Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching (JLLT)

Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Volume 2 (2011) Issue 1
pp. 51 - 84

Successful Task Negotiation via Moodle –

A Cross-Institutional Case Study in Teacher Education

Carolin Fuchs (New York, USA)

Abstract

This paper provides an in-depth analysis of one group of ESL student teachers in the U.S. and EFL student teachers in Germany who successfully negotiated their task of creating joint task-based language teaching (TBLT) units via computer-mediated communication (CMC). Groups were asked to redesign a textbook unit based on TBLT principles and to expand the unit to include a cultural component. Data triangulation involved CMC transcripts, wikis, pre-course questionnaires, and post-course questionnaires. Based on Breen & Littlejohn’s framework (2000), the CMC-based negotiation among groups of student teachers in light of the groups’ task outcome was analyzed. The data suggest that one group proved particularly successful in their task negotiation. By the same token, the wiki tool turned out difficult to use for students and the cultural component of the task remained underexplored.

Abstract

In dieser Fallstudie wird eine Gruppe von angehenden ESL Lehrern in den USA und EFL Lehramtsstudierenden in Deutschland untersucht, die gemeinsam erfolgreich eine Textbucheinheit entwickelten, welche auf den Prinzipien des aufgabenorientierten Lernens (Task-Based Language Teaching oder TBLT) beruhte. Die Aushandlung der Textbucheinheit erfolgte durch computervermittelte Kommunikation. Die Gruppen hatten, den TBLT-Prinzipien folgend, jeweils eine Textbucheinheit zu überarbeiten und eine interkulturelle Komponente einzubauen. Die Datenerhebungsinstrumente beinhalteten Transkripte, Wikis und Fragebögen. Basierend auf Breen & Littlejohns Aushandlungsprinzipien (2000), wurde die computervermitelte kommunikative Aushandlung innerhalb der Gruppe untersucht und in Hinblick auf das Endprodukt analysiert. Die Ergebnisse lassen darauf schliessen, dass eine Gruppe besonders erfolgreich abschloss, wobei der Umgang mit dem Wiki sich als schwierig herausstellte. Die interkulturelle Komponente der Aufgabe wurde dabei nur am Rande behandelt.

1 Backround

More and more institutions have formed partnerships in order to systematically integrate technology into their teacher education programs (for an overview, see Dawson, Swain, Johnson & Ring 2004). This is due to the on-going call to advance pre-service language teachers’ professional literacy by modeling “innovative uses of technology” (Willis 2001: 309; see also Hubbard & Levy 2006; Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy, & Peters 2007). Or, in Pasternak’s terms, “[i]f technology is to be used as practice, the data show that experimentation needs to start in the methods classes for it to move into the field experiences and beyond” (2007: 154). In line with these calls, this case study builds on earlier studies which have investigated computer-mediated or CMC-based negotiation in language teacher education (e.g., Fuchs 2003, 2006; Müller-Hartmann 2000, 2005; see also Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-v. Ditfurth 2008).

1.1 Project Goal and Objectives

This exploratory study was carried out at two sites, namely at the Teachers College of Columbia University in New York City (TC) and at Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg (PHH) in the southwest of Germany. The overall goal of the project was for student teachers to learn more about language teaching contexts and practices in other countries – especially as pertaining to task-based language teaching (TBLT) – while, at the same time, becoming more proficient in using technology through cooperative, experiential, and model learning. Project objectives were as follows:

• To share TBLT perspectives through the use of technology outside of class with pre-service or student teachers in different socio-cultural and institutional settings (e.g. in the U.S. and in Germany);
• To analyze and adapt excerpts from American and German ESL/EFL textbooks leading to the joint creation of a TBLT lesson plan.

Ultimately, it was hoped that student teachers would feel encouraged to implement technology and TBLT in their own language teaching. The main purpose of the data collection was to improve the course and future cross-institutional project work. Consequently, the researcher focused primarily on how one cross-institutional group negotiated their task-based language teaching (TBLT) unit through CMC, i.e. through the discussion forum and wiki tools in Moodle. The underlying theoretical framework of this study is based on Breen & Littlejohn’s negotiation principles (2000) and will be described in greater detail below.

1.2 Potential of Computer-Mediated Instruction in Language Instruction

The potential of implementing Web 2.0 tools in language teaching and learning has been established for a while now. For example, asynchronous computer-mediated communication (ACMC) tools, such as emails, discussion forums, wikis, or blogs, have been used for both reflective writing and writing for an authentic audience (e.g., Egbert & Hanson-Smith 2007; Reinhardt & Thorne 2007; Richardson 2006; Warschauer 1996, 1997; see also Herring 1996). These tools have also been used for cross-institutional collaborations (e.g. Belz 2002; Furstenberg, Levet, English & Maillet 2001; O’Dowd 2003) with a focus on intercultural learning. Moreover, Web 2.0 tools can increase motivation (e.g. Lee 2004; LeLoup & Ponterio 2003; Warschauer 1996), promote language fluency (e.g. Kern 1995), pragmatic competency (e.g. Belz 2007), and language play (e.g. Belz & Reinhardt 2004; Vandergriff & Fuchs 2009; Warner 2004; see 

also Broner & Tarone 2001; Cook 2000).

In addition, messages or posts can easily be filed and archived and allow participants to collaboratively analyze discourse (Magnan 2008; see also Chapelle 2003; Belz 2003). Recent studies have focused increasingly on form (e.g., Blake, Wilson, Cetto, & Pardo-Ballester 2008; Lee 2008; Meskill & Anthony 2007; Ware & O’Dowd 2008), especially in synchronous CMC (e.g., Kötter 2003; Lee 2008; Pelletieri 2000; Sauro 2009).

In order to train student teachers in technology usage and raise their awareness to the complex nature of doing cross-institutional projects, there have been a number of online and blended or hybrid learning instruction formats involving institutions in different countries (e.g. Arnold & Ducate 2006; Arnold, Ducate, & Lomicka 2007; Arnold, Ducate, Lomicka, & Lord 2005; Fuchs 2003, 2006; Lord & Lomicka 2007, 2008; Müller-Hartmann 2005; Scherff & Paulus 2006; Shaughnessy, Purves, & Jackson 2008). The present study aims to contribute to this body of research.

Due to the exploratory nature of the study, trends and tendencies emerged from data and theory, and hypotheses were not formulated at the outset except for a number of guiding research questions:

1. How does one cross-institutional group of ESL/EFL student teachers in the U.S. and in Germany negotiate the joint design of a TBLT task via CMC?

2. Which one(s) of Breen & Littlejohn’s Negotiation Principles can be found in the CMC-based negotiation data? What other categories evolve?

1.3 Negotiation Principles and CMC-Based Group Work

The importance of the negotiation of meaning to develop communicative competence has been undisputed (e.g. Long & Porter 1985). Negotiation processes in the language classroom regarding the syllabus and established conventions help develop “learner’s communicative knowledge in the context of personal and social development” (Breen & Candlin 1980: 91). Following Breen & Candlin, Breen & Littlejohn (2000) have generated principles of negotiation for second language (L2) classrooms.

One essential component is procedural negotiation. Here, groups uncover and share meaning with the goal of reaching agreement on decisions. Hence, procedural negotiation increases opportunities for language learners to engage in personal and interactive negotiation. The primary function is to manage teaching and learning as a group experience and key decisions to be made are: “who will work with whom, in what ways, with what resources and for how long, upon what subject matter or problems, and for what purposes” (Breen & Littlejohn 2000: 8). Based on the concept of procedural negotiation, Breen & Littlejohn have developed six key principles of negotiation (2000: 19-29; for a more elaborate discussion see Fuchs 2006):

1. Negotiation is a means for responsible membership in the classroom community.

2. Negotiation can construct and reflect learning as an emancipatory process.

3. Negotiation can activate the social and cultural resources of the classroom group.

4. Negotiation enables learners to exercise their active agency in learning.

5. Negotiation can enrich classroom discourse as a resource for language learning.

6. Negotiation can inform and extend a teacher’s pedagogic strategies.

Conducting negotiation processes in hybrid or blended learning contexts – and in cross-institutional collaborations in particular – adds on another layer of complexity due to institutional constraints such as the lack of overlap of academic calendars (e.g., Belz 2002; Fuchs 2006). Moreover, as Palloff and Pratt (1999) note, in face-to-face (FTF) groups, it is noticed whether a participant is physically present or absent regardless of whether the person participates verbally or not. In electronic settings, however, people can disappear more easily, and silent members are simply not there. Hence, online communication can result in “disembodiment” (1999: 37).

Other important factors in group negotiation processes are individual accountability and positive interdependence. Prior research claims that a lack of individual accountability can be a more serious problem in online environments because students are not always exposed to the pressures and responsibilities of group-based work found in face-to-face environments (An, Kim, & Kim 2008: n. p.). In this study, the small group size per cross-institutional team, set at a four-/five-person maximum, as well as the quality and quantity of individual contributions and the peer critiques served as indicators of the level of individual accountability in the groups’ negotiation processes. Finally, positive interdependence is crucial in collaborative work (Dörnyei 1997; Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec 1998; see also Harasim 1990). In other words, group members need to know that they can only succeed as a group if everyone succeeds. Moreover, according to Ikpeze (2007), small-group success in peer-led electronic discourse is due to group cohesion, positive interdependence, high interactive discussions, group autonomy, and effective group processing behavior. In this context, positive interdependence was accounted for by one final grade per cross-institutional group, established through a grading rubric which closely reflected the design of Task 4.

2 Research Design

2.1 Participants and Context

Participants consisted of a total of 25 student teachers at the Teachers College of Columbia University in New York City (TC), and 27 at Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg (PHH) in the southwest of Germany. All PHH participants were state examination candidates in teaching English in the various state schools in Germany (Staatsexamen). The TC student teachers were all first-semester master’s degree candidates in either TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) or AL (Applied Linguistics). The majority of the students at TC planned to teach adult EFL or ESL upon graduation. Participants included both male and female student teachers from various ethnic and linguistic backgrounds (e.g. American, Bosnian-Herzegovinian, Chinese, German, Kazakh, Korean, Pakistani, Polish, Russian, Taiwanese). Thirty-two of a total number of 52 students (61.54 %) were non-native English speakers and thus, learners of English, the working language. At TC, the 25 student teachers formed 12 local groups of two to three members each, and at PHH, the 27 student teachers formed 13 local groups consisting of two to three members each. The local groups then formed 12 cross-institutional groups consisting of four to five student teachers each. In addition, there was one local PHH group of two members after their TC members opted out of the study.

We chose Group F is the main focus for this paper because this group displayed characteristics of a highly functional group as will be shown below. This group consisted of four members, the two TC members Soo Min (South Korea) and Ting (Taiwan), and the two PHH members Heidi (Germany) and Detlef (Germany). The rationale for focusing on Group F in this paper was their “high group functionality” (Belz 2001: 216). While Belz has primarily looked at group functionality in terms of differences in the value of foreign language learning in cultures, differences in prior experiences with CMC, and differences in the teaching of foreign languages at institutions in different countries, for this study high group functionality was based on the quality of the final product. In the case of Group F, high group functionality was reflected in the group’s superior final product, which consisted of an extremely detailed and well-elaborated project of 3,669 words (or roughly twenty pages). Both instructors independently gave the group an ‘A+’ since they received the highest evaluations (“Area of Strength”) for each of the assessment components laid out in the grading rubric. It should also be noted that, although the pre-tasks were practice tasks and non-graded, Group F received high evaluations mid-term, i.e. all components were rated “Areas of Strength” with only two components rated as “Expectations Met.” The latter included the following two areas, which were subsequently improved:

- Evaluation of the tasks in terms of reading and speaking activities;

- Evidence of participation in task negotiation.

In contrast, three other groups (K, B, and J) could be described as low-functionality groups: Group K first started out as a cross-institutional group with two members on both sides but then became a local PHH group after the TC students had dropped out. Participants in that group did not manage to complete the final task together.

Group B did come up with a final product together. However, the result indicated that each group worked on their own tasks individually and then added both parts. The result was one final document consisting of two separate parts.

2.2 Technology Tools and Course Content

The eight-week international collaboration between the two institutions was based on synchronous CMC (chat) and asynchronous CMC (group discussion forum postings, wiki postings, chat) through a customized version of the free course management system Moodle. In order to communicate with PHH as well as to share and store data, TC participants used Moodle@Heidelberg, a customized and self-contained version of Moodle located on the PHH server. This communication platform only granted access to the group members. The working language was English.

With regard to content, the course at TC was a methodology course which first covered the history and evolvement of various language teaching methods (Grammar Translation Method, Audio-Lingual Method, etc.) and then moved on to Communicative Language Teaching, Content-Based Instruction, and Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) in particular. The course content at PHH focused first and foremost on TBLT, which then represented the natural overlap for the collaborative project. More specifically, student teachers generated discussions and collaboratively designed TBLT tasks with their cross-institutional partner groups over a period of eight weeks, from mid-October to mid-December 2007. After having completed a number of practice tasks, the joint product of each group involved the redesign of textbook activities based on TBLT principles which participants had chosen to focus on. The final task (Task 4) included a peer critique and was the only graded task. All tasks were part of the regular course workload.

2.3 The Project - Phases and Tasks

Collaboration was divided into three phases: Introductory Phase, Project Phase, and Presentation and Evaluation Phase.

2.3.1 Introductory Phase

The TC groups started by forming groups and posting bios in early September. Once the PHH seminar started in mid-October (the beginning of the winter semester in Germany), the PHH members also formed local groups and then chose one of the TC groups to work with. As part of the introductory task, student teachers had to inquire about each other’s institutional contexts and identify similarities and differences.

2.3.2 Project Phase

The twelve cross-institutional groups completed a number of practice tasks culminating in a final project task (Task 4), which was graded. The content for each of the tasks was based on TBLT readings such as Littlewood (2000) and Willis (1996), and each group received individual instructor feedback.

For their final and graded task, the cross-institutional collaborative groups negotiated a number of general principles which they considered paramount for task-based language learning. These principles then formed the basis for an analysis of a textbook unit and the possible redesign or expansion of the existing exercises or activities in the textbook. Next, one of the local groups chose a skill focus (e.g. reading, listening), while the other local group chose one out of two textbooks: Textbook A (an integrated skills textbook used in adult ESL education programs) or Textbook B (an eighth-grade EFL textbook used in the public schools in Germany). Additionally, groups included a focus on one cultural aspect (e.g. a photograph in the textbook) in their unit.

2.3.3 Presentation and Evaluation Phase

During the final week of the semester in the U.S. around mid-December, each local group did an in-class presentation of their joint project task. Each project presentation was then followed by peer critiques and instructor feedback.

3 Data Collection and Analysis

3.1 Data Collection

This exploratory study draws on three qualitative research traditions: Ethnography, case study, and action research (e.g. Richards 2003). According to Nunan, ethnographic researchers can guard themselves against threats to external validity by “describing phenomena so explicitly that they can be compared with other studies, or by carrying out multiple-site investigations” (Nunan 1992: 62).

In this study, the author’s status was that of researcher, teacher of the course at TC, and project co-designer in collaboration with the Heidelberg teacher educator whose role was that of participant observer (e.g. Denzin 1989). Participant observation has been defined as “a field strategy that simultaneously combines document analysis, interviewing of respondents and informants, direct participation and observation, and introspection” (Denzin 1989: 157).

Data triangulation (e.g. Strauss & Corbin 1998: 44) involved gathering information through a combination of different instruments, i.e. through data from pre-course and post-course questionnaires, journal entries, and (a)synchronous CMC data from group discussion forums and chats.

The pre-course questionnaire consisted of four sections with questions aimed at eliciting information regarding participants’ technology skills, language learning preferences, prior group work and cross-cultural experiences, and their course expectations. The content of the questions was inspired by Levy’s CALL survey, i.e. by questions about teachers’ “personal language teaching/learning experience,” their “theoretical basis,” (i.e. teaching philosophies, methods, and approaches), and their “CALL experience” (Levy 1997: 233). Part A was sub-divided into 6 Likert-scale items asking participants to self-rate their computer skills, and Part B was sub-divided into 7 Likert-scale items asking participants to self-rate their Internet skills (1 = insufficient; 4 = very good). Part C was sub-divided into 6 Likert-scale items and asked participants to rank their language learning preferences (1 = not important at all; 4 = very important). The final two sections were open-ended and asked participants to describe their prior group work and cross-cultural experiences as well as their project expectations.

The post-course questionnaire consisted of four open-ended questions and one additional comment section. The purpose was to help student teachers reflect on the collaboration with their cross-institutional partner group and to get them to think about how they could apply what they had learned (through positive as well as negative experiences) to their own classroom teaching. The main focus for this paper was placed on Group F’s CMC data from Moodle because this is where group members negotiated the task. These data are supported by questionnaire and journal excerpts. With regard to the return rate for the questionnaires, three members of Group F responded to the pre-course questions (Soo Min, Ting, and Detlef), two members returned the post-course questionnaire (Heidi and Detlef), and one member wrote about the project collaboration in one of her journals (Ting). All names are pseudonyms. Data were kept in their original form and can be obtained from the author upon request.

3.2 Data Analysis

Two coders, the researcher and an assistant, did open coding (i.e. line-by-line or applied to sentences, paragraphs, or the entire answers) and then categorized the codes by grouping them around phenomena in the data that were related to the 
research questions.

With regard to the CMC data, the codes emerged out of in vivo codes (taken from the subjects as they were negotiating the project) and out of abstract codes taken from the literature (“borrowed concepts,” Strauss & Corbin 1998: 115), i.e. the negotiation principles based on Breen & Littlejohn (2000). More specifically, when analyzing Group F, the researcher was looking for specific in vivo codes which then resulted in categories such as “negotiation” or “communication” (see Appendix). The following are examples for “negotiation” and “communication” taken from Group F (italics not in original): “It is not so easy to negotiate with a partner only via email or in general in a written form.” “Find time to communicate with my Heidelberg group members on a regular basis […];” “When collaborating with international partners there can be communicationproblems […];” “express yourself very clearly to avoid such communicationproblems […]”

4 Findings and Discussion

In this section, Group F’s use of technology tools and their negotiation of the final task, Task 4, will be discussed. While Breen & Littlejohn’s six principles of negotiation serve as the overarching framework, there are overlaps among the principles. For instance, while Negotiation Principle 3 (“negotiation can activate the social and cultural resources of the classroom group”) contains “the use of multicultural resources” (Breen & Littlejohn 2000: pp. 22), “optimising the collective resources of a gathering of people” is considered part of the Negotiation Principle 4 (“negotiation enables learners to exercise their active agency in learning,” (Breen & Littlejohn 2000: 24). Additionally, the data should not be limited to pre-existing categories (see Strauss & Corbin 1998). Thus, the author generated new categories when deemed appropriate (see Appendix).

4.1 Group F’s Negotiation of Task 4 A (Evaluation & Redesign of Textbook Activity – “Integrated Skills”)

For Task 4, Part A, each cross-institutional group negotiated five to six general TBLT principles and used them as a basis for the analysis, evaluation, and redesign of a textbook unit they chose.

The following three excerpts show the one time when the cross-institutional group chose to negotiate and work in the Moodle wiki, i.e. after Pre-Task 3 and before starting Task 4.

Version: 1 (Browse Fetch-back Diff)

Author: Heidi

Created: Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 05:37 PM

Last modification: Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 05:37 PM

Hi Soo Min and Ting,

we've decided on the skill "reading".

Hoping that's fine with you,

Detlef & Heidi

As can be seen above, the PHH group first chose “reading” as the skill focus for Task 4. According to the task instructions, their TC partners then got to choose which of the two textbooks to use. The TC group chose Textbook A, a textbook for intermediate- to advanced-level adult ESL students in the U.S.

Version: 2 (Browse Fetch-back Diff)

Author: Ting

Created: Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 05:37 PM

Last modification: Monday, 3 December 2007, 05:23 AM

Hi Detlef & Heidi,

Thanks for your comments.

We are now working on comparing the two textbooks.

The following is our conclusion.

Soo Min and Ting

@ Target Ss: Adult, Advanced Intermediate (I-3)

@ The skill area: 'reading'

@ Six Parmount Principles of TBLT

1. Sequence (Pre/ While/ post activities)

2. Explicit instruction and scaffolding

3. Meaningful outcome

4. Integrating 5 skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking, listening, grammar)

5. Student-centered

6. Authenticity

@ two textbooks to analyze and compare

Textbook A: Unit 1 p.3-5

Textbook B: Unit 2 p.20-21

@ Chosen textbook:[Textbook A], Unit 1 p.3-5 “ Why we eat what we eat ”

In their last wiki post (see excerpt below), the PHH group thanked the TC group for “putting [their] suggestions together and making a final product out of them.” The PHH group also seemed to approve of the rationale for the TC group’s textbook choice:

You’ve added very important points like that [Textbook A] gives more specific and reader-friendly instructions and that it encourages students to get involved in critical thinking.

In a discussion forum post, they also expressed agreement (“We saw your textbook decision in the Wiki and think that it is a good choice.”), which was one of eight instances found in the overall data (see Appendix). Finally, the PHH group mentioned that they were already working on Part B, i.e., the cross-cultural part.

Version: 3 (Browse Fetch-back Diff)

Author: Heidi

Created: Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 05:37 PM

Last modification: Saturday, 8 December 2007, 04:32 PM

References: MsoNormal?

Hi Ting and Soo Min,

thank you very much for putting our suggestions together and making a final product out of them, which I think is great!

You’ve added very important points like that [Textbook A] gives more specific and reader-friendly instructions and that it encourages students to get involved in critical thinking.

We’re already working on Part B and we’ll send it to you very soon.

Have a nice weekend,

Heidi

Surprisingly, the wiki posts happened at the beginning of Task 4. One might have expected the group to try out the wiki earlier, i.e. at the beginning of the first pre-task, and then either follow through with it or discard it. One reason the group decided to use the wiki for the final task might have been the fact that groups had been encouraged to use the wiki for their project work and that Task 4 was 

graded.

With regard to functionality, the group did not utilize the wiki according to its intended purpose. A wiki is a collaborative writing tool which allows anyone who is signed up as a collaborator to modify entries (Richardson 2006). Groups in this study though used the wiki to work on the actual project and to also post meta-level comments on things they changed for the new version of the project. However, a wiki typically only consists of the actual project or document, while comments regarding changes and attachments are added in a separate space (e.g. the “comment” or “attachment” function at the bottom of a page) so as to avoid confusion. Nonetheless, Group F seemed to mix the actual project work (e.g. coming up with the six TBLT principles they considered important (“1. Sequence […] 6. Authenticity”) with meta-level comments on the textbook choice by the PHH group (“You’ve added very important points like that [Textbook A] gives more specific and reader-friendly instructions and that it encourages students to get involved in critical thinking”).

With regard to the task negotiation on December 4, Soo Min clearly reminded the PHH group of the impending deadline, laid out the timeframe, and suggested very concrete steps for how to divide up the work for Task 4.

As we know, the due for the task 4 (This final project) is Dec 14th.

Since we also have to do Part B (Cultural awareness raising) before Dec 14th, there is not so much time left.

It would be better if we could finish the part A ( Integrated Skills) by this weekend, Dec. 9th. Here's the suggestion.

Ting and I talked this over last night and we decided to evaluate one textbook respectively according to the 6 principles we chose.

Ting will evaluate the [Textbook A] and I'll do the [Textbook B] and we'll compare our works.

And I hope you guys do the same thing so that four of us can create the final, polished work. (Heidi would evaluate one textbook and Detlef would do the other book and compare those books according to the 6 principles.)

[Soo Min’s discussion forum post, Tuesday, 4 December 2007, 05:54 AM]

Soo Min suggested Sunday, December 9, as the date for finalizing and posting the textbook evaluation and comparison because the final draft of Task 4 was due no later than Friday, December 14. Moreover, Soo Min included the table for the textbook evaluation and comparison provided by the instructors. Her post served several purposes and thus met various negotiation principles. First, this post was a reminder for the mutual responsibility of meeting the deadline and of the importance of each local groups’ contributions and individual accountability:

And I hope you guys do the same thing so that four of us can creat [sic] the final, polished work
.

The post also seemed crucial for clarifying what the group needed to do to satisfactorily fulfill the requirements for Task 4. Finally, the fact that Soo Min asked for feedback on all her suggestions (“Does the suggestion sound clear and reasonable?”) seemed to encourage active participation and collaborative decision-making, which constitutes one of the six incidents found in the overall CMC data (see Appendix). Her approach was also in line with the following collaborative skills to ensure that joint planning of a project would be carried out in relation to the predetermined expectations of both parties: a joint project plan (what and how it might be achieved), expectations for each partner, realistic timeframe for communication and feedback, and regular reporting on progress (Shaughnessy, Purves, & Jackson 2008).

Next, the PHH group rephrased what they thought they understood from TC’s last post and thus checked for comprehension:

We understood you the way that you chose [Textbook A] for point 5 Part A, right? We will work on this part today in the seminar.

The PHH members also provided their TC partners with explicit information on what their next step was going to be:

Heidi and I will also post our results of Point 4 Part A (Analyse at the most 3 activities of each text book according to the principles) in form of a table today. You don´t have to analyse the whole textbook only at the most 3 activities in point 4!

There seemed to be a constant back and forth between the two groups telling each other when to expect which parts of the task. For instance, on December 4, the PHH group provided feedback on one item and also let the TC group know when to expect the next parts, i.e., the PHH group told the TC group that they would send them “point 5 as soon as possible.” They did this the next day, i.e., on December 5.

The TC group replied on December 6, the day after they received point 5 from the PHH group. In her post, Soo Min told the PHH group explicitly what they were going to work on next (“I and Ting will revise your draft (Part A. Integrating skills)):

1. Evaluating and comparing three activities of two textbooks

2. Re-design the activities of one textbook ([Textbook A]) as soon as

possible.”).

Soo Min further suggested that the PHH group get started on Task 4 Part B. She also specifically mentioned when the TC members were going to post their draft, i.e., “by Saturday.” Moreover, she tried to make sure that the PHH group agreed with the division of labor: “I hope it all sounds reasonable to you.”

Here, the members seemed to activate their group’s resources which was in line with either Breen and Littlejohn’s Negotiation Principle 4 (Making optimal use of the collective resources) or with Negotiation Principle 3 (Activating the social and cultural resources of the classroom group), i.e. to emphasize the use of multicultural resources, different experiences, knowledge, and capabilities with the goal of achieving cross-cultural membership, a sense of ownership, exploration, alternative interpretations, the usage of the new language and alternative ways of working. Additionally, the TC group decided on the next steps to take and how to divide up the tasks by pointing out what they were going to do (“I and Ting will revise…; I and Ting will post…”) and what they suggested the PHH group should do next (“If you have time, please think about Part B.”).

In their next post on December 7, 2007, Soo Min sent her and Ting’s final draft of Task 4 Part A to their PHH counterparts, asking for feedback: “Here's the final version. Let me hear your comments.” Upon receiving feedback from Heidi and Detlef, the TC group integrated their suggestions into the final document “Evaluating_and_Comparing_two_textbooks.doc.”

A couple of days later, on Sunday, December 9, 2007, the TC group sent an updated final version to their PHH partners. Just as had been the case before, the TC group asked for feedback:

We add some tasks and make some changes in your first version. Please see if there are any suggestions.

This continued the trend that none of the drafts was sent without the other group explicitly being asked for feedback. Ting’s message at 6:34am on Sunday, December 9, 2007, was the first of a total of ten messages going back and forth between TC and PHH. Thus, December 9, the day Soo Min originally designated as the group’s deadline for the final task in her December 4 message, was the day when crucial exchanges for clarifying information took place.

This process continued over the subsequent days until the due date of the project arrived. The quick turn-around time of the posts seemed to help move the project ahead. The negotiation on Sunday, December 9, appeared to be the key for getting things done. These posts demonstrate how both groups constantly went back and forth evaluating and reflecting on their progress as well as updating their cross-institutional partners. In addition, both groups obviously felt comfortable providing feedback and telling the other group in rather overt terms when they disagreed. Both groups appeared appreciative of each other’s comments by praising each other’s contributions. As can be seen from the Appendix, “expressing appreciation and praise” showed the highest incidents in the Group F CMC data, i.e., a total of 11 tokens overall. Along similar lines, Heidi pointed out the importance of praise in her post-course questionnaire response on a couple of occasions: “In a collaborative project it is very important to establish a nice atmosphere and be friendly and that means among other things that you comment the ideas/suggestions of your partner and praise them for their good work.” She also believed that the fact that she felt “very satisfied with the project in the end” was due to the fact that “real collaboration in [their] group took place and nobody was offended when something was corrected or when some suggestions were not integrated in the final product.”

Upon thanking the TC members for having worked on their first final version, the PHH group made specific comments regarding the changes they would like to see being made:

The only thing we would add is the following:
In while task A you start reading the text without doing vocabulary work and as we have suggested in our first version we think that it is better to work with vocabulary before reading the text (underline unknown words and explain to each other, see our first version). Doing this exercice 
would help them in understanding the text and help them with the task "looking for the different factors" afterwards.
What do you think?

[Heidi’s discussion forum post, Sunday, 9 December 2007, 02:27 AM]

At that point, the PHH group made precise reference to an earlier draft (“we think that it is better to work with vocabulary before reading the text”), and in her reply on the same day, Ting picked up on this. She was very specific and told her PHH partners that she was going to take care of the vocabulary part and add it to the table on the following day.

4.2 Group F’s Negotiation of Task 4 B (Cultural Awareness-Raising)

On Sunday, December 9, i.e. the same day when both groups were going back and forth to finalize Task 4 A, they also started working on Task 4 B, the final part of the graded Task 4. For Task 4 Part B, each group chose a cultural aspect of the unit they had picked up for Part A (e.g. representation of people or cultural artifacts in photographs, the use of photographs/drawings/pictures in general, or the cultural representation through a text or texts). They then expanded the actual lesson to include a short task on cross-cultural awareness-raising for learners by including purpose, procedure, and product guidelines for their task.

In her next post, Soo Min reminded the PHH group of the impending deadline and suggested some very concrete steps as to how to proceed as well as when to post the final version. More specifically, Soo Min divided up the next tasks while, at the same time, encouraging feedback and active participation:

This is the draft of part B. I haven't finished it up yet.

I wish you guys take a look at this and finish this up. (e.g. Objective, outcome...) If you have other ideas, feel free to add them. Since the due date is next Friday, it would be better to wrap this whole 'task 4' and post the final version by next Monday at the latest.

How does that sound? Let me know if you have different opinions.

[Soo Min’s discussion forum post, Sunday, 9 December 2007, 02:15 AM]

In her above post, Soo Min emphasized what Sorensen (2005) refers to as the two main intentions to create participation - interaction and online presence - and engagement - motivation through the operationalization of the participants’ experiences. Her deadline also reminded her colleagues of the mutual responsibilities (Breen & Littlejohn’s Negotiation Principle 1), and in her division of labor, she tried to make optimal use of their “collective resources” (Negotiation Principle 4) or their “different experiences, knowledges, and capabilities” (Negotiation Principle 3).

In response, Ting included suggestions in the forum post rather than in the Word document itself:

This is an interesting activity. I will think more about it. I have one suggestion. For the activity, each S comes forward, attaches the project paper and makes a presentation about the traditional food of his/her countries. […]

Next, Soo Min provided Ting with feedback (Negotiation Principle 4) by reminding her to add her comments to the draft and to be explicit about her instructions. Here, Soo Min provided Ting with very clear instructions (“Please incorporate your comment on the draft version that I posted up above.”) and asked her what she meant “by 'some more questions about the traditional food'?” She then asked Ting to “specify the sample questions.” This indicates that Ting’s post may not have been clear to Soo Min and that Soo Min attempted to negotiate “new understandings, uncertainties” as per Negotiation Principle 4. Furthermore, Soo Min pointed out that “the instruction (the procedure) should be always very clear and explicit otherwise it may confuse students.” This shows that pre-service teachers are able to engage in meta-level discourse on how to teach effectively, i.e., instructions are a crucial factor in the language classroom.

In their next post on December 9, the PHH group sent their feedback for part B of the task. They seemed open to combining their ideas due to the fact that these actually were similar.

Upon having thanked her PHH partner, Soo Min asked them for the next steps and suggested a date for the PHH group to post the final version, i.e., on Monday, December 10:

Could you incorporate your ideas into the draft version above and post the final version by Monday? All major framework is done already so you can add just some ideas of yours.

However, the PHH team did not seem sure about making the changes that the TC team had asked them to make:

Soo Min, you said we should incorporate our ideas but we were not sure if we really should change your version with a focus on Christmas as we planned it, because this would change everything. What do you exactly mean by incorporating our ideas?

Consequently, Ting tried to clarify:

I feel the Christmas part can be another activity for Part B. You can just add it on the table.

On Tuesday, December 11, the PHH group sent their prompt feedback and changes. Just like the TC group, the PHH group also encouraged the former to make more changes. Although the PHH group was not sure whether their “Christmas part” (i.e. their part “food on Christmas”) still fit with everything else, the TC group encouraged them to go ahead and include their part as another activity in Part B.

The almost final version was posted by Soo Min early on Tuesday, December 11. She asked the PHH members to make any “major change” they would like and justified this by saying that “[a]fter all, it’s all part of the collaboration and negotiation.” In this message, the TC group encourages the PHH group to become active in the joint decision making on which parts to keep or to modify (see Negotiation Principle 4). More importantly, they highlighted the collaborative nature of the negotiation process. Additionally, for the second time, the TC group expressed concerns because they felt that they had not received enough and timely feedback from the PHH group. Thus, the TC group went ahead and came up with a version with “drastic change[s]” or an almost new version. This underlines that students’ interpretation of tasks can be more difficult to manage online than face-to-face due to minimal intervention and redirection by the teacher (McCrory, Putnam, & Jansen 2008).

The TC group further encouraged the PHH group to make changes to part B as they pleased without “feel[ing] sorry.” The latter most likely referred to not having to apologize for making changes. The TC group once again complemented the PHH group for their Christmas version which sounded “very interesting” to them. At that point, Soo Min implicitly brought up the impending deadline again by saying “I wish it comes out nicely so that we can have the final version soon.”

Later on that day, the PHH group sent their prompt feedback as well as changes. Just like the TC group, the PHH group encouraged the latter to make more changes:

[H]ere is the final version of Part B, as you've suggested we changed it into the Christmas version, we hope that it's ok for you and that you still like it. Of course, feel free to make changes.

A day later, Soo Min repeatedly complimented the TC group on their efforts:

Thanks for the revised version.[…] Thank you for that, too. […] Thank you so much. […]

Soo Min also laid out the next steps, underlining that she would post the final version as soon as possible. Moreover, Soo Min asked for a “favor” by requesting the PHH group to provide her with more pictures of Glühwein, i.e., the traditional German Christmas drink of mulled wine. Only a few hours later die the TC group receive a reply including further pictures of Glühwein from the PHH group.

In her immediate reply, Soo Min complimented the PHH group on the picture (“Thanks […] Looks so nice!”) and told them that she had been doing research on “mulled wine” herself and that she would include her picture in the PowerPoint presentation. On December 13, 2007, the TC group posted the final PowerPoint presentation.

On the same day, Soo Min commented on her PHH partners’ suggestions regarding Task 4 Part B, the cultural component, and desired to make one more change. She expressed her critical/on-going reflection of the group’s work and buffered her criticism regarding the suggested Christmas food theme in a very diplomatic way:

That sounds neat but I think it would be better to keep the original version of mine.

Soo Min then explained why she would like to change the cultural part:

Because, if we limit the topic the traditional food only on Christmas, it may cause some problems for some students from other countries. For example, in China, Japan or Korea, we celebrate Christmas but we do not have particular custom or special food for Christmas. - just exchange some sweets, presents?? Maybe, for some students from countries in Middle East, they may not be very familiar with Christmas. So, I think it's better to have topic as "Traditional foods on special occasions in different countries." I also included your 'Christmas' part as well. Find the details on this final version-Part B. I even made the power point file. Check it out and see how many foreign foods you know.

[Soo Min’s discussion forum post, Thursday, 13 December 2007, 04:24 AM]

The above quotation presents a form of discourse which deserves further elaboration: Soo Min provided an elaborate explanation of why she did not want to limit the topic to traditional food only for Christmas. The TC group had a good point for why they would like to discard the suggestion to limit the topic to “food on Christmas” because Christmas was not celebrated in all cultures. In her explanation, Soo Min mentioned students from different countries and the fact that Christmas was not celebrated in every culture. Her examples included China, Japan, and Korea, and Soo Min shared the way Christmas was celebrated in those countries. In Germany, on the other hand, Christmas is a two-day national holiday and celebrated widely. Soo Min’s post, then, is an excellent example of cultural awareness-raising and could have served as a springboard for a larger cross-cultural discourse. Unfortunately though, Soo Min’s message did not stimulate a cross-cultural discussion with the PHH members as the latter did not reply, at all. This came as a surprise given the following project expectations students had expressed at the outset:

the group work project experience” [Detlef, pre-course questionnaire]

learn[ing] different perspective on education from someone who is from different educational context” [Soo Min, pre-course questionnaire]

and

expect[ing] to cooperate with students in Heidelberg. Since we share different culture and backgrounds, I think we can come up with different ideas and views and have a good discussion” [Ting, pre-course questionnaire].

Next, Group F exchanged a number of posts, i.e. a total of seven, during the final week of class when Task 4 was due. Mostly the TC members kept posting, revising and re-posting. On December 14, Ting sent the final version of Task 4 after having combined all the files.

A day later, Soo Min told Ting that she had reposted the final versions again because she “found a typo.” This indicates that they felt strongly about their final product and tried to make it as perfect as possible. Yet, this did not seem surprising as Soo Min, Ting, and Detlef all ranked group work and collaboration “important.”

On December 15, 2007, the TC group posted the final version of Task 4, Part B, and asked the PHH group to “[t]ake a look!” In their reply, Heidi and Detlef thanked Ting and Soo Min “a lot for the great work” and complimented them on their final PowerPoint (“looks really nice especially nice pictures”). The PHH group also expressed satisfaction about having worked with the TC group, wished the TC group well and ended with expressing interest in keeping in touch.

Group F expressed a high level of satisfaction with their joint product even though only the two PHH members of Group F replied to this question in the post-course questionnaire. Heidi said,

I was very satisfied with the product in the end as real collaboration in our group took place and nobody was offended when something was corrected or when some suggestions were not integrated in the final product [Heidi, post-course questionnaire].

Heidi also mentioned that she felt “motivated to try out such a project” despite the fact that it would entail “a lot of preparation for the teacher.”

Despite the fact that Detlef thought that negotiating with partners via email or in writing was difficult and that he would like more “direct contact”, such as a short conversation to ensure mutual understanding, he said that

[s]till [he was] really happy about the final product because it showed [him] that it can work well. [Detlef, post-course questionnaire]

In her final journal entry, Ting also briefly expressed satisfaction with their collaboration and the joint product:

[…] Now I have gained a lot of practical knowledge in this classroom practice class. In addition, through the discussions with international partners in Germany over these weeks, we have collaboratively evaluated and redesigned some tasks. Therefore, I know how to design creative and interesting activities now. […]

[Ting, Journal 3 Excerpt, December 2007]

Provided that only Ting indicated on her pre-course questionnaire that she had prior group work experience in her home country of Taiwan, the collaboration and negotiation results and the final outcome by Group F seem remarkable.

In sum, Group F managed to negotiate their Task 4 in a very effective way, and the considerable number of posts which went back and forth on Sunday, December 9, are excellent examples of CMC-based task negotiation in a discussion forum as both groups exchanged documents via forum post attachment. They also used the actual forum posts for short introductory messages with regard to what they had changed or what they were going to do next. Furthermore, compared to the less functional groups in the project (i.e., Groups K, B, and J in Section 2.1), the final product was coherent as if written by one author and not by four different authors.

5 Conclusion and Implications

The results elaborated by Group F support the finding that culturally diverse CMC groups with no FTF can build interpersonal relationships similar to those in FTF due to both over-reliance on minimal cues and ACMC which allowed time to compose refined presentations of self (“hyperpersonal interaction,” Walther 1996: 18). Group F seems to have successfully implemented collaborative negotiation skills such as expressing appreciation and praise, expressing agreement on task work, co-constructing the task, and being open to feedback and encouraging active participation, despite the fact that only one member indicated that she had had prior group work experience in her home country, Taiwan.

Moreover, for this group, it did not seem necessary to teach leadership, decision-making, trust building, communication, and conflict-management skills as essential prerequisites for successful group cooperation (cf. Dörnyei 1997: 484). Nonetheless, these factors may be relevant for other groups (see also Shaughnessy, Purves & Jackson 2008). Consequently, it will be necessary in future research to also look at the other groups to determine how they compared with Group F in terms of successfully negotiating their tasks.

By the same token, even though Group F took advantage of their different cultural backgrounds when designing Task 4 by including South Korean, Taiwanese, and German food and holiday traditions into their final product, they did not engage in any cross-cultural exchanges in the discussion forum. For instance, Task 4 Part B focused on cross-cultural awareness-raising, and Group F included Glühwein(mulled wine) as a German Christmas tradition and Tteok-gook (rice-cake-soup) as a traditional dish in Korea especially for New Years. The question is how the task can be expanded beyond the how-to-traditions. The explanation by Soo Min regarding the reason for why the TC group wanted to move away from the Christmas-only theme suggested by the Germans could have served as a springboard for some deeper, underlying cross-cultural discussions and assumptions. In other words, Glühwein and Christmas are topics that could be starting points for discussion; however, there were obvious time constraints, and group members might simply have been too busy getting the task done. The question is whether the teacher educator should step in and try to stimulate cross-cultural discussion, or if this might then come at the expense of a “superior product.” In this project, there were a total of three pre-tasks in order to provide pre-service teachers, some of whom were novice teachers, with appropriate modeling. Alternatively, one could aim for only one or two pre-tasks to free up space for more cross-cultural engagement.

Moreover, student teachers commented that they needed more training in using technology tools (see also Fuchs 2006), especially with regard to the use of wikis. Even though participants may be technically skilled, this does not prevent technical difficulties and ensure a project being successful. Due to other factors, such as the scale of the project, participants’ ages, or personalities (Shaughnessy, Purves & Jackson 2008), there still seems to be an increasing need for modeling the use of technology in teacher education seminars. Teacher educators may consider moving toward a combination of tools such as Google Sites (wiki) and Google Groups (discussion forum) which are

a) freely available and do not require server space, and

b) widely used among students because most of the students appear to have free Gmail accounts already.

Hence, using such tools may be closer to home and more familiar compared to a tool such as Moodle, which is used primarily for educational purposes.

Furthermore, the small number of posts in the wiki points to the need for better training. One main issue for students seems to be the fact that they should only work on the actual project in the wiki and that meta-language on the project should not be included in the wiki (except when added via a separate “comment” function). One reason may have been that the use of the wiki happened organically. This development points to a need for further modeling. One false assumption may have been the fact that the editing menu in the wiki closely resembles Word, a program most students work with on a daily basis. While the editing itself may not be difficult, there was no real place for comments regarding the edits.

Lastly, subsequent research should also consider what outside-of-class interaction was like for the groups as well as the conditions, the ways and the reasons why they chose to use a specific communication channel and for what purpose(s). For instance, did they use any additional synchronous tools such as IM or Skype? In what way did this contribute to the project collaboration? This could be done through think-aloud protocols, logs, or post-project interviews and would add to the researcher’s attempt to gain an emic perspective of the overall processes involved.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Andreas Müller-Hartmann for his participation in the project and Mindy Levine, Ori Livneh, Pantelis Charalambous as well as Fred Tsutagawa for their assistance. Special gratitude is extended to all participating student teachers at Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg and at Teachers College Columbia University for their cooperation in this project.

References

An, H, Kim, S & Kim, B 2008, 'Teacher perspectives on online collaborative learning: factors perceived as facilitating and impeding successful online group work', Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 65-83.

Arnold, N & Ducate, L 2006, 'Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 42-66.

Arnold, N, Ducate, L & Lomicka, L 2007, 'Virtual communities of practice in teacher education', In MA Kassen, RZ Lavine, K Murphy-Judy & M Peters (eds.), Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers, CALICO Monograph Series, San Marcos, TX, pp. 103-132.

Arnold, N, Ducate, L, Lomicka, L & Lord, G 2005, 'Using computer-mediated communication to establish social and supportive environments in teacher education', CALICO Journal, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 537-566.

Belz, J 2007, 'The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence', Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 27,pp. 45-75.

Belz, J 2003, 'Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 68-117.

Belz, J 2002, 'Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 60-81.

Belz, J 2001, 'Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching', ReCALL, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 213-231.

Belz, J & Reinhardt, J 2004, 'Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: internet-mediated German language play', International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 324–362.

Blake, R, Wilson, NL, Cetto, M & Pardo-Ballester, C 2008, 'Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 114-127.

Breen, M & Candlin, C 1980, 'The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching', Applied Linguistics, vol.1, no. 2, pp. 89-112.

Breen, M & Littlejohn, A (eds.) 2000, Classroom decision-making: negotiation and process syllabuses in practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Broner, MA & Tarone, E 2001, 'Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom', The Modern Language Journal, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 363–379.

Chapelle, C 2003, English language learning and technology, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Cook, G 2000, Language play, language learning, Oxford University Press, New York.

Denzin, NK 1989, The research act, 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Dörnyei, Z 1997, 'Psychological process in cooperative language learning: group dynamics and motivation', The Modern Language Journal, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 482 493.

Egbert, J & Hanson-Smith, E (eds.) 2007, CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues, 2nd edn, TESOL, Alexandria, VA.

Fleming, L, Motamedi, V & May, L 2007, 'Predicting preservice teacher competence in computer technology: modeling and application in training environments', Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 207-233.

Fuchs, C 2006, Computer-mediated negotiation across borders: German-Americancollaboration in language teacher education, Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt.

Fuchs, C 2003, 'Negotiating over a distance: The challenges of computer-mediate communication (CMC) in foreign language teacher education', In M Legutke & Rösler, Narr, Tübingen (eds.), Fremdsprachenlernen mit digitalen Medien. Beiträge des giessener forschungskolloquiums, pp. 179-208.

Furstenberg, G, Levet, S, English, K & Maillet, K 2001, 'Giving a voice to the silent language of culture: the cultura project', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 55-102.

Hanson-Smith, E 2006, 'Communities of practice for pre- and in-service teacher education', In P Hubbard & M Levy (eds.),Teacher education in CALL, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 301- 315.

Harasim, LM 1990, 'Online education: an environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification', In LM Harasim (ed), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment, Praeger Publishing, New York, pp. 39-64.

Herring, S 1996, Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and cross cultural perspectives, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

Hubbard, P & Levy, M (eds.) 2006 Teacher education in CALL. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Ikpeze, C 2007, 'Small group collaboration in peer-led electronic discourse: an analysis of group dynamics and interactions involving preservice and inservice teachers', Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 383-407.

Johnson, D, Johnson, R & Holubec, E 1998, Cooperation in the classroom, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Kassen, MA, Lavine, RZ, Murphy-Judy, K & Peters, M (eds.) 2007, Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers. Calico Monograph Series, San Marcos,TX.

Kern, R 1995, 'Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: effects on quantity and characteristics of language production', The Modern Language Journal, vol. 79, no. 4, pp 457-476.

Kötter, M 2003, 'Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp 145-172.

Lave, J & Wenger, E 1991, Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Lee, L 2008, 'Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction', Language Learning &Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp 53-72.

Lee, L 2004, 'Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 83-100.

LeLoup, JW & Ponterio, R 2003, Second language acquisition and technology: a review of the research, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC, viewed 15 February, 2008, <http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0311leloup.html>.

Levy, M 1997, Computer-assisted language learning: context and conceptualization, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Long, M & Porter, PA 1985, 'Group work, interlanguage talk, and second languageAcquisition', TESOL Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 207-228.

Lord, G & Lomicka, L 2008, 'Blended learning in teacher education: an investigation of classroom community across media', Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 158-174.

Lord, G & Lomicka, L 2007, 'Foreign language teacher preparation and asynchronous CMC: Promoting reflective teaching', Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 513-532.

Magnan, S (ed) 2008, Mediating discourse online, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam. McCrory, R, Putnam, R & Jansen, A 2008, 'Interaction in online courses for teacher education: subject matter and pedagogy', Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 155-180.

Meskill, C & Anthony, N 2007, 'Form-focused communicative practice via CMC: Whatlanguage learners say', CALICO Journal, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 69-90.

Müller-Hartmann, A & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M (eds.) 2008, Research on the use oftechnology in task-based language teaching, Peter Lang, Frankfurt.

Müller-Hartmann, A 2005, 'Learning how to teach intercultural communicative competence via telecollaboration: a model for language teacher education', In , J Belz & S Thorne (eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education Heinle & Heinle, Boston, pp. 63-84.

Müller-Hartmann, A 2000, 'The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 129-147. Nunan, D 1992, Research methods in language learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

O’Dowd, R 2003, 'Understanding the “other side:” intercultural learning in a Spanish English e-mail exchange', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 118-144.

Palloff, R & Pratt, K 1999, Building learning communities in cyberspace: effective strategies for the online classroom, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Pasternak, DL 2007, 'Is technology used as practice? A survey analysis of preservice English teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices', Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 140-157.

Pellettieri, J 2000, 'Negotiating in cyberspace: the role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence', In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (eds.) Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.59-86.

Reinhardt, J & Thorne, S 2007, SCMC, blogs, & wikis, A manual for professional teacher development, CALPER Publications, The Pennsylvania State University: Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research.

Richards, K 2003, Qualitative inquiry in TESOL, TESOL,

Alexandria, VA.

Richardson, W 2006. Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and the Powerful Web Tools orClassrooms, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks.

Sauro, S 2009, 'Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2grammar', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 96-120.

Scherff, L & Paulus, T 2006, 'Encouraging ownership of online spaces: support for preservice English teachers through computer-mediated communication', Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 354-373.

Shaughnessy, J, Purves, R & Jackson, A 2008, 'Computer-mediated collaborative projects as professional development opportunities for teachers', Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 367-393.

Sorensen, EK 2005, 'Networked elearning and collaborative knowledge building: design and facilitation', Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 446 -455.

Strauss, A & Corbin, J 1998, Basics of qualitative research, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications Ltd, London.

Thorne, S 2003, 'Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 38-67.

Vandergriff, I & Fuchs, C 2009, 'Does CMC promote language play? Exploring humor in two modalities', Calico Journal, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 26-47.

Walther, JB 1996, 'Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction', Communication Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 3-43.

Ware, P & O’Dowd, R 2008, 'Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration', Language Learning & Technology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 43-63.

Warner, C 2004, 'It’s just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC', Language Learning and Technology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 69–87, viewed June 1, 2004,  http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/warner/default.html..

Warschauer, M 1997, 'Computer-mediated collaborative learning theory and practice', The Modern Language Journal, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 470-481.

Warschauer, M 1996, 'Motivational aspects of using computers for writing andcommunication', In M Warschauer (ed), Telecollaboration in foreign languagelearning, University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Honolulu, HI, pp. 29-46, viewed September 10, 2004, http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/papers.html.;
.

Willis, J 2001, 'Foundational assumptions for information technology and teachereducation', Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 1, no. 3 pp. 305-320.

Author:

          Carolin Fuchs, PhD

          Lecturer

          Department of Arts and Humanities

          TESOL/Applied Linguistics Program

          Teachers College, Columbia University

          Email: cf2307@columbia.edu

.

.

APPENDIX

Codes and Categories derived from CMC data from Group F

Codes (in vivo)	Categories (number of tokens)
thank you / thanks / thanks a lot / I really appreciate your notes / praise them for their good work / Thanks for your advice. / thanks a lot for your good work on the principles. / thanks for your part B suggestions, / Thanks for the nice suggestions, Heidi. / Thanks for the picture. Looks so nice!	Expressing appreciation and praise (11)
I agree with your first point. / You're to [to]uching on some issue of 'heuristic learning' and I like that! / I agree with you that we should encourage students / That's really true that students get bored / and it seems that we share somehow the opinion, that is nice. / I just wanted to say that you are right with your comment in No 2. / We saw your textbook decision in the Wiki and think that it is a good choice. / I like your idea.	Expressing agreement on task work Negotiating new understandings, uncertainties (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) (8)
As you will see we wrote some of our ideas in blue underneath your ideas. / So here are our comments and suggestions for the Three important aspects for the pre-task phase / We just wrote some short comments in red underneath the principles according to No 3 / We add some tasks and make some changes in your first version. / The only thing we would add is the following: / Please incorporate your comment on the draft version that I posted up above. / Please specify the sample questions.	Co-constructing task; Exploring alternative interpretations and alternative ways of working (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) (7)
Fell [sic] free to comment on our suggestions. We're looking forward to your ideas. / Looking foward [sic] to your ideas! / What do you think of the aspects we've chosen and which aspects did you choose? / We look forward to hearing more comments and suggestions from your group. / I'm not imposing my opinion on you and let me hear your opinions, too. / Does the suggestion sound clear and reasonable? […] Let me know if you have any other opinions.	Being open to feedback and encouraging active participation (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) (6)
It would be better if we could finish the par A( Integrated Skills) by this weekend, Dec. 9th. Here's the suggestion. / Ting will evaluate the Kettle 4 and I'll do the In Charge I and we'll compare our works. / (Heidi would evaluate one textbook and Detlef would do the other book and compare those books according to the 6 principles.) / Lastly, let's think about the beforehand. / We will work on this part today in the seminar.	Deciding on next steps and dividing up task (5)
your interesting introduction! / I would be happy to hear more from you, / If you like to know more about me, feel free to ask! I’m really looking forward to exchanging ideas with you! / I'm very excited to work with you guys. Let me introduce myself to you briefly./ I am glad to meet you and look forward to our cooperation.	Establishing common ground (5)
I would be happy to hear more from you, especially about Columbia University / I would like to know more about Columbia University. What does it mean to study there? / It would be great if you let me know your language learning history, your short biography, your academic goal and professional goal and target students (certain age group) you're interested in. / The target student population I would like to work with for the Special Project is adults. / Lastly, I'm interested in teaching 'Adult' level ESL students.	Inquiring about institutional contexts, professional and project goals (5)
I re-read what Ting and I worte [sic] and your added notes. Thanks for specifically tuning in six principles for the 'reading' focus only. However, I don't think it's necessary to 'limit' the principles only for the reading skill only. / Therefore, at this stage, I think the further adjustment is not required. / I've thought about your suggestion about Part B. That sounds neat but I think it would be better to keep the original version of mine.	Critical self-reflection, on-going group reflection and evaluation of outcomes from activities (Breen & Littlejohn, 2000) (3)
We have seen your post a few days ago, but it is just three sentences. / I've been concerned about not hearing anything from you guys about the part B. I didn't know until now you guys had some concrete ideas about Part B.	Expressing concern (2)
Yeah, I know it´s a bit complicated we didn´t understand it in the first place as well ;) / We hope your presentation worked out fine.	Expressing empathy/sympathy