December 2006
Volume 10, Number 3

Contents  |   TESL-EJ Top

Intercultural Telecollaboration: In-Service EFL Teachers in Mexico and Pre-Service EFL Teachers in Turkey

Nancy Keranen
Benemérita Universidad Autonòma de Puebla, Mexico

Yasemin Bayyurt
Bogazici University, Turkey


This paper reports on the pairing of Spanish-speaking in-service teachers and Turkish-speaking pre-service teachers in a telecollaborative intercultural project in which English was used as a lingua franca. The authors of this paper were the course leaders. Participants' discourses were examined to understand how they communicated their cultures and whether they thought they had gained any cultural understanding from their interchanges. These data came from three sources:

  1. The exchanges on the online cultural rooms in the discussion board area,
  2. The students' final reports, and
  3. The course usage statistics.

As a challenge to O'Dowd's (2003) claim that such interchanges can end up as meaningless and superficial exercises, we demonstrate that they encourage people from different cultural backgrounds to develop and further their understanding of other cultures via such exchanges.


This paper reports on a practitioner ethnographic study on the building of intercultural awareness between two groups of adult university students, one in Mexico and one in Turkey [1]. The participants in Mexico were in-service English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers, and the participants in Turkey were pre-service EFL teachers. The course and our investigation were not directly related to English language learning. English was used as a lingua franca (Jenkins, 2005). Students from two languages other than English used English as the language of communication to build understanding of each others' cultures.

The pairing of two groups, without either being from an English-speaking country, seems to be rare in the literature of intercultural learning and telecollaboration. A review of the literature reveals that a majority of research articles in this area report on studies between an English-speaking country and a non-English-speaking country (Spanish-English: O'Dowd, 2003; German-English: Belz, 2002, M&uumul;ller-Hartmann, 2000, K&oumul;tter, 2003; Turkish-English: Sakar, 2001; Japanese-English: Gray & Stockwell, 1998; Belisle, 1996: Finnish-English: Tella & Mononen-Aaltonen, 1998, to mention just a few).

In addition, most of the studies cited above have to do with foreign language learning. Our inquiry was focused on culture and intercultural communication. We formulated two research questions to guide our exploration of the communication and building of cultural understanding between these two groups:

Theoretical Framework

We see our work as falling within three domains: Computer-mediated communication (CMC), intercultural communication, and intercultural communication through telecollaboration.

Computer Mediated Communication

As Erlich, Erlich-Phillip, and Gal-Ezer (2005) have summarized, to this date there have been many studies looking at the various aspects of CMC. Erlich et al. (2005) list numerous studies in this area, among the latest being Bork (2001); Hathorn and Ingram (2002); Hirumi (2002); Muirhead and Juwah (2004); Pahl (2003), and Rovai (2002). They also list studies that examine CMC in regard to its effectiveness in teaching and learning. They note that most research on CMC in higher education indicates that it is an effective medium for teaching and learning. The most recent studies in this area that they cite are Nachmias, Mioduser, Oren and Ram, (2000); Pena-Shaff and Nicholls, (2004); Selim, (2003); and Tolmie and Boyle, (2000).

Belz (2002) states that much of the literature on CMC focuses on issues related to pedagogy and course design of CMC programs. The most recent article of this nature that she cites is Warschauer and Kern (2000). Through Chapelle (2000), Belz establishes that to date, there have not been many studies examining social or cultural factors of students participating CMC or CALL, thus indicating a need for more studies looking at these particular features.

Intercultural Communication

In this study, asynchronous computer-mediated exchanges taking place on bulletin board discussions between these two cultural groups are analyzed in the light of the model of intercultural communication (IC) developed by Bennett (1998). To the best knowledge of the researchers, there are also other intercultural frameworks developed by experts in the fields of anthropology, sociology and sociolinguistics to understand how people interact in intercultural communication situations (e.g., Brislin & Yoshida, 1994; Scollon & Scollon, 2001; Spencer-Oatey & Jiang, 2003). For the purposes of this study, we chose Bennett's (1998) description of IC which gives description of the behavior of different cultures from different cultural backgrounds via examples from North America, Asia, Europe and Africa.

Bennett (1998) describes the concept of IC in a comparative perspective. First he defines the concept of "monocultural communication" as interaction that takes place between people from similar cultural backgrounds. He further points out that:

Common language, behavior patterns, and values form the base upon which members of a culture exchange meaning with one another in conducting their daily affairs. These similarities generally allow people to predict the responses of others to certain kinds of messages and to take for granted some basic shared assumptions about the nature of reality. (1998, pp. 2-3)

In monocultural communication difference is an indication of potential miscommunication, and is therefore not encouraged in the society. However, in IC difference is the basis of communication. People from different cultural backgrounds with different languages, different behavior patterns and values intermingle. As Bennett states:

Therefore, the difference is the base of IC. Even though there can be individuals who share similar beliefs with those from other cultures, the basis of IC is finding out the differences between two or more dissimilar cultures. In this study, we focus on how (or if) participants share their ideas and explore their differences in relation to their cultural backgrounds on asynchronous CMC.

Intercultural communication through telecollaboration

In her article on social dimensions of telecollaboration, Belz considers CALL from several perspectives. In a German-English telecollaborative project, she considers the "socially and institutionally contingent features of language valuation, computer know-how, Internet access, and learning accreditation and the micro-level features of situated classroom interaction and individual psycho-biography" (2002, p. 60).

In the same article, she defines telecollaboration. According to Kinginger, Gourves-Hayward, and Simpson, and Warschauer (as cited in Belz, 2002), telecollaboration is the use of worldwide computer networks between remotely located pairs or groups of participants. The advantages of using telecollaboration in building cultural and social understanding are obvious. However, Belz (2002) notes that those elements are underrepresented in CMC and CALL research literature. Although her research seeks to fill that gap, the focus is on language learning environments.

Similarly, O'Dowd (2003) establishes that there is a gap in the literature on building cultural understanding from CMC. He observes that there is little literature on whether online IC develops a learner's understanding of other cultures. He concedes, however, that the issue is beginning to be addressed in various studies (Belz, 2002; Belz & Kinginger, 2002; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002 [2]).

In a study investigating the effects of IC on building cultural awareness among people from different cultural backgrounds through e-mail exchanges, O'Dowd (2003) found that intercultural learning had taken place among the participants. He concludes that the factors responsible were the presence of a "receptive audience," the examination of cultures through others' eyes, and the understanding of the "products and practices" of the other culture (O'Dowd, 2003, p. 138). Although the present study differs from O'Dowd's, through an examination of various discourses, we find an indication of building of cultural understanding.


In this study, Richards' (2003) framework for qualitative data analysis is adapted.

The Participants

The Mexican participants in this study were 18 in-service EFL teachers (17 female, 1 male) finishing their bachelor's degrees in teaching English at a private university. Their ages ranged from 63 to 23. Their level of computer literacy was either beginner or intermediate, and their online communication skills were mainly text-based, ranging from exchanging e-mail messages to using chat rooms on the Internet.

The Turkish participants were junior-year undergraduate students (11 female, 4 male) studying in the department of Foreign Language Education at a state university. Initially, there were 25 students who registered in the online portion of their course. Fifteen of them actively participated in the discussion rooms. Their ages ranged from 21 to 28.The Turkish students participated in the project voluntarily; this project was an optional requirement of the course offered on the Turkish side of the study. The title of the course was 'Sociolinguistics and Education.' Cross-cultural/intercultural communication was a subcomponent. (It was not designed the same way as the course in the Mexican site.) The courses at both sites are explained in more detail below.

The Intercultural Communication Course in Mexico

In the Mexican context, the course related to this project was based on the course described by Straub (1999), using the text Communication and Cultural Transformation (Dahl, 2000). Straub's intercultural course involves two parts: the first looks at the home culture, and the second, after participants become aware of their own cultural features, involves intercultural exchanges.

The first part of the course helps students acquire the language they will need to talk about their cultures. The course "raises the participants' awareness" of their own "culture" by examining and talking about their culture (1999, Part One: Home Culture). Following the course, the Mexican participants analyzed five components their home culture: a definition of "culture," a definition of "human needs," a definition of "human behaviors," the concept of "friendship," and Mexican cultural symbols and rituals (1999, Part One: Home Culture).

For the first part of the course, Straub proposes twenty hours. However, due to time restrictions, the Mexican participants only had ten hours during two weeks to cover the material in the face-to-face component of the course. The first part was conducted in five one-hour sessions, during the first week of the term that is referred as the intensive week [3]. Because of the maturity of the participants and small size of the class, this part of the course was designed to be workshop sessions. Participants worked in groups of three or four to generate ideas about the areas in their own culture and then reported their opinions.

During the second week, students were assigned readings from Dahl's book, which was made available on an online course site. Five one-hour sessions were used to discuss and define the six chapters of the book. The sessions were conducted in an informal discussion format.

Once students were aware of these cultural features in their culture, we moved to another culture, the online part of the course. Participants for this part were recruited through messages sent to the online groups TESLCA-L and Webheads in Action. Responses were received from several people, including one from Turkey, which was selected for this project.

The Blackboard course management system (CMS) licensed to the university in Mexico was used. On the site, the discussion area was divided into seventeen "culture rooms." These rooms were modified from a list of cultural values identified on the AskAsia Web site ( The values are "commonly used to sensitize study groups going abroad" (AskAsia, n.d., Introduction). As an introduction to the areas, Mexican participants were asked initially to comment on and discuss in a class session these cultural values in their cultures.

The seventeen rooms were:

  1. Introduction Room: to identify yourself. Students shared information about their families, their homes, their jobs, their likes and dislikes and so on.
  2. Greetings and Gifts Room: to talk about greeting and leave taking rituals and gift giving behavior.
  3. Social Gatherings Room: to talk about customs related to what types of social gatherings cultures have and behavior associated with those types of gatherings.
  4. Children Room: to talk about roles, attitudes towards, appreciation of, discipline of children.
  5. Literacy and Public Services Room: to talk about literacy rates, education and schools, and public services.
  6. Dress Codes and Taboos Room: to talk about forms of acceptable dress, traditional dress, and taboos associated with dress and public appearance and behavior.
  7. Eating and Food Customs Room: to talk about types of foods, regional specialties, and eating habits.
  8. Customer and Buying Customs Room: to talk about all those things associated with buying and selling.
  9. TV and Entertainment Room: to talk about types of TV programs and types of entertainment available.
  10. Drinking and Gambling Room: To talk about behaviors and attitudes associated with drinking of alcoholic beverages and gambling.
  11. Leisure and Work Room: to talk about what people do in their free time and customs and related features of work like average hours per week and average wages.
  12. Holidays Room: to talk about national, traditional, and religious holidays.
  13. Weddings, Marriage, and Divorce Room: to talk about traditions and customs related to the rituals of marriage and attitudes and tendencies towards divorce.
  14. Life Stages Rituals Room: to talk about rituals related to all the stages of life.
  15. Religion and Beliefs Room: to talk about dominant and minority religions found in the cultures as well as personal beliefs.
  16. Languages Room: to talk about native, second languages and indigenous languages found in the respective cultures.
  17. National Heroes Room: to talk about people considered heroes and why they are heroes.

The Intercultural Communication Course in Turkey

On the Turkish side of the project, the participants joined via "Fled 312 - Sociolinguistics and Education" (Fled 312), offered by a state university in Turkey. Fled 312 offered a general introduction to sociolinguistics. One of the subcomponents of the course covers IC as stated in the course syllabus (see Appendix D). Since it was one subcomponent, the Turkish participants were given the option of joining the study.

Another restriction on the Turkish side was the participants only joined the discussion rooms portion of the course on the Mexican site. The instructor let the students participate in the discussion rooms portion of the Mexican course as extra credit. In addition to voluntarily joining the discussion rooms, the instructor asked the students to write a final report on their impressions of the outcome of their discussions with their Mexican counterparts after the course was over.

Data Sources

Three different data sources were used:

  1. The online cultural rooms in the discussion board area,
  2. The students' final reports on their experience in the rooms, and
  3. The course usage statistics from the Blackboard site.

1) Discussion Rooms

For the final analysis, data from eight rooms that had interchanges from both groups - Dress Codes and Taboos, Eating and Food Customs, Children, Languages, National Heroes, Religion and Beliefs, TV and Entertainment, and Life Stages and Rituals - were examined.

The analysis entailed downloading the discussions from the Blackboard site to a word processing program, and then copying and pasting individual posts to files related to each room. Within the files, individual posts were put into three-column tables, and then numbered and labeled for the origin of the speaker. The coding of a post as belonging to category A, B, or C (explained below in Results), or any combination of those, was noted in the far right column. This arrangement made it easy to count features of the individual rooms (See Appendix A for a sample room coding). The posts were analyzed according to Richards' (2003) framework of qualitative data analysis.

2) Final Reports

Mexican participants were asked to write final room reports to summarize the discussions. Each student was assigned a room and was responsible for reporting on the discussion in that room. Eleven of the seventeen students completed their reports.

Fifteen Turkish participants contributed to the discussions. Eleven turned in their final reports. Final reports of the Turkish participants comprised opinions on their experience in these discussion rooms, including what they found interesting and surprising about other cultures. One main feature of the self-reports was to gain insights into the opinions about the nature of the Blackboard discussions.

3) Blackboard Course Statistics

Blackboard allows instructors to access certain statistical information related to course usage. In this study, statistics such as total access per area (communication, main content areas, group areas, student areas), number of accesses over time, accesses per hour of the day, accesses per day of the week, and total accesses per user were analyzed. The Blackboard course statistics were a data source that revealed additional useful information (see Appendix C for the course syllabus from the Mexican site).


The research questions that guide this inquiry are: 1) What are the characteristics of discourse that typify the intercultural communication of Mexican in-service and Turkish pre-service English teachers? And 2) Do the data sources indicate any perception on the part of the participants of an increase of cultural awareness as a result of the course? The following presents examples of the data in relation to the research questions from the three data sources previously discussed.

1) Discussion Rooms

From the discussion rooms, which are the main sources for the possible answers to our research questions, we identified three categories of discourse (A, B, and C) related to the IC of these two groups:

  1. An explanation of cultural features of their own cultures or specific sub-cultures [4]. The following are examples of type-A text:
  1. Asking for more clarification, participation, or information from participants from other cultures. The follow are examples of type-B text:
  1. Expressions of interest, personal feelings or opinions, pleasure, or surprise in response to other posts. The following are examples of type-C text:

Table 1 presents selected discussion rooms [5], showing the total number of posts for each room, the number of Mexican and Turkish posts, and the number of each post for each of the three categories (see Appendix A for a coding example for one of the rooms).

Table 1. Results from Eight Rooms







Children Room 33 29 4 23 2 28
Dress Codes and Taboos Room 35 30 5 28 4 21
Eating and Food Customs Room 37 30 7 32 4 25
Languages Room 14 13 1 10 3 9
Life Stages Rituals Room 12 11 1 9 2 6
National Heroes Room 11 7 4 9 1 1
Religion and Beliefs Room 14 12 2 12 3 9
TV and Entertainment Room 16 15 1 14 0 13
TOTALS 172 147 25 137 19 112
PERCENTAGES (in relation to total posts) 85.5 14.5 79.7 11.0 65.1


The first notable feature is the difference in participation between the Mexican and Turkish participants. The Mexican students posted the majority of messages (85.5%). There are several possible reasons for this. One is that the course for the Mexican students was designed around the concept of IC, with the discussion areas being a main feature of the course. For the Turkish students, participation was a secondary and voluntary part of a larger course on sociolinguistics. Additionally, the Mexican students were online and communicating with each other approximately two weeks before the Turkish students joined them. A possible third reason is that the Mexican participants had been in classes with each other before and knew each other fairly well. As a result, they felt perhaps less inhibited talking to each other.

The language categories showed several interesting numbers. Many of the posts showed features of more than one category. Most of the posts exemplified the type-A category (79.7%). It is reasonable that the A category would characterize majority of the posts, since the intention of the cultural rooms was to share cultural information.

The type-C category was the second most common post (65.1%). Type-B posts represented 11% of the total. There were 137 type-A posts and 131 type-B/C posts. The type-B/C posts exemplify a communicative purpose of attempting to engage another person in conversation and showing interest to encourage participation, asking questions to promote communication, and creating feelings of goodwill. The type-A posts might also have the same intention, but this feature seems clear in the B/C posts.

The discussion board posts demonstrate sharing of cultural features, a desire to extract more information from other participants and engage them in conversations, and features of demonstrating interest, expressions of personal opinion, and an overall willingness to share elements of the participants' cultures. Through these language elements, they built a sort of cultural understanding even if it may have been at a polite level and, as some might argue, a superficial level (see Conclusions).

Final Room Reports

The final reports of students also present this same attitude as found in the discussion boards. On the Mexican site, students were each assigned a room on which to report. (They were given a model for writing their reports). The reports were to be in the form of an essay with an introduction and conclusion. The report needed to mention the number of messages, who they were from, and in general, what was discussed and any interesting things the writer learned (see Appendix B).

Students generally followed the model, but some deviated into discussions of customs in other parts of the world. We found this in final papers from both groups. Students were encouraged to email other participants and ask for more information. A few did this.

The following examples summarize the characteristics found in the papers which helped in answering the research questions:

From the Introductions Room

All of the room reports had a kind of summary of usage:

From the Children Room

The author of this room report identified five areas of discussion: Segregation of children, different ways to express love, raising children, number of children in a family, and discipline and education. Within those subheadings, the author summarized what was said but did not identify the cultural origin of the information. Various comments in the report indicate that the exchanges were informative to some degree:

From the Dress Codes and Taboos Room

The author of this room report found that there was not enough material to write about:

The report shows items from the discussion board as well as information she got from other sources. In the example below she combines information from both sources. Chiapas was discussed in the rooms but Afghanistan was not:

The following customs about young people and body piercing was discussed in the boards:

The last comment about Atat&uumul;rk was information received as a result of asking for more information from the Turkish students. The final comment indicated, though, that the author's questions were not always answered. However, overall the experience was a positive one:

From the Languages Room

One student commented only on things learned from contributing to the room. This student might not have learned anything from the discussions, but did learn about his/her culture through the experience of having to report something to the others:

From the Life Stages and Rituals Room

The writer of this report commented on rituals familiar to people in Mexico but which were discussed in the room:

This author had to do further research to talk about Turkish wedding and funeral customs because they were not discussed at the level of detail included in the final report:

Excerpts from Turkish Final Reports

Turkish students were given the option of writing a report for extra credit. All of the reports expressed positive reactions and a heightening of cultural awareness. (The question remains as to how much of that happened to be genuine expression and how much was written trying to please the teacher. Probably it is a combination of both.)

We've identified seven categories into which most of the data from the papers fall. They follow with excerpts:

1) All of the writers expressed how much they liked the experience:

2) One of the interesting comments from a couple of the writers was about the discussion boards and their practice as teachers:

3) Some comments were related to how the discussion boards were useful for the participants as learners:

4) All of the writers gave examples of specific things they had learned:

5) Some students expressed how it felt to talk about their own culture:

6) Another feature we see in the Turkish students' reports is a noticing of similarities rather than differences:

7 ) Although we did not have participants from France, Holland or Spain, students talked about what they knew of greeting customs in those cultures:

There were no negative comments except for the following. This student was offended by something said in one of the discussion rooms:


Overall, the language in the papers expressed similar reactions to the discussion boards. Writers from both groups said that they liked the experience and that they thought it valuable. All gave specific examples of things they had learned about the other culture. Many expressed how it made them feel to share features of their cultures with others, and many said that they learned things about their own cultures from talking about them or from reading posts of other members of their groups. As in the case of the Turkish reports, some of the writers related their experience to their professions as teachers and as an aid to understanding some of their courses as students. Several of the Turkish students were impressed with the similarities between the cultures as opposed to the differences.

Blackboard Statistics

Fifty-seven percent of the areas accessed were in the communication areas. The other areas accessed were the main content areas where the syllabus, course instructions, course materials, and course text were located. The participants in Mexico were responsible for the majority of the site accesses. They had reasons to access areas other than the communication areas. Fridays and Saturdays had the most participation; although there were no days in the week when people didn't participate. Mondays were the days of least activity. The most common time of day was in the early afternoon, although there were accesses in a variety of times probably due to the differences in time between Mexico and Turkey. The numbers of times read for each post averaged 14.

The usage statistics show that in the asynchronous environment, participants took advantage of the flexibility of this medium by accessing the course in a variety of times and days according to their time constraints. And, most importantly, it shows that they were expending the effort to read a large quantity of posts.


Only one student mentioned being offended by a post. Other than that, the course seemed to be received by all the participants positively. Students seem to show that they achieved some kind of cultural understanding through the course and the discussion. One issue in the literature on CMC, IC, and telecollaboration, however, raises questions about such courses.

O'Dowd (2003) questions whether online IC leads to an understanding of other cultures. He cites research indicating that this type of interchange does not automatically lead to cultural understanding (Allport; Coleman; Fischer; and Richter, cited in O'Dowd, 2003). More recent literature, he states, has shown more support for building cultural understanding through this communication medium (Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet; Tella; and von der Emde, Schnieder, & K&oumul;tter, as cited in O'Dowd, 2003). But he comments that e-mail exchanges, "often result in little more than superficial pen-pal projects where information is exchanged without reflection and where students are rarely challenged to reflect on their own culture or their stereotypical views of the target culture" (O'Dowd, 2003, p. 121). To prevent this, he suggests that these types of interactions should be fully "integrated into the classroom" instruction that would involve students' reflection and analysis of what was happening in their online exchanges (O'Dowd, 2003, p. 121, citing M&uumul;eller-Hartmann, 2000).

One might argue that the conversations and interchanges of ideas in our study never moved beyond a sort of superficial level, and that real cultural learning cannot be achieved on that level. However, there might be a case for building a degree of understanding based on superficiality. Perhaps the most important result of this course was that no ill will was created as a result of the interchanges. In fact, it seems, based on the students' comments, a lot of good will towards the other cultures was generated and some cultural understanding was generated. In the time that we had together, we conclude that this is a positive and sufficient outcome for this course.

Areas for Further Research

New ideas emerged as a result of our collaboration, analyses, and discussions. We hope in a future study to give a country/cultural pre-test to the participants to see how much knowledge each others' countries they have at the beginning of the course. We would also like to establish how much the participants know about culture and intercultural communication. At the end of the course, we would give a post-test to establish whether cultural understanding or knowledge was affected.

We would also like to conduct some pre-contact exercises, such as having the participants imagine that they were a person from the other culture in their country for the first time. How would the country and the culture look through their eyes? We would like to see if this exercise would affect discussions: Would the participants ask different questions? Would the exercise involve looking for more information about the other participants' countries or cultures before the online discussions start, and would that change the type of language in the discussion boards? Would the "B" category be more common than the "A" category?

We would also like to work with groups that were more similar in age and educational level. The students in Mexico were adults who had been teachers for many years (except for two that were in their early 20s). The students in Turkey were almost all in their early 20s and either beginning teachers or pre-service teachers. Under these conditions, would the participants achieve a more conversational level of interaction? Would the language be negatively affected? Was there an artificial level of politeness because of the differences in age and experiences of the participants? If the students were closer in age, would they be more candid with the information that they were sharing? Or would it make no difference? We feel that continuing with this inquiry is valuable because of the lack of literature on IC through telecollaboration between non-English speaking groups who are using English only as a lingua franca.


[1] In addition to these two main groups, we also had two participants from Canada, three from the United States, one from Portugal, and one from China. These participants contributed to the discussions, but because of the numbers, they didn't have the same impact as the two main groups, Turkish and Mexican, who therefore, are the main focus of this report.

[2] Kramsch and Thorne's (2002) chapter is more on the effectiveness of learning in general through online interaction rather than specifically being about building cultural understanding from CMC.

[3] The program in Mexico was specifically designed for in-service teachers studying an undergraduate degree in teaching English as a foreign language. The courses are a combination of face-to-face sessions and distance sessions using Blackboard, with the distance component sandwiched between the two-week face-to-face sessions, one at the beginning and one at the end of the instructional period.

[4] Some of these may or may not have had a bookish or impersonal kind of tone. We decided not to make it a separate category because it is a feature that is hard to define. It is a kind of language that does not sound conversational and may be the result of unfamiliarity with the medium, a social formality that might change with time in a group, or lack of conversational ability in English. More research is needed with this feature.

[5] Eight of the 17 rooms were analyzed. They were chosen because they had both Mexican and Turkish participants.

About the Authors

Nancy Keranen holds an MA-TESOL from Seattle Pacific University. She is an associate professor at the Benemérita Universidad Autonòma de Puebla, Mexico. Her research is on expertise and teacher professional development.

Yasemin Bayyurt is an assistant professor in the Department of Foreign Language Education, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey. Her research interests are in language use and gender. She holds a Ph.D. from the Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University.


AskAsia (n.d) Intercultural communication lesson plans. Retrieved March 12, 2004, from

Belisle, R. (1996). Email activities in the ESL writing class. The Internet TESL Journal. 2(12). Retrieved September 5, 2004, from

Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1) Retrieved March 16, 2005, from

Bennett, M.J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M.J. Bennett (Ed.) Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Readings (pp. 1-34). Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.

Bork, A. (2001). What is needed for effective learning on the Internet? Educational Technology & Society, 4(3), 139-144.

Brislin, R.W. &. Yoshida, T. (1994). Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-cultural training programs. London: Sage.

Chapelle, C. (2000). Is network-based learning CALL? In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Networkbased language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 204-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dahl, S. (2000). Communications and Culture Transformation. Stephen Dahl. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from

Erlich, Z., Erlich-Philip, I., & Gal-Ezer, J. (2005). Skills required for participating in CMC courses: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 44 (4), 477-487

Gray, R., & Stockwell, G. (1998). Using computer mediated communication for language and culture acquisition. On-CALL, 12(3). Retrieved March 16, 2005, from

Hathorn, L. G., & Ingram, A. L. (2002). Online collaboration: Making it work. Educational Technology, 42(1), 33-40.

Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of e-Learning interactions: A grounded approach. International Journal of E-Learning, 1(1), 19-27.

Jenkins, J, (2005). ELF at the gate: The position of English as a Lingua Franca. Humanising Language Teaching 7(2), Retrieved September 25, 2005, from

Kinginger, C., Gourves-Hayward, A., & Simpson, V. (1999). A tele-collaborative course on French-American intercultural communication. The French Review, 72(5), 853-866.

Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2003). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.). Language Learning and Teaching in the Age of Globalization (pp. 83-100). London: Routledge.

Muirhead, B., & Juwah, C. (2004). Interactivity in computer-mediated college and university education: A recent review of the literature. Educational Technology & Society, 7(1), 12-20.

M&uumul;ller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electrnic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129-147. Retrieved February 15, 2004, from:

Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Oren, A., & Ram, J. (2000). Web-supported emergent-collaboration in higher education courses. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 94-104.

O'Dowd R. (2003). Understanding the "other side": Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118-144.

Pahl, C. (2003). Managing evolution and change in web-based teaching and learning environments. Computers & Education, 40(2), 99-114.

Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243-265.

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rovai, A. P. (2002). A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education classroom communities in traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 41-56. Retrieved March 17, 2005, from:

Sakar, A. (2001). The cross-cultural effects of electronic mail exchange on the Turkish university students of English as a foreign language (EFL). CALL-EJ Online, 3(1). Retrieved March 16, 2005, from

Selim, H. M., (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40, 343-360.

Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. (2001). Intercultural Communication (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Spencer-Oatey, H. & Jiang, W. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1633-1650.

Straub, H. (1999). Designing a cross-cultural course. Forum 37(3). Retrieved July 15, 2003 from

Tella, S., & Mononen-Aaltonen, M. (1998). Developing dialogic communication culture in media education: Integrating dialogism and technology. Helsinki: Media Education Publications 7. Retrieved May 23, 2003, from

Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers & Education, 34(2), 119-140.

Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.