Keywords

1.1 Introduction

In the last decades of the twentieth century, the arrival and the rapid dissemination of digital technology have had a huge impact on newer generations. Young people, the so-called digital natives (Prensky, 2001), have grown up surrounded by computers and mobile phones, with many sophisticated functionalities and access to Internet connection. This scenario has resulted in a range of opportunities for innovation in many fields, including education. In fact, most areas of education have been incorporating digital devices and software into courses and classes, in a variety of ways (Kern, 2006; Thorne & May, 2017).

In language learning, a very successful and increasingly widespread application of technology has been the implementation of telecollaboration, or virtual exchange, terms which, according to O’Dowd (2018, p. 5), refer to the “engagement of groups of learners in extended periods of online intercultural interactions” that involve collaboration to develop tasks with partners that are not from the same cultural contexts or geographical locations, under the orientation of educators. Studies on various models of virtual exchange programs (Hauck & Youngs, 2008; O’Dowd & Ware, 2009; Dooly, 2011; González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017) revealed the centrality of task design and implementation for the telecollaborative language learning to develop. These studies shed light to pedagogical, technical, linguistic, and intercultural factors that are interconnected when a telecollaborative task (TCT) is designed and implemented. They also revealed (i) specific criteria that should be taken into consideration in TCT design (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017), (ii) the main features of different types of TCT (O’Dowd & Ware, 2009), and (iii) the complex relationship established between what is supposed to happen (task-as-workplan) and what actually happens (task-in-process) (Hauck & Youngs, 2008; Dooly, 2011; Kurek & Müller-Hartmann, 2017). The distinction between “task-as-workplan” and “task-in-process” has long been established and has gradually become a relevant research topic (BREEN, 1987; Ellis, 2000). For Breen (1987), “task-as-workplan” is the task designed by the teacher, considering his/her expectations of its outcomes. “Task-in-process,” on the other hand, is what learners actually do during a task, which may go beyond the teacher’s plans and predictions.

In this chapter, based on the notion of task-as-workplan, we intend to characterize the tasks designed within the institutionally integrated modality of Teletandem (Aranha & Cavalari, 2014), a specific model of telecollaboration, consisting of a pair of native (or competent) speakers of different languages who meet virtually with the purpose of learning each other’s language. In Brazil, the project Teletandem Brasil: Foreign Languages for All (Telles & Vassallo, 2006; Vassallo & Telles, 2006), first implemented at São Paulo State University (UNESP), aims to pair up Brazilian and foreign students so that they can hold weekly virtual meetings for language learning. The integrated modality (Institutionally Integrated Teletandem, or iiTTD) happens when students from undergraduate courses at UNESP take part in the project during a standard, mandatory discipline of their majors in languages (Aranha & Cavalari, 2014; Cavalari & Aranha, 2016). The incorporation of teletandem into the course is characterized by a series of tasks designed and assessed by the professorFootnote 1 in charge, such as participation in the tutorial, in the oral sessions, and in the mediation sessions, response to questionnaires (initial and final), writing of reflective journals, and exchange of written texts. We are particularly interested in characterizing the features of the text exchange task. For that purpose, we will discuss task design, taking into consideration the specific types and features that are involved in the integration of technology and telecollaboration into the processes of teaching and learning.

1.2 Task-Based Learning and Teaching: From Task Design to Telecollaborative Task Design

Research on task design and task-based learning and teaching has generated an extensive literature with a vast impact on the practice of foreign language education. A task has been defined in different ways by a number of scholars, but researchers generally agree that a task engages learners in activities that are focused on meaning, with a clear goal to be achieved through language (Nunan, 2004; Ellis, 2006; Long, 2015). A task, then, is different from an “activity” or “exercise,” considering that students are prompted to “convey meaning rather than [...] manipulate form” (Nunan, 2004, p. 4). Müller-Hartmann and Schocker-von Ditfurth (2011) add that tasks require learners to do something with the language, a point also made by González-Lloret and Ortega (2014) and Ellis (2009). Task-based learning and teaching (TBLT) had its origins in the works of Dewey (1913, 1938), who emphasized exactly this importance of learning by doing and by making intelligent effort.

Based on these tenets, TBLT has been affected over the years by the emergence and evolution of digital technology. More generally, the use of technology for language teaching and learning has been researched in the fields known as “Computer-Assisted Language Learning” (CALL) (Chapelle, 2001; Beatty, 2010; Thorne & May, 2017) and Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) (Salaberry, 1996, 2000; Thorne, 2008). Taking into consideration the technical advances, CALL has evolved from computer used as a tutor to computer used as a tool for interaction, mainly when Internet access allowed multimodal communication. In this scenario, technology takes a medium role and is used to provide “sites for interpersonal communication, multimedia publication, distance learning, community participation, and identity formation” (Kern, 2006, p. 192). Virtual environments based on CMC have limitless potential in involving students in creation processes and in conveying meaning, which makes the combination of TBLT and technologies an excellent match. As such, activities using technology as a medium, if well-designed, can be the very definition of a task, which promotes active learning and learning by doing (Dewey, 1938).

The multimodal features of CMC have been of particular interest in task design research (Salaberry, 2000; Hauck & Youngs, 2008; Stockwell, 2010) since, as Hauck and Youngs (2008, p. 06) remarked, “modes and affordances that the computer offers have to be factored in and the issue how meaning is made in new multimodal environments such as, for example, audio-graphic conferencing and blogs needs to be addressed.” This means that task design in such environments involves making decisions about how to arrange the various semiotic modes (textual, aural, visual, etc.) in relation to the temporality of the interaction, i.e., whether the resource allows synchronous and/or asynchronous communication. Salaberry (2000) emphasizes that task designers should assess not only the effects of the technological capabilities of CMC but also “the features that characterize a potentially new type of literacy” (p. 28).

This is especially true for telecollaborative task design if we take into consideration the key role communication plays when groups of studentsFootnote 2 from different geographical locations work together in a series of tasks for extended periods of online intercultural interactions (O’Dowd, 2018). According to Dooly (2011, p. 69), a carefully designed task that requires “off-and-online co-construction of knowledge” provides not only opportunities for target language practice but also (and mainly) language use as the means of shared knowledge building.

The question “what is a well-designed task?” has already been answered in different ways. Breen (1987, p. 25), for instance, highlights the importance of making predictions about students’ behavior so that a task designer must “anticipate the reasons why, and the ways in which learners reinterpret a workplan during the task-in-process.” In the field of CALL, Chapelle (2001) answered this question by proposing a model that has become a reference in the field of telecollaboration and task design. The author describes criteria to be taken into account when assessing the appropriateness of a language teaching task in a virtual context, as shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Criteria for CALL task appropriateness
Full size table

Although the criteria proposed by Chapelle (2001) have been commonly used in telecollaborative research design, they are not above criticism. Kurek and Müller-Hartmann (2017), for instance, state that Chapelle (2001) advocates too much of a focus on form over other criteria. In her own words, “language learning potential should be considered the most critical [of the criteria] for CALL activities” (Chapelle, 2001, p. 58). This means that even though she included pedagogical and sociocultural aspects, these are placed in the background. More recently, González-Lloret and Ortega (2014), recognizing the contributions of TBLT to the fields of CALL and telecollaboration, list five characteristics of a task in a technological context, as can be seen in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Key definitional features of a task in the context of technology-and-task integration
Full size table

As we can see from Tables 1.1 and 1.2, both the works of Chapelle (2001) and of González-Lloret and Ortega (2014) mention two basic characteristics of a task, the primary focus on meaning and the relation to “real-world” activities, which they call, respectively, “Authenticity” and “Holism.” When we consider all the possibilities a task can offer a learner, the concept of “Learner fit” by Chapelle (2001) can be compared to “Learner-centerdeness” by González-Lloret and Ortega (2014), but the latter authors are more emphatic in their description of how learners can make decisions, according to personal preferences, during the execution of a task.

However, the researchers differ in some aspects. Chapelle (2001), as we mentioned earlier, prioritizes the opportunity for focus on form above other characteristics. In her perspective, the potential for learning language form is the starting point and the main aspect of a well-designed task for CALL. Besides, the author also considers the positive impact of the task and the practicality of the technological resources employed as important factors. On the other hand, González-Lloret and Ortega (2014) highlight the importance of the goals of a task. For them, a task should have a communicative purpose, instead of a focus on form. Moreover, the task should require students to produce a tangible outcome, such as producing an oral or written text, booking a flight, gathering knowledge, etc. The authors also emphasize the opportunities a task can provide for students to reflect, which is in alignment with the importance of reflection in learning by Dewey (1933).

The characteristics presented by González-Lloret and Ortega (2014) and organized on Table 1.2 are part of the first of the authors’ three requirements for integrating technology and tasks. In the first requirement, then, TBLT and technology are combined to describe the five definitional features we have just discussed. The second requirement has to do with the awareness, by the task designers, of the profound implications that the integration of new technologies into educational design brings about for the construction of knowledge and for any kind of learning. The addition of technologies to any context is not neutral. Technology itself “has created a whole new set of real-world target tasks,” such as sending an email, making a video call, writing on a forum, etc. As technology becomes a tool to mediate tasks, it also brings new demands that themselves become target tasks and part of the curriculum. The third and last requirement is the “programmatic thinking about both tasks and technologies as embedded in curricular contexts” (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014, p. 7). That means that tasks are only justified by the educational purpose they serve, being a way of organizing learning cycles. Tasks and technology must be articulated in ways that are “optimal for language learning,” considering that learning “takes place over extended periods of time in accord with some kind of planning” (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014, p. 7). Thus, these researchers defend an integration of TBLT and technology based on a critical view, describing key characteristics of a task, as well as how technology can affect tasks by also creating new demands and, ultimately, how tasks and technology should be integrated into the curriculum with a clear learning purpose, as to maximize learning potential.

The above discussion of what a well-designed task is built on publications related to the fields of CALL and CMC. Specifically in the realm of telecollaboration, O’Dowd and Ware (2009) have discussed a variety of tasks considered to be well designed and useful for different learning purposes. According to the authors, it is possible to design tasks that are either more informal or more structured. By the same token, tasks could require students to focus more on linguistic forms or aim to make students reflect on cultural aspects. The authors propose three main categories for tasks in telecollaboration: (a) information exchange tasks, which involve learners providing their partners with personal information about their lives, schools, towns, etc.; (b) comparison and analysis tasks, which require learners to compare and critically analyze cultural products from each of their cultures, such as books or movies; and (c) collaborative tasks, in which students should work together to create a final product (O’Dowd & Ware, 2009, p. 175, 178). They also remark the relevance of task sequence: information exchange tasks are usually proposed as an introductory activity for learners to know one another before they move on to other tasks. Comparison tasks go a step further, requiring comparison of cultural differences and similarities, and encourage negotiation of meaning and intercultural learning. Finally, because they require learners to agree on decisions about their final product, collaborative tasks tend to engage learners in more intense negotiation. Combining and sequencing these different types make it possible to attend to diverse learning objectives in a telecollaboration.

The features, requirements, and types of tasks discussed in this section represent the framework that will be used to characterize iiTTD tasks from the perspective of task-as-workplan, emphasizing the implications of the task “text exchange” for telecollaborative language learning.

1.3 Tasks in Teletandem

When teletandem was first implemented at UNESP, Brazilian university students voluntarily enrolled in the project and were then individually paired with foreign students who had also done so (TELLES, 2006). The interactants had the support of a teacher-mediator, that is, a professor of foreign language disciplines or a graduate student who offers pedagogical support to learners, “supervis[ing] and assist[ing], through face-to-face or virtual meetings, the pairs of interactants both in the learning and the teaching of languages that occur in this relationshipFootnote 3” (Salomão, 2011, p. 655). Nevertheless, interactants were not formally assessed and, most of the time, developed their learning independently, in a pedagogical arrangement called the “non-integrated modality” of teletandem (Aranha & Cavalari, 2014). Many cases of this type of partnership have been successful, although there have also been cases of failure, for various reasons, among which are demotivated participants (Luz, 2012) and lack of topics to be discussed (Garcia, 2013).

In iiTTD, which is our concern in this chapter, these problems were addressed through the implementation of more structured tasks, which were designed with the purpose of providing students with discussion topics to help them keep the conversation going. Aranha and Cavalari (2014) and Cavalari and Aranha (2016) are the first authors to describe the tasks that occur in the iiTTD context, calling them “integrating tasks.” The integrating tasks are (a) eight interactions (teletandem oral sessions, or TOSs); (b) three texts written in the student’s target language; (c) three revised texts in the student’s native language or language of proficiency; (d) reflective diaries written after each TOS; and (e) pre- and post-questionnaires.

Aranha and Leone (2016, 2017) present a description of the telecollaborative practice between UNESP, São José do Rio Preto, in Brazil, and Unisalento (Università del Salento), in Italy. To do this, the authors use the pedagogical scenario framework as a reference, which, according to Chanier and Wigham (2016), describes (a) the entire online environment, (b) the various roles of participants during the course, (c) each course activity and the role of each participant in them, (d) how the activities are organized in a sequence, (e) which resources will be used and produced, and (f) the instructions and guidelines that direct the learning activities. Figure 1.1 shows the arrangement of tasks in the iiTTD context. Aranha and Leone (2017) propose two macro-tasks that occur in the teletandem learning scenario: the oral exchange between partners and the mediation sessions that occur within each group mediated by the professor.

Fig. 1.1
A 4-level block diagram. Learning scenario of T T L S, 2 macrotasks, 4 tasks, and 4 microtasks. The macrotasks are T O S and mediation sessions, the tasks include session 1, reflective diaries, and self-evaluation, and the microtasks include tutorial, text exchange, and discussing folk.

The organization of a pedagogical scenario based on Teletandem. (Source: Aranha & Leone, 2017, p. 178)

Full size image

Considering the highest level of hierarchy, we can say that teletandem scenarios are composed of two macrotasks: the teletandem oral sessions (TOSs) and the teletandem mediation sessions (TMSs). The macrotasks are fixed and mandatory and are composed of smaller and more feasible steps that offer scaffolding to learners as they progress through the course. The microtasks are more flexible and can be adapted according to the learning context. Therefore, the teletandem general pedagogical scenario consists of two macrotasks, present in all learning scenarios and of greater scope, which are formed by tasks, which are, in turn, composed of microtasks that can be adjusted.

Related to the mediation microtask are the learning diaries written by students after each TOS with the purpose of reflecting on their learning objectives and the strategies adopted to achieve them. This is in accordance with the proposal of González-Lloret and Ortega (2014) for reflective learning, that is, to provide space for students to reflect as part of the task. According to Cavalari and Aranha (2019, 2022), as students write their diaries and reflect, the teachers in iiTTD read them and can bring questions and discussion topics to the language classes based on insights from the diaries.

In addition to diaries, learners must also answer questionnaires (“self-eval. TT prod.” in Fig. 1.1), usually one before starting the first TOS and one after finishing the last TOS. In the initial questionnaire, each student assesses their own language proficiency, according to a brief description of the levels of the Common European Framework (Council of Europe, 2001), and set their learning objectives for teletandem practice. Lewis and Cavalari (ongoing) investigated the goals set by Brazilian learners in iiTTD and revealed that most goals are appropriate to teletandem setting (e.g., focused on speaking, listening, and/or interactive skills), but only approximately 10% of the goals were considered efficient/attainable goals, i.e., specific (because they are focused on particular learning item and/or ability), proximal (because they mention the exchange period), and moderately difficult (because they seem feasible but require some effort). In the final questionnaire, participants rate their experience in the project, whether they have fulfilled their objectives and if their linguistic level has changed after teletandem practice.

The mediation task is a development of telecollaboration, after the TOSs. It provides an opportunity for students to think about their experience in iiTTD with the teacher’s guidance and support. Besides, it is adjustable to learners’ needs, since they can discuss their own personal learning goals, strategies, and difficulties while deciding to write their experiences in their target language or mother tongue.

The TOS macrotask comprises all the TOSs that occur in a partnership in iiTTD (usually from 5 to 8), with the initial teletandem oral session (iTOS) being preceded by a “tutorial” meeting with the teacher. In our context, at UNESP/SJRP, the sessions after the iTOS are related to the text exchange microtask and require participants to produce texts in their target language on a genre and a topic defined by the teacher. After writing, students should share their texts with their partners, observing the due dates before each scheduled TOS so that partners have time to revise the texts and share their suggestions before the next TOS, in which both the writer and the reviser in each pair are expected to talk about the revision and discuss points of interest about the text and/or its topic. Table 1.3 shows an example of a table presented to students during a tutorial meeting with dates and instructions related to the TOSs and the text exchange microtask.

Table 1.3 Example of an iiTTD calendar
Full size table

Table 1.3 shows how students alternate the roles of writer and revisor in each interaction, being expected, respectively, to have written a text or revised a partner’s text before each TOS.

O’Dowd and Ware (2009) define three types of telecollaborative tasks for virtual exchange projects, each type usually occurring after the other. In our context, the initial TOS can be classified as an information exchange task, because it is an introductory activity for partners to get to know one another. During the other TOSs, interactants can discuss their text revision and/or topic, if they wish to do so, but they can also make other choices according to their own learning goals and strategies. In that sense, we can say that all three task types proposed by O’Dowd and Ware (2009) can be covered in each TOS, because students may exchange information, critically compare and contrast, and act collaboratively. The task of text exchange seems to reinforce the intertwining of these actions, as partners may exchange linguistic and cultural information to correct/adequate the texts and may compare and contrast diverse aspects of each language and culture, acting collaboratively toward a final text that will be submitted for the teacher’s assessment.

In the next section, we look more closely at the text exchange task and its characteristics.

1.4 The Text Exchange Task in iiTTD

As we have discussed, students doing the text exchange task should, alternatively during each week of iiTTD, write a text in their target language and share it with their partner. The partner, then, reads the text and revises it before the next TOS, when the interactants are supposed to discuss the text’s revision and/or topic. Finally, after this discussion, the original writer may rewrite the text considering his/her partner’s comments and their negotiation during the TOS so that he/she can hand in an improved version to his/her teacher.

The first product of the task is the text itself is done individually, with the teacher’s support, in accordance with the course program, but without interaction with the foreign partner.Footnote 4 This stage, which involves the teacher’s collaboration, can be called pre-telecollaborative, because it generates a product necessary for the telecollaborative microtask of text exchange. After this pre-telecollaborative stage, the task becomes telecollaborative when the student who produced the text (P1 for “partner 1”) sharesFootnote 5 it with his partner (P2 for “partner 2”). P2 revises it, making comments and suggesting corrections. It is expected that the partners do this asynchronously, i.e., before the TOS in which they should discuss the text. For P1, checking the revision previously is recommended, but it is not a prerequisite to discuss the text during the TOS, and it is not uncommon that the writer only sees the revision during the TOS. Besides, after the telecollaborative discussion during the TOS, a post-telecollaborative task must be performed: the author of the original text should rewrite it, based on the comments and suggestions made by their partner and on the discussion made in the interaction so that an improved product can be graded by the professor.

Therefore, the text exchange task is formed up by three stages: pre-telecollaborative, telecollaborative, and post-telecollaborative. When thinking about the telecollaborative stage, we can also consider the synchronicity of the work performed by students: it is a telecollaborative asynchronous task as P1 shares the original text to P2 and as P2 shares the revision with P1; after that, during the TOS, it is synchronous telecollaboration when students discuss the text and its revision. We can observe a summarized scheme of the text exchange task in Table 1.3.

Table 1.4 illustrates the proposal of the text exchange microtask, in which participants alternate the roles of P1 and P2 each week. As the weeks proceed, interactants take turns weekly being either the writer or reviser of a text. It is relevant to note that due to the nature of the teletandem context, which is based on students making autonomous decisions about their learning, each pair can negotiate how they will use their TOS time, as long as it is divided in half an hour for each language/partner. Thus, exceptionally, a pair of students may decide not to discuss the written texts during the TOS and work on that only asynchronously. Another pair could opt for using ideas and topics from the text as a starting point for informal conversation, forgoing the revision process. In general, however, it is expected that learners ask questions about the revision and discuss points of doubt and/or interest in each revised text. This variety of approaches provided by the task is in alignment with both “Learner Fit” (CHAPELLE, 2001) and “Learner-Centeredness” (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014), categories that refer to the good quality of a task that allows adaptability to learners’ needs and preferences.

Table 1.4 Stages of the telecollaborative microtask of exchanging texts in iiTTD
Full size table

Another relevant feature of the task is that each text is a final product of joint collaborative work, but P1, the writer, is the one who decides to make modifications to the original text – or not – before submitting it to his/her professor. That is to say that as students work together to revise the text, it does not necessarily belong to both of them. The student who worked as P1 chooses whether to accept or disregard the suggestions made to the text during the revision process. By the principle of reciprocity, the other student will be P1 on the following week and will decide on what changes to make in his/her original text. Therefore, due to the reciprocal nature of teletandem with the inversion of roles each week, students know that every other week, they will be responsible for making decisions on their own text while counting on their partners’ support to improve it. When the project finishes for a group of students, there are six final versions of the texts for each pair, half of them written and possibly rewritten by a student (the one that was P1 in each particular week), with the help and revision of his/her partner (P2).

Each final version of a text is the goal of an instance of the text exchange task. The production of a tangible outcome in the form of a written text is in conformity with González-Lloret and Ortega’s notion of “Goal orientation” in task design, engaging students in a “language-and-action experience” (2014, p. 6). Besides, both the activities of writing and revising a written text are relevant and authentic, especially to the audience of iiTTD in our context. The cohorts in Brazil are formed by students of foreign languages, who are going to become either foreign language teachers or professional translators. The task, thus, has a holistic (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014) or authentic (Chapelle, 2001) component, since it corresponds to real-life activities that are of interest to the learners outside the classroom context.

When it comes to the relationship between autonomy and socialization, the text exchange task encapsulates teletandem principles, since students perform different roles at distinct moments, i.e., the writer/learner or the reviser/tutor. As Vassallo and Telles (2009) have argued, autonomy in teletandem is understood “with” and “in relation to” the partner, because pairs exchange roles, having a responsibility as a learner of their target language and as a tutor of their language of proficiency. Most contexts of language learning tend to focus on individualization at the expense of socialization, or the other way around. In teletandem, both can walk hand in hand, as learning is very individualized, attending to each interactant’s personal learning goals, while, at the same time, learning is built through socialization, as partners interact and collaborate. Likewise, the text exchange task fosters autonomy at the same time that it fosters collaboration: each student is responsible for their text in the end, but the text is improved with help from the partner, both asynchronously and as the pair negotiates the revision. Going beyond the socialization in each instance of the text exchange task, we also have to consider an overview of the iiTTD sequence of tasks, because it is based on reciprocity and alternation of roles. In that sense, we agree with Salomão, Silva e Daniel (2009) that, in tandem environments, a student should have the autonomy to recognize his/her own needs, determine his/her objectives, and come up with strategies and methods to reach them with collaboration from his/her partner.

Chapelle’s concerns about how a task should have “Language learning potential,” that is, “opportunity […] for beneficial focus on form” (2001, p. 55) are also covered in the text exchange task. Previous research has shown that partners doing this task tend to focus on grammatical corrections (Brocco, 2014; Aranha & Cavalari, 2015). Although focus on form has not been valued by the literature in the currently popular communicative view, it still has a significant positive impact on language learning. Ware and Cañado (2007) provide a defense argument for tasks with a focus on form in the specific context of telecollaboration. For communicative approaches, language is often understood “as a conduit for carrying and encoding ideas [...] but rarely as an object of inquiry in and of itself” (Ware & Cañado, 2007, p. 108). That means that a preference for fluency in the target language often comes at the expense of developing students’ linguistic accuracy and complexity, which is required at upper intermediate and advanced classes and also for selection processes, such as for academic mobility programs. As such “[i]n many language teaching contexts at the post-secondary level, alignment with institutional and curricular goals alone provides sufficient justification for integrating a stronger focus on language form in telecollaboration” (Ware & Cañado, 2007, p. 108).

The peer feedback given in teletandem, however, is not exclusively related to linguistic form but also includes discussions about the language in use, such as lexical and discursive issues (Brocco, 2014; Aranha & Cavalari, 2015; Freschi, 2017). Research done by Ware and Cañado (2007) points to similar results: partners involved in telecollaboration may give feedback that goes beyond linguistic form, incorporating issues related to writing style, register, language use, and cultural aspects.

Teletandem’s text exchange task, therefore, combines complex features from a range of different models for tasks in CALL and telecollaboration. It may foster autonomy but also socialization and negotiation. It provides students with clear goals and steer them toward the creation of a product. It ensures students have a consistent environment for authentic language use and conversation while also encouraging them to inquire about the language itself or about cultural issues.

Final Remarks

The analysis we carried out in this chapter intended to offer some insights on the design of the text exchange task in teletandem and how its features can assist language learning in different ways. By looking at the task as a workplan, we discussed how it fits the categories of a well-designed task described by both Chapelle (2001) and González-Lloret and Ortega (2014). Firstly, the text exchange task allows students to make their own choices during the telecollaboration, according to their personal learning goals and strategies. As we have shown, this conforms with the notions of “learner-centeredness” (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014) and “learner fit” (Chapelle, 2001). The possibility of choice unfolds into a range of opportunities for students to focus both on meaning and on form. Moreover, collaboration and reflection are encouraged by the task, as it associates with the possibility of asynchronous text revision and synchronous discussion of the revision with the teletandem partner. Besides, if we consider the production of learning diaries after each TOS, in a constant exercise of (re)thinking the choices made during the interactions, “reflective learning” (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014) seems to be ensured by teletandem learning scenario. Finally, students are involved in an activity that is compatible with their future jobs. Because they are going to be foreign language teachers or translators, writing and revising in a foreign language are crucial practices that are connected to life outside the classroom, characterizing “authenticity” (Chapelle, 2001) or “holism” (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014). Besides, the revision is done in collaboration toward a tangible goal, that is to say that the task is goal-oriented (González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014). The goal is to have an improved version of the text to submit to the teacher’s evaluation. The production of a tangible outcome in the form of a written text is in conformity with González-Lloret and Ortega’s notion of “Goal orientation” in task design, engaging students in a “language-and-action experience” (2014, p. 6). The analysis of features of task-as-workplan contributes with an understanding of the affordances of text exchange microtask for language learning that may inform task design within virtual exchange. However, other research should examine the task-in-progress, that is, scrutinize choices actually made by students during the telecollaboration.