Today, language learners can be linked with students in other countries to form international partnerships, which is often called telecollaboration. Some common goals of telecollaboration include cultural awareness, development of foreign language skills and intercultural communicative competence. This study intends to gain insights about the learners’ experience following a 5-week telecollaboration activity between 100 English as a foreign language (EFL) students from Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics in China and Anadolu University in Turkey. The participation in the project was on voluntary basis for Turkish students. The telecollaboration activity included three different stages in which learners from both countries were expected to be able to communicate using different channels (text messaging, voice calls, video calls, emailing) synchronously and asynchronously, to analyse and compare their own and their peers’ culture to build understanding of each other’s identities and to collaborate together to produce a cultural piece of work. At the end of the activity Turkish EFL students were invited to answer a questionnaire that aimed to gain insights about their experience related to telecollaboration activity. Results revealed that the participants mostly enjoyed the activity. They also believed the activity contributed to their language learning process, motivation and intercultural communicative competence.
Falls das inline PDF nicht korrekt dargestellt ist, können Sie das PDF hier herunterladen.
1. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97.
2. Angelova, M., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Using an online collaborative project between American and Chinese students to develop ESL teaching skills, cross-cultural awareness and language skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 167-185.
3. Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60-81.
4. Belz, J. A. (2006). At the intersection of telecollaboration, learner corpus analysis, and L2 pragmatics: Considerations for language program direction. Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education, 207-246.
5. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning (Vol. 3). Harvard University Press.
6. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
7. Chen, J. J., & Yang, S. C. (2016). Promoting cross-cultural understanding and language use in research-oriented internet-mediated intercultural exchange. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 262-288.
8. Chun, D. M. (2011). Developing intercultural communicative competence through online exchanges. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 392.
9. Çiftçi, E. Y., & Savaş, P. (2018). The role of telecollaboration in language and intercultural learning: A synthesis of studies published between 2010 and 2015. ReCALL, 30(3), 278-298.
10. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. DC Heath.
11. Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary edition. Kappa Delta Pi.
12. Gómez, M. V. G. (2019). Developing Soft Skills in Higher Education Foreign Language Programs. Initial Insights into Telecollaboration. In Teaching Language and Teaching Literature in Virtual Environments (pp. 151-162). Springer, Singapore.
13. Guth, S., & Marini-Maio, N. (2010). Close encounters of a new kind: The use of Skype and Wiki in telecollaboration. Telecollaboration, 2, 413-426.
14. Harris, J. (2000). Taboo Topic No Longer: Why Telecollaborative Projects Sometimes Fail. Learning & Leading with Technology, 27(5), 58.
15. Helm, F., & Guth, S. (2010). The multifarious goals of telecollaboration 2.0: Theoretical and practical implications. In F. Helm & S. Guth (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language Literacies and Intercultural Learning in the 21st Century (pp.69-106).
16. Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37.
17. Lee, L., & Markey, A. (2014). A study of learners’ perceptions of online intercultural exchange through Web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 26(3), 281-297.
18. Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A Task-Cycling Pedagogy Using Stimulated Reflection and Audio-Conferencing in Foreign Language Learning. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 50-68.
19. Liaw, M. L., & Bunn-Le Master, S. (2010). Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 21-40.
20. McCloskey, E. M. (2012). Global teachers: A conceptual model for building teachers’ intercultural competence Online [Docentes globales: un modelo conceptual para el desarrollo de la competencia intercultural on-line]. Comunicar, 38, 41–49.
21. Michell, H. (2011). A critical analysis of the effects of a videoconferencing project on pupils’ learning about culture and language. Journal of Trainee Teacher Education Research, 2, 51-88.
22. O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 623-642.
23. Piaget. J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.
24. Schenker, T. (2012). Intercultural competence and cultural learning through telecollaboration. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 449.
25. Thorne, S. L. (2006). Pedagogical and praxiological lessons from internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education research. Internet-mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education, 2-30.
26. Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2012). Language teaching at a distance: An overview of research. Calico Journal, 29(3), 548.
27. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. London: Harvard University Press.
28. Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190-205.
29. Ware, P. D., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63.