1The evolution of virtual exchange

and assessment practices

Melinda Dooly1

Abstract

T his chapter provides a general synopsis of the evolution of

Virtual Exchange (VE) as it has progressively become more
immersed in the paradigms of language teaching approaches.
Inevitably, this transformation unfolds in pace to advances in
communication technology as the interactional tools are key for
facilitating connection between distanced partners in the exchanges.
Coming full circle, these advances have had an impact on the
organization of the exchanges as well as the focus, methods, and
tools used for assessing VE. We will first foreground seminal
authors’ work and their impact on VE, next we will review the
more commonplace terminology and how these terms have evolved.
Through this lens we will then consider how, historically, these
concepts have impacted and are now manifested in the different
typologies of implementations and assessments in more current VE
research and practice, including the chapters in this book. We finish
by presenting some of the thornier challenges in assessing VE and
examples of how these are being addressed.

Keywords: virtual exchange, assessment, online interaction, intercultural teaching.

1. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain; [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1478-4892

How to cite: Dooly, M. (2022). The evolution of virtual exchange and assessment practices. In A. Czura & M. Dooly
(Eds), Assessing virtual exchange in foreign language courses at tertiary level (pp. 13-27). Research-publishing.net.
https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.59.1407

© 2022 Melinda Dooly (CC BY) 13

Chapter 1

1. Introduction

Increasingly sophisticated technology has become ubiquitous in many

households around the world; smartphones are now widely used around the
world (although, admittedly there are still glaring socioeconomic gaps in places
without electricity that makes the use of technology impossible). However, as
technological advances and access to technology becomes more widespread, it
is often argued that these events hold the potential to revolutionize teaching
and learning. This was made patently palpable during the school lockdowns
precipitated by the Covid 19 pandemic. Recent studies show that the situation
activated teachers to develop and enhance their techno-pedagogical know-how
and gain confidence in their technological abilities as the pandemic led to the
shutting down of schools for extended periods and teachers had to pivot almost
immediately from in-person teaching to online.

However, there is a need to push beyond these parameters of merely thinking

about technical teacher know-how; this does not guarantee true innovation in
pedagogy. As Hodges et al. (2020) point out, a distinction is best made between
techno-pedagogical competences and emergency remote teaching. As the use
of technology in education has become more widespread, concomitantly and
with increased access to personal digital devices and Internet connection,
discussion of preparing the ‘21st century citizen’, capable of functioning in
a technology-saturated society, had already become prevalent in discourse on
education and educational policies even before the worldwide pandemic. One
of the most common features for ‘21st century education’ is that the leading-
edge teacher should use student-centered, inquiry-based teaching approaches
– the same characteristics asserted by Dewey (1916) 100 years ago in his
proposal for a transformative educational model. In his framework, Dewey
argued that the role of education is to provide developmental opportunities
for the individual (guidance and support to knowledge, not transmission
from one ‘all-knowing’ to ‘empty vessels’). Significantly, from 2020 to 2021,
during the most critical moments of the Covid pandemic, numerous policy
support documents for educators in online teaching also tended to highlight
student-centered practice. Significantly, this shift from a “transmission mode

14
 Melinda Dooly

of pedagogy” to a more “participative experience” (Thomas, Reinders, &

Warschauer, 2013, p. 7) had already been the backbone of learning design for
VE for several decades (Belz, 2003; Dooly, 2005, 2009; O’Dowd & Waire,
2009; Warschauer, 1996).

A second major axis of 21st century, participatory education, which is the

rejection of the notion of ‘individual cognition’ for a more collaborative
process of socially constructed, mutually shared knowledge building has also
been increasingly more predominant in VE configurations (Dooly, 2017).
Social constructivists view knowing as a social process, manifest not only in
the sociocultural construct of what is perceived as ‘knowing’ (Maturana, 1978;
Mercer & Sams, 2006), but also within the social interaction among experts-to-
non-experts, peer-to-peer that leads to higher levels of reasoning and learning
(Sfard & Kieran, 2001). Therein lies another fundamental parallelism to the
promotion of VE for learning. It has been well-documented that collaboration
in education, whether between, classmates, entire classes or school and
even between educational institutions and other entities or communities is
not a new activity (Dooly, 2017; Dooly & O’Dowd, 2018; The EVALUATE
Group, 2019). However, VE, as a specific type of collaboration that involves
distanced partners has became more popular with the advent and easier access
to communication technology in the late 1980s and early to mid-1990s, in
particular in language education. This is not surprising as “fomenting contact
between language communities has always been a principal goal (as witnessed
by international programs of exchange, e.g. Erasmus programs)” (Dooly, 2017,
p. 169) and with increasingly easier access to speakers of different languages,
the use of VE is still growing.

2. Definition(s) of VE

This increment in the use of VE, concurrent with the rise of distanced online
learning has led to some debate regarding what exactly comprises a VE. As
researchers and practitioners’ interest in VE has grown, several definitions –
spanning decades – have been suggested.

15
Chapter 1

“[VE], Telecollaboration, eTandem or Teletandem and Collaborative

Online International Learning (COIL) are some of the more well-
known terms that have been used, often interchangeably, to refer to the
process of communicating and collaboratively learning with peers from
different locations through the use of technology. Admittedly these
terms are not considered by everyone to be synonyms and each term
has emerged from different epistemologies and contexts. Moreover,
the terms, if seen differently (some researchers do claim they are
synonymous) are not mutually exclusive, and arguments regarding
differences in terminology are often linked to an individual’s dynamics
and background references” (Dooly & Vinagre, 2021, pp. 1-2).

Some terminology – and authors most frequently associated with these terms –
have had significant impact in defining and describing these types of exchanges,
as seen in Figure 1. The key words used in the definitions also demonstrate
significant evolution in the focus of the exchanges.

Figure 1. Evolution of keyword

In 1996, Warschauer referred to technology-enhanced exchanges as ‘virtual

connections’. A year later, Little and Brammerts (1996) described tandem

16
 Melinda Dooly

learning as a partnership between people with different mother tongues working

together to learn each other’s language and learn about each other’s character
and culture. In 2003, Belz used the term ‘telecollaboration’ for internationally
distanced language classes that use Internet communication tools “to support
social interaction, dialogue, debate, and intercultural exchange” (p. 2). In
2016, O’Dowd and Lewis place telecollaboration, VE, and online intercultural
exchange on the same spectrum, explaining that all three terms refer to engaging
students in task-based interaction and collaborative exchange projects under the
guidance of their teachers. In 2020, the EU Commission stated that VE can help
teachers to shift from their accustomed teaching approaches in order to develop
new skills to engage in linguistic, intercultural, and digital learning experiences.
In 2021, Dooly and Vinagre describe how VE is increasingly used by institutions
and governments, arguing that the phrase VE “appears to be set as the most
recognizable term, at least in the EU and the USA, although admittedly in South
America [...] teletandem is a more predominant term” (Dooly & Vinagre, 2021,
pp. 2-3). The evolution of the terminology applied to these contexts, as well as
the expansion of overall goals – and subsequent complexity of design of VE –
can also be perceived in the chapters in this book. Cavalari and Aranha (2022)
use several terms to describe their exchange: teletandem (a common term in
South America, in particular in Brazil), telecollaboration, and VE.

Moreover, as interest and research in these types of exchanges has extended

from small pockets of pioneering practices to institutionally-based innovation
(The EVALUATE Group, 2019), VE is increasingly considered a teaching
approach, in particular in language education and under the larger paradigm of
the communicative approach (Dooly & Vinagre, 2021). Subsequently, the EU
(2020) is now calling for ‘VE teacher competences’.

With VE progressively acknowledged as a teaching approach, a list of

commonalities have been identified: (1) it is a highly flexible teaching practice;
(2) it ensures opportunities for social interaction and collaboration with other
learners outside formal classroom boundaries (pluriculturality); (3) it can be an
alternative to physical mobility for students; and (4) it may include some self-
directed learning within an array of institutionally planned learning activities

17
Chapter 1

(adapted from Dooly & Vinagre, 2021). It is important to note that neither
individual, self-guided learning, nor one-teacher per class distanced, online
learning constitute VE because, by default, it comprises teacher-supported
collaboration between at least two partner classes in different locations.

Figure 2. Toward VE as an established language and intercultural teaching

approach

As mentioned in Dooly (2017), the above-described evolution of how VE is

conceived also demonstrates that the use of digital exchanges in educational
settings has gone from rather simple activities, largely viewed as complementary
tasks, to far more complex, embedded, and holistic components of “learning
ecologies” (Barron, 2006, p. 195). The main features of these definitions
and foci, in particular collaborative learning, are also evident in the ways in
which VE has been identified across the span of this book. Vuylsteke (2022,
this volume) explains how two international business course students “worked
collaboratively in order to develop both their digital and language skills” so
that the learners could “keep learning when outside the classroom [… through
…] peer-to-peer learning” (pp. 148-149). Czura and Sendur (2022, this volume)
state that “one of the defining features of VE is collaboration, which involves
working with other peers both from the home and the partner institutions, toward
a common goal” (pp. 93-94).

18
 Melinda Dooly

The increasing complexity of VE is also evident in the chapters in this book.

Cavalari and Aranha (2022, this volume) foreground both the task design
and the relevance of learner interaction: “telecollaboration involves different
pedagogical tasks by means of which students should learn and co-construct
knowledge” (p. 66). For Rolińska and Czura (2022, this volume) the deployment
of project-based learning in VEs can help bring authenticity and hands-on
learning to the exchange.

The break from more formal classroom boundaries, in order to bring in a more
pluricultural focus of language teaching and learning is also prevalent in the
chapters in this book. Izmaylova (2022, this volume) emphasizes the “goal of
providing students with an opportunity to analyze their own and target cultures,
as well as practice their intercultural communication skills” (p. 136), just as
Dolcini and Matthias Phelps (2022, this volume) highlight the relevance of
intercultural competence gains that can come about through VE. Similarly,
Rolińska and Czura (2022, this volume) describe how the learners “work across
borders and cultures on real-life [disciplinary] scenarios and develop a number
of soft skills and attributes alongside” (p. 163).

The aforementioned aspect of an incremental focus on self-directed learning is

a transversal theme through several of the chapters. Dooly (2022, this volume)
focuses principally on the notion of small working groups, meeting outside
of class time without teacher presence; accentuating the need for increased
learner autonomy in the overall process of VE. Elstermann (2022, this volume)
highlights autonomous foreign language learning; self-directed learning can be
facilitated through opportunities for working collaboratively with others around
the world as key goals for VE.

Nonetheless, the amount, intensity, and format of collaboration in VE is not

a settled debate as of yet, in particular if it is a component to be evaluated.
The model below, proposed to preservice teachers involved in VE (Dooly &
Sadler, 2020), provides a simple yet functional measurement tool for deciding
and designing the type of collaboration between VE partners (informally called
the ‘Collaborate-o-meter’).

19
Chapter 1

Figure 3. Collaborate-o-meter

Cogwheels Zig-zag (parts exchange): Show & Tell (information

(interdependence): This is This type of activity may exchange): Probably one
the hardest type of project involve group work in of the more common
to design and implement the local classes so that types of telecollaborative
but it is the most rewarding. the learners can prepare exchanges, this usually
It involves complete something (information, involves introductions,
interdependence between key features of the output, information about
the online partners. etc.) to share with the schools, communities,
other class. Each partner countries, hobbies,
is responsible for part etc. There is language
of the project output. practice, but collaborative
learning is minimal.

3. Shifting paradigms of VE and assessment

As described earlier and seen in the chapters in this book, the general underlying
paradigm of VE has moved more and more to embrace and bring to the fore
an emphasis on situated, learner-centered social practices, based on influential
thinkers like Vygotsky (1930-1934/1978), Wertsch (1985), and Tharp and
Gallimore (1988), to name a few of the more celebrated theorists in educational
circles in the 1980’s. There is now a widely accepted premise of VE that the

20
 Melinda Dooly

teacher is a knowledge facilitator (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003; Dooly, 2017;

Fosnot, 2005; Thomas et al., 2013) who designs and implements an optimal
environment for learners to construct knowledge through engagement with
‘artifacts’, aided by expert and peer interaction (Chaiklin, 2004; Vygotsky,
1978).

Inevitably, the heightened focus on learner autonomy, peer assessment, and

social interaction for collaborative learning has also had an impact on how
assessment is conceptualized and applied to VE. All teachers must make
decisions about assessment that acknowledges and appreciates the differences
between the teacher’s expectations and beliefs about learning compared with
those of the students. For instance, while historically in many cultures cheating
has often been understood to mean the illicit use of information or improper
access to answers, this idea of cheating needs to be re-examined in the light of
the underlying paradigms of VE.

If the focus of the exchange is on collaboration, VE teachers must think

about using innovative assessment methods that move away from the notion
of individual knowledge and instead focus on multiply-shared knowledge
construction that is prevalent in online communities, facilitated through digital
communication tools (Dooly & Sadler, 2013).

Assessment design that involves peer feedback and evaluations, as outlined

by Czura and Sendur (2022, this volume), Dooly (2022, this volume), and
Elstermann (2022, this volume), not only matches the assessment procedures to
the learning design, it also explicitly acknowledges and makes visible the value
of peer learning to the students involved in the VE.

Communicative competence gains must also be seen as part of the interactional

process, and assessed accordingly, rather than as a one-time, decontextualized
‘recall’ of discrete linguistic items. This premise can be identified in the
assessment practice outlined in Vuylsteke (2022, this volume), where the
learners are assessed at the end of their VE through the use of a ‘realistic
online job interview’. Contextualized assessment practices such as these also

21
Chapter 1

advance ideas on how to counteract what Hall, Cheng, and Carlson (2006) have
asserted as an underlying theoretical flaw in much second language acquisition
research, that is the assumption of homogeneity of language knowledge across
speakers and contexts (p. 220). As stated in Dooly (2011), these authors
contend that speakers’ language knowledge should not be considered as
homogeneous, nor “composed of a-contextual, stable system components”
(Hall et al., 2006, p. 230). In other words, VE assessment should stem from the
notion that an individual’s use of language is not static, levels of accuracy and
fluency will vary according to everyday contexts. A person writing a chapter
for a book is far more likely to be punctilious and aim for precise language
use in comparison to when she is quickly texting an SMS message to a friend
or colleague. Awareness of variants in contextualized language use can be
accommodated through formative assessment, as discussed in Cavalari and
Aranha’s (2022, this volume) use of learner diaries or in Rolińska and Czura’s
(2022, this volume) description of periodically submitted output and ‘bespoke
feedback’ criteria.

Another commonplace challenge for assessment of VE is how to extricate

Intercultural Competences (IC) from technological abilities; ‘cyberspace’
is not culture-free and technical issues (expertise versus non-expertise)
or technological discomfiture (lack of digital know-how) can transfer
into attitudes toward the exchange (dislike of the imposition of doing VE
as part of the academic work for instance) as well as having an impact on
others’ interpretation of an individual’s response (for instance, out-of-screen
distractions in the local environment can give the impression of being
disengaged in the task when, in reality, this may not be the case). The use of
portfolios, as described in Izmaylova (2022, this volume), can provide detailed
insight into each individual’s development (process) through analytical
snapshots of specific moments (products), while allowing for the non-linear
fashion in which IC evolves in each individual. Portfolios also provide more
leeway regarding momentary lapses in engagement caused by external factors
as well as venues for personal explanations of behaviors seen negatively by
peers (Dooly & Sadler, 2020).

22
 Melinda Dooly

Differing institutional and course demands, unequal access to technology,

unsymmetrical command of the language of the exchange and other similar
individual aspects can have impact on VE process and outcomes (missed
deadlines, quality of the assignments), eventually leading to obstacles in the
interpersonal relationships of the participants (Dooly & Vinagre, 2021). Dialogic
reflection between teacher and learner, based on diary entries like the ones
described by Izmaylova (2022, this volume) can help participants comprehend
the multi-layered aspects of digital communication and overcome some of these
barriers.

4. Conclusions

As in any classroom setting, one of the most difficult tasks for the teacher is
designing assessment that reliably reflects what each individual student, each
starting from different epistemic status, has gained during the learning activity.
It has been argued that the most authentic assessment practices are integral parts
of the curriculum and instruction process; that they serve to not only measure
what has been learned but also to support the learning during the process
while facilitating a gradual increase in learner accountability for the process
(Dann, 2014). Along these lines, VE assessment activities will ideally make
a positive impact on students beyond certifying their knowledge gains and
levels of competence, while advancing their learning capabilities beyond the
VE experience. The chapters herein lay the groundwork for pushing forward
new ideas for VE practitioners as well providing some useful insights for future
research and practice.

References

Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development:

a learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193-224. https://doi.
org/10.1159/000094368

23
Chapter 1

Belz, J. A. (2003). From the special issue editor. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 2-5.
https://doi.org/10125/25193
Cavalari, S., & Aranha, S. (2022). Learners’ diaries as a tool for teachers’ assessment in
teletandem. In A. Czura & M. Dooly (Eds), Assessing virtual exchange in foreign language
courses at tertiary level (pp. 65-78). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/
rpnet.2022.59.1410
Chaiklin, S. (2004). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning
and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev & S. M. Miller (Eds), Vygotsky’s
educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39-64). Cambridge University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.004
Czura, A., & Sendur, A. M. (2022). Peer assessment of process writing in a virtual exchange
project. In A. Czura & M. Dooly (Eds), Assessing virtual exchange in foreign language
courses at tertiary level (pp. 93-106). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/
rpnet.2022.59.1412
Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning
for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
21(2), 149-166. https://10.1080/0969594X.2014.898128
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education.
MacMillan.
Dolcini, G., & Matthias Phelps, G. (2022). Is (inter)cultural competence accessible? Assessing
for fluency. In A. Czura & M. Dooly (Eds), Assessing virtual exchange in foreign language
courses at tertiary level (pp. 123-134). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/
rpnet.2022.59.1414
Doolittle, P. E., & Hicks, D. E. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use
of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31(1), 71-103.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2003.10473216
Dooly, M. (2005). Working with an educational portal: a first-timer’s experience. TESOL-
Spain Newsletter, 29, 18-19.
Dooly, M. (2009). New competencies in a new era? Examining the impact of a teacher training
project. ReCALL, 21(3), 352-369. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344009990085
Dooly, M. (2011). Divergent perceptions of tellecollaborative language learning tasks: task-
as-workplan vs. task-as-process. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2), 69-91. https://
doi.org/10125/44252

24
 Melinda Dooly

Dooly, M. (2017). Telecollaboration. In C. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds), The handbook of

technology in second language teaching and learning (pp. 169-183). Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118914069.ch12
Dooly, M. (2022). TEAMMATES in virtual exchange: tool and tips for peer assessment. In
A. Czura & M. Dooly (Eds), Assessing virtual exchange in foreign language courses
at tertiary level (pp. 107-120). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/
rpnet.2022.59.1413
Dooly, M., & O’Dowd, R. (2018). Telecollaboration in the foreign language classroom: a
review of its origins and its application to language teaching practices. In M. Dooly
& R. O’Dowd (Eds), In this together: teachers’ experiences with transnational,
telecollaborative language learning projects. Peter Lang.
Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2013). Filling in the gaps: linking theory and practice through
telecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL, 25(1), 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0958344012000237
Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2020). “If you don’t improve, what’s the point?” Investigating the
impact of a “flipped” online exchange in teacher education. ReCALL, 32(1), 4-24. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000107
Dooly, M., & Vinagre, M. (2021). Research into practice: virtual exchange in language teaching
and learning. Language Teaching, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000069
Elstermann, A.-K. (2022). Peer group mediation sessions as an assessment tool in
teletandem. In A. Czura & M. Dooly (Eds), Assessing virtual exchange in foreign
language courses at tertiary level (pp. 79-91). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.
org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.59.1411
EU. (2020). Staff working document on the digital education action plan. European
Commission.
Fosnot, C. T. (2005). (Ed.). Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.).
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as
a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 220-240. https://doi.
org/10.1093/applin/aml013
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency
remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27 March. https://er.educause.edu/
articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

25
Chapter 1

Izmaylova, A. (2022). Assessing intercultural learning in virtual exchange. In A.

Czura & M. Dooly (Eds), Assessing virtual exchange in foreign language courses
at tertiary level (pp. 135-146). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/
rpnet.2022.59.1415
Little, D., & Brammerts, H. (1996). (Eds). A guide to language learning in tandem via the
Internet. CLCS Occasional Paper No. 46. Centre for Language and Communication
Studies, Trinity College.
Maturana, H. R. (1978). Biology of language: the epistemology of reality. In G. A. Miller
& E. Lenneberg (Eds), Psychology and biology of language and thought (pp. 27-63).
Academic Press.
Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths
problems. Language and Education, 20(6), 507-528. https://doi.org/10.2167/le678.0
O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (2016). (Eds). Online intercultural exchange: policy, pedagogy,
practice. Routledge Studies in Language and Intercultural Communication. Routledge.
O’Dowd, R., & Waire, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09588220902778369
Rolińska, A., & Czura, A. (2022). Assessment in the English for Academic Study
Telecollaboration (EAST) project – a case study. In A. Czura & M. Dooly (Eds), Assessing
virtual exchange in foreign language courses at tertiary level (pp. 163-175). Research-
publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.59.1417
Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: rethinking learning-by-talking
through multi-faceted analysis of students’ mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture,
and Activity, 8(1), 42-76. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0801_04
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge University Press.
The 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
Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (2013). Contemporary computer-assisted
language learning: the role of digital media and incremental change. In M. Thomas, H.
Reinders & M. Warschauer (Eds), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning
(pp. 1-12). Bloomsbury.

26
 Melinda Dooly

Vuylsteke, J.-F. (2022). Business communication skills through virtual exchange – a case
study. In A. Czura & M. Dooly (Eds), Assessing virtual exchange in foreign language
courses at tertiary level (pp. 147-162). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/
rpnet.2022.59.1416
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes
(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman., Eds.) (A. R. Luria, M. Lopez-
Morillas & M. Cole [with J. V. Wertsch], Trans.) Harvard University Press. (Original
manuscripts [ca. 1930-1934])
Warschauer, M. (1996). (Ed.). Telecollaboration in foreign language learning. University of
Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press.

27
Published by Research-publishing.net, a not-for-profit association
Contact: [email protected]

© 2022 by Editors (collective work)

© 2022 by Authors (individual work)

Assessing virtual exchange in foreign language courses at tertiary level

Edited by Anna Czura and Melinda Dooly

Publication date: 2022/09/12

Rights: the whole volume is published under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives International

(CC BY-NC-ND) licence; individual articles may have a different licence. Under the CC BY-NC-ND licence,
the volume is freely available online (https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2022.59.9782383720102) for anybody to
read, download, copy, and redistribute provided that the author(s), editorial team, and publisher are properly cited.
Commercial use and derivative works are, however, not permitted.

Disclaimer: Research-publishing.net does not take any responsibility for the content of the pages written by the
authors of this book. The authors have recognised that the work described was not published before, or that it
was not under consideration for publication elsewhere. While the information in this book is believed to be true
and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the editorial team nor the publisher can accept any legal
responsibility for any errors or omissions. The publisher makes no warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein. While Research-publishing.net is committed to publishing works of integrity, the
words are the authors’ alone.

Trademark notice: product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Copyrighted material: every effort has been made by the editorial team to trace copyright holders and to obtain
their permission for the use of copyrighted material in this book. In the event of errors or omissions, please notify
the publisher of any corrections that will need to be incorporated in future editions of this book.

Typeset by Research-publishing.net
Cover Layout by © 2022 Anna Czura
Cover photo © 2022 studioroman via Canva.com

ISBN13: 978-2-38372-010-2 (Ebook, PDF, colour)

ISBN13: 978-2-38372-011-9 (Ebook, EPUB, colour)
ISBN13: 978-2-38372-009-6 (Paperback - Print on demand, black and white)
Print on demand technology is a high-quality, innovative and ecological printing method; with which the book is
never ‘out of stock’ or ‘out of print’.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

A cataloguing record for this book is available from the British Library.

Legal deposit, France: Bibliothèque Nationale de France - Dépôt légal: septembre 2022.