CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingSecond Language Learning and Teaching

The Role of Pedagogical Mentoring in Virtual Exchange

Open access
O'Dowd, Robert, Sauro, Shannon, Spector‐Cohen, Elana·2020·TESOL Quarterly
DOI 10.1002/tesq.543
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Virtual exchange, or telecollaboration, is a well‐known pedagogical approach in foreign language education that involves engaging classes in online intercultural collaboration projects with international partners as an integrated part of their educational programmes. This article focuses on the role of the teacher as pedagogical mentor in virtual exchange and examines the impact of the strategies and techniques that teachers use in their classes to support students’ learning during their online intercultural projects. The article begins with a proposed categorization of pedagogical mentoring reported in the literature to date. It then reports on the outcomes of a virtual exchange project carried out by three classes of initial English teacher education in Israel, Spain, and Sweden that involved two types of pedagogical mentoring. Qualitative content analysis enabled the identification of the impact of mentoring that took place before the exchange and also revealed insights into what students learned when their own online interactions were integrated into class work. The article concludes by discussing the limitations and challenges of different types of pedagogical mentoring in virtual exchange and by outlining a list of recommendations for carrying out pedagogical mentoring in such projects.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tesq.543

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence on the facilitation process showed the importance of acknowledging and addressing socially appropriate online practices in particular countries, cultures and professional environments to positively influence students' motivation to participate in online environments.

    “Evidence on the facilitation process shed light on the importance of acknowledging and addressing socially appropriate online practices in particular countries, cultures and professional environments to positively influence students' motivation to participate in online environments (Moloney 2013;O'Dowd, Sauro, and Spector-Cohen 2019;Phirangee 2016).”

    From COVID-19 and teacher education: a literature review of online teaching and learning practices (2020) · cites this paper as O'Dowd, Sauro, and Spector-Cohen 2019

    The Pedagogical Implications section recommends discussing netiquette and culturally situated digital practices, including differences across countries and professional or academic contexts. It does not establish that doing so positively influences students’ motivation to participate online; the claim’s stated outcome is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Belz, J. A. (2006). At the intersection of telecollaboration, learner corpus analysis, and L2 pragmatics: Considerations for language program direction. In J. A. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 207-246). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
  2. Belz, J. A., & Mueller-Hartmann, A. (2002). Teachers as intercultural learners: Nego- tiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. Mod- ern Language Journal, 87, 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00179. · DOI
  3. Belz, J. A., & Vyatkina, N. (2008). The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning and Technology, 12(3), 33-52.
  4. Chun, D. M. (2015). Language and culture learning in higher education via telecollaboration. Pedagogies, 10, 37-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X. 2014.999775. · DOI
  5. Cunningham, D. J. (2016). Request modification in synchronous computer-medi- ated communication: The role of focused instruction. Modern Language Journal, 100, 484-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12332. · DOI
  6. Cunningham, D. J., & Vyatkina, N. (2012). Telecollaboration for professional pur- poses: Towards developing a formal register in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 68, 422-450. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1279. · DOI
  7. De Wit, H. (2016). Internationalisation and the role of online intercultural exchange. In R. O'Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 192-208). New York, NY: Routledge.
  8. Dooly, M. (2017). Telecollaboration. In C. A. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.), The handbook of technology in second language teaching and learning (pp. 169-183).
  9. EVALUATE Group. (2019). Evaluating the impact of virtual exchange on initial teacher education: A European policy experiment. Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.29.9782490057337. · DOI
  10. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The culture project. Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 55-102. http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2342.
  11. Helm, F. (2016). Facilitated dialogue in online intercultural exchange. In R. O'Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 150-172). New York, NY: Routledge.
  12. Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89-106.
  13. Kern, R. (2014). Technology as pharmakon: The promise and perils of the inter- net for foreign language education. Modern Language Journal, 98, 340-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12065.x. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Intro- duction. Modern Language Journal, 98, 296-311.
  15. Lawrence, G., & Spector-Cohen, E. (2018). Examining international telecollabora- tion in language teacher education. In D. Tafazoli, M. E. Gomez-Parra, & C. A. Huertas-Abril (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 322-345). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978- 1-5225-5463-9.ch018. · DOI
  16. Lewis, T., & O'Dowd, R. (2016). Online intercultural exchange and foreign lan- guage learning: A systematic review. In R. O'Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 21-68). New York, NY: Rout- ledge.
  17. Lindner, R. (2016). Developing communicative competence in global virtual teams: A multiliteracies approach to telecollaboration for students of business and economics. CASALC Review, 1, 144-156.
  18. M€ uller-Hartmann, A. (2012). The classroom-based action research paradigm in telecollaboration. In M. Dooly & R. O'Dowd (Eds.), Researching online foreign language interaction and exchange (pp. 163-204). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
  19. M€ uller-Hartmann, A., & Kurek, M. (2016). Virtual group formation and the pro- cess of task design in online intercultural exchanges. In R. O'Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 131-149). New York, NY: Routledge.
  20. Nissen, E. (2016). Combining classroom-based learning and online intercultural exchange in blended learning courses. In R. O'Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 173-191). New York, NY: Routledge.
  21. O'Dowd, R. (2015). The competences of the telecollaborative teacher. Language Learning Journal, 43(2), 194-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013. 853374. · DOI
  22. O'Dowd, R. (2016). Learning from the past and looking to the future of online intercultural exchange. In R. O'Dowd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 273-298). New York, NY: Routledge.
  23. Richardson, S. (2016). Cosmopolitan learning for a global era. London, England: Routledge.
  24. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.
  25. In C. A. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second lan- guage teaching and learning (pp. 459-472). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118914069.ch30. · DOI
  26. Schultheis Moore, A., & Simon, S. (2015). Globally networked teaching in the humani- ties. New York, NY: Routledge.
  27. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of communication. New York, NY: John Wiley.
  28. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v9i3.1788. · DOI
  29. Sykes, J. M. (2018). Interlanguage pragmatics, curricular innovation, and digital technologies. Calico Journal, 35(2), 120-141. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.36175. · DOI
  30. Vyatkina, N., & Belz, J. A. (2006). A learner corpus-driven intervention for the development of L2 pragmatic competence. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. F elix- Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 315-357). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
  31. Ware, P., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89, 190-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00274.x. · DOI
  32. Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. Wilde- muth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp. 308-319). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Dowd, R., Sauro, S., & Spector‐Cohen, E.
Affiliations
  • University of León Léon Spain
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore County (US)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
ORCID
Venue
TESOL Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-10-16
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
146-172
ISSN
  • 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7249
DOI
10.1002/tesq.543
OpenAlex
W2980900124
Cited by
121
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 8
FWCI
55.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • TESOL Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Buleria (Universidad de León) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Maryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
Funders
  • Directorate-General for Education and Culture (582934‐EPP‐1‐2016‐2‐ES‐EPPKA3‐PI‐POLICY)
  • Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (34/2015)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
virtual exchange, pedagogical mentoring, teacher mentoring, cross-cultural collaboration, English teacher education, foreign language teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review