Researching Telecollaboration Processes in Foreign Language Education: Challenges and Achievements

  • Kristi JauregiEmail author
Part of the New Frontiers in Translation Studies book series (NFTS)


In an increasingly globalized and digitalised society, the integration of ICT, and particularly, computer mediated communication, offer opportunities to innovate and enrich foreign language curricula, while adapting to the specific needs of the twenty-first century students who use digital social media every day to communicate and collaborate with others. Digital social applications may have enormous potential to support innovation in foreign language education, while following social constructivist pedagogies (Vygotsky 1978; Lantolf 2000; Lantolf and Thorne 2006) cooperation, communication and the learner are put in the centre of the learning process. However, research suggests that teachers and students do not use digital applications extensively for pedagogical purposes. Despite the efforts made by some scholars to give a boost to pedagogical digital innovation, the reality proves how difficult it is to introduce changes in traditional educational settings (Howard 2013; Eetmer and Otterbreit-Leftwich 2010).


Foreign Language Virtual World Native Speaker Video Communication Computer Mediate Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agar, M. 1994. The intercultural frame. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18(2): 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basharina, O. 2007. An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology 11(2): 36–58. Retrieved from Accessed 8 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  3. Basharina, O. 2009. Student agency and language-learning processes and outcomes in international online environments. CALICO Journal 26(2): 390–412. Retrieved from Accessed 8 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  4. Belz, J.A. 2001. Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL 13(2): 213–231. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belz, J.A. 2002. Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology 6(1): 60–81. Retrieved from Accessed 8 Jan 2015).
  6. Belz, J.A. 2003. Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology 7(2): 68–117. Retrieved from Accessed 8 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  7. Belz, J.A. 2005. Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in Internet-mediated language learning partnerships. Language and Intercultural Communication 5(1): 3–39. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belz, J.A., and S.L. Thorne (eds.). 2006. Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  9. Bueno Alastuey, M.C. 2011. Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. CALL Journal 24(5): 419–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  11. Byram, M. 2012. Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and intercultural citizenship. In Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication, ed. J. Jackson. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Byram, M., B. Gribkova, and H. Starkey. 2002. Developing the intercultural dimension in language teaching. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  13. Canto, S., K. Jauregi, and H. Van den Bergh. 2013. Integrating cross-cultural interaction through video-communication and virtual worlds in foreign language teaching programs: Is there an added value? ReCALL 25(1): 105–121. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Canto, S., R. de Graaff, and K. Jauregi. 2014. Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In Technology and tasks: Exploring technology-mediated TBLT, ed. M. González-Lloret and L. Ortega, 183–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  15. Ciekanski, M., and T. Chanier. 2008. Developing online multimodal verbal communication to enhance the writing process in an audio-graphic conferencing environment. ReCALL 20(2): 162–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Creswell, J.W. 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Creswell, J.W., and V. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Darhower, M. 2002. Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal 19(2): 249–275.Google Scholar
  19. Darhower, M. 2007. A tale of two communities: Group dynamics and community building in a Spanish-English telecollaboration. CALICO Journal 24(3): 561–589. Retrieved from Accessed 8 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  20. Darhower, M. 2008. The role of linguistic affordances in telecollaborative chat. CALICO Journal 26(1): 48–69. Retrieved from Accessed 8 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  21. Deutschmann, M., and L. Panichi. 2009. Instructional design, teacher practice and learner autonomy. In Learning and teaching in the virtual world of second life, ed. J. Molka-Danielsen and M. Deutschmann, 27–44. Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Develotte, C., N. Guichon, and C. Vincent. 2010. The use of the webcam for teaching a foreign language in a desktop videoconferencing environment. ReCALL 23(3): 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dieterle, E., and J. Clarke. 2008. Multi-user virtual environments for teaching and learning. In Encyclopedia of multimedia technology and networking, ed. M. Pagani, 1033–1035. Hershey: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  24. Dooly, M., and R. Sadler. 2013. Filling in the gaps: Linking theory and practice through telecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL 25(1): 4–29. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eetmer, P.A., and A.T. Otterbreit-Leftwich. 2010. Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 42: 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Felix, U., and M. Lawson. 1996. Developing German writing skills by way of Timbuktu: A pilot study comparing computer-based and conventional teaching. ReCALL 8(1): 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guichon, N. 2010. Preparatory study for the design of a desktop videoconferencing platform for synchronous language teaching. CALL Journal 23(2): 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guth, S., and F. Helm (eds.). 2010. Telecollaboration 2.0: Language literacies and Intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  29. Guth, S., and F. Helm. 2012. Developing multiliteracies in ELT through telecollaboration. ELT Journal 66(1): 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guth, S., and M. Maio. 2010. Close encounters of a new kind: The use of Skype and Wiki in telecollaboration. In Telecollaboration 2.0, ed. S. Guth and F. Helm, 413–427. Bern: Peter Lang AG.Google Scholar
  31. Hampel, R., and M. Hauck. 2004. Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language, Learning and Technology 8(1): 66–82.Google Scholar
  32. Hampel, R., U. Felix, M. Hauck, and J.A. Coleman. 2005. Complexities of learning and teaching languages in a real-time audiographic environment. German as a Foreign Language Journal 3: 1–30. Retrieved from: Accessed 10 Sept 2014.
  33. Hinkel, E. (ed.). 2006. Culture in second language teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Howard, S.K. 2013. Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers’ resistance to technology integration. Technology Pedagogy and Education 22(3): 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jauregi, K. 2011. La negociación de procesos de escritura a través de la videocomunicación. In La comunicación escrita en el siglo XXI, Estudis Lingüístics, vol. 16, ed. N. Estévez, J.R. Gómez, and M. Carbonell, 81–105. Valencia: Quaderns de Filologia.Google Scholar
  36. Jauregi, K., and E. Bañados. 2008. Virtual interaction through video-web communication: A step towards enriching and internationalizing learning programs. ReCALL 20(2): 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jauregi, K., and E. Bañados. 2010. An intercontinental video-web communication project between Chile and The Netherlands. In Telecollaboration 2.0, ed. S. Guth and F. Helm, 427–436). Bern: Peter Lang AG.Google Scholar
  38. Jauregi, K., and S. Melchor-Couto. 2014. Researching telecollaboration in secondary schools: Challenges and opportunities. In Research challenges in CALL, ed. J. Colpaert, A. Aerts, and M. Oberhofer, 191–199. Antwerp: Linguapolis.Google Scholar
  39. Jauregi, K., S. Canto, R. de Graaff, T. Koenraad, and M. Moonen. 2011. Verbal interaction in second life: Towards a pedagogic framework for task design. CALL Journal 24(1): 189–207. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jauregi, K., R. de Graaff, H. van den Bergh, and M. Kriz. 2012. Native/non-native speaker interactions through video-web communication: A clue for enhancing motivation? CALL Journal 25(1): 1–19. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jauregi, K., S. Melchor-Couto, and E. Vilar. 2013. The European project TILA. In 20 years of Eurocall: Learning from the past looking to the future, ed. L. Bradley and S. Thouësny, 123–129. Dublin: Research Publishing Net.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jin, L. 2013. Language development and scaffolding in a Sino-American telecollaborative project. Language Learning & Technology 17(2): 193–219. Retrieved from Accessed 8 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  43. Kelm, O.R. 1992. The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals 25: 441–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kern, R. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to explore personal histories in two cultures. In Telecollaboration in foreign language learning, ed. M. Warschauer, 105–119. Hawaii: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre.Google Scholar
  45. Kinginger, C. 1998. Videoconferencing as access to spoken French. The Modern Language Journal 82(4): 502–513. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kramsch, C. 1991. Culture in language learning: A view from the States. In Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, ed. K. de Bot, R.B. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch, 17–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  47. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kramsch, C., and S. Thorne. 2002. Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In Language learning and teaching in the age of globalization, ed. D. Block and D. Cameron, 83–100. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Lamy, M.N. 2004. Oral conversations online: Redefining oral competence in synchronous environments. ReCALL 16(2): 520–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lantolf, J.P. (ed.). 2000. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lantolf, J.P., and S.L. Thorne (eds.). 2006. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lee, L. 2001. Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL 13(1): 232–244.Google Scholar
  53. Lee, L. 2004. Learner’s proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research 8(1): 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee, L. 2007. Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals 40(4): 635–649. Scholar
  55. Lee, L. 2009. Promoting intercultural exchanges with blogs and podcasting: A study of Spanish–American telecollaboration. CALL Journal 22(5): 425–443. Scholar
  56. Lee, L. 2011. Focus-on-form through peer feedback in a Spanish–American telecollaborative exchange. Language Awareness 20(4): 343–357. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lee, L. 2012. Engaging study abroad students in intercultural learning through blogging and ethnographic interviews. Foreign Language Annals 45(1): 7–21. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  58. Liauw, M. 2006. E-learning and the development of intercultural competence. Language Learning & Technology 10(3): 49–64.Google Scholar
  59. MacIntyre, P.D. 2007. Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal 91(4): 564–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. MacIntyre, P.D., S.C. Baker, R. Clement, and S. Conrod. 2001. Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23: 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meei-Ling, L. 2006. E-learning and the development of intercultural competence. Language, Learning and Technology 10(3): 49–64.Google Scholar
  62. Möllering, M., and M. Levy. 2012. Intercultural competence in computer mediated communication. In Researching online foreign language interaction and exchange, ed. M. Dooly and R. O’Dowd, 233–266. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  63. O’Dowd, R. 2000. Intercultural learning via videoconferencing: A pilot exchange project. ReCALL 12: 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. O’Dowd, R. 2006. The use of videoconferencing and e-mail as mediators of intercultural student ethnography. In Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education, ed. J.A. Belz and S.L. Thorne, 86–120. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  65. O’Dowd, R. 2007. Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matter.Google Scholar
  66. O’Dowd, R. 2011. Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign language education? Language Teaching 44: 368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. O’Dowd, R., and M. Ritter. 2006. Understanding and working with ‘Failed Communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal 23(3): 623–642. Retrieved from Accessed 8 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  68. Pellettieri, J. 2000. Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice, ed. M. Warschauer and R. Kern, 59–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Peterson, M. 2010. Learner participation patterns and strategy use in second life: An exploratory case study. ReCALL 22(3): 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Peterson, M. 2011. Towards a research agenda for the use of 3D virtual worlds in language learning. Calico 29(1): 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peterson, M. 2012. EFL learner collaborative interaction in second life. ReCALL 24(1): 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pol, L. 2013. Telecollaboration in secondary education: An added value? Master thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  73. Savignon, S. 2004. Communicative language teaching. In The Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning, ed. M. Byram, 124–129. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Shadish, W.R., T.D. Cook, and D.T. Campbell. 2001. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, B. 2004. Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26: 365–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sotillo, Sm. 2000. Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language, Learning and Technology 4(1): 82–119.Google Scholar
  77. Steinkuehler, C. 2006. Massively multiplayer online videogaming as participation in a discourse. Mind, Culture & Activity 13(1): 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Swain, M., and S. Lapkin. 1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16: 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. ten Thije, J.D., and R. Maier. 2012. Managing cultural and linguistic diversity in multiple organisational settings. Special issue of Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(7): 629–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Thorne, S. 2006. Pedagogical and paradoxical lessons from Internet mediated intercultural foreign language education research. In Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education research, ed. J. Belz and S. Thorne, 2–30. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  81. Thorne, S. 2010. The “intercultural turn” and language learning in the crucible of new media. In Telecollaboration 2.0. Language literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century, ed. S. Guth and F. Helm, 139–164. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  82. Tudini, V. 2007. Intercultural competence and cultural learning through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal 91(4): 577–601. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Wang, Y. 2004. Supporting synchronous distance language learning with desktop videoconferencing. Language Learning & Technology 8(3): 90–121.Google Scholar
  85. Wang, Y. 2006. Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. ReCALL 18(1): 122–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wang, Y. 2007. Task design in videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. CALICO Journal 24(3): 562–590.Google Scholar
  87. Ware, P. 2005. Missed communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology 9(2): 64–89. Retrieved from Accessed 8 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  88. Ware, P.D., and C. Kramsch. 2005. Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal 89: 190–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Warschauer, M. 1996. Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO 13(2): 7–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of UtrechtUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations