Telecollaboration in Secondary Education: An Added Value?
Lisanne Pol Utrecht University
MA Thesis
Supervisor: dr. Kristi Jauregi Ondarra 15 July 2013
Grant Agreement number: 2012 – 4001 / 001 - 001
1 Table of Contents Introduction 7 Research Outline 8 Methodology 9 Key Terms 12
1. Telecollaboration Projects in Secondary Education Versus Universities 13
1.1. Google Search 13
1.2. Journals 14
1.3. Online Intercultural Exchange 15
1.4. Model Websites 15
1.5. Conclusion 16
2. Projects Carried Out 17
2.1. Aims of the projects 17
2.1.1. Aims of the University Projects 17
2.1.1.1. Engaging Students in an Online Exchange 18
2.1.1.2. Influences, Problems and Benefits 18
2.1.1.3. Students’ Skills and Learning 19
2.1.1.4. Intercultural Partnerships and Communities 20
2.1.1.5. Participation and Motivation 21
2.1.1.6. Discourse Profiles 21
2.1.1.7. Pedagogical Aspects 22
2.1.1.8. Technology 23
2.1.2. Aims of the Secondary Education Projects 24
2.1.2.1. Students’ Skills and Learning 24
2
2.1.2.3. Technology 25
2.2. Online Activities 26
2.2.1. Types of Activities 27
2.2.2. Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Activities 28
2.2.3. Text-Based or Audio-Visual Chat 29
2.2.4. Conclusion 30
2.3. Learning Environments 31
2.3.1. Platforms used in University Projects 31
2.3.2. Platforms in Secondary School Projects 36
2.3.3. Conclusion 37
2.4. Tasks 40
2.5. Language Use 41
2.5.1. Function of the Target Language 42
2.5.2. Function of English 43
2.5.3. Conclusion 43
2.6. Time Paths 44
2.7. Results of the Projects Investigated 45
2.7.1. Results of the Secondary Education Projects 45
2.7.1.1. Linguistic and Communicative Skills 46
2.7.1.2. Culture: Online and Offline 47
2.7.1.3. Participation 47
2.7.1.4. Problems and Disadvantages 48
2.7.1.5. Technology 48
2.7.1.6. Conclusion 50
3
2.7.2.1. Benefits for Students 52
2.7.2.2. Intercultural Awareness and Relationships 54
2.7.2.3. Participation 55
2.7.2.4. Disadvantages and Problems 56
2.7.2.5. Technology 57
2.7.2.6. Feedback 61
2.7.2.7. Failures in Interaction 61
2.7.2.8. Factors Affecting an Exchange 62
2.7.2.9. Conclusion 63
3. Discussion 64
4. Conclusion and Implications 67
4.1. Conclusion 67
4.2. Aims of the TILA Project 68
4.3. Implications 70
5. Limitations and Future Research 72
5.1. Limitations 72
5.2. Future Research 73
References 74
Appendices
Appendix A: Overview of the Studies Investigated 90
Appendix B: Online Activities Specified 134
Appendix C: Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Communication Specified 136
Appendix D: Text-Based and Audio-Visual Synchronous Chat Specified 138
Appendix E: Tasks Specified 139
4
Appendix G: Functions of the Target Languages Specified 143
Appendix H: The Function of English Specified 144
Appendix I: Time Paths Specified 145
Appendix J: Benefits Specified 147
5
List of Tables
Table 1. Quantity of Studies per Category found using Google Search 13
Table 2. Quantity of Studies, per Category found by Searching Several Journals 14
Table 3. Online Activities in Projects Investigated 28
Table 4. Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Communication in Projects Investigated 29
Table 5. Text-Based and Audio-Visual Chat in Projects Investigated 30
Table 6. Online Platforms used in the University Projects Investigated 33
Table 7. Online Platforms used in the Secondary Education Projects Investigated 38
Table 8. Tasks in Projects Investigated 41
Table 9. Target Languages in Projects Investigated 42
Table 10. Functions of Target Languages in Projects Investigated 43
Table 11. The Use of English in Projects Investigated 43
Table 12. Time Paths from Projects Investigated 45
Table 13. Benefits of Telecollaboration Projects Investigated 66
Table A1. University Studies Investigated 90
Table A2. Secondary Education Studies Investigated 128
Table B1. University Studies Investigated Discussing Online Activities 134
Table B2. Secondary Education Studies Investigated Discussing Online Activities 135
Table C1. University Projects Discussing Synchronous Versus Asynchronous
Communication 136
Table C2. Secondary Education Studies Investigated Discussing Synchronous Versus
Asynchronous Communication 137
Table D1. University Projects Discussing Chat: Text-Based Versus Audio-Visual
Communication 138
6
Audio-Visual Communication 138
Table E1. University Studies Investigated Discussing Tasks 139
Table E2. Secondary Education Studies Investigated Discussing Tasks 140
Table F1. University Studies Investigated Discussing Target Languages 141
Table F2. Secondary Education Studies Investigated Target Languages 142
Table G1. University Studies Discussing the Function of the Target Language 143
Table G2. Secondary Education Studies Discussing the Function of the Target
Language 143
Table H1. University Studies Investigated Discussing The Use of English 144
Table H1. Secondary Education Studies Investigated Discussing The Use of English 144
Table I1. University Projects Discussing Time Paths 145
Table I2. Secondary Education Projects Discussing Time Paths 146
Table J1.University Projects Investigated Discussing Benefits 147
Table J2.Secondary Education Projects Investigated Discussing Benefits 148
Table K1.University Studies: Ways of Obtaining Results 149
7
Introduction
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in combining foreign language learning
with intercultural competence, due to globalisation (O’Dowd, 2007a). As a result, learning
goals have shifted from students being able to communicate in a foreign language to being
able to use a foreign language to communicate in a cross-cultural situation. However,
globalisation has also given rise to new ways of communicating, for instance by using the
internet to engage in compute-mediated communication (CMC). The use of CMC in foreign
language classrooms has gained popularity over the last few years (Jauregi, 2012), as research
has shown that internet-mediated communication provides students with the opportunity to
experience another culture, besides learning the target language (O’Dowd, 2007a). In other
words, implementing CMC into foreign language education is a way of combining the use of
increasingly popular online media in class and achieving the modern-day learning goals
simultaneously. One way of doing this is by engaging students in online projects, or
telecollaboration exchanges, as these aim to enhance participants’ linguistic as well as
intercultural skills (Belz, 2003) by asking them to work on a collaborative task.
Although the possibilities of telecollaboration have been recognised by secondary
school teachers, they are not particularly keen on adding an online exchange to their
curriculums (Jauregi, 2012). As a result, most of the projects – and studies, for that matter -
have been conducted with university students. Yet, according the critical period hypothesis,
children are the most sensitive to language acquisition until around their puberty, so until they
reach maturity (Muñoz, 2008). As a result, university students no longer posses the same
capacities as secondary school pupils do, to learn a language, especially with regards to
fluency. In other words, it would be more effective to implement telecollaborative exchanges
in secondary education, when the pupils are still in, or closer to, this period of sensitivity to
8 Consequently, projects such as Telecollaboration for Intercultural Language
Acquisition (TILA) aim to enhance the enthusiasm of secondary school towards
telecollaboration, and attempt to
implement telecollaborative activities with peers in foreign language learning at
secondary education in order to make language learning a more vital, direct, attractive
and relevant experience and contribute to making European citizens better qualified
and skilled multilingual and intercultural interlocutors and professionals. (Jauregi,
2012, p. 24)
Despite published research on the benefits of telecollaboration with regards to language
learning – which, again, include mostly university projects – there has been little discussion
with regards to the effect of telecollaboration on “motivation of pupils ..., on their
communicative skills and the development of intercultural awareness” (Jauregi, 2012, p. 20),
and therefore, this paper will attempt to shed a light on the impact of online exchanges on
these elements.
Research Outline
This paper aims to investigate one of the goals of the TILA project: “To study the possible
added value telecollaboration might have in language learning for intercultural understanding
of younger learners” (Jauregi, 2012, p. 27), by examining (1) how much telecollaboration is
implemented in secondary education, as opposed to in universities, and (2) whether
telecollaboration projects are useful additions to secondary education curriculums, by
outlining the projects and their results and discussing the outcomes in line with the gap in
research as stated above, by Kristi Jauregi (2012). To do so, the following research question
9 Are telecollaboration projects an added value to the language learning curriculum at
secondary education?
Additionally, the following two sub questions have guided the research:
• How often does telecollaboration take place in secondary education in comparison to
universities?
• What projects have been / are being carried out?
Moreover, the latter question is again divided, into 7 different elements:
• What are the aims of the studies?
• Which digital activities do the participants engage in?
• Which types of digital learning environments are used?
• What kinds of tasks do the participants have to do?
• What languages were used during the exchanges?
• What are the time paths?
• What are the results of these projects?
Methodology
For this study, an approach which blends both quantitative and qualitative research
was used. Firstly, a systematic literature review was conducted of studies that described
telecollaboration projects carried out with university students, as well as secondary school
pupils.
To determine the ratio between the two settings, a Google search was conducted, in
combination with searching several journals that each focus on education and/or technology,
as well as a book by Robert O’Dowd (2007a).
For the Google search, the Scholar function (http://scholar.google.nl/schhp?hl=nl) was
10 ‘Telecollaboration Secondary School’ returned about 1800 hits, but a majority of them were
not related to telecollaboration, or did not describe any specific projects, so these results were
neglected.
As for the journals, a total of 11 journals which specialise in education, education and
technology or technology alone were searched. The list of journals includes the following
titles:
• Language Learning & Technology, which deals with “issues related to language
learning and language teaching, and how they are affected or enhanced by the use of
technologies” (“Language Learning & Technology,” n.d.);
• Educational Technology Research and Development, focuses “entirely on research
and development in educational technology” (“Educational Technology,” n.d.); • CALICO Journal, which “is devoted to the dissemination of information concerning
the application of technology to language teaching and language learning” (“About the
Journal,” n.d.);
• Modern Language Journal, which is “promoting scholarly exchange among teachers
and researchers of all modern foreign languages and English as a second language”
(“Modern Language Journal,” n.d.);
• Computer Assisted Language Learning, which is dedicated to “all matters associated
with the use of computers in language learning (L1 and L2), teaching and testing”
(“Computer Assisted Language Learning,” n.d.);
• Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, which is a “source of ESL and
EFL information” (“About TESL-EJ,” n.d.);
• ReCALL, which focuses on “the use of technologies for language learning and
teaching, including all relevant aspects of research and development” (“ReCALL,”
11 • Language and Intercultural Communication, which “promotes an interdisciplinary
understanding of the interplay between language and intercultural communication”
(“Language and Intercultural Communication,” n.d.);
• Foreign Language Annals, which “seeks to serve the professional interests of
classroom instructors, researchers, and administrators concerned with the learning and
teaching of languages at all levels of instruction” (“Foreign Language Annals,” n.d.); • System, which is “devoted to the applications of educational technology and applied
linguistics to problems of foreign language teaching and learning” (“System,” n.d.); • Computers and Education, which welcomes “any papers on cognition, educational or
training systems development using techniques from and applications in any technical
knowledge domain” (“Computers and Education,” n.d.).
All of these journals have their own websites, which were searched by typing
‘telecollaboration’ into the search box.
On the other hand, one printed medium was investigated: Online Intercultural
Exchange, a book by Robert O’Dowd (2007a). In addition to theory and models, this book
also describes telecollaborative case studies, which were checked for types of participants and
settings.
Secondly, the projects found will be subjected to an in-depth analysis of the 7
characteristics defined under the second sub question (in the Research Outline).
Lastly, the studies found in the Google that used email as their primary means of
communication have also been left out of the analysis, as the Radicati Group has found that in
2012, 3.375 million email accounts existed worldwide (Radicati, 2012), so email can
nowadays be considered a normalised tool. Additionally, projects using synchronous
communication tools have been becoming more popular over the last few years than those
12
Key Terms
The focal point of this study is telecollaboration, meaning, as Robert O’Dowd (2007)
defines it, “the activity of engaging learners in interaction and collaborative project work
with partners from other cultures through the use of online communication tools” (p. 4).
Additionally, telecollaborative projects often aim to enhance the participants’ linguistic,
communicative and intercultural skills, especially in the target language (Belz, 2003).
However, online activities lacking an intercultural element, such as virtual classrooms or
distance learning, are neglected, as they usually take place among students from one class, or
nationality (possibly abroad), and therefore they are not considered to be a part of
telecollaboration.
Throughout this paper the terms project and exchange, sometimes in combination with
online, intercultural, telecollaboration, or telecollaborative, will be used interchangeably to
refer to the activities described above.
Finally, some researchers have investigated the same projects more than once. As a
result, the characteristics of these exchanges – with the exception of their aims and results -
will be counted only once. This goes for the following studies:
• Belz & Müller-Hartmann (2003) and Belz (2001; 2002; 2003 and 2005): the same
German-American exchange;
• Lee (2009b and 2011): the same Spanish-American exchange;
• Darhower (2007 and 2008): the same American-Puerto Rican exchange;
• Basharina (2007 and 2009): the same exchange between Japan, Mexico and
Russia;
• Hauck (2007) and Hauck & Youngs (2008): the same exchange between the
13
1. Telecollaboration Projects in Secondary Education Versus Universities
To investigate the number of studies conducted in secondary education, compared to studies
in which the participants are university students, several sources can be consulted. However,
this study limits itself to a general search on Google Scholar; a selected number of academic
journals; a book by Robert O’Dowd, Online Intercultural Exchange; and the websites of two
telecollaboration models.
1.1. Google Search
Firstly, a Google search was conducted by using the search term ‘Telecollaboration
Secondary School’, which returned a total of 168 different studies based on a
computer-mediated project. However, 99 of these studies did not involve telecollaboration projects, as
defined in the methodology. As a result, this 58.9% of the total amount of studies will be
disregarded. However, the search returned 69 studies that meet the criteria of a
telecollaborative project, and 46 of these, so 66.7% of the telecollaboration projects were
conducted with university students, whereas only 13, so 18.8% of the studies were carried out
in secondary education (see table 1). In other words, after searching Google Scholar, the ratio
of studies carried out with university students to those conducted with secondary school
pupils is almost 4:1.
Table 1
Quantity of Studies per Category found using Google Search
University students Secondary Education Primary Education / In-Service Teachers Telecollaboration 46 13 10 Distance Learning 45 11 7 Email-Only Telecollaboration 19 10 2 Email-Only Distance Learning 3 1 0
14
1.2. Journals
Secondly, several journals kept reappearing during the Google search, so these were
also subjected to a search, by using the term ‘Telecollaboration’ only. In total, eleven
journals which focus on education and/or technology were investigated. With regards
to the telecollaboration projects, 8 out of the 9 journals only contain studies carried out
with university students (see table 2), which account for a total of 29 different studies.
Additionally, Language Learning & Technology contained 1 study conducted with
pupils from a primary school, and a total of 12 projects did not meet the criteria of a
telecollaborative exchange, so are deemed distance learning. Nonetheless, there was
one journal which did contain an article regarding a study conducted in secondary
education: Educational Technology Research and Development discussed research
regarding K-12 students. As a result, according to the results from the 9 journals
combined, the ratio of research conducted among university students to that carried
out among secondary school pupils is even 29:1.
Table 2
Quantity of Studies, per Category found by Searching Several Journals
Journal Telecollaboration University Students Telecollaboration Secondary Education Telecollaboration In-Service Teachers / Primary Education Distance Learning University Students Language Learning & Technology 8 0 1 0 Educational Technology Research and Development 0 1 (K-12) 0 0 CALICO Journal 8 0 0 4 Modern Language Journal 3 0 0 0 Computer Assisted Language Learning 4 0 0 0 Teaching English as a Second or 1 0 0 0
15 Foreign Language ReCALL 8 0 0 8 Language and Intercultural Communication 3 0 0 0 Foreign Language Annals 2 0 0 0
1.3. Online Intercultural Exchange
Lastly, Robert O’Dowd’s book describes several case studies in one of his books,
which focuses on telecollaborative projects. The book describes seven different projects, but
none of these are carried out on a secondary school: six are conducted with university
students, whereas the subjects of one of the projects are in-service teachers. Although Eva
Wilden (2007) adds to the latter case study that “the basic structure of the exchange can easily
be adapted to other educational setting, e.g. secondary or tertiary education foreign language
courses,” (p. 269) the project discussed was not originally carried out in a secondary
education environment, but in a different context, so among in-service teachers.
1.4. Model Websites
Another part of the book describes three different models of telecollaboration: Berffni
O’Rourke (2007) discusses the eTandem model, Jésus Suárez Garciá and James Crapotta
(2007) introduce the Cultura model, and Antonia Domínguez Miguela (2007) outlines the
eTwinning model. The structures of these models will be explained later on. Although the
book gives only two examples of an eTandem project (Vinagre, 2007 and Hauck & Lewis,
2007), and none of the other two models, there are a large number of projects based on any of
the three models presented. One way to find some of them is by searching Google. Although
the search terms “eTwinning” and “Cultura” immediately return an specific website,
16 Firstly, Cultura was originally developed and employed by the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) (Suárez Garciá & Crapotta, 2007). The search term “Cultura projects”
quickly leads to a website created by MIT: http://cultura.mit.edu/. Here, the tabs Current
Exchanges and Archived Exchanges both open a list of projects based on the Cultura model.
Although the Current Exchanges section lists 45 different exchanges, only 10 are carried out
in secondary education (“Current Exchanges,” n.d.). Additionally, out of the 42 archived
projects, 2 were conducted in a secondary education context (“Archived Exchanges,” n.d.). In
total, 75 of the 87 projects, so 86.2% of all the exchanges listed on the MIT Cultura website
involve university students as participants.
Secondly, according to Antonia Domínguez Miguela (2007), eTwinning “is essentially
a network of schools and educators within the European Union ... [which] is open to primary
and secondary schools,” (p. 85) and is easily found by entering the term in the Google search
engine: http://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/index.htm. Under the header Discover is a section
Publications, which contains a document elaborating on several case studies that emerged
from the eTwinning network (“Pupils in eTwinning,” 2011). The document reports a total of
25 eTwinning projects, of which 16 have taken place in a secondary education environment
(“Pupils in eTwinning,” 2011), so 64% of the documented eTwinning exchanges were carried
out with secondary school pupils, and 37% with primary school pupils.
1.5. Conclusion
Many of the projects based on the Cultura model are exchanges between universities,
whereas more than half of the reported eTwinning projects have taken place between
secondary school. So, in 4 out of 5 cases the projects carried out at universities (greatly)
17 exception. In other words, secondary education still has a much ground to cover when it
comes to telecollaboration.
2. Projects Carried Out
This section discusses the project that have been carried out, in both a university
context, and in secondary education settings. All projects have been investigated for (a) their
aims or goals of the studies, (b) the digital activities the participants engaged in; (c) the online
environments that were used during the exchanges; (d) the tasks; (e) the target languages
used; (f) the time frames during which the projects took place and (g) the outcomes of the
studies. The last category includes the positive impact projects may have on students, as well
as the role of the teacher during the exchanges.
2.1. Aims of the Studies
Firstly, the aims of the studies investigated will be discussed, starting with the goals of
the 49 university projects, which have been divided into a total of 8 different categories,
followed by the aims of the 11 secondary education exchanges, which comprise a total of 3
different categories.
2.1.1. Aims of the University Studies
The aims of the university studies can be divided into several categories: (a) engaging
participants in projects; (b) influential factors, advantages and benefits of exchanges; (c) the
skills and learning participants obtain; (d) the establishing of intercultural friendships; (e)
student motivation and participation; (f) discourse features of the participants; (g) pedagogical
18
2.1.1.1. Engaging Students in an Online Exchange
Some of the project aims include engaging students in a “telecollaborative project”
(Sadler, 2007, p. 14), and to enable students to expose themselves to authentic language and
culture, especially those who are beginning learners (Jin, 2013, p. 197), as these online
exchanges are a “unique opportunity” (Lee, 2007, p. 638) for students. Ensuring the
environment is safe and “non-threatening” (Lee, 2007, p. 638), in order for students to
effectively communicate and collaborate with their foreign partners can be another goal for an
exchange. On the other hand, evaluating an exchange is also a field of interest to researchers
(Bray & Iswanty, 2013, p. 29). Only three studies investigated (Sadler, 2007; Lee, 2007 and
Bray & Iswanty, 2013) included engaging their participants in a project as one of the main
goals, but in all three cases this was only part of the aims of the project.
2.1.1.2. Influences, Problems and Benefits
Investigating which factors influence an exchange is also a goal that is mentioned by
two studies (O’Dowd, 2005 and Belz, 2002), especially with regards to the
“socio-institutional dimensions” (Belz, 2002, p. 60), and how they affect both the “development”
(O’Dowd, 2005, p. 40) of the exchange, as well as the students’ usage en learning of the target
language (Belz, 2002). The effect of these factors can also be investigated more specifically,
for instance, what negative consequences institutional and sociological factors might have on
the students’ linguistic and intercultural competences (Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003).
Other studies do not focus on the negative effects only, but contrast both the negative
and positive influences of socio-institutional elements in an online exchange (Sadler, 2007),
on the “design, implementation and sustainability” (Brinckwirth, 2012, p. 17) of a project, and
on the experiences students have with regards to communicating with their partners (Kung,
19 In line with the latter study, some projects aim to clarify the conflicts
miscommunication and misunderstanding among foreign partners or groups may cause (Ware,
2005 and Schneider & Von der Emde, 2005), or by exploring the reasons behind and links
between failures in communication between participants (O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006).
In short, some studies aim at exploring the socio-institutional factors, and how they
influence an exchange, either negatively, or by contrasting benefits and problems, for instance
by focussing on miscommunication.
2.1.1.3. Students’ Skills and Learning
Several studies aimed at investigating how online exchanges affected students and
their learning (e.g. Brinckwirth, 2012) and how students perceived their own learning
(Basharina, 2009). The majority of the studies discussing students’ skills and learning
focussed on one or both of the following two categories: intercultural communicative
competence (ICC) or awareness and language learning.
Firstly, developing intercultural skills can be an important goal for projects, and can be
examined in combination with socio-institutional factors, to determine how they influence
each other (Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003). Providing students with the opportunity to
improve their IC (Liaw, 2006 and Hauck & Youngs, 2008), and not only facilitating, but
aiming to ensure the development of students’ ICC (Carney, 2008 and Lee, 2007) and through
this, their independence (Fuchs, Hauk & Müller-Hartmann, 2012) can be reasons for setting
up an exchange. Some studies, however, are less certain about ICC development and aim to
test if and how participants improve their ICC (Liaw & Bunn-Le Master, 2010) or build a
“knowledge base” (Müller-Hartmann, 2006). In other words, instead of assuming that
students will improve their IC, the assumption can also be questioned rather than stated
20 their IC (Gephardt & Kostelníková, 2012), and the factors that influence it (Menard-Warwick,
2009) can be investigated. Lastly, if students have developed their ICC, certain studies
examine the empirical evidence for the change (Kötter, 2003), or the perceptions of the
participants on the subject (Keranen & Bayyurt, 2006).
Secondly, project goals can also focus on the students’ language learning (e.g. Belz &
Müller-Hartmann, 2003 and Belz, 2002) and may aim to improve this (Carney, 2008). Similar
to ICC, investigating how and if students’ linguistic skills improve during the project (Ritchie,
2009 and Jin, 2013) and providing evidence for any developments (Kötter, 2003) is another
aim of telecollaborative exchanges, as is describing and determining differences and patterns
in students’ learning of the target language (Kabata & Edasawa, 2011and Willms, 2011).
Finally, contrasting the difference in linguistic development between students participating in
a telecollaborative project, and those who have only been taught the target language in the
traditional classroom is also mentioned as a main goal (Canto, Jauregi & Van den Bergh,
2013), together with examining participants’ perceptions about the project (Canto, Jauregi &
Van den Bergh, 2013).
In short, testing if, aiming at and providing students with an opportunity to improve
their ICC and linguistic competence and providing evidence for changes or reasons why
student did or did not improve, together with the students’ perceptions are some of the goals
for telecollaborative projects.
2.1.1.4. Intercultural Partnerships and Communities
ICC is connected to establishing intercultural communities, or partnerships between
participants and their foreign partners. One of the goals of telecollaboration projects therefore
might me to examine if participants build and sustain bonds with their group members and
21 at investigating how certain factors, for instance “language valuation ... [,] membership in
electronic discourse communities ... [and] culturally determined classroom scripts” (Belz,
2001), asking questions (Belz, 2005), behaviour (Darhower, 2007), or even “issues of
collaborative design work, [and] the social nature of a computer-mediated design
environment” (Yee, Mitchell, Naka, Morozumi & Yamaguchi, 1998, para. 1) may influence
the way and extent to which participants from intercultural companionships.
2.1.1.5. Participation and Motivation
Another aspect some studies want to investigate is the effect telecollaborative projects
have on student participation and motivation. For instance, studies tested the effect of the
activities the participants engaged in during the exchange (Kung, 2002), and whether they
would “contribute to sustain interaction among the participants” (Kung, 2002, p. 318), or
whether the tools used had different effects on the motivation of beginning and more
advanced language learners (Jauregi, De Graaff, Van den Bergh & Kriz, 2012, p. 10-2).
2.1.1.6. Discourse Profiles
Several studies aimed at mapping out the participants’ discourse profiles and
examined, for example, “the characteristics of discourse that typify the intercultural
communication” (Keranen & Bayyurt, 2006, p. 2), or the “linguistic and interactional
characteristics” (Pasfield-Neofitou, 2006, p. 3) of the interactions. Some researcher specified
the goals to exploring how “first year Chinese language learners open and close their online
chats” (Zhang, 2013, p. 7), or the contradictions that arose between participants during an
exchange (Basharina, 2007).
Investigating feedback and negotiation strategies used in “e-partnering and e-tutoring”
22 explicitly asked to correct each other (Lee, 2011), and how native speakers of the target
language correct non-native speakers (Bower & Kawaguchi, 2011) are goals of the projects
investigated. In line with the latter case, a few studies sketched the discourse features of an
interaction between non-native speakers of a language and native speakers (Lee, 2009a and
Darhower, 2008) and “morphosyntactic and discourse difficulties” of the non-native speakers
(Kinginger, 1998, p. 502) and compared these findings with existing literature (Kötter, 2003).
Moreover, the discourse features of the participants were used to determine if they had
improved their ICC (Liaw & Bunn-Le Master, 2010 and Belz, 2003), “intercultural attitudes,
knowledge, skills, and critical awareness” (Menard-Warwick, 2009, p. 108) or vocabulary
(Edasawa & Kabata, 2007). Lastly, one study investigated the link between student discourse
and the use of technology and how technology “contribute[d] to the style of language
produced by the learners” (Chun, 2011, p. 395).
In short, a number of studies investigated the discourse profiles of the participants in
general, whereas other focussed on specific characteristics, such as feedback and negotiation,
interactions between native speakers and non-native speakers, improvement of linguistic and
intercultural competences and even the link between technology and discourse styles.
2.1.1.7. Pedagogical Aspects
Three studies reported aims with regards to the role of the instructor, or teacher, and
pedagogy in general, as one study challenged the belief that “teachers take on the passive role
of a guide on the side” in exchanges (O’Dowd & Eberbach, 2004, p. 6), and another study
was designed to “get student-teachers to move from ‘knowledge telling’ to ‘knowledge
transforming’” (Dooly & Sadler, 2013, p. 8). So, both studies investigated the role of the
teacher in the exchanges, which corresponds to another study’s goal of combining
23 Moreover, some studies aimed to “investigate the pedagogical applicability and use of various
CMC tools” (Sadler, 2007, p. 14), like a MOO (Von der Emde, Schneider & Kötter, 2001), or
videoconferencing (Mouhadjer, 2013).
2.1.1.8. Technology
In addition to the pedagogical aspects of technology, some studies intended to
determine “the role of communication technologies in foreign language teaching” (Gephardt
& Kostelníková, 2012, p. 38), and especially the role of certain models, tools and platforms.
For instance, one study aimed to test whether “the 4-member team model [is] a viable
alternative to one-to-one or many-to-many models of e-mail exchange” (Kung, 2002, p. 318).
On the other hand, a few studies aimed to investigate the applicability of online tools, for
example if audio-visual communication “can contribute to enriching the quality of foreign
language curricula” (Jauregi & Bañados, 2008, p. 183), or whether blogging (Lee, 2012), or
using “the MOO” (Donaldson & Kötter, 1999, p. 542) are effective means of communication
for developing participants intercultural competence, and how participants “interpret shared
space in an online multilateral English blogging context” (Yang, 2011, p 122).
Similarly, some studies investigated synchronous chat, and aimed to discover if it
could “provide opportunities for communication with native speakers and informal language
acquisition” (Pasfield-Neofitou, 2006, p. 3), whether chat would facilitate intercultural
learning (Tudini, 2007 and Jin & Erben, 2007), or even if the participants thought exchanges
using chat are “worthwhile in providing an economical way to practice the target language in
everyday conversations outside of the classroom setting” (Worajittipol, 2010, p. 217).
Another study compared the use of synchronous and asynchronous communication and aimed
to determine how these tools affected “learner experience and interaction and ... the
24 investigated the use of Second Life and aimed “to explore the possibilities of existing Second
Life worlds” (Jauregi, Canto, Graaff, Koenraad & Moonen, 2011, p. 81).
In short, several studies have goals connected to the role of the teacher, or pedagogical
approaches, and some focus on the effects and possibilities of videoconferencing, blogging, a
MOO, synchronous chat and even Second Life.
2.1.2. Aims of the Secondary Education Projects
Although the 11 secondary education exchanges formulate a smaller amount of aims,
they can be categorised under 3 sections, which bear some similarity to the homonymous
categories in section 2.1.1.: (a) participants’ learning and competences; (b) pedagogical
elements and (c) technology.
2.1.2.1. Students’ Skills and Learning
Similar to the university projects investigated, the studies conducted with secondary
school pupils formulate aims with regards to the development of intercultural and linguistic
competences of the participants: one study aimed at improving “students’ communicative
skills through more writing and reading practice ... [and] confidence” in the target language
(Iseli, Joly & Lam, 2008, p. 215), and a better understanding of the target culture (Iseli, Joly
& Lam, 2008). On the other hand, another study aimed to investigate the “types of cultural
awareness and understanding [that] can be developed” through telecollaboration (Michell,
2011, p. 55). One study focussed on examining how an online exchange can influence the
participants’ own “understanding of language learning” (Michell, 2011, p. 55). Lastly, a
single study targeted discourse features indicating “participant engagement in terms of
25 features had improved the participants’ intercultural communication skills to the extent that
they could sustain an intercultural conversation.
2.1.2.2. Pedagogical Aspects
A few studies formulated pedagogical goals, for instance, one study aimed to
investigate “what pedagogical implications can be derived that might assist future initiators of
such international CMC-based collaborative exchanges” (Lin, 2010, p. 7), whereas another
study focussed on discovering “the implications of the findings with respect to the nature of
the potential contribution of CMC to the development of strategic competence within a
general framework of communicative language teaching” (Savignon & Roithmeier, 2004, p.
269-70). Besides pedagogical implications, some studies targeted pedagogical elements that
instructors need to bear in mind when setting up a project, as one of the studies investigated
the “challenges and obstacles that are encountered in the processes involved in the creation of
the international virtual learning environments” (Lin, 2010, p. 7), and another one focussed on
a more practical question of how the tools are used and how they influence the participants
and the exchange as a whole (Ware, 2009, p. 3).
2.1.2.3. Technology
A rather broadly investigated area is the use of technology in telecollaborative
projects, and “the effectiveness of distance learning and multimedia technologies in
facilitating an expanded learning community among teachers and their students” (Cifuentes &
Murphy, 2000, p. 70). More specifically, some studies aimed at exploring the impacts are of
certain tools and platforms. Firstly, with regards to asynchronous communication, one study
targeted blogs and examined if they could foster “among culturally diverse students a
26 awareness” (Prieto-Arranz, Juan-Garau & Jacob, 2011, p. 23), whereas the use of a forum was
investigated by another and examined for “evidence [that] can be found in support of the
claim that the collected bulletin board postings on a single topic qualify as a cohesive,
coherent text” (Savignon & Roithmeier, 2004, p. 269-70).
On the other hand, synchronous chat was also examined for “opportunities to employ
strategies of negotiation for meanings in conveying and receiving information as well as if it
helps students improve their language abilities” (Lenguan, 2008, p. 5). Examples of platforms
combining both synchronous and asynchronous communication are WebBoard, which was
explored “as a new arena of language use” (Esch, Evans & Fisher, 2001, para. 2.2), and
QuestAtlantis, a virtual game. One study investigated the latter and examined how
QuestAtlantis “support[s] English language acquisition ... [and] NfA [Negotiating for Action]
interculturally between nonnative and native English-speaking (NES/NNES) dyads” (Zheng,
Young, Wagner & Brewer, 2009, p. 489). Lastly, videoconferencing, which allows the
participants to speak to native speakers of the target language, was examined for “types of
cultural awareness and understanding” (Michell, 2011, p. 55) that could be developed by
using it in projects.
2.2. Online Activities
In total, the 60 investigated studies – of which 49 are conducted in university settings
and 11 in secondary education - accounted for 16 different digital activities used during
telecollaborative projects. For an overview of all 16 activities, see table 3, and for an
overview of the university studies and secondary educations projects mentioning these
27
2.2.1. Types of Activities
Overall, the most popular online activity, for both projects conducted in universities,
as well as in secondary education, is asynchronous communication via message boards. In
total, 22 out of 49 university projects used forums as (one of the) communication formats,
whereas 5 out of 11 exchanges between secondary school pupils took place on bulletin
boards. In other words, in both cases, almost half of the projects – 44.9% and 45.5%,
respectively - used message boards as a means of communication between participants.
Synchronous chatting is at a second place in projects between university students, as
another 19 projects use this form of synchronous communication. Additionally, 3 out of 11
studies (27.3%) carried out in secondary education make use of synchronous chat, ranking
this form of communication the second most popular one, together with videoconferencing,
which is also used in 3 different projects.
Email is ranked fourth for studies conducted with university students, with a total of
22.4% (11 out of 49) projects. Although projects that were solely based on email exchanges
have been left out of the total, these projects combine email with other activities, and in these
cases email is often a more secondary, supportive tool, rather than being the sole means of
communication between both parties. For instance, Julie Belz (2001) describes a study in
which email is used to discuss the elements the participants want to incorporate in their
collaboratively designed websites. In comparison, only 2 studies (18.2%) carried out in
secondary education use email as a (supportive) tool.
Moreover, videoconferencing (VC) and blogging can also be found in the top 5 of
communication tools that are most frequently used. VC is used in 14 out of 49 university
projects (28.6%), and in 3 out of 11 studies in secondary education (27.2%), whereas
blogging can be found in 7 studies carried out with university students (14.3%) and in 2
28 both settings, so in 4.1% studies carried out in a university setting and 18.2% in secondary
education.
Lastly, building a website and even gaming both occur once in secondary education
projects, so 9.1% each, adding up to a total of 8 different activities. Nearly all of these
activities, with the sole exception being gaming, are found in the university projects as well,
in addition to the use of (a) online dictionaries (twice, so 6.1%) and (b) a concordancer; (c)
social media; (d) virtual worlds; (e) a wiki and (f) podcasts (once each, so 3.0% each), which
did not occur in projects among secondary school pupils.
Table 3
Online Activities in Projects Investigated
Activity University Students Secondary Education
Bulletin/message board or forum 22 5
Chat (synchronous) 19 3 Email (combined) 11 2 Videoconferencing 14 3 Blog 7 2 Online dictionary 1 0 Movie making 2 2 Voice/phone calls 2 0 Concordancer 1 0 Building website/portfolio 1 1 Social media 1 0 Virtual worlds 3 0 Wiki 2 0 Podcasts 2 0 Gaming 0 1 Online Presentation 1 0
Note. The total of each column exceeds the amount of studies investigated, as most projects used more than one different form of communication.
2.2.2. Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Activities
Online activities can be divided into two categories: synchronous, or real-time
communication and asynchronous communication. Examples of asynchronous
communication are message boards and blogs, whereas chat and videoconferencing are
29 synchronous and asynchronous communication tools, allowing participants to alternate
between real-time chats and messages outside real time.
The latter situation is not uncommon for projects in both a university environment as
well as in an secondary school context, as 17 out of 49 (36.7%) and 2 out of 11 (18.2%),
projects, respectively, combine asynchronous and synchronous communication (see table 4).
However, whereas asynchronous communication is the most common form in both settings
-21 out of 49 (42.9%) and 5 out of 11 (45.5%), respectively – studies conducted with
university students use synchronous communication the least of all three forms (13 out of 49,
so 26.5%). On the other hand, exchanges between secondary school pupils more often rely on
synchronous communication (4 out of 11, so 36.4%) than on a combination of the two
(18.2%), unlike the university projects.
See tables C1 and C2 for the distribution of synchronous and asynchronous messages
among the projects (Appendix C).
Table 4
Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Communication in Projects Investigated
Type of communication Universities Secondary Education
Synchronous 8 4
Asynchronous 16 5
Combination 9 2
2.2.3. Text-Based or Audio-Visual Chat
Projects based solely on email exchanges have been left out, due to “the familiarity
students have with it” (Dooley, 2007). Although text-based chatting may have become
equally normalised, projects using chats are incorporated, as many programs enable an
audio-visual function, adding another element to the chat session. Therefore, it is useful to determine
whether synchronous chat in projects is text-based only, or if participants are required to use a
30 Mostly, chat sessions were based on text only, as 14 out of the 20 university projects
that relied on chatting only used text-based conversation, so 70% (see table 5). On the other
hand, only 33.3% of the exchanges between universities did incorporate some audio-visual
elements into their chats. Additionally, the chat sessions of 3 out of the 3 projects carried out
at secondary schools used text-based communication only, so 100%. As a result, it can be
concluded that chat, as a means of communication for projects in both settings, is primarily
used for text-based discussions, rather than audio-visual and text-based contact.
Table 5
Text-Based and Audio-Visual Chat in Projects Investigated
Chat Universities Secondary Education
Text-based only 14 3
Audio-visual and text-based 6 0
2.2.4. Conclusion
In short, with the exception of the use of email, the top 5 of communication tools is
very similar for all projects, in both universities as well as secondary education, as the
preferred tools are message boards; synchronous chat; videoconferencing; blogging and video
making. Due to the lower amount of studies conducted in secondary education, the variety in
different activities is lower than those in university projects. Yet, the similar top 5 indicates
that these tools are the preferred ones for telecollaboration projects in general.
Additionally, the majority of the exchanges, in both contexts, rely on asynchronous
communication. Although synchronous communication is the least preferred format for
university projects, a combination of real-time and communication outside real time is the
31 Lastly, a large number of university exchanges and all of the secondary school projects
indicate that chat programs are primarily used for text-based chat only, neglecting the possible
audio-visual element most programs support.
2.3. Learning Environments
Due to the similarities in communication forms used, it can be expected that the online
learning platforms used to host these activities will also be alike. However, this appears not to
be the case. Although, relatively speaking, the projects in both settings took place in a similar
amount of environments - the 8 different activities in secondary education projects (as
specified in 2.2.1) were hosted by 12 different platforms, whereas the 16 different activities in
university studies (as specified in 2.2.1) took place in 22 different environments – they did not
use the same software or online platforms.
2.3.1. Platforms used in University Projects
Firstly, many of the studies investigated state the means of communication, or activity, but
do not specify a particular tool or software. For instance, several researchers indicate the use
of a message board, or forum during the projects, but do not state which one specifically
(O’Dowd, 2009; Liaw & Bunn-Le Master, 2010; O’Dowd & Eberbach, 2004; Kung, 2002 and
Fuchs, Hauk & Müller-Hartmann, 2012). Consequently, this may create a distorted image of
the environments used. Nonetheless, it is useful to look at the ones that are specified.
According to the research reports, 22 different platforms were during university projects. For
a complete overview, including the studies that mention these environments, see table 6.
Platforms such as Blackboard, WebCT, FirstClass, Moodle and MOOssiggang support
both synchronous and asynchronous communication, so they include a message board and
32 audio-visual communication. Both Blackboard and Moodle are used 5 times in university
projects, WebCT is mentioned 4 times, and FirstClass is used only twice.
Cyber-Vine and Facebook are the some of the environments mentioned that enable
asynchronous communication as sole format. Cyber-Vine is a message board, and is used
once. Facebook is a social medium, which supports both asynchronous and synchronous
communication. Yet, the one exchange that uses it as a platform focuses on asynchronous,
forum-like messages, and does not use its synchronous chat function (Bray & Iswanty, 2013).
In line with these asynchronous messages are the social networking environments that support
blogging, such as Blogger, which was used 4 times, and Xanga, Pixnet and MySpace, which
are used once each.
Unfortunately, many of the asynchronous message boards used were not mentioned by
name. As a result, it is only possible to speculate and predict that asynchronous bulletin
boards - including Moodle and Blackboard, if the integrated chat function is not used by
participants - would be by far the most popular tools, as asynchronous communication is the
most common format in both educational contexts.
MSN Messenger (or Windows Live Messenger) can be used for synchronous chat messages,
but some versions enable the use of a webcam and/or microphone, so the program is also
eligible for videoconferencing. However, as indicated earlier, this program is used primarily
for solely text-based conversations (70%), and it was used 5 times, so it is in the top 5 of most
used environments. Additionally, C6 is also software used for synchronous chat, but this
platform is mentioned only once.
Skype, Adobe Connect, Lyceum, PictureTel and CUSeeMe enable videoconferencing
(VC), and are most regularly used for multimodal communication only. Skype is used 6 times,
whereas Adobe Connect is mentioned 4 times, and Lyceum, PictureTel and CUSeeMe are
33 Table 6
Online Platforms used in the University Projects Investigated
Description Website Times
used
Specific Studies
Blackboard
“The Blackboard Learning System [is a] course management system” (“Student Manual,” n.d.), designed for e-learning, and facilitates both synchronous and asynchronous
communication, and functions like sharing files and creating pages.
http://www.blackboard.com 5
Ware (2005);
Ware & O’Dowd (2008); Lee (2007);
Lee (2009);
Keranen & Bayyurt (2006)
WebCT
WebCT can be compared to Blackboard, as the two have merged into one, new system under the name of Blackboard, since 2005 (PR Newswire, n.d.).
(No link available.) 4
Ware & O’Dowd (2008); Kabata & Edasawa (2011); Darhower (2007 and 2008); Basharina (2007 and 2009)
FirstClass
FirstClass is a “fully integrated suite of applications” (Open Text Corporation, 2009, p. 1), which enables users to communicate inside and outside real-time, and group spaces or communities, blogs, podcasts, archives and storage.
http://www.firstclass.com 2 Müller-Hartmann (2006);
Belz (2001; 2002; 2003 and 2005)
Moodle
“Moodle is a software package for producing Internet-based courses and web sites” (“About Moodle,” n.d.), and is a free-open source environment. It offers functions like forums, chat, and wiki’s (“Features tour,” n.d.).
https://moodle.org/ 5
Lee (2009b and 2011); Ware & O’Dowd (2008); O’Dowd & Ritter (2006); Ritchie (2009);
Dooly & Sadler (2013)
MOOssiggang
“MOOssiggang is one of the world's first bilingual German-English MOOs. MOOs are powerful online learning environments that developed from some of the earliest gaming software available on the Internet”
(“MOOssiggang,” n.d.).
http://german.vassar.edu/projects/
moossiggang.html 2
Schneider & Von der Emde (2005); Kötter (2003)
Cyber-Vine Cyber-Vine is an online forum, that allows users to create
and comment on threads (Edasawa & Kabata, 2007). (No link available.) 1 Edasawa & Kabata (2007)
Facebook is a social networking website, which allows users to create a profile page and communities. Users can
communicate, both synchronously and asynchronously, and can share files, photographs and videos (“Facebook,” n.d.).
34
Blogger
Blogger is a weblog platform designed by Google, and can be used to share text, pictures and videos (“Blogger Features,” n.d.). It only supports asynchronous messages.
http://www.blogger.com 4
Lee (2009b and 2011);
Gephardt & Kostelníková (2012); Lee (2012);
Yang (2011)
Xanga
Xanga is a “blogging community”, (“Xanga,” (n.d.), so a social networking site which relies on synchronous messages – weblogs, or blogs – and allows users to share pictures and videos.
http://www.xanga.com 1 Yang (2011)
Pixnet Pixnet “serves as a social network website, online photo
gallery, and blog service provider” (“PIXNET,” n.d.). http://www.pixnet.net 1 Yang (2011)
MySpace
“MySpace is a popular social networking website offering an interactive, user-submitted network of friends, personal profiles, blogs, groups, photos, music and videos
internationally” (“Myspace,” n.d.).
https://myspace.com 1 Yang (2011)
MSN Messenger or Windows Live Messenger
“Windows Live Messenger (formerly named MSN
Messenger) is an instant messaging client” (“Windows Live Messenger,” n.d.). It supported both text-based and audio-visual synchronous communication, but has now been merged with Skype (“Messenger to Skype,” n.d.).
http://www.skype.com/en/downlo ad-skype/skype-for-
computer/windows-live-messenger/
5
Bower & Kawaguchi (2011); Pasfield-Neofitou (2006); Worajitipol (2010); Menard-Warwick (2009); Jin (2013)
C6
C6 is an “Italian Web-based chatline” (Tudini, 2007, p. 586), which supports text-based chat in real-time. However, “C6 has developed a ‘singles’ orientation since its use in [Tudini’s] study, Puntochat” (p. 597).
(No link available.) 1 Tudini (2007)
Skype
Skype allows users to “speak, see and instant message other people” (“About Skype,” n.d.), and to share files. Although the platform is still calles Skype, “[n]ow [it] is part of Microsoft” (“About Skype,” n.d.).
http://www.skype.com 6
Carney (2008); Brinckwirth (2012); Worajittipol (2010); Willms (2011); Dooly & Sadler (2013); Jin (2013)
Voicethread
“VoiceThread is a totally web-based application that allows you to place collections of media like images, videos, documents, and presentations at the center of an
asynchronous conversation” (Pennsylvania State University, n.d.).
http://voicethread.com 1 Dooly & Sadler (2013)
Adobe Connect
“Adobe® Connect™ is a web conferencing platform for web meetings, eLearning, and webinars [or online seminars]” (“Adobe Connect,” n.d.), and enables
http://www.adobe.com/uk/product
s/adobeconnect.html 3
Jauregi, De Graaff, Van den bergh & Kriz (2012);
35
multimodal communication. Jauregi & Bañados (2008)
Lyceum “[S]ynchronous audio-graphic conferencing software”
(Hauck, 2007, p. 203). (No link available.) 1 Hauck (2007) / Hauck & Youngs (2008)
PictureTel
PictureTel is software which facilitates “video conferencing” (Yee, Mitchell, Naka, Morozumi & Yamaguchi, 1998, para. 1.3).
(No link available.) 1 Yee, Mitchell, Naka, Morozumi & Yamaguchi (1998)
CUSeeMe
“CU-SeeMe is audio/video conferencing software that allows Internet users to connect one to one, many to -many, or any combination” (Michigan State University College, n.d.).
(No link available.) 1 Yee, Mitchell, Naka, Morozumi & Yamaguchi (1998)
Audacity Audacity is “open source, cross-platform software for
recording and editing sounds” (“Audacity,” n.d.),
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/?la
ng=en 1 Lee (2009b and 2011)
iMovie
iMovie is “program to create and edit movies” (Mead, 2012). It has a”an integrated [uploader, which] makes sure your creations go online instantly” (Mead, 2012).
1 Lee (2009b and 2011)
Second Life
Second life allows for audio communication, but does not enable visual contact. It allows users to create an avatar and walk around in a virtual 3D world (“What is Second Life?” n.d.).
http://secondlife.com 3
Canto, Jauregi & Van den Bergh (2013); Dooly & Sadler (2013);
Jauregi, Canto, De Graaf, Koenraad & Moonen (2011)
36 Naka, Morozumi & Yamaguchi, 1998). Both Adobe Connect and Voicethread can be used to
share files and have online meetings, but Voicethread was mentioned in only one project.
Although they do not support direct audio-visual contact between multiple users, software
like Audacity and iMovie can be used to create clips and share them. Both programs are used
in the same project (both studies describe the same project) (Lee, 2009a and 2009b).
Lastly, as is shown in the one study that relies on Second Life as its sole communication
environment (Jauregi, Canto, Graaff, Koenraad & Moonen, 2011).
In short, despite the fact that there are 16 different activities (see section 2.2.1., table 3)
mentioned in the studies, there are at least 22 platforms used. As a result, there is great variety
in the platforms used. Additionally, many projects that mention a specific tool have their own
platforms, as many of the environments mentioned are used only once.
2.3.2. Platforms in Secondary School Projects
Similar to the university exchanges, the studies conducted in secondary education do
not always explicitly state the software or platform used, but simply state “electronic bulletin
board” (Savignon & Roithmeier, 2004), “videoconferencing” (Michel, 2011), or “blog”
Prieto-Arranz, Juan-Garau & Jacob, 2011). Nonetheless, all the studies conducted with
secondary school pupils combined make up a list of 12 different platforms. For a description
of the environments and the studies that mention them, see table 7.
Nearly all the platforms are used only once. However, the exception is MSN
Messenger (or Windows Live Messenger), which is used in two different projects.
Firstly, WebBoard is used for asynchronous communication, although it also enables
synchronous chat. Additionally, Moodle, despite its chat function, is also used solely for
asynchronous conversation, unlike its use in exchanges between university students. E-Class,
37 added to the list of message boards. Moreover, another asynchronous tool is Blogger, which is
used for blogging.
Although secondary school projects also use MSN Messenger, a chat program used
during university exchanges, one study conducted with secondary school pupils also relies on
another chat program: Yahoo Messenger. Moreover, Skype is also used for asynchronous
communication, but for videoconferencing, so for audio-visual rather than text-based
discussions.
In addition to direct contact between participants, movie making software like Movie
Maker and Viewletcam were used to create and share clips about participants’ culture and
country (Lin, 2010). Similarly, with HyperStudio, participants of another project made a
portfolio and shared that with their partners (Cifuentes & Murphy, 2000).
Lastly, one study (Zheng, Young, Wagner & Brewer, 2009) combines language
learning with leisure and used a virtual game, QuestAtlantis, and its interactive quests as the
main platform of the exchange. In short, the distribution and variation of environments is even
larger than among university projects, as only one platform was used twice, whereas all the
other were only used once.
2.3.3. Conclusion
The number of platforms used in exchanges between both university students as well as
secondary school pupils is greater than the number of different activities. In other words, for
each online activity there are more than one platform available, and used.
University projects tend to favour Blackboard, Moodle, Blogger, Skype and MSN
Messenger as online environments, whereas secondary school exchanges show even more
38 Table 7
Online Platforms used in the Secondary Education Projects Investigated
Description Website Times
used
Specific Studies
WebBoard
WebBoard “is a suite of tools including message boards, chat, instant messaging, blogs, user profiles, calendar, file sharing, mailing lists, and more” (“WebBoard,” n.d.).
(No link available.) 1 Esch, Evans & Fisher (2001)
E-Class
E-Class is a “community-friendly learning management system” (Lin, 2010, p. 33), which can be used for sharing course materials, assignments and other files and offers a forum (Lin, 2010).
(No link available.) 1 Lin (2010)
Google Sites Google Sites is a way of creating and
sharing websites (“Google Sites,” n.d.). http://sites.google.com 1 Ling (2010)
Moodle
“Moodle is a software package for producing Internet-based courses and web sites” (“About Moodle,” n.d.), and is a free-open source environment. It offers
functions like forums, chat, and wiki’s (“Features tour,” n.d.).
https://moodle.org/ 1 Isely, Joly & Lam (2008)
Blogger
Blogger is a weblog platform designed by Google, and can be used to share text, pictures and videos (“Blogger Features,” n.d.). It only supports asynchronous messages.
http://www.blogger.com 1 Ware (2009)
MSN Messenger or Windows Live Messenger
“Windows Live Messenger (formerly named MSN Messenger) is an instant messaging client” (“Windows Live Messenger,” n.d.). It supported both text-based and audio-visual synchronous
http://www.skype.com/en/download-
skype/skype-for-computer/windows-live-messenger/
2 Lin (2010);
39
communication, but has now been merged with Skype (“Messenger to Skype,” n.d.).
Yahoo! Messenger
Yahoo!’s Messenger enable synchronous chat, and audio-visual communication, but also the sharing of files and pictures (“Yahoo!,” n.d.).
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 1 Lenguan (2008)
Skype
Skype allows users to “speak, see and instant message other people” (“About Skype,” n.d.), and to share files. Although the platform is still calles Skype, “[n]ow [it] is part of Microsoft” (“About Skype,” n.d.).
http://www.skype.com 1 Lin (2010)
MovieMaker
Movie Maker facilitates the editing and sharing of video clips (“Movie Maker,” n.d.).
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows-live/movie-maker#t1=overview 1 Lin (2010)
ViewletCam
ViewletCam allows users to “record PC applications, PowerPoint presentations, animations, and video directly from [their] PC screen[s] and generate Flash movies” (
http://www.qarbon.com/presentation-software/vc/ 1 Lin (2010)
Hyperstudio
With Hyperstudio, users can create and share videos, and create podcasts (“Hyperstudio,” n.d.).
http://www.mackiev.com/hyperstudio/index.html 1 Cifuentes & Murphy (2007)
Quest Atlantis
Quest Atlantis is a virtual 3D game, and is nowadays part of the Atlantis Remixed (ARX) project, which “is an international learning and teaching project that uses a 3D multi-user environments to immerse children, ages 9-16, in educational tasks” (“Atlantis Remixed,” n.d.).
http://atlantisremixed.org/ 1 Zheng, Young, Wagner & Brewer
(2009)
