Studies in ICC have focused on the challenges that learners face in cross-cultural encounters. For example, the work by Belz (2002, 2003, 2005), Belz and Kinginger (2003), Ware and Kramsch (2005), and Basharina (2007) revealed the misunderstandings that occur in communication exchanges between two different cultural groups. As reported in these studies, cultural misunderstandings arise from the interactions between the two cultures, which are prompted by the meaning-making process that occurs during interactions. However, as Chapelle (2010) points out, the benefits associated with ICC development in these types of studies are difficult to assess given that the focus of study is
The research area of ICC has seen a change from studies that were merely descriptive to process-oriented research with a focus on communication breakdowns. Early studies in the area of telecollaboration had a focus on the description of the medium of communication (e.g., computer programs and materials), and the products of such communication exchanges (Chapelle, 2001; Levy, 2007; Liaw, 2006). Telecollaboration studies have changed research methodologies to a focus on communication breakdowns that occur in cross-cultural
encounters (e.g., the works by Belz, 2002, 2005; Kramsch and Thorne, 2002; Thorne 2003). This change in research methodology has provided a greater understanding of the process of collaboration (Basharina, 2007; Kim, 2011; Dooly, 2011), the effectiveness and limitations of such exchanges (Thorne, 2003), and the impact that cross-cultural collaboration can have on language learning and teaching pedagogies (Ware, 2005; Sercu, 2005). Furthermore, with the appearance of computers, language educators and learners alike have attempted to engage in communication with audiences of the target language. The growth of such practices has demanded a closer look at these interactions.
Research in ICC has uncovered the complexity of interactions that come into play in cross-cultural encounters. In an influential article in the area of telecollaboration, Belz and Kinginger (2003) studied the role that address forms in German had on the development of cultural understanding between participants in the US and Germany. The study analyzed the use of formal and informal address forms in German, the second person pronouns du and Sie. Participants in a university class of German as a foreign language in the US communicated with participants in a university class of English as a foreign language in Germany.
Participants exchanged e-mails and communicated in synchronous chat sessions about their views and interpretations of films and readings that both groups read and watched. Belz and
Kinginger found that the complexities of use of the pronouns presented learners of German with challenges for the use of the pronouns in the context of the exchange. However, the context of the exchange offered learners opportunities for assistance with the use of the pronouns from the native German speakers. Communication mishaps arose in the misuse of the pronouns by the American students. The Belz and Kinginger study has served as an example of the way in which the use of linguistic forms can affect communication between two culturally and linguistically different groups, and the conflicts that arise as a
consequence of miscommunication between groups from two different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Communication breakdowns appeared during the process of meaning making. More than differences in linguistic forms, greater differences existed between the two groups due to their framework for interpretation of the tasks (i.e., conversing with their
German/American counterparts) and the rules of engagement that they followed.
Investigations in ICC have considered groups from two different backgrounds, but there have also been studies (Basharina, 2007) that have looked at interactions between groups from three different backgrounds. In her investigation, Basharina (2007) analyzed the conflicts that arose from the discussions of participants in bulletin boards. There were
differences in the perspectives that participants had about the expectations of the exchange as well as in the way participants interacted. Given that the study included groups from different cultural backgrounds, misunderstandings between the three different groups (Mexican, Japanese, Russian) occurred, but there were also differences that emerged among participants from the same group. Basharina’s (2007) study used Activity Theory in the analysis of these contradictions, and with the use of this framework, she was able to identify clashes that
occurred from the interactions with resources (tools) and the medium of delivery, such as technological problems with the course management system and access to the Internet.
Basharina’s (2007) study confirmed the mishaps found in Thorne’s (2003) study with regard to cultures of use. Thorne (2003) indicates that Internet mediated tools (e.g., e-mail, chat programs) for communication carry expectations for their use that affect the
communication. The expectations that learners have about the use of certain media have an impact on the communication and the perceptions learners develop towards the participants involved in the communication exchanges and towards their cultures. Indeed, in
telecollaboration studies, research has found that the participants’ cultures-of-use with regard to technology has influenced the interactions of participants in cross-cultural encounters, which usually result in the development of negative attitudes towards the interactions. However, conflicts in the interactions are to be expected given the varied access to resources that participants have. This is particularly true in countries in which technology is not ‘the norm’ and access to computers and the Internet is not as readily available as it is in
institutions of higher level of education such as university campuses. In Basharina’s (2007) study, the negotiation of meaning and meaning making was affected by the cultures-of-use of the participants, their expectations, and their experiences with the use of computers for the purpose of communicating. Activity theory was used to analyze how the tensions arose and what factors prompted the appearance of tensions. In this way, Basharina was able to
discover that differences in the underlying values and cultural norms of the participants (and their cultures or origin, e.g., Mexico, Russia) prompted participants to have different
expectations of participations (i.e., frequency of correspondence, tone used in notes) that resulted in tensions between the groups of participants.
One such example of differences in access to the Internet and the repercussions that this has on participants’ perceptions of the ‘foreign’ group can be observed in Belz’s (2005) study. Belz investigated the tensions that arose during the communication exchanges between one male student in the US and two female students in Germany. The interactions of these students were analyzed linguistically by considering the type and number of questions used by students and their relation to the affordances of ICC development. Belz focused on tensions because she states that as Vigotsky (1978) indicates, “one of the best ways to understand a phenomenon or system may be by looking at its pathology, i.e. those points where it is disrupted or where it does not run smoothly” (Belz, 2005, p.12). In her study, Belz (2005) suggests that one of the reasons the American students developed negative attitudes towards their counterparts was the limited response to their e-mails that they received from their pen pals in Germany.
The problem here is that since research has shown that variations in Internet access and technology creates conflicts for interactions, why are these factors still not accounted for to eliminate variables that may have negative impacts in the gains of learners in regard to ICC? Even recent studies such as Dooly’s (2011) article, with a focus on modes of language use between participants in Spain and Czech Republic, noted that the differences in cultures- of-use in regard to technological practices had a negative impact in ICC development.
In telecollaboration studies, this research has shown that misunderstandings and mishaps in technological differences prompt conflicts that help us to better understand the implications that variations in cultural practices have in ICC development. In view of these findings and the goal of language teaching to foster ICC development, approaches that prepare students to learn from such conflicts when they occur may better assist learners in
their quest towards the achievement of ICC. Furthermore, research in ICC that considers interactions between groups from different linguistic, cultural, and geographical backgrounds leaves out some key details that can help us understand the fuller implications of how
participants from similar backgrounds go about developing ICC by preparing for such encounters. Therefore, based on the need to investigate ICC development in the context of the foreign language classroom, this study aims at the analysis of learners’ interactions in the process of pursuing ICC when interacting with their peers. As part of understanding this process, it is important to study the materials used and their role in ICC development.