2.1 Telecollaborative exchange and intercultural competence

The primary goal of networked intercultural learning is to develop learners’ ICC. ICC consists of a conceptual framework of four interrelated components knowledge, skills, attitudes and awareness (see Byram, Reference Byram1997: 50–63 for details). Within this framework, intercultural interaction aims to promote in-depth cultural learning that goes beyond the superficial “facts only” approach. According to Bennett (Reference Bennett1993), to become competent intercultural speakers, learners need to be open-minded to people of other cultures in order to understand cross-cultural perspectives with non-judgmental attitude and respect. Moreover, they should critically reflect upon the cultural similarities and differences and further develop cross-cultural awareness through personal discovery and social engagements (Byram, Reference Byram2000). To this end, a number of telecollaborative projects have been conducted and the results have proven to be effective in the development of L2 learners’ language skills and ICC (e.g., Belz, Reference Belz2002; Chun, Reference Chun2011; Lee, Reference Lee2009; Schenker, Reference Schenker2012). For example, O’Dowd (Reference O’Dowd2003) undertook a longitudinal study of a Spain-US university student e-mail exchange involving various types of tasks to exchange cultural information and perspectives, with results highlighting willingness to express cultural identity and sensitivity to others’ needs as essential to successful intercultural partnerships. Another study conducted by Jin and Erben (Reference Jin and Erben2007) shows that students of Chinese developed greater intercultural sensitivity and showed respect for cultural differences through an online exchange via instant messenger. The process of analyzing and reflecting on native informants’ perspectives enables students as outsiders to learn about the cultural framework governing the what, how and why of insiders’ expressions in everyday interactions. Using Byram’s (Reference Byram1997) model of ICC, Schenker (Reference Schenker2012) reported on a six-week American-German student email exchange, with pre- and post-survey findings indicating development of intercultural competence, while conclusions highlighted the importance of teacher intervention to monitor progress and increase student motivation.

Application of CMC in intercultural learning has shifted from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, with wikis and blogs increasingly used for online exchange. For example, the IntercultureWiki project was created in 2006 to provide intercultural exchanges between students from the University of Padova, Italy and students from various universities in the US. The recent Padova-Dickinson telecollaboration involved the development of bilingual wiki pages. Students used various Web 2.0 tools, such as Skype and Facebook to discuss cultural topics, before collaboratively creating wiki pages concerning intercultural issues (Guth & Marini-Maio, Reference Guth and Marini-Maio2010). One blog example of intercultural exchange is a one-year study from Ducate and Lomicka (Reference Ducate and Lomicka2008) who found that students gained cultural understanding from a variety of different perspectives by reading native-speaker blogs. Another recent study by Lee (Reference Lee2012) shows how using blogs not only enabled students to exchange cultural knowledge with NSs but also raised awareness of cross-cultural issues over the course of a one-semester study-abroad program. Besides wikis and blogs, social networking tools such as Facebook and Ning Footnote ³ were used for online exchange. For example, using cross-cultural assignments, students carried out virtual interviews with their distant partners via Facebook, interacting socially and exchanging cultural views (Genet, Reference Genet2010).

2.2 Web 2.0: blogs, podcasts and twitter for language learning

The emergence of Web 2.0 has been progressively put to inpractice for pedagogical purposes. Unlike Web 1.0 applications, Web 2.0 enables learners to create and share content through social networking in a dynamic and instantaneous manner. Through social engagement, students interact, collaborate and network with others beyond the traditional classroom setting. Among other tools, blogs and podcasts have received substantial attention from language practitioners (e.g., Ducate & Lomicka, Reference Ducate and Lomicka2008; Lee, Reference Lee2010; Pinkman, Reference Pinkman2005). Unlike traditional web creation, blogs are easy to make without in-depth HTML knowledge. Multimedia features including external links such as digital photos, audio and video clips are used to enhance content and appearance. Personal blogs are collections of online journals that foster self-expression and self- reflection, whereas collective blogs involve an entire class or small groups of students who collaboratively construct L2 knowledge (Murray & Hourigan, Reference Murray and Hourigan2008; Lee, Reference Lee2010). Given that blogs are asynchronous CMC, authors write at their own pace without time pressure, so enabling critical reflection on content. Network-based publishing also fosters learner autonomy, as students take charge of decision-making on what, how much and when to publish their work. Moreover, the perception of engaging with a broad audience, not a sole instructor, increases writing motivation (Lee, Reference Lee2009).

Another increasingly popular Web 2.0 tool is podcasting. Podcasting is online audio content delivered through an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feed that allows listeners to subscribe to their favorite podcasts. Podcasts can be downloaded automatically to the computer using media player applications, such as iTunes. Students often have limited opportunity for exposure to authentic input (listening) and produce output (speaking) in regular classroom settings. Podcasting supports language acquisition because it allows learners to listen to authentic recordings on a PC, then record and publish their own talks. Listening to native-speaker broadcasts enhances the real-world use of interpretive aural skills, whereas producing podcasts boosts learners’ pronunciation and speaking abilities (Ducate & Lomicka, Reference Ducate and Lomicka2008; Rosell-Aguilar, Reference Rosell-Aguilar2007). For listening practice, teachers can identify appropriate language podcasts and make them accessible to students, or assign specific podcasts to students based on students’ language proficiency. As for creating podcasts, students can exchange their own recordings with another class or students from other cultures (Lee, Reference Lee2009).

Like other asynchronous CMC tools, Twitter, a microblogging tool, enables users to exchange tweets: brief messages of up to 140 characters. One effective way to use Twitter is for instructors to post homework and brief questions for students to respond to. To build continuity, students are asked to follow their peers to comment on their tweets. The recent study by Lomicka and Lord (Reference Lomicka and Lord2012) shows that students were motivated to tweet with their peers to share and exchange information about their lives, and found tweets relevant to how L2 is used in the target countries. Other potential benefits include building learners’ social presence and sense of community, increasing L2 learning outside of class, and enhancing their knowledge of L2 culture (Antenos-Conforti, Reference Antenos-Conforti2009). The 140 characters limit, however, presents challenges to students when trying to communicate complex thoughts; while confusing interface for non tech-savvy users, unwanted followers and video upload limits exhibit challenges to using Twitter effectively.

Based on the above discussion on Web 2.0 technologies for L2 learning, this paper describes a Spanish-American intercultural exchange project through which students used blogs, podcasts and Twitter in conjunction with task-based activities to develop their language and cross-cultural competence. The following section provides a detailed description of the current project in three parts. First, the institutional context where the project was set up and the participating students will be presented. Second, the objectives and structure of the project combined with Web 2.0 tools and tasks will be described. Third, the outcomes of the project focusing on both general and specific students’ observations will be reported and discussed along with pedagogical implications.

3.1 Context of the study

The intercultural exchange project was undertaken during one semester in Spring 2012. One advanced English class from a university in northern Spain and one advanced Spanish class from a large public university in the northeastern United States participated in the project. The project aimed to exchange cultural perspectives, raise intercultural understanding, and promote linguistic awareness. Generally, students don’t have opportunities to use the target language to interact with NSs outside of class, as they live in small towns and cities with only native-language daily communication. Thus, the Spanish-American intercultural exchange was built into the course to afford students with increased opportunity to engage in meaningful and authentic intercultural interaction. The project set three main objectives: (1) to build students’ intercultural competence through telecollaborative exchange using Web 2.0 tools; (2) to create a collaborative learning community where the students co-construct meaning and form using task-based activities; and (3) to foster linguistic awareness through peer feedback as part of online exchange.

3.2 Participants

The project involved 28 students from two cross-cultural institutions. The American students (n=10) enrolled in the Graduate Seminar were first-year master’s students (n=4), teaching assistants (n=4) and high school teachers (n=2). All of them had spent a minimum of one semester studying in a Spanish-speaking country except one native Spanish speaker from Mexico. The Spanish undergraduate students (n=18) were advanced speakers of English. They were pursuing degrees in English or Linguistics, and many were planning to become ESL teachers, including two students from Italy and France who had native fluency in Spanish. Prior to the project, both groups of students had attained advanced language proficiency, and were able to use L2 with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate in most formal and informal exchanges. They had limited experience with the target culture, resulting from brief study or travel abroad. As for Web 2.0, the majority of the students were familiar and comfortable with Internet technology. However, none had used Twitter, blogs and podcasts for intercultural exchange prior to the project.

3.3 Web 2.0 tools

Several Web 2.0 tools were implemented in the project. Twitter as a social media tool was employed to allow participants to make initial connection, establish good rapport and build group dynamics by exchanging brief text messages. Like other freely available blog publishing services, Blogger was employed for creating personal and group blogs. To make podcasts, Audioboo, a web-based application that allows users to create, upload and share short podcasts, was adapted for the project. Additionally, video-editing software applications including iMovie (Mac) and Movie Maker (PC) were recommended for video recordings. The greatest advantage of using iMovie or Movie Maker is its capacity for recording both audio and video clips with images that display during play. Recordings can be easily saved as MP4 files to upload to Blogger. Most students were digital natives and were comfortable with digital media/social networking (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Tuenti). Thus, no training on how to use Web 2.0 was required. Students were encouraged to use tutorial videos and online help sites for assistance.

3.4 Procedure

Prior to the project, two partner teachers worked closely to design the project and tasks through e-mail exchanges. Their roles were primarily as facilitators of monitoring the project including reminding students of task deadlines and ensuring students’ active involvement with the exchange. Both groups were given the same general instructions for the exchange. They were informed about the project via Blackboard (US group), Moodle (Spanish group) and e-mails (both groups). As part of the course requirements, students completed three major tasks (see Table 1). Each task took approximately three weeks to complete.

Table 1 Topics and tasks for intercultural exchange project

The intercultural exchange consisted of three stages:

Stage 1: Getting to know each other via Twitter. At the beginning of the exchange, students were asked to set up a Twitter account and follow other students. They sent tweets to introduce themselves to their distant partners. To facilitate conversations around the topic, hashtags (# symbols) were used to allow anyone interested in the same topic to follow. Both groups spent two weeks tweeting each other to share and exchange personal interests, academic work and cultural perspectives. They also used Twitter to discuss course assignments, brainstorm ideas and make decisions on the topics of their blogs and podcasts.

Stage 2: Exchanging cultural perspectives via blogging. The US students created individual blogs, whereas the students from Spain were divided into groups of two or three to produce collaborative blogs. Each blog consisted of a minimum of five entries concerning typical young people’s lives and local/regional cultures. Although the instructors did not participate in any blogs, they were available to answer questions and offer assistance. Upon the completion of blog assignments, all URLs were posted and made available in Moodle (Spain group) and the class wiki (US group) for viewing. Students were instructed to read and critique their partners’ blogs. One of the major benefits of using CMC is the opportunity to focus on form through expert feedback (Lee, Reference Lee2008). Thus, students were asked to provide corrective feedback to foster linguistic awareness. No specific instructions were given to the students. They made their own choices regarding how feedback should be provided to their native speaker partners.

Stage 3: Discussing controversial issues via podcasting. After blog task completion, students worked in pairs or small groups to create podcasts on controversial topics. Each recording was made within a dialogue format in which students discussed and debated the chosen topic. Students first wrote, rehearsed, and finally recorded the script using their own computers. Each recording lasted approximately 5–6 minutes. The recordings were embedded into blogs for viewing. Both groups were required to listen to their partners’ recordings and provide feedback to each other. The instructor did not assign any particular podcasts to specific individuals. Students were free to listen to any recordings that interested them.

5.1 Affordances and challenges of intercultural exchange and Web 2.0 tools

Table 2 displays the results of the students’ reactions to the exchange and the use of Web 2.0.

Table 2 Students’ views of intercultural exchange and Web 2.0 tools

Overall, the high rating (4.5 out of 5) indicates that students were extremely satisfied with the outcomes of the project (statement 10). Students often used words such as “fun”, “rewarding” and “beneficial” to describe their optimistic experience with the exchange. One noted: “I would highly recommend the intercultural exchange because I think it is useful and it is another type of work different from the things we normally do in class, as grammar and vocabulary. I think this involves all these but in a more interesting way.” For many students, the exchange allowed them to exchange different views of cross-cultural perspectives in a meaningful way. One student, for example, shared his observation:

Linguistically, the exchange afforded students the opportunity to explore lexical, phonetic and social variation between Peninsular and Latin American Spanish. The following quotation exemplifies beneficial effects of intercultural communication on the development of L2 learners’ sociolinguistic awareness:

With respect to the effectiveness of Web 2.0, students reported favorably on the application of digital tools, as shown in the following excerpts from online survey responsesFootnote ⁴:

• ∙ All the tools are very intuitive and easy to use and produce a nice, original product. They also now have mobile apps so that you could use them on the go.

• ∙ I enjoyed using blogger, twitter and podcasting for the exchange. It allowed you to communicate in different ways and the podcasts allowed you to hear the voices of your exchange partners even though they were in another country.

Nearly 78% of the students found Twitter useful for instant communication (statement 1). Most used Twitter as a broadcast tool for sharing all types of information including videos, pictures and links with their partners. For example, one American student posted a tweet to inform her Spanish partners about the progress of her blog:

In addition, Twitter allowed students to build a sense of belonging to support each other. For example, in response to her partner’s tweet about prepositional errors, the Spanish student wrote:

As shown in the above quotations, students incorporated emotions as visual cues (e.g., smiley-face symbol) to provide affective support to written communication and comfort each other by knowing that the ‘other side’ makes similar errors. The ability to establish a personal rapport can be seen to have greatly enhanced the working of these intercultural exchanges.

While Twitter enables students to focus on community and interpersonal relationship building, it is not without its limitations. For example, one student remarked: “I felt the Twitter was too limiting in how much I could express. It’s difficult to have a meaningful conversation.” Another admitted: “I didn’t enjoy twitter because it is a mess to put some order within the messages.” Similar findings were reported in the study by Lomicka and Lord (Reference Lomicka and Lord2012). Interestingly, one student was reluctant to use social media for academic work and made the following statement:

To make the intercultural exchange more compelling, teachers should make students aware of the potentially significant impact that social networking has on intercultural dialogue across geographical boundaries, not just the use of social media itself.

More than 80% of the students enjoyed blogging (statement 2). They found the capability of embedding images, photos and YouTube videos to their blogs attractive and useful to support the content (statement 3). Many students agreed that they benefitted from sharing cultural information and personal experiences with their partners. The survey shows that 60% of the students had never used Web 2.0 tools prior to the exchange and so found the experience gratifying and rewarding. The following excerpts from post surveys and blog postings further demonstrate how blogging facilitated the process of intercultural communication:

• ∙ I enjoyed the Blogger because it provided enough space to expand on thoughts and use the target language. I was using Spanish in a real-life situation to connect with other students and to discover their cultures.

• ∙ It’s really interesting. I would like to know more about “real life” in the USA because we often have a certain image from movies or publicities, stereotypes…but I think it’s quite different in some ways.

The experience with social media transformed the way that students viewed intercultural learning. These findings suggest that learning the target culture from native speakers’ experiences and perspectives is more meaningful than the surface learning of a set of simple facts about the target culture, as shown in the previous research (Lee, Reference Lee2009; O’Dowd, Reference O’Dowd2007).

As for podcast recordings, students’ feedback was very encouraging (statement 4). Over 70% of the students enjoyed making podcasts for their peers. Although Audioboo was recommended, most students chose alternatives including iMovie and QuickTime to create short videos along with photos, images and music interludes. Students found listening to their own recordings very helpful, as they learned how to make improvements in their speaking. In particular, interacting with their distant partners through human voice not only connected students in a way that the written text cannot, but also built their confidence in using L2 for real-world communication. Due to academic calendar differences (e.g., Spanish holidays, American spring break) between the two institutions, students encountered difficulties in completing the assignment in a timely manner. Consequently, not all podcasts were made available in blogs by the due dates, which affected the quality of online exchange and students’ motivation toward the project. A few students made the following observations:

• ∙ Because we didn’t exchange using podcasting until the end of the semester, I felt we didn’t have adequate time to analyze and discuss our recordings.

• ∙ I found the podcasts to be rushed towards the end of the semester and would have liked to maybe do skype sessions where we could have talked live with the students rather than making a short recording and then waiting for a response.

It is likely that students did not realize that creating an interactive podcast is a time-consuming task because it involves writing the script, rehearsing and recording it. Given the diversity of Web 2.0 tools employed, the need to allow students to adequately familiarize themselves with these tools, and the apparent benefits of a gradual transition from one form to another without excessive pressure on time, the benefits of expanding the project beyond one semester are worth exploring.

5.2 Effects of task type and topic choice

When asked to give their opinion about tasks and topics, more than 85% of the students agreed that topics were stimulating and informative (statement 5). The Twitter tasks served as “getting-to-know you” icebreakers to help students become acquainted. As a result, students were successful in tweeting about their personal biographies, hobbies and schoolwork and further developed personal relationships with their cross-cultural partners. Students were given the freedom to choose their own topics, which appeared motivational to them. Free topics not only involved students in making their own decisions on the content of their work but also built on the area of interest. Both groups took initiative and control of their own learning as a key element in the development of autonomous learning, as suggested by other studies (Lee, Reference Lee2011b; O’Dowd & Ware, Reference O’Dowd and Ware2009). Table 3 shows that both groups wrote about various topics from specific themes of the target culture (e.g., bullfighting, proms) to current controversial issues (e.g., immigration, abortion). It appears that American students chose topics concerning aspects of daily life (e.g., doing yoga, coffee break) along with their personal stories to express their own observations on local cultures, whereas Spanish students focused on specific aspects of Spanish culture including national and local customs and traditions.

Table 3 Selection of topics for blogs

Cross-cultural discussions on topics of tangible (e.g., food, holidays) and intangible (behavioral patterns and lifestyles of everyday people) cultures afforded the opportunity to raise students’ awareness of cultural norms and practices. Through social engagement, students gained different cultural perspectives, and further showed appreciation of cultural similarities and differences. The following blog exchange illustrates how students reacted to and shared their thoughts on Spanglish:

In addition, debatable topics like ‘bullfighting’ aroused students’ curiosity, as they raised further questions, such as “Are there any movements that prohibit bullfighting in Spain?” or “How common is it to find individuals in Spain that are against them?” The above findings reveal that students exhibited attitudes of openness and curiosity; one of the objectives of intercultural communicative competence defined by Byram (Reference Byram1997).

Although students liked the idea of using free topics, some students found recurring topics unappealing. For example, one disappointed student explained:

Clearly, this student didn’t find topics of tangible culture informative after having had cultural immersion experience in SpainFootnote ⁵. To avoid topic repetitions, students should submit topics in advance to get the instructor’s approval before carrying out the blog assignment.

Originally, students were instructed to use controversial topics for podcasting assignments. However, as shown in Table 4, only a few podcasts focused on controversial issues. Some students chose their topics as an extension of the discussion on certain aspects, such as Spanish cinema and American popular music. The results show that students made more comments on controversial and linguistic issues than on cultural topics.

Table 4 Selection of topics for podcasting

Both groups appeared interested in discussing linguistic aspects of the target language, such as lexical variation and colloquial expressions. Regionalism encompasses lexical items, expressions and pronunciation favored by speakers in a specific geographic area with distinct cultural identities. Students took pride in making linguistic podcasts through which they discussed lexical variations in particular regions. For example, one Spanish group discussed lexical items (e.g., ‘aguantar’ for ‘tardar’, ‘luego’ for ‘ahora’) used in León, Spain, whereas the American students talked about words (e.g., ‘wicked’ for ‘very’, ‘bubbler’ for ‘water fountain’), phrases and accents peculiar to Boston and New England areas. Consequently, students benefitted from creating podcasts and learned about the spoken language in a particular region. Evidently, listening to podcasting exposed students to native speakers’ accents, linguistic and cultural sources in a natural and authentic manner.

5.3 Role of peer feedback and strategies for error correction

As shown in Table 2, overwhelmingly, over 90% of the students valued peer feedback (statement 6) because they viewed linguistic feedback as necessary for the development of L2 accuracy (statement 7). Nearly 80% of the students were comfortable addressing their partners’ linguistic problems (statement 8) and were in favor of commenting on linguistic errors made by their partners (statement 9). The following excerpts drawn from online surveys illustrate that the students found peer feedback beneficial:

• ∙ I enjoyed most receiving the linguistic feedback from our peers in Leon. They were able to provide feedback on subtle errors that I have fossilized and commit frequently.

• ∙ It was very useful the fact that American students commented on our blogs to help us change some expressions they wouldn’t use.

These comments corroborated the findings found in the study conducted by Ware and O’Dowd (Reference Ware and O’Dowd2008), who reported that students preferred an inclusion of peer feedback on form as part of the online exchange.

Both groups provided various types of feedback including lexical and morphosyntactic comments to address linguistic problems. They used affective comments, such as praise, empathy or encouragement to diminish face threatening before they made error correction. The following excerpt exemplifies how the Spanish student was impressed with the high quality of her American peer’s writing:

Similarly, the American students employed compliments as open remarks to comment on their partners’ writing. Words of appraisal like ‘awesome’, ‘excellent’, and ‘impressive’ appeared repeatedly, as shown in the following quotation:

Pragmatically competent speakers know how to express themselves appropriately in a social context. The above excerpts clearly demonstrate that the advanced speakers were aware of using compliments to diminish intimidation. The result coincides with the findings in the study conducted by Lee (Reference Lee2011b), who found that students used effective pragmatic strategies during CMC.

Due to the high level of linguistic skills and metalinguistic knowledge, both groups provided accurate grammar and lexical explanations to bring their partners’ attention to focus-on-form. Stylistic comments with concrete suggestions were the preferred way to provide linguistic feedback by the American students, whereas reformulations to provide target-like forms were used by the Spanish students. The American students tended to focus on wording issues to provide more natural and native-sound-like discourse, as shown in the following blog comment:

In addition, both groups appeared aware of and interested in discussions on lexical items. One intriguing observation made by an American student was the difference between the formal “going to” and the informal “gonna” form shown in the following comment:

Although no explanation was forthcoming from the Spanish student, the frequent use of colloquialisms such as “gonna” can be attributed in part to students’ familiarity with American cinema and, to a lesser extent, television.

Another notable commentary made by the students was lexical variation, such as ‘guajolote’ (turkey) in Mexico vs. ‘pavo’ (turkey) in Spain. For example, one student raised the American student’s awareness of different words used in Spain to express the meaning of ‘to drive’:

The above posting suggests that learners need to go beyond a rule-governed approach in order to address idiosyncratic errors (Lee, Reference Lee2011b). Essentially, peer feedback as part of intercultural exchange helped learners increase lexical knowledge, prevent language fossilization and acquire native-sounding discourse.