This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 17 November 2014, At: 23:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Intercultural EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceji20

A working model for interculturallearning and engagement incollaborative online language learningenvironmentsGeoff Lawrencea

a The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University ofToronto, Toronto, CanadaPublished online: 12 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Geoff Lawrence (2013) A working model for intercultural learning andengagement in collaborative online language learning environments, Intercultural Education, 24:4,303-314, DOI: 10.1080/14675986.2013.809247

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2013.809247

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A working model for intercultural learning and engagement incollaborative online language learning environments

Geoff Lawrence*

The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Given the emerging focus on the intercultural dimension in language teachingand learning, language educators have been exploring the use of information andcommunications technology ICT-mediated language learning environments tolink learners in intercultural language learning communities around the globe.Despite the potential promise of ICT-mediated learning, research has identified anumber of challenges including inadequate pedagogy that limit intercultural andlanguage learning in these online intercultural collaborations. This article willreview these challenges and will outline a three-part working model to guide theintegration of online intercultural collaboration into classroom language teaching.This emerging framework is developed around the need to engage learners in theplanning and preparation of these collaborations, to build identity investmentand sense of community in these projects and to actively work with interculturalcontent and rich points to deepen intercultural language learning processes.

Keywords: intercultural online language learning; telecollaborative exchange;intercultural language teaching; online intercultural pedagogy; pedagogicalframework

Introduction

Emerging technologies offer a wealth of intercultural language learning opportunitiesfor language learners around the world. Today, information and communicationtechnologies (ICTs) offer second/additional language teachers a wide range of con-structivist tools to build interactive, engaging learning environments that developintercultural communicative competence (Byram 1997): the intercultural awareness,communication, and interpreting skills being called for in today’s language learningprograms. Web 2.0 technologies including blogs, wikis, Moodle, and social network-ing tools promote intense collaboration with target language speakers and peer lan-guage learners. These tools can enhance learner autonomy, offer multimodal targetlanguage-and-culture input, and extensive opportunities for the authentic negotiationof meaning in intercultural learning environments. Tandem learning or telecollabora-tive exchanges where groups of learners work with others across time and spaceafford language learning communities unique possibilities to develop the linguisticand intercultural skills needed in today’s globally interconnected societies (Byram1997; Lawrence et al. 2009).

Such technology-mediated learning environments support the development ofthis intercultural dimension in language teaching/learning that is being increasingly

*Present Affiliation: Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics, York University,Toronto, Canada. Email: geoff.lawrence@utoronto.ca

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Intercultural Education, 2013Vol. 24, No. 4, 303–314, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2013.809247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

documented as integral to the development of twenty-first century communicationskills. The five Cs highlighted in the revised standards of the American Council forthe Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) emphasize communication, cultures,connections, comparisons, and communities, encouraging learners to develop theability to contrast and hypothesize about cultural systems embedded in communica-tion processes (ACTFL 2007, 6). In many Canadian provinces, intercultural learningoutcomes are being integrated into language teaching guidelines. Alberta’s languageeducational guidelines have integrated the outcome of global citizenship as a parallelto the goal of linguistic competence in all of its international language curriculumguidelines (Alberta Education 2009). The Common European Framework of Refer-ence for language teaching emphasizes pluralingual competence to help developcommunication skills that are both multilingual and intercultural in nature. The roleof the intercultural dimension in language teaching/learning is ‘to help languagelearners become “intercultural speakers” … successful not only in communicatinginformation but also in developing a human relationship with people of otherlanguages and cultures’ (Byram, Gribkova, and Starkey 2002, 7).

In this paper, I argue that ICT-mediated telecollaborative exchanges conducted inhybrid online classroom environments, where learners from one class work withpartners from another class, spending some time online and the rest in face-to-faceinteractions can provide an ideal space to develop this intercultural dimension in lan-guage teaching. Pedagogically sound hybrid environments are seen as advantageousin language teaching/learning as they give learners a self-paced, linguistically richlearning environment, providing opportunities for knowledge building, intercultural,and linguistic reflection tailored to different learner styles, while offering face-to-face time to debrief online interactions, build community and deepen interculturallanguage learning. In the online space, learners can share very personal aspects oftheir identities and experiences deepening their investment in the learning processand in the classroom community. Appropriately scaffolded ICT-mediated intercul-tural language teaching provides learners with the ability to ‘distance’ themselvesfrom cultural familiarity and work in a ‘third space’ in language-and-culture learning(Kramsch 1993), seeing the familiar as unfamiliar and negotiating a more complexunderstanding of oneself and of the intercultural dimension in our communicationprocesses.

To illustrate this intercultural potential of hybrid ICT-mediated collaborations, Iwill first review some of the key challenges found in online intercultural telecollabo-rative exchanges and the pedagogical responses needed to address these challenges.I will then outline a working pedagogical model to help guide intercultural learningand reflection in these hybrid ICT-mediated environments. Finally, I will reflect onthe potential of ICT-mediated intercultural language teaching. Throughout this paper,I shall be drawing upon examples from a Dubai–Canada pilot study with Englishlanguage learners that highlighted the need for more pedagogical guidance to maxi-mize intercultural language learning from such exchanges.

Key challenges and pedagogical needs

In light of this renewed focus on the intercultural dimension of language learning,many language educators have been exploring the use of ICT-mediated languagelearning environments to network learners in intercultural learning communities withlearners around the world. Unfortunately, research suggests that the pedagogical

304 G. Lawrence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

potential of online intercultural learning communities has often not been realized(Belz 2002; Kramsch and Thorne 2002; Lawrence et al. 2009; O’Dowd 2007;O’Dowd and Ritter 2006; Potts 2005). Engaging language learners in online collabo-rative exchanges does not guarantee intercultural or language learning.

In fact, Kern (2000) warns that telecollaborative exchanges can often reinforce,rather than bridge, feelings of difference. For example, in the telecollaborative wiki-writing pilot project with English language learners (ELLs) in Dubai and ELLs inCanada, my colleagues and I found that learners sometimes made incorrect, highlyproblematic cultural and linguistic assumptions of their overseas partners (Lawrenceet al. 2009). In this pilot project, learners were paired with an international colleagueto research, write, and edit a collaborative essay using a wiki to support their face-to-face classroom academic language learning. To fuel our understanding of this pro-ject and the wiki-writing process, we set up pages for student and teacher commentson the wiki. On the student page, one Canadian student, Barbie, wrote of her wiki-writing partner, ‘… the wiki webpage gave me a nice opportunity to make friendswith foreigners and to improve my English. For example, I met a Saudi boy namedAhmed Darwish.’ Her partner Ahmed soon edited Barbie’s comment: ‘Barbie, I amEmirati, not Saudi just as you are Chinese, not Taiwanese’. Such incorrect assump-tions about individual identities and cultural experiences were not uncommon, and ifnot actively deconstructed in the face-to-face or online environment, can dramati-cally inhibit engagement and deepen intercultural divisions.

Research has defined a number of areas that inhibit intercultural language learn-ing in online environments. Individual differences in motivation, expectations, com-municative norms, mismatched expectations, and inadequate pedagogy developingintercultural competence and interpreting/relating skills have been cited as majorimpediments to successful online intercultural language learning (Kramsch andThorne 2002; Lawrence et al. 2009; O’Dowd 2003; O’Dowd and Ritter 2006; Ware2005). In her analysis of communicative ‘tensions’ arising in a telecollaborativeexchange between American learners of German and German learners of English,Ware (2005) cites learner’s motivation and expectations towards the exchange pro-ject as having great consequence for the success or failure of telecollaboration. Inher study, Ware identified one source of tension that included differences in expecta-tions towards a project with regard to grammatical accuracy, message length, orresponse time. Differences in interactional purposes and varied interpretations of thetask arose between these two groups where she cited one student seeing his partneras a target language tutor, the other seeing his partner as a cultural informant (Ware2005, 71). She also noted varied linguistic practices and communicative norms,often shaped by prior online experience that fueled these differences in expectationsand judgments about participating members. Ware describes how different experi-ences with technology and online discussions can create varied degrees of interestand expectations of how another discussion should work.

In our Dubai–Canada study, we found similar differences in communicativeexpectations and norms in online interaction that inhibited learning (Lawrence et al.2009). In the student comments page, one Canadian student wrote: ‘What I extre-mely hated is that I have tried to connect with my partner but he did not respond’,reinforcing the different expectations about online response time that was a recurringtheme in this Dubai–Canada telecollaboration. An Emirati student wrote ‘the mainproblem that I observe, is the big differences between the groups that are part of thisproject; because I consider we don’t have the same expectations and interest on it.’

Intercultural Education 305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Due to the short timeframe allocated to the project, and the lack of interculturalpreparatory work and icebreaking activities where students get to know each otherand negotiate new community-specific norms, we found students had little invest-ment in each other and a lack of skills in interpreting and relating to each other’scontributions and experiences. This lack of engagement with each other greatlyinhibited the collaborative writing and intercultural learning process. There were dif-ferent expectations around time of response to provide feedback and perceived com-mitment to the project. The Canadian learners were highly motivated to exceed inthis English language program, many being conditionally accepted to graduate pro-grams in a major university, based on improving linguistic proficiency and goodgrades in this program. On the other hand, the Emirati students in Dubai were ingovernment-paid undergraduate programs where their grades and degrees of Englishproficiency did not have such high priority. This study reinforced the need to spendmore time on early-exchange activities building understanding of each other’scontexts, individual experiences and negotiating expectations and norms for theexchange.

These findings reveal that online collaborative communication is bound withina culturally and contextually framed communicative purpose, expectations ofsocial relations and expression of individual identity (Kramsch and Thorne 2002;Lawrence et al. 2009; Thorne 2003). O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) confirm how cul-turally informed interactional differences, such as speech acts, stylistic approaches,and discursive patterns can be misinterpreted by collaborating partners. Unlessnew ‘norms’ of communication and expectations are explicitly negotiated, mem-bers are likely to project their norms implicitly on others and judge accordingly.Intercultural learning must be scaffolded and supported in these interactions tohelp learners develop intercultural self-awareness and intercultural discovery, inter-preting, and relating skills to build intercultural competence. In her analysis of asuccessful online exchange involving nonnative and native speakers in a graduateseminar on modern language education, Potts (2005) calls for online-centered ped-agogical design to bridge interactional differences. This highlights the need for adiscussion of pedagogy to exploit the potential that these ICT-mediated exchangescan offer.

A working model for intercultural learning

As researchers have noted, surprisingly little research has looked at the relation-ship between failed exchanges and methodology including task design and theways in which students are prepared for the exchange (O’Dowd and Ritter2006; Potts 2005). O’Dowd (2003) found the essential difference between suc-cessful and unsuccessful email exchanges was the degree of intercultural compe-tence that could enable partners to develop the interpreting and relating skillsnecessary to build interculturally rich relationships. The following section willoutline an emerging pedagogical framework informed by this need to developidentity investment, online community, and intercultural competence by engagingthe intellectual and intercultural capital of learners and supporting interculturallearning. This working model outlined in Figure 1 below consists of three keystages in building investment in online intercultural language learning: the col-laborative planning and preparation stage, building identity investment, and

306 G. Lawrence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

actively working with the intercultural dimension in these language learningenvironments.

Collaborative planning

A key part of building investment in online and hybrid intercultural languageexchanges is to ensure that learners play a role in the planning and preparation forthis exchange. Often learners are left out of this critical stage of the process, poten-tially reducing their overall investment in learning. O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) reportthe need for a ‘pre-exchange’ briefing to fully orient learners to each other andencourage the exploration of different norms and expectations around online com-munication in a negotiated intercultural context.

In the Dubai–Canada transnational wiki-writing pilot project, learners were toldwho their partners were, what the focus was, without any opportunities for input thatcould have elicited more engagement in the project. Time constraints furtherimpeded learner involvement in the exchange. For example, once the wiki-writingexchange began, teachers decided to allow the Emirati students to choose the topicsfor the collaborative essays on ‘famous people’ that then mainly focused on soccerplayers and political figures that were well known in Dubai but not among the inter-national students in the Canadian context. What we learned from this project was toget students more involved in the planning, layout, and focus of such online collabo-ration.

As Potts (2005) noted, engaging learners in the development of the topics andnature of the interactive collaboration can fuel motivation. Turnbull and Lawrence(2003) found a similar positive impact of a learner-centered online exchangebetween learners of French. In their study of core French language teachers’ use oftechnology across Canada, they found one teacher who had set up an online news-letter project with his class in Canada, a class in France, and another in Haiti. Oncehe had made connections with these francophone classes, this teacher activelyinvolved learners in determining the scope of the online newsletter exchange, negoti-

Figure 1. Working model for intercultural learning in hybrid language learning and collabo-ration.

Intercultural Education 307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ating their roles and the potential topics for articles that were further negotiated oncethe exchange began. Post-project interviews with his students revealed a profoundinvestment in the learning in this project. As one student said, ‘I loved his class andthis project … it didn’t feel like French class.’

Investment can begin with pre-exchange activities orienting the learners to theexchange and greater involvement in the exchange planning process. If enough timeallows, teachers and students can negotiate the type of exchange, the location of thepartner class(es), the focus, topics, and the ICT tools used, particularly in this day ofcontinually emerging technology where learners may have ICT knowledge teachersdo not. Depending on the exchange context, educators can ask students what theywould like to learn about the other classes, about other ways of communicating,about their partners’ lives, views, and cultural experiences. The unique nature ofonline interaction and netiquette guidelines can be discussed and reviewed and caneven become part of the initial discussions with partners as outlined in the followingsection.

In addition, this pre-exchange period is an ideal time to prepare learners to workwith culture and intercultural interaction. O’Dowd and Eberbach (2004) note theimportance of developing students’ awareness of the interconnection between lan-guage and culture in intercultural language-learning exchanges. In his discussions ofintercultural language teaching, Bennett (2009) stresses the importance of introduc-ing and actively using culture general approaches to enable learners to start seeingaspects of culturally informed behavior in their own interactions and those of others.Culture-general learning explores categories of cultural behavior such as valueorientation differences (attitudes toward relationship building, hierarchy, time, etc.)or communication styles that can be defined as low context or high context forexample.1

This type of culture learning implies that groups of interacting people share com-mon types of behavior that can be defined relative to the needs and expectations ofits members. Educators may want to explore relevant value orientation differences,particularly ones that may affect online communication patterns and cultural per-spectives, such as individualistic vs. collectivist orientations, face-saving practices,and egalitarian vs. hierarchical orientations that may arise in online interactions ordiscussion topics. Such general learning can help learners begin to see and interpretbehavior broadly. However, educators must emphasize there are always individualdifferences, complex cultural identities that may not subscribe to one type of behav-ior. For example, if examining communication style differences, groups can discussthe differences between high vs. low context communication and then explore howindividuals use more direct or more indirect approaches to communication in vary-ing contexts. Such work can be accompanied by an exploration of strategies to buildintercultural competence developing intercultural curiosity and interaction skills,helping learners see and explicitly share aspects of their own culturally informedbehaviours and expectations, developing the ability to suspend judgment and therebymore effectively exploring intercultural differences.

Bennett also encourages the use of intercultural ‘innoculations’, debriefingdefinitions of culture, culture’s complexity, its impact on language use, discoursepatterns and overall perceptions. As outlined above, it can be easiest to first focuslearners on exploring how cultural experiences have shaped their personal languageuse and expectations, thereby opening them up to alternative frames of reference.Such work can build intercultural curiosity, awareness, discovery skills and help

308 G. Lawrence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

minimize intercultural miscommunication. This is a good time to explore the notionsand inaccuracies of stereotypes. Ting-Toomey and Chung (2012) outline a mindfulapproach to avoiding inflexible stereotyping by encouraging learners to be mindfulof categorization vs. an automatic pilot reaction, to use loose interpretations, firstbest guesses and to remain openminded in their exploration of themselves and theother. Personalizing cultural learning and exploration, encouraging learners toexplore stereotypes they have individually experienced, and how these have beeninaccurate can encourage a reflective, empathetic approach to intercultural learning.

Depending on proficiency levels, educators and learners can explore the interre-latedness of culture, language use, and technology including ritual language use,such as greetings, leave taking, asking personal questions, and small talk practices/topics in online vs. face-to-face contexts. Educators can elicit learner experiencewith online interaction and explore the unique genre of discourse patterns in onlinemedia along with challenges and strategies to mediate communication breakdown. Ifavailable, intercultural analyses can be conducted with examples of ‘failed commu-nication’ in earlier online collaborations (O’Dowd and Ritter 2006). These couldinclude exploring different reasons for delayed responses and ways to share andnegotiate expectations around response time in online environments. Educators mayalso want to explore different reactions and proposed responses to the same piece ofwriting in online interactions to make students aware of differences in interpretation,the range of potential actions and encourage a more mindful approach to respondingto peers. Such discourse analysis can be used to encourage students to bring in sam-ples of online interaction for collaborative analysis in the face-to-face class, helpinglearners suspend judgment and build intercultural communication and languagelearning strategies.

As part of an online language-learning exchange, this work can be done withstudents before the exchange, exploring emic perspectives of cultural experiences toencourage learners to develop intercultural awareness, see the complexity of cultur-ally informed behavior and to develop interpreting/relating strategies. Focusing onthe ‘me’ in culture before exploring the ‘other’ can help learners ‘see’ these aspectsof culture, their complexity, and give learners a framework to interpret interculturalinteraction (Lawrence 2010). In their text ‘Understanding Intercultural Communica-tion’, Ting-Toomey and Chung (2012) build in a series of quizzes and activities ineach chapter entitled ‘Know Thyself’ to help learners build intercultural self-aware-ness and personal connection with aspects of intercultural communication. Depend-ing on learner proficiency levels, activities such as the D.I.E. (Describe, Interpret,Evaluate) activity2 can be undertaken to teach cognitive flexibility, frame of refer-ence shifting and skills to suspend judgment while building intercultural curiosity.Such collaborative input and pre-exchange work can help build intercultural readi-ness to deepen online intercultural language learning processes.

Building identity investment

A second area that appears crucial when guiding methodology in online interculturallanguage learning is the need to build identity investment and community in theseonline environments. Notions of community in education have increasingly beenrecognized as key factors to ensure engagement, commitment and learning. In hiscommunity of practice model, Wenger (1998) highlights the interconnectedness ofidentity, belonging and community and the need to enable the mutual engagement

Intercultural Education 309

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

of participants in a community. In his discussion of factors contributing to a motivat-ing classroom environment, Dörnyei (2007) confirms that the most salient feature ofthe classroom environment is ‘the quality of the relationships between the classmembers’ (Dörnyei 2007, 720). He describes group cohesiveness as the ‘we’ feelingof a group – the ‘gelling force that keeps the group together’ (Dörnyei 2007, 721).He notes that this is built on intermember acceptance in addition to members’ com-mitment to the task/purpose of the group and group pride. To develop such cohe-siveness, Dörnyei recommends activities where group members learn about eachother to foster intermember relationships. Proximity, contact and interaction throughgroup work and opportunities for spontaneous interaction are also crucial in bondingthe group together. He stresses the need to negotiate group ‘norms’ and acceptedpatterns of communication early in the group’s life to build a community connectionand to bridge individual differences that may have existed earlier.

In online intercultural language learning, actively working with learner identity,along with intellectual and cultural capital can play a key role in building identityinvestment in a learning community (Dörnyei 2007; Norton 2006; Potts 2005). Inher analysis of online community building, Potts (2005) remarks how online interac-tions began with students posting their identities and competence, positioning them-selves within the community. This encouraged a higher degree of respect andinterdependence as students were no longer interacting with an unknown audiencebut with individuals whom they knew and valued.

In the Dubai–Canada study, we noticed the immense energy and investmentlearners placed on ‘positioning’ their identity in the online wiki space. Thereappeared to be a substantial investment in selecting and accurately presenting experi-ences, interests and goals in a way that would interest partner learners in the envi-ronment. We also concluded that much more time needed to be spent on structured‘icebreaking’ activities where learners could get to know each other personally,exploring intercultural similarities and differences, using this time to negotiate com-mon goals, expectations, and communication processes. Such early-exchange inter-actions working with learner identities and experiences could highlight commonexperiences, build common goals, and negotiate communicative norms along with agreater understanding of each other’s experiences and expectations. This initial ‘get-ting to know each other’ work can fuel intercultural learning, language acquisition,and build the ‘we’ feeling of the group that Dörnyei (2007) cites as crucial to amotivating classroom environment.

We realized in the Dubai–Canada exchange that synchronous tools should beused along with asynchronous tools to allow learners to develop the proximity, con-tact, and interaction with each other to deepen relationships. Both types of tools canbe exploited for different pedagogical purposes. Synchronous tools like chat, video-conferencing via Skype or Google + are highly interactive, learner directed, morespontaneous, and reported to be more conducive to developing peer-to-peer relation-ships in online environments (Kramsch and Thorne, 2002; Thorne 2003). Such toolshelp bridge the distance often felt in online relationships and can provide opportuni-ties where learners can meet and communicate spontaneously to hear and see eachother in a personalized way that can help bond the group.

On the other hand, asynchronous tools like discussion boards, blogs, and wikiscan be used to encourage the exploration of learner-centered topics and the sharingof detailed narratives, allowing learners to position their experience and negotiatedeeper understanding in a self-paced manner with each other. Asynchronous tools

310 G. Lawrence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

can also give educators and learners the time to respond, to assess and target learn-ing, to analyze examples of interactions in the face-to-face classroom as outlinedbelow. Such tools can also allow the teacher to more deeply explore the interculturalnature of communication processes with her or his learners, examining potentialinterpretations of interactions, different responses and using this time to build inter-cultural communicative competence.

As illustrated in the Potts’ (2005) study, personal narratives encouragedself-reflection and allowed students to locate themselves in a position of expertise.Students wrote about topics with which they had intimate experience, combiningexperience with formal knowledge to support their assertions about language learn-ing and leveraging their expertise to position themselves within the community.O’Dowd (2003) also found that students engaging in dialogic interaction with part-ners about their home and target cultures resulted in increased intercultural aware-ness. Activities and interactions that encourage critical reflection on learners’ owncultures were also found to result in increased intercultural communicative compe-tence. Building on the pre-exchange work, educators can use this early interactionperiod to work with learners to develop questioning techniques that encourage feed-back and reflection from partners on a range of intercultural topics while buildingrelationships. This is also an ideal time for educators to validate and guide learnercontributions in online interactions, debriefing any questions and challenges in theonline and classroom contexts.

Actively intercultural work

The third area in this working model is the need to maximize intercultural learningopportunities throughout the online collaboration process. Proactively using a rangeof approaches tailored to learner language levels and needs that build on preparatorywork and include analyzing rich points can help deepen intercultural learning. Richpoints (Agar 2006) are described as departures from an outsider’s expectations thatsignal an intercultural difference. These can include intercultural miscommunication,differing perspectives, beliefs or communication styles that often result in a judg-ment or negative perception. As noted earlier, this is where a hybrid delivery formatcan help immensely as face-to-face mediated discussions of provocative points canoften help learners bring in topics/issues, seek, and validate alternate frames of refer-ence, build intercultural awareness and communication strategies. Müller-Hartmann(2000) suggests the value of collaboratively analyzing provocative online correspon-dence in class from the partner group while working in a hybrid delivery format.

In the Dubai–Canada telecollaborative exchange, we recognized that there weremany ‘rich points’ that could have been used as learning tools in the exchange butwere left unexplored. For example, a couple of Emirati students complained to theirteacher that the ‘Canadian’ students were ‘bossy and unfriendly’ because theywanted such quick feedback on their wiki writing. Such a statement could be decon-structed in the Emirati class, referring back to earlier preparatory work on stereo-types, discussing initial reactions, what informs those reactions, the range of reasonswhy some students may prefer quick responses to their wiki writing work and differ-ent expectations around e-communication. If response time norms had not beennegotiated earlier, this may be a good time for teachers to make this a discussiontopic for the group – having them discuss (possibly interview each other about) dif-ferent perceptions around time in e-communication and the experiences and factors

Intercultural Education 311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

that shape those perceptions. Educators may want to set up an online space encour-aging learners to post/share questions and potential responses that are intercultural innature, e.g. What causes different expectations around time in online communica-tion? Why do expectations differ around time in online communication?

In this stage, educators have a role to actively monitor online interactions, checkin with learners, revisit culture general learning principles, introduce relevant inter-cultural learning topics, and to encourage rich point sharing in a nonthreateningmanner. At this point of the project, educators need to develop a certain degree ofonline collaborative competence (O’Dowd and Ware 2008) to scaffold learning anddiscussions in such online environments. Such intercultural rich point analysis canbe done as a part of the collaboration, encouraging students and educators tobecome language-and-culture explorers and to have a discussion area where ‘richpoints’ and intercultural topics are actively shared and discussed. Educators can usethe D.I.E. + K. (adding the K – knowledge component) approach where learnersdescribe the event/topic, then work to see multiple interpretations (perspective shift-ing) and decide on what knowledge would help the individual/group come to a moreinformed evaluation about this topic/event. Such work with intercultural analysisthat examines the deeper layers of culture (such as beliefs and values embedded incommunication) can help activate and enrich the culture general learning undertakenin the pre-exchange period. This can also help avoid the ‘dangerous incompleteness’(Hadley 2001) of culture learning where phenomenon is viewed from a more ethno-centric, surface-level perspective.

In their text discussing strategies to work with the intercultural dimension in lan-guage teaching, DeCapua and Wintergerst (2004, 28) argue that the teacher’s role isto help learners become aware of the role of culture in shaping interpretations ofone’s self and others and to enable learners with ‘different ways of seeing’. Such arelational, reflective approach to culture-and-language learning enables learners (andeducators) to reflect on themselves as culturally constructed beings while simulta-neously developing an ethnorelative approach to intercultural interaction. Kramsch(1998) also argues for a dialogic, relational approach to intercultural language learn-ing, suggesting that cultural knowledge should be co-constructed on its own terms.She suggests exploring the varied contexts of student responses to a specific culturalphenomenon (i.e. a story, an article, a piece of music, artwork). The teacher shouldnot impose her or his own interpretation but let students see how their peers interpretthe phenomenon and encourage curiosity and openness about these interpretations,offering intercultural support where needed. Again this is where preparatory intercul-tural work and communicative guidelines negotiated in the pre- and early-collabora-tion periods of the project can help support intercultural learning.

Conclusion

ICT-mediated intercultural language learning collaborations offer language learnersrich opportunities to build language acquisition, intercultural knowledge and todevelop meaningful relationships with people of other languages and cultures.Focusing on the intercultural dimension in online language teaching/learning buildstwenty-first century communication skills and adds a humanistic focus to the lan-guage learning process – a unique relevance that only ‘language’ classes can offer.However, the learning potential of these intercultural collaborations greatly dependson the pedagogical structure supporting them. As educators who have used com-

312 G. Lawrence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

puter-based approaches know, the ‘wow’ factor of these continually emerging tech-nology-mediated approaches can only take us so far. I hope this pedagogical work-ing model will help advance thought around strategies to more fully engage learnersin the exciting and very relevant intercultural learning that language teaching canoffer. As one Canadian French language student said in an e-newsletter collaborationwith peers in France and Haiti, ‘The project was great. It made me so curious aboutthese people and places. I can’t wait to learn more and hopefully visit some day.’

Notes1. Low context communication tends to rely on communicating directly through explicit

verbal messages, whereas high context communication tends to convey the messagemore implicitly through what has not been said and using a range of contextual, some-times nonverbal cues (Hall 1976).

2. The D.I.E. activity is an intercultural activity that helps learners develop strategies to sus-pend judgment and describe a situation, seeking multiple interpretations before arrivingat an evaluation. See http://www.intercultural.org/tools.php for explicit guidelines onhow to use this activity.

Notes on contributorsGeoff Lawrence is a teacher educator, researcher, and curriculum designer interested inexploring the potential of intercultural learning in online- and classroom-based languageteaching and teacher education. As an assistant professor in the Department of Languages,Literatures and Linguistics at York University, his research and publications examine theimpact of teacher beliefs on the use of computer-mediated language learning and strategies tofoster intercultural competence in language teaching and teaching education.

ReferencesACTFL. 2007. “Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century.”

Accessed January 19. http://www.actfl.org/files/public/execsumm.pdf.Agar, M. 2006. “Culture: Can You Take It Anywhere?” International Journal of Qualitative

Methods 5 (2) Accessed June 3, 2009. http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_2/pdf/agar.pdf.

Alberta Education. 2009. “Italian Language and Culture Guide to Implementation.” AccessedJune 4. http://education.alberta.ca/teachers/program/interlang.aspx.

Belz, J. A. 2002. “Social Dimensions of Telecollaborative Foreign Language Study.” Lan-guage Learning & Technology 6 (1): 60–81. Accessed December 13, 2011. http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/BELZ/.

Bennett, M. J. 2009. “Developing Intercultural Skills in the Second Language Classroom.”Paper presented at CASLT 2009: Language Without Borders, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Byram, M. 1997. “Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence.”Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Byram, M., B. Gribkova, and H. Starkey. 2002. Developing the Intercultural Dimension inLanguage Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

DeCapua, A., and A. C. Wintergerst. 2004. Crossing Cultures in the Language Classroom.Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. 2007. “Creating a Motivating Classroom Environment.” In International Hand-book of English Language Teaching. 2Vols. edited by J. Cummins and C. Davison, 719–731. New York: Springer.

Hadley, A. O. 2001. Teaching Language in Context. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Hall, E. T. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor.Kern, R. 2000. Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Intercultural Education 313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Kramsch, C. 1998. “The Privilege of the Intercultural Speaker.” In Language Learning inIntercultural Perspective, edited by M. Byram and M. Fleming, 16–31. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Kramsch, C., and S. Thorne. 2002. “Foreign Language Learning as Global CommunicativePractice.” In Language Learning and Teaching in the Age of Globalization, edited by D.Block and D. Cameron, 83–100. London: Routledge.

Lawrence, G. P. J. 2010. “Learning about Otherness: a Comparative Analysis of CultureTeaching and Its Impact in International Language Teacher Preparation.” PhD diss., Uni-versity of Toronto.

Lawrence, G., C. Young, H. Owen, and C. Compton. 2009. “Using Wikis for CollaborativeWriting and Intercultural Learning.” In Authenticity in the Adult Language Classroom,edited by M. Dantas-Whitney and S. Rilling, 199–212. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Müller-Hartmann, A. 2000. “The Role of Tasks in Promoting Intercultural Learning inElectronic Learning Networks.” Language Learning & Technology 4 (2): 129–147.Accessed December 6, 2011. http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/muller/default.html.

Norton, B. 2006. “Identity as a Sociocultural Construct in Second Language Research.”Edited by K. Cadman and K. O’Regan. TESOL in Context [Special Issue]: 22–33.

O’Dowd, R. 2003. “Understanding ‘the Other side’: Intercultural Learning in a Spanish–Eng-lish e-Mail Exchange.” Language Learning & Technology 7 (2): 118–144. AccessedDecember 6, 2011. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/odowd/default.html.

O’Dowd, R. 2007. Online Intercultural Exchange: an Introduction for Foreign LanguageTeachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

O’Dowd, R., and K. Eberbach. 2004. “Guides on the Side? Tasks and Challenges for Teach-ers in Telecollaborative Projects.” ReCALL 16 (1): 129–144.

O’Dowd, R., and M. Ritter. 2006. “Understanding and Working with ‘Failed Communica-tion’ in Telecollaborative Exchanges.” CALICO Journal 23 (3): 623–642.

O’Dowd, R., and P. Ware. 2008. “Peer Feedback on Language Form in International Telecol-laboration.” Language Learning & Technology 12 (1): 43–63.

Potts, D. 2005. “Pedagogy, Purpose, and the Second Language Learner in On-line Communi-ties.” The Canadian Modern Language Review 62 (1): 137–160.

Thorne, S. L. 2003. “Artifacts and Cultures-of-Use in Intercultural Communication.” Lan-guage Learning and Technology 7 (2): 38–67. Accessed October 17, 2004. http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html.

Ting-Toomey, S., and L. C. Chung. 2012. Understanding Intercultural Communication. 2nded. New York: Oxford University Press.

Turnbull, M., and G. P. J. Lawrence. 2003. “Core French Teachers and Technology: Class-room Application and Belief Systems.” The Journal of Educational Thought/Revue DeLa Pensée Educative 37 (3): 303–328.

Ware, P. 2005. “‘Missed’ Communication in Online Communication: Tensions in a German-American Telecollaboration.” Language Learning & Technology 9 (2): 64–89.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

314 G. Lawrence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:54

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14