“Post-Pandemic” Reflections of a Virtual Exchange
“Post-Pandemic” Reflections of a Virtual Exchange
Margaret Keneman
Department of French, Francophone and Italian Studies, College of Charleston
Abstract
During the pandemic, “most of us, students included, got zoomed out of our minds” (Blake, 2021). So, do language educators still need to rely on telecommunication now that students have gotten back to (1) the classroom and (2) studying abroad, two environments that reliably foster student interaction, language development, and intercultural competence in real life? This essay about a virtual exchange (VE) program considers this question. This paper will describe the design and implementation of a virtual exchange program that took place during the early months of the pandemic and connected students studying French at an American university with French speakers in Besançon, France. In particular, this essay will describe in detail the structure and implementation of the VE and will reflect on the effectiveness of the project using a qualitative approach. This paper will conclude with suggestions for future research and further considerations in the field of SLA and linguistics.
Keywords: virtual exchange, language learning, intercultural competence, global fluency, higher education
Introduction
Reflecting on lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge in and of itself. In the moment, alongside a total public health crisis and a tragic loss of human life, society was forced to make monumental adaptations to daily life and the workplace without any blueprints. Healthcare professionals were some of the most severely impacted and are no doubt among the truest heroes; but educators, those who are charged with the critical work of shaping the minds of the next generation, were similarly left facing some of the toughest challenges. This was a common observation throughout the pandemic and in the early wake of post-pandemic life, and reflecting on what we went through and what we learned was a hot topic of conversation within the field. As a pertinent example for readers of this very journal, the theme of the 2021 FLANC virtual conference was “Hybrid: The New Normal for L2 Teaching”, where conference presenters and participants discussed “digital practices that support interactive and student-centered learning” (Blake, 2021), all with a lingering hope for many of being back in the classroom.
While hybrid modalities of teaching as well as socially distanced classrooms did indeed characterize much of the 2020-2021 academic school year, many classrooms were fully “back to normal” by 2022. Based on informal observations at my own institution at that time, it appeared as though some colleagues continued to integrate technology into their teaching “as a new normal,” but others, like myself, were ready to get back to a traditional classroom setting and to do so without looking back. Furthermore, as time passes and the collective experience of the pandemic becomes more and more distant in the rearview mirror, I gather that looking back in this regard is quite difficult and even painful for everyone. Understanding why we are so quick to forget is a psychological and philosophical inquiry that is well beyond the scope of this article, but with this forgetfulness comes fewer reflections, reports and research studies (i.e., blueprints) that might help us in the future, whether during a pandemic or not (hopefully not!).
Such was the initial impetus for writing this particular essay: so as “not to throw out the baby with the bathwater” so to speak. In other words, while teaching during the pandemic was personally a very difficult time for me, it was during this time and thanks to the use of a wide array of technological teaching tools that I was able to develop and coordinate a virtual exchange (VE) as part of an advanced French course for undergraduates at the College of Charleston. I believe this virtual exchange was not only productive for my students (and with long-term benefits), but it is also worth formally sharing with my peers in the event that they would ever like to implement a similar activity. Furthermore, Nyunt et al. (2023) have recently pointed out that, despite their increase in popularity during the pandemic, “research findings on the effectiveness of VEs are mixed, and limited guidance is available to VE instructors on how to structure and facilitate these programs” (p. 327). This paper intends to respond to this gap in research by (1) describing in detail the structure and implementation of the particular VE that I integrated into my course (especially as it relates to existing recommendations) and (2) reflecting on the effectiveness of the project using a qualitative approach in which field notes compiled during the course and a recorded public webinar about the experience were analyzed. This paper will conclude with suggestions for future research and further considerations in the field of SLA and linguistics.
What is a virtual exchange?
Virtual exchange (VE) is a term that refers to the process of learning through communication and collaboration with peers from different locations through the use of technology (Dooly & Vinagre, 2022; Krengel, 2021; O’Dowd, 2018). More specifically, virtual exchanges are often used in language and culture learning contexts to connect learners with different linguistic and cultural background for the purposes of developing cross-cultural awareness, intercultural competence and linguistic proficiency. VE is a widely used umbrella term for telecommunication and encompasses other well-known terms that are used, often interchangeably, such as telecollaboration, Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education, globally networked learning environments, e-tandem and teletandem (O’Dowd, 2018; Biando Salomao, 2022).
Because of all the components that must be coordinated to develop a successful virtual exchange, stakeholders including teachers, students and administrators at their respective institutions must be “highly flexible” when adopting a virtual exchange for their course or program (Dooly & Vinagre, 2022, p. 394). That said, virtual exchanges in the context of language and culture learning typically follow one of two models: the e-tandem model or the telecollaborative model. In the e-tandem model, which has been in practice for over 20 years, students with different linguistic backgrounds interact in both languages and act as informal linguistic tutors, providing feedback on their use of the target language (O’Rourke, 2007, emphasis mine). The e-tandem model focuses on language development including accuracy and fluency. In the telecollaborative model of virtual exchange, which has gained much popularity in the past decade, exchanges combine foreign language development with an emphasis on intercultural learning (Gutiérrez & O’Dowd, 2021). To that end, partners are not only expected to communicate for a portion of the time in each other’s target language, but they are also encouraged to discuss their home culture while making cross-cultural comparisons. That said, linguistic support and the negotiation of linguistic meaning is scaffolded through the similar levels of linguistic proficiency and learning objectives for participants in both groups.
Likely inspired by the 20th century popularity of the pen pal, the concept of virtual exchanges appeared at the turn of the 21st century (e.g., Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Warschauer, 1995) and has continued to evolve alongside the rapid evolution of technology. In the early 2000s, it became common for Internet communication tools to be used within the language class to support social interaction, dialogue, debate, and intercultural exchange between internationally dispersed learners (Belz, 2003, p.1). And as video conferencing and high-speed, wireless internet have become widely available on personal devices within the past decade, “VE may also be done asynchronously to account for different time zones” (Dooly & Vinagre, 2022, p. 394) to provide opportunities for interaction that goes beyond the confines of the classroom. VE has become particularly popular at institutions of higher education that prioritize internationalization because it might foster associated learning objectives without requiring traditional mobility (Biando Salomao, 2022). Although VE is most typically used in language and culture classrooms (Gutiérrez & O’Dowd, 2021), it has also been used in content courses where the educational focus is not necessarily language learning, but where navigating multilingual exchanges is at stake, as not all participants share the same mother tongue, such as the Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange (Reynolds, 2020), the Brazilian Virtual Exchange (BRaVE) (Biando Salomao, 2022), and in the field of Parks, Recreation, Tourism and Management (Duffy et al., 2022).
Rubin (2016) and O’Dowd (2018) have discussed some of the issues with having so many terms associated with VE as well as the lack of communication that exists as VE develops within each discipline, but related research is not necessarily shared on an interdisciplinary level. Thanks to organizations such as UNICollaboration, these issues are in the process of being resolved and the overlapping of terminologies is being synthesized and streamlined. That said, it is very important to note that “online teaching is NOT the same as VE” (Dooly & Vinagrec, 2022, p. 394). Whereas one teacher may adopt the Internet and other technological tools to deliver her course content in online teaching, it is “the collaboration” of two (or more) teachers in different geographical locations who carefully design and implement tasks and activities for two (or more) groups of learners in virtual exchanges (Dooly & Vinagrec, 2022, p. 394).
Regarding research on existing VE projects, scholars who have found trends across studies that point to gains in intercultural competence (Avgousti, 2018; Cunningham & Akiyama, 2018; Lewis & O’Dowd, 2016; Sauro, 2014). It is less common to come across research that can accurately detail how participation in virtual exchange contributes to linguistic proficiency because VE often fosters a “predominantly oral modality for the learner interaction” but “is then assessed through a written essay of personal reflection of the experience” (Dooly & Vinagre, 2022, p. 398). Although personal reflections are no doubt valuable to understanding students’ experiences as well as a suitable way to assess students’ participation, learning, and intercultural competence development (Izmaylova, 2022), language scholars and practitioners understand that proficiency in one modality (i.e., writing) does not necessarily ensure proficiency in another (i.e., speaking). Of course, students can self-assess their speaking proficiency via a written self-evaluation, but again, such an evaluation is not totally reliable.
Rolińska & Czura (2022) also attribute assessment challenges in VE to the fact that both institutions have different course requirements, assessment procedures, and timelines. Inconsistencies between groups not only creates challenges for assessment but can also affect the overall success of the VE. For example, a seemingly ambiguous inconsistency between one course where learning objectives are required and assessed, and a partner course where students’ participation is voluntary may “result in students’ dissatisfaction, decreased commitment and even withdrawal” from the VE (Rolińska & Czura, 2022, p. 52). Despite different course objectives and assessment regulations in partner institutions, successful collaborations within clearly defined roles can be found in Cavalari & Aranha (2022) and Luo & Yang (2022), and research studies have identified instances when VE contributes to the development of fluency and accuracy (Chun, 2015; Cunningham & Akiyama, 2018). Additional research findings suggest that virtual exchange programs can be beneficial for all students in higher education, not just those studying language and culture (Kolm et al., 2022). Ideally, all students would be prepared for and exposed to VE during their time at university.
Findings also suggest that virtual classroom activities and student engagement are tightly interrelated. In a study that surveyed 405 language teachers in Estonia about their perception of the virtual classroom during the COVID-19 lockdown, findings indicated that “a virtual classroom environment fostered students’ behavioral and emotional engagement” (Meristo et al., 2022, p. 10). This engagement can extend beyond the course in which the virtual exchange was conducted, in particular, because it can be “a complement to physical mobility” such as the Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange which was also designed to precede or prolong a traditional study abroad program (Biando Salomao, 2022, p. 2). A remarkable quantitative finding that supports this idea confirms that students who participated in VEs were more likely to study abroad after the VE (Lee et al., 2022). Similar to short-term study abroad programs that help students open their eyes to the excitement of international travel and cross-cultural experiences, VE has been posited to have the same effect.
Another significant benefit of VE is “an alternative to physical mobility for students with disabilities or economic difficulties” and it might facilitate “inclusion, language practice and internationalization for all” (Dooly & Vinagre, 2022, p. 394). A recent study (O’Dowd, 2023) understandably acknowledges that there are still barriers that need to be addressed, such as linguistic digitalization, and structural gaps in educational systems to ensure that VE is indeed as inclusive as it claims to potentially be. Yet, the same study also attests that if VE tasks are well designed and scaffolded to consider the diverse needs and language proficiency levels of participants, VE can indeed be a successful and empowering experience. Additionally, the available opportunities can go in the reverse direction in that VE might “open classrooms to cultures and regions that may be inaccessible due to financial or safety reasons” (O’Dowd, 2023, p. 12). Obviously, it is inequitable to assume that the exchange only goes in one direction, and relying on the support of VE to invite international peoples and cultures to the classroom is another solution to upholding the principles of promoting diversity, equity and inclusion.
According to Dooly & Vinagre (2022), “the double-edged sword of VE is that, while it opens up manifold opportunities for the use of the language productively and receptively,” it also “often produces anxiety” due to the additional responsibility placed on the learner, and “it may also increase a sense of taking part in unfocused activities that seem to lack specific linguistic aims” (p. 398). For these very reasons, however, VE could hold an essential role in promoting learner autonomy (Little, 2001; Cappellini et al., 2017). Dooly & Vinagre (2022) believe that if VE becomes “an integral part of teacher education curricula in the near future” (p. 398) the benefits will outweigh any doubts, concerns or anxieties. One of the purposes of this essay is to contribute to that particular initiative.
Background and Methodology
Study Abroad and international exchanges are among the most impactful experiences in a collegiate student’s academic career. The mission statement at my institution, the College of Charleston in Charleston, South Carolina, includes the development of global fluency as one of its most important learning objectives. For the past decade, the College of Charleston has been a leader in study abroad participation: over 40% of students participate in a study abroad program while they are attending the college. This experience is the centerpiece of the curriculum, designed to instill in students the global perspective necessary to live well and succeed in a tightly networked and interconnected world.
In 2020, however, international education and study abroad were severely impacted by the pandemic. In response, the College of Charleston alerted faculty about the need to create opportunities for students that were planning on studying abroad. While this was indeed a challenge, it was also presented as an opportunity because of the existence at the College of Charleston of what are called ‘globally connected courses’. Essentially, even before the COVID-19 pandemic drove classes online, the College’s School of Languages, Culture, and World Affairs (LCWA) had been embarking on a plan to leverage digital technology in order to integrate immersive and sustained international education into the daily classroom experience. These courses emphasize experiential international learning through the regular course of study via virtual exchanges and shared peer-to-peer projects through digital means, with students and international partners from around the world.
Other international organizations that support language learning and cross-cultural explorations were making similar moves. As it relates to the teaching of the French language and French and Francophone culture in the U.S., this included the FACE (French-American Cultural Exchange) Foundation, the French Embassy in the US and the US Embassy in France, who were mobilizing funds to support institutions of higher education to creatively maintain French-American collaboration during the pandemic. This included the “Transitioning to Virtual Exchange” CFP through the FACE Foundation, which would eventually support projects that were integrating virtual exchange and other types of global learning in their curriculum.
Inspired by these initiatives, I decided to consider how my 400-level (advanced) French course scheduled for Fall 2020 might lend itself to a “globally connected” designation at my institution and, once designed, might be eligible for support through the FACE Foundation. Titled The French Language Today: Exploring French and Francophone Culture Through Linguistics, the course description was as follows:
This course aims to build on and sharpen your existing knowledge of the French language and culture through the use of linguistic analysis and sociolinguistic perspectives. The course has three major themes: (1) language change, (2) language variation, and (3) language identity in relation to the French language in France and other Francophone regions. In this course, you will develop the basic skills of linguistic analysis in order to get a more nuance understanding of how the French language works. We will analyze authentic linguistic data including transcripts of conversations, excerpts from films, short scientific texts et bien plus encore!
Not knowing much about virtual exchange or COIL at the time, my initial idea was simply to follow the somewhat “traditional” model of organizing a guest lecture (one or more). I would make it “virtual” by using a videoconferencing tool and make it “international” by inviting scholars from France, specifically colleagues from the Centre de Linguistique Appliquée (CLA) a research and teaching institute at the Université de Franche-Comté in Besançon, France, where I had done a teacher training program in the summer of 2009.
Once I reached out to my primary contact at the CLA the juices really started flowing. In addition to be inspired by the globally connected course designation and the FACE Foundation call for proposals, we relied on two VE models, the COIL framework and the Erasmus+ Virtual Learning program, to guide the development of our own project. We were able to line up three scholars who would give guest lectures in my class over the course of the semester. Furthermore, we discussed and decided to add an additional VE component to the course, called tandems linguistiques, where students would meet virtually to exchange with a conversation partner once a week.
The Center for Applied Linguistics had an already active in-person tandems linguistiques program up and running as a regular part of their wide array of extracurricular offerings for international students studying French at their institution. A tandem linguistique is a weekly meeting between an international student studying French at the CLA and a Francophone living in Besançon (not necessarily a student at the university, by the way). In addition to meeting regularly, a successful tandem linguistique requires a reciprocal exchange between conversation partners with half the conversation being in the international student’s language and the other half being in French. Furthermore, students are expected to focus on intercultural exchanges and avoid correcting each other’s grammar and syntax, unless of course it interferes with comprehension.[1] These three simple but important policies (regular weekly meetings and a balanced use of both target languages) are part of the règles de jeu [rules of the game].
[1] Although the term “tandem” is used to identify these linguistic partnerships, these are different from the e-tandem exchanges (O’Rourke, 2007) described above, precisely because participants are not supposed to act as language tutors.
In March 2020, when all classes moved online at the CLA just like around the rest of the world, it was also decided to offer an online version of the tandems linguistiques program. The main objective at the time was to help international students maintain some social interaction during a very isolating time, and also to provide an opportunity for them to continue practicing French. After all, an important part of learning a language involves interaction with native speakers and during daily activities, which, as we all remember, was missing during these times. What was interesting is that once the tandems linguistiques program moved online, the demand became so high among the Francophones that there were not enough students. Therefore, the CLA got the idea to reach out to partner institutions abroad to see if they would like to participate. By August of 2020, 160 virtual tandems were created, which included my students at the College of Charleston.
Although students initially enrolled in the course based on its original title and description (above), the course description was revised by the first day of class and on the syllabus as follows:
In this course, students will develop the basic skills of linguistic analysis in order to get a more nuanced understanding of how the French language works, which students can use to build and sharpen their linguistic aptitude and cultural intelligence. In addition to the “traditional” elements of this course (i.e., readings, lessons and assignments related to the various areas of linguistics), this course has a globally connected emphasis in which students will participate in dialogic activities so as to develop an understanding and respect for French and Francophone cultural perspectives and points of view. Specifically, students will have the opportunity to learn from scholars and peers at the Center for Applied Linguistics in Besançon, France, in online collaborations that will take place at least once a week over the course of the semester.
On the first day of the project, it was explained that students would learn from scholars in France and participate in weekly conversations with Francophones from Besançon, France. Although this is a tall order, even for a 400-level class, no students withdrew from the class during the add/drop period.
Ultimately, the virtual exchange that we designed for this course aimed to provide participants a kind of “virtual study abroad experience.” Analogous to a short-term (mini, even!), faculty-led study abroad program, the course content designed by me might represent the coursework assigned by the faculty leader from the home institution (in this case CofC), the guest lectures represent the coursework completed at the host institution (in this case the CLA), and the tandems linguistiques represent the culture immersion that takes place outside of the classroom on a study abroad program. For example, assignments were designed not only for language practice, but also with an experiential element so that students could potentially feel like they were actually visiting Besançon and/or Charleston. This included the expectation to write and share (via our online discussion board) a reflective post, written in French, at least once a week, experiential learning assignments such as giving a virtual tour of the city and sharing a favorite recipe via video or pictures, and the final project which was the creation of a video summarizing the overall experience.
On the one hand, the emergency circumstances that provoked this project, did cause the final product (the course) to feel like it was somewhat “slapped together.” Yet, on the other hand, the fact that we were inspired and motivated by reputable initiatives, not to mention very dedicated to giving our students a positive experience in spite of the difficulties caused by the pandemic, was a plus as we put a lot of time into the course’s development over the course of a full summer (where there really was not much else to do due to the lockdown situation). I had a hunch that the experience might not only be worthwhile, but that the course might also be worthy of replication in the future. For these reasons, I collected qualitative data throughout the course of the semester, specifically by keeping a field journal of participant observations and by inviting students to publish their final videos on a public YouTube channel for future enjoyment and potential analysis. Furthermore, in March 2021, students, faculty, and staff who participated in the project conducted a webinar to share the experience with a larger public, which was recorded and is available on YouTube. I have gone back, four years later, and analyzed the webinar alongside my field journal and students’ final videos. In the next section, I will reflect on my findings.
Reflections
Starke-Meyering & Wilson (2008) state that the “success of globally networked initiatives such as virtual exchange depend on (1) robust partnerships, (2) innovative institutional policies, and (3) new pedagogies for globally networked learning” (p. 222). I cannot discuss the success of this VE without acknowledging that our partnership was already relatively robust, which allowed us to overcome “one of the most challenging parts” of designing a VE (Petropoulou, 2021/2022, p. 50) from the get-go. I already had close ties with colleagues at the CLA, whom I had known for over a decade by the time this project started. Although it is not easy to quantify the value of these professional, yet close-knit relationships bolstered by sheer time, I would argue that using these kinds of leads to establish an international partnership is one of the best places to start. For example, instead of cold-calling various institutions to find a partner or even before working within a professional network, partnerships in a “highly flexible” VE can be discovered through friends, community organizations, and even family.[2] A small-scale VE—for example, inviting a family member to give a linguistic or cultural presentation and answer students’ questions—can be both manageable and have a big impact.
[2] This may be obvious and/or create other challenges (such as the need to ensure parity of a VE that connects students at an educational institution with members of a community or a family), but it is worth mentioning as a point of departure and to encourage those who may not have obvious ties with an international institution to still consider developing a VE.
Furthermore, institutional policies, although forced due to the pandemic, were in some ways the most innovative they have ever been precisely because of the pandemic and the adaptations we had to make. With large-scale, internationally visible organizations like the FACE Foundation soliciting high-impact, experimental projects, institutional policies were similarly and enthusiastically aligned. In the end, although we did not receive financial support from the FACE Foundation’s CFP, I would argue that using its guidelines (as well as its deadlines!) as a springboard for the development of our project was extremely helpful, especially because it compelled us to defend our project using theoretical frameworks (i.e., COIL) and research-based models (i.e., the Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange program). CFPs, whether internal or external, are often looking for innovative pedagogical projects, so relying on them to develop a VE, whether support is received—or really whether the application is even ever completed—can be a great way to initiate what might be an otherwise overwhelming project.
It is important to point out that this VE, although inspired by the COIL framework and the Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange program, does not really fit the mold of a VE or COIL project par excellence. While many researchers would agree that the design of a VE or COIL project can be highly flexible as it relates to the details and overall implementation, most VE and COIL projects that are discussed in the literature follow a model that has more or less the same building blocks as it relates to its basic structure. Essentially, to be truly considered a VE or a course that uses COIL, the idea is that there are two (or more) groups in different geographical locations with different linguacultural backgrounds that are collaborating on parallel academic coursework.
While this particular VE was indeed a trans-lingual and trans-cultural collaboration, the partnership was not so parallel from an academic coursework perspective. Only the students at the College of Charleston were officially enrolled in an academic, credit-bearing course, which included participation in (1) the three guest lectures given by scholars from the CLA as well as (2) the tandems linguistiques. The Besançon group, on the contrary, was made up of individuals who signed up for the tandems linguistiques for personal enrichment. They were not enrolled in a class and their “grouping” as such only had to do with the fact that they were all paired with College of Charleston students. Otherwise, they had no common agreed upon learning objectives and they were not required to complete any academic coursework.
Though this VE may veer from other VE models and COIL projects from a structural perspective, there is evidence that intercultural learning was maximized from a theoretical perspective. According to Nyunt et al. (2023) intercultural learning is fostered in virtual exchanges by way of two theoretical frameworks: Intergroup Contact Theory (e.g., Allport, 1954 as cited in Nyunt et al., 2023) and a Community of Inquiry (COI) model in online learning (e.g., Garrison et al., 2010, as cited in Nyunt et al., 2023).
To summarize, Intergroup Contact Theory posits that contact between members of different groups is likely to reduce prejudice and provide a foundation for the formation of cross-group friendships as long as contact takes place under four key conditions: (1) equal status within the contact situation, (2) shared goals among members of both groups, (3) intergroup cooperation, and (4) support of authorities (Nyunt et al., 2023). The Community of Inquiry (COI) model in online learning is a social constructivist model that situates the educational experience at the center of three interdependent elements: Cognitive Presence (CP), Social Presence (SP) and Teacher Presence (TP). CP focuses on welcoming, exploring, sharing and comparing new ideas as well as the co-construction and application of knowledge, SP is the extent to which learners feel connected and develop group cohesion (Garrison et al., 2010, as cited in Nyunt et al., 2023), and TP is the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes (basically balancing CP and SP). Evidence of elements of Intergroup Contact Theory and the development of a Community of Inquiry in this particular VE include (1) the welcoming, exploring, sharing and comparing of new ideas with invited guest speakers, (2) the tandems linguistiques format resembling virtual host families, and (3) the use of asynchronous support to create a sense of virtual immersion.
The welcoming, exploring, sharing, and comparing of new ideas with invited guest speakers
According to Nyunt et al. (2023), including guest speakers in a VE has the potential to foster a Community of Inquiry (COI) in online learning by way of the three interdependent elements for intercultural competence: Cognitive Presence (CP), Social Presence (SP), and Teacher Presence (TP). Evidenced in this VE by the CofC students who contributed to the webinar, one of the students said she “loved” the guest lectures because of the “variety” of topics even when they were very challenging (i.e., CP). Another student described his sincere appreciation for the guest lectures, especially when one of the professors illustrated linguistic concepts with funny anecdotes about the French culture. He even referenced a joke she made, saying “Je ne vais pas raconter [la blague] parce que c’est un peu vulgaire mais c’était hyper drôle et tout le monde qui était là s’en souvient” [I’m not going to tell it because it’s a bit vulgar, but it was hilarious and I’m pretty sure everyone in the class remembers it] (CLA, Université de Franche-Comté, 2021). Given that this particular lecture was towards the end of the semester, it seems as though there was indeed a sense of group cohesion among the students (i.e., SP). I remember how curious and engaged they were during all three lectures. Witnessing them laugh through the strategically-timed “funny” lecture (given that understanding the nuances of humor might have been difficult early in the semester), was rewarding.
The strategic planning that went into sequencing of these three lectures did indeed represent a strong teacher presence (TP) as it involved collaboration between four different professors as well as the coordinator at the CLA. In some ways, because of the frequency of the guest lectures, this course fostered the kind of intercultural learning that has been observed in similar VE courses with “multinational co-instructors” (Nyunt et al., p. 337-338). Both aforementioned students agreed that the invited guest speakers were a favorite aspect of the course because it gave them the opportunity to learn from “French experts” in addition to the primary (American) teacher of the course (CLA, Université de Franche-Comté, 2021). Additionally, one student explained how she benefited from these guest speakers because, after graduation, she was planning to teach English in France, perhaps an indication that she was not only applying the learned linguistic concepts in practical ways but was also becoming aware of her own teacher presence (TP).
The tandems linguistiques format resembling virtual host families
Citing previous research studies (e.g., Engle & Engle, 2004; Norris & Gillespie, 2009; Nyunt, 2021; Schmidt-Rinehart & Knight, 2004), Nyunt et al. (2023) emphasize the fact that living with host families has been found to be one of the most effective practices for fostering intercultural competence in the study abroad literature and subsequently argue that the same might be true for virtual exchanges. While the idea of “living virtually” with a family may seem peculiar, what Nyunt et al. (2023) are really highlighting is the value of interacting with one or more people from the same household, where participants can interact in a familiar way as it relates to daily routines and reflects everyday dynamics on a regular basis. Theoretically speaking, “a structure where students and families engage with each other” and where there is a “balanced exchange of information” may foster “intergroup cooperation.” (Nyunt et al., 2023, p. 334). This is one of the ideal conditions to reduce prejudice and provide a foundation for the formation of cross-group friendships within the Intergroup Contact Theoretical framework.
While the tandems linguistiques component of the VE was not formally defined as a virtual host family arrangement per se, students, over time, developed a sort of closeness with their tandems linguistiques partner that resembled what one might experience in a real-life setting. For example, one of the Francophone students who shared her experiences during the webinar suggested that she really enjoyed her weekly interactions with her partner because “it was very nice to see how we [both] lived” and “to ask [each other questions]” about daily life and family traditions, including Thanksgiving (CLA, Université de Franche-Comté, 2021). In the final video summarizing the experience, screenshots of conversations about Thanksgiving as well as suggestions for how to celebrate it while away at college or while in France were a focal point of the narrative. These two students clearly got to know each other well, and the sweetness and artistry of the final video alluded to the fact that these two young women had become close, even sisterly.
Not necessarily mentioned in the theoretical analysis about virtual host families by Nyunt et al. (2023) but a seemingly important element of successful tandems linguistiques in this VE project, was additional teacher and staff support from both institutions, providing a strong Teacher Presence (TP) from the Community of Inquiry (COI) model in online learning. While previous research has identified the fact that virtual exchanges can sometimes be more autonomous and require less teacher intervention, our particular VE actually necessitated and therefore increased teacher support throughout the project, and especially at the beginning. First of all, the matches were made carefully: students had the opportunity to write a biography and/or answer an online registration questionnaire which specified the hobbies, language level, and expectations that each participant had for this program. Furthermore, support staff beyond the teacher was involved in the project to coordinate the tandems linguistiques program, which included making the matches and follow-up during the semester. Again, this resembles the kind of support that might exist when students are living with host families while abroad and to make sure the experience is positive and well-managed, even when challenges arise.
The use of asynchronous support to create a sense of virtual immersion
As previously mentioned, the students went into the tandems linguistiques component of the VE with three simple but important règles de jeu, which in the virtual setting meant meeting synchronously via a videoconferencing tool at least once a week. The main reason for this règle [rule] was that it most logically corresponded to what would otherwise be in-person meetings (i.e., at a café, library, park, etc.) in the traditional tandems linguistiques format. That said, within several of the pairs, there was reluctance on the part of one or both of the participants to meet for the first time via a videoconference. Thanks to active teacher presence (TP) throughout the VE, this reluctance was mitigated by regular follow-ups with participants, which resulted in the addition of alternative, acceptable forms of communication such as instant messaging, email, social networks or the exchange of themed voice recordings or video clips. This helped to mitigate imbalances in CP and SP, such as alleviating anxiety about self-expression in a foreign language (i.e., CP) and establishing a climate of trust between the participants (i.e., SP). As long as students were exchanging at least once a week either synchronously or asynchronously, they were following the règles du jeu. Interestingly, most of the students who opted for asynchronous communication exchanged just as often as, if not more than, their synchronous peers, and many pairs adopted both formats to strengthen their interaction.
The benefits of this unexpected yet frequent use of asynchronous exchanges between partner groups was twofold. First of all, it helped CofC students to collect digital artifacts for the final video projects in an organic (i.e, authentic) way. What might have been considered extra work if it were assigned by the teacher was instead student-motivated work that intrinsically helped to make their interactions with their partners more manageable and meaningful. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it was reported in the webinar that participants, especially those in Besançon, found the virtual exchange to resemble a real-life immersion experience thanks to this additional visual, auditory, and quasi-tangible content[3].
[3] To view the webinar and final videos via YouTube playlist:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLx0_i3AmaWA7‑9NLrw3Ju2UiFNhnQzpIM&si=SLZDughvKLqmb1n6
To view the webinar and final videos via EUREKA the pedagogical and research platform for the CLA:
https://eureka.univ-fcomte.fr/espace-enseignement/2/0/0/1/59/5
Conclusion
A big takeaway from these reflections is that a parallel structure between groups involved in a VE is not a requirement for a successful outcome. As previously mentioned, current research often highlights the need to identify, establish, and ultimately control for parallel variables (i.e., coursework, assessments, linguistic proficiency of participants, learning objectives, discussion topics, etc.) when embarking on a VE. The reflections in this essay corroborate these recommendations to a certain degree, while also pointing to the benefits of a “highly flexible” VE where intergroup cooperation and a shared interest in the development of intercultural competence offsets any issues potentially caused by structural differences between the two (or more) groups of participants.
While these reflections point to a generally successful and productive VE, it was far from perfect. On the contrary, that “slapped together” feeling snuck up on me (and probably the students as well) more than once throughout the semester. Since all courses had to be quickly reimagined for Fall 2020 and it was our first full semester adapting to the pandemic, students (who knew teachers were doing the best they could) were relatively understanding and vice versa. On the other hand, there was a lot of personal and understandable frustration about what we were living through that inevitably “contaminated” the vibe in the course from time to time (and at school in general). That said, students were engaged, made progress and completed work in ways that went above and beyond my expectations, which, for some, included becoming friends with their tandems linguistiques partners and even, for one, eventually moving to Besançon after graduation.
Given that the ultimate goal with language learning is interaction with members of the target culture in this way, virtual exchanges can be very beneficial to complement any language course or program, especially where study abroad will take place at some point. When we think about study abroad during a student’s academic career, sometimes students are not prepared, so a VE can be a kind of preparation for students by helping them create a network before studying abroad. This can also be true if students are interested in maintaining networks after a study abroad program. Furthermore, conducting a VE is aligned with the strategic plans at many universities to increase and enhance global experiential learning opportunities and incentivize broad participation. As has been publicized by Generation Study Abroad (Institute of International Education, n.d.) and other similar initiatives, it is important to increase and diversify the number of students who have the opportunity to study abroad. Even irrespective of the circumstances during the pandemic, providing cost-effective options to complement study abroad, such as VE, can help increase participation.
References
Avgousti, M. I. (2018). Intercultural Communicative Competence and Online Exchanges: A Systematic Review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 819-853. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.145573
Biando Salomao, A. C. (2022). Foreign Language Communication in Virtual Exchanges: Reflections and Implications for Applied Linguistics. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 1-14.
Belz, J. A. (2003). From the Special Issue Editor. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 1-3.
Blake, R. J. (2021, July 21). Hybrid: The New Normal for L2 Teaching [Lessons learned during COVID]. Foreign Language Association of Northern California (FLANC) Virtual Conference. https://www.flanc.net/keynote-speaker-dr-blake
Cappellini, M., Lewis, T., & Rivens Mompean, A. (Eds.) (2017). Learner autonomy and web2.0. Equinox.
Cavalari, S., & Aranha, S. (2022). Learners’ Diaries as a Tool for Teachers’ Assessment in Teletandem. In A. Czura & M. Dooly (Eds), Assessing Virtual Exchange in Foreign Language Courses at Tertiary Level (pp. 65-78). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.59.1410
Chun, D. M. (2015). Language and Culture Learning in Higher Education via Telecollaboration. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2014.999775
Centre de Linguistique Appliquée (CLA). Université de Franche-Comté (2021, March 23).
Webinaire: Projet Immersion Virtuelle CLA—College of Charleston (États-Unis) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6mtCBtK7f4
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave New Schools: Challenging Cultural Illiteracy Through Global Learning Networks. St. Martin’s Press.
Cunningham, J. D., & Akiyama, Y. (2018). Synthesizing the Practice of SCMC-based Telecollaboration: A Scoping Review. CALICO Journal, 35(1), 49-76. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.33156
Dooly, M., & Vinagre, M. (2022). Research into Practice: Virtual Exchange in Language Teaching and Learning. Language Teaching, 55, 392-406.
Duffy, L. N., Stone, G. A., Townsend, J., & Cathey, J. (2022). Rethinking Curriculum
Internationalization: Virtual Exchange as a Means to Attaining Global Competencies, Developing Critical Thinking, and Experiencing Transformative Learning. Schole: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 37(1-2), 11-25. Institute of International Education. (n.d.). Generation Study Abroad. https://www.iie.org/programs/generation-study-abroad/
Gutiérrez, B. F., & O’Dowd, R. (2021). Virtual Exchange: Connecting Language Learners in Online Intercultural Collaborative Learning. In T. Beaven & F. Rosell-Aguilar (Eds),
Innovative Language Pedagogy Report (pp. 17-22). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2021.50.1230
Izmaylova, A. (2022). Assessing Intercultural Learning in Virtual Exchange. In A. Czura & M.
Dooly (Eds), Assessing Virtual Exchange in Foreign Language Courses at Tertiary Level (pp. 135-146). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.59.1415 Kolm, A., de Nooijer, J., Vanherle, K., Werkman, A., Wewerka-Kreimel, D., Rachman-Elbaum, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2022). International Online Collaboration Competencies in Higher Education Students: A Systematic Review. Journal of Studies in International Education, 26(2), 183-201.
Krengel, F. (2021). ‘Glocal Education’ Through Virtual Exchange? Training Pre-service EFL Teachers to Connect Their Local Classrooms to The World and Back. Global Education Review, 8(2-3), 138-153.
Lewis, T., & O’Dowd, R. (2016). Online Intercultural Exchange and Foreign Language Learning: A Systematic Review. In R. O’Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online Intercultural Exchange (pp. 35-80). Routledge.
Little, D. (2001). Learner Autonomy and the Challenge of Tandem Language Learning via the Internet. In A. Chambers & G. Davies (Eds.), ICT and Language Learning: A European
Perspective (pp. 29-38). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Meristo, M., Ljalikova, A., & Heero, A. (2022). Foreign Language Teacher Perceptions of the Virtual Classroom. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 1-14.
Nyunt, G., Niehaus, E., Light, A., Boryca, A., & Bryan, A. (2023). Online + International: Utilizing Theory to Maximize Intercultural Learning in Virtual Exchange Courses. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 35(1), 325-344.
Luo, H., & Yang, C. (2022). Pedagogical Benefits of Chinese-American Virtual Exchange: A Study of Student Perceptions. ReCALL, 34(1), 37-50.
Lee, J., Leibowitz, J., & Rezek, J. (2022). The Impact of International Virtual Exchange on Participation in Education Abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 26(2), 202-231.
O’Dowd, R. (2023). Issues of Equity and Inclusion in Virtual Exchange. Language Teaching. 113. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144482300040X
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, I, 1-23. Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.jve.1
O’Rourke, B. (2007). Models of Telecollaboration (1): eTandem. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online Intercultural Exchange: An Introduction for Foreign Language Teachers. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690104-005
Petropoulou, Z. (2020/2021). Virtual Classroom Experiences for Second Language Learning and Cultural Exchange. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 49-60.
Reynolds, A. (2020). Erasmus Virtual Exchange as an Authentic Learner Experience. In M.
Hauck & A. Müller-Hartmann (Eds.), Virtual Exchange and 21st Century Teacher Education: Short Papers from the 2019 EVALUATE Conference (pp. 85-99). Research publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2020.46.1135
Rolińska, A., & Czura, A. (2022). Assessment in the English for Academic Study Telecollaboration (EAST) Project—a Case Study. In A. Czura & M. Dooly (Eds), Assessing Virtual Exchange in Foreign Language Courses at Tertiary Level (pp. 163-175). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.59.147
Rubin, J. (2016). The Collaborative Online International Learning Network. In R. O’Dowd & T.
Lewis (Eds), Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice (pp. 263-272). Routledge.
Sauro, S. (2014). SCMC for SLA: A Research Synthesis. Calico Journal 28(2), 369-391. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.33156
Starke-Meyering, D., & Wilson, M. (Eds.) (2008). Designing Globally Networked Learning Environments: Visionary Partnerships, Policies, and Pedagogies. Sense Publishers.
Warschauer, M. (1995). Virtual Connections: Online Activities and Projects for Networking Language Learners. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
