate imbalance in the forums. Because the priorities in both institutions are not necessarily aligned, it is very difficult indeed to ensure that both sides of students equally participate. One seemingly easy solution is to stay in as close contact as possible with the foreign partner teacher, but it does not always yield results, as teachers in France, for different reasons, are often reluctant to make participation in the forums compulsory, whereas at MIT they are part and parcel of the project. One related problem is that we never really know what the partner teacher is telling her or his students. One possible solution would be to put the ‘ground rules’ of Cultura online (the goals, the tasks, etc.) so that students on both sides are informed equally but somehow, we have never done it. As far as the Skype sessions are concerned, the biggest problem has been the differences in time zones, but that is nothing new. In terms of outcomes, we do not conduct research (there is no graduate programme in the humanities at MIT), but the archives available on the Cultura site provide a great resource for researchers in intercultural communication. In terms of impact of the project on the students’ learning, we mostly derive it from students’ responses to end-of-semester evaluation questionnaires, when they are asked to state the main benefits of the project. Besides learning a lot about French culture, about the different ways in which their peers view concepts, relationships or behaviours, they invariably express how much insight they have gained about their own culture. We have not done any studies on the impact a project such as Cultura may have on the students in the long term. Again, we are not set up for that at MIT. But it certainly would be advantageous to do so.

The Cultura Exchange Programme  255 CONCLUSION However well-known Cultura is, across the United States and the world, it is still a very small operation at MIT involving a small number of students (not more than 25 every semester). In terms of the development team, one member (myself) has retired from the day-to-day operations of the website and the project itself. Another has died, which means that only one person is left from the original team. It clearly is not sufficient to bring the project to new levels. Preliminary plans are under consideration for making alliances with other universities in the United States. If Cultura is going to not only just survive but thrive, this will be imperative. As remarkable as its longevity is, the challenge ahead is indeed to keep the project growing and renewing itself. REFERENCES Bakhtin, M. (1986). Response to a question from the Novy Mir Editorial Staff. In Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 6–7). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bauer, B., deBenedette, L., Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., & Waryn, S. (2006). The Cultura project. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 31–62). Boston: Thomson/Heinle. Belz, J. (2002, January). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60–81. Chun, D. (2014). Cultura-inspired intercultural exchanges: Focus on Asian and Pacific languages. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. De Beauvoir, S. (1948). L’Amérique au Jour le Jour. Paris: Gallimard. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday. Levy, M. (2007). Culture, culture learning and new technologies: Towards a pedagogical framework. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 104–127. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/levy/default.html. MIT Global Council (2009). Mens et manus et mundus: New directions for global education and research at MIT. Cambrige, MA: MIT. Modern Languages Association ad hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. Retrieved from https://www. mla.org/content/download/3197/81142/forlang_news_pdf.pdf. Ray, R. (2006). French language program plumbs cultural depths. Retrieved from http:// news.mit.edu/search?keyword=French+language+program+plumbs+cultural+depths Ting-Toomey, S. & Chung, L.C. (2005). Understanding intercultural communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15 The Cultnet Intercultural Citizenship Project Michael Byram

The Cultnet Intercultural Citizenship project is a collaboration amongst some of the members of an informal network of researchers (http://cultnetworld. wordpress.com) who are interested in foreign language teaching and its cultural dimension and, in particular, in introducing Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) into foreign language teaching. The immediate stimulus came from publications at the University of Durham on education for citizenship (Alred, Byram,  & Fleming, 2006) and the relationship between foreign language education and education for citizenship (Byram, 2008). There is also a longer intellectual history related to work on ICC in foreign language teaching, the evolution of the Common European Framework for Languages (Byram & Parmenter, 2012) and the introduction of the notion of critical cultural awareness and criticality into language teaching (Guilherme, 2002). THE SOCIO-INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT Cultnet is an ad hoc network, which has existed for almost two decades, of researchers interested in the cultural dimension of language teaching. The majority of the more than 200 members are or have been doctoral students seeking to help each other. Most remain members after completion of their studies. The network is held together by frequent emails of information to the whole group and by an annual meeting at the University of Durham. There is no other institutional framework. OBJECTIVES The objectives of the project were to establish, with the help of action research sub-projects, if and how citizenship education could become the focus—the teaching content—of foreign language teaching and learning. The members of the project were provided with documentation of the theory of how this might happen and in particular how it might lead to the development of criticality in learners. Here we drew above all on the work of Barnett (1997) and introduced

Cultnet Intercultural Citizenship Project  257 the notion that international and transnational work should be underpinned by internationalism, that is, identification beyond national identity and a willingness to work together with people of other countries. PROJECT SET-UP AND IMPLEMENTATION The idea for the project was born at the Cultnet meeting in 2013, attended by about 20 members of the network, and then advertised to the whole group by email, inviting anyone interested to join. Eventually a much smaller number became the settled group, working together in groups of twos, threes or fours but aware of each other’s work through sharing a pbworks page, a real-time collaborative editing system (RTCE). This page was created and explained to the group by Robert O’Dowd, a Cultnet member, who also facilitated its use for interaction amongst those potentially interested in cooperation. The project is thus a network of sub-projects, and rather than report them all in the limited space here, we shall refer to some of them to illustrate the ideas and processes involved. There are seven sub-projects involving students and teachers at secondary school and university level in 13 countries, in South and North America, East Asia and Europe. All projects started from the guidelines provided on the wiki. These were based on the theory of citizenship and criticality, especially that of Barnett as already mentioned. Participants were encourage to ensure that projects were not simply international groups where learners got to know each other and learn something about each other. The purpose was that projects should develop ‘intercultural citizenship’ with an identification with the transnational group. This could be defined in terms of opportunities for learners to create and cooperate in groups of several nationalities, forming ‘bonded’ international groups; that is, learners identify with ‘our group’ during the course of the project—such identification may only be temporary but leads learners to suspend their identification with the national culture or way of thinking and acting to find new, ‘international’ ways of acting. The teaching and learning was to include critical thinking as an intended outcome—the notion of ‘critical cultural awareness’ or ‘savoir s’engager’ (Byram, 1997). The teaching and learning should lead to learners becoming aware of the presuppositions they hold and the national basis of many of these. This means learners should be involved in questioning, challenging and wondering about what they would have done or thought if the project had not involved people from another country. To promote self-evaluation by the teachers and to encourage the sub-projects to follow the same direction, the following criteria were offered as a summary: A good intercultural citizenship project will ideally have the following characteristics: • Create a sense of international identification with learners in the international project

258  Michael Byram • Challenge the ‘common sense’ of each national group within the international project • Develop a new, ‘international’ way of thinking and acting (a ‘new way’ which may be either a modification of what is usually done or a radically new way) • Apply that new way to ‘knowledge,’ to ‘self’ and to ‘the world’ (this was a direct reference to Barnett’s work) Initially, any member of Cultnet who wanted to participate wrote a description of the context in which they were working, the teaching groups which might be involved and their linguistic level, and any other information about the learners they considered useful. This was posted on the wiki, and through a process of comparing the teaching groups, partnerships of two or more members were formed. These partnerships then became independent and created their own objectives and working methods. It quickly became evident that members in China could not access the wiki and were therefore not able to form a group with members in other countries. They decided however that they would work together within China and across different universities, using similar Internet tools as those working in two or more countries. All the sub-projects were based on teachers working together and talking via email or Skype. Some also involved students meeting over the Internet and working together on their topics. For this a variety of resources and communication tools were used, for example: Skype, email, Facebook, wiki, chats in wiki, VoiceThread, Google docs, Google Video, and Elluminate live!. Because the sub-projects were working independently within the conceptual framework outlined, they developed their own ways of working and occasionally reported progress on the wiki for all to see. Contact amongst the sub-projects was not, however, widespread except where one person was involved in more than one sub-project. CHALLENGES AND OUTCOMES TO DATE The following are short descriptions of two sub-projects with similar topics. Both lead to activities in their communities. One is based in universities and the other in secondary schools.

Stephanie Ann Houghton and Mei Lan Huang: Incorporating Environmental Action Into Intercultural Dialogue: Personal and Environmental Transformation as By-Products of Developing Intercultural Communicative Competence In this project, two groups of university students in Japan and Taiwan were studying English from an online course—Insights From the Field (http://files. peacecorps.gov/wws/pdf/InsightsUnit3Intro.pdf). Focussing on environmental

Cultnet Intercultural Citizenship Project  259 action as one type of social action, both groups followed Unit 3 of the course (titled Service: You Can Make a Difference) separately, in parallel, converging only at the end. Having considered ways in which local Dominicans, Peace Corps Volunteers serving in the Dominican Republic, international agencies and the Dominican government worked for the common good in the aftermath of Hurricane George as described in the textbook, students went out into their own communities and conducted interviews with community volunteers, exploring the ways in which volunteer community organizations work, identifying criteria for conducting service projects, and using primary source documents to identify examples of various Peace Corps service projects. As a final activity, students then planned, implemented, and evaluated service learning projects in their own university or community. An introductory lesson was followed by a series of six lessons that broadly followed Unit 3 of the textbook. After each of the first seven lessons, students were asked to write a learning diary reflecting on what they had learnt in class, how they felt about it, raising questions and/or making comments. Groups started planning their ‘environmental action projects’ (EAP) in Week 3 and were given time each week to develop them thereafter. In Weeks 8 through 10, the Japan- and Taiwan-based students implemented their respective projects independently of each other at times convenient to them before submitting individually written project reports by Week 10. Once students had submitted their EAP reports in Week 10, the teachers exchanged reports and distributed reports from the other group to their own students for consideration. Students were each asked to read one EAP report from a student in another country and to reflect on their own EAP in its light before writing an EAP Feedback Report for that student. In this way, students were encouraged to set their own standards for evaluation and were asked to explain why they chose them.

Melina Porto, Petra Daryai-Hansen, María Emilia Arcuri and Kira Schifler: Green Kidz: Young Learners Engage in Intercultural Environmental Citizenship in the English Language Classroom in Argentina and Denmark This project originates from the Green Kidz project carried out in one of the participating schools, in Denmark (http://www.facebook.com/greenkids2100). The Green Kidz project had been integrated only into natural sciences classes, and the teachers decided to introduce it into the language classroom. They formulated linguistic, intercultural and citizenship learning objectives, for example, the ability to engage in a dialogue in English as lingua franca with others; to develop values such as respect, mutual understanding, social awareness and openness; and with respect to the environment, understand environmental issues and how to recognise them in their own surroundings. In the first lessons, the children in each country recorded a video introducing themselves to the partner school, speaking in English, and became familiar with WorldGreenWeb, a wiki that was created especially for this project,

260  Michael Byram where they uploaded their videos. The next step was to introduce the children to the notion of ‘green crime’ (i.e., a crime against the environment) using a video produced as part of the previous Danish Green Kidz project. In this video, a girl corrects her mother who wastes water and, the children discussed how mother and daughter feel about green crimes. They then began to identify green crimes in their schools and, later, in their communities. Next, the children in both countries engaged in a trash analysis project in their schools, which involved them in listing, classifying and sorting out the trash in the waste bins in their schools and recording their observations with photographs and videos. They also carried out a survey amongst family members and friends about their environmental habits, uploaded the results to the wiki and discussed similarities and differences. The children in each country then analysed critically (audio)visual media images and texts to gain awareness of the power of the media in creating stereotypical images of environmental issues that may influence attitudes and behaviours. The children were now ready to engage in the online collaboration phase of the project. The task set was to collaboratively design an advertisement to raise awareness of environmental issues. The teachers in each country brainstormed ideas and vocabulary with their children before both groups engaged in online communication using the wiki and Skype. Because of the five-hour difference between both countries, special arrangements had to be made for the Skype session. There were technical difficulties as well, and the online contact was not successful in all the groups. This led to a little frustration for some of the learners, for which the teachers in each country found a response. For instance, some of the groups chose to communicate in writing via the wiki and the Skype chat as an alternative. As a final step, the children in each country took action by carrying out tasks in their extended networks, their schools, their communities and the World Wide Web. For example, the Argentinean children created videos and songs which they shared in a Facebook group; they were interviewed by a local journalist and got the collaborative posters published in the local newspaper (Porto, 2014). In Denmark, the children put up posters in their school and distributed them in their community. They wrote a letter to the local newspaper and posted information about the project on the newspaper’s Facebook page. They informed Greenpeace Denmark and Greenpeace International about the project and posted information about the project in the Danish Green Kidz Facebook group. In this second example, the authors say there were practical problems caused by time difference, which had to be overcome. Other authors also reported technical and practical problems (e.g., weather emergencies) which led to delays in implementation. There are also problems of a substantial nature. Levels of foreign language proficiency may not be high enough to handle abstract concepts, and teachers have to be flexible about the use of L1 in the foreign language classroom. The topic chosen may itself be challenging, and the emphasis on citizenship and students’ ‘action in the community’ as a desired outcome has to be handled with care. This is probably a new situation

Cultnet Intercultural Citizenship Project  261 for language teachers who normally deal with content of a non-contentious or even anodyne nature. It was also an opportunity for teachers to develop their own ICC as they negotiated their cooperation. Project members describe the methods of overcoming problems with the key phrases ‘flexibility’ and ‘good will,’ which were perhaps a consequence of the fact that everyone had been involved in the Cultnet network, in some cases for many years. Although only a small minority had met face-to-face, they knew each other’s interests and common commitment. In some cases, face-toface meetings took place at a later Cultnet meeting in Durham, a chance for ‘reunions’ and presentations of the project and sub-projects. Some projects introduced procedures to capture data from learners, for example, Sub-Project 6 used the Council of Europe’s Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters (http://www.coe.int/lang-autobiography), final reflection logs and focus group interviews. Sub-Projects 2 and 5 used reflective writing and students’ self-assessment with regard to their understanding and development of intercultural competence and citizenship. The effects of projects on students’ learning have thus been evaluated using qualitative data. Several sub-projects report that there was textual evidence of the development of the students’ intercultural citizenship skills and also evidence of citizenship development in the form of civic actions in the community. CONCLUSION In addition to the articles mentioned and a book under way (Byram, Golubeva, Han, & Wagner, forthcoming), members of the project have reported on their work to other members of Cultnet at the annual meeting, and Michael Byram has presented examples of the work in plenary lectures in several countries, where audiences find the work innovative and intriguing but perhaps also a little challenging for them to think about for their own classrooms. It is important to note that this project allowed mutual support through the Cultnet network and through the project wiki. There is a need therefore for the group to think about what we have learnt and how the ideas, but above all the practices, can be made more known and applicable. For this reason chapters in the book in progress will describe sub-projects in such a way that they can be replicated by other teachers in other places—no doubt with modifications and improvements. REFERENCES Alred, G., Byram, M., & M. Fleming (Eds.) (2006). Education for intercultural citizenship: Concepts and comparisons. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: Open University Press. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters.

262  Michael Byram Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Han, H., & Wagner, M. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Education for intercultural citizenship—principles in practice. Bristol, GB: Multilingual Matters Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (Eds.). (2012). The common European framework of reference. The globalisation of language education policy. Bristol, GB: Multilingual Matters. Guilherme, M. (2002). Critical citizens for an intercultural world: Foreign language education as cultural politics. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters. Porto, M. (2014). Intercultural citizenship education in an EFL online project in Argentina, Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(2), 245–261. doi: 10.1080/ 14708477.2014.890625

16 The Collaborative Online International Learning Network Online Intercultural Exchange in the State University of New York Network of Universities Jon Rubin In 2006, the Office of International Programs (OIP) at the State University of New York (SUNY) joined with Purchase College (a SUNY campus) to create the SUNY Center for Collaborative Online International Learning. The COIL Center’s mission is to develop online and hybrid courses with deeply embedded international dimensions throughout many of the 64 campuses in the SUNY system. These courses are structured upon the creation of coequal, team-taught learning environments where faculty (teachers) from two or more cultures work together to develop a shared syllabus for the purpose of implementing an internationalised classroom emphasising experiential and collaborative student learning. SUNY is the largest comprehensive university system in the United States with almost 500,000 students. Because it is a comprehensive system, it is very diverse, including two-year community colleges, two- and four-year technical colleges, comprehensive colleges granting BA and MA degrees and research universities granting doctorates. Each SUNY also has its own mission, and some have locally focussed programmes, so working across this system means that the COIL Center must work with many different constituencies, each with different resources and needs. In 2010, the COIL Center became a part of SUNY System Administration’s new Office of Global Affairs, based in New York City. This move allowed the COIL Center to not only better support SUNY campuses working with their international partners but also to play larger national and international leadership roles. One of the important outcomes of this shift was to enhance and expand the scope of the COIL Center’s annual COIL conference. This is one of the few events in the world which gathers together practitioners and administrators who presently engage or wish to become involved with COIL, virtual exchange, globally networked learning and/or telecollaborative practices. (One of the problematics of this format is that it is called by so many different names, thereby making it harder for the practice to be more commonly understood and implemented.) The COIL conference regularly fills to its capacity of 300 registrants and in 2016 may move to a larger venue with the expectation of registering more than 400. However, it must be understood that the COIL Center functions at the system level and is not embedded in any individual university campus. This means

264  Jon Rubin that our work is largely consultative and supportive and is one step removed from the actual classrooms that are usually located in our partnered university networks. We work with professors, staff, managers and senior administrators on a daily basis but rarely directly with students, except indirectly through the courses we help develop. THE SOCIO-INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT Early COIL course creators were lecturers and faculty (in the US usage of this word) who wanted to develop meaningful linkages between their students and students from other countries and cultures. These were all bottom-up initiatives driven by the teachers, often undertaken with little administrative support. As early as 2001, a few SUNY professors developed courses that were linked with colleagues and classes abroad to create an online international experience, and these faculty members began to meet to discuss ways to promote this model and to share good practices. The need for these international interactions is great because SUNY is a state university, and many of our students cannot afford to study abroad, are already earning a living and/or have families, and are therefore not very mobile or simply are not yet motivated to seek an international experience. Whereas New York is often thought of as being the ultimate cosmopolitan city, most SUNY campuses are far from New York City, and it is not unusual to find SUNY students who have never even visited New York City. Yet at the same time, many of the larger SUNYs have well developed study abroad and exchange programmes, so there is a high level of awareness of the value of internationalisation across SUNY. Whereas the COIL Center is a unit of one university, it has through necessity developed two consortia through which it works with higher education partners. Within SUNY, the COIL Center has built its Nodal Network (NN) of SUNY campuses, presently numbering 26 institutions. Because SUNY is made up of many types of HEIs and because SUNY is quite decentralised, working with this large group of SUNY campuses is a real challenge. For a SUNY campus to become a member of the NN, a senior administrator, usually at the level of provost, vice president for academic affairs or dean must make an institutional commitment to providing support and infrastructure to develop and implement COIL locally. A participating campus also must identify a COIL coordinator who will have time assigned for his/her COIL responsibilities. Such coordinators are sometimes faculty but often are staff based in international programmes offices or are situated in teaching and learning centres, which often support other formats of online course development. These coordinators engage in outreach to targeted faculty for the purposes of partnering them with international faculty and meet regularly with instructors who are interested in creating a COIL courses and those that are in the process of course development. They also promote COIL activities, conferences,

COIL Network—OIE in the SUNY Network  265 grant opportunities and presentation calls at their campus and maintain regular liaison with the COIL Center. Additionally, each SUNY campus pays a membership fee to the COIL Center for which it receives significant professional development support. Monthly web conferences are held between the coordinators and COIL staff to maintain a bilateral flow of information and to help create community. More and more, our campus coordinators have been directly supporting each other’s COIL activities. Additionally, as COIL is an inherently internationally networked format of education, the COIL Center recently has developed a Global Partner Network (GPN), presently consisting of 24 universities around the world who have made a commitment to developing partnered courses with SUNY NN campuses in concert with the COIL Center. Each GPN member must sign an agreement with the COIL Center and also must identify a COIL coordinator to support the growth of COIL infrastructure on his/her campus and to work with their peers in the NN to identify and support course partnerships between interested professors. There is presently a fee to become a GPN member institution. However, this fee is waived for GPN members that send their coordinator and at least one faculty member to the annual COIL conference in New York City. This is primarily to strengthen the linkages between our NN and GPN partners through face-to-face planning and partnership-building meetings and the sharing of good practices. Jon Rubin, the founding and current director of the COIL Center, was also one of the early adopter faculty developing this model in their own classrooms prior to the COIL Center’s creation. Beginning in 2002, following upon a Fulbright in Belarus, then Professor Rubin created a Cross Cultural Video Production course in which his SUNY students co-produced videos on mutually agreed-upon themes with students studying at European Humanities University in Minsk. He and some of his colleagues were excited by this emerging model but also could see how problematic it was for this work to be valued, supported and integrated into regular university practices. Working with faculty colleagues, the provost of Purchase College and the director of the SUNY OIP, a small amount of funding was allocated, and the COIL Center was born. In these early days, Director Rubin was released from some of his teaching load and given a small budget but was given no additional staff. The COIL Center remains a very small unit but between 2010 and the present date has grown to four full-time staff, working with related units within system and at many SUNY campuses. THE OBJECTIVES OF THE NETWORK The SUNY COIL Center’s mission is to foster the creation of collaborative online international learning initiatives across the curriculum. These produce intercultural learning environments for faculty, staff and students who otherwise may not experience meaningful exchange with peers abroad.

266  Jon Rubin Through our team-taught, bi-lateral framework, we seek to sensitise participants to the larger world and thus deepen their understanding of course content, themselves, their culture, how they are perceived and how they perceive others. Classes may be fully online or, more often, are offered in blended formats with traditional face-to-face sessions taking place at both schools, whereas collaborative student work takes place online. Cooperating instructors work closely with all students, but in most cases these students are enrolled, charged tuition (when present) and awarded grades only at their home institution. We presently define three collaborative formats: • Pre-COIL: one- to three-week presentations and/or meetups designed to get professors and students familiar with the practice • COIL-Enhanced: the most common format, running from four to eight weeks, which requires in-depth collaboration between the students (about 85 percent of the collaborations the COIL Center facilitates are built on the COIL-Enhanced model) • COIL: which signifies a full semester engagement and is usually designed from the bottom up as a COIL collaborative course The COIL Center also seeks to move the COIL format beyond its typical status of existing primarily in the domain of individual practitioners, where we believe it cannot be scaled or sustained, onto the agendas of higher education planners and senior administrators. Given that fewer than 4 percent of college and university students currently study abroad, it is critical that this valuable new format for intercultural and international exchange be more strongly supported by our universities. So, even though the COIL Center is a unit of SUNY, we seek to create a broader movement across the international higher education landscape, thereby normalising and making credible online international learning. What makes COIL such an important addition to the many forms of physical mobility and to the internationalisation of curricula and teaching and learning? In the first place, it provides opportunities for teachers, staff and students (e.g., part-time students) who cannot or do not want to go abroad for a semester or longer but would like to have an international teaching and learning experience. Through interaction with students and teachers from other countries, they receive different perspectives on their subjects and on learning and teaching, which they would find it hard to obtain otherwise. In the second place, COIL offers the opportunity and makes it necessary for students and teachers to work closely together—an opportunity that in many cases is missed in physical mobility, where students and teachers do not collaborate inside and outside the classroom. In the third place, COIL draws attention to the specific national and cultural approach to a subject as well as to the way it is taught and learnt.

COIL Network—OIE in the SUNY Network  267 COLLABORATIVE ONLINE INTERNATIONAL LEARNING SET-UP AND IMPLEMENTATION The COIL Center is not a project but is rather a SUNY administrative unit that provides professional development support and other services to its members. Because we facilitate many different projects with SUNY and international partner campuses, we need to adapt our methods to the desired course and programme outcomes at the collaborating institutions. To support these activities we consult with lecturers and staff as they conceptualise their collaborations, and we offer two professional development programmes, which we continue to improve. These are the COIL Course Orientation and the COIL Academy. To participate in either structure, one must be based at a GPN or NN institution or be in the process of joining these networks. We also have begun to offer workshops, consultations and compact versions of these professional development structures to other US and international institutions which wish to develop similar initiatives. The COIL Center also has worked with the American Council on Education through a national awards programme to support other US HEIs develop their own COIL initiatives. We seek other partners with whom to expand this format. Identifying and developing effective partnerships within institutional teams (faculty and staff) and between international teams is key to building sustainable and scalable curricular internationalisation initiatives. The five-week COIL Course Orientation mini-course provides a foundation for seeking and engaging potential partners and is organised around three stages of partner development: Stage 1: Profiling and Institutional Context • Presentation of one’s approach to teaching, discipline and research interests and identification of the courses or semesters which one will make available for collaborative engagement • Conveying your presence as a teacher and human being • Awareness of the context, programme and support structure in which the COIL course will be embedded within your institution Stage 2: Partner Selection • Locating a partner in a similar field or in a field appropriate for more interdisciplinary exchange • Considerations relating to the choice of geographical partner locations and institutional types • Evaluating the partner’s institutional setting and potential for sustainability Stage 3: Discussion and Negotiation • Examination of various critical issues including intercultural sensitivity, flexibility and the development of consistent communication protocols

268  Jon Rubin The mini-course uses a ‘learning-by-doing’ approach whereby through the very process of completing tasks, participants engage in the sorts of activities that students in COIL courses undertake. As such, participants will communicate with one another and the facilitators using both asynchronous and synchronous tools, and they will be asked to actively take part in group discussions. By the end of the mini-course, participants will have the knowledge and confidence to find and develop a fruitful partnership as well as developing a personal profile with embedded video to help them in this process. The COIL Academy is a seven-week COIL course development programme for SUNY faculty, their international partners, and staff at their campuses who plan to implement a course in the semester following the academy. The spring academy usually starts with a one-day workshop in New York City following the annual COIL conference. The fall academy begins the day before or after the SUNY NN In-Person Retreat held at a SUNY NN campus each October. Preceding and following this in-person workshop, participants will engage in a seven-week online programme that will guide them in developing their courses through tasks and activities that allow them to experience what it means to collaborate online. By the end of the programme, partners will have developed much of their course and will then have time to finalise details for course implementation in the following semester. To participate in the academy, the NN faculty member must have an international partnership in place before the start of the programme. The faculty partner must attend the in-person workshop as well as the COIL conference. Whereas the COIL Center does not provide direct travel support to international faculty, their COIL conference registration fee is waived. Their travel expenses can be paid by their home campus and/or their SUNY partner campus. If it is not possible for them to attend in person, international partners are expected to attend virtually via video conference. The COIL Center also is beginning to offer workshops and academies in regions where our GPN campuses are located, thereby seeking to develop COIL hubs abroad. In September 2014, the COIL Center launched a Latin American academy with Mexican partner universities in Cuernavaca; in December 2014, we held a symposium at Kansai University in Osaka, Japan; and in October 2015, the COIL Center undertook an extended workshop in Turkey, bringing a group of SUNY professors to Anadolu University in Eskisehir to develop course collaborations. Because COIL courses cover many disciplines at many institutions, we do not have a one-size-fits-all template regarding tasks, nor do we use one type of task for all exchanges. However, we encourage those with whom we work to create structures and tasks that require students to negotiate meaning cross culturally. However the form these exchanges take varies greatly. They may include jointly researched and/or written research papers, co-produced videos, social comparisons based on interviews, photography or audio recordings, engaged discussions in forums or in live video conferences and in many other formats. Whereas language teaching and learning is not as central to the COIL Center’s mission as it may be to some of our peer organizations, many COIL courses

COIL Network—OIE in the SUNY Network  269 do seek to enhance the English skills of our international partners or the second language skills of SUNY students. In these cases, the tasks would be more focussed on communicative fluency and interchange than on other contentoriented tasks. The use of communication tools in COIL exchanges again varies tremendously across the spectrum of COIL-enhanced courses due to bandwidth limitations, availability of videoconferencing hardware and software, governmental controls, classroom sizes, language compatibility and other variables. Typically, COIL-enhanced courses blend synchronous and asynchronous tools, but the balance between the two modalities depends especially on the desired course outcomes, the level of shared fluency in a common language and time zone differences. Most COIL-enhanced courses emphasise asynchronous modalities but make use of synchronous tools to build trust and to resolve conflicts. Whereas we especially encourage formative assessment even during the course development phase, the choice of how to assess is left largely to the institutional partners. There has been much interest and application of preand post-surveys, but the COIL Center feels that evidence-based evaluations may be more productive for long-term understanding of what has been accomplished in these courses, and that is an assessment pathway we are pursuing. We also seek to develop longitudinal data that provides insight into whether COIL courses affect life and job choices made by students post-course. CHALLENGES AND OUTCOMES TO DATE Every day is filled with new challenges for the COIL Center. Encouraging and supporting the adoption of a new modality of international education and exchange by universities around the world is an enormously difficult task. Given that the universities we work with are relatively large and structurally conservative institutions, whereas the COIL Center presently has a staff of only four people, may very well put us in direct competition with Sisyphus. However, we have had many successes, and the model we have developed is now being adopted and integrated into the curricula at many colleges and universities. Our work recently has been covered by major international education publications, like International Educator (National Association of Foreign Student Advisers [NAFSA]’s magazine) and Inside Higher Ed, and the number of institutions within our own networks has grown steadily. Our SUNY NN was formed five years ago with seven charter members and has grown to 26 campuses as of mid-2015. Our GPN was launched only in the fall of 2013 and is already made up of 24 universities located around the world. Our annual conference sold out in 2013, 2014 and 2015, whereas submissions for COIL conference panels and sessions have grown from about 30 two years ago to 70 in 2015. But most importantly, the number of COIL-enhanced courses and students benefiting from these courses also have grown yearly. We have facilitated more than 150 COIL and COIL-enhanced courses over

270  Jon Rubin the past four years. But the need is so great that we wish the growth were far greater. At first a major problem was resistance to this new modality by international programme offices and by other administrators whom we had hoped would be more supportive. But slowly this is changing as the need for internationalisation at home has begun to take hold and as our model has become better understood. And ironically, because the COIL model is a relatively inexpensive internationalisation model, some senior university administrators who speak supportively of COIL nevertheless do not commit adequate infrastructure resources to support its growth, which can be frustrating. Faculty need release time or stipends and instructional design support to make their first forays into COIL course development successful. COIL also needs to be integrated into programmes of study so that it is not an add-on but is part of the curriculum. This integration has happened only at a few institutions so far. The process of orienting institutions towards the COIL model is a bit like turning a giant ocean tanker. We have probably moved the international education ship a few degrees in our direction, but we need to keep leaning on the rudder to put this ship in position to bring more students on board. We are especially pleased about the excitement and commitment we are finding in some of our GPN institutions. COIL courses also provide tremendous documentable and anecdotal evidence of increased student intercultural awareness and curiosity about the world, but we need true longitudinal studies to see how far this methodology will take us. CONCLUSION As our field matures it is critical that the many individual and institutional practitioners around the world network more effectively to pool their knowledge. There is just too much parallel play in the present environment without enough sharing of appropriate structures of engagement. At the same time we are also finding great potential in linking COIL-enhanced courses to shortterm, study-abroad experiences, which are the predominant format of student mobility in the United States and western Europe. By preceding and/or following a one- to three-week study tour with online student social interactions and extended collaborative projects, we can at once give our students more meaningful international experiences and, at the same time, help our international programme offices become more deeply engaged with technology.

Part V

The Future of Online Intercultural Exchange

This page intentionally left blank

17 Learning From the Past and Looking to the Future of Online Intercultural Exchange Robert O’Dowd

As this volume goes to press, OIE will have been employed in university foreign language education for more than 20 years (Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Eck, Legenhausen, & Wolff, 1995; Warschauer, 1995). During this period, we have seen the activity play an increasingly important role in CALL practice. This is clear from the significant number of articles related to the subject which have appeared over the past decade in research journals such as Language Learning and Technology, ReCALL and the CALL Journal. Recent years also have witnessed a gradual growth in awareness of telecollaboration in mainstream foreign language education—particularly at university level. This can be seen in the presence of chapters on OIE in many of the recent overviews of foreign language methodology, including the Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (2007) and the Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication (Jackson, 2013). It is also demonstrated by reflections on telecollaboration in volumes related to intercultural foreign language education (Corbett, 2010; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013) and bilingual education (Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008). This volume has attempted to contribute to the literature on OIE by providing an overview of how OIE currently is being implemented and integrated in university foreign language education around the globe. It also was our intention to provide insights into how this activity can continue to improve as a tool for developing language and intercultural learning in university students. The chapters presented in this volume portray an activity which has developed a solid body of research and which has evolved in a myriad of ways, providing models of practice which can be integrated into foreign language classrooms (see chapters by Leone and Telles and by MacKinnon and by Furstenberg) and others which can be adapted across academic disciplines (e.g., chapters by Helm and by Rubin). Whereas some authors in this volume have highlighted the barriers which exist to OIE’s further recognition and integration at an institutional level (see chapters by de Wit, Guth, Wilson and Tudini), other contributions by Dooly, Hauck and MacKinnon and Nissen all pointed to practical ways in which OIE can make a bigger impact as an educational activity. However, whilst OIE has undoubtedly grown steadily in recent years, there clearly remains a great deal of work to be done in relation to its dissemination and its development as an effective tool for language and intercultural

274  Robert O’Dowd learning. For example, OIE is an educational tool which remains unfamiliar to a large majority of university educators outside of foreign language education and also to those decision makers who are responsible for developing policy related to initiatives such as Internationalisation at Home (Deardorff & Jones, 2012) and Open Learning (European Commission, 2013). It is significant, for example, that an activity such as telecollaboration, which has received significant funding in the form of various European research projects (see, e.g., the projects reported by Dooly, 2008, Kohn & Warth, 2011 and O’Dowd, 2013), is not mentioned or recommended in recent European education policy documents such as the publication on New Modes of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (2014) by the High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education, or the European Commission’s document on opening up education (2013). OIE is also an activity which has received its fair share of criticism in the literature, and at times there is a clear skepticism amongst commentators as to its effectiveness in developing intercultural awareness (Kramsch, 2009a; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013) and as to its contribution to internationalisation processes at university level (Lawton, 2015). With this in mind, for OIE to continue to grow and become an effective tool for university foreign language education, this chapter sets out to explore in detail the main criticisms and concerns which have been expressed in the literature in relation to OIE and to reflect on how both practitioners and researchers can react and learn from these critiques. As already has been pointed out by Lamy and Goodfellow, ‘[t]he field of telecollaboration for language learning has been remarkable for its willingness to review its own effectiveness regularly’ (Lamy & Goodfellow, 2010, p. 109), and this chapter aims to continue this tradition by proposing how OIE can continue to improve its efficiency as a tool for learning by listening to the criticism it has received from others. I will also explore how OIE may innovate and develop in the future by becoming an integrated tool for university education—not only in foreign language education but also in other disciplines and learning contexts. LEARNING FROM THE CRITIQUES OF ONLINE INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE Hopefully it has become evident from the many different models and initiatives presented and explored in this volume that there is not one single approach to carrying out telecollaborative exchanges. There is a huge range of pedagogical models, task types and online tools available for online exchange, and teachers inevitably carry out the projects with their students in a myriad of ways. With this in mind, it is necessary to approach any dismissal or criticism of OIE per se with extreme caution. The criticisms, which some approaches and projects may merit, may not be deserved by other initiatives. Nevertheless, recent publications from authors working outside the immediate area of telecollaborative research have served to highlight certain weaknesses or

Learning From the Past  275 tendencies which warrant attention in future research and practice in this area. These criticisms relate to a general lack of authenticity involved in engaging classes of language learners in interaction together (Hanna  & De Nooy, 2009); the false impression of universality in online communicative practices which teachers and students often bring to OIE (Kramsch, 2009; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Kramsch & Ware, 2005); the lack of opportunities for reflection on interaction which telecollaboration allows (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013); and the two-tier approach to student mobility which telecollaboration helps to bring about in university education. Each of these will now be looked at in detail.

Online Intercultural Exchange and Authenticity Whereas many educators have been drawn to telecollaboration due to its potential to engage learners in ‘authentic’ interaction with native speakers or with learners from other countries and to give them first-hand experience of ‘real’ intercultural communication, the authors Hanna and de Nooy (2009, p. 88) have pointed out that in class-to-class telecollaboration, ‘[i]nteraction is restricted to communication with other learners, a situation that is safe and reassuring for beginners and younger learners, but somewhat limiting for more advanced and adult learners, who need practice in venturing beyond the classroom’ (2009, p. 88). The authors propose that it is more authentic and more advantageous to engage learners in interaction in authentic L2 discussion forums such as those related to L2 newspaper and magazine publications. Their own work focusses on engaging learners of French as a foreign language in discussion forums of French magazines such as Le Nouvel Observateur. The authors compare class-to-class telecollaboration with their model and suggest that class-to-class OIE lacks authenticity as learners are not motivated by a genuine interest in exchanging ideas but rather by an obligation to get good marks for their online interaction. In contrast, by engaging learners in online discussion forums with native speakers, ‘interaction takes place in a context driven by a desire to communicate opinions and exchange ideas rather than by assessment or language learning goals’ (p. 89). The authors see two other related weaknesses in OIE. Firstly, they suggest that telecollaboration is problematic due to the personal, friendly relationships which characterise much of OIE: ‘The success of telecollaboration and e-tandem learning activities tends to rely on the quality of the relationship that develops between geographically separated participants. . . . [I]t is an exchange between a pair of individuals, already positioned as friends’ (p. 92). Secondly, the authors question what they perceive as the overuse of the genre of personal conversation and in particular self-presentation in telecollaborative exchange: ‘[A]lthough personal conversation is an indispensable genre, it can be a limiting one. . . . [I]t predisposes the student to launching conversations about the self that inevitably position him/her as the exotic little foreigner/the other. He/she may fail to learn strategies for opening and maintaining communication of other kinds’ (p. 195).

276  Robert O’Dowd These criticisms of online class-to-class exchange are challenging and should lead us to reflect on some basic aspects of the activity. For example, it is fair to question the level of ‘authenticity’ of bringing together two or more classes to carry out communicative tasks together in different languages. This is inevitably communication which is brought about at the instigation of the teachers involved and not the students themselves. However, one can also question the practicality and ‘scalability’ of the alternative proposed by Hanna and De Nooy, which involves bringing classes of learners to engage in online interaction with ‘real’ native speakers in unprotected online platforms. If one class of French learners is to participate in an online forum belonging to a French newspaper, then this may well be acceptable to other users of that forum. But what if various classes were to participate at the same time or if a class of more than 80 students were to begin participating in the same discussion topic? One can wonder how regular users of these forums would react to their online discussions becoming the homework of many non-native speakers. Indeed, Kern (1998) discussed a similar project to that of Hanna and De Nooy and reported how many French native speakers abandoned their online discussion forums due to the many language errors which students were committing in the online interaction. Hanna and De Nooy’s model is therefore likely to face serious barriers to wide-scale replicability. On the other hand, what telecollaboration may lack in authenticity, the model makes up for with a certain reliability that it can be repeated easily on a regular basis and be used by a large number of classes. Engaging students in the wilds of ‘genuine’ online interaction may guarantee a much more authentic cultural experience, but it does not ensure in any way these other outcomes. In regard to telecollaboration’s overreliance on personal friendships and on the genre of personal presentation, this very much depends on the set-up and tasks of the exchange in question. Whereas most exchanges do begin with some form of personal presentation by the students, this can be (and usually is) followed by other task types which engage students in the comparison of cultural texts or the collaborative development of a project (see O’Dowd & Ware, 2009 for a typology of telecollaborative tasks and how they are usually combined in task sequences). Furthermore, whereas telecollaboration does require students to respect each other’s opinions and to work together in a respectful manner, I would suggest it is an exaggeration to argue that successful telecollaboration depends on the establishment of friendships. In many telecollaborative exchanges, students regularly work in online groups of six to eight students over a period of six to eight weeks. It would be unrealistic and naive to expect any sort of genuine friendships to emerge from such short-term contact, and my experience is that teachers and students do not expect this. However, that does not mean students cannot learn a great deal from each other in these online interactions as they are exposed to the personal insights of their distant peers—people whom they often perceive as ‘people who matter’ (Belz & Kinginger, 2002, 2003). Nevertheless, telecollaborative practitioners would do well to heed Hanna and De Nooy’s criticisms and question the authenticity of their telecollaborative exchanges. This is particularly the case when it comes to the type of tasks

Learning From the Past  277 in which we are engaging our learners. Much has been written, for example, on how communicative language teaching for many years neglected its original aims of social justice and political education. Kramsch suggests that foreign language education was ‘under pressure to show evidence of efficiency and accountability’ (2006, p. 250), whereas Byram refers to ‘an over-concern with the instrumental purposes of language teaching for communication’ (2015, p. 209). Similarly, it has been noted by Helm (2013 and this volume) that as telecollaboration becomes more popular, there may also be a tendency in this area to shy away from difficult themes and subject matters and to smooth over difference in all but its most superficial manifestations. Many of the telecollaborative tasks described in the literature often reveal a superficial approach to culture based on traditional communicative classroom themes such as musical tastes, travel, sports and so on. For example, some representative tasks on the UNICollaboration.eu platform include the following: • This task allows the partners to prepare a PowerPoint presentation about places to go out at night in their hometown. • This task aims to have students explore and reflect on stereotypes. • Students have to post an image to the forum that exemplifies an aspect of their daily routine. • This presentation task allows the telecollaborative partners to speak about their daily lives by producing a video or a commented slide show. Tasks such as these, perhaps useful as initial icebreakers or for generating language practice, are likely to have little effect on students’ understanding of the partner culture or to lead to a critical reflection on the students’ own culture. This often can be accompanied by a tendency in exchanges for students to use the outcomes of their online interactions to sidestep differences and to focus instead on what cultures may have in common at a superficial level. Some examples of students’ comments from a recent Spanish-American exchange illustrate quite clearly what Kramsch and Ware describe as ‘the illusion of commonality’ (2005, p. 200) which students can take away from intercultural contact: Student 1: ‘I will say that I liked the exchange very much and that Missouri students looked like very nice people. I talked to them about my city and about theirs and it was nice to see that there are little differences but not as much as I thought.’ (italics added) Student 2: ‘Summing up, it has been such an exciting experience because we have learned English while we have known a different culture. To my mind, we aren’t too different, both of us like sports, music and spending time with our friends. We have different lifestyles but the same goal: helping people with our jobs.’ It would be regrettable if an activity such as telecollaboration was not to exploit its potential for developing themes of social justice and intercultural

278  Robert O’Dowd citizenship in university education and thereby to lead to a more challenging and authentic intercultural experience. This is particularly true if our goal is not merely internationalisation and its aims of supporting and enabling student and staff mobility but also internationalism and the development of students’ critical thinking and their adherence to cosmopolitan and democratic societies (Byram, 2012). It is the telecollaborative teachers’ responsibility to challenge the potential banalisation of our activity and make students’ online experience as authentic as possible by engaging students in virtual exchange on issues of political, historical and social importance for the partner classes. In other words, it is necessary to ensure that ‘the empty babble of the communicative classroom’ (Pennycock, 1994, p. 331) is not replaced by the superficial chatter of the networked classroom. With this in mind, many educators are beginning to explore telecollaboration’s potential for focussing learners on themes of responsible global citizenship, democratic engagement and intercultural dialogue. Responsible global citizenship, as we understand it here, is defined by Leask as an educational practice whose main objective is to help learners ‘critique the world they live in, see problems and issues from a range of perspectives, and take action to address them’ (2015, p. 17). In the present volume, we already have seen examples: Soliya, which brings together students from the United States and Arab or Muslim countries to engage in open yet guided dialogue on cultural and political issues which affect their countries’ relationships. A further example, reported by Porto (2014), shows British and Argentinean students engaging in collaborative project work related to the Falklands War and producing documents and activities which aimed at supporting reconciliation between the two communities. Projects such as these offer students the opportunity to engage in intercultural dialogue on themes which form part of their countries’ historical memory and to become more aware of alternative perspectives on themes which have been viewed until now through one particular cultural prism. The goal of such exchanges is not, of course, to establish ‘right or wrong’ or to identify ‘the truth’ but firstly to develop students’ understanding of how living in different cultural contexts can lead people to see and experience events differently and, secondly, to engage students in a critical comparison of their own norms, values, beliefs and assumptions and those of their online partners. In many ways this reflects the savoir component of Kramsch’s symbolic competence: ‘savoir means not just knowing the facts of grammar, vocabulary and pragmatics, and not only a general psychosocial knowledge of self and other, but understanding German-American relations during and after WWII, the current perceptions of the United States around the world, and having some knowledge of the major ideologies of our day’ (2009b, p. 118). Engaging learners in telecollaborative tasks related to social justice and of political significance can help to make these differences in norms and beliefs explicit and can challenge learners to expand their interpretative frameworks beyond the monocultural and the ethnocentric. Apart from rethinking the themes of telecollaborative exchange, it is also beneficial to review the intended outcomes of online intercultural tasks. In

Learning From the Past  279 an attempt to organise the wide variety of tasks being employed in telecollaborative exchange, O’Dowd and Ware (2009) categorised 12 telecollaborative task types which they had identified in the literature into three main categories—information exchange, comparison and collaboration. The first category, information exchange tasks, involved learners providing their telecollaborative partners with information about their personal biographies, local schools or towns or aspects of their home cultures. Tasks in this category were usually ‘monologic’ in nature as there was usually little negotiation of meaning (neither cultural nor linguistic) between the interlocutors. The second task type, comparison and analysis tasks, were seen to be more demanding as they required learners not only to exchange information but also to go a step further and carry out comparisons or critical analyses of cultural products from both cultures (e.g., books, surveys, films and newspaper articles). These analyses or comparisons could have a cultural focus and/or a linguistic focus. The final task type, collaborative tasks, required learners not only to exchange and compare information but also to work together to produce a common product or come to a joint conclusion. This could involve the co-authoring of an essay or presentation or the co-production of a linguistic translation or cultural adaptation of a text from the L1/C1 to L2/C2. These types of activities were seen to require a great deal of coordination and planning, but the authors suggested that they also brought about substantial amounts of negotiation of meaning on both linguistic and cultural levels as learners attempted to reach agreement on their final products. It would appear that most telecollaborative exchanges never move on beyond the first and second task types as students present, exchange and compare information but rarely go that extra step to actually collaborate together to complete a document or project. I would argue that it would be very beneficial for telecollaboration practice to focus more on this third type of telecollaborative task type to exploit the learning potential of this activity to the maximum. The importance of getting different cultural groups to go beyond simply exchanging information and to actually collaborate in the elaboration of projects or products is, of course, not new. The influential social-psychologist Gordon Allport (1958) looked at the value of contact for reducing prejudices and warned that contact in itself was no guarantee of improved attitudes to other groups. Allport looked at a technique used in progressive schools in the United States at the time called ‘social travelling,’ which involved bringing groups which held negative stereotypes of each other into contact together. The example he mentions involved middle-class students spending time with African American families in Harlem. He concluded that the key to success of such educational programmes was that both groups needed to be brought together to pursue a common objective: The nub of the matter seems to be that contact must reach below the surface in order to be effective in altering prejudice. Only the type of contact that leads people to do things together is likely to result in changed attitudes. (1958, p. 276, my italics)

280  Robert O’Dowd More recently, Guth and Robin (2015) reflect this approach in their description of OIE tasks: [T]asks must be designed so that students depend on one another to complete the task. For example, rather than having students write a collaborative essay in which each individual writes his or her own part and adds it to the whole, students could be asked to carry out interviews locally, which are then shared with their peers and interpreted through online discussion and edited jointly. (2015, p. 39) In summary, by developing tasks based on themes of political and social relevance and by engaging learners in activities which bring them to create and collaborate together, telecollaboration is likely to address some of the weaknesses highlighted by Hanna and De Nooy and to give students a more authentic OIE.

Online Intercultural Exchange and Learning From Online Interaction A second area of criticism relates to the potential which OIE offers learners for reflecting on and learning from their intercultural encounters and interactions. In their recent monograph on intercultural language learning, Liddicoat and Scarino (2013) suggest that the goals of intercultural tasks should be threefold: to participate in communication to exchange meanings and to discover, in and through experiences of interacting in communication with others, the variability in meaning-making, the linguistic and cultural assumptions made in constructing knowledge and, ultimately, to develop self-awareness of their own interpretative system. (2013, p. 64, my italics) The authors underline here the importance of creating communicative experiences for learners which will make transparent the different languacultural rules and assumptions which both they and their partners bring to their online interactions. Of course, for these learning experiences to be successful, it is not only necessary to engage students in communicative activity but also to provide sufficient opportunities for learners to reflect on and learn from their experiences. In their publication, the authors pay ample attention to the role of online exchange initiatives and how they can contribute to intercultural learning, and they appear to be particularly skeptical of their impact. For example, they make the following warning that telecollaborative practitioners should not assume that online contact will automatically lead to learning: The problem is that exposure to interaction of itself does not necessarily equate with intercultural learning. . . . To be able to contribute to learning,

Learning From the Past  281 the interaction must first become available in some way for students to reflect on and interpret. It is therefore necessary to consider not only what these technologies permit students to do, but also consider how their experiences may contribute to learning. (2013, p. 112) They go on to carry out a review of several well-known telecollaborative studies and come to the pessimistic conclusion that ‘interaction using a social technology has not necessarily resulted in intercultural learning. . . . The tasks involved students in exchanges across cultures . . . but the intercultural learning was supposed to happen as an automatic result of communication or engagement with others’ (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013, p. 117). But is that really the case? Whereas it is clear that intercultural learning is not always the outcome of OIE, are the authors right to conclude that telecollaboration research assumes intercultural learning will take place as a direct outcome of the online interaction? I would argue that this is definitely not the case. Indeed, there appears to be now a general consensus in the literature that telecollaboration should not happen autonomously without its integration into a classroom context where students can receive guidance and support from a teacher or facilitator in their online interaction with their foreign partners. Chun, for example, urges that ‘it is essential for teachers to help students to go beyond comprehending the surface meaning of words and sentences in order to understand what their intercultural partners are writing’ (2015, p. 13) whereas elsewhere, Müller-Hartmann (2012) suggests that ‘[t]he role of the teacher is crucial in initiating, developing and monitoring telecollaborative exchanges for language learning’ (p. 172). Although this may contrast with initial trends in online exchange where e-tandem partnerships often were seen as extracurricular activities (O’Rourke, 2007), it is fair to argue that most telecollaborative activity in recent years has taken a blended approach where learners’ online interactions and their reactions to this interaction has been discussed, analysed and framed with the help of a languacultural expert (i.e., their teacher). For example, the Cultura model on online exchange (see Furstenberg et al., 2001; Furstenberg, this volume) is based completely on the alternation between online intercultural interaction and classroom reflection and analysis. Furthermore, it was seen in Chapter 2 of this volume how many authors regularly recommend combining students’ online interaction with reflective reviews of transcripts or recordings of the online interactions. Belz (2006) refers to this at ‘the alternation of Internetmediated intercultural sessions with face-to-face intracultural sessions’ (p. 214), whereas Cunningham and Vyatkina (2012) refer to ‘pedagogic interventions’ where teachers transcribe and code extracts of students’ telecollaborative videoconferences and then review these transcripts with their students during class time. Kern (2014) also refers to using ‘la salle de rétrospection’ in his online exchanges where French and American student partners were given tasks requiring them to review and reflect recordings of their telecollaborative videoconferences.

282  Robert O’Dowd Then why is it the case that authors such as Liddicoat and Scarino criticise online exchange initiatives for expecting intercultural learning to be achieved exclusively with online interaction? Why do the authors feel it necessary to warn that ‘the technologies make available possibilities that need to be developed as experiences of learning in parallel with the interactions that technology facilitates’ (2013, p.118)? This may be due to a failing of the telecollaboration research literature to pay sufficient attention to the work that goes on in the classroom based on the interactions of telecollaborative exchange. Considering the importance attributed to this ‘intracultural’ classwork for helping students to understand the process involved in online intercultural communication, it is fair to ask whether telecollaborative research has paid sufficient attention to investigating and highlighting the workings of the offline discussion and analysis which takes place during telecollaborative exchanges. A review of the research data used in the studies of learning outcomes in telecollaborative exchange (Chapter 2, this volume) reveals that practically none of the studies used classroom interaction transcripts or field notes to explore how teachers engaged with learners in the analysis of their online interactions. The vast majority of telecollaborative research studies tend to present data stemming from the students’ online interaction in combination with pre- and post-exchange interview and survey data. There are, of course, some exceptions. Belz (2002) combines extracts from class transcripts with interview data to illustrate students’ reactions to their interactions, whereas O’Dowd (2006) transcribed sections of his classes in Germany which were related to the exchange and later transcribed them for analysis. More recently, Dooly and Sadler (in press) made extensive use of class transcripts to look at learning sequences in primary school telecollaboration. But why in the main has this valuable source of evidence for intercultural learning been neglected to such an extent in telecollaborative research studies? Firstly, it is clear that the transcripts of online interaction between students in different geographical locations can be considered easier to collect than transcripts of teacher-learner reflections and analysis of the online interaction. Furthermore, recordings of classroom interaction may be more difficult to analyse impartially, especially when the researcher is also the teacher of the class in question—something which is commonly the case in university-based telecollaborative research. When interviewed via email on this issue, various telecollaborative researchers provided some realistic insights into why classroom transcripts are not used more to illustrate episodes of intercultural learning: Researcher 1: ‘I think one important point is that through the work with computers we already store so much data that we have the feeling that we are able to present a multi-perspective in terms of data presentation. But we would need more data in this regard to see what actually transpires in the classroom.’ Researcher 2: ‘I often take notes after classroom sessions but not in a structured way. One would need to video- or at least audiotape the classroom sessions which obviously is an additional workload. Also, it really

Learning From the Past  283 would need to be done by all partners involved, which I find is one major problem in TC research anyway because often there are ethical concerns or institutional constraints that disallow data collection. I have had this problem with the US a lot.’ Researcher 3: ‘Why is not done? It takes A GREAT DEAL of time and work (not exaggerating). Am currently working on CA transcriptions of 1 and half hours of online conversations right now and it is, to the clock—1 minute of conversation requires 1 hour of transcription. I am also experiencing serious tendonitis in my right arm (common ailment of transcribers . . . [a] nd I am a fairly experienced CA transcriber AND this is only audio (no video), so if you do the maths, it’s around 100  hours of work more or less . . . SO much easier to nab those online data . . . but I agree, it needs to be combined with what is happening in the classroom). Plus, there is the question of getting permission to record students in schools (teachers, parents, school authorities may be reticent), getting enough useable data from the recordings (we use 2 cameras at a time usually and still a lot of yap-yapping that can’t be understood). . . . In short, I think it requires a fairly large infrastructure to do in-class research and most people doing telecollaboration are individually motivated teachers going at it alone.’ These comments highlight quite clearly the complexities of collecting classroom data for telecollaborative research. The increased workload involved in recording and transcribing classroom interaction, the ethical requirements regarding student and institutional permission and the added complexity of coordinating research in two classrooms all make it harder for teachers to present and investigate the work that goes on in their classrooms. Nevertheless, future telecollaborative research would do well to dedicate more time to recording and analysing the periods of class time which focus on telecollaborative ‘rich points.’ This data does not necessarily have to involve full transcriptions of classroom interaction. Glaser (1998), for example, warns that recording and transcribing often can take up more time than they are worth and that basic note taking based on recordings is often sufficient. Apart from a greater focus on the offline interaction and learning which take place during online exchange, there are other ways in which research studies on telecollaboration could continue to grow to provide more revealing insights on the impact of this activity in university education. These include the use of tools from the area of social cognitive neuroscience (Exchange 2.0, 2015) but also the increased use of longitudinal studies which would help to demonstrate the impact of long-term virtual interaction and exchange on students’ foreign language and intercultural competences. Despite the general consensus that foreign language competences develop over long periods of time, there are relatively few longitudinal studies in this area (Ortega & Iberri-Shea, 2005). Neither are longitudinal studies common in the CALL literature, although there have been various calls for their use in this field of study (Lomicka, 2006; Swaffar, Romano, Arens,  & Markley, 1998). Based on the review of the empirical research publications in Chapter 2

284  Robert O’Dowd of this volume, it would appear that telecollaborative research studies to date have not attempted to evaluate the impact of virtual contact and exchange on learners over a period any longer that one university semester. This is not surprising as the majority of online exchanges last no longer than this period. In a recent survey of telecollaborative practice in Europe (Guth, Helm, & O’Dowd, 2011), 54 percent of university educators reported that their exchanges lasted between one and three months, whereas 26 percent reported that the duration was between three and six months. Belz explains that collecting telecollaborative data over longer periods is extremely problematic as ‘such longitudinal data are difficult to collect in the tutored North American context where language courses typically last for only one semester’ (2004, p. 587). Nevertheless, it would be worth striving in the future to collect data over longer periods of time to explore the impact of long-term virtual contact on aspects of students’ foreign language development, such as pragmatic competence and intercultural awareness. Whereas it may be nigh impossible to maintain the same class-to-class exchange over a number of years, it may nevertheless be possible to study particular students’ linguistic and intercultural development as they take part in various telecollaborative exchanges with different contact groups during their university degrees. The results of such studies are likely to provide a more comprehensive overview of the impact on online exchange on students’ attitudes and language skills. Finally, telecollaborative research also would benefit from the application of investigative tools from other fields of research which also are interested in the outcomes of intercultural contact such as the field of social cognitive neuroscience. Bruneau, Saxe and Tropp (forthcoming) report on an ongoing study which uses such tools to measure the impact of OIE (see Helm, this volume) on American attitudes to Islam and the Muslim community during and after virtual contact with members of these groups. The tools used in this study measured different variables including the degree to which students felt a sense of commonality with the other group, the meta-perception of whether students felt the partner group respected their own group and a ‘feeling thermometer’ that is commonly used to assess intergroup negativity. Of course, no one study or set of tools will provide definitive findings on the value and impact of telecollaborative exchange. However, paying greater attention to the learning which takes place offline during telecollaborative exchanges, the introduction of measurement tools from different fields and the increased use of longitudinal studies will undoubtedly contribute to the quality of the corpus of research on telecollaborative learning and may help to provide a more convincing account of this learning activity to educators and decision makers outside of our immediate field.

Online Intercultural Exchange and the Impact of the Medium on Intercultural Communication In recent years, Claire Kramsch has written considerably about OIE both on her own (2009) and also in collaboration with other colleagues (Kramsch &

Learning From the Past  285 Malinowski, 2014; Kramsch  & Thorne, 2002; Ware  & Kramsch, 2005). Rather than expressing dissatisfaction with the design of telecollaborative exchange per se, Kramsch’s work reflects more a generalised concern with the widespread misconception by teachers and students that the discourse of online interaction is somehow governed by universal rules and that the computer medium does not play a role in how meanings are expressed and understood in online intercultural interaction. In their work, Kramsch and her colleagues use various case studies of French-American and German-American university telecollaborative exchanges to explore how online communication breaks down and intercultural misunderstandings arise due to the use of different genres by interlocutors and by the assumption by the two groups of learners that they were doing the same thing in their telecollaborative exchange. Kramsch and Thorne (2002), for example, found that the reasons for online communication breakdown between their French and American students were due to both groups trying to engage in interaction with each other using not merely different language styles but culturally different discourse genres, of the existence of which both groups appeared to be unaware. Whereas the French had approached the exchange as an academic exercise and used factual, impersonal, restrained genres of writing, the American group regarded the exchange as a very human experience which involved bonding with their distant partners and taking a personal interest in finding solutions to the problems which arose. An exchange which involved two such different approaches to the interaction was bound to end in frustration for both sides. Ware and Kramsch (2005) also found this confusion of genres and the lack of clarity about the appropriate rules of interaction in a German-American exchange and how one particular American student reacted to this ambiguity. They conclude: [T]he electronic medium tends to blur genres that are usually kept separate in face to face interaction. The type of exchange in which the students were engaged was fundamentally ambiguous: It was a private dialogue between two students but it was also a dialogue on which an unknown numbers of others eavesdropped; it was a classroom assignment, but Rob had changed the assignment into a chatty get-to-know-each-other conversation; it was a written exchange but in the form of a spoken chat. . . . What students perceive as appropriate uses of the Internet can differ interculturally. (2005, p. 199) In her 2009 monograph, Kramsch returns to this theme and warns of the misconception that students in different cultures engaged in the same activity (OIE) and using the same medium (e.g., email or videoconferencing) are somehow doing the same thing as they interact together. On the contrary, Kramsch and her co-authors believe that the numerous examples of communication breakdown and frustration on the behalf of students engaged in OIE serve as evidence that each student brings with them to an exchange

286  Robert O’Dowd their own understanding of the tasks, their own goals and their own personal assumptions about what is appropriate online communicative behaviour. She explains: Because the genre boundaries that constrain face-to-face or eye-to-paper language have disappeared behind the universal frame of the computer screen, the foreign language Other is erroneously assumed to be doing the same thing as the Self only in another language. (2009, p. 178) Kramsch and her colleagues call for a move away from assumptions of universality and propose greater awareness raising of the cultural and historical differences which students in different cultures bring to their online exchange. Instead of allowing students to fall back on assumptions that everyone is deep down the same and that everyone communicates online in the same way, the challenge for telecollaborative practitioners is to push their students to ‘imagine another person as different from oneself, to recognise the other in his or her historicity and subjectivity, to see ourselves through the eyes of others’ (Ware & Kramsch, 2005, p. 202). Kramsch’s most recent work on telecollaborative exchange (Kramsch  & Malinowski, 2014) also highlights the important impact of the technological medium itself on OIEs. Basing their work on videoconferencing exchanges between French and American students, the authors suggest that the computer interface and the common technical problems of echo, frame-freeze and so on play major roles in how students communicate online, and this often can hinder intercultural learning. They warn that the issue of technical problems ‘forces them [the students] to devote all their attention to the technology itself at the expense of deeper negotiation of social and cultural meanings, let alone worldviews. (2014, p. 21). Kramsch and Malinowski are not the only ones to identify the important impact which the medium has on computer-mediated intercultural communication. Kern (2014) warns that ‘what one sees on the computer screen is a highly mediated, filtered, and designed version of the world’ (2014, p. 341), and he argues that telecollaborative learning needs to draw learners’ attention to how the online medium influences how communication takes place and brings with it its own ideas about what communication actually is. The proposals by Kramsch and her colleagues and by Kern are very useful propositions for the design of future online exchanges as they urge practitioners to make explicit to students the assumptions and genres which they bring to online interaction, and they also serve to raise awareness of the impact of the computer medium on our communicative activity. Their suggestions and those of others outlined already in this chapter allow us to present then following overview of strong and weak approaches to telecollaborative task design:

Learning From the Past  287 Table 17.1  Strong and Weak Approaches to Telecollaborative Task Design Strong Approaches to Telecollaborative Task Design

Weak Approaches to Telecollaborative Task Design

Tasks reflect themes of social justice and intercultural citizenship Tasks engage students in active collaboration together Tasks include reflection on the role of the medium in online communication Tasks include stages of cultural selfreflection and critical evaluation Tasks avoid stereotyping and forced culture clash

Tasks focus on superficial communicative themes Tasks only require learners to present and report information The role of the technology in the communication is taken for granted No critical self-reflection is involved Tasks often involve a focus on stereotyping and forced culture clash

Online Intercultural Exchange and the Danger of Two-Tier Student Mobility It was seen in Chapter 2 of this volume that there is a considerable amount of research to suggest that telecollaborative exchange projects can contribute significantly to learners’ foreign language skills, intercultural awareness and, although a great deal more research is still necessary in this area, digital skills—all of which are amongst the skills which the Agenda for Modernisation of Europe’s Higher Education Systems stresses are often lacking in current graduates (European Commission, 2011, p. 4). However, OIE also has the potential to respond to other important challenges currently facing university education. For example, recent studies (High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education, 2014) indicate that many parts of Europe higher education are still predominantly lecture-based with the transmission of knowledge being the main pedagogic paradigm. It would be interesting to explore whether a greater use of collaborative learning activities such as telecollaboration could help move university education to more student-centred learning. Furthermore, studies confirm that numbers participating in physical mobility programmes in university education remain generally very low. Currently only 4 percent of students in the European Union have engaged in international study or work experience, despite ambitious aims to have 20 percent of students with international experience by 2020 (­Leuven/ Louvain-la-Neuve Ministerial Conference, 2009, p. 15). In the case of the United States, less than 3 percent of students spend part of their studies in other countries (Kinginger, 2009). In this context, OIE should at least be explored as a tool for preparing and motivating students for physical mobility or for providing an alternative for those students unwilling or unable to travel abroad. However, there is a concern in certain areas that the widespread use of OIE (or ‘virtual exchange’ as it is commonly referred to in European policy documentation) may be used to create a first and second division of student mobility in which physical mobility is reserved exclusively for wealthier students,

288  Robert O’Dowd whereas the remainder are granted the second-best option of virtual mobility. Lawton expresses this fear in the following way: But it can also be argued that the institutionalisation of virtual exchange institutionalises a two-tier system of mobility: one for the elite few and another for the 80–90 % who cannot afford it. Looked at this way, ‘internationalisation at home’ (the core element of which refers to developments in curricula consistent with the international aspirations of institutions) can be seen as a consolation prize for non-mobile non-elites. (2015, p. 80) Of course, it should not be our intention to propose OIE as an alternative (be it second best or otherwise) to physical mobility. Instead, proponents of OIE should strive to find a role for this activity as an integral part of preparing and supporting physical mobility programmes and also in enhancing other aspects of university education which would benefit from integrating online intercultural interaction into their activities. It is perhaps surprising to find that OIE’s potential as a tool to support and enhance physical mobility in university education has yet to be fully explored. In her review of language learning and study abroad, Kinginger calls for those involved in student mobility ‘to establish telecollaborative courses linking students at home to their in-country peers in the precise locations where they will study abroad and thereby to establish contacts through prior, institutionally sanctioned interaction’ (2009, p. 111). However, using telecollaboration as a form of pre-mobility or as a manner of connecting internationally mobile students with students in their home institutions remains in its infancy, and very few examples have been reported in the literature to date. Some exceptions include Elola and Oskoz (2008), who report on US students reporting and reflecting on their experiences via blogs whilst studying in Spain with partners in another American institution, while at the University of León we are currently running an exchange which connects Spanish students planning to study in Ireland and the GB with Irish students preparing to leave for study in Spain. The idea of introducing telecollaboration as a tool in subject areas outside of foreign language education also appears to be quite new; however, isolated examples of virtual exchange initiatives also are beginning to appear outside the field of foreign language education as educators working in subject areas such as law, economics and so on look for ways to integrate both collaborative and international elements into their courses and to give students’ first-hand experience in online intercultural teamwork. This is particularly the case in many European and Asian countries where content- and languageintegrated approaches to university education such as English medium instruction (Coleman, 2006) are growing in importance. Telecollaboration offers educators working in this area an opportunity to engage their learners in foreign language communication about their subject area with international collaborators.

Learning From the Past  289 One of the first practitioners to put such an approach into action was Ruth Vilmi with the International Robot Activity (Thalman  & Vilmi, 1995) and the International Environment Activity (Vilmi, 1995). The first of these projects involved international teams of engineering students from three different countries taking part in online collaboration to develop a robot to solve a real-world problem, whereas the International Environment Activity engaged students in online collaboration to find solutions to real-world environmental problems. More recently, Guth, Helm, and O’Dowd (2012) reported various case studies of universities who were developing telecollaborative projects in disciplines such as business studies and engineering, and the volume by Schultheis Moore and Simon (2015) provided a fascinating overview of examples of online exchange initiatives in the humanities which have stemmed from the work of the COIL Center (see Rubin, this volume). Contributions to this volume provide examples of how online intercultural collaboration can be integrated effectively into the study of subject areas as diverse as jazz music, feminism, the Diaspora, gender roles and human rights. An innovative approach to integrating online exchange into other subject areas has been pioneered by the Sharing Perspectives Foundation, which is a nonprofit organisation dedicated to providing students and academics with opportunities to collaboratively study contemporary themes related to the subjects of political science, law, economics and social science. Their model of online exchange works in the following way: • Providing academic content: Participating universities construct a shared curriculum which is presented through video lectures by the participating educators. •  Online discussion: After watching the video lectures, students come together in subgroups—of one student per participating university—in a web-based videoconference room. Here, they discuss the lectures of that week. These discussions are hosted by professionally trained facilitators. • Engaging in collaborative research: Students are then required to collaboratively design, conduct and share survey research about the topic in their own communities to learn about the broader societal impact of the topic (Sharing Perspectives, 2015). However, these remain isolated examples of OIE activity outside of foreign language learning, and my own experiences to date of presenting telecollaboration in a series of workshops and presentations to university educators outside of foreign language education has proven to be chastening. Educators often struggle to see the value of the activity or are unable to conceptualise how such student-centred online collaboration could contribute to their coursework. Written feedback from these workshops has included comments such as the following: ‘Time is already short in the classes anyway. I just don’t know how I could add this activity as well.’

290  Robert O’Dowd ‘I really don’t think my subject area is suited to this type of learning. I just can’t imagine what the two groups would write about.’ In general, my experience has been that the main challenge is to justify the value of an activity which is based on the principles of intercultural learning and the collaborative construction of knowledge to educators who are often more accustomed to educational approaches which are teacher-centred and based on transmission models of education. In conclusion, whereas the examples of telecollaborative practice in other disciplines and in international mobility programmes highlight the clear potential which virtual exchange can offer students across university education, it is clear that there is still much to be done in raising educators’ awareness of its benefits and in changing the perception that OIE forms part of a second-best option for non-mobile students. CONCLUSION This chapter set out to explore how OIE should continue to develop and grow in the coming years based on the criticisms and observations of those who have come into contact with this activity. I looked at ways to make telecollaboration more accessible to educators and a more effective tool by improving telecollaborative task design, promoting models based on the goals of global citizenship and exploring, new emerging models which can be applied to different subject areas and to support physical mobility. I also proposed expanding the research on telecollaboration by looking in greater detail at the offline stages of OIE and by paying more attention to research methods and techniques, including longitudinal studies. In one of the first publications to look at telecollaboration more than 20 years ago, Warschauer presented a collection of more than 100 examples of telecollaborative practice so that practitioners would, in his words, ‘not have to reinvent the wheel’ (1995, p. 14). Twenty years on, it is important for telecollaborative researchers and practitioners to continue to innovate in our work, exploring new ways of improving the learning experience of online intercultural contact and providing fresh research which will provide new insights into how virtual exchange can contribute to the goals of university education. It was seen in this chapter that OIE has received a substantial amount of constructive criticism in recent years by authors who have pointed out telecollaboration’s weaknesses and limitations. These criticisms should be taken on board and used to improve this activity and to make it a more viable option not only in foreign language education but also across university education. REFERENCES Allport, G. (1958). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 60–81.

Learning From the Past  291 Belz, J. A. (2004). Learner corpus analysis and the development of foreign language proficiency. System, 32(84), 577–591. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2004.09.013 Belz, J. A. (2006). At the intersection of telecollaboration, learner corpus analysis, and L2 pragmatics: Considerations for language program direction. In J. A. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 207– 246). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Bruneau, E. G.,  & Saxe, R. T., Tropp, L.R. (forthcoming). Building virtual bridges: Online computer mediated contact improves intergroup attitudes in Americans and Muslims. Byram, M. (2012). A  note on internationalisation, internationalism and language teaching and learning. The Language Learning Journal, 40, 375–381. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2011.642528 Chun, D. M. (2015). Language and culture learning in higher education via telecollaboration. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 20(1), 37–41. doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2014.999775 Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1–14. Corbett, J. (2010). Intercultural language activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J.,  & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools. Challenging cultural literacy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Cunningham, D. J.,  & Vyatkina, N. (2012). Telecollaboration for professional purposes: Towards developing a formal register in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 68, 422–450. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.1279 Deardorff, D.,  & Jones, E. (2012). Intercultural competence: An emerging focus in international higher education. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl  & T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 283–303). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Dooly. M. (Ed.) (2008). Telecollaborative language learning: A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online. Bern: Peter Lang. Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (in press). Becoming little scientists: Technology-enhanced project-based language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1). Eck, A., Legenhausen, L.,  & Wolff, D. (1995). Telekommunikation und fremdsprachenunterricht: Informationen, projekte, ergebnisse. Bochum, Germany: AKSVerlag. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2008). Blogging: Fostering intercultural competence development in foreign language and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 454–23. European Commission. (2011). Supporting growth and jobs – an agenda for the modernisation of Europe's higher education systems. Brussels: European Union. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/policy/modernisation_en.pdf European Commission. (2013). European higher education in the world. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Brussels: European Commission. Exchange 2.0. (2015). The Exchange 2.0 coalition—MIT Saxelab research partnership. Retrieved from http://exchange2point0.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/DRAFTExchange20-MIT-summary-2.pdf Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Guth, S., Helm, F., & O’Dowd, R. (2012). University language classes collaborating online A report on the integration of telecollaborative networks in European universities. Retrieved from http://coil.suny.edu/sites/default/files/intent_report_execsum mary_june2012.pdf

292  Robert O’Dowd Guth, S., & Rublin, J. (2015). How to get started with COIL. In A. Schultheis Moore and S. Simon (Eds.), Globally networked teaching in the humanities: Theories and practices (pp. 28–46). New York: Routledge. Hanna, B.,  & de Nooy, J. (2009). Learning language and culture via public internet discussion forums. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Helm, F. (2013). A dialogic model for telecollaboration. Bellaterra Journal, 6(2), 28–48. Kern, R. (1998). Technology, social interaction, and FL literacy. In J. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of teaching and learning: Focus on technology and foreign language Education (pp. 57–92). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Kern, R. (2014). Technology as Pharmakon: The promise and perils of the internet for foreign language education. Modern Language Journal, 98, 340–357. Kohn, K., & Warth, C. (2011). Web collaboration for intercultural language learning. Münster: MV-Wissenschaft. Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 249–252. Kramsch, C. (2009a). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2009b). Discourse, the symbolic dimension of intercultural competence. In A. Hu,  & M. Byram (Eds.), Interkulturelle kompetenz und fremdsprachliches lernen/intercultural competence and foreign language learning (pp. 107–121). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block  & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp.83–100). London: Routledge Lamy, M-N. & Goodfellow, R. (2010). Telecollaboration and Learning 2.0. In S. Guth and F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 107–138). Bern: Peter Lang. Lawton, W. (2015) Digital learning, mobility and internationalisation in European higher education. In H. de Wit, F. Hunter; L. Howard  & E. Egron-Polak (Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education (pp.77–81). Brussels: European Parliament. Liddicoat, A., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. West Sussex, GB: Wiley-Blackwell. Lomicka, L. (2006). Understanding the other: Intercultural exchange and CMC. In N. Arnold and L. Ducate. (Eds), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 211–236). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Malinowski, D., & Kramsch, C. (2014). The ambiguous world of heteroglossic computermediated language learning. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds), Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy (pp. 155–178). Dordrecht: Springer. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., Frigols, M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan Müller-Hartmann, A. (2012). The classroom-based action research paradigm in telecollaboration. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), Research methods for online interaction and exchange (pp. 56–192). Bern: Peter Lang. O’Dowd, R. (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Munich: Langenscheidt. O’Dowd, R. (2013). Telecollaboration and CALL. In Thomas, M., Reindeers, H.  & Warschauer, M. (Ed.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 123– 141). London: Bloomsbury Academic. O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 623–642. O’Dowd, R. & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173–188. O’Rourke, B. (2007). Models of telecollaboration (1): E(tandem). In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 41–62). Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters.

Learning From the Past  293 Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in SLA: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26–45. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Harlow, GB: Longman. Porto, M. (2014). Intercultural citizenship education in an EFL online project in Argentina, Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(2), 245–261. doi: 10.1080/14708477.2014.890625 Schultheis Moore, A., & Simon, S. (2015). Globally networked teaching in the humanities. New York: Routledge. Sharing Perspectives. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.sharingperspectivesfounda tion.com/ Swaffar, J.K., Romano, S., Arens, K., & Markley, P. (Eds.). (1998). Language learning on line: Research and pedagogy in ESL and L2. Austin, TX: Labyrinth. Thalman, L., & Vilmi, R. (1995). International robot activity for advanced technical English. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 202–204). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Vilmi, R. (1995). International environment activity. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 205–207). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Ware, P. & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89, 190–205. Warschauer, M. (1995). (Ed.). Virtual connections: Online activities & projects for networking language learners (1st ed.). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

This page intentionally left blank

Contributors

Michael Byram Universities of Durham, GB, and Luxembourg Michael Byram is Professor Emeritus at the University of Durham (GB) and Guest Professor at the University of Luxembourg. He ‘read’ Modern and Medieval Languages at King’s College, University of Cambridge (GB), completed a PhD in Danish literature, and then taught French and German in secondary and adult education. He was at Durham University from 1980 engaged in teacher training, research student supervision and research on languages and education. His monographs include Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence and From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship. He has edited others including the second edition of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, with Adelheid Hu, and The Common European Framework of Reference: The Globalisation of Language Education Policy, with Lynne Parmenter. He was throughout the 2000s an Adviser to the Council of Europe Language Policy Division and is now involved in work on Guidelines for Intercultural Education. Hans de Wit Boston College, United States Hans de Wit was appointed Director of the Center for International Higher Education (CIHE) in the Lynch School of Education, Boston College, United States, on 1 September 2015. He previously held posts as Director of the Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation at the Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore in Milan, Italy, and Professor of Internationalisation of Higher Education at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. He is a Research Associate at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU), Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He is Founding Editor of the Journal of Studies in International Education (Association for Studies in International Education/SAGE publishers). He publishes a monthly blog in University World News on the internationalisation of higher education

296  Contributors (http://www.universityworldnews.com). He has (co)written several other books and articles on international education and is actively involved in assessment and consultancy in international education for organisations like the European Commission, European Parliament, UNESCO, IAU, World Bank, IMHE/OECD. In 2005 and 2006, he was a New Century Scholar of the Fulbright Program Higher Education in the 21st Century, in 1995 and 2006, a visiting scholar in the United States and in 2002 in Australia. He is engaged in projects in Europe, the United States, Latin America, Asia and Africa. Hans de Wit is a founding member and past president of the European Association for International Education (EAIE). Melinda Dooly Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain Melinda Dooly holds a Serra Húnter Fellowship as Researcher and Senior Lecturer at the Education Faculty of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain). She teaches English as a Foreign Language Methodology (TEFL) and research methods courses, focussing on telecollaboration in education at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Her principal research addresses technology-enhanced, project-based language learning in teacher preparation. She has published widely in international journals and authored chapters and books in this area of study. She is co-editor of the book series Telecollaboration in Education, with Dr. Robert O’Dowd. Her current research interest is in project-based telecollaborative language learning and very young learners. Gilberte Furstenberg MIT, United States Now Senior Lecturer Emerita in French in the Global Studies and Languages Department at MIT (formerly Foreign Languages and Literatures), Gilberte Furstenberg was born and educated in France at the Faculté des Lettres of Lille, where she received her Agrégation. After working as a journalist for eight years for the French newsmagazine l’Express, first in Washington then in Boston, she taught French language and culture at MIT for more than 30 years. During her career, her main interest has been to use the latest (multimedia then web-based) technologies available for creating new pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning. She is the main author of two award-winning multimedia works: A la Rencontre de Philippe, an interactive story and Dans un Quartier de Paris, an interactive documentary. She created the OIE project Cultura in 1996—and developed it with Shoggy Waryn and Sabine Levet. Originally designed for use between American and French students, many versions of Cultura have been developed across the United States and the world and adapted to other languages and cultures, such as Chinese, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian and Spanish.

Contributors  297 Sarah Guth Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy Sarah is a teacher of English as a Foreign Language at the University of Padova, Italy, where she implements the use of technology for language learning. For over a decade she has carried out virtual exchange projects partnering her students in Italy with students from the United States, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. Her research interests lie in the areas of CMC and the use of technology in language learning, intercultural communication, globally networked learning and the normalisation of collaborative online international learning in higher education. She has published and presented internationally on the topic of technology and foreign language learning with a specific focus on bringing cohorts of students from diverse linguacultural backgrounds together to enhance their learning. She took a temporary leave from her job in Padova in 2013–2014 to work as Program Coordinator for the SUNY Center for Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) in New York. Francesca Helm Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy Francesca Helm is a Research Fellow at the University of Padova and teaches English Language in the Faculty of Political Science. Her research lies in the areas of intercultural communication, online education, virtual exchange, CMC and the sociocultural context of Web 2.0 for language and intercultural learning, new online literacies, critical discourse analysis and English in global communication. Since 2008 she has been Coordinator in Padova for the Soliya Connect Program (SCP), and she is also a facilitator and coach in SCP. She co-edited the volume Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, Literacies and Intercultural Learning in the 21st Century, with Sarah Guth, and has published research articles in international journals and chapters in books on issues related to language teaching and technology. Mirjam Hauck The Open University, GB Mirjam Hauck is a Senior Lecturer and formerly Associate Head of the Department of Languages (Faculty of Education and Language Studies) at the Open University, GB. She has written numerous articles and book chapters on the use of technologies for the learning and teaching of languages and cultures covering aspects such as task design, tutor role and training and digital literacy skills. Apart from regular presentations at conferences, seminars and workshops in Europe and the United States, she has served on the Computer Assisted-Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO) executive board and is a member of the EUROCALL executive committee. She

298  Contributors is also a member of the editorial board of the CALL Journal and ReCALL. More recently her research and publications have centred on the impact of mediation and the relevance of multimodal communicative competence in online language learning and teaching contexts. She sees her interest in how the affordances of the new media shape online communication and interaction, in telecollaborative contexts in particular, as the logical continuation of her earlier work. Malgorzata Kurek WyzszaSzkola Lingwistyczna, Poland Malgorzata Kurek holds a PhD in CALL (Muliliteracy). She works as an Assistant Professor at Jan Dlugosz University, Czestochowa, Poland. She is a TEFL trainer long involved in academic-level intercultural online exchanges. Her most recent research interests include intercultural learning, task design in CALL and e-learning, foreign language multiliteracy and CALL teacher preparation. She is an author of ICT-enhanced courses for teachers and teacher trainees as well as several publications in the field of CALL. Paola Leone University of Salento, Lecce, Italy Paola Leone is a tenure track Assistant Professor and teaches Second Language Acquisition/Foreign Language Teaching courses at the graduate level. Thanks to a scholarship, she was able to study in the MA programme in Applied Linguistics at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). She was awarded a research assistantship at the University of Bologna. She was invited to both the Universitade Estadual Paulista and to Georgetown University as Visiting Professor. At the University of Salento she organises teletandem programmes, and she is the Director of the one-year graduate teacher training course for secondary school education. She has taken part in various European Union-funded projects. Currently she is actively involved in the MIRIADI project—Mutualisation et Innovation pour un Réseau de l’ Intercompréhension a Distance—for which she is conducting research on implementing learning scenarios based on teletandem and aimed to develop students’ intercomprehension ability. Her research interests are in the field of CMC and language learning, in particular focussing on the structure and conversational management of teletandem interaction and the use of discourse markers in Italian as L2 during online oral conversation for language learning. She has published papers in national and international journals.

Contributors  299 Tim Lewis The Open University, GB Tim Lewis is a Senior Lecturer in Languages and Director of Postgraduate Studies in the Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology at the Open University, where he has worked since 2002. From 1992 to 2001 Lewis was Director of the Modern Languages Teaching Centre at the University of Sheffield, where he introduced tandem learning to the languages curriculum and led the centre’s participation in the European Union-funded International Email Tandem Network and successor projects (1994–1999). Lewis’s research interests include telecollaboration, intercultural learning and learner autonomy. In February 2011, Tim co-edited a special issue of Language Learning and Technology on ‘Multilateral Online Exchanges for Language and Culture Learning’ and his previous publications include Autonomous Language Learning in Tandem (2003) and Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings (2008). Teresa MacKinnon University of Warwick, GB Teresa MacKinnon professes a career-long exponent of high-quality language teaching in the GB, has contributed to the development of the National Language Standards (now National Occupational Standards) and has delivered specialist input into the Ofqual Vocational awards review. An award-winning teacher with expertise in online delivery and a good understanding of assessment issues, she is experienced in education management in secondary and higher education and is also responsible for the development of a groundbreaking platform for online language learning and community building for the professional development of language tutors, including an accredited e-portfolio. A Fellow of the The Institute for Advanced Teaching and Learning (IATL), at the University of Warwick, MacKinnon has extensive experience of the integration of CMC and is a Certified Member of the Association for Learning Technology. She researches and designs in this area in to find solutions supporting student-centred pedagogy. Author of an HEA report into e-tools for telecollaboration in higher education, MacKinnon is very active online. Andreas Müller-Hartmann Pädagogische Hochschule, Heidelberg, Germany Andreas Müller-Hartmann is Professor of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) and the Director of the Institute for Foreign Languages at the University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany. He holds an MA in Southern Studies from the University of Mississippi, United States, and a PhD in American Studies from the University of Osnabrück, Germany. His research interests include task-supported language learning (TSLL), the use

300  Contributors of technology in the EFL classroom, the development of ICC and teacher education. He has co-written books on TEFL in the secondary classroom (2004) and task-supported language learning (2011 and 2013), with Marita Schocker-v. Ditfurth, and TEFL in the primary classroom (2009), with Michael Legutke and Marita Schocker-v. Ditfurth. He has co-edited books on qualitative research in foreign language learning and teaching (2001) and task-based language learning with technology (2008). He teaches TEFL, TSLL, CALL and American Cultural Studies. Elke Nissen Université Grenoble-Alpes/Université Stendhal, France Elke Nissen is a Senior Lecturer in Language Didactics at Grenoble-Alpes University. She co-organises the biannual EPAL conference on learning through online interaction and is Associate Chief Editor of the Alsic journal of language teaching and learning with technology (http://alsic.revues.org). Her research focusses mainly on language learning and training in online or blended learning contexts. In 2000, she published a book on designing online learning projects. Since then, she has co-edited a number of books and conference proceedings related to her research and has written papers on topics such as the way changes in technology are related to didactical changes in language teaching, with Dejean-Thircuir (2013), and tuition in blended language learning courses, with Tea (2012). Robert O’Dowd Universidad de León, Spain Robert O’Dowd teaches English as a Foreign Language and is a Teacher Trainer at the University of León, Spain (http://www.unileon.es). He is also the university’s Director of International Training. He studied European Studies at the University of Limerick in Ireland before going on to do an MA at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and then a PhD at the University of Essen in Germany. He has taught English at universities in Ireland, Germany and Spain and has published widely on the application of online intercultural collaboration and exchange in education. He has edited the volume Online Intercultural Exchange: A Practical Introduction for Foreign Language Educators for Multilingual Matters. One of his most recent publications is the co-edited volume Researching Online Foreign Language Interaction and Exchange published by Peter Lang. He recently coordinated the INTENT project—a European Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) project on promoting OIE in European Higher Education (http://www.scoop.it/t/intent-project-news). Jon Rubin SUNY Center for Collaborative Online International Learning (the COIL Center), New York, United States

Contributors  301 Jon Rubin is the Founder and Director of the SUNY Center for Collaborative Online International Learning (the COIL Center). Between 2010 and 2013 he also directed the National Endowment for the Humanities funded: COIL Institute for Globally Networked Learning in the Humanities, which engaged 22 US and 25 international universities in developing collaborative, networked classrooms. More recently he has led COIL’s partnership with the American Council on Education in an awards programme for technology in support of internationalisation and has developed COIL initiatives in Turkey, Mexico and Japan, amongst others. He is also working as a consultant to CAPA The Global Education Network, helping this third-party international education provider link its study abroad offerings across multiple countries and sites. Prior to becoming Director, Rubin was an Associate Professor of Film and New Media at SUNY Purchase College, where he developed a Cross-Cultural Video course in which SUNY students co-produced videos over the Internet with students in Turkey, Lithuania, Mexico, Belarus and Germany. His own films have been shown at the Museum of Modern Art and at the Whitney Museum in New York, and he has received Guggenheim, National Endowment for the Arts, Ford Foundation and Fulbright fellowships. He attended Yale University. João A. Telles UNESP—Universidade Estadual Paulista, Brasil João Telles is Associate Professor of Foreign Language Teaching Practicum. He holds a PhD in Educational Linguistics from Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, Canada, and a Master’s in Applied Linguistics from the Catholic University of São Paulo, Brasil. He is Director of the Teletandem Brasil Project: Foreign Languages for All, has been a Visiting Professor at Georgetown University (United States) and conducted several workshops about teletandem in Europe, Central and South America and the United States. His current publications and research interests lie in the areas of telecollaobration, online intercultural contact and foreign language learning in tandem. He also teaches graduate courses and supervises doctoral and master’s theses in these areas. Vincenza Tudini University of South Australia, Australia Vincenza Tudini completed her PhD at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, and currently works in the Research Centre for Languages and Cultures at the University of South Australia, in the School of Communication, International Studies and Languages. Her research interests include the application of conversation analytic techniques in CMC contexts, especially where participants have differential language expertise. Her work on online

302  Contributors computer-mediated communication has been published in various chapters and journals, including The Modern Language Journal and Journal of Pragmatics. Her book on online language learning, Online Second Language Acquisition: Conversation Analysis of Online Chat was published by Continuum (London/New York) in 2010. She has directed several projects in the area of CALL, including a project of the Australian Language and Literacy Council Implications of Technology for Language Teaching. Melanie H. Wilson Soliya Trainer and Consultant, Toronto, Canada Melanie H. Wilson, formerly Course Lecturer and Researcher at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and Research Associate with the COIL Center at SUNY in New York, currently works in the private sector managing a large global curriculum that engages learners from a network of more than 100 countries. Continually engaged in OIEs as an online facilitator trainer with Soliya’s Connect Program (since 2007), Melanie’s dissertation (completed in 2013) explored the impact of institutional strategies on faculty negotiation in globally networked learning environments (GNLEs). She brings more than 10 years of experience in higher and adult education and continues to publish on issues related to globally networked learning.

Index

achievement: recognising 211 activity: communicative 55, 218, 237, 280, 286; preparatory and reflective f2f-s 186; telecollaborative 12, 24, 209, 281; Word Associations 161, 165 – 6 Allport, G. 279 approach: communicative 144, 181 – 2; comparative 13, 250; elenctic 199; dialogic 150; methodological approach 23, 181, 189, 217; pedagogical 100, 133, 137; top-down (Higher education policies) 101 assessment: formative 187, 205, 269; online intercultural exchange 209 – 28; self- 134, 201 – 2, 254, 261 Association for Learning Technology #octel course 213 Audras, I. 6, 26, 50, 57 – 8, 193 awareness: critical cultural 57 – 9, 131, 150, 256 – 7; cross-cultural 194; cultural 46, 57 – 8, 112, 131, 150, 256 – 7; intercultural 8, 88, 168, 185 – 6, 194, 270, 284; self 62, 199, 280 Bachman, L. 196 badges 211 – 28; award 227; backpack 212; Badge Alliance 211, 227; criteria 214; for soft certification 16, 209 – 28, 239; framework for (http://tinyurl.com/ncdpq8i) 210, 213, 225 – 7; implementation 210, 221 – 2; open 209 – 13, 218 – 21, 224, 227 – 9, 236 – 7, 239; roles of 210, 213 – 18; systems 225; type 219; typology 210 Barbot, M. J. 194, 204 Bardovi-Harlig, K. 196

Barnett, R. 72, 256 – 8 Baxter Magolda, M. B. 57, 195 Belz, J. A. 5 – 6, 12, 26, 50, 52 – 3, 59, 136, 250, 281 – 2, 284 Bennett, M. J. 50 Bersin, J. 182, 188 – 9 Blum-Kulka, S. 196 Bologna Declaration 72, 101 – 2 Bologna Process 100 – 8; Belarus 105 – 6; Ireland 102 – 3 Byram, M. 56 – 8, 131 – 2, 195 – 6, 254, 256 – 7, 261, 277 – 8 challenges: and drawbacks to OIE 90 Changnon, G. 194 – 6, 198 – 9,  204 Chanier, T. 6, 26, 50, 57 – 8, 85, 193 citizenship 75, 256 – 61; global 73, 75 – 6, 79, 102, 194, 278, 290; intercultural 256 – 61; intercultural environmental 259 Civil Engagement Strategy 104 classroom: flipped 17, 174, 183, 190; foreign language 10, 30, 87, 260, 273 Clavier network 235 – 40; challenges and outcomes 237 – 9; open badge pilot 221 – 4; project objectives 236; project-set-up and  implementation 236 – 7; socio-institutional context 235 – 6 CLIL (content and language integrated learning) 21 CMC-based language learning and teaching 220, 228 COIL (Center for Collaborative Online International Learning) network (online intercultural exchange in SUNY (State University of New York) network universities) 6, 78, 92, 95, 100 – 4, 106 – 7, 263 – 70; challenges and outcomes 269 – 70;

304  Index COIL set-up and implementation 267 – 9; network objectives 265 – 6; socio-institutional context 264 – 5 collaboration: in foreign languages 243; intercultural 3, 94, 131, 289; international 77, 93; practices 193; strategies 140; tool 134, 142; virtual 6, 97 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment 197 communication: computer-mediated (CMC) 60, 62, 157, 192, 196 – 7, 220, 224 – 5, 240; cross-cultural 9, 154; difficulties 117 – 18; effective online 197; failed 131, 151 – 2, 253; miscommunication 50, 152; missed 44, 152, 166; multimodal 156, 239; skills 6, 87 – 8, 90, 107, 185; strategies 3, 52; synchronous 154, 182; tools 26 – 47 community: virtual 40, 59 – 60, 131 competence: digital 134, 219; global 75, 193 – 4; ideal -s 197, 205; intercultural 7, 13, 26, 49, 56, 77, 97, 113, 193 – 7, 204; intercultural communicative (ICC) development 55, 57 – 9, 131, 142, 146, 218; pragmatic 28 – 9, 31, 49, 50 – 1, 53, 284; symbolic 131 – 3, 278; teaching 133, 135, 146 competencies: DeSeCO project key 220; for lifelong learning 6; GII (Global, International, Intercultural) 97 configurations: technological 115 – 16, 118; technological-interactional 113 – 14, 120,  124 conflict 42, 50, 56, 140, 144, 150, 152, 269; management 153; resolution 83, 153, 155, 193; transformation 152 – 3,  167 constraints: contextual 216; economic 242; geographical 216; institutional 113, 124, 187, 283; interactional 121, 123; intercultural 113; linguistic 113; logistic 112; societal 136; technological 120 contact zone 59 – 60; hybrid 56 context: institutional 94, 96, 106, 241, 267

cooperation: intercultural 80, 131 Council of Europe’s Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters (www. coe.int/lang-autobiography) 261 course: design 173 – 5, 182 – 3, 185, 187, 189 – 190, 228; globally networked -s 108; objectives 181, 189 creativity 56, 211, 239 credit 79, 88 – 91, 96, 102, 175 – 6, 241; transfer 78; weight 107 – 8 critical incident 134, 136, 138, 147, 203 critiques of OIE 274 – 5 Cultnet Intercultural Citizenship project (cultura.mit.edu): challenges and outcomes 258; environmental citizenship 259 – 61; environmental transformation 258 – 9; (http:// cultnetworld.wordpress.com) 256 – 61; project objectives 256 – 7; project-set-up and implementation 257 – 8; socio-institutional context 256 Deardorff, D. 75, 195, 274 Dervin, F. 194, 204 development: competence 133, 135, 137 – 8, 147; Continuing Professional (CPD) 236; foreign competence 131; intercultural communicative competence (ICC) 55, 57 – 9, 131, 218, 300; intercultural competence 5, 7, 26, 59, 87, 261; linguistic 23, 25, 49, 52 – 5; pragmatic competence 49; professional 93, 95, 213, 220, 235 – 6, 265, 267; second language 22, 52 – 3, 64; studies in linguistic 49, 52 – 5; teachers’ competence 131, 133 dialogue: facilitated 150 – 70; intercultural 42, 143, 152, 167, 258 – 9, 278; Intergroup 153; Sustained 153 discourse: analysis 122, 297; genre 51, 285; norms 50, 57 division of labour 137 – 8, 143 – 5 Dooly, M. 16, 30, 50, 59, 273 – 4, 282 EAIE Barometer of Internationalisation in Europe 94 education: commercialisation of higher 72; commodification of higher 101; distance 69, 71, 80, 121 – 2; foreign language 8, 10, 21 – 2, 87, 150, 153, 242, 256; 273 – 4, 277, 288 – 90; intercultural 194, 199,

Index  305 204; intercultural foreign language 4 – 6, 32, 273; international 72 – 3, 75, 269 – 70; political 58, 277; teacher 30, 96, 133 – 4, 228 EHEA 72 – 3, 102, 105 employability 71, 73, 77, 101, 225 encounter: intercultural 56, 58, 216, 261, 280 environment: globally networked learning -s (GNLE) 95, 100, 101 – 5, 108; immersive -s 22, 49, 56, 59, 62, 64; virtual learning (VLE) 34, 178 – 9, 184, 187, 212, 222 – 3,  237 e-portfolios 212, 236, 238 ERASMUS 70, 73, 85, 103, 106, 193, 236; ERASMUS+ 8, 79; exchange agreements 15, 92 error: classification 54; correction 37, 39, 45, 54; grammatical 122 ethnography 40, 56 – 7 European Area of Higher Education (EAHE) 102, 105 European Commission 4, 6 – 8, 14, 21, 72, 74, 77, 79, 106, 168, 274, 287 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation (ECTS) 102 – 3, 107 – 8, 175 – 7 European Higher Education Area (EHEA) 4, 69 – 70, 72 – 3, 78, 101, 105 European University Association 77, 106 EWC (Echange Warwick Clermont) 220 – 4, 229, 235, 237 – 9 exchange types: bilingual exchanges 88, 151; classroom integrated exchanges 11; class-to-class exchange 11, 22, 63, 275 – 6, 284; dialogic 150, 167; e-tandem 5 – 6, 9, 24, 61, 115, 281; in-class synchronous 112, 121; institutional-integrated OIE 14; multilateral 49, 151; synchronous 112, 121, 123; synchronous OIE 183 – 4; tandem 5, 9 – 11, 36, 49, 61, 151, 241; teletandem 6, 16, 241 – 6 FAPESP (The Sao Paulo State Foundation for the Support of Research) 241 feedback: corrective 30 – 1, 49, 54, 118, 123 – 4; linguistic 54, 118; peer 41, 46, 49, 53 – 5 fluency 113, 182, 185, 189, 269 focus on form 52 – 5, 64, 118, 123 – 4

framework: TPACK 133 Freire, P. 150, 153 Fulbright Programme 70 funding 4, 95 – 6, 106, 111 – 12, 115 – 16, 125, 167 – 8, 241, 248, 274 Galanet 177, 179 game profiles 12, 119, 123 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) 101 Gourvès-Hayward, A. 50, 193 Green Kidz project 259 – 60 group: cohesion 137, 140 – 1, 145 – 7; formation 131 – 48; identity 131, 134, 138, 142; leadership 143, 146; negotiation process 135, 145 – 6 IAU Action Plan ‘Affirmative Values for Internationalisation of Higher Education’ 72 identity: construction 119, 124; cultural 100, 138, 143; formation 131, 135; symbol of 213, 215 implications for the future 83 – 97 inequalities 155, 157 – 8, 167 infrastructure 112 – 13, 157, 211, 264 – 5, 270, 283 initiatives: telecollaborative 21 – 2, 24, 63, 112 Innovating Pedagogy report 210 INTENT (Integrating Telecollaborative Networks into Foreign Language Higher Education): project 16, 85, 216, 238; survey 90, 97, 152 interaction: fostering 156, 158 – 66; informal 235, 237; naturalistic written 121 – 3; social 61, 121, 192, 270; synchronous 112, 122; telecollaborative 9, 49, 52, 54; virtual 8, 243 – 4, 283 intercomprehension 87, 176 – 7, 179 – 2, 184, 186, 188, 242; skills 182, 186, 242 intercultural communication see communication intercultural competence see competence intercultural pragmatics 50 – 1 Intercultural Sensitivity Scale 57 interlanguage 45, 122 internationalisation: abroad and at home (IaH) 71 – 3; comprehensive (CI) 72 – 3, 76, 84 – 5; of the curriculum (IoC) 72 – 7, 93, 249; in higher education 69 – 71, 220; key

306  Index concepts of 73; policy 14, 79, 95; redefining at home 73 – 6; and the role of online intercultural exchange 69 – 80; strategies 71, 79, 95, 104 Jin, L. 57, 154, 193 Jordan, S. A. 56, 200 Kinginger, C. 4, 8, 28, 49, 54, 193, 276, 287 – 8 knowledge: collaborative construction 3, 290; cultural 13; intercultural 59; pedagogical 133, 197; society 6, 77, 80; technopedagogical 197, 204 Kolb, D. A. 201 Kramsch, C. 36, 48, 50 – 1, 59, 131 – 3, 147, 152, 166 – 7, 277 – 8, 284 – 7 Krashen, S. 228 Kukulska-Hulme, A. 199 language: choice 12, 123; other than English (LOTE) 113; silent 32, 250 language learning: task-supported 134; telecollaborative 28, 194 leadership: distributed 142, 144 – 6 learner autonomy 15, 21 – 2, 25, 32, 42, 44, 51 – 2, 60 – 3, 117, 197; digital revolution 60 – 1; online environments 61 – 3; online intercultural exchange 60 – 3 learner styles 201 learning: blended (BL) 79, 173 – 90; -by-doing 7, 268; classroom-based 173 – 90; CMC-based language learning 220, 228; electronic (e) 77; foreign language 5, 6, 21 – 64, 115; foreign language in tandem 241; formal 12, 209, 228; globally networked 100, 103 – 5, 106 – 7, 263; informal 12, 211, 213, 236, 239; intercultural 4, 10, 50 – 1, 56, 57 – 8, 60, 64, 71 – 3, 76, 83 – 5, 97, 182, 273, 280 – 1; Open 177, 274; recognition 15, 209, 211; social 61, 217; tandem 5, 10 – 1, 36, 40, 49, 151, 244; task-based 181 – 2, 219; telecollaborative 12, 15, 284, 287 level: activity 115, 223; integration of OIE 10 – 15; proficiency 113, 121 Liaw, M. L. 38, 50 – 1, 194

Liddicoat, A. 4, 21, 23, 51, 55, 112, 115, 194, 273 – 5, 280 – 2 limitations 15, 242, 269, 290 lingua franca 3, 49, 88, 151, 242; English 134, 177, 259 literacy: digital 21 – 3, 25, 27, 51 – 2, 89, 227; electronic (e) 22 Lodi, M. 8 – 9 lurking 221, 223 map: systematic descriptive 22 – 4, 26 massive multiplayer online games (MMOs) 49 Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) 4, 5, 71, 77, 209 – 11, 220 – 1, 238; connectivist (cMOOCs) 210, 220; xMOOCs (content-based MOOCs) 210 meaning-making 132, 280 methodology: foreign language 4, 273 misunderstanding 131, 151, 186, 239, 246; cultural 47, 50 – 1, 60, 146; intercultural 117, 122, 138, 285 mobility: first and second division 287; outward 103; programmes 4, 8, 21, 84 – 5, 95, 287 – 8, 290; projects 15, 112; staff 71, 74, 102, 278; student 4, 8, 14 – 15, 72, 101 – 3, 106, 112, 270, 275, 287 – 8; two-tier 287; virtual 4, 8, 15, 71, 77 – 8, 80, 95, 209, 288 model: Bakhtinian dialogic 43, 50; dialogic 43, 50, 150, 154; facilitator-led 3, 15; five savoirs 50, 58 – 9, 132; Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) 39, 57, 131 – 2; Intercultural Maturity 57; MERM (Mediated Environments Reference Model) 221, 238; program flow 182, 188 – 9 Modernisation of Higher Education: agenda 287 Modern Language Association 249 motivation 64, 107, 120, 174, 185, 194, 200, 210 – 11, 213 – 14, 220, 226 – 8 Mozilla: Foundation 212; Open Badge designer 212; Open Badges infrastructure 211 Müller-Hartmann, A. 9, 16, 22, 32, 51, 59, 60, 62, 155, 178, 281

Index  307 National Framework for Qualifications (NFQ) 103 negotiation of meaning 30 – 1, 36 – 7, 41, 49, 54, 117 – 18, 121 – 3,  279 netiquette 134, 138, 197 network: global 151, 168; global partner -s (GPN) 265, 267 – 70; telecollaborative 4, 15, 85 – 6 New Colombo Plan Mobility Program 111 New Modes of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 274 normalisation of OIE 84 – 5, 96, 220 noticing 52 – 3 O’Dowd, R. 13, 14 – 16, 24, 40, 56, 112, 133, 151, 152, 155, 176, 216, 219 – 20, 238, 257, 282, 289 openness 57, 58, 76, 141, 193, 199, 259 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCO) project 218 Partnership for 21st Century Skills 192 – 3 peace studies 150, 152, 167 pedagogy: student-centred 105, 299 Peer2Peer University (P2P University) 212 policy: environments 100 – 1; influence of Bologna Process-driven -s on US-Belarussian GNLE 106 – 7; influence of Bologna Process-driven -s on US-Irish GNLE 103 – 5; institutional -s 101 – 2, 105; misalignment 103 – 4,  107 power: dynamics 144 – 5; horizontal dynamics 144 – 5; issues 123, 153, 167; relationships 123; symbolic 132, 142, 145 practice: collaborative -s 193; exploratory (EP) 135; telecollaborative 16, 85, 263, 284, 290 proficiency: foreign language 26, 28, 260 projects: collaborative 3, 21, 95, 270; telecollaborative 8, 13, 23, 116, 152, 289 recognition: institutional 92 reflection: critical 50, 178, 205, 277; importance of offline 52 – 3

research approaches: corpus-based 12, 26, 28, 41, 53, 64; discourse analysis 122; ethnography 40, 56 – 7; mixed-methods 221 research: collaborative research 84, 95, 289; findings in university telecollaborative initiatives 22, 24, 63; telecollaborative 24, 274, 282 – 4,  290 research strengths in Japan 120 – 4 research tools: ethnographic interviewing 13, 56; learning log 176, 179, 184, 187; questionnaires 27, 29, 41, 254; surveys 76, 86 – 7, 90, 168, 238, 269 resilience 199, 236, 239 review: reflective-s 52, 281; systematic 8, 15, 21 – 64, 150, 221, 238 rewards 211, 217, 239 Sharing Perspectives Foundation (www. sharingperspectives.com) 14, 168, 289 skills: comparison and analysis 58, 218, 279; critical thinking 14, 62, 77, 153 – 4, 257; digital 220, 237, 287; discovery and interaction 58, 131, 142 – 4; foreign language 7, 11, 88, 90, 150, 218, 287; intercultural 71, 185 – 6; intercultural communication 6, 107; interpreting and relating 131; media literacy 14, 154 social: media 25, 77, 220, 237; networking 114, 123 – 4, 193 social justice 167, 277 – 8 social networking sites (SNS) 112, 114, 123; Japanese 123 – 4 sociopragmatics 197, 199 software: email 7, 12 – 13, 26, 48, 56, 59, 116, 120 – 3, 175; Google Hangouts 241 – 4; MOOs 9, 36, 49, 56; Second Life 3, 30, 49, 59; Skype 3, 7, 30, 48, 59, 64, 90, 178, 184, 242, 244, 254; text chat 48, 117, 120 – 4, 158 – 9, 200; video conferencing 7, 13, 28, 48, 56, 114, 154, 269; virtual worlds 49, 56 Soliya Connect Program (SCP) (www. soliya.net) 83, 153 – 70 Sorbonne Declaration 101 space: safe 156 – 7, 167 – 8; third see third space

308  Index stereotypes 9, 34, 35, 153, 252, 277, 279 strategy: institutional 97, 105; managerial -s 140 – 1; pragmatic-s 57 – 8; social-s 140 – 1 student: choices 188 – 90; interaction 85, 94, 151 study abroad 70, 72, 78 – 9, 84, 97, 288 support: institutional 83, 90 – 1, 96; technical 88 – 9, 94, 249 tandem: exchanges 9; language learning 11; learning 5, 10 – 11, 36, 40, 49, 151, 244 task design 15 – 16, 53 – 5, 64, 123, 151, 218 – 21, 236 – 7, 286 – 7, 290; competence (ICC) 131, 133, 136, 138, 142, 145; development 135, 145 – 6; ICC 133, 136, 138, 142, 145; intercultural communicative competence (ICC) 131, 133, 136, 138, 142, 145; process 131 – 48; teacher education 133; technology-based ICC (TPACK) 133, 138, 142; telecollaborative 286 – 7,  290 tasks: as-process 131 – 3, 135, 138, 142 – 6; as-workplan 138, 142, 144; collaborative 187, 218; development 135, 145 – 6; execution 225 – 8; information exchange 58, 218, 279; instructions 142 – 3, 145, 147, 185; intercultural 12, 135, 137 – 8, 278 – 80; intercultural communicative competence (ICC) 134, 142 – 3; negotiation 135 – 8, 143 – 4, 146, 218; pedagogical 133, 136; sequences 134, 138, 220 – 1, 237, 276; telecollaborative 276 – 9; type 118, 123, 218 – 19, 227, 274, 276, 279 teacher’s role 174, 187 teaching: CMC-based language 220, 228; competence 133, 135, 146; foreign language 83, 112, 256; presence 137, 142, 145 – 6; task-based language (TBLT) 217 technology: VOIP teleconference 243; VOIP (voice over internet protocol) 241 – 2; web 2.0 -ies 11, 14, 48 – 9, 59, 297 Telecollaboratively Efficient Person (TEP) 192 – 205; competences

203; descriptors 198 – 200, 218; framework 196 – 201; implementation 201 – 5; self-assessment 201 – 2; suite of tools 194, 196 Teletandem Brasil: Foreign languages for all project (www.teletandembrasil. org) 241, 242, 245 Teletandem network 16, 241 – 6; challenges and outcomes 244 – 6; project objectives 242 – 3; project-set-up and implementation 243 – 4; socio-institutional context 241 – 2 terminology 5 – 6 third space 30 – 1, 56, 59, 64, 195, 203; sociopragmatic failure 203 Thorne, S. L. 3 – 7, 11 – 12, 22, 32, 36, 40, 42, 49, 50, 53, 60, 85, 87, 131 – 2, 136, 150, 152, 154, 193, 275, 285 Ting-Toomey, S. 195, 251 tools: investigative 135, 284; synchronous 7, 268 – 9; web 2.0 tools 7, 63; Weebly 134, 142, 144 – 5,  147 Trans-Atlantic Network 91 transformation 43, 152 – 3, 167, 258 Tridem exchange 58 twenty-first (21st) century competences 154, 192 – 3 understanding: deeper 14, 114, 154, 250; intercultural 22, 96, 150, 152, 195; Memorandum of 15, 92; mutual 70, 150, 259; supporting 156 – 8 UNESCO 192 UNIcollaboration.eu site 220 – 1, 226, 228 Ushioda, E. 38 Virtual Exchange in the European Higher Education Area 69, 78 virtual worlds 49, 56 Warschauer, M. 3 – 5, 7, 9, 21, 83, 85, 111, 217, 273, 290 waypoint/endpoint 212, 214, 216, 225 – 6 WebCEF (www.webcef.eu) 245 workload distribution 131, 135 – 6, 138, 143 – 4 WorldGreenWeb 259