IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Teacher Candidate Reflection and Development Through Virtual Exchange
Chesla Ann Lenkaitis
Binghamton University, State University of New York
United States
Shannon M. Hilliker
Binghamton University, State University of New York
United States
Kayla Roumeliotis
Teachers College at Columbia University
United States125

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Abstract
This study examines the effects of a virtual exchange on twelve teacher candidates of a
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages program. The teacher candidates
participated in a 4-week virtual exchange with English as a Foreign Language learners from a
university in Mexico. Throughout the exchange, the teacher candidates participated inconversational exchanges and subsequently analyzed and reflected on the errors produced by
the English as a Foreign Language students and also the corrective feedback strategies theyused during the sessions. The goal of the analysis and reflection activities was to help theteacher candidates develop their ability to identify such errors and apply appropriate corrective
feedback strategies. The results indicated the teacher candidates’ ability to identify errors
increased throughout the exchange, suggesting changes to their development and perception ofcorrective feedback. These results add to the growing body of research about the value of using
virtual exchanges in teacher preparation programs, a tool that may be particularly relevant
during the current coronavirus global crisis.
Keywords: virtual exchange; learner autonomy; teacher preparation; corrective feedback; adultlearners; language learning

126

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Virtual exchange, a practice that partners students from two geographical locations through themeans of technological tools, is an innovative instructional approach being used in higher
education (Bohinski & Leventhal, 2015; Dorner, 2016). The term “virtual exchange” issynonymous with telecollaboration, online intercultural exchanges, and teletandem (O’Dowd,2018). Sadler and Dooly (2016) discussed the increasing use of virtual exchange in language
learning, and how it facilitates communication and promotes learner autonomy. However, theresearch on integrating virtual exchanges in teacher preparation programs is still growing(Lenkaitis, 2020; Dooly & Sadler, 2013; Jauregi & Bañados, 2008).
The current study focuses on teacher candidates in a Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL) program. In a 4-week virtual exchange, TESOL teacher candidates werepartnered with English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. The weekly virtual exchange
sessions gave the EFL learners access to a TESOL teacher candidate with whom they wereable to communicate in English, while providing the teacher candidates opportunities todevelop their pedagogy. The ability to work with an international partner to develop language
and pedagogical skills via virtual exchange is a promising tool that can be valuable as theeducational landscape changes and can address challenges such as the current coronavirus(COVID-19) global crisis. More specifically, this study examines how virtual exchange
sessions created opportunities for TESOL teacher candidates to develop learner autonomy
while learning to recognize and reflect upon EFL student errors and the corresponding
corrective feedback (CF).
Literature Review
Virtual Exchange
Communication is a significant part of learning, especially in the language classroom. Holley
and King (1971) discussed the importance of practicing communication in order to promote a“natural language learning context” (Cohen, 1975, p. 416), where learners are encouraged to
speak and are only corrected for errors that impede communication. Communication andcollaboration can be promoted through the use of technology such as videoconferencing(Fetterman, 1996) and other Web 2.0 tools (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009). Technology
can also facilitate the formation of international partnerships amongst students (Spante et al.,2014) via a virtual exchange. In virtual exchange, a practice that pairs students in other contexts
via technology, students can interact using the target language, and it can be used as an effective
method for improving students’ linguistic development (Ware & O’Dowd, 2008).
Virtual exchange projects have been carried out in English language learning (Austin et al.,2017; Rafieyan et al., 2014; Sevilla-Pavón, 2016) and there is a growing body of research on
how to integrate virtual exchanges in teacher preparation programs (Lenkaitis, 2020; Dooly &Sadler, 2013; Jauregi & Bañados, 2008; The EVALUATE Group, 2019). In Lenkaitis (2020),
participants in a teaching program from a university in the USA were partnered with second
language (L2) learners in a 4-week virtual exchange via videoconferencing. TESOL teacher
candidates explored the language that their L2 partners produced and utilized learned teaching
techniques to interact with course content by watching their recorded sessions. Results revealed
that teacher candidates developed their reflective practices and were able to bridge theory into
practice. In Dooly and Sadler’s (2013) study, student teachers from the USA were partneredwith student teachers from Spain for two years via synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous(non-real-time) means. Results from these collaborations showed that student teachers
recognized the possibilities that exist for L2 learning and teaching through technology, as wellas the benefits of creating materials with other student teachers. In Jauregi and Bañados (2008),

127

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

teacher candidates of Spanish from a Chilean university partnered with L2 Spanish learners
from a university in the Netherlands to participate in synchronous video sessions andasynchronous blogs. Analysis of the exchange and questionnaire data indicated that theexchange was beneficial. Not only did teacher candidates and students make connections tocultural topics, but it also allowed them to achieve course outcomes. The EVALUATE Group(2019) was the largest study of teacher candidates that were partnered in virtual exchanges todate. Over 1,000 teacher candidates from over thirty countries formed twenty-five partnerships
with the goal of completing tasks that included developing curriculum and educational
materials. Qualitative and quantitative results revealed that competences, such as digitalpedagogical, language, and intercultural, developed as a result of the collaboration.
In their review of virtual exchange studies, Akiyama and Cunningham (2018) expressed that
only 13% of all studies have focused on partnerships between foreign language (FL) learners
and native speaker (NS) teachers in training. Furthermore, only 20% of studies have centredaround FL learners and non-native speakers (NNS). In this type of exchange known as anapprenticeship exchange, one group utilizes teaching strategies while the other group learns aforeign language. Therefore, the exchange is typically in the target language of the FL learners(Chaudhuri, 2011; Jauregi & Bañados, 2008). While Akiyama and Cunningham (2018)
mentioned apprenticeship exchange as a typical configuration for a virtual exchange, thisarticle focuses on a study whose participants consisted of teacher candidates that were both NS
and NNSs of English.
Learner Autonomy
Because learner autonomy is encouraged by virtual exchange (Sadler & Dooly, 2016) and is acentral concept of language teaching and learning (Benson, 2013; Holec, 1981; Little, 1998),
this study focused on the learner autonomy of TESOL teacher candidates. Autonomous
learners, such as the TESOL teacher candidates in this study, are fully responsible for thelearning process including reflection and analysis to plan, monitor and evaluate learning (Little,
1998). Little (1998) discussed the importance of learner autonomy in language learning.
According to Little (1998), there are three basic pedagogical principles to learner autonomy:
learners must be involved in the learning process; learners must reflect and evaluate theirlearning; and learners must use the appropriate target language.
Self-assessment and reflection play a significant role in learner autonomy. Through reflection,
learners can recognize the methods and strategies they use and, as a result, evaluate theirlearning, identify any problems and suggest solutions (Çakici, 2015). A teacher’s role in alearner autonomous language classroom is different from a traditional teacher’s role, in thatteachers can be described as a facilitator of learning (Little, 1995). Teachers and students are
partners working towards a common goal. Teachers teach their students how to learn byoffering different methods of learning and involving students in decision making processes(Çakici, 2015). Little (1995) stated that successful teachers are autonomous in that they practicecontinuous reflection and analysis of the teaching process. This practice is useful in thelanguage classroom when teachers keep a record of learners’ errors and the feedback given to
students. This log of information can help teachers understand what errors are commonly madeby students and what feedback has the most beneficial effect. When reflecting on corrective
feedback (CF) strategies, teachers can gain a greater understanding of the effectiveness of astrategy and even change their practices as a result (Ellis, 2009).
Although learner autonomy encompasses activities done individually, another component ofautonomous learning is group work. Çakici (2015) discussed the importance of cooperative128

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

learning in an autonomous classroom where “its aim is to establish a community of learners inwhich students are able to generate questions and discuss ideas freely with the teacher and eachother” (p. 36). Cooperative learning has also been proven to result in higher self-esteem,
confidence and rapid achievement (Çakici, 2015). Virtual exchange may foster this cooperative
learning because student pairs are working together towards a common goal. Collaboration
between students, teachers and schools has always been an essential part of education, and now
with the use of technology and the increase of internet connections, it is easier to connect andwork with others (Dooly, 2017) and learn beyond the classroom (Reinders & Benson, 2017).
Corrective Feedback (CF)
Reflecting on CF strategies can be an autonomous activity completed by teachers. There aremany factors that can affect whether a CF strategy is effective, so teacher education programs
are normally reluctant to tell teacher candidates what strategy to use (Ellis, 2009). Therefore,
a common issue in language teaching is the role of error correction (Chenoweth, 1983).
Language teachers can facilitate learning by having a greater understanding of the importanceof learners’ errors and when it is necessary to make a correction. Furthermore, making errors
is a significant part of learning and it can be most beneficial to students when errors arefollowed by CF (Metcalfe, 2017). However, it is crucial that a teacher’s method of correction
encourages an environment in which students are not afraid to make mistakes, one that
promotes “students’ active, exploratory, generative engagement” (Metcalf, 2017, p. 61).
Gregersen (2003) stated that although making errors is a necessary part of the learning process,it is also important to realize how learners will react to errors and corrections. Students tend toprefer receiving CF for their errors rather than ignoring them, however, learners’ cultural
backgrounds, language learning experiences, and proficiency levels play a role in theirpreferences as well (Lyster et al., 2013). CF is not only a pedagogical tool for teachers, but also
a motivational tool for language learners. Language learners can improve their linguistic
performance through supportive CF (Ito & Hilliker, 2018). Teachers often express a preference
for only correcting errors that impede communication as to not disrupt the flow ofcommunication or discourage students (Jean & Simard, 2011; Lyster et al., 2013).
Ellis (2009) discussed different CF strategies with definitions and examples. Types of CF vary
based on the degree of implicitness or explicitness. Explicit CF is when the corrector identifies
the error and may also provide a correction. In contrast, implicit CF allows for the student toself-correct. One controversy in error correction is the degree to which a correction should be
explicit. Lyster et al. (2013) discussed research suggesting that implicit CF may have a longer
lasting effect than explicit CF (Mackey & Goo, 2007; Li, 2010), although explicit CF is more
noticeable to learners (Mackey et al., 2007; Nassaji, 2009).
Implicit CF strategies include recasts, repetition, and clarification requests. These methods are
similar to when children learn their first language and parents hint at the correct response. Ellis(2009) provided clear definitions for the different CF strategies. Recasting is when the corrector
reformulates the student’s utterance preceding the error to change or correct in some way.
According to Lyster et al. (2013), recasts are common and “well suited in communicativeclassroom discourse because they tend to not interrupt the flow of communication” (p. 10).
Repetition is when the corrector repeats the student’s utterance putting an emphasis on theerror. A clarification request is when the corrector indicates a misunderstanding. On the other
hand, elicitation and paralinguistic signals are examples of explicit CF strategies. Withelicitation, the corrector indicates that an error is made by using intonation in the repetition of129

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

the student’s utterance. Paralinguistic signals are gestures or facial expressions that indicate anerror.
Research Questions
Because reflecting on CF is critical in developing TESOL teacher candidates’ pedagogy andvirtual exchange can be a vehicle for this autonomous activity, the current study aims to
examine how a teacher preparation program’s use of virtual exchange promotes learnerautonomy and teacher candidates’ CF development. Therefore, a study was conducted toanswer the following research questions:
1. Upon reflecting on their participation in a virtual exchange, in what ways do TESOL
teacher candidates recognize EFL learners’ errors during the exchange?
2. Upon reflecting on their participation in a virtual exchange, in what ways do TESOL
teacher candidates develop CF strategies during the exchange?
Methods
Participants
In total, twelve TESOL teacher candidates participated in the study. All of these participants
were registered for a Linguistics for Teachers course at a university in the USA. The course
topics included pragmatics, syntax, semantics, morphology and phonology. As part of required
coursework, TESOL teacher candidate participants were partnered with 1-2 EFL learners froma Mexican university. The average age of the TESOL teacher candidates was 29.5 years old(SD = 8.76).
Procedures
Echoing Lenkaitis (2020), participants were given instructions to video conference with their
EFL partner(s) for at least 20 minutes for four weeks (Week 1-4). As a way to promoteauthentic practice, the TESOL teacher candidates implemented strategies they were learningin their Linguistics for Teachers class. These strategies aimed to help develop their partners’
English skills during the synchronous sessions, which were done through Zoom
(https://zoom.us). There were no weekly topics given to the partnerships, as the weekly
synchronous sessions were meant to be authentic conversations between the EFL learners andthe TESOL teacher candidates.
After each video conferencing session, the TESOL teacher candidates were asked to watch
their recorded synchronous session. While watching these sessions, the teacher candidates
identified and recorded the EFLs errors on a weekly chart, along with the time of the occurrence
and the CF strategies they implemented during the session. If the TESOL teacher candidates
did not implement a CF strategy, they were asked to write an idea of a CF strategy that could
have been used at that time. For the two weeks following the video conferencing sessions, theteacher candidates were asked to revisit one of the four sessions, which involved rewatching
the video recording and identifying and reflecting on the EFL learners’ errors (Week 5 and 6).
In addition, the TESOL teacher candidates were required to write a final reflection on theirvirtual exchange experience and video reflections (Week 7). Table 1 details all seven weeks ofthe current study.

130

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Table 1: Teacher Candidate Activities and Output by Week
Week(s)
1–4
5–6
7

Activity
Video conference with EFL learners for atleast 20 minutes each week
Revisit one of the four weekly
synchronous sessions to review ELF
learners’ errors
Complete final reflection

OutputVideo recordings
Chart of ELF errors
List of CF strategies
Written reflection

Data Collection and Analysis
Researchers coded the teacher candidates’ reflections in order to see whether their recognitionof errors changed or stayed the same throughout the exchange. In order to see when the teacher
candidates found it easier to recognize errors, researchers coded reflections into three
categories: Difficult, Easy, and Unknown. The Difficult and Easy categories had to do withwhether the TESOL teacher candidates’ expressed difficulty or ease in recognizing errors. The
unknown category was for when participants expressed confusion in recognizing EFL learners’
errors. In order to illustrate how teacher candidates’ perceptions about CF developed
throughout the virtual exchange, researchers coded the TESOL teacher candidates’ charts andjournal reflections into specific categories using NVivo 11. These categories included Need for
Implicit Feedback, Need for Explicit Feedback, No Need for Implicit Feedback, No Need for
Implicit Feedback, and Unknown (see Table 2 for a summary). As mentioned in the literature
review, both Need and No Need categories were important for data collection and analysis dueto the ongoing debate about the role of error correction in language learning. Coding wascompleted by two researchers with an 89.6% interrater reliability (Kappa = 0.67 with p <0.001). To reconcile differences, both worked together to reach a 100% agreement rate.
Table 2: Name and Description of the Corrective Feedback Categories Coded by Researchers
Need for Implicit
Feedback
Need for Explicit
Feedback
No Need for Implicit
Feedback
No Need for Explicit
FeedbackUnknown

Teacher candidate talks about needing to …
● encourage students to speak freely● give implicit CF (recasts, repetitions, clarification requests
and elicitation)
Teacher candidate talks about needing to give EFL learners● explicit CF● lesson ideas for correction
Teacher candidate does not talk about needing to give EFL learners● encourage students to speak freely● implicit CF (recasts, repetitions, clarification requests andelicitation)
Teacher candidate does not talk about needing to give EFL learners● explicit CF● lesson ideas for correction
Teacher candidate talks about not knowing what kind of CF the ELF
learners need
Results

All of the study’s participants completed the weekly assignments and final reflection. Eachvideo session averaged 32 minutes and 30 seconds. Figure 1 details the average number of131

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

errors found by the TESOL teacher candidates in the EFL learners’ speech during each weekly
synchronous session. As shown in Figure 1, the teacher candidates’ recognition of errors
increased in the first four weeks. In addition, their recognition of errors increased again inweeks 5 and 6, when they reanalyzed the recorded video sessions. For example, from Week 1
to Week 6, the average number of errors increased from 10.56 (SD = 8.92) to 19.25 (SD =19.8).
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00

Week Week Week Week Week Week
1
2
3
4
5
6

Average Number
10.56 11.00 16.25 15.25 16.08 19.25
of Errors
Standard Deviation 8.92 10.98 17.64 16.14 18.29 19.80
Figure 1: Average EFL Student Errors
In addition to reporting these errors, researchers identified the most frequent words used in the
TESOL teacher candidates’ weekly and final journals, as well as their weekly and final charts.
Many of the common words found in the journal reflections were related to use of language(e.g., word, conversation, understand, sentence). The common words found in the charts reflect
linguistic categories, errors and corrections (e.g., syntax, semantics, morphology, error,
correct). The bolded words in Table 3 highlight the most common words found across all
documents (charts and journals).
Table 3: Ten Most Frequent Words Used by Teacher Candidates by Week Produced
Charts and Journals
Produced in Weeks 1–4
Like
Correct
Word
Sentence
Using
Question
Students
Semantics
Times
SyntaxChart and Journals
Produced in Weeks 5–6
SyntaxErrorsStudents
Zoom
Learning
SessionLanguageMorphology
EnglishUse

132

Charts and Journals
Produced in Weeks 1–7
Like
Correct
Sentence
Word
Using
Students
Question
SyntaxTimes
Semantics

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

The teacher candidates expressed ease and difficulty recognizing EFL learners’ errors and how
it varied throughout the exchange. Researchers found that the total number of coding instances
for difficult (11) and easy (10) were around the same as seen in Table 4. However, based on
the number of coding instances for each week, one can see that participants spoke about it
being more difficult in the beginning than at the end of the exchange.
Table 4: Number of Coded Instances by Week
Codingcategory
Difficult
Easy
Unknown

1

2

Week of Study
3
4
5

1
1
1

2
0
0

2
0
3

1
0
2

0
3
0

6

7

Total

0
3
0

5
5
3

11
12
9

The number of instances for the implicit/explicit categories across the weeks of the exchange
are shown in Table 5. Teacher candidates expressed a greater need for implicit feedback than
explicit feedback as there were 144 coded instances for explicit feedback versus 28 for implicit
feedback. In addition, the no need for explicit feedback category had a greater number of coded
instances (53) than the no need for implicit feedback category (37). This further demonstrates
the need for implicit feedback.
Table 5: Number of Coded Instances for Need for Implicit and Explicit Feedback
Need for
Explicit

Need for
Implicit

No need forExplicit

No need for
Implicit

Unknown

Week
1

Chart

1

8

2

2

0

Journal

0

12

11

4

0

Week
2

Chart

0

14

4

2

2

Journal

2

6

4

3

0

Week
3

Chart

3

17

8

7

1

Journal

1

2

1

1

1

Week
4

Chart

4

24

6

5

1

Journal

2

1

3

3

0

Week
5

Chart

7

21

4

4

0

Journal

2

4

2

1

0

Week
6

Chart

1

18

6

4

0

Journal

5

5

0

0

1

Chart

0

10

0

0

0

133

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Week
7

Journal

0

2

2

1

3

TotalsAll Charts

16

112

30

24

4

All Journals

12

32

23

13

5

All
documents

28

144

53

37

9

Discussion
Recognition of EFL Learners’ Errors
During the virtual exchange, recording the video conference sessions allowed teachers torevisit their weekly synchronous meetings in order to reflect on their pedagogy. Just as Kessler
and Hubbard (2017) discussed the benefits of technology for observations and monitoring ofstudent behaviour and progress, noting that teachers can also gain insight on the identificationof “linguistic and technological challenges students face, the current study’s practices can also
contribute to the design of more salient feedback” (Kessler & Hubbard, 2017, p. 284). In thisvirtual exchange study, through practice and acknowledgement of the importance of errors,
TESOL teacher candidates began to recognize more errors in their EFL learners’ speech.
The number of errors identified weekly as recorded in the charts increased throughout thevirtual exchange, and many participants also stated in their reflections that the recognition oferrors became easier each week. For instance, participant 2 in Week 6 wrote that, “finding theerrors or examples of topics we discussed in class seemed to be more evident than when I
analyzed it the first time through”. Teacher candidates were both NS and NNS of English andso their difficulties differed in that the NNSs expressed more difficulty in recognizing EFL
learners’ errors. This could be because English is also not their first language and it wasdifficult for them to understand what their partner was saying.
The number of coded instances for “difficult” and “easy” had similar totals. However, looking
at the distribution of the coded instances throughout the exchange demonstrates that the teacher
candidates spoke about their difficulty in recognizing and identifying errors in the beginningof the exchange just as much as they spoke about how they found it easier by the end of theexchange. In his/her final reflection, participant 1 noted, “It was really overwhelming at firstto find and classify errors since I didn’t understand my conversation partner really well.
However, the process became easier over time, and I was able to come up with teaching
recommendations more easily”. As a result of keeping a record of their students’ errors, thevirtual exchange allowed teacher candidates to identify recurring errors that their partners madeand to recognize the importance of correcting those recurring errors.
Development of Corrective Feedback Strategies
Reflection, being a significant part of autonomous learning (Little, 1995), was implemented
into this virtual exchange as teacher candidates were asked to reflect on their weekly
videoconferences. Researchers found that participants wrote about the nature of the exchange,
EFL learners’ progress, the errors they found in their EFL learners’ speech, and the use of CF.
Throughout this virtual exchange, participants reflected on their weekly meetings anddeveloped methods of CF in an attempt to facilitate communication with their partner and allow
for improvement in the EFL learners’ speech.

134

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

In the first week, teacher candidates were more reluctant to give explicit CF. For example,
participant 11 said, “I generally feel like I wouldn’t overtly correct a student’s errors unless
those errors impeded understanding”” This is similar to Jean and Simard’s (2011) finding thatteachers preferred correcting errors that impede communication. Some possible reasons forreluctance around providing explicit feedback might include that it was their first time meeting
their partner and they wanted to encourage their partners’ willingness to converse. Anotherexplanation is the teacher candidates were not able to easily identify their partners’ errors.
Teacher candidates also wrote about the CF strategies they used in the charts they created.
Candidates who did not use any CF strategies during the video exchanges wrote their CF ideas
for they might have done. As the weeks progressed, teacher candidates developed more implicit
CF strategies and demonstrated a greater need for implicit CF than explicit. Examples of
implicit CF include, recasts, repetitions, clarification requests and elicitation. Participant 5
discussed the strategies he/she found to be useful in the exchange, “I adopted several methods
for elucidating meaning: reformulating my question/response, adding additional information,using simplified vocabulary and statements, or incorporating known vocabulary”.
Perceptions of Corrective Error Feedback
Reflections showed that teacher candidates’ views on CF strategies shifted across their weekly
exchanges. Similar to Vasquez and Harvey (2010), teacher candidates in this study reflectedon their recorded lessons and, as a result, developed a greater understanding of the role andfunction of CF and the interaction between CF and learner uptake. Overall, most teacher
candidates expressed a greater need for implicit CF than explicit. However, some participants’views changed towards the end of the exchange when they expressed a need for explicit CF.
In Weeks 5 and 6 when they revisited and reflected on a session of their choice, it was evident
that the teacher candidates began to recognize more errors in their EFL learners’ speech.
Participants who expressed a need for explicit CF during these weeks, spoke about how it could
be a possible solution for correcting recurring errors in their EFL learners’ speech. Participant
11 wrote, “the more I pay attention to my conversations with [my partner], the more I noticethat his most frequent errors relate to plurals and non-plurals, pronunciation, and tense. Given
this information, if I were to continue meeting with [him], I might plan an informal lesson orconversation topic surrounding these areas, so that he could improve”.
Participants who did not express a need for explicit CF continued to develop a preference for
implicit CF. For example, participant 2 stated, “After learning how to analyze speech and detect
errors, I was able to see where my conversation partner needed extra support, though we didn’t
reach the stage where I felt it was appropriate to correct her errors”. These reflections also
pointed out that the length of the virtual exchange could have played a role in the use of implicit
rather than explicit CF. In a longer exchange, teachers may have felt more comfortable withmaking explicit corrections and more likely to identify recurring errors.
Limitations
Having a virtual exchange consisting of more than four weeks of synchronous sessions would
be helpful for considering the ways in which CF strategies change over time and to examine
the role the length the exchange plays in the pedagogical development of teacher candidates.
In addition, because the data were self-reported, some participants may have not wanted to
fully express their ideas, which in turn could have impacted their reflections. Regardless,coding was completed in order to find commonalities and the two independent coders worked

135

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

together to choose the most representative examples from the analysis. Finally, examining
similarities and differences between teacher candidates of other content areas could be
beneficial to examine the value of virtual exchanges with these other areas.
Conclusion
In this study, a virtual exchange gave TESOL teacher candidates authentic practice with EFL
learners and, in turn, a greater sense of responsibility for their learning (Sadler & Dooly, 2016).
In this study, teacher candidates were offered different methods of learning in which they wereable to participate in decision making processes and take control of their learning (Çakici,
2015). As a result of this learning and the autonomous activities, including self-assessment andreflection, the teacher candidates formed a greater recognition of EFL learners’ errors anddevelopment of their CF strategies. Overall, this study found that teacher candidates’
recognition of errors improved, and their reflections demonstrated how this became easierthroughout the exchange. Teacher candidates also demonstrated a greater need for implicit CF
for their students and how their perceptions of CF strategies changed depending on theirstudent’s recurring errors. Based on the results of this study, which partnered TESOL teacher
candidates in a virtual exchange with EFL learners, it seems clear that the following
recommendation should be made: Virtual exchange opportunities and subsequent reflection
should be integrated into teacher preparation programs. Not only will the utilization of virtual
exchange give teacher candidates the opportunity to work with learners in their content area,
but also to develop their CF strategies. Furthermore, having the ability to work with aninternational partner to develop these skills showed that virtual exchange is a tool that can beeven more valuable in the era of digital transformation that has been highlighted during the
COVID-19 crisis.
Acknowledgments
In carrying out this study, researchers received assistance from the following colleague, whodeserves our thanks: Salvador Venegas Escobar.

136

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

References
Akiyama, Y. & Cunningham, D.J. (2018). Synthesizing the practice of SCMC-based
telecollaboration: A scoping review. CALICO Journal, 35(1), 49–76.
https://doi.org/:10.1558/cj.33156
Austin, N., Hampel, R. & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2017). Video conferencing and multimodal
expression of voice: Children's conversations using Skype for second language
development in a telecollaborative setting. SYSTEM, 64, 87–103.
https://doi.org/:10.1016/j.system.2016.12.003
Benson, P. (2013). Learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 839–843.
https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tesq.134
Bohinski, C. A. & Leventhal, Y. (2015). Rethinking the ICC framework: Transformation andtelecollaboration. Foreign Language Annals, 48(3), 521–534.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12149
Çakici, D. (2015). Autonomy in language teaching and learning process. İnönü ÜniversitesiEğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of
Education], 16(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/doi:10.17679/iuefd.16168538
Chaudhuri, T. (2011). Designing Web 2.0-telecollaborations for university students. The
eExchange Giessen–Hong Kong. German as a Foreign Language, 12(2), 126–141.
Retrieved from http://www.gfl-journal.de/2-2011/chaudhuri.pdf
Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error correction and the training of language teachers. The Modern
Language Journal, 59(8), 414–422.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1975.tb04722.x
Dooly, M. (2017). Telecollaboration. In C.A. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.), The handbook oftechnology and second language teaching and learning. (pp. 169–183). Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118914069.ch12
Dooly, M. & Sadler, R. (2013). Filling in the gaps: Linking theory and practice throughtelecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL, 25(1), 4–29.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000237
Dorner, H. (2018) Exploring students’ conceptions of internationalised learning: Experiencesfrom international online collaborative seminars, Innovations in Education andTeaching International, 55(3), 304–313.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1210530
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18.
https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
Fetterman, D. M. (1996). Videoconferencing on-line: Enhancing communication over theInternet. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 23–27.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025004023
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in adigital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?.
Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671
Gregersen, T. S. (2003). To err is human: A reminder to teachers of language‐anxious
students. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 25–32.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb01929.x

137

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Holec, H. (1981) Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon.
Holley, F. M., & King, J. K. (1971). Imitation and Correction in Foreign Language
Learning. The Modern Language Journal, 55(8), 494–498.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1971.tb04612.x
Ito, K. & Hilliker, S. M. (2018). Supporting university students through supportive ESL
instruction and corrective feedback. In B. Blummer, J. Kenton and M. Wiatrowski(Eds.), Promoting ethnic diversity and multiculturalism in higher education (pp. 40–
58). IGI Global.
Jauregi, K. & Bañados, E. (2008). Virtual interaction through video-web communication: A
step towards enriching and internationalizing language learning programs. ReCALL,
20(2), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000529
Jean, G. & D. Simard (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ andteachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals 44(4), 465–492.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01143.x
Kessler, G. & Hubbard, P. (2017). Language teacher education and technology. In C. A.
Chapelle and S. Sauro (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language
teaching and learning (pp. 278–292). Wiley.
https://doi.org:10.1002/9781118914069.ch19
Lenkaitis, C. A. (2020). Teacher candidate reflection: Benefits of using a synchronous
computer-mediated communication-based virtual exchange. Teaching and Teacher
Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103041
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language
Learning, 60(2), 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
Mackey, A., M. Al-Khalil, G. Atanassova, M. Hama, A. Logan-Terry & K. Nakatsukasa(2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in
the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 129–152.
https://doi.org/10.2167/illt047.0
Mackey, A. & J. Goo (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research
synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407–453). Oxford University Press.
Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from errors. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 465–489.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022
O’Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: state-of-the-art and the roleof UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 1, 1–23.
https://doi.org:10.14705/rpnet.2018.jve.1
Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., Khavari, Z., Siew Eng, L., & Rashid Mohamed, A. (2014).
Pragmatic comprehension development through telecollaboration. English Language
Teaching, 7(2), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p11
Reinders, H., & Benson, P. (2017). Research agenda: Language learning beyond theclassroom. Language Teaching, 50(4), 561–578.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000192

138

IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 2 – 2020

Sadler, R. & Dooly, M. (2016). Twelve years of telecollaboration: what we have learnt. ELT
Journal, 70(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw041
Sevilla-Pavón, A. (2016). Affordances of telecollaboration tools for English for SpecificPurposes online learning. World Journal on Educational Technology, 8(3), 218–223.
https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v8i3.696
Spante, M., Karlsen, A. V., Nortvig, A.-M., & Christiansen, R. B. (2014). Cross-Bordercollaboration in history among Nordic students: A case study about creating
innovative ICT didactic models. IAFOR Journal of Education, 2(2).
https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.2.2.02
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
Vásquez, C. & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback
through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421–443.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375365
Ware, P. & O'Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration.
Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10125/44130
Corresponding author: Chesla Ann Lenkaitis
Contact email: chesla.ann.lenkaitis@gmail.com

139