Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-06T17:51:02.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using telecollaboration to promote intercultural competence in teacher training classrooms in Turkey and the USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2020

Babürhan Üzüm Open the ORCID record for Babürhan Üzüm [Opens in a new window] ,
Sedat Akayoglu Open the ORCID record for Sedat Akayoglu [Opens in a new window]  and
Bedrettin Yazan Open the ORCID record for Bedrettin Yazan [Opens in a new window]
Babürhan Üzüm
Affiliation:
Sam Houston State University, USA ([email protected])
Sedat Akayoglu
Affiliation:
Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Turkey ([email protected])
Bedrettin Yazan
Affiliation:
The University of Alabama, USA ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since advances in computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools have made virtual exchanges readily available in educational practices, telecollaboration has been gaining traction as a means to provide practical experiences and cultural exposure to language learners and, more recently, teacher trainees. Drawing upon Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural communicative competence (ICC), this study examines 48 teacher trainees’ interculturality through a telecollaborative project between two teacher training classes from Turkey and the USA. This study relies on data generated by the participants throughout this telecollaborative project: weekly online discussion board posts within groups of six and post-project reflections. Although developing ICC is an arduous and prolonged task, the data analysis suggested that the participants’ experiences in this telecollaboration contributed to their emergent ICC through discussions on the topics of multicultural education and interactions with trainees from another educational context. Their intercultural learning is evidenced by their (1) awareness of heterogeneity in their own and interactants’ culture, (2) nascent critical cultural awareness, and (3) curiosity and willingness to learn more about the other culture. Thus, this study implies that telecollaboration offers an effective teacher training venue that affords teacher trainees with first-hand intercultural encounters to engage with otherness and prepare for their ethnolinguistically diverse classrooms.

Keywords

telecollaborationteacher trainingintercultural communicative competencecritical cultural awareness
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 162 - 177
Check for updates
Copyright
© European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adamou, E. (2010) Bilingual speech and language ecology in Greek Thrace: Romani and Pomak in contact with Turkish. Language in Society, 39(2): 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404510000035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelova, M. & Zhao, Y. (2016) Using an online collaborative project between American and Chinese students to develop ESL teaching skills, cross-cultural awareness and language skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1): 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.907320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniadou, V. (2011) Using activity theory to understand the contradictions in an online transatlantic collaboration between student-teachers of English as a foreign language. ReCALL, 23(3): 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2001) Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL, 13(2): 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344001000726aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. & Kleban, M. (2016) Matching linguistic and pedagogical objectives in a telecollaboration project: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1): 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.904360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byram, M. (1997) The intercultural dimension in “language learning for European citizenship”. In Byram, M. & Zarate, G. (eds.), The sociocultural and intercultural dimension of language learning and teaching. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 17–20.Google Scholar
Byram, M. (2008) From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byram, M., Gribkova, B. & Starkey, H. (2002) Developing the intercultural dimension in language teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Canto, S., Jauregi, K. & van den Bergh, H. (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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. J. & Yang, S. C. (2016) Promoting cross-cultural understanding and language use in research-oriented Internet-mediated intercultural exchange. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2): 262–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.937441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M. (2011) Developing intercultural communicative competence through online exchanges. CALICO Journal, 28(2): 392–419. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.392-419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çiftçi, E. Y. & Savaş, P. (2018) The role of telecollaboration in language and intercultural learning: A synthesis of studies published between 2010 and 2015. ReCALL, 30(3): 278–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2014) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
del Rosal, K., Conry, J. & Wu, S. (2017) Exploring the fluid online identities of language teachers and adolescent language learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(5): 390–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1307855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dervin, F. (2016) Interculturality in education: A theoretical and methodological toolbox. London: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54544-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dooly, M. A. (2011) Crossing the intercultural borders into 3rd space culture(s): Implications for teacher education in the twenty-first century. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(4): 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2011.599390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dooly, M. & Sadler, R. (2013) Filling in the gaps: Linking theory and practice through telecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL, 25(1): 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guichon, N. & Wigham, C. R. (2016) A semiotic perspective on webconferencing-supported language teaching. ReCALL, 28(1): 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344015000178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guth, S. & Helm, F. (eds.) (2010) Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, M. (2007) Critical success factors in a TRIDEM exchange. ReCALL, 19(2): 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344007000729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helm, F. (2015) The practices and challenges of telecollaboration in higher education in Europe. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2): 197–217.Google Scholar
Holliday, A. (2010) Intercultural communication and ideology. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. (2011) Mutuality, engagement, and agency: Negotiating identity on stays abroad. In Higgins, C. (ed.), Identity formation in globalizing contexts: Language learning in the new millennium. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 127–145.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008) Cultural globalization and language education. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, L. & Markey, A. (2014) A study of learners’ perceptions of online intercultural exchange through Web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 26(3): 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liaw, M.-L. & Bunn-Le Master, S. (2010) Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1): 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220903467301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menard-Warwick, J. (2008) The cultural and intercultural identities of transnational English teachers: Two case studies from the Americas. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4): 617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menard-Warwick, J., Heredia-Herrera, A. & Palmer, D. S. (2013) Local and global identities in an EFL internet chat exchange. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4): 965–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12048.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2016) Emerging trends and new directions in telecollaborative learning. CALICO Journal, 33(3): 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i3.30747Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. & Eberbach, K. (2004) Guides on the side? Tasks and challenges for teachers in telecollaborative projects. ReCALL, 16(1): 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344004000217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, R. & Lewis, T. (eds.) (2016) Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, R. & Ritter, M. (2006) Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3): 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v23i3.623-642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porto, M., Houghton, S. A. & Byram, M. (2018) Intercultural citizenship in the (foreign) language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 22(5): 484–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817718580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risager, K. (2007) Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2013) The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Schenker, T. (2012) Intercultural competence and cultural learning through telecollaboration. CALICO Journal, 29(3): 449–470. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.3.449-470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanghe, S. & Park, G. (2016) “Build[ing] something which alone we could not have done”: International collaborative teaching and learning in language teacher education. System, 57: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6): 1024–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ware, P. & Kessler, G. (2016) Telecollaboration in the secondary language classroom: Case study of adolescent interaction and pedagogical integration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3): 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.961481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Üzüm et al. supplementary material

Üzüm et al. supplementary material

Download Üzüm et al. supplementary material(File)
File 26 KB