摘要
     本研究旨在探討英語教師(英語為外國語言)與合作夥伴在遠距合作時如何做出決定，以及哪些變數會影響任務設計與實際執行。研究人員以“全球跨文化交流的課程設計”為主題進行文獻探討，從過往經驗中決定進行何種類型的任務和結構，並進而設計適合遠距合作的課程模組。接著，藉由行動研究與兩個個案研究的負責夥伴教師進行任務前置溝通與意見交換，來決定有關任務的設計，以及如何交換不同的學習成果。兩個個案一是英語為外國語(EFL)的台灣學生與英語作為第二語言（ESL）的中國（香港）學生進行交流；另一個個案是英語為外國語(EFL)的台灣學生與英語為母語的澳洲學生進行合作。最後，根據二步分析法，我們建議，在設計與進行遠距合作交流時，教師和研究人員以台北的一所公立小學英語教室為外語學習虛擬教室。

ABSTRACT
     In this paper the researcher examines how English Foreign Language (EFL) teachers and partners make decisions about task design in telecollaboration and the factors that influence these decisions during the actual implementation of the tasks. The researcher begins with a search from review of the recent literature of lesson design for global intercultural communication projects, to identify the typology of different types of tasks and structures; and sequences to a telecollaboration lesson template. Next, illustration through two case studies - both primary telecollaborative exchanges; first between learners of EFL Chinese (Taiwan) and English as a Second Language (ESL) Chinese (Hong Kong) and second between English (Australian) and Chinese (Taiwan) - how such decisions about task design are reached by partner teachers prior to an exchange, and how that task design is negotiated throughout the exchange with different consequences on the learning outcomes. Finally, based on this two-step analysis, we make recommendations about factors that teachers and researchers should consider when designing and implementing tasks for their telecollaborative exchanges based in a public primary English as a Foreign Language virtual learning classroom in Taipei.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
摘  要	I
ABSTRACT	II
TABLE OF CONTENTS	III
LIST OF TABLES	VI
LIST OF FIGURES	VIII
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION	1
1.1 Background and Motivation	1
1.2 Statement of the Problem	3
1.3 Statement of the Purpose	4
1.4 Research Questions	5
1.5 Definition of Terms	5
1.5.1 Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)	5
1.5.2 Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) in multimodal environment	6
1.5.3 Telecollaboration	6
1.5.4 Telecollaborative projects	6
1.6 Significance of Study	7
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE	9
2.1 Telecollaboration	9
2.1.1 What is telecollaboration?	9
2.1.2 Why telecollaboration?	10
2.1.3 Models and Categories of Telecollaboration	13
2.1.4 Steps to telecollaboration	29
2.1.5 Conclusion	36
2.2 Information and Communication Technologies	36
2.2.1 Telecollaboration in Multimodal Environments	40
2.3 Conclusion	43
2.3.1 Telecollaborative language learning tasks and design	44
2.3.2 Instructional Design	47
2.3.3 Select Framework for designing Tasks by collaboration with partners	63
2.3.4 Teacher’s Role in Telecollaboration	64
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY	71
3.1 Research Design and Procedure	71
3.1.1 The Rationale for Action Research Adoption	71
3.1.2 An Action Research	72
3.1.3 Research Procedure	75
3.2 Pilot Study and Reflection	81
3.2.1 Pilot Time Frame	82
3.2.2 Pilot Setting	82
3.2.3 Pilot Subjects	82
3.2.4 Researcher	83
3.2.5 Homeroom Teacher	83
3.2.6 Pilot Materials	84
3.2.7 Pilot Instruments	87
3.2.8 Teaching process for the Telecollaborative Project in the Pilot Study	89
3.3 The Main Study	111
3.3.1 Time Frame	111
3.3.2 Setting	111
3.3.3 Subjects	111
3.3.4 Partner Teacher	115
3.3.5 Materials	115
3.3.6 Instruments	120
3.3.7 Study Procedure	123
3.4 Data Analysis	131
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION	133
4.1 Effects of Telecollaboration	133
4.1.1 Effect on Learning	133
4.1.2 Effect on ICT technical components	137
4.1.3 Effect on Affective Domain	138
4.1.4 Effect of Teacher Role and Facilitation	140
4.2 Researcher’s Challenges and Professional Development	140
4.2.1 Understanding the challenges in telecollaboration	141
4.2.2 Reflection on Lessons learned	142
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION	149
5.1 Pedagogical Implications	149
5.1.1 The Model of Implementation of Telecollaboration in a public elementary EFL classroom	149
5.2 Limitations	151
5.3 Suggestions	151
5.3.1 Suggestions for English Teachers	151
5.3.2 Suggestions for Administration	152
5.3.3 Suggestions for Further Studies	152
REFERENCES	153
Appendix A	162
Appendix B	163
Appendix C	164
Appendix D	168
Appendix E	178
Appendix F	179
 
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Harris’ Categories of Telecollaborative Structures and Activities: - Summary of Interpersonal Exchange adapted from Dawson & Harris, 1999, p. 2………………………………………………………………………………………17
Table 2.2 Harris’ Categories of Telecollaborative Structures and Activities: - Summary of Information Collections and Analysis adapted from Dawson & Harris, 1999, p. 2	18
Table 2.3 Harris’ Categories of Telecollaborative Structures and Activities: - Summary of Problem-Solving adapted from Dawson & Harris, 1999, p. 2	19
Table 2.4 Telecollaborative Tasks: Category (1) Information Exchange adapted from O’Dowd and Waire, 2007, p176	21
Table 2.5 Telecollaborative Tasks: Category (2) Comparison and analysis adapted from O’Dowd and Waire, 2007, p176	24
Table 2.6 Telecollaborative Tasks: Category (3) Collaboration and product creation adapted from O’Dowd and Waire, 2007, p176	26
Table 2.7 The SCMC ICT equipment check list for CCDL at TKU (Distance Education Development Section, 2010e)	39
Table 2.8 Functions available on Moodle http://marie.learning.tku.edu.tw/	42
Table 2.9 From focus on form to meaning (adapted from Littlewood,2000, p.43)	45
Table 2.10 From focus on form to meaning (adapted from Littlewood, 2000, p.44)	46
Table 2.11 Adapted from Gruba the Guidelines for Online Collaborative Task Design (Gruba, 2004)	46
Table 2.12 Telecollaboration Lesson Template Adapted from SDSU and the Instructional Model ASSURE	47
Table 2.13 Comparison of O’Dowd & Waire’s Categories and Harris’ Activity Structure	50
Table 2.14 Guidelines for Online Collaborative Task Design (Gruba, 2004)	51
Table 2.15 Select Instructional Approach adapted from Gruba,2004	51
Table 2.16 Framework for designing telecollaborative task	53
Table 2.17 Desicions made together adapt by O’Dowd (2008)	54
Table 2.18 Example collaborative task: You and Me	58
Table 2.19 Generated Assessment Rubric Star: http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php)	62
Table 2.20 Framework for designing telecollaborative tasks adapted from O’Dowd,  2008	63
Table 2.21 Key approaches to online instruction adapted from Gruba, 2004, p73	65
Table 2.22 Adapted from O’Dowd on how design decisions reached (O' Dowd, 2008).	69
Table 3.1 Research Procedure Timeline	80
Table 3.2 Researcher as observer in Model course in a game base telecollaborative Chinese writing project	82
Table 3.3 Dates to the Pilot Lunch Meetings	82
Table 3.4 The Three tasks aligned to Harris’ Activity Structures and O’Dowd and Waire’s Categories and Task Types	85
Table 3.5 Task I: You & Me Guidelines for Online Collaborative Task Design	85
Table 3.6 List of Equipment and Systems used in the pilot study	87
Table 3.7 List of modules and pluggins made available on Moodle in the Pilot study	87
Table 3.8 Procedure for the implementation of the Pilot projects	89
Table 3.9 Explanation of the Coding System	92
Table 3.10 Basic Information of Subjects in Taipei	112
Table 3.11 Background on students’ computer accessibility at home	114
Table 3.12 SKYPE Task I: You & Me Guidelines for Online Collaborative Task Design with Australian Partners	116
Table 3.13 SKYPE Task II: You & Me Hot Task Guidelines for Online Collaborative Task Design with Australian Partners	118
Table 3.14 Instruments in multimodal environment	120
Table 3.15 Telecollaboration Project You and Me (http://elearning.mcps.tp.edu.tw/)	121
Table 3.16 Desicions with regards tothe predominant educational cultures in the participating partner institutions (Belz & Muller-Hartmann, 2003)	124
Table 3.17 Explanation of the Coding System	131
 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 General phases of telecollaboration adapted from Muller-Hartmann (2007, p.173)	35
Figure 2.2 & 2.3 Photographs of SCMC activities with the University of Nice, France (Distance Education Development Section, 2010c)	38
Figure 2.4 & 2.5 Photographs of SCMC activities with Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, and Waseda University(Distance Education Development Section, 2010d)	38
Figure 2.6 & 2.7 Photographs of SCMC activities with four concurrent universities (Distance Education Development Section, 2010b)	39
Figure 2.8 & 2.9 Photographs of Reitaku University and oral defense of an undergraduate student in the English department(Distance Education Development Section, 2010a)	39
Figure 2.10 Nunan’s approach to planning and structuring TBLL (as cited in Muller-Hartmann & Ditfurth, 2010, p.171)	44
Figure 2.11 Photograph of possible layout	61
Figure 3.1 Carr & Kemmis’ Action Research Cycle adapted from Riding et al., 1995, p.1	72
Figure 3.2 Research Procedures	76
Figure 3.3 Research design highlights adapted from Harris’ step one to five for telecollaboration	78
Figure 3.4 Screenshot of LV (Centre for the Advancement of Information Technology in Education, 2010)	96
Figure 3.5 Screen Shot of Students playing cards during welcome party (Tai, 2010d)	99
Figure 3.6 Screen shot of Learning Villages and ‘M’ primary school (Tai, 2010d, 2011i)	101
Figure 3.7 Screen shot of forwarding email of the topic choices (Tai, 2010c)	101
Figure 3.8 Screen shot of elearning Moodle where topics are structured in layers (Tai, 2010b)	104
Figure 3.9 Screen shots of the Two Moodle homepage (Tai, 2011g)	105
Figure 3.10 Screen shots of the three tasks-based projects (Tai, 2011f)	106
Figure 3.11 Screen Shot Before Pilot Study for Task “You &Me” (Tai, 2011d)	110
Figure 3.12 Screen Shot of Changes After Pilot Study for Task “You &Me” (Tai, 2010a)	111
Figure 3.13 Students Telecollaboration SKYPE Task Cycle adapted from Guth, 2011, p.3	116
Figure 3.14 The “You & Me” SKYPE Tasks I power point template is as follows: Screenshot of SKYPE Tasks I “You & Me” Power Point (Tai, 2011h)	118
Figure 3.15 Screen Shot of “You & Me” SKYPE Task II Hot Task Sheet (Tai, 2011j)	120
Figure 3.16 Sreenshot of Moodle http://marie.learning.tku.edu.tw/ (Tai, 2011a)	127
Figure 3.17 Photograph of Our First SKYPE Encounter (Tai, 2011b)	129
Figure 3.18 Photograph of Our Second SKYPE Session (Tai, 2011c)	129
Figure 3.19 Main Study Telecollaboration Procedure with Australian Partner	130
Figure 4.1 Screen shot of S5’s posting on Moodle (Tai, 2011e)	134
Figure 4.2 Photograph of Our Mock Performance	144
Figure 4.3 Screen shot of Students “hot task” postings on Moodle	145
Figure 4.4 Screen Shot of Moodle of Two teachers collaborating	147

REFERENCES
Ahmed, M. A. (2010). Equilibrium for CMC systems' alteration - An intercultural perspective. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society.
Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to the methods of action research: Psychology Press.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning.
Banados, E. (2006). A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL successfully through an online interactive multimedia environment. CALICO JOURNAL, 23(3), 533.
Barson, J., Frommer, J., & Schwartz, M. (1993). Foreign language learning using e-mail in a task-oriented perspective: Interuniversity experiments in communication and collaboration. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(4), 565-584.
Basharina, O. (2011). Review of Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, Literacies, and Intercultural Learning in the 21 st Century. Language Learning & Technology, Volume 15, Number 1(February), 21-23.
Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Video Recording in Ethnographic SLA Research: Some Issues of Validity in Data Collection, 60.
Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68-117.
Belz, J. A. (2004). Telecollaborative language study: A personal overview of praxis and research. Paper presented at the Symposium on Distance Education, University of Hawaii in Honolulu.
Belz, J. A., & Muller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 71-89.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer Mediated Communication: A Window on L2 Spanish Interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136.
Brandl, K. (2005). Are you ready to Moodle Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 16-23.
Brandl, K. (2005). Are You Ready to" Moodle"? Language, Learning & Technology, 9(2), 16-24.
Brine, J., Wilson, I., & Roy, D. (2007). Using Moodle and other software tools in EFL courses in a Japanese IT University. cit, 1059-1064.
Bruner, J. (1985). Models of the learner. Educational researcher, 14(6), 5-8.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual review of applied linguistics, 26, 197-218.
Cassell, J., & Tversky, D. (2005). The language of online intercultural community formation. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 2.
Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., Kalantzis, M., Kress, G., et al. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
Centre for the Advancement of Information Technology in Education. (2010). Screenshots of VLEHK, http://www.learningvillages.com/en/index.php. Hong Kong.
Chen, C. (2008). Learning EFL Writing Through Online Publishing Projects: A Case Study. Paper presented at the The Second Tamkang International Conference on Second Language Writing, Tamkang University.
Chen, J., Belkada, S., & Okamoto, T. (2004). How a Web-based course facilitates acquisition of English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 33-49.
Chen, Y. L. (2008). Factors affecting the integration of information and communications technology in teaching English in Taiwan. Asian EFL Journal.
Cheng, H. J. (2007). The Perceptions of Taiwanese College Students Toward the English Courses Using an Online Course Management System. Ohio University.
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1997). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks: Palgrave Macmillan.
Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 5(1), 21-34.
Daniels, P. (2008). Designing CMS modules to support language learning. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(1), 93-104.
David, N. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 279-295.
Dawson, K., & Harris, J. (1999). Using Internet-based telecollaboration to enhance elementary-level social studies learning. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 11, 1-4.
Debski, R. (2000). Project-oriented CALL: Implementation and evaluation (Special edition). Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 4!V5.
Department of Education, C. G., Taipei. (2010). The Plan for Implementing English Language Teaching in Taipei City Elementary Schools. Retrieved from wiki.estmue.tp.edu.tw/images/3/3e/英文.doc.
Distance Education Development Section. (2010a). Photographs of Reitaku University and oral defense of an undergraduate student in the English department. Taipei: TKU.
Distance Education Development Section. (2010b). Photographs of SCMC activities with four concurrent universities. Taipei: TKU.
Distance Education Development Section. (2010c). Photographs of SCMC activities with the University of Nice, France Taipei: TKU.
Distance Education Development Section. (2010d). Photographs of SCMC activities with Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, and Waseda University. Taipei: TKU.
Distance Education Development Section. (2010e). The SCMC ICT equipment check list for CCDL at TKU. In M. Tai (Ed.). Taipei: TKU.
Dooly, M. (2008). Understanding the many steps for effective collaborative language projects. Language Learning Journal, 36(1), 65-78.
Dooly, M. (2009). New competencies in a new era? Examining the impact of a teacher training project. ReCALL, 21(03), 352-369.
Dougiamas, M. (2004). Moodle. from http://docs.moodle.org/en/Pedagogy
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed. ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching: Oxford University Press, USA.
Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly September 2006 Volume 8, Issue 3, 8(3).
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat : A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Straus and Giroux.
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55-102.
Gagne, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988 ). Essentials of learning for instruction ( 2nd ed ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garcia, J. S., & Crapotta, J. (2007a). Models of Telecollaboration (2): Cultura. Online Intercultural Exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers, 62.
Garcia, J. S., & Crapotta, J. (2007b). Models of Telecollaboration (2): Cultura. In O. D. Robert (Ed.), Online Intercultural Exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 62-84): Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Gatbonton, E., & Gu, G. (1994). Preparing and implementing a task-based ESL curriculum in an EFL setting: Implications for theory and practice. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 09-29.
Gibbs, G. (1995). The society for research into higher education and Open University press. Celtic Court: Buckingham.
Gruba, P. (2004). Designing tasks for online collaborative language learning. Prospect, 19(2), 72-81.
Guth, S. (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century: Peter Lang.
Guth, S., & Helm, F. (2011). Developing multiliteracies in ELT through telecollaboration. ELT Journal.
Hadley, P. A., Simmerman, A., Long, M., & Luna, M. (2000). Facilitating language development for inner-city children: Experimental evaluation of a collaborative, classroom-based intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(3), 280.
Harris, J. (1995). Organizing and facilitating telecollaborative projects. The Computing Teacher, 22(5), 66-69.
Harris, J. (1998). Wetware: Why Use Activity Structures? Learning & Leading with Technology.
Harris, J. (1999a). Designing Curriculum-Based Telecomputing Using Activity Structures and Action Sequences. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2, 1930-1936.
Harris, J. (1999b). Designing Curriculum-Based Telecomputing Using Activity Structures and Action Sequences. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/8091
Harris, J. (1999c). First steps in telecollaboration. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27, 54-57.
Harris, J. (2001). Teachers as telecollaborative project designers: A curriculum-based approach. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(3), 429-442.
Harris, J. (2002). Wherefore Art Thou, Telecollaboration? Learning and leading with technology, 29(6), 54-59.
Hauck, M. (2007). Critical success factors in a TRIDEM exchange. ReCALL, 19(2), 202-223.
Hauck, M., & Youngs, B. L. (2008). Telecollaboration in multimodal environments: the impact on task design and learner interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 87-124.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (1999). Instructional media and the technologies for learning ( 6 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Helle, L., Tynjala, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education-theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51(2), 287-314.
ISTE. (2002). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers-Preparing Teachers to Use Technology. Retrieved from http://www.neccsite.org/images/excerpts/NETTB2-excerpt.pdf.
Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kelly, M., Grenfell, M., Allan, R., Kriza, C., & McEvoy, W. (2004). European Profile for Language Teacher Education : A Frame of Reference: European Commission.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Network-based language teaching. In N. V. Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2 ed., Vol. 4, pp. 281-292): Springer Science+Business Media LLC.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing Frontiers: New Directions in Online Pedagogy and Research. Annual review of applied linguistics, 24(1), 243-260.
Koenraad, T., & Utrecht, H. (2006). Developing network-based language learning & teaching in education and teacher training: The MICaLL project. Fremdsprache Deutsch Europaisch, 141.
Kramer, B. S. (2009). Investigating Teachers' Expectations For Using Telecollaborative Project Work. Lehigh University.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice. Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of social issues, 2(4), 34-46.
Liaw, M. (2006). E-learning and the development of intercultural competence. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 49-64.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(04), 429-448.
Littlewood, W. (2000). Task-Based Learning of Grammar. Teaching and Learning Update, 1, 40-57.
Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton, 179-192.
Mandell, S., Sorge, D. H., & Russell, J. D. (2002). TIPs for Technology Integration. TechTrends, 46 (5), 39-43.
Mertler, C. A. (2006). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom: Sage Publications, Inc.
Ministry of Education, T., Taiwan. (2000). The English Curriculum.
Muller-Hartmann, A. (2005). Learning how to teach intercultural communicative competence via telecollaboration: A model for language teacher education. AAUSC.
Muller-Hartmann, A. (2007). Teacher role in telecollaboration: setting up and managing exchanges. In R. O'Dowd (Ed.), Online Intercultural Exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 167-192).
Muller-Hartmann, A., & Ditfurth, M. S. (2010). Research on the Use of Technology in Task-Based Language Teaching. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology (pp. 17-40): Continuum.
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41(2), 136-145.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.
O' Dowd, R. (Producer). (2008) Planning an Online Intercultural Exchange Discussion and Group Work. retrieved from http://voicethread.com/#q.b103494.i527721
O' Dowd, R., & Waire, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173-188.
O'Dowd, R. (2007a). Evaluating the outcomes of online intercultural exchange. ELT Journal, 61(2), 144.
O'Dowd, R. (2007b). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
O'Dowd, R. (2010). Issues in the Assessment of Online Interaction and Exchange: Peter Lang Publishers.
O'Dowd, R. (2010). Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign language education? Language Teaching, 1-13.
O'Dowd, R., & Eberbach, K. (2004). Guides on the side? Tasks and challenges for teachers in telecollaborative projects. ReCALL, 16(01), 5-19.
O'Rourke, B. (2007a). Models of telecollaboration (1): eTandem. In O. D. Robert (Ed.), Online Intercultural Exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 41-61): Multilingual Matters Ltd.
O'ROURKE, B. (2007b). Models of telecollaboration (1): eTandem. Online Intercultural Exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers, 41.
O Dowd, R. (Producer). (2008) Planning an Online Intercultural Exchange Discussion and Group Work. retrieved from http://voicethread.com/#q.b103494.i527721
Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 8(2), 5-7.
Prieto, L. P., Villagra-Sobrino, S., Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Martinez-Mones, A., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2011). Recurrent routines: Analyzing and supporting orchestration in technology-enhanced primary classrooms. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.001]. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1214-1227.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1987). Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Riding, P., Fowell, S., & Levy, P. (1995). An action research approach to curriculum development. Information Research, 1(1), 1-1.
Riel, M. (1994). Virtual Communities for Elementary and Secondary Schools. ED, Education at a Distance, 8(1), 8-12.
Rogers, A., Andres, Y., Jacks, M., & Clausen, T. (1990). Keys to successful telecomputing. The Computing Teacher, 17(8), 25-28.
Royce, T. (2002). Multimodality in the TESOL Classroom: Exploring Visual-Verbal Synergy. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2).
Sarica, G. N., & Cavus, N. (2009). New trends in 21st Century English learning. [doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.079]. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 439-445.
Savignon, S. J., & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(3), 223-249.
Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 165-180.
Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19(02), 105-120.
Tai, M. (2010a). Screen Shot of Changes After Pilot Study for Task "You & Me", http://marie.learning.tku.edu.tw/. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2010b). Screen shot of elearning Moodle where topics are structured in layers, http://elearning.mcps.tp.edu.tw/. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2010c). Screen shot of forwarding email of the topic choices. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2010d). Screen Shot of students playing cards during welcome party Taipei: Marie Tai.
Tai, M. (2011a). Figure 3.X Sreenshot of Moodle, http://marie.learning.tku.edu.tw/. Taipei: TKU.
Tai, M. (2011b). Photograph of Our First SKYPE Encounter. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2011c). Photograph of Our Second SKYPE Session. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2011d). Screen Shot Before Pilot Study for Task "You & Me", http://marie.learning.tku.edu.tw/. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2011e). Screen shot of S5s posting on Moodle, http://marie.learning.tku.edu.tw/. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2011f). Screen shots of the three tasks-based projects, http://marie.learning.tku.edu.tw/. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2011g). Screen shots of the Two Moodle homepage, http://marie.learning.tku.edu.tw/
http://elearning.mcps.tp.edu.tw/. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2011h). Screenshot of SKYPE Tasks I "You & Me" Power Point, http://www.google.com.tw/imghp?hl=zh-TW&tab=wi. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2011i). Sreen Shot of Moodle for M elementary school, http://elearning.mcps.tp.edu.tw/. Taipei.
Tai, M. (2011j). “You & Me” SKYPE Task II Hot Task Sheet. Taipei.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38-67.
Tierney, R., Bond, E., & Bresler, J. (2006). Examining literate lives as students engage with multiple literacies. Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 359-367.
Tsukamoto, M., Nuspliger, B., & Senzaki, Y. (2009). Using Skype to connect a classroom to the world: Providing students an authentic language experience within the classroom. Paper presented at the Conference on English Language Teaching.
Ware, P. D., & O'Dowd, R. (2008). Peer Feedback on Language Form in Telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.
Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511-535.
Widdowson, H. G. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: Global Issues and Local Interests. World Englishes, 16(1), 135-146.
Willis, J., & Longman, E. (1996). A framework for task-based learning (Vol. 2001): Longman.
Wu, W. C., & Marek, M. (2009). The impact of teleconferencing with native English speakers on English learning by Taiwanese students. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(1), 107-126.
Wu, W. V. (2009). Criteria for Establishing an Authentic EFL Learning Environment in Taiwan. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly September 2009 Volume 11, Issue 3, 156.
Yano, Y. (2001). World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes, 20(2), 119-132.
Young, S. S. C., & Ku, H.-H. (2006). A Study of Innovative Uses of ICT in Primary Education. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Learning by Effective Utilization of Technologies: Facilitating Intercultural Understanding.