Content uploaded by Shinji Okumura
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shinji Okumura on Mar 24, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Shinji Okumura
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shinji Okumura on Mar 24, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
−1−
Introduction
In an English as a foreign language (EFL) setting, it is critical for learners to immerse themselves in situations
that entail authentic English language use in order to enhance their English skills (Ellis, 2008). However, the
creation of such opportunities in EFL classrooms is often dicult or limited, especially in Asia, due to a
shortage of native-speaking English teachers (NSETs). One signicant reason is that there is an increasing
interest in employing NSETs in Asian countries, and they are in high demand (Jeon & Lee, 2006; Copland et
al., 2020). Nevertheless, Web 2.0 technology including blogs and social networking sites (SNSs) has
signicantly lessened such barriers. Specically, telecollaboration using SNSs allows EFL learners to
communicate and collaborate online with native English speakers (NESs) easily in the present global
communities.
Belz (2003, p. 2) denes telecollaboration as “institutionalized, electronically mediated intercultural
communication under the guidance of a languacultural expert (i.e., a teacher) for the purposes of foreign
language learning and the development of intercultural competence.” O’Dowd (2011, p. 342) additionally
describes telecollaboration as “the application of online communication tools to bring together classes of
language learners in geographically distant locations to develop their foreign language skills and intercultural
competence through collaborative tasks and project work.”
Toward Successful Telecollaboration Using SNSs in EFL Instruction:
What Elements Should Be Incorporated and Considered?
Shinji Okumura
Abstract
Telecollaboration using social networking sites (SNSs) allows students learning English as a foreign
language (EFL) to communicate and collaborate online with native English speakers (NESs) easily
in the present global communities. Furthermore, researchers realize that telecollaboration
contributes to cultivating learners’ intercultural understanding, developing foreign language skills,
and activating learner autonomy. There is a risk of practitioners facing several unforeseen obstacles
during the process of designing telecollaborative projects; however, these diculties can be solved
with careful consideration and planning. This paper therefore presents important elements that
contribute to successful telecollaboration in EFL teaching and learning, highlighting asynchronous
text-based telecollaboration using SNSs that are user-friendly and allow the promotion of close
relationships between peers. The paper further describes critical components in the three program
phases—preparation, implementation, and assessment.
Keywords: computer assisted language learning, EFL, Web 2.0 technology, social networking,
telecollaboration
−2−
Shinji Okumura：
Toward Successful Telecollaboration Using SNSs in EFL Instruction: What Elements Should
Be Incorporated and Considered?
Telecollaboration models can be categorized as monolingual, where only one language is used in the
exchange; bilingual, where both languages are used by the exchange partners; and multilingual, where more
than two languages are used (Anikinaa et al., 2015). Furthermore, telecollaboration can be conducted either
synchronously or asynchronously. Synchronous telecollaboration is any real-time interaction that involves text-
based online chat and audio/video meeting functionality. Asynchronous telecollaboration is any time-delayed
communication, which includes email, mailing lists, discussion forums, and SNSs. Another dichotomy involves
the relationship between oral and textual counterparts. Oral telecollaboration is often connected to its
synchronous counterpart through video conference systems such as Zoom and Google Meet. However, when
students exchange videos that include spoken English, the dialogue can be considered a type of asynchronous
oral telecollaboration.
In the literature of computer assisted language learning (CALL), it is often emphasized that
telecollaboration can stimulate students’ intercultural competence (Kabilan et al., 2010; Klimanova &
Dembovskaya, 2010; Lee & Markey, 2014; Liaw & Bunn-Le Master, 2010; Dugartsyrenova & Sardegna,
2019). Moreover, many previous studies have asserted that it can help develop English language skills (Lee,
2004; Pinkman, 2005; Chen & Brown, 2012; Gardner, 2013) and nurture autonomy in language learning
(O’Dowd, 2007; O’Dowd & Waire, 2009; Coutinho, 2016). In this way, telecollaboration serves as a benecial
tool for foreign language teaching and learning.
While there is a risk of practitioners facing several unforeseen obstacles when designing
telecollaborative projects, the diculties could be solved with careful consideration and planning (Toscu,
2021). As an increasing number of language instructors are currently interested in telecollaboration (Wicking
et al., 2021), it is appropriate to oer guidelines on establishing and running such projects (Ha, 2014). This
paper consequently highlights several elements that contribute signicantly to successful telecollaboration in
EFL teaching and learning. In particular, the paper underscores asynchronous text-based telecollaboration
using SNSs. The reasons for this emphasis are that asynchronous projects allow the promotion of close
relationships between peers in comparison with synchronous projects (Hauck & Youngs, 2008), and that SNSs
involve the feature of user-friendliness. This article further discusses what elements should be incorporated and
considered in the three program phases; namely, preparation, implementation, and review.
How to prepare for a telecollaborative project?
Finding appropriate collaborators
Finding suitable collaborators for telecollaboration is vital as the initial step. A partnership in telecollaboration
is essential to evaluate the degree of success of a project (Ha, 2014), yet nding an appropriate partner is not an
easy task (Ramírez-Lizcano & Cabrera-Tovar, 2020). Contacting acquaintances who are instructors in English-
speaking countries and proposing a telecollaborative project can be a productive rst eort. Alternatively, it is
possible to get to know many EFL instructors at international conferences, which may create an opportunity to
move forward with a telecollaboration project with them (Wicking et al, 2021). Furthermore, instructors can be
found through associated platforms such as UNICollaboration (http://uni-collaboration.org), which is
specically dedicated to this type of partnering in higher education. Other projects such as Cultura (https://
cultura.mit.edu), iEarn (https://iearn.org), Global Nomads (https://gng.org), Soliya (https://www.soliya.net),
and Sharing Perspectives (https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com) provide resources for teachers, including
−3−
文教大学情報学部『情報研究』第 65 号 2022 年1月
ideas and materials (O’Dowd, 2018). Specically for English language teachers, forums like EnglishClub
(https://www.englishclub.com) or English Forward (https://www.englishforums.com) oer valuable
opportunities for communicating and exchanging ideas and know-how in English language teaching and
sharing learning with other teachers. Without question, it is critical to build reliable and steady partnerships
between collaborating teachers when conducting a telecollaborative project (O’Dowd, 2013).
Making a schedule
The duration and frequency of telecollaboration are closely tied to the academic schedule of the instructors’
classes. Instructors need to take into account their academic schedules because they vary by country or region.
Considering the dierences in schedule, they need to choose an overlapping time frame that coincides in order
for the two institutions to implement a telecollaborative project. It might be prudent to suggest beginning with
a less-ambitious pilot such as a one-time event or a limited series of events before moving on to more
comprehensive, large-scale schemes. After deciding on a clear schedule of telecollaboration, it is necessary to
inform students of the activity schedule so that they have expectations about the activity and can prepare
properly to maximize the learning benets.
Considering student relationships
It can be convincingly argued that the native and non-native relationship has the most signicant impact on
EFL learning since NESs have abundant linguistic and cultural knowledge. Telecollaboration can stimulate
non-native speakers to improve their language skills by interacting with native speakers of the target language
(Díez-Bedmar & Pérez-Paredes, 2012; Helm, 2015). In addition, establishing personal connections via
telecollaboration is a signicant contributor to the creation of a positive learning environment (Mazer et al.,
2007). Conversely, Boyd and Elisson (2008) caution that personal relationships developed through SNSs are
typically deeply embedded in individuals’ personal lives, although SNSs allow people to connect online without
diculty. Therefore, there is concern as to what extent participants can establish a productive relationship
through telecollaboration using SNSs for the purpose of EFL learning. To solve this issue, it is ideal to match
groups of the same age (e.g., university students with university students) because it is relatively easy for
students of the same generation to share cultural perspectives (Toscu, 2021).
For successful telecollaboration, moreover, consideration should be given to whether students will
interact in pairs or in groups. Pair activities allow students to interact more closely with each other. Still, there
is a danger that communication breakdown will occur if one student does not engage enthusiastically in the
activity. When students interact in groups, meanwhile, such an issue is less likely to emerge. Should groups be
the preferred option, it is necessary to consider how many students to include in each group. It is recommended
that this be determined through discussions with the partner instructor.
Setting goals
Establishing clear and realistic goals for implementing telecollaboration is highly important to achieving
success in this scheme (Chun, 2015). Harris (1995) suggests that an online exchange activity should be tied
directly to the curriculum. In EFL learning, one of the main goals of telecollaboration is to develop English
skills (Kabilan, et al. 2010; Klimanova & Dembovskaya, 2010; Lee & Markey, 2014; Liaw & Bunn-Le Master,
−4−
Shinji Okumura：
Toward Successful Telecollaboration Using SNSs in EFL Instruction: What Elements Should
Be Incorporated and Considered?
2010; Dugartsyrenova & Sardegna, 2019). Instructors who wish to emphasize listening and speaking skills
should consider adopting synchronous telecollaboration using online video conference systems such as Zoom
and Google Meet. Nevertheless, time zone dierences between the participating countries can present a serious
challenge. Synchronous telecollaboration for students in the United States and the United Kingdom who are
communicating with students in Asian countries is especially dicult. As an alternative, students can record
and upload video clips that they narrate or in which they speak in English on the closed discussion board of an
educational SNS. This asynchronous activity is aimed at nurturing listening and speaking skills. If the focus is
on reading and writing skills, instructors can incorporate extensive use of the closed discussion board on an
educational SNS where students can share their posts in the written mode.
Another critical goal of telecollaboration is enhancement of intercultural understanding.Because
telecollaboration incorporates communication between participants from dierent places, it is a very powerful
tool to nurture participants’ intercultural competence (Mont & Masats, 2018). Similarly, telecollaboration can
oer a rich environment for participants to cultivate interculturality by devoting themselves to meaningful
authentic collaborative opportunities with native speakers, by learning and discussing cultural dierences, and
by developing relationships with one another (Izmaylova, 2017). Intercultural competence therefore appears to
be a major focus in the telecollaboration literature (Kabilan et al., 2010; Klimanova & Dembovskaya, 2010;
Lee & Markey, 2014; Liaw & Bunn-Le Master, 2010; Dugartsyrenova & Sardegna, 2019; Hirotani & Fujii,
2019). The ndings and implications of such studies will serve as useful resources when instructors seek to
establish telecollaborative projects highlighting the development of students’ intercultural competence.
Overall, developing both language skills and intercultural understanding is indispensable for teaching
EFL. For setting goals, instructors are encouraged to carefully consider which skills they wish to highlight in
curriculum-based telecollaboration. In addition, they need to explain the aim of telecollaboration to the
participants before a project launches (Dooly, 2008).
Developing content
When instructors develop the content of a telecollaborative project, it is worth considering incorporating
project-based learning (PBL), which is a teaching method that can enhance purposeful communication. Krajcik
et al. (2008) dened PBL as a constructivist approach that highlights inquiry-based active learning through
collaborative group interaction and results in valuable outcomes that are meaningful for the learners as well as
for society. PBL is a useful approach to incorporating technology into the curriculum, as it helps students apply
what they learn to real-life experiences and delivers a multipurpose inspiring education (Edutopia, 2008). In
telecollaboration that adopts PBL, it might be interesting to assign topics related to social or global issues that
concern people everywhere. With such topics, participants will be encouraged to express their opinions and
share their ideas about global issues through telecollaboration.
Selecting Platforms
When considering which SNS to select, instructors must evaluate which applications are most suitable for
telecollaboration in the given educational settings. Facebook may come to mind rst, as it is currently the most
popular SNS globally: People in all parts of the world enjoy communicating with others on Facebook. As a
popular and familiar SNS, Facebook has potential as an eective online site for EFL learning and related online
−5−
文教大学情報学部『情報研究』第 65 号 2022 年1月
educational discussions (Abrahim et al., 2018). However, there are concerns that personal information may be
disclosed to unfamiliar people and that unscreened strangers may make friend requests on Facebook.
For the safety and security of participating students, it is recommended that instructors use education-
oriented SNSs such as Edmodo (https://new.edmodo.com), Eliademy (https://eliademy.weebly.com), and
Twiducate (https://www.livelingua.com/twiducate). Unlike Facebook, access to such educational sites is
allowed only for registered students and teachers, with students joining a particular online learning community
established by the teacher. Furthermore, with an educational SNS, teachers can conveniently monitor student
engagement and evaluate learning performance more easily than would be the case if, for example, email were
the main means of student interaction.
Educational SNSs oer various teacher-friendly functions, including posting assignments and
reminders. Students, meanwhile, can engage in discussions on the message board, submit homework, and
interact with their teacher. By sharing the assigned group code with teachers and students in the participating
countries, it is possible to conduct telecollaboration activities that involve the global community and help
cultivate students’ intercultural competence (Okumura, 2020).
In addition, educational SNSs can be used with smartphones once the application software is
downloaded. The use of mobile devices appeals to students who are digital natives; many of them already enjoy
communicating with friends or acquaintances using a variety of messaging applications such as Instagram and
WhatsApp. Thus, for members of the younger generation, telecollaboration through educational SNSs on
smartphones is likely to be a preferred learning mode. Similarly, the mobility of smartphones can contribute to
developing new approaches that can nurture more personalized learning (Ros i Solé et al.,2010), as well as
cultivating learner autonomy in EFL learning.
What instructors should do in the implementation?
In a telecollaborative project, one of the instructor’s critical responsibilities is to maximize the outcome
(O’Dowd, 2011). In order to do this, the instructor should support student engagement and facilitate students’
interactions.
Supporting student engagement
During the implementation of telecollaboration, the instructors’ critical role includes assisting the students
(Ensor et al., 2017). The degree and amount of support may depend on the participating students’ language
level. For beginning level EFL students, in particular, it may be necessary to give them vocabulary and
expressions that they need in order to interact or to write what they want to say during the initial stages of
telecollaboration. Although EFL learners seem to look forward to interacting with NESs, they may also be
concerned about whether their English will be adequately understood. This is a particular concern for novice
EFL learners; hence, language support from EFL instructors is essential until students get used to interacting on
a SNS in English. Once they are comfortable with interactions during the telecollaborative activity, the students
will be expected to learn a variety of vocabulary and expressions from their partners’ English language use
(Díez-Bedmar & Pérez-Paredes, 2012).
−6−
Shinji Okumura：
Toward Successful Telecollaboration Using SNSs in EFL Instruction: What Elements Should
Be Incorporated and Considered?
Facilitating students’ interactions
Another important task for the instructors to carry out during the implementation phase is facilitating
communication (Pennock-Speck & Clavel-Arroitia, 2015). When using educational SNSs in particular, the
instructor and partnering teacher can monitor all student work on the discussion board of the platform, which
is limited to participating instructors and students. Similarly, instructors are able to ascertain the frequency of
student interactions. Ideally, students are actively posting and commenting, and their counterparts are replying
to the posts on a regular and timely basis on the discussion board. If some students are sending or receiving few
comments, the instructor may want to encourage them to pay closer attention to the telecollaboration and
facilitate their communication on the discussion board.
What elements are signicant for assessment of students’ progress?
Formative assessment
Evaluation of students’ engagement in a telecollaborative project is a complicated, still-fundamental issue
(Helm, 2015). As mentioned above, PBL is a useful way to establish the content of a telecollaborative project,
and accordingly, the instructor can use formative assessment in PBL, which is particularly suitable for
evaluating telecollaborative learning. Higgins et al., (2010, p. 5) dene formative assessment as “work that a
student carries out during a course for which they get feedback to improve their learning, whether marked or
not.” Additionally, Eberly Center, Carnegie Mellon University (2021) asserts that the purpose of formative
assessment is to observe student learning in order to deliver ongoing feedback that can be utilized by instructors
to develop their teaching and by students to enhance their learning.
One essential technique of formative assessment is the use of portfolios (Belz, 2002; O’Dowd, 2010;
Ware & O’Dowd, 2008), which can be dened as a purposeful collection of students’ work (Apple & Shimo,
2004). Using portfolios, it is possible to help students reect on their online interaction (Wicking et el., 2021)
and achievement (Howrey & Tanner, 2009). A portfolio can contain any piece of work produced as part of a
telecollaborative activity, including SNS postings and replies and video presentations (Wicking et al., 2021).
Using a test or a survey
As a dierent way to assess students’ performance in telecollaboration, it would be useful to apply characteristics
of summative assessment that is recognized as assessment of learning. For the assessment of EFL writing skill,
for instance, some scholars have incorporated the pre-test/post-test design in their telecollaboration using
Edmodo and found that the telecollaborative projects helped develop students’ writing skills (Noviana et al.,
2015; Shams-Abadi et al., 2015; Fauzi, 2017; Altunkaya & Ayrancı, 2020). Regarding the purpose of assessing
intercultural competence, a number of previous studies used the pre- and post-survey method in their
telecollaborative projects in order to evaluate each student’s progress (Schenkers, 2012; Hirotani & Fujii, 2019;
Katsumata & Guo, 2020). Their attempts serve as good models for instructors who are trying to adopt a test or
survey for assessment purposes.
In sum, several academics assessed students’ performance and attainment in telecollaboration
formatively and summatively. However, as O’Dowd (2010) states, it is vital to improve comprehensive
assessment models for telecollaborative projects. Instructors thus need to consider what components should be
assessed by which assessment tools.
−7−
文教大学情報学部『情報研究』第 65 号 2022 年1月
Conclusions
Although establishing a well-prepared telecollaborative project can be challenging for EFL instructors, previous
research has shown that doing so can provide protable opportunities to promote students’ intercultural
understanding, enhance English language skills, and activate learner autonomy. Furthermore, EFL instructions
with Web 2.0 technology can deliver more innovative learning opportunities in connection with the global
community when compared with traditional instructions within the classroom (Al-Kathiri, 2015). EFL
instructors need to arrange and prioritize these elements in order to develop an optimally eective
telecollaboration. Without question, preparing carefully, implementing a strong support framework, and
assessing students’ progress thoroughly are key factors for successful telecollaboration.
References
Abrahim, S, Mir, B. A, Suhara, H, & Sato, M. (2018). Exploring academic use of online social networking sites
(SNS) for language learning: Japanese students’ perceptions and attitudes towards Facebook. Journal
of Information Technology & Software Engineering, 8, 223.
Al-Kathiri, F. (2015). Beyond the classroom wall: Edmodo in Saudi secondary school EFL instruction, attitudes
and challenges. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 189-204.
Altunkaya, H., & Ayranci, B. (2020). The use of Edmodo in academic writing education. Journal of Language
and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 89-103. https://doi.org/10.17263/JLLS.712659
Anikinaa, Z., Sobinovaa, L., & Petrovab, G. (2015, November 9-11). Integrating telecollaboration into EFL
Classroom: Theoretical and practical implications [Paper presentation]. XV International
Conference, LKTI 2015, Tomsk, Russia.
Apple, M. & Shimo E. (2004, May 22-23). Learners to teacher: Portfolios, please! Perceptions of portfolio
assessment in EFL classrooms [Paper presentation]. The Interface Between Interlanguage, Pragmatics
and Assessment: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual JALT Pan-SIG Conference, Tokyo, Tokyo Keizai
University, Japan.
Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning &
Technology, 6(1), 60-81.
Belz, J. A. (2003). From the special issue editor. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 2-5.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Denition, history, and scholarship. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.
Chen, J. C. C. & Brown, K. L. (2012). The eects of authentic audience on English as a second language (ESL)
writers: A task-based, computer-mediated approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(5),
435-454.
Chun, D. M. (2015). Language and culture learning in higher education via telecollaboration. Pedagogies: An
International Journal, 10(1), 5-21.
Copland, F. Mann, S. & Garton, S. (2020). Native-English-speaking teachers: Disconnections between theory,
research, and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 54(2), 348-374.
Coutinho, M. (2016). Using a telecollaboration exchange Web 2.0 in a second language classroom. US-China
Education Review A, 6 (10), 603-609. DOI: 10.17265/2161-623X/2016.10. 004
−8−
Shinji Okumura：
Toward Successful Telecollaboration Using SNSs in EFL Instruction: What Elements Should
Be Incorporated and Considered?
Díez-Bedmar, M.B., & Pérez-Paredes, P. (2012). The types and eects of peer native speakers’ feedback on
CMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 62-90.
Dooly, M. (2008). Constructing knowledge together. In M. Dooly (Ed.), Telecollaborative language learning: A
guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online (pp. 21-44). Bern: Peter Lang
Dugartsyrenova, V.A. & Sardegna, V.G. (2019). Raising intercultural awareness through voice-based
telecollaboration: perceptions, uses, and recommendations. Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 13(3), 205-220.
Eberly Center, Carnegie Melon University (2021). What is the dierence between formative and summative
assessment? Retrieved from https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/basics/formative-summative.
html
Edutopia (2008, February 28) Why teach with project-based learning?: Providing students with a well-rounded
classroom experience. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/project-learning-introduction
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ensor, S., Kleban, M., & Rodrigues, C. (2017). Telecollaboration: foreign language teachers (re)dening their
role. Alsic, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.4000/alsic.3140
Fauzi, A. (2017). The eect of Edmodo on students’ writing skill in recount text. International Journal of
Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 1(2), 73-79.
Gardner, M. (2013). Social media and peer review: Edmodo in the composition classroom. [Unpublished master’s
thesis] Kennesaw State University.
Ha, M-J. (2014). Rethinking critical issues in telecollaborative course design. Advanced Science and Technology
Letters, 59, 67-70.
Harris, J. (1995). Organizing and facilitating telecollaborative projects. The Computing Teacher, 22(5), 66-69.
Hauk, M., & Youngs, B. (2008). Telecollaboration in multimodal environments: The impact on task design
and learner interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 87-124. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09588220801943510
Helm, F. (2015). The practices and challenges of telecollaboration in higher education in Europe. Language
Learning & Technology, 19(2), 197-217.
Higgins, M., Grant, F., & Thompson, P. (2010). Formative assessment: Balancing educational eectiveness and
resource eciency. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 5(2), 4-24. DOI: 10.11120/
jebe.2010.05020004
Hirotani, M. & Fujii, K. (2019). Learning proverbs through telecollaboration with Japanese native speakers:
facilitating L2 learners’ intercultural communicative competence. Asian-Pacic Journal of Second and
Foreign Language Education, 4(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-019-0067-5
Howrey, J. D., & Tanner, P. (2008). Writing portfolios: Empowering students, teachers, and the curriculum. JALT
2008 Conference Proceedings (1157-1167).
http://jalt-publications.org/recentpdf/proceedings/2008/E087.pdf
Izmaylova, A. R. (2017). Using social media to develop intercultural competence through telecollaboration.
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Iowa.
Jeon, M. & Lee, J. (2006). Hiring native-speaking English teachers in East Asia countries. English Today, 22(4),
53-58.
−9−
文教大学情報学部『情報研究』第 65 号 2022 年1月
Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). “Facebook: An online environment for learning of English
in institutions of higher education?” The Internet and Higher Education, 13 (4), 179-187.
Katsumata, E. & Guo, S. (2020). Intercultural learning through a telecollaboration
project: Video conferences and presentations between Taiwanese and Japanese university students.
The Aoyama Journal of International Politics, Economics and Communication, 105, 1-24.
Klimanova, L., & Dembovskaya, S. (2010, September 8-11). Facebooking a la russe:Cross-cultural and
pedagogical challenges of social networking in the Russian (L2) Classroom [Paper presentation].
EuroCALL 2010 Conference, Bordeaux, France.
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L. M. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning goals-driven design model: Developing
curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science
Education, 92(1), 1-32. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20240
Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the
US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 83-100.
Lee, L. & Markey, A. (2014). A study of learners’ perceptions of online intercultural exchange through Web 2.0
technologies. ReCall, 26 (3), 281-297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000111
Liaw, M.L. & Bunn-Le Master, S. (2010). Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis of intercultural
discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 21-40.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E. & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on ‘Facebook’: The eect of computer mediated
teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, aective learning and classroom climate.
Communication Education, 56 (1) , 1-17.
Mont, M., & Masats, D. (2018). Tips and suggestions to implement telecollaborative projects with young learners.
In M. Dooley, R. O’Dowd (Eds.). In This Together Teachers’ Experiences with Transnational,
Telecollaborative Language Learning Projects (pp. 94-122). Bern: Peter Lang.
Noviana, O., Runus, A., & Bunau, E. (2015). The eective use of Edmodo in writing a narrative text in senior
high school. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 4(11), 3-16.
O’Dowd, R. (Ed.). (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
O’Dowd, R. (2010). Issues in the assessment of online interaction and exchange. Telecollaboration, 2, 337-360.
O’Dowd, R. (2011). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. In J. Jackson (Ed).
The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 342-358). New York:
Routledge.
O’Dowd, R. (2013). Telecollaborative networks in university higher education: Overcoming barriers to
integration. The Internet and Higher Education 18, 47-53. DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.02.001
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, 1, 1-23.
O’Dowd, R., & Waire, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 22(2), 173-188. DOI: 10.1080/09588220902778369
Okumura, S. (2020). Design and implementation of a telecollaboration project for primary school students to
trigger intercultural understanding, Intercultural Education, 31(4), 377-389, DOI:
10.1080/14675986.2020.1752546
−10 −
Shinji Okumura：
Toward Successful Telecollaboration Using SNSs in EFL Instruction: What Elements Should
Be Incorporated and Considered?
Ramírez-Lizcano, N., & Cabrera-Tovar, M. A. (2020). EFL learners’ perceptions about language learning and
culture when using telecollaboration. Prole: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 22(2), 95-
113. https://doi.org/10.15446/prole.v22n2.82213
Pennock-Speck, B. & Clavel-Arroitia, B. (2015). Analysis of teacher roles in TILA telecollaboration. TILA
Research Results on Telecollaboration, 131-137. http://www.tilaproject.eu/moodle/pluginfile.
php/2694/mod_page/content/15/TILA%20Research%20Results%20on%20Telecollaboration.pdf
Pinkman, K. (2005). Using blogs in the foreign classroom: Encouraging learner independence. JALT CALL
Journal, 1(1), 12-24.
Ros i Solé, C., Calic, J., & Neijmann, D. (2010). A social and self-reective approach to MALL. ReCALL,
22(1), 39-52.
Schenker, T. (2012). Intercultural competence and cultural learning through telecollaboration. CALICO
Journal, 29 (3), 449-470.
Shams-Abadi, B.B., Ahmadi, S.D., & Mehrdad, A.G. (2015). The eect of Edmodo on EFL learners’ writing
performance. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2(2), 88-97.
Toscu, S. (2021). Dos and don’ts of an eective telecollaboration project. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi
[Journal ofTheoretical Educational Science], 14(2), 202-222.
Ware, P., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning &
Technology, 12(1), 43-63.
Wicking, P., Barrera, J., & Suzuki, S. (2021). International virtual exchange: Task design, implementation and
assessment. Meijo University Journal of the Faculty of Foreign Studies, 4, 61-71.
