While computer-mediated communication and online exchanges between students in second language (L2) pedagogy and research has long been established, recent technological advances have seen a growth in the number of projects undertaken and consequently studies published. This study utilized a mixed-methods approach to measure the effects on specific aspects of motivation for students learning English following a 10-week, multicultural virtual exchange project. Participants interacted both synchronously and asynchronously with other non-native English speakers from 10 different countries to make friends, share cultural interests, and practice English in a real-world, non-classroom setting. At the end of the project, participants were asked to complete a survey based on Dörnyei’s concept of the L2 motivational self system and Yashima’s theories on international posture about how their motivations for learning English had changed. The study suggests that extended interactions in a virtual exchange improve participants’ view of themselves as capable speakers, their motivation to become better speakers for their ideal future, and give them a broader perspective on their view of their place in the wider world. In contrast, motivations for learning English as a responsibility towards others were decreased.
AkiyamaY.CunninghamD.J. (2017). Synthesizing the practice of SCMC-based telecollaboration: A scoping review. CALICO Journal, 35, 49–76.
2.
Albá-DuranJ.FelceC.Fernández GutiérrezB., et al. (2020). The impact of virtual exchange on student learning in higher education: EVOLVE project report. Erasmus.
3.
AvgoustiM.I. (2018). Intercultural communicative competence and online exchanges: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31, 819–853.
4.
BelzJ.KingingerC. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case Studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 189–214.
5.
BelzJ.A. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL, 13, 213–231.
6.
BelzJ.A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 68–99.
7.
BrownJ.D. (1997). Testing in language programs. Prentice Hall Regents.
8.
ByramM. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
9.
CamererR. (2014). Testing intercultural competence in (International) English: Some basic questions and suggested answers. Language Learning in Higher Education, 4, 207–236.
10.
ClémentR.KruidenierB.G. (1983). Orientations in second language acquisition: I. The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence. Language Learning, 33, 273–291.
11.
Coetzee-Van RooyS. (2006). Integrativeness: Untenable for world Englishes learners?World Englishes, 25, 437–450.
12.
Cultura. (n.d.). Welcome to Cultura. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at: https://cultura.mit.edu (accessed January 2023).
13.
DoolyM.HauckM. (2012). Researching multimodal communicative competence in video and audio telecollaborative encounters. In: DoolyM.O’DowdR. (Eds.), Researching online interaction and exchange in foreign language education. Telecollaboration in Education: Volume 3 (pp. 135–162). Peter Lang.
14.
DoolyM.VinagreM. (2022). Research into practice: Virtual exchange in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 55, 392–406.
15.
DörnyeiZ. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
DörnyeiZ. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters.
17.
DörnyeiZ.CsizérK. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23, 421–462.
18.
FantiniA.E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In DeardorffD.K. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 456–476). Sage.
19.
GardnerR.LambertW. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266–272.
20.
GruberA.BaileyA.C. (2021). Examining EFL students’ pluricultural and plurilingual development during intercultural virtual exchanges between Colombia and Germany. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 11, 14–29.
21.
GuthS.HelmF. (2010). The multifarious goals of telecollaboration 2.0: Theoretical and practical implications. In GuthS.HelmF. (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0 (pp. 69–106). Peter Lang.
22.
GutiérrezB.O’DowdR. (2021). Virtual exchange: Connecting language learners in online intercultural collaborative learning. In BeavenT.Rosell-AguilarF. (Eds.), Innovative language pedagogy report (pp. 17–22). Research-publishing.net.
23.
HagleyE. (2020). Effects of virtual exchange in the EFL classroom on students’ cultural and intercultural sensitivity. Computer Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 21, 74–87.
24.
HagleyE.ThomsonH. (2017). Virtual exchange: Providing international conversational opportunities for learners of English as a foreign language. Hokkaido Journal of Language and Culture, 15, 1–10.
25.
HigginsE. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.
26.
JenkinsJ. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University Press.
27.
KarrosD.J. (1997). Statistical methodology: II. Reliability and validity assessment in study design, Part B. Academic Emergency Medicine, 4, 144–147.
28.
KelsenB.FlowersS. (2017). Personality and participation in a Japan–Taiwan online intercultural exchange. JALT CALL Journal, 13, 147–164.
29.
KormosJ.CsizérK. (2014). The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and autonomous learning behaviour in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 275–299.
30.
LambM. (2004). Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System, 32, 3–19.
31.
LankshearC.KnobelM. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning. 2nd edition.Open University Press.
32.
LeeJ.S.LeeK. (2019). Affective factors, virtual intercultural experiences, and L2 willingness to communicate in in-class, out-of-class, and digital settings. Language Teaching Research, 24, 813–833.
33.
LeeJ.S.LeeK.Chen HsiehJ. (2019). Understanding willingness to communicate in L2 between Korean and Taiwanese students. Language Teaching Research, 26, 455–476.
LiddicoatA. (2004). Intercultural language teaching: Principles for practice. New Zealand Language Teacher, 30, 17–24.
36.
LiddicoatA.J. (2008). Pedagogical practice for integrating the intercultural in language teaching and learning. Japanese Studies, 28, 277–290.
37.
MaiT.T.P.WiestG.M.NguyenN.D. (2020). Asynchronous video-based discussion for the enhancement of intercultural competence among Vietnamese non-English majors. Computer Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 21, 159–174.
38.
MarkusH.NuriusP. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.
39.
MillsN. (2011). Situated learning through social networking communities: The development of joint enterprises, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire. CALICO Journal, 28, 345–368.
40.
O’DowdR. (2011). Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign language education?Language Teaching, 44, 368–380.
41.
O’DowdR. (2012). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. In JacksonJ. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 342–358). Routledge.
42.
O’DowdR. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the-art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 1, 1–23.
43.
O’DowdR. (2021). What do students learn in virtual exchange? A qualitative content analysis of learning outcomes across multiple exchanges. International Journal of Educational Research, 109, 101804.
44.
O’DowdR.RitterM. (2013). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23, 623–642.
45.
Orsini-JonesM.LeeF. (2018). Intercultural communicative competence for global citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan.
46.
PuschM.D. (2009). The interculturally competent global leader. In DeardorffD.K. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 66–84). Sage.
47.
SchenkerT. (2013). The effects of a virtual exchange on students’ interest in learning about culture. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 491–507.
48.
TaguchiT.MagidM.PapiM. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian Learners of English: A comparative study. In DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66–97). Multilingual Matters.
49.
ThorneS.L. (2010). The ‘intercultural turn’ and language learning in the crucible of new media. In GuthS.HelmF. (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies, and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 139–163). Peter Lang.
50.
ToyamaM.YamazakiY. (2020). Examining the measurement model of international posture and how it relates to personality traits. SAGE Open, 10(4).
51.
WareP. (2005). ‘Missed’ communication in online communication: Tensions in a German–American telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 9, 64–89.
52.
YashimaT. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
