CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 376EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningForeign Language Teaching MethodsSecond Language Learning and Teaching

Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study

Open access
Belz, Julie A·2002·Language Learning & Technology
DOI 10.64152/10125/25143
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Previous research on network-based foreign language study has primarily focused on: a) the pedagogy of technology in the language curriculum, or b) the linguistic characterization of networked discourse.In this paper, I explore socio-institutional dimensions of German-American telecolla boration and the ways in which they may shape foreign language learning and use.Telecollaborative partnerships represent particularly productive sites for the examination of social aspects of foreign language study since, by definition, they entail tight sociocultural and institutional interface.Within the theoretical framework of social realism (e.g., Carter & Sealey, 2000;Layder, 1993), any human activity is thought to be shaped by both macro-and micro-level sociological features.These include socia l context and institutional setting, situated activity and individual agency, respectively.In this analysis, I intertwine the socially and institutionally contingent features of language valuation, computer know-how, Internet access, and learning accreditation and the micro features of situated classroom interaction and individual psycho-biography in order to provide a rich and multi-faceted characterization of foreign language learning and use on both ends of a German-American telecollaborative partnership.

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 · 10.64152/10125/25143

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?

  • Because the Russian university followed a different institutional script with no percent-based break-down of the total grade, the Russian instructor did not allocate any percentage for student participation, but made the project the only task for which students received a course grade.

    “Because the Russian university followed a different institutional script (Belz, 2002) with no percent-based break-down of the total grade, the Russian instructor did not allocate any percentage for student participation, but made the project the only task for which students received a course grade.”

    From An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration (2007) · cites this paper as Belz, 2002

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Physical contexts consisting of mediating tools and other people are important in shaping an online interaction.

    “These studies emphasize the importance of physical contexts consisting of mediating tools and other people in shaping an online interaction.”

    From An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration (2007) · cites this paper as Belz, 2002

  • National differences in computer access and technological know-how raise important ethical and methodological questions for telecollaborative foreign language study.

    “Related to this feature is Belz's (2002) argument that national differences in computer access and technological know-how raise new”

    From An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration (2007) · cites this paper as Belz, 2002

  • Contradictions may also take place because of the misalignment of academic calendars, institutionalized classroom scripts, methods of learning accreditation, academic socialization and technological access.

    “A number of recent studies found that the contradictions may also take place because of the misalignment of academic calendars, institutionalized classroom scripts, methods of learning accreditation, academic socialization and technological access (Belz, 2002;Belz & Muller-Hartmann, 2003;O'Dowd, 2005;Thorne, 2003).”

    From An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration (2007) · cites this paper as Belz, 2002

  • The newly identified variables behind online contradictions include differences in students' frames of reference with regards to local discursive norms of language use, language valuation, the ways students co-construe the context of online communication and their communication partners.

    “The newly identified variables behind online contradictions include differences in students' frames of reference with regards to local discursive norms of language use (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002), language valuation (Belz, 2002;Ware, 2005), the ways students co-construe the context of online communication (Ware, 2005) and their communication partners (Meagher & Castanos, 1996;O'Dowd, 2003O'Dowd, , 20”

    From An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration (2007) · cites this paper as Belz, 2002

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: 48

  1. Archer, M. S. (1988). Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Ash, M. G. (Ed.). (1997). German universities past and future. Crisis or renewal. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books.
  4. Brammerts, H. (1996). Language learning in tandem using the Internet. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning. Proceedings of the Hawai`i Sumposium (pp. 121-130). Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press.
  5. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambrdge University Press.
  6. Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, M. B. H., & Richardson, K. (1992). Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method. New York: Routledge.
  7. Candlin, C. (2000). Introduction. In B. Norton (Ed.), Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change (pp. xiii-xxi). New York: Longman.
  8. Carter, B., & Sealey, A. (2000). Language, structure, and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 3-20.
  9. Chapelle, C. (2000). Is network-based learning CALL? In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network- based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 204-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
  11. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417.
  12. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura Project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55-102. Retrieved July 15, 2001, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/.
  13. Gillespie, J. (2000). Toward a computer-based learning environment: A pilot study in the use of FirstClass. ReCALL, 12(1), pp. 19-26.
  14. Härtling, P. (1997). Ben liebt Anna (2 nd ed.). [Ben Loves Anna]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Verlag.
  15. Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Hilgendorf, S. (1996). The impact of English in Germany. English Today, 12(3), 3-14.
  17. Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
  18. Kern, R. G. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 105-119). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
  19. Kinginger, C., Gourves-Hayward, A., & Simpson, V. (1999). A tele -collaborative course on French- American intercultural communication. The French Review, 72(5), 853-866.
  20. Kramsch, C. (1985). Literary texts in the classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 69(4), 356-366.
  21. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Kramsch, C. (2000). Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching of foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 311-326.
  23. Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (in press). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Language learning and teaching in the age of globalization. London: Routledge.
  24. Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: "Letting all the flowers bloom!" Language Learning, 46(4), 713-749.
  25. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  26. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141-158). New York: Longman.
  27. Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in social research. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  28. Leont'ev, A. A. (1981). Psychology and the language learning process [Ed. by C. V. James]. New York: Pergamon Press.
  29. Little, D., & Brammerts, H. (Eds.). (1996). A guide to language learning in tandem via the Internet. Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Occasional Paper 46. Dublin: Trinity College. [Accessed on-line via ERIC ED399789.]
  30. McGroarty, M. (1998). Constructive and constructivist challenges for applied linguistics. Language Learning, 48(4), 591-622.
  31. Meskill, C., & Ranglova, K. (2000). Sociocollaborative language le arning in Bulgaria. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 20-40). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electrnic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129-147. Retrieved July 15, 2001, from: http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/muller/.
  33. Noack, E. (1999). Comparing U.S. and German education. Like apples and sauerkraut. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(10), 773-776.
  34. Salaberry, R. (1999). CALL in the year 2000: Still developing the research agenda. A commentary on Carol Chapelle's CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms. Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 104-107. Retrieved July 15, 2001, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/comment/.
  35. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1-24.
  36. Schneider, P. (1991). Amerikanische Biographie [American biography]. In R. Walker, E. Tschirner, B. Nikolai, & G. Strasser (Eds.), Assoziationen. Deutsch für die Mittelstufe (p. 232-236). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  37. Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Retrieved July 15, 2001, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/.
  38. Tella, S. (1996). Foreign languages and modern technology: Harmony or hell? In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 3-18). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
  39. VanPatten, B. (1999). What is SLA and what is it doing in this department? ADFL Bulletin, 30(3), 49-53.
  40. Wallace, P. (2001). The psychology of the internet [2 nd ed.]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1995). Virtual connections. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
  42. Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1996). Telecollaboration in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
  43. Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-481.
  44. Warschauer, M. (1998b). Online learning in sociocultural context. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(3), 68-88.
  45. Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1). Retrieved July 15, 2001 from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issue1/wegerif.htm.
  47. Widdowson, H, (1992). Practical stylistics: An approach to poetry. New York: Oxford University Press.
  48. Woodson, J. (1998). If you come softly. New York: Penguin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Belz, J. A.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Belz, Julie A
Venue
Language Learning & Technology
Publisher
National Foreign Language Resource Center
Published
2002-01-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
60-81
ISSN
1094-3501 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.64152/10125/25143
OpenAlex
W2130912322
Cited by
376
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 20
FWCI
102.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Language learning & technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Language learning & technology (cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Pennsylvania State University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Foreign Language Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
virtual exchange, foreign language learning, social realism, language valuation, institutional environment, individual agency, internet access

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