A Telecollaboration Project on Giving Online Peer Feedback: Implementing a Multilateral Virtual Exchange During a Pandemic

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Telecollaboration, also called virtual exchange or online intercultural exchange, is a form of collaborative learning whereby language learners in different locations engage in computer-mediated communication to complete tasks online. There is ample evidence that telecollaboration promotes the acquisition of language skills, intercultural competence, and digital literacies. Challenges faced implementing virtual exchanges include differences in time zones, learning objectives, academic calendars, and cultural attitudes. The present article describes a case of a multilateral telecollaboration project based on the facilitated dialogue model involving four institutions—two in Europe and two in the United States—that was designed to prepare students for the experience of giving online peer feedback on collaborative writing assignments. Our initial goal was to explore the challenges students would face and the benefits they would receive from a complex telecollaboration project involving multiple institutions and two task sequences: 1) input and reflection on giving and receiving peer feedback, 2) completion of the collaborative writing task to be peer reviewed. However, new challenges and opportunities emerged after the switch to emergency e-learning and remote teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic. Relying upon multiple data sources—including correspondence, observations, class discussions, surveys, reflective writing, and information stored in virtual learning environments—our methods of data collection involved convenience sampling, while data analysis was predominantly descriptive. Our results demonstrate that even during a global pandemic, students and instructors face similar logistical challenges and reap similar benefits as has been reported in the literature. Yet our experience also reveals the resiliency of telecollaboration in the face of extreme disruption as well as the potential to exploit virtual exchange to develop learning strategies—such as methods for giving and receiving peer feedback—and meta-awareness of how language is used in the real-world—such as the implications of English as a lingua franca.

About the authors

Michael Joseph Ennis

Free University of Bozen-Bolzano

Email: mennis@unibz.it
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8724-5523

Massimo Verzella

Penn State Erie the Behrend College

Email: muv56@psu.edu
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9752-2646

Silvia Montanari

Free University of Bozen-Bolzano

Email: Silvia.Fissi@unibz.it
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4882-4589

Agnieszka M. Sendur

Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University

Email: sjo@afm.edu.pl
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8245-1427

Marieta Simeonova Pissarro

University of Nevada Las Vegas

Email: marieta.simeonovapissarro@unlv.edu
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7601-7218

Staci Kaiser

University of Nevada Las Vegas

Email: staci.kaiser@unlv.edu
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1852-844X

Andrew Wimhurst

Free University of Bozen-Bolzano

Email: mennis@unibz.it
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3217-5043

References

  1. Arnó Macià, E., Isohella, S., Maylath, B., Schell, T., Verzella, M., Minacori, P., Mousten, B., Musacchio, M. T., Palumbo, G., & Vandepitte, S. (2014). Enhancing students' skills in technical writing and LSP translation through tele-collaboration projects: Teaching students in seven nations to manage complexity in multilateral international collaboration. In G. Budin, & V. Lušicky (Eds.), Languages for special purposes in a multilingual, transcultural world. Proceedings of the 19th European Symposium on Languages for Special Purposes (pp. 249-259). University of Vienna.
  2. Baker-Smemoe, W. (2018). Peer feedback. In J. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (vol. 4, pp. 1-5). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0540
  3. Beelen, J., Jones, E., Curaj, A., Matei, L., Pricopie, R., Salmi, J., & Scott, P. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In The European higher education area (pp. 59-72). Springer.
  4. Bou Ayash, N. (2016). Conditions of (im)possibility: Postmonolingual language representations in academic literacies. College English, 78(6), 555-577.http://www.jstor.org/stable/44075144.
  5. Council of Europe. (2001).Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., & Wächter, B. (2000).Internationalization at home: A position paper. European Association for International Education.
  7. Cziko, G. (2004). Electronic tandem language learning (eTandem): A third approach to second language learning for the 21st century. CALICO Journal, 22, 25-39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i1.25-39
  8. Donahue, C. (2018). Writing, English, and a translingual model for composition. In K. Yancey, S. Miller-Cochran, E. Wardle, & R. Malenczyk (Eds.), Composition, rhetoric, and disciplinarity (pp. 206-224). Utah State University Press.
  9. Dooly, M. (Ed.). (2008). Telecollaborative language learning: Moderating intercultural collaboration and language learning: A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online. Peter Lang.
  10. Ennis, M. (2015). Do we need to know that for the exam? Teaching English on the CLIL fault line at a trilingual university. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 358-381. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.199
  11. Gacs, A., Goertler, S., & Spasova, S. (2020). Planned online language education versus crisis-prompted online language teaching: Lessons for the future. Foreign Language Annals, 53, 380-392. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12460
  12. Guth, S., & Helm, F. (2011). Developing multiliteracies in ELT through telecollaboration. ELT Journal, 66, 42-51. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr027
  13. Guth, S., & Helm, F. (Eds.). (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacy and intercultural learning in the 21st Century. Peter Lang.
  14. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421-443. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4
  15. Hattie, L., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research Association, 77(1), 81-112. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  16. Helm, F. (2013). A dialogic model for telecollaboration. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language & Literature, 6(2), 28-48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.522
  17. Helm, F. (2016). Facilitated dialogue in online intercultural exchange. In R. O'Dowd, & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 150-172). Routledge.
  18. Helm, F. (2017). Two models of online intercultural exchange in higher education contexts. In M. Ennis, & C. Riley (Eds.), Practices in intercultural language teaching and learning (pp. 131-144). Cambridge Scholars.
  19. Horner, B., Lu, M.-Z., Royster, J., & Trimbur J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73, 303-321.
  20. Horner, B., NeCamp, S., & Donahue, C. (2011). Toward a multilingual composition scholarship: From English only to a translingual norm. College Composition & Communication, 63(2), 269-300.https://www.jstor.org/stable/23131585.
  21. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University Press.
  22. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49-85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0003
  23. Lu, M.-Z., & Horner B. (2013). Translingual literacy, language difference, and matters of agency. College English, 75(6), 582-607.https://library.ncte.org/journals/ce/issues/v75-6/23836.
  24. Maylath, B., Vandepitte, S., Minacori, P., Isohella, S., Mousten, B., & Humbley, J. (2013). Managing Complexity: A technical communication translation case study in multilateral international collaboration. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 67-84. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2013.730967
  25. Mousten, B., Vandepitte, S., Arnó, E., & Maylath, B. (Eds.). (2018). Multilingual writing and pedagogical cooperation in virtual learning environments. IGI Global.https://www.igi-global.com/book/multilingual-writing-pedagogical-cooperation-virtual/182887.
  26. Mulligan, C., & Garafolo, R. (2001). A collaborative writing approach: Methodology and student assessment. The Language Teacher, 35(3), 5- 10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT35.3-1
  27. Murphy, M. P A. (2020). Covid-19 and emergency eLearning: Consequences of the securitization of higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy. Contemporary Security Policy, 41(3), 492-505. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1761749
  28. O'Dowd, R. (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Langenscheidt.
  29. O'Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the-art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 1, 1-23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.jve.1
  30. O'Dowd, R. (Ed.). (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Multilingual Matters.
  31. O'Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (Eds.). (2016). Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. Routledge.
  32. O'Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication' in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 61(2), 623-642. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v23i3.623-642
  33. O'Dowd, R., & Waire, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173-188. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220902778369
  34. O'Dowd, R., Shannon, S., & Spector-Cohen, E. (2019). The role of pedagogical mentoring in virtual exchange. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 146-172. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.543
  35. O'Rourke, B. (2007). Models of telecollaboration (1): ETandem. In R. O'Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange (pp. 41-61). Multilingual Matters.
  36. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
  37. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003
  38. Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  39. Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  40. Saunders, W. M. (1989). Collaborative writing tasks and peer interaction.International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 101-112. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90019-0
  41. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
  42. Soria, K. M., & Troisi, J. (2014).Internationalization at home alternatives to study abroad: Implications for students' development of global, international, and intercultural competencies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(3), 261-280. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313496572
  43. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' re ection. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
  44. Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 275-278. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000079
  45. Verzella, M., & Sendur, A.M. (2019). A telecollaboration project on writing for tourism: Exploring thematic patterns in feedback exchanged by Italian, Polish, and Ukrainian students with US peer reviewers. In M.J. Ennis, & G.M. Petrie (Eds.), Teaching English for tourism: Bridging research and praxis (pp. 170-193). Routledge. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429032141-8
  46. Verzella, M., Arno Macia, E., & Maylath, B. (2021a). Engineers taking a stance on technical communication: Peer review of oral presentations via the Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Project. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 64(1), 66-83. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2021.3057246
  47. Verzella, M., de Moraes, V., & Destro Costa, T. (2021b). Addressing power imbalance in telecollaboration to promote attitudes of intercultural competence. Signum: Language Studies, Estudos da Linguagem, 24(1), 95-101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5433/2237-4876.2021v24n1p85
  48. Ware, P., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190-205. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00274.x
  49. Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. L. Egbert, & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 41-52). Routledge.
  50. Wiggins, G. (2012). Seven keys to effective feedback. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 10-16.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.