Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Foreign language education for the 21st century: developing intercultural competence in an online intercultural exchange
(USC Thesis Other)
Foreign language education for the 21st century: developing intercultural competence in an online intercultural exchange
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 1
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY:
DEVELOPING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE IN AN ONLINE
INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE
by
Maryse Mijalski
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2014
Copyright 2014 Maryse Mijalski
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
2
DEDICATION
I dedicate my dissertation to my husband Michael, and my three daughters Sarah,
Gabrielle, and Leah. Thank you for being there for me throughout the entire doctorate program,
for being patient when I had to work on weekends and come late at night from class, and for
encouraging me and being proud of me. A special thank you to my husband, without whose
support I could not have gone through the process.
A special feeling of gratitude to my parents Roberte and Edmond Mijalski, who have
always encouraged me to pursue my dreams.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my committee chair Dr. Pat
Tobey, for guiding me patiently through the dissertation process, for being so calm and
encouraging, and for believing that I could do it. I wish to thank my committee members who
offered their expertise, support, and their time throughout the dissertation process. Thank you Dr.
Tobey, Dr. Vierma, and Dr. Warschauer.
Secondly, I want to thank Dr. Ilda Jiménez y West at Rossier Doctoral Support Center for
reading my chapters and giving me valuable feedback. Thank you Dr. Jiménez y West for giving
me help as well as confidence during the writing process.
Third, I thank my partner teachers at the University of Bordeaux, France, who made the
online exchange possible, and who were a joy to work with. I hope we will partner again to offer
our students more opportunities to connect online. I also want to thank my institution and my
students for making it possible for me to do research for my dissertation.
Finally I want to thank my husband Michael and my three daughters Sarah, Gabrielle,
and Leah for supporting me and encouraging me throughout the doctorate program. The
dissertation would not have been possible without your support.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review 26
Chapter 3: Methodology 74
Chapter 4: Findings 95
Chapter 5: Discussion 151
References 178
Appendices 187
Appendix A: Inventory of Reasons for Failed Communication 187
Appendix B: Guth and Marini-Maio’s (2010) Task Design 188
Appendix C: Competences for the Telecollaboratively Effective Person 189
Appendix D: Personal Reflection Diary 191
Appendix E: Survey Protocol 192
Appendix F: IRB Exempt Review 193
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Components of Intercultural Competence 36
Table 2. Tasks that Promote Intercultural Competence 65
Table 3. Model of Intercultural Competence 86
Table 4. Tools for Data Collection 89
Table 5. Coding of Online Student Blogs and Reflective Essays: Evaluation of 108
Exchange (Action Research)
Table 6. Students' Tasks in the Exchange 116
Table 7. Evaluation of Student Intercultural Competence: Analysis of Blogs and 120
Reflective Essays
Table 8. Triangulation of Findings 148
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
6
ABSTRACT
As world cultures become increasingly globalized and interconnected, it is critical that colleges
across the United States educate students to collaborate across and beyond national boundaries.
What does it mean to educate globally literate learners and how do you connect learners at
American universities to the global world in a way that promotes intercultural competence? This
study reports on the planning, implementation and evaluation of an online intercultural exchange
between French language students at a research university in the United States and students of
English as a second language at a French university. While online intercultural exchanges
provide rich, interactive, and authentic forms of communication for foreign language learners,
how can they be integrated into the foreign language curriculum as a way to promote reflection
and develop a deeper understanding of other cultures and one’s own? The purpose of this
qualitative study was to collect and analyze data to understand how an online intercultural
exchange could be successfully designed and implemented, to collect and analyze data from
online and classroom activities to determine how the integration of the project into the existing
French language curriculum promoted reflective practice and intercultural competence, and to
analyze student perceptions of the exchange. Two qualitative research strategies, action research
and ethnography, were conducted using multiple methods of data collection: participant
observations, analysis of the online blog, reflective essays, and videotaped oral presentations,
and an open-ended survey from students about their perceptions of the exchange. This study
aimed at evaluating the success of an online intercultural exchange and findings from the study
suggested that students developed intercultural competences in the exchange and appreciated the
authentic experience the exchange provided as well as the opportunity to explore and engage
with another culture and their own. However findings from the survey also pointed out to
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
7
problems in the exchange. Structural and organizational difficulties were the greatest hurdle for
students. Findings from this study pointed to several recommendations about the critical role of
the partner teachers in the exchange, the need for a variety of online communication tools, the
importance of balancing topics of academic relevance and the development of personal
relationships, and the significance of reflective tasks in the development of intercultural
competence.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
8
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In its 2006 report entitled “A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher
Education,” the U.S. Department of Education issued recommendations to educate globally
literate citizens to ensure the success of the U.S. in the 21st century global economy and to
embrace a culture of innovation that encourages the development of new technologies for
educational purposes (Spellings, 2006). Recognizing the realities of a rapidly changing world,
the report recommended U.S. higher education institutions map a chart “to adapt to a world
altered by technology, changing demographics and globalization” and made particular mention
of the importance of international education including foreign language instruction and study
abroad programs in educating a globally competent workforce (Spellings, 2006). In light of the
U.S. Department of Education’s recommendations for the 21st century, this study will examine
the way in which students can develop online communication skills and intercultural competence
in the foreign language classroom. This study will discuss the role of foreign languages in the
21st century and will seek to understand how an online intercultural exchange between French
language students in the United States and English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students in
France may promote intercultural competence, defined as students’ attitudes towards the other
culture in the exchange, students knowledge of social processes and the way other cultures
perceive them, and students’ skills developed in the intercultural exchange such as
communication strategies (Byram, 1997).
The role of foreign languages in U.S. higher education is rapidly changing as a result of
globalization and events that have marked the nation in the last decade. As world cultures
become increasingly globalized and interconnected, it is critical that colleges across the United
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
9
States educate students to function and collaborate across national boundaries (Modern
Language Association [MLA], 2007). The Modern Language Association was instrumental in
framing the new role of foreign languages in twenty-first century U.S. education a few years
after the events following 9/11 highlighted the shortcomings of the U.S. in cross-cultural
communication.
Shortly after 9/11, Mike Wallace, television news program “60 Minutes” reporter,
interviewed several of the chiefs of the U.S. intelligence community to discuss the 9/11 attacks
and terrorism. His final and most controversial question was: “So, tell me, how’s your Arabic?”
(Geisler, 2012). Not unexpectedly, none of the interviewees spoke Arabic and there was
probably little reason for them to know the language. Yet in the subsequent events that unfolded
as the nation tried to grapple with 9/11 and as the United States government mounted a military
intervention in Iraq, it became clear that the nation faced a foreign language deficit that would
have dire consequences in dealing with terrorism at home and abroad. The failure of the U.S. to
find experts capable of communicating with and comprehending other cultures during the crisis
prompted the Modern Language Association (2007) to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on
Foreign Languages to examine the challenges and opportunities facing foreign language study in
higher education after 9/11 and in the context of globalization.
The goal of the committee was not to provide quick solutions for the U.S. military but to
identify goals for the future of foreign language study in the United States and to offer guidance
(MLA, 2007). The report highlighted the need for intercultural dialogue in the foreign language
classroom as a way to open students to other cultures and at the same time to reflect on their own
culture. Of particular importance for rethinking the role of foreign languages in U.S. higher
education was the committee’s recommendation “to educate speakers who have deep
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
10
translingual and transcultural competence” (MLA, 2007, p. 3). Claire Kramsch (2012), who
served on the committee, defined translingual and transcultural competence as a “surplus of
meaning that multilingualism can bring about” (p. 18). In other words, translingual and
transcultural competence is the ability to understand historical, social, esthetic and cultural
meaning across languages and cultures as diverse meanings come into contact in the foreign
language classroom (Kramsch, 2012). It includes contacts between the native language of the
students and the target language of the classroom, and contacts between different experiences,
history, and social and cultural backgrounds of students (Kramsch, 2012). Translingual and
transcultural competence does not imply that knowledge of other languages and cultures will
eliminate cultural conflicts (Schneider & Von der Emde, 2006; Kramsch, 2012). In fact, cultural
dialogue across languages and cultures will produce situations in which foreign language
learners will have to confront disagreement, stereotyping, and challenge to their own
interpretations (Schneider & Von der Emde, 2006). Yet if dialogue does not necessarily provide
consensus, it has the advantage of preventing crisis stemming from the inability to see the world
through the eyes of the other (MLA, 2007).
Interestingly, Mike Wallace’s interview with the heads of the U.S. Intelligence
community highlighted the strategic value of foreign language instruction in the U.S, but failed
to identify a deeper problem in American society, government, and education that is, the lack of
intercultural competence and dialogue (MLA, 2007; Pratt, 2004; Schneider & Von der Emde,
2006). Mary Louise Pratt (2004), chair of the MLA Ad Hoc Committee on foreign languages,
asserted “the real role of language has to play in national security is that of developing and
sustaining the vast spectra of personal, institutional, commercial, diplomatic, and intellectual
relations that prevent conflicts from turning into national security crises in the first place”
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
11
(p. 291). In fact, writing after 9/11, she rightly observed that “[b]y the time a language has
become a national security imperative in a way it is already too late. The other has already been
defined as an enemy; the failures of communication and understanding have already done their
damage” (Pratt, 2004, p. 290). Thus Pratt (2004) and the MLA Ad Hoc Committee advocated a
new role for foreign languages, which would include dialogue and intercultural understanding in
order to prevent the type of miscommunication and misunderstanding that result in destructive
conflicts. How can college foreign language courses be designed to offer students opportunities
to reflect on language, intercultural dialogue and cultural conflicts?
The MLA Ad Hoc Committee recommended foreign language programs move beyond
the purely instrumentalist view of foreign language learning, that considers language as a skill or
an instrument of communication, to an approach that emphasized “translingual and transcultural
competence” (MLA, 2007, p. 4). This approach values the ability to function between languages
and to consider new ways of understanding the meaning of culture and language. The MLA
report (2007) suggested that the study of foreign languages promotes higher thinking skills: “[i]n
the course of acquiring functional language abilities, students are taught critical language
awareness, interpretation and translation, historical and political consciousness, social sensibility,
and aesthetic perception” (p. 4).
As early as 1999, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL), the leading organization for the teaching of foreign languages in the United States,
recognized the need to establish standards for the teaching of foreign languages that would
prepare students for the 21st century. The report, entitled Standard for foreign language
learning: Preparing for the 21st century, stated: “Language and communication are at the heart
of the human experience. The United States must educate students who are linguistically and
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
12
culturally equipped to communicate successfully in a pluralistic American society and abroad”
(American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages [ACTFL], 1999, p. 2). ACTFL (1999)
recognized the diversity of foreign languages purposes and uses, as well as the diversity of
students who study languages. For this reason, the standard’s goals were to incorporate all the
purposes and uses of foreign languages, and all the needs of students within five goal areas:
Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities, commonly referred to
as the five Cs of foreign language education (ACTFL, 1999). The goals of ACTFL encompassed
more than the linguistic aspect of foreign languages, a direction that reflected the shift of foreign
language research, instruction and learning from the acquisition of language as a structure to
communicative and intercultural competence.
Statement of the Problem
Researchers in the field of education, as well as government agencies and corporations,
have stressed the need for education that prepares students to become global citizens and global
leaders (Spellings, 2006; Pratt, 2004). Furthermore, post 9/11 events exposed the shortage of
educated speakers in less-commonly taught languages and a lack of intercultural competence,
which weakened U.S. interventions in parts of the world (Pratt, 2004). Yet, according to research
in globalization and education, U.S. universities have not met their goal of preparing students for
the global world (Sowa, 2002).
American universities are at the forefront of higher education, with eight universities
ranked among the top ten worldwide by Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2013). As such,
American universities have a responsibility to educate students who can fully understand and
participate in an increasingly internationalized world, and become global citizens who contribute
fully to the process of globalization, defined as:
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
13
global flows of ideas, practices, institutions, and people, such as ethnoscapes, the
movement of the world’s peoples; financescapes, the movement of trade, money, and
capital; mediascapes, the movement of images and ideas in popular culture: and
ideoscapes, the movement of ideas and practices concerning government and institutional
policies. (Appadurai, 1996, p. 332)
American students have to adapt to a world in constant movement, and be able to see themselves
connected across and beyond the nation-state (Spring, 2008). Hence the importance of adaptation
and communication skills in a world that is constantly changing.
An important goal of internationalized education in U.S. higher education is the need to
develop students’ abilities to communicate across cultural and linguistic boundaries (Brustein,
2007). Knowledge of cultures and languages compels students to examine differences and
similarities between foreign cultures and their own, which in turn reveal the interconnectedness
of world cultures as well as biases students may have (Brustein, 2007). American students who
study a foreign language have a unique opportunity to rethink cultural differences in terms of
diversity and interconnectedness, to look at their own prejudices, and to abandon the hierarchical
worldview that often prevails in the United States thus promoting peace and equitable relations
(Brustein, 2007). Foreign language programs have the potential to help students to be part of the
global flow of people and ideas that make the world increasingly interconnected while at the
same time helping students recognize and embrace cultural differences (Appadurai, 1996).
However foreign language education across U.S. universities remains a low priority, as
students and institutions fail to understand the relevance of foreign language study in today’s
globalized world. Despite the last three surveys of the MLA on enrollments in foreign languages
in U.S. institutions of higher education showing an upward trend in enrollments for all foreign
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
14
languages, enrollment in a foreign language course represented only 8.6% of college total
enrollments in 2009 (Furman, Goldberg, & Lusin, 2010). During the 2008 recession and budget
crisis in higher education, many language departments suffered drastic consequences as a result
of state budget cuts and low retention of students. For example, the State University of New
York at Albany announced the suspension of three foreign language programs (Jaschik, 2010).
The decision came as a result of a 16% budget cut to academic units in the state of New York
university system even though the French department, one of the three language programs
eliminated, was teaching about 400 students yearly (Jaschik, 2010).
Paradoxically, globalization and the emergence of English as a world-language may be
the reason for the lack of interest that English-speaking students, especially in the United States,
show towards studying foreign languages (Graham, 2004). Several studies have also shown that
students at American universities do not take advantage of study abroad programs (Cushner,
2004; Brustein, 2007). Fewer than 3% of American college students in 4-year programs
participate in some type of study abroad program during their undergraduate studies (Cushner,
2004). Furthermore, the majority of students in foreign language classrooms complain about
negative experiences (Graham, 2004; Tse, 2000). Mostly, students find themselves unsuccessful
at becoming proficient in the foreign language they study, even when they get good grades
(Graham, 2004). Several qualitative empirical studies have found that students express
frustration with the difficulty of learning a foreign language (Dupuy, 2008; Graham, 2004; Tse,
2000). Students in U.S. colleges may not understand the importance of studying a foreign
language. Part of the problem may be the lack of consensus on the role of foreign languages in
foreign language research and practitioners circles.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
15
In the midst of divergent views on the effect of globalization on society and culture,
whether globalization leads to uniformity or, on the contrary, to more equitable worldviews and
respect for differences, the goals of foreign language study are varied and still ardently debated
(MLA, 2007). At one extreme, the instrumentalist view of language study considers language as
a skill or an instrument of communication. At the other end, language is a complex process that
is socially constructed and connects human beings to others, to communities, and to the world at
large (MLA, 2007). This latter view responds to the recommendations of the Department of
Education to set goals to educate globally literate citizens, and to cultivate innovation and
creativity through the development of new pedagogies and technologies to improve learning
(Spellings, 2006). Thus, in the 21st century, foreign language study should be approached as a
social skill that fosters collaboration and participation in the larger global community (MLA,
2007; ACTFL, 1999). What new foreign language pedagogies will foster collaboration and
critical problem-solving skills? What theoretical frameworks should be considered in order to
develop pedagogies for collaborative foreign language learning? How can computer-technology
promote and enhance collaborative learning?
In “Confronting the challenges of participatory culture – Media education for the 21st
century,” Jenkins (2006) argues that new social skills that develop in new media literacies and
cultural competencies that arise from the participation in multiple online communities have
benefits for participants that include peer-to-peer learning, the diversity of cultural view points,
and problem-solving skills valued in the workplace. Yet schools and universities fall short of
integrating participatory culture in the traditional education culture (Jenkins, 2006). Participatory
culture in computer technology is defined as:
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
16
a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong
support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship
whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices. A
participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter, and
feel some degree of social connection with one another. (Jenkins, 2006)
Data on technology use in the US supports the trend of a participatory culture among the
Millennial Generation, students born after 1982. According to a 2010 survey by the Pew
Research Center, 83% of 18-29 year-old Internet users use social networking sites. Trend data
for teens published by the Pew Research Center (2010) shows that 97% of 14-17 year olds were
using the Internet in 2011. In the 18-29 year old demographics, 94% were using the Internet
(Pew Research Center, 2010). Among college graduates, 95% used the Internet (Pew Research
Center, 2010). How do we integrate the goal of The National Education Technology Plan drafted
by the U.S. Department of Education (2010) to ensure all learners “will have engaging and
empowering learning experiences both in and out of school, which prepares them to be active,
creative, knowledgeable, and ethical participants in our globally networked society” and the
goals of the Modern Language Association (2007) for foreign language instruction in the U.S. as
educating students “trained to reflect on the world and themselves through the lens of another
language and culture”? What theory or theories can best inform educational practice to promote
collaborative learning and open dialogue in the classroom and online? What does it mean to
educate globally literate learners and how do you connect learners at American universities to the
global world in a way that promotes intercultural competence? Opportunities afforded by the
Internet through the emergence of Web 2.0 may offer a way forward.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
17
In the past 20 years, the emergence of Web 2.0 tools has created new opportunities for
foreign language learners to access and publish multimedia materials and to have opportunities
to use languages outside of the classroom (Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2004, 2008). Thus,
telecollaborative intercultural projects have developed as a way to promote communicative
competence (Kern, 2006) and to promote greater intercultural understanding (Kramsch, 2012;
Thorne, 2003; Warschauer, 1997). Intercultural telecollaborative exchanges are defined as
network-based language teaching that links students from two institutions in different countries
using Internet-mediated tools (Ware, 2005). Research on telecollaborative intercultural
exchanges has focused on the nature of linguistic and intercultural relationships when mediated
by the use of the Internet (Thorne, 2003), the importance of preparing students to understand
different online discourse genres (Kramsch, 2012; O’Dowd, 2003), the potential of online
intercultural projects to promote intercultural understanding and competence (Kramsch, 2012;
Warschauer, 1997; O’Dowd, 2003; Belz, 2002), the pedagogical aspects of the intercultural
exchanges such as the role of tasks, defined as thoughtful and reflective activities that facilitate
negotiation of meaning (Belz, 2004; Cloke, 2010; Müller-Hartmann, 2000), and the tensions and
misunderstandings that surface in the communication between students in the exchange (Ware,
2005; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). Researchers agree that intercultural collaborative exchanges
provide rich, interactive, and authentic forms of communication for foreign language learners
(Ware, 2005). Furthermore, the underlying pedagogical principles of intercultural exchanges
support student learning.
According to Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) “Seven principles of good practice in
undergraduate education,” cooperation promotes students’ involvement in the learning process
and helps students develop a deeper understanding of the other’s point of view. The principle of
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
18
“learning by doing,” which reinforces active learning is supported by authentic tasks online
where students apply the skills and knowledge learned in class to authentic communication
(Chickering & Gamson, 1987). An authentic task “involves learners in using language in a way
that replicates its use in the ‘real world’ outside the language classroom” (Tomlinson, 2011). In
addition, time on task is critical for learning. Online communication gives students an
opportunity to use their language skills outside of the classroom and gives students more practice
time (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). Finally, respect for diverse talents and ways of learning is
supported by online communication which involves structured tasks for students who may need
more support as well as more open-ended communication for students who prefer a less
structured environment (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996).
Yet, while online intercultural forums provide opportunities for students to acquire a
deeper and better understanding of other perspectives, they do not guarantee deeper interaction
between students partnering in the exchange (Ware, 2005; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002). Several
studies concluded with the need to develop tasks that encourage reflection on the intercultural
exchange experience (Ware, 2005; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002, Belz, 2002, 2004; O’Dowd, 2003).
Despite the amount of research on telecollaborative intercultural exchanges, little is known about
the opportunities for in-class reflective tasks and discussions with the potential to help students
gain a deeper understanding of such issues as the foreign students’ world views, the culturally-
grounded online discourse genres, the conflicts that arise in intercultural communication, and the
students’ experience in the intercultural exchange. Therefore, how can telecollaborative
intercultural exchanges provide opportunities for classroom learning? How can online exchanges
be articulated and integrated into the existing curriculum in a way that promotes intercultural
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
19
understanding and the development of intercultural competence in foreign language learning
(Ware, 2005)?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is four-fold:
1. To plan, implement, and evaluate a transatlantic online intercultural exchange.
2. To collect and analyze data to understand how an online intercultural exchange can
be successfully designed and implemented.
3. To collect and analyze data from online and classroom activities related to the
intercultural exchange to determine how the integration of the project into the existing
French language curriculum promotes reflective practice and intercultural
competence.
4. To analyze student perceptions of the exchange.
The method is qualitative, using multiple methods of data collection: participant
observations, analysis of online logs and student reflective essays, and an open-ended survey.
This study addressed the lack of focus in the literature on the integration of reflective practice in
telecollaborative online exchanges. The study discussed the implementation of a transatlantic
intercultural project, how to develop and integrate reflective practice in the existing curriculum,
and how to promote students’ intercultural competence.
Research Questions
This study sought to understand how an online intercultural exchange between students in
a French class at an American university and students of ESL at a French university could be
integrated into the existing French language curriculum in a way that encouraged reflective
practice and promoted intercultural competence. Four main questions guided my research:
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
20
1. How can online intercultural exchanges be successfully designed and implemented?
2. How can reflective practice be developed and integrated into the existing foreign
language curriculum?
3. How can online exchanges between students in the US and students in the target-
language country promote the development of intercultural competence?
4. What are student perceptions of the online intercultural exchange they participated
in?
Importance of the Study
An important goal of the study was to design, integrate, and evaluate an online
intercultural exchange within the existing foreign language classroom curriculum as a way to
promote learners’ reflection on the foreign culture they study and their own. As the world is
becoming increasingly interconnected, intercultural competence is a critical 21st century skill.
The Department of Education (Spellings, 2006), the Modern Language Association (2007), and
the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1999) have reported on the critical
need to educate students who can think critically within pluricultural contexts. As the 21st
century emerges as a period of profound and rapid changes, U.S. universities have to adjust to
the demand for problem-solving skills, communication and collaboration skills, and intercultural
competences (Spellings, 2006; MLA, 2007). The study sought to examine how a foreign
language program can adjust to foster these critical 21st century skills.
Summary of Methodology
In this study, the ethnographic approach was used to understand how students interpreted
their experience in the intercultural exchange while action research helped the researcher to
understand how the transatlantic intercultural exchange worked in the particular setting of the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
21
class (Merriam, 2009; Creswell, 2008; Stringer, 2007). The researcher was the primary
instrument for the study. Multiple forms of data were collected: online communication logs from
students and instructors, researcher observations, students’ reflective essay, and an open-ended
survey. Validity of the observations must be assessed to avoid possible shortcomings and biases
of the teacher/researcher. In the fall quarter, 25 students in one of the three sections of
intermediate French (French 2A) participated in an online exchange with two groups of fifteen
French students each in France. The online exchange lasted eight weeks and involved
synchronous weekly Skype exchanges between partner students and asynchronous postings on
the blog created for the exchange. The exchange was fully integrated into the existing curriculum
and covered topics such as family life, urban life, education systems and student life,
multiculturalism and national identity. The online topics paralleled the themes in the
intermediate French curriculum. Regular follow-up discussions of the online conversation
provided an opportunity for monitoring and reflecting on the exchange. The exchange
culminated with a reflective essay and an in-class presentation of each student’s individual
experience in the exchange. The researcher for this study was also the instructor for the course.
Assumptions
For purposes of this study, it is assumed that the methods and procedures chosen were
appropriate for the subject under study. The students surveyed were sincere and honest in their
response and that all documents collected and analyzed in the exchange were complete and
accurate, and reflective of how students participated, interacted, and reflected on the exchange.
Limitations
This study is limited to subjects who voluntarily agreed to participate. It is limited to the
number of participants surveyed and the amount of time available to conduct the study. It is also
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
22
limited to the setting and context of the study. The validity of this study is limited to the
trustworthiness of the researcher. Extraneous factors that may influence students’ perception but
were not assessed include: student beliefs and attitudes towards foreign language learning, and
student motivation to learn a foreign language. Likewise, extraneous factors may influence the
development of intercultural competence. Some students may already have gained a certain level
of intercultural competence from prior intercultural experiences or classes that focus on culture,
however the level of students’ intercultural competence when they begin the course was not
assessed in the study.
Delimitations
The following delimitations are present in the study: participants selected for this study
were restricted to college students studying French at the intermediate level and the two
instructors for the course; the research project was concentrated at a public research university in
the West Coast of the United States; the intercultural exchange focused on a partnership between
students at the U.S. institution and students of ESL in France.
Definition of Terms
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Approach in foreign language instruction that
emphasizes communicative competence, the ability to use language in different social situations
and the development of linguistic competence through social interaction (Hymes, 1970, cited in
Johnson, 2001).
Second Language Acquisition Theory (SLA): Second-language acquisition research
developed as an extension of Chomsky’s (1968) theory of first language acquisition. Research in
second-language acquisition first focused on how to replicate conditions for language learning
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
23
that exist outside of the classroom to conditions found in the classroom (Krashen, 1985; Mitchell
& Myles, 2004).
Dialogic approach: The notion that intercultural communication should not seek to reach
a final synthesis or consensus but instead, intercultural communication should be an endless
dialogue where meaning emerges from past and present interpretation. Meaning is not based on
any fixed identities but is the product of difference between past and present interpretations
(Bakhtin, 1981; Wegerif, 2008).
Intercultural competence: Students’ attitudes towards the other culture in the exchange,
students knowledge of social processes and the way other cultures perceive them, and students’
skills developed in the intercultural exchange such as communication strategies (Byram, 1997).
Sociocultural Theory of Learning: Sociocultural theory emerged from research by
Russian psychologist Vygotsky into language development of children (1978). Social
interactions are essential for cognitive development, including language development.
Sociocultural theory holds that mental and social activities are not two disparate aspects of
human activity but that they exist within a dialectical relationship (Vygotsky, 1978).
Tasks: Thoughtful and reflective activities that facilitate communication as negotiation of
meaning. Task-based language learning refers to a foreign language learning approach in which
learners engage in activities that allow for negotiation of meaning (Müller-Hartmann, 2000).
Transcultural Competence: The term was used in the 2007 MLA report on the future of
foreign language instruction in the United States and emphasizes the socially constructed nature
of learning a foreign language and suggests that intercultural awareness and understanding
occurs through dialogue and sometimes conflicts or misunderstandings (MLA, 2007).
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
24
Web 2.0: Second generation of the World Wide Web, such as blogs, wikis and social
networking, which has created unprecedented opportunities for people to communicate,
collaborate, and share information online (Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2004, 2008; Warschauer
& Grimes, 2007).
Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL): Refers to a broad spectrum of
applications such as tutorials, drills, homework, tests, instructional games, etc., in foreign
language teaching and learning. Also refers to research in computer-assisted language learning,
mostly concerned with linguistic competence (Warschauer & Grimes, 2007; Chapelle, 2001).
Network-based language teaching (NBLT): Methodology that combines advances in
technology and education to create opportunities for collaboration and communication within
existing courses via computer networks. The principles of social constructivism inform and
support NBLT (Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2008).
Telecollaboration: Defined as “international-language learning partnerships” using
Internet-mediated communication tools to refer to exchanges between students of different
countries of origin (Ware, 2005).
Task-based language learning: Activity that promotes negotiation of meaning based on
the communicative needs of learners and based on real world situations (authenticity of the task
is critical to task-based language learning) (Müller-Hartman, 2000).
Summary and Organization of the Study
The focus of this study was the implementation and evaluation of a telecollaborative
intercultural exchange between a French class at a university in the West Coast of the United
States and an ESL class at a French university. The study sought to understand how the exchange
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
25
could promote intercultural competence in foreign language learning. This dissertation is
organized into five chapters.
Chapter 1 has presented the introduction, the background of the problem, the statement of
the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, the significance of the study,
a brief description of the methodology, the assumptions, limitations, and the definitions of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature. It addresses the following topics:
1. Second-language acquisition theory: A multiplicity of perspectives — An overview
of second-language acquisition theory and research in applied linguistics and more
recently in literary and cultural studies.
2. What is intercultural competence? This section will define Byram’s (1997) model of
intercultural competence and the notion of transcultural competence (MLA, 2007).
3. The role of technology in foreign language instruction and learning.
4. Telecollaboration — A review of empirical research of online intercultural exchanges
between students enrolled in a foreign language course at American universities and
students in the target language country.
Chapter 3 introduces the methodology used in the study, including the research design;
population and sampling procedure; and the instrument, together with information on validity
and reliability. Each of these sections concludes with a rationale, including strengths and
limitations of the design elements. The chapter goes on to describe the procedures for data
collection and the plan for data analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes the results,
culminating in conclusions and recommendations.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
26
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter examines multiple perspectives in the literature on pedagogical uses of
online communication for foreign language learning and instruction and provides a
comprehensive understanding of the pedagogical uses of telecollaborative intercultural
exchanges and the way in which they can be integrated in the existing curriculum to promote
intercultural competence through reflection. This study sought to understand how
telecollaborative intercultural exchanges could be successfully designed and implemented, how
reflective practice could be developed and integrated into the existing foreign language
curriculum, how telecollaborative exchanges could promote the development of intercultural
competence, and finally what are students’ perceptions of the exchange experience.
Issues of language learning and teaching are always very complex. Pedagogical uses of
technology, a complex topic itself, make any inquiry into language and technology very
challenging. There is currently much debate surrounding the role of foreign languages in U.S.
universities, what theories should inform foreign language research, and the methods that should
guide practice. The majority of studies within second language acquisition theory — itself a
product of linguistics and developmental psychology — are generally concerned with questions
of language and the development of linguistic competence (Chapelle, 2001; Lantolf, 2000;
Blake, 2012; Donato, 1994; Nutta, 1998). Other studies have emerged from a philosophical and
cultural theory framework that stresses the cultural dimension of foreign language learning
(Wegeriff, 2008; Kramsch, 2012; Ware, 2005; Kern, 2006; Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2004).
The use of technology in foreign language instruction is an equally complex topic
because it is informed by a wide gamut of language teaching and learning theories and methods.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
27
Studies concerned with the role of technology on linguistic competence have researched activity
within computer-assisted language learning (CALL), defined as a wide range of computer
applications for linguistic development (Chapelle, 2001). On the other hand, the concept and
development of network-based language teaching (NBLT) is influenced by sociolinguistics —
the view that language is social action (Warschauer, 1997). NBLT refers to pedagogical uses of
Web 2.0 tools such as chat, Wiki, blogs and email, which promote communication between
learners (Warschauer & Grimes, 2007; Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Kern et al., 2004).
This study is primarily concerned with the development of intercultural competence in
the foreign language classroom using a network-based approach to language teaching. The
development of learner’s intercultural competence requires a thorough understanding of
intercultural communication and a clear model to promote and evaluate intercultural competence.
This literature review seeks to understand what foreign language teaching for the 21st century
entails, what is intercultural competence, and how an intercultural experience can be integrated
into the existing curriculum.
First, a review of the theories of second language acquisition identifies the theoretical
framework for this study. Secondly, a summary of the arguments on medium and method
provides a platform for a discussion on the role of technology in education, and in foreign
language instruction in particular. Then, intercultural competence is defined. Finally, a summary
of empirical studies on telecollaborative intercultural exchanges provides a blueprint for the
integration and articulation of exchange projects in the existing foreign language curriculum. For
the purpose of my study, I focus on pedagogical designs and evaluation of telecollaborative
exchanges such as the articulation of telecollaborative exchanges in the existing curriculum and
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
28
the blending of network-based instruction and classroom instruction to promote intercultural
competence through reflection.
This chapter is divided into four sections. The first deals with second-language
acquisition theory: A multiplicity of perspectives — an overview of second-language acquisition
theory and research in applied linguistics, and more recently, in literary and cultural studies. This
section focuses on second-language research informed by sociocultural theory of language
learning. It is divided into two subparts, applied linguistics and Second Language Acquisition
Theory (SLA) and from mediation to dialogue. The second asked the question: what is
intercultural competence? This section defines Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural
competence and the notion of transcultural competence (MLA, 2007). The third section focuses
on the role of technology in instruction and learning. It begins with a review of the argument on
the distinction between medium and method. From there, a review of the literature examines: the
role of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in promoting linguistic competence in
foreign language learning and the role of network-based language teaching (NBLT) in promoting
intercultural communication. The fourth section looks at telecollaboration by reviewing
empirical research of online exchanges between students enrolled in a foreign language course at
American universities and students in the target language country. This section is divided into
four parts: theoretical framework and educational goals of telecollaboration, issues in
telecollaborative exchanges, the role of task design in reflection and student perception of online
intercultural exchanges.
Second-Language Acquisition Theories (SLA): A Multiplicity of Perspectives
Pedagogical approaches to foreign language teaching are varied and generally informed
by theories of language and learning (Ellis, 2005). The majority of the research in foreign
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
29
language acquisition is done in the field of applied linguistics, which is particularly concerned
with language teaching and learning from a philosophical and a pedagogical standpoint
(Mitchell, & Myles, 2004; Johnson, 2001; Lightbown, Spada, Ranta, & Rand, 2006). Recently,
research on language and communication has been informed by cultural and literary theories, and
theories of communication, a direction that bears witness to a new awareness of the cultural
aspect of language teaching (Wegerif, 2008; Kramsch, 2012; Ware, 2005; Kern, 2006; Kern et
al., 2004; Thorne, 2003). This first section reviews various theories that inform foreign language
teaching and learning.
Applied Linguistics and SLA
The field of applied linguistics emerged in the 1940s to respond to the need of American
soldiers to speak the languages of countries where they were sent to do battle (Mitchell & Myles,
2004). Behaviorist theory, based on Pavlov’s (as cited in Johnson, 2001) conditioning theory,
instructed practice and the audio-lingual approach was developed on the assumption that
repetition was key to foreign language learning (Johnson, 2001). Other theories such as
Chomsky’s (1968) transformational linguistics posited the existence of an innate mechanism for
processing language that children, for example, acquiring their first language, exhibit when they
speak words that are different from what they might have learned from their environments
(Johnson, 2001). The theory gave impetus to the idea of a Universal Grammar shared by all
languages that would give insights into what learners knew about the language rather than how
the learners used the language (Lightbown et al., 2006). Early applied linguistics was the result
of historical influences, research in psychology, and research in the field of linguistics. The
research was conducted primarily to understand first language acquisition in children.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
30
Second-language acquisition research developed as an extension of Chomsky’s (1968)
theory of first language acquisition. Research in second-language acquisition first focused on
how to replicate conditions for language learning that exist outside of the classroom to conditions
found in the classroom (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). In the 1980s, Steven Krashen (1985) was
particularly influential in shifting the focus from language rules to a focus on meaning and
communication (Lightbown et al., 2006). Krashen (1985) distinguished “learning” from
“acquisition” through the concept of “input hypothesis” in which acquisition occurs when
learners are exposed to language input that is comprehensible to them (what they have already
learned) plus language that is just above their level of comprehension. Krashen’s (1985) “input
hypothesis” was a particularly groundbreaking theory for communicative language teaching as it
posited that the spontaneous input of language in interaction was essential for acquisition. Other
SLA theories that have developed since the 1990s follow largely cognitivist theories of learning
that emerged at first as a response to behaviorism (Lightbown et al., 2006). Cognitivist theories
focus on the inner mental activities of learners to understand how learning occurs (Bloom,
Engelhard, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). For example, SLA research informed by
processibility theory, a subset of cognitivist theories, is concerned with how much information a
learner can pay attention to. The theory assumes that language learning is developmental and
builds on automatism of information retrieval for further learning (Lightbown et al., 2006). In
practice, cognitivist theories have influenced approaches to foreign language learning that focus
on form through structured and incrementally difficult tasks. Interaction in the classroom is also
an important aspect of instruction informed by cognitivist theories (Johnson, 2001). However
modified language input and interaction activate the internal cognitive process not the interaction
between learners (Lightbown et al., 2006).
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
31
At the beginning of the 1970s, the field of applied linguistics underwent a radical change
that came from the rising prominence of sociocultural theories of learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
Sociocultural theory emerged from research by Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1978) into
language development of children. Sociocultural theory holds that mental and social activities
are not two disparate aspects of human activity but that they exist within a dialectical
relationship (Vygotsky, 1978). Mental and social activities act on each other in a reciprocal
manner through the process of tool and sign mediation: signs are at once mediating and mediated
(Vygotsky, 1978). As an opposing view to the purely linguistic conception of language teaching
and learning, American sociolinguist Dell Hymes (1972) argued that the rules of the language
system did not explain how language was used as a ways of communication between humans,
and proposed instead the notion of language use rules (Johnson, 2001). Vygotsky’s (1978)
sociocultural theory of children’s language development considers social interactions as essential
for cognitive development, including language development. Vygotsky (1978) privileged the
sign — i.e. language — as “a means of internal activity aimed at mastering oneself; the sign is
internally oriented” (p. 55). Individuals do not act directly on the physical world but depend on
tools and symbolic tools such as language to interact with the physical world but unlike physical
tools, signs mediate higher mental processes (Vygotsky, 1978). In the same manner, social
activities, such as relationships with others, regulate mental activities and development processes
(Vygotsky, 1978).
SLA researchers such as Jim Lantolf (2000) and Richard Donato (1994) have examined
how language acquisition occurs when learners collaborate and interact with other speakers.
Lantolf’s (2000) comprehensive review of studies that use a Vygotskian framework, in particular
the notion of “mediating learning,” advanced the idea that foreign language learning is a
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
32
mediated process. His review underscored the significance of socially mediated activity as the
onset of cognitive processes that result in the internalization of the mediated activity, in
particular language and linguistic symbols (Lantolf, 2000). This view differs from cognitivist
theories that learning occurs in the processing of language. For example, Krashen’s (1985) input
hypothesis centers on features of language, whereas sociocultural theory is mainly concerned
with language learners and their activities (Lantolf, 2000). In contrast to cognitivist theories,
Lantolf (2000) asserts: “. . . not only does our mental activity determine the nature of our social
world, but this world of human relationships and artifacts also determines to a large extent how
we regulate our mental processes” (p. 79).
The notion of “self-regulation” is critical in sociocultural theory and refers to the
internalization and control of mental processes through socially mediated activity (Lantolf,
2000). The literature on mediation in second-language learning reports evidence of language
learning in the zone of proximal development (ZDP) developed by Vygotsky (1978), and defined
as a development stage from an earlier stage, where expert assistance is needed, to a later stage,
where the learner has internalized the knowledge, a language feature for example, and is able to
use it without assistance (Lantolf, 2000). In practice, the ZDP principle provides a theoretical
framework on which to build scaffolding tasks, which provide explicit assistance until the learner
is able to perform the tasks with only implicit assistance (Lantolf, 2000). Whereas research on
ZDP in foreign language learning focused at first on expert to novice assistance, such as teacher
and student, research is more and more concerned with peer mediation (Lantolf, 2000).
Since the 1940s theory and practice in second language learning and teaching has gone
through radical shifts in perspectives from the notion of language learning as behavior, to
language as an internal process, to the sociocultural aspect of language learning. The shifts
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
33
occurred at the confluence of major changes in the fields of linguistics, psychology and
education. Whereas theory and practice underwent radical change, linguistic competence
remained the focus of the research in second language acquisition until the 1990s. Cultural
competence was merely a byproduct of language learning.
From Mediation to Dialogue to Reflection
Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning offers a unifying principle for SLA in
which to ground language learning processes and activity. In fact, it is not as much the
sociocultural aspect of the theory that serves as a unifying principle for SLA theory — as we will
see, other sociocultural theory do not imply unity — but the dialectical process of mediation and
synthesis by which development of higher mental processes and learning occurs, a process
grounded in Marxist historical materialism (Marx, 1887). Indeed Vygotsky’s (1978) central
notion of mediation as a process through which individuals develop by mastering nature comes
from the Marxist view that people’s use of tools is crucial to an understanding of their
psychological structure (Marx, 1887). Yet Vygotsky’s (1978) theory has limitations when
redefining foreign language instruction for the 21st century. The theory conceptualizes culture as
a rational unifying principle within which language and culture are acquired or ‘mastered.’ Yet
the concepts of acquisition and mastery are problematic in discourses about culture and
intercultural communication. The contrasts then raise important questions: Can the concepts of
mediation and internalization provide a theoretical framework for cultural understanding in
foreign language instruction? Is culture an object that can be acquired through mediation?
In his review of the ontological assumptions that form the basis of sociocultural theories,
Wegerif (2008) contrasts Vygotsky’s (1978) dialectic perspective of social activity and concrete
activity in the development of culture with Russian philosopher Bakhtin’s (1981) dialogic view
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
34
of culture, in particular language, as located within a dialogue between past and present
interpretations of the world around us. To illustrate this point, Wegerif (2008) uses Bakhtin’s
(1981) example of how scholars review and reinterpret ancient Greek texts to show that there is
not a final synthesis of interpretations but rather an endless dialogue. Unlike Vygotsky’s (1978)
dialectical relationship between social activity, practical activity, and construction of knowledge,
Bakhtin (1981) suggests that meaning is not based on any fixed identities. Rather, meaning is the
product of the difference between past and present interpretations (Wegerif, 2008).
Furthermore, how is this contrast important for a discussion on communication and
intercultural competence in foreign language instruction? A fundamental element of dialogic
theory is that within dialogic human relationships, individuals learn to see the world from at least
two perspectives, their own standpoint and that of their interlocutor (Wegerif, 2008). The notion
of a dialogic relationship in communication is a very relevant theory for a focus on intercultural
competence in foreign language instruction insofar as communication in a foreign language and
within a foreign cultural context implies multiple perspectives and different viewpoints.
Intercultural dialogue promotes foreign language learning as culture is profoundly
embedded in language and learning happens as a reconstruction of social and cultural meanings
“from within the parameters of emergent, socially negotiated, and discursive activity” (Hicks,
1996, cited in Koschmann, 1999). Intercultural understanding in the dialogic model does not
involve an appropriation of the foreign culture as a dialectical model would entail (i.e., through
mediation and internalization) but, rather, involves the integration of “foreignness” into one’s
own interpretation of the world (Wegerif, 2008). Wegerif (2008) views the dialogic model of
meaning making as a more appropriate way to “conceptualize teaching for creativity and for
learning to learn” (p. 359). In fact, his article reviews the concept of “exploratory talk” in the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
35
1970s as a positive type of dialogue in which students were engaged “as a process of shared
inquiry” (Wegerif, 2008, p. 356). The author’s main point in this review of exploratory talk was
the idea that communication between peers provided a “space for reflection” that promoted the
development of creative solutions to problems (Wegerif, 2008, p. 358). For example, the role of
dialogic communication and problem solving has recently been reviewed in the context of online
gaming and its application to education (Jenkins, 2006).
The process of shared inquiry is essential for intercultural exchanges. A dialogic model of
communication provides a framework for open communication in which cultural conflicts are
not avoided by the learners or smoothed away by the teacher, but rather are re-interpreted in the
classroom as a reflection on the intercultural experience. According to Jenkins (2006), the new
online environment brings together very diverse groups of people and it becomes essential that
students develop skills that help them to understand multiple perspectives and to reflect on
conflicting viewpoints. In foreign language instruction and learning, the notion of transcultural
competence addresses the need for intercultural experiences that support the development of
language learning and the development of 21st century skills.
What is Intercultural Competence?
Byram’s Model of Intercultural Competence
Byram (1997) developed a set of guidelines for teachers to develop foreign language
students’ intercultural competence. Intercultural communication, according to Byram, is defined
as “communication on the basis of respect for individuals and equality of human rights as the
democratic basis for social interaction” (1997, p. 5). Intercultural competence is “the ability to
ensure a shared understanding by people of different social identities, and their ability to interact
with people as complex human beings with multiple identities and their own individuality”
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
36
(Byram, Gribkova, & Starkey, 2002, p. 5). Byram (1997) identified three major components of
intercultural competence: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. While the acquisition of intercultural
competence cannot be evaluated by any measure of comprehensiveness, it can, however, be
developed along the three major components (Byram, 1997). Table 1 shows Byram’s (1997)
three components of intercultural competence and their subcomponents. The three sets of
intercultural competence do not follow a linear development since development of knowledge,
skills, and attitudes may develop in different ways for different students. However, tasks can be
designed to introduce knowledge of social processes, people’s perception of student’s culture
and knowledge of other people before the start of the intercultural exchange. Likewise,
intercultural skills will be more likely to improve when students experience intercultural
communication. Finally, attitudes may change over the course of the exchange. The model,
therefore, will form the basis for the implementation of an intercultural exchange and for the
evaluation of intercultural competence in this study.
Table 1
Components of Intercultural Competence. Adapted from Byram (1997)
Knowledge Skills Attitudes
Knowledge of social
processes
Interpreting and relating another
culture’s events and documents
to one’s own cultural artifacts
Curiosity and openness
Knowledge about how
people are likely to see
you
Ability to discover and interact
with others under the constraint
of real-time communication
Readiness to question one’s
own values and beliefs and look
at one’s own values and beliefs
from an other’s perspective
Knowledge about other
people
Ability to critically evaluate
other practices, views, and
cultural products and one’s own
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
37
Transcultural Competence
Transcultural competence emphasizes the socially constructed nature of learning a
foreign language and suggests that intercultural awareness and understanding occurs through
dialogue. In the context of transcultural competence, culture is defined as “symbolic codes and
discourses, [...] national historical values and debates around those values, educational
philosophies, and language ideologies” (Kramsch, 2012, p. 24). This definition of culture differs
fundamentally from the notion of culture commonly presented in foreign language instruction
and textbooks as a set of behaviors, social customs, and cultural and historical facts (Kramsch,
2012). The Latin prefix “trans” in the word “transcultural” means “across, beyond, through” and
also “such as to change or transfer” which, when applied to notions of translingual and
transcultural competence, signifies the ability to transfer linguistic and cultural knowledge across
and beyond linguistic, cultural, and national boundaries (Merriam-Webster Online). Kramsch’s
2012 article on translingual and transcultural competence asserted the need to move beyond a
purely utilitarian view of communication that she defines as a “discourse of truth” to a view of
communication as “the need to identify with and belong to a community of discursive practice”
(p. 84). Translingual and transcultural competence goes beyond Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT), an approach that seeks to develop linguistic competences through
communicative interaction.
Now widely used in foreign language instruction, Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT) arose in the 1970s as an approach that emphasized communicative competence, as Hymes
(1972) demonstrated, the ability to use language in different social situations and the
development of linguistic competence through social interaction. Research in CLT focused on
the types of language forms that foreign language learners should use in a particular social
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
38
situation. CLT researchers assumed that communication was always effective and that
miscommunication was the result of language misuse (Johnson, 2001). The notion of
communicative competence carried with it an implicit utilitarian goal: the comprehension and
production of information to develop fluency and to avoid misunderstandings that arise when the
social and cultural norms differ from one’s own (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002). In other words,
CLT sought “a common rationality and communicative purpose” (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002,
p. 84) between the native language of the learners and the target language. Yet Kramsch (2012),
citing Zarate, Lévy and Kramsch (2008), insisted on the notion that:
Linguistic and cultural pluralism is more than the mere coexistence of various languages.
It is primarily about the transcultural circulation of values across borders, the negotiation
of identities, the inversions, even inventions of meaning, often concealed in a common
illusion of effective communication. (p. 16)
In her article, Kramsch (2012) gave an example of miscommunication that did not arise
from word use or lack of cultural knowledge, but from the way individuals conceive particular
cultural ideas, “the very categories of our thoughts” (p. 16). As part of an international research
team on pluriculturalism in the teaching of foreign languages, the author encountered a multiple
understandings of the term “education.” In this single word (the same word for English and
French) resided a plurality of ideologies such as the French republican concept of education
versus the educational ideals of a liberal democracy such as the United States (Kramsch, 2012).
Researchers on the team came with different perspectives on what “education” meant,
differences that were culturally situated (Kramsch, 2012). This example shows language and
culture cannot be approached as two separate “objects.” Culture is profoundly embedded in
language and vice versa. Furthermore, any given word, or “utterance,” to use Bakhtin’s (1981)
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
39
term, is always pluricultural insofar as its meaning is only a negotiation of meanings through
intercultural dialogue.
Kramsch and Thorne (2002) do not reject the work of SLA or the focus on developing
linguistic competence in foreign language instruction. Yet her research proposes a model of
interaction between linguistic and cultural instruction rather than two different dimensions of
foreign language learning. Whereas the notion of communicative competence (CLT) seeks to
reduce cultural conflicts and cultural misunderstandings by focusing language learning and
teaching on sociolinguistic norms, the notion of language as an ecosystem, a term proposed by
Kramsch (2012), situates language as part of the relationship between various languages and
cultures, as a type of web or network. Likewise, Byram’s (1997) definition of intercultural
communication and competence refutes the idea of sociolinguistic norms to emphasize the
complexity and multiplicity of identities within a culture. The concepts of translingual and
transcultural competence proposed by the MLA Ad Hoc Committee moves the teaching of
culture away from sociolinguistic norms towards an integration of communication as dialogic
practice. The World Wide Web, as an open space for networked communication, is a particularly
relevant tool to bring dialogic practice into the foreign language classroom.
Technology and Method in Instruction and Learning
Global communication networks, such as the internet, allow people from different social,
cultural, and national backgrounds to connect and interact and, in the process, take part in
community building (Kramsch, 2012). The second generation of the World Wide Web (Web 2.0)
has created unprecedented opportunities for people to communicate, collaborate, and share
information online (Thompson, 2007). Blogs, wikis and social networking offer users a new
level of interaction and interconnectedness through online communities (2007). The terms “open
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
40
communication” and “open information sharing” refer to the possibilities for communication and
participation in an online environment, which transcend physical boundaries such as the
classroom or national borders (Thompson, 2007). The open-ended aspect of online
communication is particularly adept at fostering ongoing dialogue and exchange for pedagogical
uses. Web 2.0 is particularly suitable for teaching foreign languages as it presents new ways to
provide communication and participation opportunities for students outside of the classroom, as
well as new learning opportunities (Kern et al., 2004, 2008; Warschauer & Grimes, 2007). Web
2.0 is an especially dynamic environment for the development of a broader notion of language as
inextricably embedded in culture (Kern et al., 2008; Kramsch, 2012). In education, Web 2.0
features provide invaluable opportunities for teaching and learning, yet those opportunities are
not embedded in the technology itself but in sound pedagogical research and practice (Clark,
1994; Kozma, 1994; Kern et al., 2004, 2008; Thorne, 2003; Kramsch, 2012). For the purpose of
this study, it is critical to review the ongoing dialogue on the role of computers, the method of
teaching in education in general, and in foreign language teaching in particular. The assumption
of this study is that pedagogical uses of online communication have to be grounded in sound
methodology that promotes reflection of the online experience.
Computer Technology: Medium or Method?
Several articles have attempted to define the role of technology in instruction and
learning (Clark, 1994; Kozma, 1994; Mayer, 2003). Twenty years ago, Clark (1994) and Kozma
(1994) engaged in a series of arguments on the relationship between technology and learning.
Even though computer capabilities have advanced considerably since then, their early argument
highlights the need to ground the use of technology for educational purposes in sound
methodological approaches. Furthermore, the dialogic nature of the argument paves the way for
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
41
an ongoing dialogue in media education research that raises new questions about technology and
education, learning and instruction, content and context, and method and medium (Clark, 1994;
Kozma, 1994; Mayer, 2003).
Clark (1994) and Kozma’s (1994) arguments centered on the differences between method
and medium. Richard Clark (1994) asserted that “media will never influence learning”, the title
of his response paper to criticism of his original argument on technology and learning.
Technology is a medium, insofar as it is a means to an end, whereas the content and instructional
strategy of a course is designed to promote deep learning, an end in itself (Clark, 1994).
Instructional methods are based on learning theories, and educational computer programs are
formatted in a way that align with the method. Any study that attempts to show differences in
learning outcomes based on the medium, for example, traditional teacher-centered instruction
versus computer-based instruction, mistakes the medium for the method of instruction and draws
inconclusive results (Clark, 1994). In all likelihood, any well-designed method or instructional
strategy will promote deep learning through any mode of delivery (Clark, 1994). So what is the
role of technology in promoting learning? According to Clark (1994), learning is influenced by
content and instructional method whereas media is a medium, not a method. Media, including
technology, are beneficial in economic terms. They can be efficient time-savers and cost-saving
tools but they do not directly influence learning. The question that needs to be asked when doing
comparative studies for learning and media is this: would you see similar learning gains using
another medium of instruction?
In his reply to Clark’s (1994) argument, Kozma (1994) reframes the question from “Do
media influence learning” to “In what ways can we use media to influence learning for particular
students, tasks, and situations?” The reframing of the question leads Kozma (1994) to rethink the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
42
research design and method, from a quantitative approach, to a qualitative approach that delves
into the processes of learning rather than the outcomes. Kozma (1994) proposes an interactionist
theory of media and method, rather than Clark’s (1994) dichotomy between media and method.
Kozma (1994) reframes the argument by drawing attention to the relational and interactionist
aspect of media and method, contending it is precisely within the relationship between media and
method that learning occurs, an assertion that Chapelle (2001) has developed further within the
sociocultural theory framework. Likewise Kozma (1994), draws on sociocultural theory of
learning to highlight the interrelationship between the cognitive and social processes in the
construction of knowledge through media. New capabilities in technology such as animation and
real life simulation provide opportunities for students to experience complex abstract processes.
Media offer the advantage of presenting multiple representations of concepts and offer real-life
simulation and opportunities for manipulation. This argument reflects Mayer’s (2003) theory of
multimedia learning, that text and images promote deeper learning than text alone. This research
is important to understanding the role of technology in foreign language and instruction. For
example, technology offers access to authentic materials for teaching and learning a foreign
language and provides multiple presentations that offer flexibility for learners.
In the same vein, Thorne (2003) argued that computers are cultural artifacts and Internet
communication tools are embedded in the culture of the users. Thorne (2003) developed the
notion of “cultural artifacts” to try to represent artifacts for what they mean to the users, “an
artifact’s materiality is conventional and takes its functional form from its histories of use in and
across cultural practices” (p. 40). The sociohistorical framework for Thorne’s (2003) culture-of-
use construct resonates Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, grounded in historical
materialism, the idea that “behavior can be understood only as the history of behaviors.” In his
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
43
research, Thorne (2003) has analyzed the way in which computer-mediated communication
alters traditional communication in the context of intercultural interaction. In his article on
culture-of-use, Thorne (2003) reports on three case studies of telecollaborative intercultural
exchanges to examine the nature of linguistic and intercultural relationships and the nature of
production and co-construction of meaning when mediated by the use of Internet
communication. The following are descriptions of Thorne’s (2003) cases:
Case One: In the first case, students enrolled in a French class at Berkeley were matched
with high school students in France. This exchange was also described by Thorne and Kramsch
(2002). Thorne (2003) reports on the ‘failed communication’ (an email exchange) between two
American male students and three French female students. In the details of the exchange, it is
evident that the two groups misinterpreted each other, not because of linguistic incompetence,
but because of the students’ different assumptions about what the exchange should be, what
information to exchange, and the level of personal engagement (Thorne, 2003). The assumptions
were largely generated by different rules and norms of communication and Internet
communication use in both cultures. French students, for example, were more formal in the way
they wrote their answers and less personal. They kept to the facts. The American students, on
the other hand, had hoped to build a relationship of open discussions while, according to the
interview of one of the American students “with the French students, we’d ask a question and
receive a statement” (Thorne, 2003, p. 46). The author argues that the miscommunication
problem between the French and American students was one of culture-of-use (Thorne, 2003).
The use of Internet for communication was restricted to academic use for the French students
and this may have resulted in a more academic genre of writing (Thorne, 2003). Conversely,
American students reported using the Internet several hours daily to communicate with friends
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
44
and family (Thorne, 2003). In the literature, Internet access and conventions of use have been
mentioned as a major hurdle for telecollaborative intercultural exchanges (Belz, 2002, 2004;
Warschauer, 1997).
Case two: the second case presented more positive results of an online exchange between
American students at Pennsylvania State University and engineering students in France (Thorne,
2003). In this case, all students were college students aged between 18 and 24. Students read the
same texts, watched the same films, and shared information about themselves. Furthermore, the
French students were at an engineering school of telecommunication so one might expect that
they had similar access and ease of use of Internet tools as their American counterparts.
In the article discussion section, Thorne (2003) reiterated the need for a “minimum
alignment of cultures-of-use” as a condition for the success of online intercultural exchanges. In
conclusion, Thorne (2003) suggests that computers are cultural artifacts only insofar as they are
produced by culturally and locally situated participants and productive of culturally and locally
situated discourse. The pedagogical use of online discourses should, therefore, aim at helping
students observe and reflect on their role as participants in the intercultural dialogue and the way
in which intercultural dialogue produces new ways to apprehend communication and culture.
Therefore an analysis of online communication has to be cognizant of the participants’
perspective of the situation (Thorne, 2003). Yet research in technology and foreign language
learning has traditionally focused more on the linguistic outcomes of online communication than
on other dimension of foreign language learning.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
45
Research in Computer-assisted and Network-based Language Learning
Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL)
Since the 1960s, research has primarily focused on how computers mediate learning and
how communication is mediated in the online environment (Chapelle, 2001). Computer-assisted
language learning (CALL) refers to a wide gamut of applications such as tutorials, drills,
homework, tests, instructional games, etc. (Kern et al., 2008; Chapelle, 2001). Early studies on
computers and learning in education have concentrated solely on the cognitive aspect of
language learning (Chapelle, 2001). The focus on cognition came from Krashen’s (1985) input
hypothesis (Chapelle, 2001). Early CALL research projects took place within larger projects in
educational technology that privileged a comparative approach to the research such as comparing
learning outcomes of students in computer-assisted instruction with those of students in
traditional classrooms (Chapelle, 2001). Chapelle (2001) has suggested that the focus of research
on technology and foreign languages broadens to encompass not only the cognitive aspects of
learning but also the social interactional environment in which learning occurs and has been very
critical of comparative studies. Even though socio cognitive theories of learning have widely
replaced Krashen’s input hypothesis (Chapelle, 2001), comparative studies continue to appear in
foreign language publications (Adair-Hauck, Willingham-McLain, & Youngs, 2000; Nutta,
1998; Blake, 2012; Thoms, 2012; Rubio & Thoms, 2012). Transfer studies are also concerned
with linguistic outcomes of online activity but rather than compare online and traditional
instruction, they focus on the transfer of online language use to overall language proficiency
(Kern et al., 2008).
For example, several comparative studies have examined computer-assisted activities
between peers and face-to-face (F2F) communicative classroom activities to evaluate differences
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
46
in learners’ linguistic competence (Adair-Hauck et al., 2000; Nutta, 1998; Blake, 2012; Thoms,
2012; Rubio & Thoms, 2012). These studies seek to establish a cause and effect relationship
between the computer and learning outcomes. For example, Nutta’s (1998) quasi-experiment
compared computer-based instruction and face-to-face (F2F) instruction in ESL grammar
instruction. She concluded that there was a significant difference (i.e., better outcomes for
computer-based instruction) on open-ended questions but no significant difference on fill-in the
blank/multiple choice exercises. Students in the control group used a grammar textbook and
engaged in meaningful communicative activities in the classroom while students in the
computer-based group used different materials online described as being interactive, and offering
clear grammar explanations and practice activities (Nutta, 1998). Clarity of explanation and
practice activities were not mentioned in the description of the textbook for the control group
leaving the possibility that the explanations in that grammar textbook may have been unclear and
may have resulted in lower scores for the control group. Nutta (1998) begins the results analysis
with an acknowledgement that it was difficult to distinguish what particular attributes of the
computer-based instruction may have promoted learning and therefore it was also difficult to
conclude whether the same results may have been achieved by other means. Yet Nutta (1998)
quickly dismissed the confounding evidence by saying “Nonetheless, the results showed that
computer-based grammar instruction is at least as effective as, and in some cases more effective
than, teacher-centered grammar instruction” (p. 55). Interviews and questionnaires of students’
experience in the computer-based instructional group yielded more interested results that
provided insight into the benefits of computer-based learning.
Other studies have researched the extent to which collaborative tasks versus individual
tasks, whether online or face-to-face, can promote more accurate foreign language learning
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
47
(Elola & Oskoz, 2010). Further studies focused on the process of foreign language learning in
computer-assisted communicative tasks and take an interactionist approach (Chapelle, 2001;
Thorne, 2003; Gutiérrez, 2008; Kern, 2006). Second-language acquisition theories (SLA) inform
these studies as SLA theory has evolved from the study of purely linguistic forms to the study of
how learners acquire language through communication and interaction.
The majority of recent comparative studies are designed to support hybrid and online
courses in the context of budget cuts that have recently affected foreign language departments
across American higher education institutions (Blake, 2012; Thoms, 2012; Rubio & Thoms,
2012). Other research is concerned with efficiency in the classroom and how to free up
classroom time for more meaningful tasks (Nutta, 1998). Studies have also mentioned the
proliferation of commercial online components of textbooks as a factor that has helped facilitate
hybrid course design (Thoms, 2012). Therefore, comparative studies are designed as quasi-
experiments and, in most cases, results show no significant difference between the two forms of
instruction (Adair-Hauck et al., 2000; Nutta, 1998; Blake, 2012; Thoms, 2012; Rubio & Thoms,
2012). In fact, the insignificance of the results helps to justify the proliferation of hybrid courses
for economic purposes: if there is no difference in learning outcomes between online and
traditional instruction, the online option is a better economic choice for universities. However,
comparative studies are particularly susceptible to confounding evidence such as differences in
the textbooks, instructional materials, and instructors (Clark, 1994; Chapelle, 2001).
While CALL is still a critical approach to pedagogical uses of technology for foreign
language and teaching, its emphasis on the development of linguistic competence, without
consideration of other competences such as intercultural and interpersonal communication, limits
its scope.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
48
Networked-based Language Teaching (NBLT)
Network-based language teaching (NBLT) refers to online communication for
pedagogical uses via computer networks (Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Kern et al., 2008). The
research on NBLT is primarily qualitative and focuses on what happens when students interact
and communicate in the online environment (Kern et al., 2008). According to Kern et al. (2008),
the principles of social constructivism inform and support NBLT as follows: First, the theory
accepts that knowledge is socially and culturally constructed. Secondly, the theory assumes that
collaboration among individuals is critical to learning. Finally, the theory holds that learners are
active participants in their learning and pedagogy that adopts a social constructivist framework
emphasizes a problem-based approach to teaching and learning. In addition, NBLT offers a
relevant methodology for the implementation of intercultural online exchanges. The
methodology combines advances in technology and education to create opportunities for
collaboration and communication within existing courses (Kern et al., 2008). For foreign
language teaching, NBLT offers opportunities for intercultural experiences and language use
outside of the classroom.
Telecollaboration is not new in foreign language teaching and learning. CALL included
telecollaborative projects were students shared their work online. Yet the second generation of
the World Wide Web (Web 2.0) enhances the sociocultural aspect of telecollaboration (Guth &
Helm, 2010). In fact, some researchers (Guth & Helm, 2010) would disagree with Clark’s (1994)
claim that the medium itself does not promote learning because the Internet is an important
social phenomenon that has created new contexts for interaction.
Kern, Ware, and Warschauer (2008), like Clark (1994), Kozma (1994) and Thorne
(2003), reiterated that computers are not in themselves a method of instruction but a medium that
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
49
may facilitate learning through sound pedagogy. NBLT is an approach to language teaching that
is first and foremost grounded is rigorous pedagogy and research. This approach is particularly
attractive for the implementation and evaluation of telecollaborative intercultural exchanges
because the underlying assumptions for the approach reinforce the socially constructed nature of
learning through interaction, communication, and learners’ active involvement.
Telecollaboration
Telecollaboration in foreign language instruction is defined as “a form of network-based
language teaching that links students using Internet-mediated communication tools” (Ware,
2005, p. 64). Telecollaboration is also defined as “international-language learning partnerships”
(Ware, 2005, p. 64) to refer to exchanges between students of different countries of origin.
Typically, the exchange is set up by the foreign language teacher in cooperation with a teacher at
a foreign institution whose students study English as a second-language. Cultural exchanges
between foreign language students from different countries are not new and started as direct
cultural exchanges. Julie Belz (2004) attributes the appeal of intercultural exchanges in foreign
language instruction to the success of communicative language teaching methods (CLT) that
advocated using authentic materials and learning tasks, multiple discourse options, and learner
centeredness in the process of learning and knowledge construction. In recent years, research on
the interrelationship of language and culture has provided further evidence for the pedagogical
value of intercultural exchange projects (Belz, 2004).
Furthermore, intercultural exchange projects support four of the seven principles that
Chickering and Gamson (1987) identified in response to poor learning outcomes, low motivation
and incompetent teaching in undergraduate education. Four of the principles: the development of
cooperation among students, active learning, time on task, and respect for learning differences
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
50
are particularly relevant to evaluating intercultural exchanges. The same principles guide the
networked-based language teaching approach discussed earlier (Kern et al., 2008). Cooperation
among students promotes students’ involvement in the learning process and deepens their
understanding of the other’s point of view (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Active learning occurs
through collaborations like discussions, team projects and peer feedback (Chickering & Gamson,
1987). Time on task is critical for learning (Stepp-Greany, 2002) and students learn better when
they have access to multimedia representation of the instructional materials (Mayer, 2003).
In a subsequent article, Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) examined the way in which
computer technology in education supports the seven principles of good practice. They found
that the increased opportunities for interaction online supported the principle of cooperation
between students (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). The principle of “learning by doing,” which
reinforces active learning, is supported by authentic tasks online where students apply the skills
and knowledge learned in class to authentic communication (with a native speaker for example)
(Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). Online communication gives students an opportunity to use their
language skills outside of the classroom and gives students more practice time (Chickering &
Ehrmann, 1996). Finally, when integrated in the traditional classroom curriculum, intercultural
projects can help students learn in ways that fits their learning style and ability (Chickering &
Ehrmann, 1996). Some students may prefer more structured tasks while others prefer open-ended
communication, just as some students may prefer the fast pace of synchronous online
communication while others may feel more comfortable with asynchronous writing tasks
(Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996).
Other research sees the growing interest in online intercultural projects as the result of a
second wave of studies on computer use in foreign languages that focus on practices of use and
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
51
rely on qualitative methods (Kern, 2006; Ware, 2005; Kern et al., 2004, 2008). In contrast,
earlier research on computer-assisted language learning was primarily concerned with linguistic
competence and ways to quantify online communication (Chapelle, 2001). Kern, Ware, and
Warschauer (2008) summarized qualitative research on telecollaborative exchanges around three
central themes: linguistic interaction, intercultural learning, and literacy and identity to examine
what and how studies contributed to knowledge on learning and instruction in telecollaborative
intercultural exchanges.
Further reviews of the literature on telecollaborative intercultural projects pointed out the
complexity of both the research and the implementation of such projects. Kern et al. (2008)
suggested that processes and results of online intercultural exchanges are very divergent
depending on several factors such as logistics, pedagogy, and social aspects of the exchanges.
Likewise, O’Dowd (2003) reviewed literature to identify what promotes intercultural learning in
online exchanges. Yet while the Internet may bring students in contact with each other, such
contacts do not necessarily result in intercultural understanding and learning (O’Dowd, 2003;
Kramsch & Thorne, 2002). Other studies have examined failed or missed communication in
intercultural exchanges to underscore the complexity and difficulty of researching and
implementing telecollaborative exchanges (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006; Ware, 2005). Several
studies have drawn attention to concrete hurdles that adversely affect intercultural understanding
(Belz, 2002, 2004; Ware, 2005; Müller-Hartmann, 2000).
In summary, the majority of studies on telecollaborative intercultural exchanges seek to
understand what aspects of the exchange promote intercultural competence and learning. The
studies also point to the many logistical, pedagogical, and research challenge in the
implementation and evaluation of telecollaborative exchanges.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
52
Educational Goals of Telecollaborative Intercultural Exchanges
The goal of telecollaboration is to promote intercultural understanding and language
learning through dialogue and cooperation among students (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Ware,
2005; O’Dowd, 2003; Schneider & von der Emde, 2006), time on task, active engagement of
students, and the multiple presentations of tasks (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). O’Dowd (2003)
examined the way in which intercultural learning in online exchanges promote students’
understanding of the other culture’s perspective of the world. His research question is based on
the notion that knowledge and meaning are created through dialogue and interaction with others
in such a way that allows the speaker to see the world from another person’s perspective
(Bakhtin, 1981; Kramsch, 1993). O’Dowd (2003) used Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural
communicative competence to describe what should be the pedagogical objectives of
intercultural exchanges. The model reflects a dialogic perspective of communicative competence
as situated within dialogue and interaction with others (O’Dowd, 2003). Byram’s (1997) model
(as cited in O’Dowd, 2003) identifies five goals of intercultural exchanges as follows: (1) to
promote an attitude of inquisitiveness and open-mindedness about other cultures and one’s own
culture, (2) to help students understand how other social groups interact at the social and the
individual level, (3) to develop skills to interpret and compare cultural artifacts, texts, and events,
(4) to create opportunities to discover and react to new cultural paradigms within real-time
communication, and (5) to develop the ability to discuss and evaluate cultural practices and
products of the foreign culture and one’s own culture. Therefore, it is critical to understand how
intercultural online exchanges can promote such learning.
O’Dowd (2003) identified reflection and an effective task-based structure online and in
the classroom as two essential elements of intercultural exchanges that promote learning.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
53
Reflection is essential in promoting intercultural understanding (Kern, 2000; Kramsch & Thorne,
2002). For example, students can bring their exchange logs to class to be “examined, interpreted,
and possibly re-interpreted in the light of class discussion or subsequent responses from native
speakers” (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002, p.100). The reinterpretation of online communication
within the traditional classroom reflects Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of dialogic communication in
which consensus is not necessarily achieved but one’s utterances (here the exchange logs) are
reinterpreted in relation to an “Other” (here the foreign interlocutor and peers). In fact, Kramsch
& Thorne (2002) contends that the challenge is precisely to prepare students to communicate
globally by integrating local communicative practices into the global web of communicative
practices. Belz (2004) has researched extensively different structural aspects of telecollaboration
that will create conflicts between students. While the author recognizes that structural differences
are precisely the kind of issues that lead to reflection and change of perspective, she warns
against letting dissention and conflict remain unaddressed. Instead Belz (2004) suggests using
“calculated pedagogical intervention” (p. 66) in the form of in-class interpretation and reflection
of what has happened online. For the purpose of my study, I focused on the development of
intercultural competence through interpretation and reflection as one of the goal of
telecollaborative exchanges.
An Overview of Issues in Telecollaborative Exchanges
Kramsch & Thorne (2002) described the issues that arose in an intercultural exchange
between a French college class at Berkeley, California, and a high school English class outside
of Paris. French students at the school were described as primarily from North African descent or
recent immigrants in France. The goal of the exchange was to increase intra-class interaction and
engage in critical dialogue (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002). The tools used were synchronous
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
54
computer-mediated communication (CmC) between American students and asynchronous email
exchanges between American and French students. Below I describe the study in detail.
As a pre-task, the instructor introduced the French students to the American students as
being primarily of North African descent and living in the housing projects outside of Paris. The
American students watched a French movie, “La haine” (“Hatred,” my translation), that depicts
the violence in French housing projects. The movie portrays French youths of various African
descents. The target language was used by all the students. First, the American students
brainstormed topics to be discussed with the French students using synchronous computer-
mediated communication (CMC). Secondly, the American students sent their first emails with a
list of questions about housing projects and violence in the suburbs of Paris. A collaborative
research project was used for the assessment of intercultural competences.
The evaluation of the exchange raised several problems:
• Communication in the sense of transcultural understanding was not achieved through
the exchange. Communication was more exchange of information rather than an
understanding of the larger cultural framework within which each group of students
operated.
• The American students tried to diffuse conflicts that arose in the communication
rather than understand the deeper cultural framework for the conflicts.
• Culturally different discourse genres: The way students wrote their emails represented
what was expected of them, of the genre “norm,” in their respective country. For
example, the French used a factual and impersonal genre that is used in academic
discourse. The Americans were more personal in their communication. The
differences in discourse genres resulted in misunderstandings.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
55
The study identified several implications of the findings. First, the role of the teacher is critical
for the success of the exchange. Teachers need to lead follow-up discussions in order to help
students reflect and make sense of the communication going on online (Kramsch & Thorne,
2002). Secondly, students need to be prepared for the exchange. Kramsch & Thorne (2002) insist
on the importance of preparing students to handle global communicative practices that requires
an understanding of different discourse genres and practices.
The study did not, however, discuss the researcher/instructors’ own biases in the task
design, which may have contributed to misunderstandings. The American students were shown
the movie “La haine” (“Hatred,” my translation), the story of youth violence in the poor housing
projects of the suburbs of Paris, France. In addition, Kramsch & Thorne (2002) note that the
American students were clearly aware of the differences in social class between themselves and
the French students and stereotyped the French students as all being poor and with uncertain
futures. This image corresponded to American students’ perceptions of inner cities in the United
States. What ensued was miscommunication because the French students were more diverse in
social and ethnic background than the American students had anticipated. As a result, the first
email that the American students sent to the French asked questions about violence and poverty.
The French students responded defensively, noting that racism and violence was certainly worst
in the United States than in France (Thorne, 2003). The showing of “La haine” to the American
students was the choice of faculty who planned the exchange to force conflict, as it were,
between the two groups. While conflict will arise in intercultural exchanges and may result in
intercultural misunderstanding, one has to wonder if the best way to diffuse prejudices and foster
intercultural communication is to present a film that seems like a cultural stereotype by the other
group. The planning, choice of tasks, choice of topics, and preparation of students are critical
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
56
aspects of telecollaborative intercultural exchanges that need to be weighed in as much as issues
of discursive genres and culture-in-use (Belz, 2004).
Belz (2004) reported on a three-year longitudinal research project called the Penn State
Foreign Language Telecollaboration Project at Pennsylvania State University that investigated
the effects of technology use on foreign language processes and learning outcomes of
intermediate French, German and Spanish learners, as well as the creation of best practices and
models for the integration of telecollaborative intercultural exchange in the language curriculum.
The study used a mixed method approach to investigate the exchanges. The article (2004)
describes German-American exchanges between intermediate college students in the U.S.
studying German and advanced German students studying English between 2000-2004. The
exchange was designed around four phases: pre-collaboration tasks, telecollaboration,
construction of Web project, and intensive reflection on experience.
As a pre-task, the American students were involved in activities designed to introduce
them to various aspects of intercultural communication, and the construction of a Web project to
introduce the German students to local cultural aspects of the U.S. The project consisted of
individual as well as collective contributions and included such topics as football, dorm life,
school spirit, and Penn State’s mascot. Tools used were asynchronous communication via email
and synchronous communication via chat. Students engaged in tandem reading and viewing of
films, described as parallel activities using the same texts and films (Belz, 2004). The
Telecollaborative tasks were designed and organized as follows:
1. Online introductions of students.
2. Partners explored the Web project created during the pre-task period to get to know
each other’s educational and institutional cultures.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
57
3. In preparation of tandem reading and viewing of films, students were asked to
comment on diverse topics that would ultimately come up in the parallel reading and
films. This task was design to have students refer back to their own perspective of the
other’s culture while discussing the texts and films. This task was modeled after the
Cultura project surveys.
4. Partners read parallel texts (for example, a German children’s book and its translation
for the American students, or a film with subtitles like “American Beauty”). Students
then compared the books in their original versions and translated versions.
5. Students created Web project II as a collaborative project between the American and
the German students where students produced a bilingual essay around the characters
and themes of the books and films.
6. The students in the U.S. participated in a focus group interview to discuss their
experiences in the exchange project.
7. Writing projects were assessed on content and language as well as on electronic
literacy. (Belz, 2004).
Belz (2004) has identified several structural aspects of telecollaborative intercultural
exchanges that may create conflicts and misunderstanding from partners on both sides of the
exchange. The following structural hurdles influenced students’ interaction and ultimately the
way in which partners interpreted each other’s engagement in the project:
• Misalignment of academic calendars: students had different breaks and the lack of
participation during those times might be interpreted as lack of interest in the project.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
58
• Value of foreign language: Students had different levels of proficiency so that the
American students were writing shorter emails than the German students. Shorter
emails were perceived as an indication of lack of interest in the conversation.
• Cultures-of-use of Internet tools (Thorne): Students had different norms for Internet
use and different access to computers. For example, the German students used
computers at school with limited access to the Internet while the American students
had 24 hours access to the Internet at school and outside of school. German students
had lower frequency of communication due to access issues.
• Culturally-dependent styles of communication: Belz (2004) gives the example of the
directness of the German students which may be interpreted as “rude” by the
American students and the American students’ tendency to avoid certain subjects or
to diffuse conflicts as a sign of immaturity from the German students’ perspective.
In an earlier study, Belz (2002) examined the exchange of 16 learners of German at Penn
State University and 20 German learners of English at Justus-Liebig-Universität. Her review of
several dyads in the exchange and her categorization of groups into low/high functionality is of
particular interest (Belz 2002). A quantitative analysis of the electronic interaction between an
American and a German student revealed frequent and long interaction and frequent questions
between the students, which may indicate a high level of engagement and interest in the
exchange (Belz, 2002). Furthermore the group initiated peer correction and feedback of their
online writing (Belz, 2002). On the other hand, low functionality groups are characterized by
very low levels of participation, lack of involvement in their online exchanges, and triviality of
their email content (Belz, 2002). Belz (2002) concludes that some students may struggle with the
active roles that they have to take in the telecollaborative learning environment. Students may
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
59
expect a teacher-led class that emphasizes language instruction rather than the student-centered
intercultural project (Belz, 2001).
Likewise, Ware (2005) focuses on the reasons for “missed” communication between two
groups of participants in an online intercultural exchange between advanced students of German
at an American university and advanced students of English at a German university. Ware (2005)
draws on Belz’s (2002) notion of low/high functionality to identify factors that undermine
participation and communication. Ware (2005) recognizes several advantages of using online
telecollaborative exchanges in the foreign language course. For example, they provide rich,
interactive, and authentic forums for communication (Ware, 2005). Online telecollaborative
exchanges also represent a springboard for in class discussions, as online data offers a database
for authentic communication and reflection essays. Yet while online intercultural forums provide
opportunities for students to engage in deeper communication, the exchange does not guarantee
deeper interaction (Ware, 2005; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; O’Dowd, 2003). In fact, Kramsch &
Thorne (2002) has argued that being connected did not mean students communicated at a deeper
level. In the article, Ware (2005) identifies three major conflicts between the groups: different
expectations and norms of Internet communication, social and institutional factors such as the
low value placed on foreign language learning in the U.S. as opposed to the high value placed on
English in non-English speaking European countries, and differences in motivation and use of
time which was also linked to valuation of foreign language learning in each country. The
exchange, which took place over three weeks on Blackboard, led the author to identify the need
for research that looks at ways to better integrate online telecollaboration back into classroom
activities (Ware 2005). How can online intercultural learning provide opportunities for classroom
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
60
learning (Ware, 2005)? How can online exchanges be articulated and integrated into the
traditional curriculum in a way that offers opportunities for reflection (Ware, 2005)?
Other studies have shown the structural difficulties in organizing a telecollaborative
intercultural exchange (Cloke, 2010). In a project involving an exchange of first year and third
year college students of Italian at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and students of English
at the University of Padova, Italy, Cloke (2010) reported on the structural difficulties
encountered and the “lessons learned.” The first year group had 18 students and the third year
group had 47 students. The author described the objective of the exchange as developing
students’ linguistic skills and intercultural learning (Cloke, 2010). However, the integration of
the exchange in the syllabi differed between the Australian teacher and the Italian teacher. Italian
students were not required to participate and were not assessed on the exchange whereas the
Australian students were required to participate and were assessed on their participation.
Students participated in the target (L2) language. Wiki was used for discussion and class
collaboration (Cloke, 2010).
As a pre-task, students brainstormed topics they were interested in discussing in the
exchange. It had been decided by the teachers that the broad topic would be youth issues. First,
students wrote personal introductions on the wiki and produced their wiki pages in class in small
groups. Then, students posted their comments/questions using the discussion tab of the wiki and
responded to comments/questions from their peers. Finally, students corrected their peers’
messages.
First year students were assessed individually on their written tasks but not on their
collaboration tasks, while third year students received credit but it is unclear what the assessment
consisted of. The method of evaluation of the project was not explicitly described but the results
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
61
indicated that a survey was conducted after the exchange. According to the Cloke (2010),
students were enthusiastic about the exchange and felt that they had improved their
communication skills, writing skills, cultural skills and computer skills. The study highlighted
several difficulties that have been repeatedly mentioned in studies on telecollaborative
intercultural exchanges as follows:
• Time zone difference (difficult for synchronous exchanges)
• Large number of participants: difficult to manage
• Different institutional constraints
• Difficulty of teacher collaboration
• Problem with technology: students did not always understand how wikis worked
Cloke (2010) made a list of “lessons learned” from the difficulty she encountered:
• Smaller groups are easier to manage than larger groups of students
• Good and regular communication is needed between the teachers
• Communication at regular intervals is needed between students in the exchange
• More monitoring of student exchanges by the teachers
• Participation has to be equal (problem of required versus voluntary participation)
Several problems arise in the implementation of telecollaborative intercultural exchanges.
Studies have identified several factors that may undermine intercultural experiences from
differences in individual goals and motivation, to institutional and organizational barriers, to
cultural misunderstandings (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Belz, 2002, 2004; Ware, 2005; O’Dowd
& Ritter, 2006; Cloke, 2010). Yet these hurdles may simply be a reflection of the complexity of
intercultural relations in the real world. When students are exposed to the difficulty of
negotiating conflictive ways of thinking, behaving, and going about business, they may become
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
62
better problem solvers. Reflective practice in the classroom may help students address conflict
and develop intercultural competence.
The Role of Tasks in Promoting Reflection
Telecollaborative projects for foreign languages generally follow a task-based approach
to foreign language learning where students have clear and specific goals and an explicit
outcome for the exchange (Helm & Guth, 2010). A task-based language teaching approach is
defined as the use of activities that promote negotiation of meaning based on the communicative
needs of learners and based on real world situations (Müller-Hartman, 2000). Authenticity of the
task is critical for task-based language learning. Yet the literature provides no clear consensus on
task design. For example, should the teachers or the students decide on the topics of the tasks?
Should peer feedback be included in the tasks? What types of activities should take place in the
exchange? Should the tasks be informal or structured? Should tasks focus on linguistic forms or
on intercultural reflection? (Helm & Guth, 2010; O’Dowd & Ware, 2009).
It is essential to increase student interest in the task to motivate them to work towards
intercultural competence. Students will more easily choose to do something that is of interest to
them (Ambrose et al., 2010). While students may not have a lifelong interest in French, they can
have situational interest in some aspect of French culture. Telecollaborative tasks can be selected
by topics that students are interested in from a broad range of interests like technology, science,
music, food, and the arts. Students should see the relevance and value of intercultural
competence (Ambrose et al., 2010). If students find the task interesting, they will more likely
enjoy it provided that the activity fulfills personal interests, personal values or needs (Ambrose et
al., 2010). Furthermore students will be motivated to achieve mastery of the task if they gain
satisfaction from their accomplishment (Ambrose et al., 2010). It is also important to note that
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
63
time on task is essential to promote achievement (Stepp-Greany, 2002; Chickering & Gamson,
1987). In a 2002 study of student perception of technology in a college Spanish course, Stepp-
Greany (2002) reported that 71% of the students felt that they invested more time in the
computer-assisted course than they would have in a traditional classroom-only course.
In addition, the role of tasks in telecollaborative exchanges is critical as it determines
what aspect of language learning will be addressed. O’Dowd and Ware (2009) identified a lack
of guidelines in the literature for task design in the context of telecollaboration. While research
has focused mainly on learning outcomes of telecollaborative intercultural exchanges, few have
addressed the role of tasks (O’Dowd & Ware, 2009). Yet, task-based language learning differs
greatly between online and face-to-face as the online intercultural environment is by nature
plurilingual and pluricultural, while the classroom may be more homogeneous in terms of
language and culture (O’Dowd & Ware, 2009). O’Dowd and Ware (2009) reviewed 40 articles
on telecollaborative intercultural exchanges and organized the large gamut of tasks used in
online exchanges into 12 categories. Further, the authors (2009) organized the 12 categories into
three broad groupings: information exchange tasks, comparison and analysis tasks, and
collaborative tasks. The sequencing of the tasks according to the three broad categories make it
easier to integrate the multiple objectives of telecollaborative exchanges. For example, the
information exchange tasks are generally used at the beginning of the exchange as a way to
introduce the exchange partners and familiarize students with their partner’s personal and
cultural background (O’Dowd & Ware, 2009). The second type of tasks, comparison and
analysis tasks, bring students deeper into critical analysis of intercultural products such as
artifacts or events (O’Dowd & Ware, 2009). Negotiation of meaning is usually an objective of
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
64
this type of tasks. Finally collaborative tasks require students to work together on a final project,
which demands communication and planning between partners (O’Dowd & Ware, 2009).
Guth and Marini-Maio (2010) reported on an online exchange which they created tasks
for that followed the model for collaborative tasks developed by O’Dowd and Ware (2009). In
addition to the three broad categories of tasks, they added a reflective practice phase of the
exchange. Table 2 shows the four categories of tasks that promote the development of
intercultural competence. The majority of studies on telecollaborative intercultural exchanges
emphasize the need for reflection throughout the integration of the exchange into the traditional
classroom curriculum (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Belz, 2002, 2004; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006;
Müller-Hartman, 2000; Guth & Marini-Maio, 2010). The exchange project involved 28
American students at Dickinson College and 31 Italian students at the University of Padova,
Italy. All the students were at an intermediate language level. The goals for the exchange were
established in accordance with ACTFL five Cs: communication, culture, comparisons,
connections, and communities. Tasks were developed to promote each area of the ACTFL
standards. Students communicated via Skype for a weekly synchronous exchange and used wiki
for asynchronous work on collaborative writing projects. Students in the U.S. were assessed on
the collaborative writing assignments and on participation. Students were also required to peer
and self-assess online as part of their grades. Finally, students had regular reflective practice
through guided classroom discussions and they also reflected on what they had learned (Guth &
Marini-Maio, 2010).
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
65
Table 2
Tasks that Promote Intercultural Competence. Adapted from Guth and Marini-Maio (2010)
Information Exchange Comparison & Analysis Product Creation Reflective Practice
Writing personal
introductions in L2 on the
wiki.
Through topics that were
largely part of the
American curriculum,
students discussed on
Skype about differences
between various political,
cultural, and social aspect
of their countries.
Collaborative writing
assignment: The assignment
was based on the first Skype
discussion in which students
were asked to imagine
themselves as international
students at their respective
universities.
Reflective practice
through guided
classroom
discussions.
Pre-task before each Skype
session: Students prepared
questions on the topic
posted on the wiki.
The Italian students wrote
about being a student at
Dickinson College in English
and the Italian students wrote
about Padova in Italian.
Students reflected
on what they had
learned.
Students discussed on
Skype what it would be like
to be an international
student at their respective
universities. Students were
advised to exchange URLs
of online resources.
Step 1: Collective authoring.
Step 2: Feedback on language
use from native speakers.
Similarly, Schneider and Von der Emde (2006) have emphasized the need for reflection
and meta-reflection in intercultural exchanges in order to give students opportunities to develop
their own intercultural understanding. The authors (2006) reported on an exchange involving 14
students from Vassar in the United States and 11 students from the University of Münster in
Germany. The exchange was integrated in the syllabus but was not the primary focus of the
course. Students analyzed a common topic: school shootings and gun control in the U.S. and
Germany, a topic that triggered a great deal of controversy on both sides of the exchange
(Schneider & Von der Emde, 2006). The authors suggested developing activities so that students
can take “a step back from the discussions and reflect on them” (Schneider & Von der Emde,
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
66
2006, p. 196). For example, students in the exchange were asked to write a summary of their
online conversations (Schneider & Von der Emde, 2006). Students also discussed the conflicts
they encountered with their partners (Schneider & Von der Emde, 2006). In a subsequent
interview, students at Vassar stated that the reflective practice in class was very important to
understanding what other partners were experiencing (Schneider & Von der Emde, 2006).
Reflective practice may help students build close relationships with their foreign partners.
The task design in Guth and Marini-Maio’s (2010) project promoted the integration of the
exchange into the traditional curriculum and can be used as a blueprint for exchange projects that
seek to integrate in-class reflection into the curriculum.
Student Perceptions of Telecollaboration
The learner’s motivation and expectations contribute a great deal to the success or failure
of an intercultural exchange (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). In addition, organizational and strategic
factors at the classroom and the institution levels may also influence student motivation and
expectations. Finally, sociocultural factors will also affect the way students perceive their
experience in the exchange.
O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) reviewed several studies on intercultural exchanges to
establish an inventory of reasons for failed exchanges. They defined failed communication as
low participation, hostilities between the participants, indifference towards the project and
negative feeling towards the partner and/or their culture. Why would students have a negative
perception of the intercultural exchange? O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) divided the reasons for
failed exchanges into three categories, which represent three levels of involvement or influence
in a telecollaborative intercultural exchanges: the individual level (learners, motivation and
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
67
expectations), the classroom level (teachers, tasks, curriculum), and the social and institutional
aspect (the objectives of the institution, the social norms, and the level of communication).
At the individual level, students may have different expectations regarding language
accuracy, the length of written communication, and the response time of their partners in
asynchronous exchanges (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). Greater awareness of partner’s specific
situation and expectations, as well as communication between both teachers on each side of the
exchange, can increase student satisfaction and lower tensions between learners (O’Dowd &
Ritter, 2006). At the classroom level, the relationship between the two teachers in the exchange
is critical, with the authors emphasizing the importance of “virtual team teaching” (O’Dowd &
Ritter, 2006, p. 630). Secondly, task design requires careful planning and should reflect the
interest of all participants. Yet teachers often spend more time on the organization and structure
of the project than on content (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). In addition, the expectations of the
students may clash with those of the teachers. For example, students complained that teachers
failed to help them make corrections to their messages to their partners, which resulted in
miscommunication. Other students complained that the teacher’s structured tasks did not allow
for the development of more personal relationships. The authors suggest that a pre-exchange
questionnaire to students is a way for the teachers to find out about students’ expectations and to
involve students in the choice of discussion topics (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). Finally, O’Dowd
and Ritter (2006) mention learner-matching issues. An example of mismatch occurred between
the Berkeley students and the French Lycée students in Kramsch and Thorne’s (2002) article.
The age and maturity of college versus high school students may have been a reason for failed
communication in the exchange. Other issues of learners mismatch include differences in
language proficiency, which can lead to shorter messages from the students whose proficiency is
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
68
lower and interpreted as indifference or rudeness by the partner (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). The
authors emphasize the importance of pre-exchange tasks and briefings at the classroom level to
avoid disappointments and tensions (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006).
At the socioinstitutional level, the degree of access and know-how in technology can be
problematic (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006; Warschauer, 1997). Students may become frustrated by
the lack of participation of their partners if they do not understand that access, not lack of
interest, is an issue. Likewise, Belz (2002) reported on the uneven access to the Internet between
American students who had 24 hour Internet access at their institution and at home, and German
students who only had two hours of free Internet access at school daily. Similarly, Kramsch &
Thorne (2002) reported that some of the communication problems between American and French
students were due to the French student not having their own email account and having to send
their messages through their teacher’s email. Another organizational and structural hurdle that
may affect student perceptions of the intercultural experience is the organization of the course of
study at foreign institutions, which are very different from U.S. institutions. For example,
academic calendars, goals and assessments, as well as the physical organization of universities
can add to structural and organizational hurdles in telecollaborative exchanges (O’Dowd &
Ritter, 2006). Cloke (2010) reported that the Italian students in the Dickinson College-University
of Padova exchange were not required to participate and were not formally assessed on their
participation, while the American students were. Such differences in the planning of the
exchange may result in differences in student motivation and participation and lead to
misunderstandings and frustration.
Yet other studies report more positive results of student perceptions on the online
component of a foreign language course. Stepp-Greany (2002) concluded that the multimedia
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
69
effect of online instruction can better respond to the diverse learning styles of students. In the
case of intercultural exchanges, some students may like the asynchronous writing in blogs, which
gives them time to compose their question or answer while others may prefer oral
communication in synchronous exchanges such as Skype. In her review of the literature, the
author identified three major benefits of the use of technology in the foreign language classroom:
the development of independent learning, the feeling of control that students get online resulting
in lower anxiety than in the traditional classroom, and students’ increased motivation that derives
from the ability to communicate in the foreign language (Stepp-Greany, 2002).
Stepp-Greany (2002) examined student perceptions about technology use for college
Spanish instruction: 358 students answered a questionnaire that included 45 questions all on a
Likert scale. The results highlighted several factors that contribute to positive student perceptions
of technology in a foreign language course. Students strongly agreed that the role of the teacher
as facilitator was critical to a positive online experience in the foreign language course. Adequate
access to computers was an important aspect of the success of an online experience, but the
majority of the students (73%) preferred working in a regularly scheduled language lab, rather
than on their own computer (Stepp-Greany, 2002). The majority of the students (71%) felt that
effort and time invested online resulted in learning and greater opportunities to learn about the
culture in an authentic environment (Stepp-Greany, 2002). Over half of the students believed that
the online activities helped them improve communication skills in the target language but fewer
than 50% agreed that the online activities helped them with writing skills (Stepp-Greany, 2002).
Finally, over half of the students agreed that they enjoyed online activities and that the course
was more interesting than a traditional Spanish course (Stepp-Greany, 2002).
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
70
In a qualitative study of three email exchange projects between German and American
students, Müller-Hartmann (2000) reported that the personal level of interaction, usually in phase
one of the exchange, was the most significant for the students. Students on both sides of the
exchange jointly read literary texts that they then discussed online. Müller-Hartmann (2000)
concluded that the introductory exchange of personal information, the matching of students by
affinities, and the integration of personal comments with the academic content of the course were
critical factors for the success of telecollaborative exchanges. Furthermore, the development of
personal relationships between partners helped the students to better engage in activities related
to the joint reading of literary texts (Müller-Hartmann, 2000). Teachers should foster
interpersonal relationships by encouraging the exchange of pictures and personal letters in and
outside of structured tasks. On the other hand, Belz (2002) found that differences in language
proficiency between partners affect interpersonal relationships and may lead to lack of interest in
the project and frustration.
Stepp-Greany’s study (2002) confirms other reports on the importance of the instructors
in student perceptions of the intercultural experience (Thorne & Black, 2007; Ware & Kramsch,
2005; Belz, 2002, 2004; Ware, 2005; Kern, 2000). The success of online exchanges as measured
by students’ perceptions depends largely on the instructors. According to Kern (2000), the
teacher plays an essential part in fostering critical reflection on the online exchange experience,
and developing cultural understanding. The teacher facilitates reflection through follow-up
discussions (Kern, 2000). Follow-up discussions allow students to not only make sense of the
communication with their foreign partners but also the miscommunication that may have
occurred. Students can bring their communication logs to class as a way to “examine, interpret,
and possibly re-interpret in light of class discussion or subsequent responses from native
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
71
speakers” (Kern, 2000, p. 199). The dialogic approach follows the notion that intercultural
communication should not seek to reach a final synthesis or consensus but instead, intercultural
communication should be an endless dialogue where meaning emerges from past and present
interpretation. Bakhtin (1981) suggested that meaning is not based on any fixed identities but the
product of difference between past and present interpretations.
Müller-Hartmann (2000) suggested that teachers should facilitate discussions that focus
on controversial issues to “engage students in discussions about intercultural skills, such as
finding the right tone of voice, how to answer a possibly offensive letter, or how to deal with
issues of indirectness and irony” (p. 143). The author reported on a telecollaborative exchange
involving the joint reading of literary texts that provided content for online discussions and
concluded that telecollaborative exchanges have to be fully integrated with classroom activities
so that negotiation of meaning within the local context of the classroom may promote
intercultural understanding and learning (Müller-Hartmann, 2000).
Student perceptions of the intercultural experience vary greatly. They depend on a variety
of individual, structural, and sociocultural factors. It is critical that teachers integrate thoroughly
every aspect of the exchange in the curriculum so as to communicate to the students all the
background information that may affect their experience. The literature offers evidence of the
importance of the personal aspect of intercultural exchanges (Müller-Hartmann, 2000; Schneider
& Von der Emde, 2006; Guth & Marini-Maio, 2010). Teachers should encourage the exchange
of personal information from the beginning of the exchange. Furthermore, teachers need to
promote reflection of the experience through regular in-class discussions. Byram’s (1997) model
of intercultural communication and competence should guide teachers on how to help students
think through their own belief and values and open themselves to new perspectives.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
72
Conclusion
This chapter reviews multiple perspectives in the literature on pedagogical uses of online
communication for foreign language learning and instruction and provided an overview of the
goals, issues, tasks, and student perceptions of telecollaborative intercultural exchanges and the
way in which intercultural exchanges can be integrated in the traditional curriculum to promote
intercultural understanding through reflection. Bakhtin’s (1981) dialogic notion of culture, in
particular language, provides the theoretical framework for the study. Dialogicality is a very
relevant theory for a focus on intercultural understanding in foreign language instruction insofar
as communication in a foreign language, and within a foreign cultural context, implies multiple
and complex perspectives. The concepts of translingual and transcultural competence proposed
by the MLA Ad Hoc Committee shifts the teaching of culture away from sociolinguistic norms
towards an integration of communication as dialogic practice. Byram’s (1997) model of
intercultural communication and competence guides the learning objectives of the intercultural
exchange. Network-based language teaching provides the theoretical framework for the use of
computer technology in the foreign language classroom.
While the research in technology and foreign language teaching and learning has
traditionally examined how technology promoted linguistic competence (Chapelle, 2001;
Lantolf, 2000; Blake, 2012; Donato, 1994; Nutta, 1998), a new wave of research has adopted a
broader view of language learning that includes intercultural competence (Wegerif, 2008;
Kramsch, 2012; Ware, 2005; Kern et al., 2004, 2008). The development of linguistic competence
is a critical aspect of language learning, without which it would be impossible to comprehend
another culture. Yet the opposite is also true. Language is embedded in culture, and without an
understanding of the social, cultural, and historical aspects of language, language is nothing more
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
73
than an instrument to diffuse information (Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 2012). The intercultural
competence model promotes the development of a comprehensive set of skills that includes the
ability to communicate in a foreign language to obtain information, as well as the ability to
interpret and reflect on multiple cultural perspectives (Schneider & Von der Emde, 2006).
The goal of telecollaboration is to promote intercultural understanding and language
learning through dialogue and cooperation among students. Even though studies point to the
many logistical, pedagogical, and research challenges in the implementation and evaluation of
telecollaborative intercultural exchanges, such exchanges remain a unique opportunity for
students to reflect on language and culture. Schneider and Von der Emde (2006) and Guth and
Marini-Maio’s (2010) task design models provided a blueprint for the design of the intercultural
exchange in this study. Secondly, O’Dowd and Ritter’s (2006) inventory of the reasons for failed
communication provided guidelines for the organization and implementation of the exchange at
the student, the classroom, the institution, and the sociocultural levels. Third, Byram’s (1997)
model of intercultural competence offered guidelines to identify goals for the exchange and to
evaluate students’ intercultural competence. Finally, student perceptions of the online
intercultural exchange in which they participated were examined. Chapter 3 summarizes the
methodology that was used in conducting this study.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
74
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study aims to understand how a transatlantic intercultural exchange between
students in a French class at an American university and students of ESL at a French university
can encourage reflective practice and promote intercultural competence, and what are students’
perceptions of the exchange. The chapter is organized into several sections that guide the
research design. First, the research questions and the research design are introduced. The second
section offers an overview of action research and ethnography, the method approaches used in
this study to answer the research questions. Third, population and sample are presented. Fourth,
data collection is described in detail. Fifth, validity and reliability of the results are discussed.
Finally, an overview of the data analysis, developed in chapter four, concludes this chapter.
The study’s main concern was to understand the online intercultural experience from the
participants’ perspectives. Therefore this study is qualitative as “the overall purposes of
qualitative research are to achieve an understanding of how people make sense out of their lives,
delineate the process (rather than the outcome or product) of meaning-making, and describe how
people interpret what they experience” (Merriam, 2009, p. 14). This study is a hybrid of action
research and ethnography. In this study, action research provided the process and tool for
planning, action, monitoring, and reflection in the implementation and evaluation of the online
intercultural exchange. In addition, action research provided the means for the students “to
engage in systematic inquiry and investigation to ‘design’ an appropriate way of accomplishing a
desired goal and to evaluate its effectiveness” (Stringer, 2007, p. 6). In ethnographic research,
“the lens of culture must be used to understand the phenomenon” (Merriam, 2009, p. 29).
Therefore action research and ethnography are two particularly relevant research strategies to
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
75
implement a new intercultural exchange initiative, to understand how students interact in the
intercultural exchange, how they make meaning of the other culture and their own culture, and
how they perceive the exchange experience.
Guiding Research Questions
This study sought to understand how an online intercultural exchange between students in
a French class at an American university and students of ESL at a French university could be
integrated into the existing French language curriculum in a way that encourages reflective
practice and promotes intercultural competence. Four key questions guided the research:
1. How can online intercultural exchanges be successfully designed and implemented?
2. How can reflective practice be developed and integrated into the existing foreign
language curriculum?
3. How can online exchanges between students in the US and students in the target-
language country promote the development of intercultural competence in foreign
language learning? Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural communicative
competence (ICC) framed the inquiry around three sub-questions. Each sub-question
exmined one of three components of ICC: attitudes towards the other culture,
knowledge of the other culture and cultural processes, and intercultural skills (Byram,
1997).
a. What are students’ attitudes towards the other culture?
b. What knowledge do students have about social processes? Do students
recognize how other cultures perceive them?
c. What intercultural skills have students developed in the intercultural
exchange?
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
76
4. What are student perceptions of the online intercultural exchange they participated
in?
Research Design
The purpose of this study was four-fold: (1) to plan, implement, and evaluate an online
intercultural exchange, (2) to collect and analyze data in order to understand how an online
intercultural exchange can be successfully designed and implemented, (3) to collect and analyze
data from online and classroom activities related to the intercultural exchange so as to determine
how the project’s integration into the existing French language curriculum promotes reflective
practice and intercultural competence, (4) to analyze students’ perceptions of the exchange. The
two qualitative research strategies, action research and ethnography, were conducted using
multiple methods of data collection: participant observations, analysis of online logs, students’
reflective essays, and open-ended survey of students who participated in the exchange.
Qualitative Methods
Several definitions of qualitative method might be used but for the purpose of my study I
relied on Merriam’s (2009) and Creswell’s (2009) expanded definitions, lists of characteristics,
and guidelines to define qualitative studies. According to Merriam (2009), the terms “qualitative
method” or “qualitative inquiry” provide a single common category for a variety of different
research strategies that have to some extent a different focus. Yet all qualitative studies have a
common objective: they seek to “achieve an understanding of how people make sense out of
their lives, delineate the process (rather than the outcome or product) of meaning-making, and
describe how people interpret what they experience” (Merriam, 2009, p. 14). Qualitative
researchers are “interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they
construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (Merriam, 2009,
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
77
p. 5). Based on this definition and my orientation, qualitative methods are appropriate for this
study whose purpose is to understand student experiences in an online intercultural exchange.
Merriam (2009) identified four key characteristics of qualitative studies: the centrality of the
participants’ perspective on the research interest, the role of the researcher as the main
instrument for data collection and analysis, the inductive process of the study, and finally, the
rich description of participants’ interviews, and the researcher’s field notes and observations.
Other characteristics, such as an emergent and flexible design, a purposeful and small sample,
and deep and frequent contact with participants, may not define all qualitative studies but are
nonetheless common to qualitative studies (Merriam, 2009). The characteristics of the qualitative
study are particularly well suited for this research as the focus is the participants’ perspectives on
their experience in the online intercultural exchange. In addition, the study used multiple sources
of data, such as students’ surveys, essays, and online communication to understand the
interaction of students with their partners in France and with their own culture.
Creswell (2009) outlines several criteria that the researcher has to consider when
selecting a research design. Philosophical assumptions, strategy of inquiries, method, the
research problem, the personal experience of the researcher, and the audience for whom the
study is intended, are all essential criteria to consider when planning the study (Creswell, 2009).
While this study seeks to understand the experience of learners in online intercultural exchanges,
the goal of the study is also to understand how things are happening (Stringer, 2007). Thus this
study adopted a dual approach: community-based action research to guide the design and
evaluation process of the intercultural exchange (Stringer, 2007), and an ethnographic approach
to understand the interactions of learners both with others as well as within their own culture
(Merriam, 2009).
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
78
Community-Based Action Research
Applied research is common in education as a way to evaluate programs and practices
(Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) described applied research as the systematic collection of data
and evidence to determine the worth of a program, process or technique to inform decision-
making. Stringer (2007) suggested using this approach to inquiry to develop special projects and
programs in areas of curriculum development, evaluation and classroom instruction. This study
adopted action research as an approach to implement and evaluate the worth and value of a
telecollaborative intercultural exchange in an intermediate French language course. Stringer
(2007) defined the main purpose of action research as providing “the means for people to engage
in systematic inquiry and investigation to ‘design’ an appropriate way of accomplishing a desired
goal and to evaluate its effectiveness” (p. 6). Action research is based on the assumption that
participants in the study belong to a “community of interest” and should be included in the
process of inquiry that Stringer (2007) refers to as a “participatory process” (p. 6). In this study,
students were active participants in an online community of foreign language students as well as
active participants in the study. Furthermore, Stringer (2007) underscores the fundamental
“dialogic, hermeneutic approach to evaluate” that “implies a more democratic, empowering, and
humanizing approach to inquiry, which is the ideological basis for community-based action
research” (p. 10). Likewise, this study approached the intercultural exchange through the lens of
dialogic communication, defined as a dialogue where meaning emerges from interpretation and
reflection (Bakhtin, 1981; Wegerif, 2008), so as to empower students to explore and interpret
intercultural interaction through a non-hierarchical worldview. In this study, students explored
their partner’s culture in their own terms and students were engaged in the evaluation of the
exchange through in-class debriefing and in the open-ended survey. Several researchers have
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
79
adopted action research as a relevant approach for researching network-based intercultural
communication (O’Dowd, 2003; Shetzer & Warschauer, 2000). Shetzer and Warschauer (2000)
suggested that in action research, teachers and students work collaboratively “to reflect critically
on the issues they discovered during their research and to revise future teaching, learning, or
research plans” (p. 183). In this study, action research guiding the planning, action, evaluation,
and reflection cycles of the intercultural exchange and all stakeholders were involved in the
process (Stringer, 2007).
Ethnography
According to Merriam (2009), the purpose of ethnography is to “strive to understand the
interaction of individuals not just with others, but also with the culture of the society in which
they live” (p. 23). Ethnography is both the process of inquiry and the product of the inquiry in
the form of a written ethnography (Merriam, 2009). Thus in this online intercultural exchange,
both researcher and students engaged in an ethnographic inquiry of culture (the foreign culture,
the online environment culture, and the foreign language culture) and were guided to reflect
upon their experiences in students’ blogs, essays and survey, and the researcher’s reflective field
notes, all of which are ethnographic products (O’Dowd, 2003; Merriam, 2009). The ethnographic
approach is particularly relevant for the teacher/researcher as the approach requires immersion as
a participant observer, direct participation in some of the activities taking place at the site, and
reliance on some of the participants, all of which are part of the teacher’s daily involvement with
students. Ethnographies are characterized by “thick description” that are not only descriptive but
also interpretive in nature (Merriam, 2009, p. 28). Because of its focus on human society and
culture (Merriam, 2009), ethnography is the best-suited approach for this study.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
80
The Role of the Researcher
In action research, the researcher is a facilitator who assists and supports the stakeholders
in the inquiry (Stringer, 2007). Action research takes a grass-root orientation to research with the
participants as “the primary focus of attention and the source of decision-making” (Stringer,
2007, p. 25). Yet the qualitative researcher has limitations and biases that may interfere with the
validity of the study. O’Dowd (2003), for example, described the advantages and limitations of
the teacher/researcher in the telecollaborative intercultural exchange. On the one hand, the dual
role enabled the researcher to immerse himself in “the community of learning” and to build “a
relationship of trust” (O’Dowd, 2003, p. 124), an essential component of qualitative studies. On
the other hand, O’Dowd (2003) and Merriam (2009) insisted on the need to identify and monitor
the researcher’s biases in the interpretation of the data. One way to do this is by triangulating the
data. In pursuit of this, it is critical to apply various techniques such as respondent validation,
engagement in data collection and reflexivity to ensure the validity of the findings (Merriam,
2009). For example, O’Dowd (2003) kept a reflexive journal as part of his study of his own
students’ intercultural experience.
In this study, the ethnographic approach was used to understand how students interpreted
their experience in the intercultural exchange (Merriam, 2009), while action research helped the
researcher to understand how the telecollaborative intercultural exchange worked in the
particular setting of the class (Stringer, 2007). Validity of the observations must be assessed to
avoid possible shortcomings and biases of the teacher/researcher (Merriam, 2009). The following
sections provide a detailed description of the research design by discussing qualitative methods
and the types of data collection, analysis and interpretation that were used in this study.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
81
Population and Sample
Population
Students participating in this study were full-time undergraduates at a large research
university in the west coast of the United States. As part of their general degree requirement, all
students at this university have to study one to two years of a foreign language, depending on
their major. Students in the School of Humanities and students in the International Studies major
have a two-year foreign language requirement. Twenty-six students in the American group
participating in this study were enrolled in the first quarter of a three-quarter sequence of
intermediate French (French 2A). Twenty-five students were American and one student was an
international student from China. The majority of students were juniors and seniors of traditional
college age. Three students were freshmen. French 2A was one of three sections in a multi-
section intermediate French course offered in the fall quarter, and the only class selected to
participate in the online intercultural exchange and the study. For this study, the sample of
students was required to participate in the exchange as part of their course work. Students
voluntarily chose to participate in the study and voluntarily chose to respond to the survey. In the
exchange, students gained intercultural understanding and may have gained linguistic
competence. Two French groups of fifteen students each, 21 females and 9 males, from the
Institute of Technology, Bordeaux, France, participated in the exchange. Five of the students
were international students from China, Morocco, Belgium, and Cameroun. All the French
students were enrolled in a Master’s program in science. They were all 21 and 22 years old.
Sampling Procedures
In qualitative studies, purposeful sampling is used to provide rich information on the
specific case under study (Merriam, 2009). The participants selected should directly experience
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
82
the phenomenon of interest (Merriam, 2009). In action research, the major criterion for selection
of the sample is “the extent to which the group or individual is affected by or has an effect on the
problem or issue of interest” (Stringer, 2007, p. 43). Therefore this study targeted 26 students
enrolled in an intermediate French class in order to gain an in-depth understanding of college
student experience in the online intercultural exchange, as well as gaining an understanding of
the way the exchange may be successfully integrated in the existing curriculum. The selection of
this sample was made on the basis of convenience sampling but also represented a typical sample
insofar as the selected participants had the profile of average or typical intermediate French
college students at the university where the study took place (Merriam, 2009).
Research involving human subjects requires specific steps to protect participants from
harm that could result from their participation in the study. In action research, one way to ensure
the protection of participants is informed consent, a document outlining the goal and processes of
the study (Stringer, 2007). New ethical issues arose as a result of greater use of the Internet for
research and education (Merriam, 2009). Questions of ethics are of particular concern for this
study as it involves the use of web communication. Merriam (2009) indicates four ethical issues
that need to be addressed in Internet research: obtaining informed consent from the participants,
protecting confidentiality and security of information, defining the public and the private, and
establishing procedures to allow for participants’ comments and questions. All these issues were
addressed in this study. Finally, the project was approved by the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) through the University of Southern California and qualified for an exemption from IRB
review (USC UPIRB # UP-13-00354). The university where the study took place accepted the
exempt status. Under FDA regulations, the IRB has a responsibility to review and monitor
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
83
research involving human subjects (http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/
ucm126420.htm).
Instrumentation
In qualitative studies, the researcher is the main instrument for data collection and
analysis (Merriam, 2009). The nature of the inquiry, understanding a phenomenon, lends itself to
the human instrument, which is able to respond quickly and adapt to the particulars of the inquiry
(Merriam, 2009). In addition, multiple tools were used in the study to collect data: inventories for
the evaluation of the exchange and task design (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006; Guth & Marini-Maio,
2010), and Byram’s (1997) model for the evaluation of intercultural competence.
Data Collection
Organization of the exchange. French language students enrolled in French 2A in the
fall quarter 2013 participated in an online intercultural exchange with English-as-a-second-
language students in France. The website Unicollaboration (http://unicollaboration.eu) provided
a free platform for the American teacher to post information about the intermediate French class
and to look for potential partners among the classes already posted on the website. At the
beginning of the exchange, teachers paired the students from both countries so that each student
had a partner. Students communicated once a week for a minimum of 30 minutes via video chat
such as Skype, enabling students to make video calls in real time. Asynchronous online
communication included emails students exchanged in the first week to set up times for the real-
time conversations. Asynchronous communication also included weekly postings of feedback
from the conversations together with pictures on the blog that was created for the exchange using
Google Blogger. Synchronous communication was difficult due to the time zone difference
between the United States and France (+9 hours in France). Students and their partners decided
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
84
on a weekly 30 minutes window when they would video call. They also decided on the online
mode of communication and how to use their native language and the target language during the
conversations. All the postings in the blog were in the target language (L2). The American
students participated in regular follow-up discussions in the classroom on various issues related
to the exchange such as organizational and language difficulties and cultural differences. The
exchange culminated in a reflective essay written in French and an in-class oral presentation in
French about the students’ French partners and their experience in the exchange. The online
exchange counted for 35% of the total grade in the course as follows: the oral assessment
counted for 20% and was based on feedback in the blogs, and participation in class discussions
on exchange topics. Writing included informal journaling (feedback in blogs) as well as postings
of pictures, links and videos. Writing also included the two-page reflective essay. The writing
assignments counted for 15% of the grade. Finally, students could voluntarily participate in an
open-ended online survey about their perceptions of the exchange.
Tools and data collection. In qualitative studies, multiple forms of data are collected in
the natural setting (Creswell, 2009). Ethnography and action research answer different questions,
but use the same methods of data collection.
First, O’Dowd and Ritter’s (2006) inventory for failed communication provided a
blueprint for the design, implementation, and evaluation of the exchange at four different levels
of involvement: the individual level, the classroom level, the socio-institutional level, and the
interaction level (Appendix A). The coding protocol for the action research tackled issues
specific to the four levels identified by O’Dowd and Ritter (2006): language barrier (individual
level), structural and organizational difficulties (classroom and socio-institutional level),
technology issues (socio-institutional issues), and cultural differences (individual and interaction
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
85
level). The inventory supported the planning phase of the exchange in collaboration with all
major stakeholders (Stringer, 2007). Priorities, concerns, and issues were identified and a plan of
action, defined as a series of goals, objectives, steps, tasks, and timeline, were drafted between
the partner teachers (Stringer, 2007).
Secondly, communication tasks for the online exchange were created to facilitate
communication between American and French students using three of the four categories of task
design outlined by Guth and Marini-Maio (2010): Information exchange, Comparison &
Analysis, and Reflective Practice (Appendix B).
Third, this study sought to understand how a telecollaborative exchange between French
language students in the US and students of ESL in France could promote the development of
students’ intercultural competence, defined as students’ attitudes towards the other culture in the
exchange, students knowledge of social processes and the way other cultures perceive them, and
students’ skills developed in the intercultural exchange such as communication strategies
(Byram, 1997). This study adapted a set of descriptors, “Competences for the Telecollaboratively
Effective Person” (TEP) developed by Dooly and Hauck of the INTENT group (2011) from
Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural competence (Table 3) to evaluate the exchange on the
basis of students’ development of intercultural competence (Appendix C). The TEP provided
guidelines to identify goals for the exchange, and to evaluate students’ intercultural competence
around three areas of intercultural development created by Byram (1997): students’ attitudes
towards the other culture in the exchange, students knowledge of social processes and the way
other cultures perceive them, and students’ skills developed in the intercultural exchange such as
communication strategies. The following table presents the three domains of intercultural
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
86
competence (Byram, 1997). The coding protocol for the evaluation of students’ intercultural
competence was designed around Byram’s (1997) three domains.
Table 3
Model of Intercultural Competence. Adapted from Byram (1997)
Attitudes Knowledge Skills
Curiosity, openness,
willingness to relativize one’s
own cultural assumptions, to
look at other culture’s
perspective, set of values and
beliefs
Knowledge of how social
groups and identities function
Skills of interpreting and
relating
What is involved in
intercultural communication
Ability to use the knowledge,
skills and attitudes in real-
time communication
Ability to evaluate other and
one’s own culture on the basis
of explicit criteria
Data collection from students’ blogs and reflective essays were analyzed to evaluate
student’s development of intercultural competence, using the TEP tool (Dooly & Hauck, 2011).
Students wrote a weekly post on the blog in French throughout the exchange reflecting on their
online conversation. The guidelines established by Dooly and Hauck (2011) for the personal
reflection diary provided sample questions that would help students reflect on their online
conversations (Appendix D). In addition to weekly feedback in the blog, students posted pictures
and links to their favorite videos and other online resources. The researcher used the online logs
to evaluate the development of students’ intercultural competence and monitor the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
87
implementation of the project. Students also used excerpts of their blog postings in their
reflective essays as evidence for learning. In this study, both students and researcher evaluated
the development of intercultural competence. The involvement of the researcher and the
participants in the process of inquiry is one of the basic principles of action research (Stringer,
2007). Furthermore, in qualitative studies, documents enable the researcher to read primary
sources of participants’ experience with the participants’ specific use of words and language
(Creswell, 2009). In addition, written documents save time and the expertise and cost of
transcribing (Creswell, 2009).
In-class observations of the follow-up discussions and videotaping of oral presentations
on the exchange were analyzed using the tools used to analyze the documents. According to
Creswell (2009), observations present several advantages in qualitative studies. For this study,
the researchers had an immediate experience with participants in the classroom and online, and
was able to record the information as it happens as field notes (Creswell, 2009). In action
research, the researcher can see how participants go about their activities (Stringer, 2007).
Finally, this study sought to understand student perceptions of the telecollaborative
intercultural exchange they participated in. The primary data in action research are collected
from interviews with the main stakeholders (Stringer, 2007). In action research, the interview is a
form of guided reflection “that enables the interviewee to explore his or her experience in detail
and to reveal the many features of that experience that have an effect on the issue investigated”
(Stringer, 2009, p. 69). For this study, an open-ended survey was used to ask open-ended
questions (Appendix E). This type of survey is qualitative and helps the researcher “to respond to
the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the
topic” (Merriam, 2009, p. 90). The survey was preferable to an interview to guarantee the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
88
anonymity of students whose instructor was also the researcher for this study. While an interview
could have been conducted after grades had been submitted to the Registrar’s, several of the
participants would have the same instructor the following quarter. The open-ended survey was
anonymous and was created on the internal course management system of the university. The
survey was distributed to students via email, and was available for two weeks at the end of the
exchange.
Table 4 provides a summary of data collection for this study.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
89
Table 4
Tools for Data Collection
Guiding Research
Questions
Online Web-
based Tools
Descriptors of the
Competences for
the
Telecollaborative
Effective Person
(TEP)
O’Dowd &
Ritter’s
Inventory for
Failed
Communication
Guth & Marini-
Maio’s Task
Design Survey
In-Class
Reflective
Activities
How can
telecollaborative
intercultural
exchanges be
successfully
designed and
implemented?
(Action research
will provide the
process and the
tool for planning,
action, and
monitoring phases
of the
telecollaborative
intercultural
exchange)
Blogger was
used to create a
blog for the
asynchronous
exchange.
Synchronous
communication
was done via
video chat like
Skype. Students
could choose
the video chat.
Byram’s (1997)
model of
intercultural
competence
provided the
theoretical
framework for
the development
of the descriptors.
The Descriptors
provided goals
for the exchange.
Blueprint for the
design and
implementation
of a successful
exchange at four
different levels
of involvement:
the individual,
the classroom,
the socio-
institutional,
and the
interaction
levels.
The model was
used to create
communication
tasks using
three of the four
categories of
task design:
Information
exchange,
Comparison &
Analysis, and
Reflective
Practice.
Follow-up
discussions
were designed
to address
issues that
arose in the
conversations
following
O’Dowd &
Ritter’s
Inventory.
How can
reflective practice
and reflective
tasks be
developed and
integrated into the
existing foreign
language
curriculum?
(Action research
will provide the
process and the
tool for reflection
in the
implementation
and evaluation of
the
telecollaborative
intercultural
exchange.
Logs of student
postings on the
blog were
examined to
link online
interaction with
the reflective
essay and the
survey.
The Descriptors
provided
guidelines for
reflective practice
online and in the
classroom.
Reflective tasks
online and in
the classroom
were
developed:
feedback on the
blogs, reflective
essays, and oral
presentations.
Students wrote
a reflective
essay in
French at the
end of the
exchange. In-
class
observations
and
videotaping of
oral
presentations
on the
exchange were
analyzed using
the
Descriptors of
TEP and
O’Dowd &
Ritter’s
Inventory.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
90
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21
ST
CENTURY
Table 4, continued
Guiding Research
Questions
Online
Web-based
Tools
Descriptors of the
Competences for
the
Telecollaborative
Effective Person
(TEP)
O’Dowd &
Ritter’s Inventory
for Failed
Communication
Guth &
Marini-
Maio’s
Task
Design Survey
In-Class
Reflective
Activities
How can
telecollaborative
exchanges promote
the development of
intercultural
competences in
foreign language
learning?
(The ethnographic
enquiry allowed the
researcher and
students to engage
in an ethnographic
inquiry of culture)
Student
survey
provided
insight into
student
learning.
Reflective
essays and
presentations
provided
insight into
student
learning.
What are student
perceptions of the
telecollaborative
intercultural
exchange they
participated in?
An open-
ended survey
was used to
ask open-
ended
questions.
Reflective
essays
provided
insight into
students’
perceptions of
the exchange.
91
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
91
Validity and Reliability
In qualitative studies, the trustworthiness of the study’s results is determined by checking
four concepts of trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability
(Merriam, 2009). The following section will describe in details the step taken to ensure the
trustworthiness of this study’s findings.
Credibility
Credibility deals with the matching of the results with the reality of the experience being
investigated (Merriam, 2009). Several strategies can help the researcher ensure and assess the
credibility of the results: triangulation, respondent validation, adequate engagement in data
collection, and reflexivity (Merriam, 2009). I relied on triangulation, adequate engagement in
data collection, and reflexivity to assess the credibility of this study. First, multiple methods of
data collection allowed me to check findings against each other using tools to design coding
protocols: Byram’s (1997) Model of Intercultural Competence adapted by Dooly and Hauck
(2011) to evaluate the competences of the telecollaboratively effective person, and O’Dowd and
Ritter’s (2006) Inventory for Failed Communication. Student online postings in the blog,
reflective essays, oral presentations and the student survey were checked against each other.
Second, looking at variation in the understanding of the intercultural experience helped
me better understand the phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). For example, while O’Dowd and Ritter
(2006) identified a comprehensive list of reasons for failed communication in intercultural
exchanges, the data from this study presented alternate explanations for success and failure of the
exchange. Third, reflexivity is the process of reflecting critically on the self as researcher to
explain biases and assumptions towards the study (Merriam, 2009). O’Dowd (2003) used a
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
92
reflexive journal to avoid researcher bias and this strategy was used for this study. The purpose
of the journal was to record ideas, tasks, activities and decisions made during the inquiry process.
Transferability
In qualitative studies, transferability of the results resides with the study’s reader, who
decides if the study’s findings can be used in another situation and context (Merriam, 2009).
Therefore, this study provided a rich description of the study’s context and the findings of the
study, enabling the reader to decide if their situation and context match the research findings, and
if the findings can be transferred (Merriam, 2009). A rich description of the findings included
ample quotes from participants’ surveys, from field notes and from documents.
Dependability
Dependability refers to clearly defined research procedures and open scrutiny of these
procedures (Stringer, 2007). The proposal defense provided an opportunity for the dissertation
committee to review and comment on all aspects of the methodology for this study.
Confirmability
Confirmability assumes that the procedures described in the study actually occurred, and
that the results describe the experience of the participants rather than the assumptions and
reflection of the researcher (Stringer, 2007). The study provided evidence of student participation
and communication: online logs, reflective essays, survey, and videotaped oral presentation.
Data Analysis
In qualitative studies, data collection and data analysis is a simultaneous process
(Merriam, 2009). In fact, data analysis is often the catalyst for collecting more data since the
qualitative design is always emergent (Merriam, 2009). Furthermore, reviewing all the data after
the study is done can be overwhelming because of the sheer amount of text (documents,
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
93
transcripts) and the multiple sources of data (Merriam, 2009). Therefore for this study, collecting
and analyzing data was an ongoing and simultaneous process throughout the exchange. Merriam
(2009) reports on Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007) suggestions for analyzing data while they are
being collected: (1) select the data and narrow the study, (2) reassess the study questions and
reformulate questions as needed from the data collection, (3) review field notes and identify
specific themes that will be pursued in ensuing data collection, (4) jot down comments as data
become available to start thinking critically about the data, and (5) review the literature on the
topic to enrich the analysis. In addition, Merriam (2009) advises researchers to develop a system
for organizing and managing data. Coding protocols were established using the tools described in
this chapter. For action research, code names were assigned to emergent themes relating to the
implementation of the exchange and the difficulties encountered at four level of involvement:
language barriers at the individual level, structural and organizational difficulties at the socio-
institutional and classroom level, and cultural differences and technology issues at the
communication and interaction levels. For the ethnographic data analysis, code names were
assigned to emergent themes relating to students’ intercultural attitudes, knowledge, and skills.
Students perceptions of the intercultural experience were analyzed by selecting repeated ideas
and using the tools discussed in this chapter.
Analysis in action research is “a process of reflection and interpretation, providing
participants and other stake-holding audience with new ways of thinking about the issues and
events investigated” (Stringer, 2007, p. 95). Thus, in this study, students analyzed their online
conversations in the blog and reflected and interpreted their experience in their reflective essay.
The oral presentation and the survey provided students with another means for reflection and
interpretation of their intercultural experience.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
94
Conclusion
This chapter presents a research plan that consists of a qualitative methodology,
ethnography and action research, in order to investigate the experiences of students involved in a
telecollaborative intercultural exchange. A detailed plan for the study includes a description of
multiple methods of data collection, strategies to ensure trustworthiness of the results, and data
analysis. Chapter 4 will present data analysis and findings of the study.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
95
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
In this chapter, I present an analysis of a qualitative study about an online intercultural
exchange between a group of French language students in the U.S. and a group of students of
English as a Second Language (ESL) in France, which attempts to answer the four research
questions: (1) How can online intercultural exchanges be successfully designed and
implemented? (2) How can reflective practice be developed and integrated into the existing
curriculum? (3) How can online exchanges between students in the U.S. and students in the
target-language country promote the development of intercultural competence? (4) What are
student perceptions of the online intercultural exchange they participated in? The following
analysis is of the emerging themes from the data collection and how it is organized by the a
priori theory (Byram, 1997; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006; Guth & Marini-Maio, 2010; Dooly &
Hauck, 2011). Data collection involved analysis of students’ online blogs and reflective essays,
participant observations, videotaped oral presentations, and an open-ended survey from the
American students who participated in the online exchange.
The first part of the analysis will report (a) on the planning, implementation and
monitoring of the exchange, and (b) on the development and integration of reflective practices
and intercultural understanding into the existing foreign language curriculum. In this study,
action research guided the planning, implementation, evaluation, and reflection cycles of the
intercultural exchange (Stringer, 2007). O’Dowd and Ritter’s (2006) “Inventory for Failed
Communication” provided the organizing categories for the evaluation of the exchange while
Guth and Marini-Maio’s (2010) “Task Design” provided a model to evaluate communication and
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
96
reflection tasks using three of the four categories of task design: Information exchange,
comparison and analysis, and reflective practice. The second part of the analysis will report on
the development of students’ intercultural competence in the exchange and the third part of the
analysis will report on student perceptions of the online intercultural exchange. In the
intercultural exchange, both researcher and students engaged in an ethnographic inquiry of
culture (foreign culture, the online environment culture, the foreign language culture) thus the
ethnographic approach guided the analysis of students’ experiences in the online exchange
(O’Dowd, 2003; Merriam, 2009). Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural competence provided
the organizing categories to evaluate the development of student intercultural competence
defined as students’ attitudes towards the other culture in the exchange, students’ knowledge of
social processes and the way other cultures perceive them, and students’ skills developed in the
intercultural exchange such as communication strategies. Pseudonyms were given to all the
participants in the exchange to protect confidentiality (USC UPIRB # UP-13-00354). Data from
the blog, the reflective essays and the videotaped oral presentation were translated from French
into English by the researcher who is qualified to interpret as a French instructor.
The Setting for the Exchange
Profile of Participants
The online intercultural exchange took place in the fall quarter for eight weeks between a
group of students at a large research university in the Southwest of the U.S. enrolled in the first
quarter of intermediate French and students of ESL at a technology institute, part of the
University of Bordeaux, France. Twenty-six students were enrolled in intermediate French at the
American university, 20 female and six male students. Twenty-five students were American and
one student was an international student from China. The majority of students were juniors and
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
97
seniors of traditional college age. Three students were freshmen. At the American university, all
enrolled students have a one-year foreign language requirement and students in the School of
Humanities and students in International Studies have to take a foreign language for two years.
Twenty students in the exchange group were Humanities or International Studies majors while
the other six had majors in the social sciences. Therefore the majority of students in the class
were required to take a second year of a foreign language to fulfill their general education
requirements. However the four-unit French class weighed equally in the GPA as any class in
their major.
Two French groups of 15 students each, 21 females and 9 males, from an institute of
Technology, Bordeaux, France, participated in the exchange. Five of the students were
international students from China, Morocco, Belgium, and Cameroun. All the French students
were enrolled in a Master’s program in science. They were all 21 or 22 years old. The English-
as-a-second-language class was required for all the students and met once a week for one hour on
Wednesday mornings. While the French students were required to take the class, it did not count
towards their GPA. The French university system has a year around academic calendar for
classes, meaning that students remain in the same class for the duration of one school year. They
have a series of exams at the end of December and at the end of May but no regular homework.
The first day of class for the two French groups was mid-September. Two instructors each had a
class of 15 students that met on the same day at different times.
Description of the French Course
The class that participated in the exchange was one of three sections of intermediate
French. The other two classes did not participate in an exchange. The class met four times per
week, Monday through Thursday, for 50-minute long instruction in the morning. The ten-week
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
98
fall quarter started at the end of September and ended mid-December. The instructor for the class
was also the researcher. The intermediate French course objectives are to develop student
proficiency in oral and written French and introduce students to various aspects of French and
Francophone culture. The course also prepares students who want to minor or major in French
for upper-division advanced courses. The fall curriculum centers on various issues and
perspectives in French society. The curriculum also includes grammar instruction as well as short
readings and a film. In the existing curriculum used by the other two sections, students have
daily homework, writing assignments, oral presentations and one oral exam, a midterm and a
final exam. In the exchange, the written and oral online assignments made up the writing and
oral grades. The exchange was required for all students enrolled in the class as part of the
required assignments. Participation in the study was voluntary and students signed informed
consent forms at the beginning of the course (USC UPIRB # UP-13-00354).
The ESL course for the French students was designed primarily to develop students’ oral
proficiency in English. Students did not have homework and the Skype communication in the
exchange made up the only assignments for the course. Posting in the blog was not a requirement
for the French groups.
While a background of the French groups is important to understand the planning and
implementation of the exchange as well as some of the problems encountered during the
exchange, for the purpose of this study, the context of the exchange (blog and survey) will be
from the American students’ point of view. The study sought to understand how the
implementation of the exchange and the development of intercultural competence could be
integrated into the French language course at the American institution.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
99
The Online and Classroom Environments
In action research, all stakeholders are involved in the planning, implementation and
evaluation of programs and practices (Stringer, 2007). In the ethnographic approach, the
researcher immerses herself as participant/observer in the culture of the participants (Merriam,
2009). Therefore a description of the environment in which the study took place is critical to
provide a thick description of the culture of the exchange. The researcher immersed herself in the
online environment for the exchange that consisted of a blog created as a space for sharing
information and reflecting on the conversations. Students were required to have an online
conversation via Skype or other form of video chat with their partner weekly and to post
feedback about the conversation on the blog within a week. All the stakeholders were authors in
the blog and were able to post comments as well as pictures, links, and videos. The researcher
read the blogs and commented on the posts, and discovered, to her surprise, that American youth
culture was very similar to French youth culture. The blog was dominated by links to music and
favorite YouTube videos, pop culture images, and pictures of family and friends. The researcher
also discovered a technology-savvy youth culture that was adept at overcoming technology
issues and to using technology for better communication. The online exchange took another
dimension that the researcher did not observe. The other dimension included the video chats and
other social media like Facebook where students communicated with their partners, as well as
emails.
As the instructor for the course, the researcher immersed herself in the classroom
environment. The communicative language teaching (CLT) approach to teaching the French
course facilitated ongoing interaction between the instructor and the students as well as peer
interaction (Johnson, 2001; Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Additionally the task-based language
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
100
teaching approach used for the class, based on activities that promote negotiation of meaning in
real world situations, was well suited for the integration of the intercultural online exchange into
the existing curriculum (Müller-Hartmann, 2000). The classroom provided a space for sharing
information and reflecting on the exchange through regular debriefing with students.
Furthermore the classroom provided a space to introduce and examine the same topics assigned
for the exchange from the perspective of texts, film, and media. Interestingly students were able
to make connections between the classroom discussions and their reflection of the online
communication. The university “smart classrooms” provided the technological support to read
some of the French students’ postings on the blog and look at pictures weekly as a group.
Planning, Implementing, and Monitoring the Exchange
Findings from Teachers’ Emails and Skype Communication
The following account reports on the planning and implementation phases of the
exchange from the instructors’ point of view. While the focus of this study is on students and not
on teachers, for the purpose of action research, it is important that all stakeholders be included in
the findings (Stringer, 2007). In this study, all the stakeholders worked together to find an
appropriate way to accomplish the objectives of the exchange and to evaluate its effectiveness
(Stringer, 2007). The goal of action research is to involve all participants who have a common
interest in the investigation and evaluation of the project (Stringer, 2007). From the email
communication and two Skype sessions between the teachers, three main themes emerged:
collaboration, communication, and flexibility. This section will be organized around the
planning, implementation, and monitoring phases of the exchange and will describe each theme
within each phase.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
101
Planning. The planning phase of the exchange started with the search for a partnership
with a class at a French university. The website Unicollaboration (http://unicollaboration.eu)
provided a free platform to post information about the intermediate French class in the U.S. and
to look for potential partners among the classes already posted on the website. In June, the first
contact with Jane, the French partner teacher in the exchange, was done via email through
Unicollaboration message board. Both partners decided to communicate via Skype to get to
know each other and discuss the planning of the exchange. On July 6th, the first Skype contact
lasted one hour and both partners introduced each other, their students, and their goals for the
exchange. It was clear that Jane already had experience with online exchanges and with
technology such as Google Docs and Blogger. On the other hand, the instructor and researcher
for this exchange did not have any experience with online exchanges.
The second Skype meeting took place on August 28th as both partners were starting to
prepare for the fall semester. The instructor for the American group had sent a timeline and list
of topics to Jane via Google Docs so that both partners were able to jointly edit the document
during the Skype session. Both teachers showed willingness to collaborate and were flexible. On
September 8th, Jane wrote in one of her first emails: “I have played around with blogs and the
one from Google called Blogger seems OK to use, simple and clear. Open to all suggestions!”
(Jane, personal communication, September 8, 2013). Since the French instructor did not have a
set syllabus for her class, the instructor for the American class decided on a list of topics that
aligned with her syllabus. The topics centered on French and American society and were broad
enough to be relevant both for the French and the American students and to be adapted to the
exchange. The topics included family life, urban life, education systems, youths and work,
multiculturalism and national identity.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
102
In the second meeting, partners discussed the details of the exchange such as the timeline
and topics, the organization and the technology, language used by students in the exchange,
pairing of students, and the uneven number of students in each group. It was decided that the
emphasis of the exchange would be on oral communication. However for the American students,
writing in the blog and the reflective essay ensured that the exchange included a written
component that would count toward the writing grade in the course. As a result of the emphasis
on oral communication, it was decided that students would communicate a minimum of 30
minutes weekly primarily via video chat such as Skype. To ensure that they were
communicating, the American students were required to post feedback on their communication
on the blog after each Skype communication. The French students were encouraged but not
required to post on the blog.
Students would be paired by the partner teachers and would receive the preferred email of
their partner in the exchange. It was decided that the American students would write the first
email and write the first blog to introduce themselves and their family. Since the exchange took
place outside of the classroom and with the nine-hour time zone difference between the U.S. and
France in mind, the partner teachers concluded that it was preferable to give students a lot of
freedom to choose meeting times, modes of communication, and language use. Students would
decide via the first email how and when to communicate. Secondly, the teachers offered students
two choices of language used for oral communication: the American students would use only
French and the French students would use only English, or they would both use French half the
time and English the other half.
Finally during the second Skype meeting, the partner teachers divided the planning tasks,
which was evidence of collaboration. Jane would create the blog since she had more experience
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
103
with technology and the American teacher would partner the students once school started. Both
partner teachers would have students fill out a form with their emails and a brief description
about themselves and what they liked. Jane suggested that she could ask her colleague Ann to
join the exchange with her group of fifteen students. The extra four students on the French side
would work in groups of two with one American partner student. The partner teachers in the
exchange had their own syllabi and the exchange did not affect the basic curriculum for the
respective classes. While the instructors collaborated on a common organization of the exchange,
they were also respectful of their teaching objectives for their individual classes. It was decided
that the exchange would start the second week of the quarter for the American students, which
was the fourth week of the French students’ semester.
In the meantime, the instructor for the American students prepared handouts for students:
instructions that included the organization of the exchange, the assessment, and the timeline and
topics. The online exchange counted for 35% of the total grade in the course as follows: the oral
assessment counted for 20% and was based on feedback in the blogs, and participation in class
discussions on exchange topics. In the third week of the exchange, the instructor added an oral
presentation about the exchange because time constraints did not allow for in-depth, in-class
discussions of the exchange as the instructor had originally planned. The oral presentation was
scheduled at the end of the quarter the same day that the reflective essay was due. The five-
minute oral presentation consisted of a short Power Point presentation of the student’s partner,
and a reflection of the online communication. Writing included informal journaling (feedback in
blogs) as well as postings of pictures, links and videos. Writing also included a two-page
reflective essay. The writing assignments counted for 15% of the grade.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
104
Implementation. In the first week of class, on October 2nd, students filled out a form
with their emails and a short description about themselves and their likes. The form was used to
match students. Students wrote emails to their partners. The issues that arose at the beginning of
the exchange were mainly errors in the email addresses because they were hand-written on the
matching form. Secondly students were invited via email from Blogger to join the blog that Jane
had created at http://unicollaboration.blogspot.com. While the blog was public and students were
able to comment, they had to be invited via email to be authors and to be able to post pictures
and links. The majority of students posted pictures and links to videos in addition to their
feedback on the blog. By the third week of class, the majority of the French students had posted a
paragraph and pictures about themselves and their family on the blog. Most had contacted their
partner via Skype.
In the first week of the exchange, the partner-teachers updated each other regularly on the
development of the exchange. Communication between the partner teachers was ongoing during
the exchange. In an email, the instructor for the American group wrote: “The exchange is going
well. Most of my students have already talked to their partners and posted on the blog. Although
they all experienced some technical difficulties and connection problems, as well as the language
barrier, they all seem very excited to talk to your students” (American instructor, personal
communication, October 17, 2013). Jane replied: “The students from my group all seem very
keen and it seems that everyone has connected. I will get the students on to the Blog next week,
and asked half of them to do so already this week. However it is not a class requirement for us at
all. They thought your students were wonderful!” (Jane, personal communication, October 17,
2013). The communication between the instructors remained positive throughout the exchange.
Even though in this email exchange, the instructors point out to technical and linguistic
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
105
difficulties, they also comment on the enthusiasm of the students. Furthermore while Jane shows
willingness to get her students involved in the blog, she reminds the American instructor that she
cannot expect the same flow of postings from the French students. Communicating the
differences in the organization of the courses prevented miscommunication that stems from not
understanding those differences.
Monitoring. The researcher/instructor for the American group monitored the exchange
through weekly debriefing with students and through the feedback in the blog. The teachers for
the French groups were very responsive to any issue that would arise during the exchange and
they were sensitive to the fact that the exchange was an important part of the American students’
grade in the French course. When the instructor for the American group emailed about a student
in the group who had difficulties connecting with her partner, the students’ teacher emailed them
right away and copied the other instructor on the communication: “We need to get the exchange
going as soon as possible. If you have any difficulties, please let me know as soon as you can”
(Ann, personal communication, October 13, 2013). The wording of the email revealed a sense of
urgency and an understanding of the time-sensitive nature of the exchange. In two subsequent
emails to two separate students, Ann shows an understanding of the importance of the exchange
for the American students’ course. “I got an email this morning from my colleague in [American
university] who said that so far you haven’t connected with Taylor, your partner. Can you please
send Taylor an email today and arrange a time to meet online? . . . If it is difficult for you both to
meet, then can at least one of you Skype? It is important for Taylor’s course that she connect”
(Ann, personal communication, October 24, 2013). The email shows a willingness to
communicate and collaborate on getting students to connect. In addition, the instructors for the
French group explained the reasons for lack of participation of some students so that all the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
106
stakeholders could find solutions to adapt to the situation at hand: “I asked my students to post to
the blog after they talked but a few had difficulties getting connected. They live in places where
they don’t all have a connection so have to do it before class or after class and their timetables
are full” (Ann, personal communication, October 17, 2013). While it was difficult to find
solutions to lack of Internet connection and to busy schedules, knowing the cause for the lack of
participation of the French students in the blog prevented miscommunication. In fact both
teachers for the French groups reiterated the enthusiasm of their students towards the exchange:
“They loved hearing from your students and seeing the great photos that have been posted. Your
students seen really lovely” (Ann, personal communication, October 17, 2013).
The instructor/researcher for the American students conducted short debriefings in
English with the class once a week to monitor any issues that may be arising and to assess
students’ experience in the exchange. During the first debriefing session, students noted the
following: Internet connection issues made it difficult to have a conversation especially since the
issue was compounded with language difficulties. While most students had no difficulty
connecting with their partner student in France, others reported not having been able to connect
due to the nine-hour time zone difference and partner’s lack of flexibility. Students favored
speaking half of the time in English and half of the time in French. They reported difficulties
understanding partners who spoke too fast and all the students in the American groups agreed
that the French students’ proficiency in English was well above their proficiency in French.
Students also engaged in code-switching to trouble-shoot communication problems, defined as
“the phenomenon of switching from one language to another in the same discourse” (Numan &
Carter, 2001). For example, Nadine commented, “We didn’t have too many problems
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
107
understanding each other, but it was tempting to mix French and English words” (Nadine, blog
post).
Like their students, the instructors in the exchange were confronted with cultural and
structural differences that only communication, collaboration, and flexibility could reconcile.
The literature substantiates the need for communication and collaboration between teachers and
the critical role they play in the success of intercultural online exchanges (Belz, 2004; Cloke,
2010; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006; Stepp-Greany, 2002). For Belz (2004), the planning, choice of
tasks, choice of topics and preparation of students are important aspects of intercultural
exchanges. Cloke (2010) reported on the difficulty of teacher collaboration in an Italian-
Australian exchange. She concluded that good and regular communication between teachers was
needed and monitoring of students during the exchange by all teachers involved critical.
Findings from Blogs, Reflective Essays, Oral Presentations, and Researcher’s Observations
Data from the blogs, reflective essays, videotaped oral presentations, and researcher’s
observations were analyzed to evaluate the implementation of the exchange. O’Dowd and
Ritter’s (2006) inventory of reasons for failed communication was adapted to create categories
for coding the data. The categories included structural and organizational difficulties, language
barriers, issues with technology, and cultural differences. Additional thematic findings will also
be reviewed. Table 5 describes the protocol for data analysis and coding of student blogs and
reflective essays for the evaluation of the exchange. The analysis that follows describes in details
the emerging themes from the blogs, reflective essays, oral presentations, and the researcher’s
observations.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
108
Table 5
Coding of Online Student Blogs and Reflective Essays: Evaluation of Exchange (Action
Research)
Student
Names
Structural
Difficulties
Cultural
Challenges
Language
Barriers
Technology
Issues
Additional
Thematic
Findings
Emerging Themes
Pseudonyms Time zone
difference
Busy
schedules
No specific
indication of
cultural
challenges
Nervousness
and lack of
confidence
Speaking
Listening
comprehension
Pronunciation
Internet
connection
Help from
partner
Strategies to
cope
Metacognition
Decreasing
difficulties
after first
conversation
Structural and organizational difficulties.
Time zone difference. The nine-hour time zone difference between the U.S. and France
was an emerging theme in the blog, the reflective paper and in class discussions. The time
difference made it difficult for students to schedule a video chat meeting.
Busy schedules. Students’ busy schedules were a recurring theme in students’ blogs,
reflective papers, and class discussions. Students mentioned their own busy schedule and their
French partners’ busy schedule and blamed their schedules for the difficulties they encountered
when trying to set up meeting times. Other schedule issues included different weekly schedules.
In her blog entitled “A strange blog entry,” Sarah expresses her frustration about not being able
to get in touch with her partner because of busy schedules and time difference: “When I am free,
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
109
Julie is on vacation with her family or has classes at different times every week. When she is
free, it is 2-6am here. I am on campus from 9am-7pm. On the weekend, I have a lot of
homework and a job. It is a problem for both of us” (Sarah, blog post). Time zone difference,
workload, and busy schedules outside of schools are issues that emerge from Sarah’s comment
as well as several other students’ comments.
Additional theme. One student found it difficult to have two partners. While the French
dyads were supposed to work in teams in the exchange, Ryan’s partners did not and Ryan felt
compelled to connect with two different people at different times. Ryan commented, “It is
difficult to have two partners. First you get used to one partner, to speaking with him, to his
schedule. Then you have to deal with another partner” (Ryan, blog post). While the problem was
isolated because only two students in the American groups had a pair of partners, it might have
implications for further exchanges. It is clearly preferable to pair students with one partner.
Language barriers.
Language barrier was one of the major issues for students in the exchange. Several
themes emerged in this category that included negative feelings of frustration, such as feeling
nervous, lacking confidence to speak, and not being able to understand French partners. Other
themes included finding strategies to cope with language issues, such as help from partner and
the use of technology.
Nervousness and lack of confidence. Several of the participants expressed feelings of
nervousness and lack of confidence in their first blog in particular. In her first blog, Claire
declared, “I was nervous because I was afraid she wouldn’t be able to understand my French . . .
There were moments when I couldn’t think of a word or phrase in French so I had to ask
questions in English” (Claire, blog post). Jane, another student, began and ended her first blog
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
110
entry with the difficulty of communication and how the anticipation of the meeting made her
nervous: “It was very difficult for me to say all the things I wanted to say” (Jane, blog post).
Cynthia reported feeling self-conscious about her French in her first blog entry: “I was a little
nervous about my French. It is still difficult to speak and improvise and I gesture a lot which is a
bit silly!” (Cynthia, blog post). Yet the reflective essay and the survey gave students an
opportunity to reflect on the issue of language barriers in intercultural communication. In fact,
the majority of participants in the exchange saw the language difficulties as an opportunity to
improve their linguistic competence and to find strategies to overcome language difficulties.
Natasha found humor in miscommunication, “There was a communication problem when I told
her that I was dead during spring finals and she thought that I was dead, literally . . . My French
improved and I found it interesting to have the opportunity to connect with another student
within a course” (Natasha, blog post).
The initial nervousness generally dissipated after the first conversation. The word
“nervous” was only found in the first blogs and in none of the subsequent blogs. Likewise Scott
reflected on the benefits of authentic conversation in spite of the difficulties encountered, “Of
course there are difficulties to talk to a person on the other side of the world: bad Internet
connection, busy schedules, different schedules, problems with the language. However the
personal, unique and instructive conversations are better than the traditional oral and written
activities of a French class” (Scott, blog post). Like Natasha, Scott realized the learning
opportunities the exchange provided and understood the complicated nature of communication.
Listening comprehension and listening difficulties. Amit playfully summarized his first
online conversation with his partner as being “lost in translation,” a reference to director Sofia
Coppola’s movie in which an American feels helpless when immersed in Japanese culture and
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
111
language. Amit reported, “He [the French partner] doesn’t understand my French and I don’t
understand his English,” and added, “Damien and I are both shy so at first we didn’t talk a lot”
(Amit, blog post). Language difficulties combined with students’ inhibition may result in a poor
experience in the exchange. Likewise Chandler explained, “Sometimes I had a little difficulty to
understand when we spoke French and my pronunciation was bad,” and added into parenthesis
“In English and in French, I prefer to write, I don’t like to speak” (Chandler, blog post). Like
Emit, Chandler’s difficulties with the language may also come from his lack of confidence.
Listening comprehension and listening difficulties were mainly mentioned in the first blog but
rarely in the subsequent blogs.
Issues with technology.
The majority of the students in the exchange encountered problems with technology. The
main problem was Internet connection issues as the theme emerges from the blogs, reflective
essays, and observations.
Internet connection. Poor Internet connection was the single most mentioned technology
issue for students in the exchange. Yet most of the students were able to find solutions to Internet
connection issues after the first conversation. For example, in her first blog, Priyanka described
how she and her partner dealt with poor Skype connection: “The most difficult was Skype
communication. We had connection problems. Sometimes when Jean Charles was talking, there
was no sound” (Priyanka, blog post). Yet partners were able to find a solution to the problem by
text messaging while talking: “He typed sentences like ‘I have two sisters’ on instant messaging”
(Priyanka, blog post).
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
112
Cultural misunderstandings.
Even though it is mentioned in the literature, the findings for this particular study did not
find specific examples of cultural miscommunication. The reasons for the scarcity of data on
cultural miscommunication will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Additional thematic findings.
While various themes related to structural problems, language barriers, and technology
issues emerged from the first blog, the subsequent blogs became more focused on cultural
content rather than descriptive of problems encountered. Furthermore no further mention of
nervousness is found in the subsequent blogs. While mention of structural, linguistic, and
technological difficulties in the first blog indicates a certain level of frustration among students
in the exchange, the subsequent reflective activities and the survey indicate that students were
quickly able to overcome the difficulties and/or accept the difficulties as inherent to any form of
communication.
Three additional themes emerged from the blogs: help from partner, strategies to
overcome language barriers, and metacognition.
Help from partner. While the majority of students had difficulties with the language,
they were able to overcome the difficulty with the help of their partners. Julia reported, “I was
happy that Florian spoke English well because he helped me a lot when I didn’t know how to say
a word in French” (Julia, blog post). Minh described how her partner wanted to help, “She
helped me with pronunciation. She wants to help me listen and understand” (Minh, blog post).
The word “help” is a recurrent theme in the students’ first blog in particular. Students also
reported helping each other: “When one of us mispronounced a word or needed help, we helped
each other. She helped me several times with the conjugation of past tenses” (Natasha, blog
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
113
post). In addition, students showed collaboration and decision-making skills in their language
choices for the conversations: “We decided that I would only speak French and he would only
speak English. We thought it would be the most useful way to learn the other language”
(Priyanka, blog post). Priyanka and her partner were also very active in finding strategies to
improve communication: “I spoke French all the time and he spoke English all the time”
(Priyanka, blog post). Likewise Jane explained in her reflective essay: “I had difficulties
recalling words because I was nervous. But when we had difficulties to translate a word, we
would help each other” (Jane, blog post).
Strategies to overcome language barrier. The majority of the students reported finding
strategies to overcome language barriers in their first blog. Like other students in the American
group, Claire used the text messaging option in Skype to make communication easier: “I asked
her to type the question in French on Skype chat. Sometimes it is easier for me to look at words
than to listen to them” (Claire, blog post). In her reflective essay, Sami reported using Google
Translate for vocabulary. Technology was a critical tool for students to overcome language
barrier and bad Internet connection. Students showed knowledge of technology as well as
problem-solving skills in finding solutions to language and Internet issues.
Metacognition. In the first blog, students were cognizant of their own learning style and
of themselves. Knowing what worked and did not work for them was helpful for students in the
exchange. As noted above, both Emit and Chandler knew that speaking in general was more
difficult for them than writing. Likewise Claire was aware that, “Sometimes it is easier for me to
look at words than to listen to them” (Claire, blog post).
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
114
Integrating Reflective Practice into the Exchange
The goal of intercultural exchanges is to help students understand social processes, to
help students develop skills to interpret and compare social processes and cultural practices, and
to develop an ability to discuss and evaluate their own and the other culture’s processes and
practices (Byram, 1997). How do students develop these competences in an intercultural
exchange? Reflective practice online and in the classroom is essential to promote intercultural
learning (Kern, 2000; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; O’Dowd, 2003; Guth & Marini-Maio, 2010).
Schneider and Von der Emde (2006) have stressed the need for reflection and meta-reflection to
give students opportunities to acquire their own intercultural understanding. In this study,
reflective practice included the researcher’s own reflection cycle and the changes made along the
way as well as the students’ reflection cycles through reflective tasks such as a reflective essay
and an in-class oral presentation.
Researcher Field Notes and Observations
Through regular debriefing with students, the researcher for the study reflected on the
implementation of the exchange. Researcher field notes were analyzed for emerging ideas. On
November 11th, three weeks into the exchange, the researcher wrote: “Some students are still not
connecting/posting on the blog. Will need to find an alternative at the end of the quarter as
exchange is worth 35% of the grade. Need to better integrate exchange in daily class activities
and provide more support for the online conversations” (Researcher, field notes). As a result of
reflection, the researcher for this study designed an alternative oral exam and an extra writing
assignment for students who were not able to have the required four conversations and blog
postings for the course. The researcher also created a list of potential questions in French for
each topic to give students more support during the online conversations. Due to time
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
115
constraints, the researcher was not able to better integrate reflective practice of the exchange into
regular class activities.
Towards the end of the quarter, the American students reported that the French students
were starting their exams and it was getting more difficult to connect as the American students
themselves were preparing for their final exams. Field notes read: “One student told the class that
French students were having very difficult exams coming up, ‘much more difficult than ours,’
and might not be able to talk in a week or so. American students are also getting busier as quarter
is ending. Decided today to cut down number of conversations to four and four blogs and maybe
give extra credits to students who have more than four conversations” (Researcher, field notes).
As a result, students were relieved to have one less conversation and those who were still able to
connect with their partners were encouraged to do more with the extra credit points. At the end
of the exchange, 4 out of 26 students had less than four conversations and those students took a
short oral exam and wrote paragraphs on the assigned topics they missed in the blog.
Student Reflective Tasks
Communication tasks for the online exchange were created to facilitate communication
between American and French students and reflection using 3 of the 4 categories of task design
outlined by Guth and Marini-Maio (2010): Information exchange, Comparison and Analysis, and
Reflective Practice. Table 6 describes the design of tasks in each of the three categories. The
information exchange included an introductory email and introductory paragraph in the blog, the
comparison and analysis tasks consisted of feedback in the blog to compare cultures, and the
reflective tasks included a culminating essay and oral presentation about the exchange
experience.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
116
Table 6
Students’ Tasks in the Exchange. Adapted from Guth and Marini-Maio, 2010.
Information Exchange Comparison & Analysis Reflective Practice
Email to exchange personal
information and set up video
chat conversation.
Introductory paragraph in the
blog about oneself and
family.
Family pictures, links and
videos of favorite music, film,
etc.
Weekly postings on the blog
comparing and contrasting
cultures and lifestyles
(feedback from
conversations).
Comparison between in-class
readings and discussions
about assigned topics, and
online conversations.
End-of-exchange reflective
essay.
In-class presentation of the
exchange.
Information exchange. The first task of the American students was an introductory
posting on the blog about the students and their families. Students were encouraged to post
pictures of themselves and their families. Information tasks are used to introduce the exchange
partners and familiarize students with their partners’ personal and cultural background (O’Dowd
& Ware, 2009). In this study, pictures offered students another medium through which students
could introduce themselves. The literature shows that when students find the task interesting,
they will more likely enjoy it and be motivated to participate in it (Ambrose et al., 2010). Thus
posting pictures was a way to motivate students to make the blog their personal space.
Comparison and Analysis.
Students in the American group were required to post a paragraph after each
conversation. Dooly and Hauck’s (2011) tool entitled “Personal Reflection Diary” from the
Unicollaboration platform was adapted to create a prompt for the feedback on the blog. The
prompt for the feedback was broad enough to allow students to express their experience of the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
117
online conversation while giving students an opportunity to reflect on what they had learned. The
instructions were: “Post a comment on your conversation with your online partner. What are
your impressions? What surprised you? What was of interest to you? Did you have any
difficulties communicating?” In addition to answering the questions, students would also
compare what they had learned from their partners with the classroom discussions and readings
on the assigned topics. The online conversations with their partners gave them different
perspectives from the perspectives the reading and classroom discussions offered. In the first
blog, students were primarily writing about the issues they had with technology and language but
in the subsequent postings, they were primarily comparing and contrasting.
Reflective practice. While the blog postings were designed to encourage reflection, they
mostly provided a forum for factual discoveries and comparisons with few indication of deeper
reflection. Kramsch & Thorne (2002) has cautioned that online intercultural communication did
not guarantee deeper intercultural understanding. Communication might be more exchange of
information than an understanding of the larger cultural context of the students on both sides of
the exchange (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002). In this study, the reflective essay, oral presentations,
and class discussions provided opportunities for students to reflect on their postings and report
on their own findings. The essay prompt was, “Discuss what you have learned and what
surprised you in your conversations with your French partner, and reflect on cultural differences
and similarities you discovered. Give examples of your conversation and your comments in the
blog.” The instructor/researcher for the American group collected the rough draft of the
reflective essay one week before the end of the exchange and the preliminary reading of the
essays prompted the researcher to have a class discussion on the findings.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
118
In addition to the essay, students did an in-class oral presentation, individually, in which
they presented a Power Point with pictures and excerpts from their blog. First, students
introduced their partners and the main topics for discussion. Then students reported on what they
had learned, what surprised them, and what was their overall experience in the exchange. The
videotaped data substantiated what was in the essay but added another dimension with the use of
pictures of partners and other cultural artifacts such as pictures of food, monuments, and music
and other videos.
It was surprising to see how much the American students felt they were similar to the
French students. They were also surprised by the findings. Most students expected to find more
cultural differences, which also explained their initial nervousness. They found more differences
between the systems (education, cities, transportation) than in the culture. In the class discussion
and in their essays, students reflected on the meaning of increasing similarities between cultures,
especially between young people. The discussion focused around the topic of globalization and
the influence of American pop culture, and gave students another opportunity to reflect deeply
on what globalization was about. To the question “Are you and American students in general
influenced by French pop culture in your daily lives?” all the students replied in the negative but
they unanimously answered affirmatively to the question “Are the French students you
connected with this quarter influenced by American pop culture?” The discussion was an
opportunity to investigate other possible explanations for the lack of cultural differences between
the French students and the American students in the exchange. For example, the demographics
of the groups were very similar. Both groups came from middle and middle-upper classes, they
all studied at very selective universities, and they were multicultural.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
119
While the feedback in the blogs provided a first impression of the exchange and a forum
for information exchange and comparison, the reflective essay, oral presentation, and class
discussions were essential reflective tasks to ensure that students were developing intercultural
competences in the exchange.
Development of Students’ Intercultural Competences in the Exchange
This study aims to understand how the online intercultural exchange between students in
a French class in the U.S. and students of ESL at a French university can promote intercultural
competence. Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) provided
the theoretical framework for the analysis of the data from the student blogs and the reflective
essay. The three components of ICC are attitudes towards the other culture, knowledge of the
other culture and cultural processes, and intercultural skills (Byram, 1997). Dooly and Hauck’s
(2011) tool, “Competences for the Telecollaboratively Effective Person,” was adapted to
evaluate the development of student intercultural competence within each category. Table 7
presents the coding protocol used to evaluate student intercultural competence and the themes
that emerged from the data analysis of the blogs, reflective essays, and oral presentations. The
following section describes in details the emerging themes from the blog, the reflective essay,
and oral presentations within Byram’s (1997) three categories of intercultural competence:
knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
120
Table 7
Evaluation of Student Intercultural Competence: Analysis of Blogs and Reflective Essays
Name of students Knowledge Skills Attitudes
Emerging Themes from Blogs and Reflective Essays
Pseudonyms Factual learning
Knowing about
differences and
similarities
Discovery
Finding common
interests
Exploring differences
and similarities
Overcoming
communication
challenges
Exploring stereotypes
Surprised by
similarities
Understanding of
differences
Asking questions
about other culture
Engaging with
stereotypes
Interest and
appreciation of other
culture
Knowledge of Other Culture and Cultural Processes
Knowledge of other culture and cultural processes is defined as (a) knowledge of
differences and similarities between practices, values and beliefs, and (b) knowledge of how to
reflect on and evaluate factors responsible for similarities and differences (Byram, 1997). The
emerging themes within this category included learning and factual knowledge, discovery, and
reflecting on differences and similarities.
Findings from the blogs.
Factual learning. The verb “to learn” was omnipresent in the blog postings. Yet in the
blog, the learning was primarily factual and similarities and differences were merely listed rather
than reflected upon. Students learned a lot about the assigned topics as well as about their
partners. While most of the learning was factual, several students learned about themselves and
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
121
were able to evaluate and reflect on their learning. For example, Julia commented, “I learned that
I had to study a lot more to speak better French” (Julia, blog post). Molly wrote: “I discovered
that rapid thinking in French was difficult” (Molly, blog Post). Elon reflected on comparisons: “I
learned that there are many similarities and differences between France and the U.S. and it is
normal to have differences” (Elon, blog post). Amit learned that his partner’s life was not very
different than his.
Findings from the reflective essays and oral presentations.
Findings from the videotaped data from the oral presentations substantiated the data from
the reflective essays. In the following sections, findings from the reflective essays will be
analyzed.
Reflecting on similarities and differences. In the reflective essays, students reported
learning about their own stereotypes and preconceptions they may have had before the exchange.
For example, Claire described how her discussion about music and television challenged her
preconceptions of what French youth liked. She was surprised to discover that her and her
French partner liked the same TV shows, “We discovered that we both liked the same TV shows,
Games of Thrones, Breaking Bad and the Walking Dead” (Claire, reflective essay). She knew
she had preconceptions about cultural differences, “I immediately thought that we must have
even more in common than what I first thought” (Claire, reflective essay). Likewise, the
exchange challenged Minh’s preconceptions of the cultural differences between the two
countries: “I thought France was very different from the U.S. before I talked to Laure. I was
surprised by the many similarities” (Minh, reflective essay). The exchange challenged Leticia’s
common stereotype of the French, “Before talking to her, I had a stereotype that the French were
unpleasant and rude but after knowing her, I learned that it wasn’t true” (Leticia, reflective
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
122
essay). Likewise Elon wrote, “A stereotype I had is that the French are not pleasant and are rude
but Nesrine was great and patient” (Elon, reflective essay). Nora reflected on the meaning of
cultural differences on a more existential level, “Culture might be different, perhaps, but we are
all human beings” (Nora, reflective essay). The comparison and analysis tasks in the blog and the
reflective tasks from the essay and oral presentation helped students become aware of their own
prejudices and misconceptions and challenge them.
Interestingly, some students in the American group learned about cultures other than
French from their international student partners. For example, Scott learned about Cameroun, the
country of origin of his partner. While in the feedback Scott described factual knowledge about
Cameroun, in his reflective essay, he noted: “Before I talked to Danielle, I knew nothing about
Cameroun and in our conversations, I learned a lot and I changed my stereotypes about Africa”
(Scott, reflective essay). Indeed Scott admitted being surprised by the pictures posted by Danielle
on the blog of large modern cities in Cameroun. Molly had a similar experience with Chinese
student Jordan, her partner in the exchange. She learned that even though Jordan was a Chinese
student studying in France, she had a lot in common with him: “I found that even if we speak
different languages and are of different cultures, we have a lot in common” (Molly, reflective
essay). They found out that they had the same poster in their rooms that say “Keep Calm and
Carry On,” that both missed their families who lived far from their universities, and that they
were both musicians. Molly concluded, “We are simply university students who are trying to
find their place in the world” (Molly, reflective essay). Youth culture and student status was a
common denominator that superseded cultural differences for the majority of the students in the
exchange.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
123
While the data from the blogs contains primarily factual learning, the data from the
reflective essay provided evidence of development of intercultural competence in the exchange.
Intercultural Skills
Students acquire intercultural skills when they, (a) can exploit and explore cross-cultural
similarities and differences, (b) make conscious effort to step outside own beliefs and values
when necessary, (c) acknowledge and try to find a strategy to deal with communicative
challenges (Byram, 1997). Within the skills category, emerging themes included finding
common interests, exploring differences and similarities, inquiry and reflection, overcoming
communicative challenges and exploring stereotypes.
Findings from the student blogs.
Finding common interests. The majority of students in the blog were able to find
common interests that fueled the conversation. In fact, the majority of students spontaneously
sought common interests. In the survey responses, students found their conversations around
common interests to be the most enjoyable. In her blog, Molly found common interests with her
partner and her partner’s friend who was invited to join the second conversation. She found out
that they all liked music, and “The Hunger Games,” “We discussed about what interest us . . .
We all like music too: Jordan plays the piano, I sing, and Maelys plays instruments too” (Molly,
blog post). Finding common interests allowed students to get to know each other and motivated
them to connect.
Exploring differences and similarities. Students in the blog were able to explore
differences and similarities but did not systematically exploit and reflect on them in the blogs.
Interestingly the students with an international student partner were able to have the perspective
of an international student in France. Scott reported on an interesting third conversation where
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
124
both partners shared their perspectives on France’s educational system. His partner was from
Cameroun and was looking at the French system from an outsider’s point of view: “Like me and
the students in my French class, Danielle thinks the French education system is strict and rigid”
(Scott, blog post). Other students were able to exploit differences and similarities and to
recognize that other systems have their advantages too. Mandy commented on social disparities
and social welfare in France and the U.S. and concluded, “There seems to be a lot of similarities
[in U.S. and French society] like great disparities in wealth. France provides more fundamental
needs than the U.S. I think it’s a good thing” (Mandy, blog post). Likewise Sami reflected on her
own education system while exploring the similarities and differences between the French and
the American systems: “It is good that his classes increase in difficulty. For me, my history
classes are not in chronological order and I think the class schedule lacks a logical
order/sequence . . . It is very disorganized” (Sami, blog post). Sarah was surprised that there are
many women in chemistry in her partner’s program. She commented, “Julie studies Chemistry.
At Bordeaux University, there are a lot of women! Chemistry is a major for women! It’s very
cool!” (Sarah, blog post). She was able to exploit the differences to reflect on the disparities
between men and women in the STEM fields in the U.S. while in France, the trend was reversed.
The students were able to step outside of their own cultural system and cultural beliefs to look at
another culture and their own from a different perspective, a skill that provides evidence of
intercultural competence (Byram, 1997).
Inquiry and reflection. Students in the blog were able to explore and exploit differences
and similarities and to reflect on their own culture and society. Yet some students also reinforced
stereotypes. Natasha reflected on her partner’s impressions of the U.S., “She talked about her
impressions of Los Angeles. I sent her pictures of the freeways and she thought they were huge.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
125
Generally she thinks that everything is big in the U.S.: streets, houses, people. I think it’s really
funny because it’s true” (Natasha, blog post). In this example, the student reinforced her
partner’s stereotype of the U.S. In another posting, her online discussion about the education
system in France and the U.S. prompted her to comment: “She drives to school and parking is
FREE. All the parking at [American university] cost a lot of money, it is absurd” (Natasha, blog
post). In this example, the same student was able to reflect on the advantages of the French
education system and the absurdity of the cost of higher education in the U.S. In the blog,
students were not always able to step outside of their own belief to challenge stereotypes or
recognize that cultural differences exist within their own culture. For example, not all American
houses and not all American people are big.
Communicative challenges. In their inquiry of cultural similarities and differences,
students realized they may not be able to fully grasp different concepts of French society and that
language could not fully represent lived experiences (Kramsch, 2012). Such was the case of Jing
who tried to understand the difference between the American “suburb” and the French
“banlieue” (a word that literally means ‘suburb’), “We talked about the differences between the
United States and France . . . The definition of a suburb is not very clear” (Jing, blog post). Jing
did not fully realize that the definition was unclear because suburbs are varied in the U.S. and in
France. In class readings and discussions, the French “banlieue” was presented as a primarily
poor and violent peripheral city while the American “suburb” was thought of as a wealthy and
peaceful place. Yet her French partner described the “banlieue” of Bordeaux as a wealthy and
peaceful place too. The lack of clarity that Jing experienced was the result of differences that are
inherent of each culture and society. Jing did not apply critical thinking to her lack of
understanding of the “banlieue.”
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
126
Exploring stereotypes. Several students challenged their own stereotypes about France as
well as stereotypes that American may have about their own country. Julia, who comes from a
city with a bad reputation because of its Hispanic population and gang problems, examined the
stereotypes in her own culture, “[City] has a bad reputation of being dangerous but it depends
where one lives” (Julia, blog post). Then she was surprised when her partner told her that it was
similar in Paris, some areas are good and others are bad. Julia was surprised that Paris had bad
areas: “I thought that Paris was all good but there are good and bad streets. Just like in Paris,
there are dangerous places in [City] . . . but all the neighborhoods are not full of gangsters and
one example is my peaceful neighborhood” (Julia, blog post). Julia was able to step outside of
her own belief and values as well as out of the stereotypes in her own culture to explore cross-
cultural differences, which provides evidence of intercultural competence. One the other hand,
one student reinforced her partner’s stereotypes about American culture when she posted a
picture of an In-N-Out meal and commented: “When I talked about Los Angeles, I showed her
pictures of the hamburgers of In-N-Out. I showed her because she asked me about American
culture” (Marie, blog post). Further, she showed pictures of the freeway traffic in Los Angeles:
“I said that traffic was horrible all the time” (Marie, blog post).
Findings from the reflective essays.
The reflective essays provided a space for reflection at the end of the exchange and
provided evidence of student development of intercultural competence in the exchange.
Finding common interests. Students did not discuss common interests in the reflective
essay but rather reflected on the assigned topics.
Exploring differences and similarities. In their reflective essays, students reported being
surprised by the many similarities between themselves and their partners, and between French
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
127
and American youths in general. Katie wrote, “In general, I thought I would find more
differences but this exchange taught me that French and Americans have many similarities”
(Katie, reflective essay). In her reflective essay, Jane came to the conclusion that her partner had
a similar lifestyle and the same aspirations, similarities that she did not expect at the beginning of
the exchange.
Inquiry and reflection. Students were able to reflect on their conversations in relation to
what they had learned in class about the assigned topics. Claire expressed her appreciation of the
French education system from what she learned both online and in the classroom: “Based on our
class readings and my conversations with Laura, I like the French system better than the
American. It is more rigid but it’s a good thing” (Claire, reflective essay).
Furthermore several essays showed a deeper inquiry and reflection into the conversations
than in the blog posts. One of the most interesting essays was Scott’s reflection of what surprised
him in his online conversations. First he was surprised at how well his partner knew American
culture while he did not know as much about French culture: “She knew Newport Beach from a
TV show. She knew many artists I listen to like Eminem. But the most surprising for me, there is
a Disneyland in Paris and I didn’t think that France would adopt something like Disneyland”
(Scott, reflective essay). Scott’s comment about Disneyland Paris echoed common stereotypes in
the U.S. like the perceived hatred of the French for American business and pop culture. Scott
was able to reflect on his discovery and attributed the cultural similarities between France and
the U.S. to “the widespread of globalization, and how Internet and online resources like Skype,
Facebook and Blogger, accelerate the pace of globalization” (Scott, reflective essay). His
investigation into his own stereotypes led him to a “bigger picture” of culture and provides
evidence of development of intercultural competences.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
128
Likewise Molly was able to engage in a reflection on racism in France and the U.S. and
commented on the way the issue was presented in class versus how her partner approached it.
She wrote: “I said that racism is about power but he said that in France, it’s about people who
want to preserve a lifestyle” (Molly, reflective essay). Molly concluded, “I was surprised when
he said that because in class we talked about how racism affects its victims but not why there
was racism” (Molly, reflective essay). Molly’s comment reflected deep reflection about the issue
of racism and how a discussion of racism needs to include the effects as well as the causes. She
was able to point to the shortcomings of the readings and discussion in class but also suggested
the exchange gave her the opportunity to reflect on the way one engages with this issue. As with
Scott, Molly was able to look at the “bigger picture,” which provides evidence of development of
intercultural competence.
Communicative challenges. In the context of intercultural competence, communicative
challenges refer to intercultural miscommunication, namely miscommunication due to an
inability to comprehend the other’s perspective or point of reference (Kramsch, 2012). While
few students reported having communicative challenges other than linguistic ones, Mandy
expressed her dismay at her partner’s attitude towards immigrants in France: “She thinks that
North African immigrants in France are scary. I was surprised by her attitude but this is a cultural
difference. I had the impression that racism is more open in France and more latent in the U.S.
Racism is not a good thing in any case” (Mandy, reflective essay). However she did not judge
her partner for her attitude but rather explored the source of her prejudice — “a cultural
difference” — and acknowledged that the cultural difference in this case was not racism in
France versus no racism in the U.S. but rather how it expressed itself, “openly” in French society
and “latent” in the U.S.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
129
Likewise William reflected on his partner’s reluctance to communicate on the weekends.
The problem also arose in class discussions when students realized that the French took their free
time seriously and did not work on the weekend. William was able to step outside of his own
beliefs about work and free time and commented, “Several times Julie was too busy on the week
end to talk and I think it’s because she, like most French, likes her free time and our
conversations could be a burden. It is frustrating but I have to remember that life in France is
different than in the U.S., we balance our lives differently. In France, people don’t kill
themselves like in the U.S.” (William, reflective essay). He was able to turn a communication
challenge into an opportunity to reflect on cultural differences that may lead to communicative
challenges.
Exploring stereotypes. Exploring stereotypes in the reflective essays overlapped with the
themes of inquiry and reflection, and similarities and differences. Throughout the reflective
essays, students were able to explore and challenge stereotypes.
Attitudes
Students develop intercultural competence when they have the following attitudes
towards the other culture: (a) open to both similar and different cultural characteristics, (b) show
interest in exploring own and partners’ cultural perspectives, (c) find cross-cultural
misunderstanding an opportunity for learning, (d) are willing to engage critically with own
stereotypes, (e) are keen on developing a deeper understanding of the interactions during the
online exchange (Byram, 1997). Within this category, emerging themes from the data from the
blogs and the reflective essays included surprise, understanding of differences, asking questions
about the other culture, engaging with stereotypes, learning from misunderstandings, and interest
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
130
and appreciation of the other culture. First the findings from the blogs will be analyzed, then the
findings from the reflective essays.
Findings from the blogs.
Surprise. The verb “surprised” was found throughout the blogs and students also reported
on their partners being surprised by what they shared about American society and culture.
Writing about her conversation on French and American education systems, Mandy noted, “She
was surprised when I told her that college is expensive in the U.S. In fact, she was shocked!”
(Mandy, blog post). Her partner’s reaction echoed Mandy’s own opinion about the price of
higher education in the U.S.
Understanding of differences. In the blog, students did not generally reflect on
differences but showed an attitude of openness and interest towards their partner’s culture,
evidence that they were developing intercultural competence in the exchange. Interestingly, the
American students who were paired with international students in France had to understand the
complexities of their partner’s foreign perspective of France. Such was Elon’s experience with
her Tunisian partner. Elon was surprised that her partner was married but added that she
understood people had different life experiences, “I was a little surprised that she had a husband
but I understand that not everyone has the same circumstances as me” (Elon, blog post). It maybe
worth noting that Elon is an African American Studies major and as such may have had an
already open attitude towards cultural differences. In addition, her partner was from Tunisia and
may have had a different experience than the other French students.
Asking questions about the other culture. Asking questions was a recurrent word in the
student blogs, which shows a willingness to learn from one’s partner. For example, Minh wrote
extensively about her partner’s city, Nîmes, which indicated that she had asked a lot of questions
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
131
about it. Likewise all the students in the exchange had a detailed knowledge of their partners and
the topics discussed in the conversations. Minh reported in her blog feedback: “Laura asked me
how far was my house from [my university];” “She asked me a lot of questions about public
transportation” (Minh, blog post). Asking questions was clearly a two-way activity in the
conversations and was evidence of development of intercultural competence.
Engaging with stereotypes. While in the blog students listed stereotypes that they or their
partners may have had about the other culture, they did not necessarily engage and reflect on the
stereotypes. For example, Chandler talked about differences between the American “suburb” and
the “banlieues,” “We talked about Los Angeles and Paris and about the stereotypes of each city”
(Chandler, blog post) but did not expand on the topic in the blog.
Interest and appreciation of the other culture. Students repeatedly used the words
“like,” “interested,” “interesting,” and “appreciate” in their blogs. Writing about her conversation
on education systems, Kelly showed interest in exploring her partner’s cultural context: “It was
interesting to hear what they learn and their education system” (Kelly, blog post). Leticia wrote,
“I appreciated my conversation with Bérangère” (Leticia, blog post), and Jing also commented,
“We had a very interesting conversation on French education system” (Jing, blog post). Other
students showed a positive attitude towards the exchange even though the language barrier made
communication difficult, “Even though the conversation was difficult for me, I liked speaking
with Danielle” (Scott, blog post). Students in the blog clearly showed interest in communicating
with their partner and in exploring their partner’s cultural context, which provides evidence of
intercultural competence.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
132
Findings from the reflective essays.
Surprise. The majority of students reported being surprised at the similarities between
themselves and their partners and between American and French culture. Therefore the reflective
essays focused more on similarities in lifestyle and culture than on differences. For example,
Sami commented, “I was surprised at the similarities especially when it comes to culture and
lifestyle” (Sami, reflective essay). She and her partner talked about Hollywood movies and how
her partner liked American cinema. Chandler was equally surprised that his partner, like him,
was into martial arts and added, “I was surprised that martial arts were popular in France”
(Chandler, reflective essay). Interestingly students’ focus on similarities may challenge Dooly
and Hauck’s (2011) tool for evaluating the telecollaboratively competent person precisely
because the tool is based on the assumption that intercultural competence arises from
intercultural differences and miscommunication. This finding will be discussed further in
Chapter 5.
Understanding of differences. In their reflective essays, the majority of the students in
the exchange commented on the similarities rather than cultural differences. Mostly they found
that pop culture was the common denominator between themselves and their partners. Priyanka
wrote that she had a new perspective on French youths after the exchange, “I think that I have a
new perspective on young people my age who live in a different country. In spite of differences
in our countries, we like the same TV shows, music, and we learn the same things at school”
(Priyanka, reflective essay). Likewise Katie found that one can find common interests within
different cultures and music was, for her, a way to connect: “I thought different cultures have
different tastes in music but if we can connect through music, it’s wonderful!” (Katie, reflective
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
133
essay). As noted before, students found common interests because they realized they had many
similarities with their partners, mainly through pop culture.
Asking questions about the other culture. Since the reflective essay was about reflecting
on the conversations, students did not report asking questions about the other culture but their
knowledge of the topics indicated they did ask questions throughout the exchange.
Engaging with stereotypes. Many of the students reported having a new perspective on
French people and French culture and being challenged in their stereotypes. Before the
exchange, Cristina adhered to the common stereotype that French were rude but she changed her
attitude during the exchange: “I have a different perspective on French culture and young people
because they are not all impolite and strict” (Cristina, reflective essay). In fact the exchange
encouraged her to study in France: “My partners gave me the courage to study abroad in spring
in Paris and to experience a different culture” (Cristina, reflective essay). Minh also started the
exchange with preconceived ideas about the French and a limited understanding of French
society and culture. In the reflective essay, she commented on her stereotypes and how the
exchange changed her preconceived ideas: “France is not only a romantic country! France is a
country with students who pay less for their education but work harder. They are not lazy.
Education can be competitive there . . . Because of the online exchange, I have a new love for
French culture and French youths. There is more to French culture than food. Thank you for the
exchange” (Minh, reflective essay). In this comment, Minh voiced her stereotypes while refuting
them at the same time. She was eager to question and evaluate her stereotypes, which showed
development of intercultural competences.
Interest and appreciation of the other culture. All the students showed interest and
appreciation for the other culture. In her essay, Nadine reflected on how her life would have been
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
134
if she had been at a French university (Nadine, reflective essay). She was able to think as if she
were the other person in the other culture. Stepping outside of own beliefs and value system is
evidence of intercultural competence.
Learning from misunderstanding. While misunderstanding occurred in the exchange,
students found misunderstanding an opportunity for learning, evidence that they were developing
intercultural competence in the exchange. For example, Marie was able to use irony in her
answer to her partner’s stereotype of American food. She was shocked that her partner thought
all Americans only ate hamburgers and she was rather angry at the stereotype: “At first, I thought
she was very rude but I thought about where she was coming from and I forgave her. Instead of
getting angry, I introduced In’n Out Burgers to her. In return, she introduced the ‘cannelés,’ a
type of cake. They are a specialty of Bordeaux” (Marie, reflective essay). She added that she
wanted to visit France after the exchange to learn more about French culture. “I am grateful for
the online experience” (Marie, reflective essay)
Student Perceptions of the Online Intercultural Exchange
The student survey on their perceptions of the online exchange took place at the end of
the exchange and was posted on the university learning management system. The survey
consisted of eight open-ended questions addressing the following areas: (a) attitude towards
foreign language learning, (b) expectations of the exchange, (c) experience in the exchange, (d)
learning in the exchange, (e) frustrations, (f) benefits and drawback of the exchange, and (g)
improvements. The survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Only the class
participating in the exchange had access to the survey and an automatic email, notifying students
of the survey activation, was sent to every student enrolled in the class. In addition, the
researcher sent an email to students explaining the anonymous nature of the survey, voluntary
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
135
participation of the students in the survey, and the modalities for compensation. The survey was
open to students enrolled in the class for a period of two weeks. Fifteen students or 57.7% of the
class participated in the online survey. The following findings are organized by questions asked
in the survey and present the major themes that emerged from repeated ideas in the responses.
Respondents are identified using numbers from 1-15 in the order in which responses were listed
for each question.
The first question was, “What role does the French course play in your course of study at
[your university]? How do you like learning a foreign language? How do you like learning about
another culture?” While seven of the respondents stated they were taking French as a General
Education requirement, all the respondents expressed a strong interest for French language and
culture, and two respondents stated that French might be useful in their future career or they
were planning on staying in France for an extended period of time. Students demonstrated
awareness of cultural diversity and exhibited an interest to explore their own and the other
culture prior to the online exchange. Awareness of cultural diversity and interest in another
culture are skills and attitudes that attest to a certain level of intercultural competence (Byram,
1997). According to one respondent, “Learning a foreign language is great because I can
communicate with more people, I am introduced to new culture and that makes me more self
aware of mine” (Student 13, survey, December 16, 2013). Likewise another respondent stated, “I
want to learn even more about another culture because it makes me appreciate both my own
culture and all the other cultures of the world even more!” (Student 14, survey, December 16,
2013). Students were aware of the interconnection between cultures and the dialogic nature of
intercultural relations and were willing to gain a deeper understanding of the interactions
between cultures, an attitude that, according to Byram (1997), provides evidence of intercultural
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
136
competence. Students showed readiness to be challenged in their a priori beliefs, a skill that
demonstrated the ability to overcome potential challenges associated with cultural diversity. One
respondent addressed the possibility to overcome cultural challenges in the exchange, “I like
learning about the French culture a lot and I like that we have broken down a lot of barriers
culturally in this class” (Student 3, survey, December 16, 2013).
The second question asked, “What were your expectations of the online intercultural
exchange before it started?” Six respondents reported being excited but nervous about the
exchange. In all the responses, words like “excited,” “fun,” “difficult,” “nervous,” “awkward,”
and “wary” were reiterated by the respondents. The survey responses corroborate with student
comments in the first blog postings. The majority of the respondents reported being worried
about their language skills. Students were particularly aware that the French students were more
proficient in English than they were in French. One respondent was “overall anxious that our
speaking abilities wouldn’t match up” (Student 14, survey, December 16, 2013). Three
respondents were worried they would be judged by their partner. One respondent expressed his
concern: “I didn’t want to be judged for it [my accent]” (Student 10, survey, December 16,
2013). Like, language barrier also emerged as a major concern in the blogs.
Furthermore respondents admitted having preconceived ideas and stereotypes about the
French students. One respondent was worried that “My partner wouldn’t like me because I am an
American,” yet the same respondent was able to reflect on own stereotyping by adding “I
suppose that says something about the way I thought of the French” (Student 3, survey,
December 16, 2013). Another respondent felt that communication would be difficult because of
cultural challenges: “French people are different than Americans and we were going to have a
hard time developing a topic” (Student 8, survey, December 16, 2013). While the latter
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
137
respondent was aware of cultural differences, he did not believe that meaningful communication
across different cultures was possible before the exchange. Overall the respondents were self-
conscious and lacked confidence in their linguistic abilities in the exchange. They also showed
preconceived ideas about the French whom they expected would judge them: “I thought they
would judge us on how well we communicated” (Student 4, survey, December 16, 2013).
Respondents were ready to engage critically with own stereotypes during the online exchange, an
attitude that shows evidence of intercultural competence (Byram, 1997).
The third question was in the form of a statement, “Tell me about your experience in the
exchange,” that aimed at encouraging the respondents to describe their experience in the
exchange from their own point of view. All the respondents reported having a positive
experience in the exchange with various degrees of success. They all reported that their partners
were friendly and that they liked their partners. This reflects the findings in the blogs and the
reflective essays were students expressed their appreciation for their partner and French culture.
The majority of the respondents had difficulty with the language, the technology, and
busy schedules. One respondent expressed his frustration with the logistics of doing the
exchange: “The Internet connection periodically would short out in the middle of our
conversations, and we would have to wait several minutes for the reconnection. Also, the
vacation and exam schedules at [the American university] and Bordeaux did not line up well and
several weeks we could not talk because one of us was unavailable” (Student 7, survey,
December 16, 2013). Findings from the blogs and reflective essays reflected the same structural
and technology issues. However other respondents did not have problems connecting with their
partners and talked beyond the required 30 minutes: “I talked to my partner much longer than the
thirty-minute requirement. Sometimes, we hit 3-4 hours. It felt like a weekend catch up with a
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
138
friend (because it was) and not like an assignment at all” (Student 13, survey, December 16,
2013). Several respondents indicated that while communication was difficult at the beginning, it
became easier and better over time: “not very fun at the beginning and hard to come up with
things to talk about but the more we got to know each other, the more fun it became and the
more comfortable we were about speaking each other’s languages” (Student 9, survey, December
16, 2013). The decreasing number of comments about communication difficulties in the blogs
also provided evidence of more relaxed attitude over time.
The majority of the respondents also commented on the topics that were assigned weekly
for conversation. Respondents were divided between those who felt the topics were too broad
without enough direction and those who felt the topics were constraining. Several respondents
discussed the assigned topics with their partners but also talked about their lives and personal
interests: “we found ourselves spending more time branching out into other subjects about our
own personal lives, which were not only interesting but also gave us an idea of our cultural
differences as college students from two very different parts of the world” (Student 11, survey,
December 16, 2013). In the blogs, students wrote about finding common interests.
On the other hand, one respondent reported on the difficulty to make conversation
initially but used critical thinking to pinpoint specific factors that made communication difficult,
a skill that is evidence of intercultural competence: “I guess what I’m trying to say is that the
rubrics were a little broad so we didn’t know how to direct our conversations. I don’t have
anything against the rubrics at all. In fact I think if it were more strict with a list of questions we
were required to ask, we wouldn’t have been able to get comfortable with each other at our own
pace and discover the little things about each other. I suppose this is just an inherent thing when
first meeting people, whether or not it’s over the Internet or in real life” (Student 5, survey,
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
139
December 16, 2013). Finally respondents reported using other modes of online communication
such as chat and Facebook. This provides evidence that the participants in the exchange
communicated more than the required Skype sessions and used various modes of online
communication: “Outside of the formal conversations we had on Skype, the two of us texted and
Facebook messaged each other frequently. She even wished me a Happy Birthday when she
noticed it on Facebook” (Student 7, survey, December 16, 2013).
The fourth question was, “What are some of the things you have learned about France
and French culture in the exchange?” Respondents reported being surprised at the similarities
between themselves and the French students but several respondents were surprised by the
influence of American pop culture on French culture and French youths: “I was primarily
surprised by the cultural exportation of American music, products, and television. My exchange
partner knew far more about American culture than I knew about French culture, and it was
evident that her understanding was acquired outside of the classroom” (Student 7, survey,
December 16, 2013). Another respondent learned “about the importance of American pop
culture” (Student 15, survey, December 16, 2013). Likewise the reflective essays provided ample
evidence of surprise and reflection on similarities between partners and between French and
American culture. In the reflective essays and in the blogs, students mentioned American pop
culture as the common denominator between themselves and their partners.
All the respondents were interested in exploring their partner’s culture as well as question
their own, and were open to both similarities and differences. Interest in a different culture and
openness towards cultural differences are attitudes that provide evidence of intercultural
competence (Byram, 1997). All the respondents showed appreciation for one or more aspects of
French culture that was different from their own: “While here in southern California it is all
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
140
about the fast life where everyone drives everyone and people have to work day in and day out to
make a decent living, the life and culture in France appears to be much more refined and
unhurried” (Student 11, survey, December 16, 2013). Another respondent concluded that in spite
of cultural differences, “it is remarkably easy to get along with people from other countries. The
French take having fun very seriously (except in a non serious way)” (Student 2, survey,
December 16, 2013).
One respondent took a well-balanced position towards what she learned about French
society: “I learned a lot more about French politics (from the perspective of an actual French
citizen), so that was nice. France seems to have better institutions to take care of its citizens (like
healthcare and easier financial access to higher education), though those are not without
problems. I was somewhat surprised to realize the cultural attitudes about race in France. Some
of the things my partner expressed seemed a bit racist, but she maintained that it was the opinion
that many French people had” (Student 10, survey, December 16, 2013). The respondent’s
comment was a further reflection of a racist comment made by her partner, which she had
already developed in the reflective essay. Interestingly the survey provided a forum for further
reflection from the participants. The respondent was able to explore without judgment factors for
misunderstandings and made cross-cultural misunderstanding an opportunity for learning, a skill
and an attitude that show evidence of intercultural competence. While the respondent was
surprised by the racist comments of the French student and her/his assertion that many French
people shared her opinion, she/he made a conscious effort to step outside of own beliefs and
values when necessary, a skill that shows evidence for intercultural competence (Byram, 1997).
Finally several respondents reported that the exchange challenged their preconception of French
society as not diverse: “I tend to think of Paris as France but there is much more landscape and
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
141
diversity than that” (Student 12, survey, December 16, 2013). The word “diverse” and
“diversity” recurs several times across the responses.
The next question asked about frustrations and negative feelings students may have had
in the exchange and was in the form of a statement to encourage students to express their own
feelings. Respondents reported feeling frustrated by technology issues such as bad Internet
connection, difficulties of communication due to lack of proficiency in French, and difficulties to
schedule an online meeting due to busy schedules and the time difference between France and
the U.S. Yet the majority of the respondents had a positive attitude towards the difficulties and
understood that the difficulties were part of intercultural communication: “My only complaint is
the 9-hour time difference, which cannot be fixed without greatly altering the face of the
planet . . . It worked out, and was very much worth it, it’s just an unfortunate situation. Besides
that, I have absolutely no complaints about the process, and would love to continue doing it”
(Student 1, survey, December 16, 2013). Another respondent was frustrated with the language
barrier but understood the difficulty was part of language acquisition: “One of the most difficult
things about the exchange was understanding my partner when she spoke in French . . .
However, I understand that this is a more natural, and likely effective, form of language
acquisition so I tried to embrace the difficulty” (Student 7, survey, December 16, 2013).
Likewise respondents accepted that technology had its limitations especially when
communicating in a foreign language, “it’s just that there’s a certain limit to how well computer
mics and speakers can function. I never noticed the issue with it when Skyping in English, but
when it involves a foreign language, the effect of it can be amplified” (Student 5, survey,
December 16, 2013). Respondents were keen to turn unsuccessful moments into learning
experiences, an attitude that shows evidence of intercultural competence (Byram, 1997). They
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
142
tried to find strategies to deal with communicative challenges (Byram, 1997). As for question
four, the survey provided students another opportunity to reflect on their online experience often
reflecting further on what they touched upon in their blogs and reflective essays.
The sixth question was, “In your opinion, what are the benefits and drawbacks of the
online intercultural exchange?” Respondents identified heightened intercultural understanding as
the major benefit of the online exchange. Structural and technical problems were drawbacks in
the online exchange for the majority of respondents. Several respondents mentioned the
opportunity for an authentic experience as a major benefit of the online exchange: “Overall, the
benefits are the chance to practice your language in a real-world application and to learn about a
different culture from a peer. It was pretty awesome” (Student 10, survey, December 16, 2013).
Another respondent compared the experience in the exchange with the classroom experience and
saw a clear benefit of integrating an online exchange in the existing curriculum: “We can also get
an entirely different perspective of the French people by actually interacting with them instead of
just reading about them and watching films” (Student 9, survey, December 16, 2013). Another
respondent echoed the idea of “seeing the world in other person’s eyes” which is the basis for
intercultural competence as defined by Byram (1997) and outlined in the MLA (1997) report:
“We get to practice our French outside of class with someone that knows the language. We
learned from the culture directly, and we get to see the world in other person’s eyes” (Student 8,
survey, December 16, 2013). Other respondents mentioned the opportunity for language
acquisition in a stress-free online environment: “The main benefit of an online exchange is the
natural language acquisition and cultural sharing that arises from international interactions.
Furthermore, the exchange was stress free, yet I felt that I learned a great deal” (Student 7,
survey, December 16, 2013). Another respondent concluded, “The ability to practice French
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
143
regularly as well as practice writing skills, in such an informal setting, greatly reduced the
anxiety that an in class composition or oral test produce. It was nice to be able to relax and
practice French and still learn something instead of stressing out about a test” (Student 2, survey,
December 16, 2013).
Interestingly, one respondent pointed out that drawback of the exchange was the uneven
experiences of the students. Indeed four students in the exchange were not able to communicate
regularly with their partners because of various structural, organizational and technical issues.
One respondent commented, “The primary drawback of an online exchange is the inevitable
inequality of the exchange. Some students were paired with partners that had a great deal of
availability and access to high-speed Internet, while others had partners that were very difficult
to get in contact with. This made it such that some students were left to take a traditional oral and
written exam, which in my estimation would be more difficult than periodic conversations that
resulted in a more natural language acquisition” (Student 7, survey, December 16, 2013).
Inevitably the pairing of partners may be more successful for some students than others.
For all the respondents, the exchange promoted better cross-cultural understanding in an
authentic intercultural experience. Students also realized that there are potential challenges in
intercultural communication but demonstrated ability to overcome potential challenges: “It isn’t
the end of the world if I say something wrong, even catastrophically wrong. You just clarify and
fix things” (Student 3, survey, December 16, 2013). Overcoming challenges to improve
intercultural communication is a skill that shows evidence of intercultural competence. Finally
several participants mentioned interaction with peer, real-life experience, and the opportunity to
meet a student from France without having to travel there as benefits of the online exchange:
“The exchange is the closest I can get to speaking with a French person of my age without
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
144
actually buying a ticket and packing my bags for France, so it was really a fun opportunity”
(Student 15, survey, December 16, 2013). Another respondent added, “Overall, the benefits are
the chance to practice your language in a real-world application and to learn about a different
culture from a peer. It was pretty awesome” (Student 10, survey, December 16, 2013). The
opportunity for an authentic experience was reiterated by a respondent who saw the benefit, “to
directly engage in conversations with native French speakers and not only practice speaking and
understanding the French language but at the same time learn about the French culture from a
direct source with a real experience of it” (Student 11, survey, December 16, 2013).
The next question asked, “In your opinion, what could be improved in the exchange you
participated in?” Respondents suggested several ideas to improve the exchange to alleviate
student frustrations as well as decrease the drawback of the exchange mentioned in questions
four and five. Several respondents suggested using less synchronous exchange via video chat and
add asynchronous communication in order to reduce frustrations due to time zone difference and
busy schedules. Time zone difference and busy schedules were issues that emerged from the first
blogs. Some respondents had very specific recommendations, “Text conversations on either
Facebook or WhatsApp should be integrated into the requirements. Possibly have 3 necessary 30
min oral conversations on Skype, and then 3 written conversations on either Facebook or
WhatsApp (for those that have smart-phones)” (Student 7, survey, December 16, 2013). Another
participant commented, “Online conversations should not just be limited to Skype or FaceTime.
Other form of writing can serve as a tool to communicate as well because of time issues”
(Student 8, survey, December 16, 2013). Students show a willingness to find strategies to
overcome challenges and make the exchange a successful experience, which is evidence of
intercultural competence.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
145
Secondly several respondents suggested ways to improve the assigned topics for the
exchange. Mostly respondents stated they would prefer less structured topics but more help
preparing for the conversation in class: “I don’t think the predetermined discussion topics were
really necessary. I think the students will still discuss various aspects of French and American
culture naturally, without being told specifically what to discuss. Also, I think it could be helpful
to prepare some scripts in class for the exchange. It could help the conversation flow a little more
smoothly” (Student 10, survey, December 16, 2013). Other respondents found the topics
redundant and suggested more diverse topics. In the debriefing sessions, students had asked for
more in-class preparation of the conversations. Yet as noted in an earlier section, time constraints
for the course had not permitted adequate in-class preparation for the online conversation.
Finally several respondents cited the uneven importance of the exchange in the course for
the American and the French students as a drawback of the exchange. While the exchange
represented the oral and writing grades in the American students’ French course, the French
received credit for participation in the exchange. As a consequence, the French students posted
far less on the blog than the American students and posted mostly towards the end of the
exchange. They were also less likely to make time for the video chat communication. As a result,
one respondent felt the French students were not as serious about the exchange as the American
students, “I think the exchange can be improved by having the exchange be an assignment for
the French students as well so then it can be equal and both partners are serious about the
exchange and learning about the different cultures” (Student 5, survey, December 16, 2013). The
researcher also noted the problem of the uneven weight of the exchange in the French and
American courses and the issue will be discussed in Chapter 5 in further detail. Overall
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
146
participants suggested improvements with the technology, the assigned topics, and the
partnering.
The last question was “Is there anything else you’d like to share about the online
exchange?” The majority of respondents reported enjoying the exchange and wanting to
participate in more online exchanges. One respondent suggested having an online exchange
every quarter with different regions of the Francophone world, “I just really wish that this
program could be continued throughout the rest of the 2-series year . . . I think it would be
amazing to be linked to a class in a different Francophone country each quarter, technology
willing. It is a lot of work, but I already feel like my French has improved greatly, so I can only
imagine how much more proficient we could become if we continued this program. Thank you
for arranging this opportunity for us!” (Student 1, survey, December 16, 2013). Two respondents
found the structural and organizational hurdles of an international online exchange too difficult
to overcome and would not wish to do it again: “I enjoyed my time in the exchange but I don’t
think I would like to do it again, simply because of the scheduling conflicts and internet
connection issues” (Student 3, survey, December 16, 2013). Another respondent shared the same
conclusion: “the exchange was interesting but my partner’s busy schedule made it too difficult”
(Student 6, survey, December 16, 2013). Finally one respondent suggested to create a forum for
all the students involved in the exchange for further exchanges of questions and comments: “I
think that all students should be able to contact each other if interested. In addition to having a
partner, students could communicate in a forum/chat room for further questions and interests so
more people could connect” (Student 11, survey, December 16, 2013). All the respondents
showed an interest and appreciation for the exchange even though two respondents would not
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
147
like to participate again due to structural and organizational hurdles. Furthermore students
suggested improvements that will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Validity and Reliability of the Findings
In qualitative studies, the authenticity and trustworthiness of the findings must be
established to ensure that the findings reflect the experience of the participants (Merriam, 2009).
The researcher for this study used multiple methods of data collection, documents, observations,
and an open-ended survey, and used triangulation to compare and validate the data (Merriam,
2009). Table 8 presents the triangulation of the findings. Each column shows the method of data
collection and each row lists emerging themes for each of the research questions in the study. As
shown in Table 8, the findings converge across the data collection methods.
In addition, the use of a reflexive journal helped the researcher for this study reflect
critically on the self as researcher and on the implementation of the exchange (O’Dowd, 2003;
Merriam, 2009).
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
148
Table 8
Triangulation of Findings
Emerging Themes
Research
Questions Student blogs Reflective Essays Survey
Field Notes/
Observations
How can online
intercultural
exchanges be
successfully
designed and
implemented?
Issues with time
zone difference
and busy
schedules, feeling
nervous and
difficulties with
language, Internet
connection.
Help from partner.
Strategies to cope.
Metacognition.
Decreasing
difficulties.
Issues with time
difference and
busy schedules,
feeling nervous
and difficulties
with language,
Internet
connection.
Help from partner.
Strategies to cope.
Feeling nervous,
worried about language
skills.
Difficulty with
language, technology,
time difference, and
busy schedule.
Finding strategies to
cope with structural and
language issues.
Collaboration,
communication and
flexibility of partner
teachers.
Positive attitude of
teachers when faced
with structural &
organizational
difficulties.
Student difficulties to
connect.
Internet connection
issues.
Uneven experience of
students.
Language barrier.
How can
reflective
practice be
developed and
integrated into
the online
exchange?
Introducing
oneself and family
on blog.
Feedback on
conversation.
Factual learning
and listing of
comparisons.
Exploring
differences and
similarities.
Exploring and
engaging with
stereotypes.
Surprised by
similarities.
Interest &
appreciation of
other culture.
Exploring differences
and similarities.
Exploring and engaging
with stereotypes.
Surprised by
similarities.
Interest & appreciation
of other culture.
Progression in
reflection from stating
factual learning and
comparisons to
reflecting and engaging
with other culture and
one’s own culture.
In-class discussions and
surveys as opportunities
to investigate further
differences and
similarities.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
149
Table 8, continued
Emerging Themes
Research
Questions Student blogs Reflective Essays Survey
Field Notes/
Observations
How can online
exchanges
between
students in the
US and
students in the
target-language
country
promote the
development of
intercultural
competence?
Factual learning.
Knowing about
differences and
similarities.
Finding common
interests.
Overcoming
communication
challenges.
Asking questions
about other
culture.
Interest &
appreciation of
other culture.
Exploring
differences and
similarities.
Discovery.
Overcoming
communication
challenges.
Exploring &
engaging with
stereotypes.
Surprised by
similarities.
Interest &
appreciation of
other culture.
Awareness of cultural
diversity.
Interest in exploring
own and other culture.
Challenged in their
stereotypes.
Mixed opinion of topics
for conversations.
Surprised by
similarities.
Students show
development of
intercultural
competence.
Challenge their
stereotypes.
Surprised by
similarities.
Reflect on similarities
and differences.
Appreciate other
culture.
What are
student
perceptions of
the online
intercultural
exchange they
participated in?
Positive attitude.
Enjoyed exchange
and liked partner.
Positive attitude.
Enjoyed exchange
and liked partner.
Appreciated
authentic
experience.
Engaged with
stereotypes.
Positive attitude.
Enjoyed exchange and
liked partner.
Uneven pairing of
partners.
Uneven experience of
students.
Heightened intercultural
understanding.
Became aware of own
stereotypes.
Opportunity to engage
with stereotypes.
Improved language
skills.
Would like to do
another online
exchange.
Exchange should
include various modes
of online
communication.
Positive attitude of
students.
Structural and
organizational
difficulties as greatest
hurdle in exchange.
Uneven experience of
students due to
partnering and
structural difficulties.
Heightened intercultural
understanding for all
participants.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
150
Summary
The chapter included a presentation of findings that were drawn from the data analysis as
discussed in the chapter sections. The settings of the study and profile of participants were
developed to allow the reader a description of the setting and a portrayal of the participants in the
study and the data analysis procedures were described in detail. The narrative aimed at
presenting emerging themes within the categories established for data analysis and were
organized in a way that addressed the four research questions. The discussion and verification
process of the findings were embedded in the narrative. Visual displays of the data analysis and
of the triangulation of the results provided an additional illustration of data analysis.
Chapter 5 will offer a discussion of the findings in relation to the literature reviewed in
Chapter 2 and the research questions. Then, the significance of the study will be evaluated.
Finally, recommendations for practice and further research will be suggested.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
151
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
This chapter begins with a restatement of the purpose of the study. Then, conclusions are
drawn from the literature review, the methodology, and the analysis of the data and their
relationship to the research questions. Next, the significance of the study is evaluated and
recommendations for higher education professionals are provided to enhance the quality of
intercultural online exchange and student experience in the exchange. Finally recommendations
for further research will be suggested.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to plan, implement and evaluate an online intercultural
exchange, to understand how reflective practice could be integrated into the existing curriculum
to promote intercultural competence in the exchange, and to gain knowledge of student
perceptions of the exchange. To fulfill this purpose, students’ online blogs, reflective essays, and
video-taped oral presentations were analyzed, as well as the researcher’s field notes from online
and in-class observations. Finally an open-ended survey from students who participated in the
exchange was analyzed to better understand student perceptions of the exchange. The protocols
for data analysis are provided as appendices.
Discussion
The stakeholders and participants in this study chose to share their written
communication in the exchange, and the students chose to share their perceptions of their online
experience. Themes from the data analysis emerged in the area of planning, implementation, and
evaluation of the exchange, the need for reflective tasks, students’ development of intercultural
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
152
competence through reflection, and student perceptions of the exchange experience. The
following discussion is organized around the four research questions.
Issues in the Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation of the Exchange
Various issues arose in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the online
exchange. First, findings from the communication between partner teachers provided insightful
information from the emerging themes: collaboration, good communication, flexibility, and
ability to adapt. The literature supports the importance of those characteristics for successful
exchanges (Cloke, 2010; Stepp-Greany, 2002; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; O’Dowd & Ritter,
2006; Kern, 2000). For example, in her discussion of an Italian-Australian exchange in which
she was the researcher, Cloke (2010) concluded that more communication between instructors
and monitoring of the exchange was needed. Secondly, findings from student blogs revealed
issues with language, organization, and technology but also underscored students’ ability to cope
with the difficulties. The literature on telecollaboration makes ample mention of those issues
(Belz, 2002, 2004; Cloke, 2010; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). While Cloke (2010) has identified
several issues that may interfere with the organization and the successful implementation of the
exchange, Belz (2004) has identified several structural hurdles that may create conflicts and
misunderstandings between exchange partners.
Planning.
Even though the institutional, classroom and cultural environments were different for the
American and French groups, collaboration, communication and flexibility of partner teachers
made the planning phase a smooth and productive stage in the exchange. The partner teachers
faced institutional and classroom differences that could have jeopardized the organization of the
exchange. The research literature offers multiple examples of failed communication due to
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
153
institutional and classroom differences (Ware, 2005; Belz, 2002; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006; Cloke,
2010). Belz (2004) has identified misalignment of academic calendars and different value given
to the study of foreign languages as institutional hurdles, while Cloke (2010) described how
differences in the way the exchange was assessed presented a problem for the students and the
teachers. In this exchange, the teachers had different objectives for their respective classes. For
the French group, the objective of the exchange was improvement of oral skills while the
objectives of the teacher for the American group was the development of intercultural
competence, and improvement of oral and writing skills. The teachers were able to reconcile
their objectives by including Skype sessions in the exchange for the development of oral skills
and intercultural understanding, and blog postings for feedback and reflection on the
conversation, primarily for the American group.
The partner teachers also faced institutional and cultural differences. When the teacher
for the American group suggested having students keep a log of their conversation activities,
such as date and length, the French teacher objected. At the college level, French students are not
assessed on classroom activities but on high-stake exams, and their participation in classroom
activities is not subject to the scrutiny of the teachers. In this exchange, the blog was evidence of
the American students participation in the online exchange.
In addition, the French teacher’s experience with technology and previous exchanges was
an advantage. No major issues arose during the planning phase of the exchange.
Implementation.
From the email and Skype conversation data from the teachers, collaboration,
communication and flexibility remained critical characteristics for the success of the exchange,
especially in the first couple of weeks into the exchange, when issues were arising daily, such as
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
154
students’ failure to connect with partners. Teachers need to be very responsive to students and
partner teacher’s concerns to avoid frustrations from the start of the exchange. Research shows
the relationship between the instructors in the online exchange is critical (1) to foster a positive
experience for students (Stepp-Greany, 2002), and (2) to promote reflection and prepare students
for the exchange (Kramsch, & Thorne, 2002). However, due to time constraints, not enough time
was devoted to pre-tasks activities in the French-American exchange.
Data from the student blogs and reflective essays presented several issues with the
implementation of the exchange. Structural and organizational issues included the nine-hour time
zone difference between France and the U.S., and students’ busy schedule. Thus it was critical
for the teacher to be able to adapt quickly to the situation at hand and to make necessary changes
to the plan. To alleviate the pressure of weekly conversations, the instructor for the American
group reduced the number of required conversations from six during the planning phase to four
at the end of the exchange and designed an alternative oral exam and writing assignment for the
four students who were not able to connect four times. Flexibility and adaptation are critical
attitude and skills for teachers involved in an online exchange (Cloke, 2010; O’Dowd & Ritter,
2006). Furthermore teachers need to monitor the exchange daily by immersing himself/herself in
the online activity and having regular debriefing sessions with students in the classroom. The
literature supports the findings from the data. For example, O’Dowd and Ritter (2006)
underscored the importance of “virtual team teaching.”
While teachers and students do not have control over time zone difference between
countries, their own busy schedule, and their partner’s schedule, responses from the student
survey offered suggestions for different modes of online communication that may reduce time
issues. More asynchronous forms of communication may be introduced such as online forums
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
155
and chat. Skype communication could be reduced to twice a quarter. Students also indicated
difficulties with the language. The American students were very nervous and self-conscious
about speaking French. Most of them thought their French were bad and they were surprised at
the level of their partner’s proficiency in English. The American students reported their partners
helped them with comprehension and pronunciation. Europeans in general begin learning
English very young, in 6th grade in France, as opposed to American students who start a foreign
language in high school. Likewise, Guth & Marini-Maio (2010) and Ware (2005) found that
American students participating in an exchange with Italian and German students were at a lower
level of linguistic competence than their European counterpart. Pre-task activities could help
students understand proficiency differences and the source of the difference. Guth and Marini-
Maio (2010) also suggested creating exchange tasks around the American students’ syllabus so
that they could build vocabulary in the classroom before the Skype sessions. While this exchange
was also integrated into the American syllabus and students build vocabulary for the
conversation topics, the American students would have benefitted from the preparation of sample
questions in class, as one student suggested in the survey.
In spite of the structural and language difficulties, findings from the blogs and the survey
revealed that students helped each other in the exchange, found strategies like the use of
technology to cope with language barriers, and overall felt they improved their oral proficiency
in French. In contrast, Belz (2002) found that differences in language proficiency between
partners affected interpersonal relationships and may lead to lack of interest in the project and
frustration. While the data for this study did not reveal lack of interest and frustration because of
differences in proficiency, it is possible that those students who did not complete the online
assignments were discouraged not only by structural hurdles but also by language barriers.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
156
Interviews with students who fail to complete online assignments or fail to connect with their
partners may yield more information about difference of language proficiency and its
consequences.
Evaluation.
The end-of-exchange survey provided valuable information to assess the exchange and
offer recommendations for future exchanges. Overall students had a positive attitude towards the
exchange and found the experience to be valuable both for intercultural understanding and to
improve oral language skills. The majority of respondents indicated they would like to
participate in another exchange and preferred the exchange format to solely having in-class
activities. Yet the uneven experience of students should be a concern for future exchanges. Four
students were not able to make the required connections and postings and had to take a make-up
oral exam. In addition, two respondents in the survey indicated they would not want to
participate in another online exchange mainly because of structural and organizational hurdles.
Belz (2002) has suggested that a group of students involved in an online exchange may
inevitably be divided into the “high and low functionality” groups. Very low levels of
participation and lack of involvement characterize low functionality groups. Belz (2002)
concluded that students struggle with the active roles required of students in the exchange.
Another reason for negative experiences in the online exchange may be the pairing of
students. O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) addressed learner-matching procedures and asked whether
pairing of students should be left to chance or organized around set criteria. While the literature
does not provide clear guidelines for pairing students, it recognizes the importance of the issue
for the success of the exchange (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). This study did not investigate the
reasons for students’ lack of involvement other than structural and organizational hurdles and
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
157
further inquiry into the learner-matching procedures may be necessary to avoid unsuccessful
experiences.
Furthermore respondents in the survey mentioned the uneven weight given the exchange
in the French versus the American students’ course of study. The problem led to American
students feeling the French students were not interested in posting in the blog. The French
students posted less in the blog than the American students and posted mostly towards the end of
the exchange. In her study of an American-German exchange, Ware (2005) found striking
differences in the way student work is evaluated in each educational system that might affect
student motivation and participation in online intercultural exchanges. For example, American
students are typically assessed regularly during the semester through a variety of assignments
while German students are assessed on their performance on high-stakes exams at the end of the
semester (Ware, 2005). As a consequence, the American students in the exchange were
concerned with grades while the German students were motivated by the need to become
proficient in English (Ware, 2005). Similarly the American and the French students in this
exchange were assessed differently. Whereas posting on the blog was part of the American
students’ writing grade, it was not required of the French students and their participation grade
was based on their synchronous video chat conversations. Yet finding a partner classroom in the
target country with similar institutional and academic constraints may not always be possible
especially when the pool of partners to choose from is still very limited. Interestingly, Kramsch
& Thorne, (2002) and Belz (2004) have suggested that the challenges and uneven nature of
communication in the online intercultural exchanges may also provide an opportunity for
reflection and intercultural development. It is essential to have in-class discussions about
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
158
difficulties encountered to examine constraints that inevitably arise in transatlantic intercultural
communication.
Some issues raised by the research on online intercultural exchanges did not emerge from
the data analysis from this study. For example, often-mentioned issues such as computer access,
misalignment of academic calendars, value of foreign language, and difficulty of teacher
collaboration did not emerge from the data (Cloke, 2010; Belz, 2004). Computer access may not
have been an issue for the French students because their institution and their major in technology
and science may require regular access to the Internet and use of a personal computer. While the
academic calendars where misaligned in this exchange, the partner teachers had discussed their
respective academic calendars during the planning phase and designed a timeline around the
American group’s ten-week quarter system and the French group’s weeklong mid-trimester
vacation. Finally teacher collaboration was very good during the exchange as evidenced by the
number of email exchanges and promptness of email replies.
The success of this online exchange depended largely on the partner teachers’
communication and collaboration. In their inventory of reasons for failed communication in
online intercultural exchanges, O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) cite communication problems between
teachers as a critical issue. Often, teachers have not communicated face to face to discuss the
planning of the exchange and they may not share all their plans for the exchange with their
partner teacher (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). In this study, the partner teachers met twice via Skype
before the start of the exchange and discussed the project at length. The partner teachers were
flexible and responsive to concerns and issues that arose during the exchange as evidenced by
their email communication. Flexibility and responsiveness translated in less frustrations and
difficulties for students.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
159
Likewise monitoring the exchange closely and adapting to unforeseeable issues helped
prevent frustration among students. On the other hand, not enough class time was devoted to pre-
conversation activities and to in-depth discussions of the exchange. Curriculum constraints did
not allow for a better integration of the exchange into classroom activities. Data from the survey
shows that students would have liked more in-class support to prepare for the online
conversations. While the literature suggests various tasks for the introduction phase of the
exchange, pre-tasks that directly support online communication are not widely discussed
(Müller-Hartmann, 2000; Guth & Marini-Maio, 2010; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Belz, 2004). In
fact, O’Dowd and Ware (2009) have identified a lack of guidelines in the literature for task
design.
Finally survey data provided valuable information on students’ ability to cope with
structural and linguistic challenges, and suggested ideas such as online tools to better help
students overcome structural and linguistic difficulties in future exchanges. The majority of the
students found ways to solve issues with technology and language. The literature on network-
based language teaching (NBLT) and social constructivism supports the findings of this study
(Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2008; Kern & Warschauer, 2000). Online communication for
pedagogical uses supports the construction of knowledge through social and cultural interaction,
learning through collaboration, and active participation of students in their learning (Kern et al.,
2008). Moreover new social skills that develop in online interaction have benefits that include
problem-solving skills (Jenkins, 2006).
Integrating Reflective Practice Online and in the Classroom
Students in the exchange participated in reflective tasks and reflective activities both
online and in the classroom. The reflective tasks included feedback in the blog after each
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
160
conversation, a reflective essay and an oral presentation of the exchange. In the classroom, the
teacher conducted unstructured follow-up discussions about difficulties students encountered and
about feedback in the blogs. The following themes emerged from the analysis of the reflective
tasks and activities: progressive development of reflective practice, facilitating nature of tasks,
teacher as facilitator.
Development of reflective practice.
Data from the blogs, the reflective essays, and the oral presentations showed a
progression in reflection from statements of factual learning and comparisons in the blogs to
reflection and engagement with the other culture and one’s own culture in the reflective essays
and oral presentations. Sequencing tasks from exchange of information tasks, comparison and
analysis tasks, and reflective tasks ensure that the multiple objectives of the exchange are easily
integrated (O’Dowd & Ware, 2009). In this exchange, postings on the blogs provided ongoing
opportunities for students to get to know each other throughout the exchange. Yet online
exchanges reviewed in the literature generally limit the sharing of information to the introductory
meeting. In a qualitative study of a German-American online exchange, Müller-Hartmann (2000)
reported that the personal level of interaction in the exchange, generally in Phase One of the
exchange, was the most significant for the students. Data from the student survey in this study
showed similar findings: students wanted to spend time knowing each other.
In this exchange, the blog was designed as a space where students could share
information about each other, including pictures and online links, and share their impressions of
their conversations. Students were encouraged to share what they had learned and what had
surprised them in the conversations with their partners. Concerns about the lack of reflection in
the blogs, and the seemingly lack of development of intercultural competence arose during the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
161
exchange. Learning in the blog was rather factual and students listed differences and similarities
without engaging with them. Yet the reflective essays provided evidence that students had
developed intercultural competence throughout the exchange. In fact, the feedback on the blogs
after each real-time conversation may have helped students grapple with the wealth of
information they received before being able to reflect on it. However while students posted on
the blog, they rarely commented on their peers’ or the French students’ postings. Commenting on
blogs could be added to the feedback task in order to promote collaboration.
In the oral presentations, students told their partner’s story with the support of pictures,
and also recounted what they had learned from the exchange. Therefore information sharing and
personal level of interaction should not be limited to Phase One but should continue throughout
the exchange with culminating reflective tasks and activities at the end of the exchange.
Reflective nature of tasks and activities.
In fact, from their personal relationship with their partner, students learned that some of
the structural difficulties they encountered in the exchange were part of different cultural and
communicative practices in the target country. For example, students learned that French people
“take their time off seriously” as one student commented, and do not generally like to work on
weekends and vacation. While the lack of participation of French students on the weekend
created difficulties to connect for the American students, the latter engaged in a reflection about
work and leisure in France and in the U.S. In her extensive research on conflicts resulting from
different structural aspects of telecollaboration, Belz (2004) concluded that structural differences
are the kind of issues that lead to reflection. Yet she also pointed out to the need for “calculated
pedagogical intervention” in the form of in-class discussions to address conflict (p. 66). In this
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
162
exchange, informal follow-up discussions helped students voice their frustrations and concerns,
and make sense of structural difficulties in light of cultural differences.
Furthermore the exchange conversation topics paralleled the topics discussed in class
through texts and film. The exchange was an opportunity for students to gain further insight into
the class topics. The online activities made possible negotiation of meaning, a process by which
students attempt to gain some understanding of their partner’s perspective, changing or
modifying their own view in the process (Müller-Hartmann, 2000). For example, the class read a
text about the discrimination young people from North African origins face inside a difficult
suburb (“banlieue”) of Paris. The reading provided not only a background on the topic to prepare
students for their online conversation, but also an opportunity to compare the perspective of the
text with that of their partner. Interestingly, both students and teacher concluded that course
materials are fraught with their own cultural biases and often offer a one-sided perspective.
While the reading on the French “banlieue” presented the French suburb as a difficult city
with housing projects and unemployed youth primarily from North African origins, the
conversations between the French and the American students revealed different perspectives on
the meaning of the French “banlieue.” For example, the conversation with her French partner
confirmed what Nadine had learned in class, “She [partner] said that in the French suburbs, there
is a lot of poverty. In those projects, there is crime and once in a while, urban violence like riots”
(Nadine, blog post). The French partner was referring to the common view in France that
“banlieues” are violent areas. On the other hand, Olan wrote, “She told me that in the suburbs,
there are a lot of big family homes. She said there is not a lot of pollution . . . I told her that
suburbs here are very similar to the ones in France. I told her that most rich people live in the
suburbs here” (Olan, blog post). It is evident that both partners were talking about their own
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
163
experience with suburban life. The French partner was referring to the suburbs of Bordeaux,
typically a small town in the countryside, amidst vineyards, while Olan was referring to the
wealthy county where she attends college. Likewise, another student reported, “She told me that
the French suburb is more like the countryside” (Jing, blog post). Jing added that the meaning of
“banlieue” in French society was confusing.
While the researcher for this study agrees with the recommendation that teachers should
facilitate discussions that focus on controversial issues as Müller-Hartmann (2000) suggested,
the researcher disagrees with pre-task activities that, in an effort to foster controversy, may give
students a one-sided representation of the other culture. For example, as noted in Chapter 2, the
film “La haine” (Hatred) introduced as a pre-task in a French-American exchange (Kramsch &
Thorne, 2002), contributed to intercultural misunderstandings between partner students that were
the direct result of the teacher’s choice of film. The depiction of a violent Paris suburb led the
American students to believe all the suburbs of Paris were violent places. Their French partners,
themselves from the suburbs, were shocked at their pre-conceived view of French suburbs
(Kramsch & Thorne, 2002). Findings from this study suggested the development of intercultural
competence does not depend so much on the controversial nature of the content of the exchange
as to the reflective nature of the tasks and the integration of the exchange in classroom activities
so that negotiation of meaning within the local context of the classroom may promote
intercultural understanding and learning (Müller-Hartmann, 2000).
While the majority of the telecollaborative projects reviewed in the literature included a
collaborative task such as a research project, tandem reading of a literary text, or the construction
of a web project, this exchange did not include a task where students participated collaboratively
on a common project (Belz, 2004; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Müller-Hartmann, 2000). Even
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
164
though the blog was a collaborative space, students did not comment on each other’s posts. In the
survey, one student suggested including more interaction at the group level, “In addition to
having a partner, students could communicate in a forum/chat room for further questions and
interests so more people could connect” (Student 11, survey, December 16, 2013). Collaboration
at the group level may result in students having less difficulty to connect with individual
partners.
Students’ Development of Intercultural Competence
This study sought to understand how the online intercultural exchange between students
in a French class in the U.S. and students of ESL at a French university could promote
intercultural competence. Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural communicative competence
(ICC) provided the theoretical framework for the analysis of the data from the student blogs and
the reflective essay in the areas of knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards the other and one’s
own culture. Findings suggested that students developed knowledge, skills, and an open attitude
towards intercultural differences in this exchange. Even though perfect intercultural competence
is never completely acquired, the foundations of intercultural competence are in the attitudes,
knowledge and skills one acquires from intercultural interaction and communication (Byram,
Gribkova, & Starkey, 2002). In this exchange, students developed a knowledge of the other
country’s social processes, and how their partner’s culture perceived their own, they showed a
willingness to explore cultural similarities and differences between their own and their partner’s
culture, they showed an ability to acquire new knowledge and interpret their discovery, and they
showed an ability to evaluate critically their own and other culture’s perspectives and practices
(Byram et al., 2002).
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
165
Knowledge.
Interestingly students in the exchange learned that young people in France were more
similar to young Americans than they had expected. They were generally surprised by the
similarities where they had expected more differences. This discovery was evident in the blogs,
in class discussions, in the reflective essays and in the survey. Surprisingly concerns about
students’ assumption of similarity, or centeredness of own culture, and lack of engagement with
differences did not appear in this study but did in the literature (Ware, 2005). Reflective essays
and the survey provided evidence that new knowledge about the other culture led to further
reflection about cultural similarities and differences, as well as to challenging one’s own
stereotypes.
Skills.
In this exchange, students explored differences and similarities, engaged with
stereotypes, and were able to overcome communication challenges. Even though students did not
always get definite answers to their questions, like the student who was unclear about the French
term “banlieue,” or did not always understand their partner’s attitude, like the student whose
partner made comments that appeared racist, they made conscious efforts to step outside of own
beliefs or comfort zone to explore their partner’s and the other culture’s differences (Dooly &
Hauck, 2011). As mentioned before, students were able to explore and engaged with differences
and similarities and with stereotypes only at the end of the exchange in the reflective essay.
The reflective essay and the oral presentation presented an opportunity for interpretation
of what had been learned and discovered in the online exchange. The set up of the tasks —
feedback in blogs and a culminating reflective essay and presentation — followed a dialogic
approach to intercultural communication in which students engaged in a dialogue where meaning
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
166
emerged from past and present interpretations (Bakhtin, 1981). In the dialogic approach, the goal
of communication is not to find a consensus but to engage in a dialogue with the other and
oneself (Bakhtin, 1981). The reflective essay, the presentation, and the survey provided ample
evidence students engaged in dialogue with their partners’ and as well as with their own
interpretations of cultural differences. Dooly and Hauck (2011) identified stepping outside of
one’s own beliefs and ability to overcome challenges as skills that showed intercultural
competence. In this exchange, data showed evidence that students were challenged in their own
beliefs and were able to look at culture from another perspective. The majority of the students
also demonstrated ability to overcome challenges. The tool developed by Dooly and Hauck
(2011) to evaluate the telecollaboratively effective person (TEP) describes the ability to
overcome potential challenges relating to cultural diversity as evidence of development of
intercultural skills.
Attitudes.
Data from the blogs, the reflective essays, the oral presentation, and the survey provided
evidence of student open attitude towards the exchange and towards the other culture. Students
showed interest and appreciation for the other culture. In fact, students were able to find common
interests through their conversation. In addition, students were surprised by similarities between
themselves and their partners, and between youth culture in France and in the U.S. They were
keen on asking questions. Byram (1997) identified curiosity and openness as attitudes necessary
for the development of intercultural competence. Furthermore, as noted in the literature review,
students will be more easily engaged in an activity that is of interest to them (Ambrose et al.,
2010). Müller-Hartmann (2000) also reported on the importance of developing personal
relationships in the exchange to help students better engage in the exchange tasks. Data from the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
167
blogs, reflective essays, and surveys provided evidence that students liked their partners, enjoyed
their conversations, and found the discussions interesting and fun. As noted before, it is critical
that partner students be allowed time and space to develop personal relationships by finding
mutual interests. While the exchange should be designed around topics of academic relevance, it
should also have a personal dimension where students can share their own interests.
Therefore, integration of the exchange into classroom activities is essential to build a
bridge between the academic and the personal dimensions of the exchange. In his discussion of a
German-American exchange, Müller-Hartmann (2000) concluded that intercultural online
exchanges should be, “thoroughly integrated into the local context of classroom instruction”
(p. 145). In this exchange, pop culture was the common denominator for many of the partner
students, and in a follow-up discussion the class discussed the influence of American pop culture
on French youths and French culture. When the American students shared their surprise at how
much American pop culture permeated French culture, especially for young people, the
discussion turned to globalization and Americanization of world cultures. The role of media and
technology in globalization was also discussed. Thus academic relevance and personal interests
can be reconciled through reflective tasks such as a reflective essay and class discussions.
Data from the blogs, the reflective essay and the survey showed evidence that students
developed intercultural competence in this exchange. They developed knowledge about other
people and another culture. For some students whose partner was an international student, this
meant discovering a culture other than French culture and/or discovering French culture through
the eyes of a foreigner. Students developed skills to explore and engage with the other culture as
well as their own beliefs (Dooly & Hauck, 2011). They were able to overcome cultural
challenges and to critically evaluate other practices and products as well as their own (Dooly &
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
168
Hauck, 2011). Finally students showed openness and curiosity and developed personal
relationships around common interests (Byram, 1997). Byram et al. (2002) defined intercultural
competence as “the ability to ensure a shared understanding by people of different social
identities, and their ability to interact with people as complex human beings with multiple
identities and their own individuality” (p. 5). As evidenced by the multiple perspectives that the
French and American students shared during the exchange, the shared understanding came from
finding common interests while exploring individual, cultural, and societal differences.
Furthermore as Kramsch (2012) has argued, intercultural competences come from the
understanding that interpretation of intercultural dialogue is culturally situated. For example,
students in this exchange encountered a multiple understanding of the word “banlieue.” In this
exchange, intercultural understanding did not assume an appropriation of the foreign culture as a
Vygotskyan approach would have, but rather Bakhtin’s (1981) idea of shared inquiry where
individuals learn to see the world from at least two perspectives. The exchange offered a
democratic basis for social interaction through a forum that encouraged respect for individuals,
and cultural differences (Byram et al., 2002).
Student Perceptions of Their Experience in the Exchange
Several themes emerged from the open-ended survey on student experience of the
exchange. Findings from the survey supported the themes that emerged from the blogs, the
reflective essays, and the oral presentations such as positive attitudes of students, structural and
language difficulties, overcoming challenges, and heightened intercultural competence.
Respondents revealed a positive attitude towards the exchange even though they all had
difficulties with the conversations due to structural, linguistic, and technology issues. In spite of
the difficulty, students were able to overcome challenges. In fact, data indicated that students
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
169
actively sought ways to overcome challenges, such as language barrier and technology issues,
which attest to their willingness to make the exchange a successful experience. Thus students in
the exchange were learning by doing which reinforces active learning through an authentic task
online such as communicating and interacting with a partner from a different country
(Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Learning by doing is one of seven critical principles of good
practice in undergraduate education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Furthermore students were
motivated to make the exchange work. Ambrose et al. (2010) have shown that student’s interest
in tasks is critical for motivation. Students will be motivated to gain mastery, or overcome
challenges as in this exchange, if they gain satisfaction from their achievement (Ambrose et al.,
2010). While respondents reported feeling nervous and having pre-conceived ideas about their
French partners before the exchange, they developed a good personal relationship with their
partner in the exchange and saw the value and relevance of an online intercultural exchange
(Ambrose et al., 2010). The learner’s motivation is of critical importance for the success of an
intercultural exchange (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006).
Respondents reported developing a heightened intercultural understanding in the
exchange. Mostly they appreciated the opportunity for authentic communication. The literature
substantiates the findings in the survey. Online intercultural exchanges provide rich, interactive,
and authentic environments for communication (Ware, 2005). Likewise Stepp-Greany (2002)
reported on a survey of student perception of the online environment in an intercultural
exchange. The majority of the respondents stated it provided greater opportunities to learn about
the culture in an authentic environment. In this survey, data provided evidence that the majority
of students preferred the online exchange format to the existing classroom-only course format.
Respondents reported developing intercultural competences in the exchange, such as becoming
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
170
aware and engaging with own stereotypes, and reflecting on similarities and differences. The
majority of the respondents also felt they improved their oral and aural skills in French.
However findings from the survey also pointed out to problems in the exchange.
Structural and organizational difficulties such as time zone difference and busy schedules, and
language barriers were the greatest hurdle for the majority of the respondents. Similar issues are
mentioned throughout the literature on online intercultural exchanges (Cloke, 2010; O’Dowd &
Ritter, 2006; Ware, 2005). Furthermore respondents indicated the uneven experience of students
in the exchange. Mostly respondents felt the uneven experience was the results of uneven pairing
of partners. Some of the students in the French groups were more available and more motivated
than others, as were the students in the American groups. As noted before, teachers need to
monitor the problems between partners closely and communicate regularly with the partner
teachers to find solutions to this type of problems.
The survey of student perceptions of the exchange revealed that students enjoyed the
intercultural exchange and valued the opportunity to communicate in French in an authentic
setting. Students felt they had a heightened intercultural understanding of the other culture and
improved their oral skills in French. Yet some students also felt the organization hurdles were
too great and would not want to do another online exchange. Finally students offered suggestions
to improve the exchange. The suggestions will be discussed in the recommendations for practice.
Recommendations for Practice
The findings for this study can contribute to background information for foreign language
educators at the grade school and college level who want to implement an online intercultural
exchange and design tasks that encourage reflection and improve students’ intercultural
competence. Findings from this study indicate several recommendations for action to better plan
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
171
and implement intercultural exchanges, balance information sharing and the development of
personal relationship, and promote reflection and the development of intercultural competence.
First, the findings of this study have implications that suggest that the role of the partner
teachers is critical to the success of the exchange. The literature on intercultural exchanges
supports this finding (Stepp-Greany, 2002; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Cloke, 2010; Belz, 2004).
Good communication between partner teachers is essential. Teachers on both sides need to be
responsive to the other teacher’s concerns to address students’ frustrations in a timely manner.
While teachers do not have control over structural and organizational issues such as time zone
difference, they can however address the problems quickly by monitoring closely the exchange.
Furthermore teachers have to be flexible and willing to adapt to unforeseeable structural and
organizational difficulties during the exchange.
From this study, it was found that synchronous communication was difficult for students
due to technology, organizational, and language barriers. Therefore while synchronous
communication was a valuable experience for the development of intercultural competence and
for improvement of oral skills, more asynchronous forms of communication should be added to
the exchange. Synchronous video chat communication such as Skype could be limited to twice
during the exchange. In fact, students may be the best source for ideas on online modes of
communication and students’ opinion could be solicited at the beginning of the exchange. In the
survey, respondents suggested very specific ways to communicate online. For example, one
respondent suggested, “Text conversations on either Facebook or WhatsApp should be integrated
into the requirements. Possibly have 3 necessary 30 min oral conversations on Skype, and then 3
written conversations on either Facebook or WhatsApp (for those that have smart-phones)”
(Student 7, survey, December 16, 2013). Likewise another respondent wrote, “Online
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
172
conversations should not just be limited to Skype or FaceTime. Other form of writing can serve
as a tool to communicate as well because of time issues” (Student 8, survey, December 16,
2013). Another respondent recommended having both individual and group communication, “In
addition to having a partner, students could communicate in a forum/chat room for further
questions and interests so more people could connect” (Student 11, survey, December 16, 2013).
Further study of online modes of communication and their affordances would be valuable for
practice.
The uneven experience of students was a concern during this exchange. More flexibility
with the modes of communication, as noted above, may alleviate difficulties encountered and
result in a more successful experience for all students alike. Yet partnering of students may not
be equally successful for all participants. Furthermore posting in the blog was not required of the
French groups, which resulted in uneven participation between the French groups and the
American groups. Partner teachers may decide on collaborative tasks that require equal
participation on both sides. In this exchange, tasks were designed at the level of the individual
student and may not have been conducive to equal participation. Many examples of collaborative
projects are available in the literature on telecollaborative intercultural exchanges as noted in
Chapter 2 of this study (Belz, 2004; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Müller-Hartmann, 2000; Cloke,
2010).
Secondly, findings from the study indicate that reflection needs to be integrated into
online communication and in-class activities in a dialogic manner. Reflection should be ongoing
through various reflective tasks and activities. The need for reflection and meta-reflection in
online intercultural exchanges is crucial in order to give students opportunities to develop their
own intercultural understanding (Schneider & Von der Emde, 2006). The literature on online
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
173
intercultural exchanges corroborates the findings (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Guth & Marini-
Maio, 2010; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). Enough class time should be devoted to follow up
discussions and reflective tasks. Furthermore, pre-conversation activities such as brainstorming
questions for online communication and discussing the conversation topics through the lens of
texts and videos should be included in class activities.
In this exchange, reflective tasks included feedback on the blogs, a reflective essay, an in-
class presentation, and regular briefings and follow-up discussions. While reflective tasks are
important for the development of students’ intercultural competence, information sharing and
personal level of interaction should be an ongoing activity in the exchange and not be limited to
an introductory task. Students should have a space to develop personal relationships with their
partner.
Finally, discussion topics should be an important aspect of the exchange and should be
carefully integrated into the existing curriculum to provide students a chance to discuss and
reflect on the topics in the classroom. Since students are more motivated when they have an
interest in the task, they should be involved in the choice of topics (Ambrose et al., 2010). For
example, students could brainstorm topics they are interested in discussing within a broader topic
such as youth issues (Cloke, 2010). In this exchange, discussion topics paralleled the themes for
the course. However, topics do not need to be of a controversial nature. Findings from this study
revealed that controversy is likely to arise anyway in intercultural interaction. Students’
preconceived ideas will be challenged in an intercultural exchange, and students need to be
guided to reflect upon their communication through carefully designed reflective tasks, such as
the wording of prompts for essays and online feedback (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Belz, 2004;
Ware, 2005). Class materials such as texts and films can offer students support and an additional
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
174
perspective for online communication and help students build the vocabulary needed for
conversation. However, students should be able to explore the topics with their partner on their
own terms free of the instructor’s biases. The role of the instructor should be as facilitator.
Likewise, while evaluation tools such as Competences for the Telecollaboratively
Efficient Person (TEP) established by Dooly and Hauck (2011) provide valuable guidelines to
assess students’ intercultural competence, they should be adapted to reflect a broader
conceptualization of intercultural competence that emerges from the data. Whereas the TEP
assessment tools emphasize cultural misunderstanding as the basis for the development of
intercultural competence, this study has shown that other challenges, such as structural and
linguistic challenges, can promote intercultural competence and problem-solving skills.
Furthermore this study has shown that personal relationship with the foreign partner and
discovery of cultural similarities and differences, even when devoid of cultural misunderstanding
or controversy, can promote the development of intercultural competence.
Recommendations for Further Study
Additional studies are needed in the following areas: reasons for failed participation in
the exchange, the technology that would best support full participation, partnering of students,
and tasks that best support equal participation and reflection.
Although reasons for failed communication in intercultural exchanges have been well
researched, fewer studies have focused on the reasons why students fail to participate fully in the
exchange (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Belz, 2004; Ware, 2005). Further
research may investigate the reasons why some students do not participate as anticipated. Belz
(2002) has identified high and low levels of engagement that may be explained by students’
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
175
attitudes and expectations towards learning. Yet further study is needed to determine how to
engage those students.
Secondly, additional study is needed to examine how technology can be used to help
students overcome organizational and structural problems such as time zone difference. A study
of how students use technology to overcome such challenges as time zone difference and
language barrier would be useful to establish recommendations for practice.
In addition, more research is needed in the role of tasks in intercultural exchanges. For
example, a comparative study of tasks used in intercultural exchanges could initiate a taxonomy
for collaborative and communicative tasks. Even though intercultural competence has been the
object of many studies, additional studies are needed to investigate the relationship between tasks
and the development of intercultural competence in intercultural exchanges.
Conclusion
The purpose of qualitative research is to understand how people make sense of their
experience and to describe people’s perception and interpretation of their experience (Merriam,
2009). In this study, action research provided the means for all stakeholders to engage in the
planning, implementation, and evaluation of the online intercultural exchange (Stringer, 2007).
Ethnography helped the researcher understand the interaction of the participants in the exchange
with their partners, with the other culture, and with their own culture (Merriam, 2009). The use
of qualitative methodology was useful to evaluate the success of an online intercultural exchange
and the development of student intercultural competence in the exchange. Furthermore the
qualitative method provided insight into student perceptions of their experience in the exchange.
Analysis of documents, researcher observations, videotaped oral presentations, and an open-
ended student survey provided insight into the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
176
exchange, how the reflective tasks promoted the development of student intercultural
competence, and increased awareness of how student perceived the intercultural exchange.
In the ethnography of the exchange culture, the instructor/researcher immersed herself in
the online and classroom environments and discovered an American and French youth culture
sharing increasingly similar stories and lifestyle through pop culture and technology (Merriam,
2009). Paradoxically the element of surprise in this exchange did not come as much from cultural
differences as from the many similarities between the American and French students, similarities
that neither the students nor the instructor/researcher had anticipated. Yet through reflective
tasks, students also became aware that globalization could be the result of the Americanization of
world cultures. As one survey respondent noted, “I was primarily surprised by the cultural
exportation of American music, products, and television. My exchange partner knew far more
about American culture than I knew about French culture, and it was evident that her
understanding was acquired outside of the classroom” (Student 7, survey). At the same time, the
exchange was also an opportunity for participants to reflect on cultural differences and develop
intercultural competence that come from being able to see the world from another perspective
(Byram, 1997; MLA, 2007; Bakhtin, 1981; Kramsch, 2012).
This study aimed at evaluating the success of an intercultural exchange and findings from
the study indicated that students developed intercultural competence in the exchange and
appreciated the authentic experience the exchange provided as well as the opportunity to explore
and engage with another culture and their own. One respondent in the survey summarized the
reasons why intercultural exchanges should be part of the foreign language curriculum:
I feel that it promotes better understanding of others, and in turn strengthens cultures
because we can become confident about our differences with the understanding that other
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
177
cultures respect ours, and vice versa . . . The exchange brought this practice into the
classroom and made this part of the academic experience in a real-world way that I feel
my experience in education has been sorely lacking. If we are learning about a real
culture in the real world, then it just makes sense to interact with it, and I am very
grateful that we were able to do so in a very meaningful way. (Student 1, survey).
Foreign language programs can promote critical 21st century skills such as problem-
solving skills, communication and collaboration skills, and intercultural competence by
integrating authentic tasks and real-world experiences such as intercultural exchanges into their
curriculum (MLA, 2007; ACTFL, 1999; Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 2012). The U.S. Department of
Education recommended greater emphasis on international education at the college level,
including foreign language instruction and study abroad, to guarantee that graduates from
American universities could be successful in the global workforce (Spellings, 2006). As world
cultures become increasingly globalized and interconnected, online intercultural exchanges offer
an opportunity for students to reflect on the process of globalization, examine their relationship
with other cultures and their own, and prepare to function effectively across and beyond cultural
boundaries. The MLA Ad Hoc Committee recommended foreign language programs approach
the teaching of foreign languages as a new way of understanding the meaning of culture and
language, and as a way to promote higher thinking skills such as interpretation and reflection, as
well as historical, political, and social awareness. Integrating reflection in telecollaborative
intercultural exchanges is therefore critical to promote higher thinking skills needed for the 21st
century (Byram, 1997; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002, 2012; Guth & Marini-Maio, 2010; Müller-
Hartmann, 2000).
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
178
REFERENCES
Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L., & Earnest Youngs, B. (2000). Evaluating the
integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 269-
306.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1999). Standards for foreign
language learning: Preparing for the 21st century. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/StandardsforFLLexecsumm_rev.pdf
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Vol. 1). Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language
Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60-81.
Belz, J. A. (2004, July). Telecollaborative language study: A personal overview of praxis and
research. In Selected papers from the 2004 NFLRC symposium: Distance education,
distributed learning and language instruction. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National
Foreign Language Resource Center.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
179
Blake, R. (2012). Best practices in online learning: Is it for everyone? In F. Rubio & J. J. Thoms
(Eds.), AAUSC 2012 volume — Issues in language program direction: Hybrid language
teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 10-
26). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, F. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Handbook
I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education (5th.).
Brustein, W. (2007). The global campus: Challenges and opportunities for higher education in
North America. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 382-391.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in
language teaching. A practical introduction for teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles. AAHE Bulletin,
49(2), 2-4.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Cloke, S. (2010). The Italia-Australia Intercultural Project. Telecollaboration, 2, 375-284.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
180
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cushner, K. (2004). Study abroad at the university level. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. J.
Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 289-308). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G.
Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dooly, M., & Hauck, M. (2011). Descriptors of telecollaborative effective person. Uni-
Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.uni-collaboration.eu/?q=node/418
Dupuy, B. C. (2000). Content‐Based Instruction: Can it Help Ease the Transition from Beginning
to Advanced Foreign Language Classes?. Foreign language annals, 33(2), 205-223.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing
conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51-71.
Furman, N., Goldberg, D., & Lusin, N. (2010, December). Enrollments in Languages Other than
English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2009. In Modern
Language Association. Modern Language Association. 26 Broadway 3rd Floor, New
York, NY 10004-1789.
Geisler, M. (2012, March 6). Larry Summers is wrong about languages. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/03/06/geisler-essay-why-
larry-summers-wrong-about-languages
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
181
Graham, S. (2004). Giving up on modern languages? Students’ perceptions of learning French.
The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 171-191.
Guth, S., & Helm, F. (Eds.). (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and
intercultural learning in the 21st century (Vol. 1). Bern: Peter Lang AG, International
Academic Publishers.
Guth, S., & Marini‐Maio, N. (2010). Close encounters of the new kind: The use of Skype and
wiki in telecollaboration. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language,
literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (Vol. 1, pp. 413-426). Bern: Peter
Lang AG, International Academic Publishers.
Gutiérrez, A. G. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative activity in a
Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 120-148.
Helm, F., & Guth, S. (2010). The multifarious goals of telecollaboration 2.0: Theoretical and
practical implications. Telecollaboration, 2, 69-106.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-93). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Jaschik, S. (2010). Disappearing languages at Albany. Inside Higher Ed, 10(4), 2010.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the
21st century. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.
Johnson, K. (2001). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching. Harlow: Pearson
Education.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
182
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online
pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Network-based language teaching. Encyclopedia
of Language and Education, 4, 281-282.
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, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Koschmann, T. (1999). Toward a dialogic theory of learning: Bakhtin’s contribution to
understanding learning in settings of collaboration. In C. M. Hoadley & J. Roschelle
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 1999 conference on computer support for collaborative
learning. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (2012). Theorizing translingual/transcultural competence. In G. Levine & A. Phipps
(Eds.), Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp. 15-31). Boston,
MA: Heinle Cengage.
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.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching,
33(2), 79-96.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
183
Lightbown, P. M., Spada, N., Ranta, L., & Rand, J. (2006). How languages are learned (Vol. 2).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marx, K. (1887) 1967. Capital. New York, NY: International Publishers.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design
methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Modern Language Association. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures
for a changed world. New York, NY: Author.
Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic
learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129-147.
Numan, D., & Carter, D. (2001). Teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge:
CUP.
Nutta, J. (1998). Is computer-based grammar instruction as effective as teacher-directed grammar
instruction for teaching L2 structures? CALICO Journal, 16(1), 49-62.
O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English
e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118-144.
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.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
184
Pew Research Center (2010). Teen and young adult Internet use. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/millennials/teen-internet-use-graphic/
Pratt, M. L. (2004). Language and national security: Making a new public commitment. The
Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 289-291.
Rubio, F., & Thoms, J. J. (Eds.). (2012). AAUSC 2012 volume — Issues in language program
direction: Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical
and curricular issues. Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage.
Schneider, J., & von der Emde, S. (2006). Dialogue, conflict, and intercultural learning in online
collaborations between language learners and native speakers. In J. Belz & S. L. Thorne
(Eds.), Computer-mediated intercultural foreign language learning (pp. 178-206).
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University Institute of Higher Education (SJTUHE). (2013). Academic
ranking of world universities. Retrieved August 20, 2013, from
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2013.html.
Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-based
language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language
teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 171-185). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Sowa, P. (2002). How valuable are student exchange programs? New Directions For Higher
Education, 117, 63-69.
Spellings, M. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
185
Spring, J. (2008). Research on globalization and education. Review of Educational Research,
78(2), 330-363.
Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological
environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology,
6(1), 165-180.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Thompson, J. (2007). Is Education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students? Innovate Journal of Online
Education, 3(4), 6.
Thoms, C. (2012). Enhancing the blended learning curriculum by using the “flipped classroom”
approach to produce a dynamic learning environment. In Proceedings of 5th International
Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (pp. 2150-2157), 19-21 November,
2012, Madrid, Spain.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language
Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38-67.
Thorne, S. L., & Black, R. W. (2007). Language and literacy development in computer-mediated
contexts and communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 133.
Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2011). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tse, L. (2000). Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative analysis of foreign
language autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 69-84.
U.S. Department of Education (2010). National Education Technology Plan 2010. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
186
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ware, P. (2005). “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-
American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64-89.
Ware, P., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English
through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190-205.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: theory and practice. The
Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent
semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1.
Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in
research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347-361.
Zarate, G., Lévy, D., & Kramsch, C. J. (Eds.). (2008). Précis du plurilinguisme et du
pluriculturalisme. Archives contemporaines.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
187
APPENDIX A
INVENTORY OF REASONS FOR FAILED COMMUNICATION
Individual Level Classroom Level
Socioinstitutional
Level Interaction level
Learner’s current level of
intercultural
communicative
competence (ICC)
(attitudes/knowledge/skills
– see Byram’s model).
Relationship and
communication
between teachers
involved on both
sides of the
exchange.
The technology:
degree of access and
know-how; choice of
online tools for
communication;
synchronous versus
asynchronous
communication.
Appropriate
speech-acts.
Learner’s motivation and
expectations.
Task design that
reflect interest of
students.
General organization
of the student’s
course of study:
academic calendars;
assessments;
organization of the
institution.
Structure of the
interaction: topics
for discussion; how
messages are
posted; small
talk/personal
sharing of
information.
Learner-matching
procedures.
Differences in the
way students value
cultures and
languages.
Frequency and
speed of
communication.
Local group
dynamics (how
learners interact
with their peers in
their classroom).
Quality of pre-
exchange activities
that prepare learners
for the intercultural
exchange.
Adapted from O’Dowd and Ritter (2006)
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
188
APPENDIX B
GUTH AND MARINI-MAIO’S (2010) TASK DESIGN
Information Exchange
Comparison &
Analysis Product Creation
Reflective
Practice
Writing personal
introductions in L2 on
the wiki or blog.
Through topics that
were largely part of
the American
curriculum, students
discussed on Skype
about differences
between various
political, cultural, and
social aspect of their
countries.
Collaborative writing
assignment: The
assignment was based
on the first Skype
discussion in which
students were asked to
imagine themselves as
international students
at their respective
universities.
Reflective
practice through
guided
classroom
discussions.
Pre-task before each
Skype session: Students
prepared questions on
the topic posted on the
wiki.
The Italian students
wrote about being a
student at Dickinson
College in English and
the Italian students
wrote about Padova in
Italian.
Students
reflected on
what they had
learned.
Students discussed on
Skype what it would be
like to be an
international student at
their respective
universities. Students
were advised to
exchange URLs of
online resources.
Step 1: Collective
authoring.
Step 2: Feedback on
language use from
native speakers.
The following tasks were designed for an exchange between students at Dickinson College in the
United States and students at the University of Padova, Italy. Nonetheless the model provides an
example of task design that can be used for any telecollaborative intercultural exchange.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
189
APPENDIX C
COMPETENCES FOR THE TELECOLLABORATIVELY EFFECTIVE PERSON
A tool developed by Melinda Dooly and Mirjam Hauck in collaboration with other members of
the INTENT project team (www.intent-project.eu). Reproduced with permission.
KNOWLEDGE
K.1. Knows about cultural
diversity.
SKILL
S.1. Demonstrates awareness
of cultural diversity.
ATTITUDES
A.1. Appreciates cross-
cultural diversity.
Knows that there are differences
and similarities between
practices, values and beliefs of
own and exchange
partner’s/partners’ cultural
context(s).
Can explore and exploit
cross-cultural similarities and
differences in order to
promote quality online
communication.
Shows interest to exploring
own and online partners’
cultural context(s) as part
of the online exchange.
Knows that online
communication is influenced by
beliefs and values which may
depend on cultural context(s).
Makes conscious effort to
step outside own beliefs and
values (and help partners to
do the same) when necessary
for the online exchange.
Is open to both similar and
different cultural traits in
online exchange.
K.2. Has knowledge of potential
challenges associated with
cultural diversity.
S.2. Can demonstrates ability
to overcome potential
challenges associated with
cultural diversity.
A.2. Is willing to learn
from challenges associated
with cultural diversity.
Knows that there might be
online communicative
challenges due to cross-cultural
differences.
Acknowledges and tries to
find a strategy/strategies to
deal with communicative
challenge that emerge.
Is willing to assess
strategies used and to
explore alternatives.
Knows that misunderstandings
in online contexts that seem
cross-cultural may be due to
linguistic, social or technical
factors or any combination of
these.
Explores, without pre-
judgment, factors for
misunderstandings.
Finds cross-cultural
misunderstanding as
opportunities for learning.
Knows how to reflect on and
evaluate factors responsible for
online misunderstandings.
Can use critical thinking to
pinpoint specific factors
related to online
misunderstandings.
Is keen on questioning and
re-evaluating own and
partners’ cultural contexts
in light of online
misunderstandings.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
190
K.3. Knows that online
exchanges offer unique
opportunities for self-
development.
S.3. Can learn from all
exchanges, successful or not.
A.3. Is ready for
opportunities for self-
development in the context of
online exchanges.
Knows that cross-cultural
online exchanges can
strengthen previous
stereotypes just as easily as it
can help learn about the other.
Can apply critical thinking to
unsuccessful online
experiences in order to avoid
reinforcement of stereotypes.
Is prepared to engage
critically with own
stereotypes during the online
exchange.
Knows that the timeframe of
an exchange may not be
enough to become sufficiently
familiar with online partners’
cultural context(s).
Can investigate cultural traits
(own or other’s) to get the
bigger picture.
Is willing to develop a deeper
understanding of the
interactions with the
exchange partner/partners
during the online encounter
and beyond.
Knows that errors of
interpretation of the online
partner’s/partners’
behaviour(s) opens the way to
cross-cultural learning and
self.
Can turn instances of
misunderstanding and
conflict in online exchanges
into cross-cultural learning
experiences for all
participants.
Is keen to turn unsuccessful
moments of exchange into
learning experience for all
participants.
All the features are used together, in a circular fashion: the descriptors are used to set goals, the
goals are linked to evidence and reflection and these are then evaluated in a grid based on the
descriptors. (http://www.uni-collaboration.eu/?q=node/414)
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
191
APPENDIX D
PERSONAL REFLECTION DIARY
http://www.uni-collaboration.eu/?q=node/416
Tool developed by Melinda Dooly and Mirjam Hauck in collaboration with other members of the
INTENT project team (www.intent-project.eu). Reproduced with permission.
This is to document the development of the TEP competences. Record your thoughts in the
diary in English. This should be an ongoing activity: Reflect about online events before (perhaps
set short-term goals for the exchange), during (quick notes of specific incidents that stand out
during the exchange can be useful) and after each exchange (make time after each online
encounter to reflect on it and record your thoughts and impressions). Here are some questions
that can get reflection started:
What? Briefly describe the event/s from an online exchange as objectively as possible.
▪ What happened? Who was involved? What did you observe?
So What? Analyze the experience, objectively (e.g. with the TEP guidelines) and subjectively
(what you felt, did).
▪ 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/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/advice would you like to share with your peers? If
you could do the exchange again, what would you do differently?
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
192
APPENDIX E
SURVEY PROTOCOL
Welcome to this survey. You are invited to participate in an online survey to help me learn more
about student perceptions of the online exchange you participated in this quarter. The survey will
take no longer than 20 minutes. The survey is anonymous.
Background What role does the French course play in your course of study at
[institution]?
How do you like learning a foreign language? How do you like learning
about another culture?
Exchange
Experience
What were your expectations of the intercultural exchange before it started?
Tell me about your experience in the exchange.
Intercultural
Competences
and Reflection
What are some of the things you have learned about France and French
culture in the exchange?
Tell me about frustrations or other negative feelings you may have had as a
result of miscommunication.
Attitudes
towards the
exchange
In your opinion, what are the benefits and drawbacks of the online
intercultural exchange in general?
Improvements In your opinion, what could be improved in the exchange you participated
in?
Additional
Comments and
Questions
Is there anything else you would like to share about the online exchange?
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
193
APPENDIX F
IRB EXEMPT REVIEW
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
As world cultures become increasingly globalized and interconnected, it is critical that colleges across the United States educate students to collaborate across and beyond national boundaries. What does it mean to educate globally literate learners and how do you connect learners at American universities to the global world in a way that promotes intercultural competence? This study reports on the planning, implementation and evaluation of an online intercultural exchange between French language students at a research university in the United States and students of English as a second language at a French university. While online intercultural exchanges provide rich, interactive, and authentic forms of communication for foreign language learners, how can they be integrated into the foreign language curriculum as a way to promote reflection and develop a deeper understanding of other cultures and one’s own? The purpose of this qualitative study was to collect and analyze data to understand how an online intercultural exchange could be successfully designed and implemented, to collect and analyze data from online and classroom activities to determine how the integration of the project into the existing French language curriculum promoted reflective practice and intercultural competence, and to analyze student perceptions of the exchange. Two qualitative research strategies, action research and ethnography, were conducted using multiple methods of data collection: participant observations, analysis of the online blog, reflective essays, and videotaped oral presentations, and an open‐ended survey from students about their perceptions of the exchange. This study aimed at evaluating the success of an online intercultural exchange and findings from the study suggested that students developed intercultural competences in the exchange and appreciated the authentic experience the exchange provided as well as the opportunity to explore and engage with another culture and their own. However findings from the survey also pointed out to problems in the exchange. Structural and organizational difficulties were the greatest hurdle for students. Findings from this study pointed to several recommendations about the critical role of the partner teachers in the exchange, the need for a variety of online communication tools, the importance of balancing topics of academic relevance and the development of personal relationships, and the significance of reflective tasks in the development of intercultural competence.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Examining the use of online storytelling as a motivation for young learners to practice narrative skills
PDF
Online graduate-level student learning and engagement: developing critical competencies for future leadership roles: an evaluation study
PDF
Coloring the pipeline: an analysis of the NASPA Undergraduate Fellows program as a path for underrepresented students into student affairs
PDF
Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners
PDF
Puncturing discourse: Russian heritage learner language and identity in higher education
PDF
Learning 21st century skills In a multicultural setting
PDF
The impact of globalization on the development of educational policy, 21st century learning, and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in Costa Rican schools
PDF
Short-term study tours and global competence development
PDF
Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies
PDF
An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system
PDF
Establishing and marketing an international branch campus: a case study of Savannah College of Art and Design Hong Kong
PDF
The impact of globalization, economics, and educational policy on the development of 21st century skills and STEM education in Costa Rica
PDF
Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education
PDF
Leadership competencies in healthcare administration graduate degree programs: an evaluative study
PDF
The role of globalization; science, technology, engineering, and math education; project-based learning; and national science fair policy in creating 21st-century ready students in Costa Rica
PDF
Cross-cultural adjustment: examining how involvement in service-learning contributes to the adjustment experiences of undergraduate international students
PDF
Examining how faculty educators believed they supported faculty in higher education institutions
PDF
Universal design for learning in teacher preparation: preparing for a classroom of diverse learners
PDF
Competency in a blended workforce: an evaluation study of contracted labor development challenges
PDF
Incorporating social and emotional learning in higher education: a promising practices based development of authentic leadership
Asset Metadata
Creator
Mijalski, Maryse
(author)
Core Title
Foreign language education for the 21st century: developing intercultural competence in an online intercultural exchange
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/16/2014
Defense Date
03/07/2014
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
foreign language education,intercultural competence,OAI-PMH Harvest,online intercultural exchange
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tobey, Patricia Elaine (
committee chair
), Vierma, Gayle (
committee member
), Warschauer, Mark (
committee member
)
Creator Email
marysemf@yahoo.com,mijalski@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-379718
Unique identifier
UC11295276
Identifier
etd-MijalskiMa-2365.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-379718 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MijalskiMa-2365.pdf
Dmrecord
379718
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Mijalski, Maryse
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
foreign language education
intercultural competence
online intercultural exchange