Engagement in the expression of learners' identity within virtual exchange, Monografías, Ensayos de Cultura Inglesa

¡Descarga Engagement in the expression of learners' identity within virtual exchange y más Monografías, Ensayos en PDF de Cultura Inglesa solo en Docsity! 10 Engagement in the Expression of Learners’ Identity Within Virtual Exchange Asynchronous Discussions Ana Sevilla-Pavón and Anna Nicolaou 1 Introduction This study examines the expression of linguistic and cultural identity con- struction processes experienced by 78 Cypriot and Spanish learners of Eng- lish as an Additional Language (EAL) within a virtual exchange project. The importance of interpersonal communication and accurate argumentation strategies in learners’ online discussion forum entries, which are the main foci of this study, has been highlighted by authors such as Coffin and Hew- ings (2004) and Coffin and O’Halloran (2005). Previous studies focused on characterizing the learners’ use of engagement and interpersonal communi- cation resources in English academic writing (Vega Garrido, 2018) as well as determining whether argumentations were successful (Wu, 2006; Wu & Al- lison, 2005) in the realization of stance and stance support (Chandrasegaran & Kong, 2006) and in the creation of robust arguments with a variety of ex- panding and contracting strategies (Ryshina-Pankova, 2014). As for learners’ cultural reflections, which are also analysed in this study, they have been one of the main components of research on virtual exchange (Basharina, 2007; Belz, 2003; Belz & Thorne, 2006; Elola & Oskoz, 2008; Helm, 2013, 2016, 2018; Liaw, 2006; Lomicka, 2006; O’Dowd, 2007, 2016; Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou, 2020; Ware & O’Dowd, 2008) for the last few decades. Numerous studies focusing on intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997, 2000) in foreign language (FL) teaching have shown that virtual exchange participants generally display curiosity and interest in other cultures, over- coming difficulties resulting from differences in cultural engagement styles (Belz, 2003; Ware & O’Dowd, 2008) when discussing topics aimed at foster- ing cultural exchanges and discovery (Elola & Oskoz, 2008). Building on the prior research on how L2 learners co-create knowledge and build arguments collaboratively in asynchronous written discussions (Oskoz & Gimeno-Sanz, 2019; Oskoz, Gimeno-Sanz & Sevilla-Pavón, 2018), this study analyses FL learners’ use of contracting and expanding strategies when building argu- ments about experiences with and views of their own and their additional or target language(s) and culture(s) in EAL settings. The main focus of the study is interpersonal communication strategies used for the projection and negotiation of cultural identities, understood as subsets of someone’s overall global identity, which in turn are viewed not as fixed and static but rather as multiple and fluid (Helm, 2018), as well as situated. Cultural identity has to do with an individual’s identification with and sense of belonging to a specific group with shared systems of symbols, meanings, and behavioural norms (Collier & Thomas, 1988). Nowadays, our current digital age and the context of liquid modernity (Bauman, 2005, 2007), globalization, massive migratory movements across the globe, con- stant mobility and changes in relationships and identities within our highly complex societies, together with an increase in technological “normaliza- tion” (Bax, 2003; Chambers & Bax, 2006), have all influenced the current notions of cultural identity (Hall, 1992; Jensen, 2003; Kim, 2009). Thus, cul- tural contrasts have been reduced and new multicultural, transnational indi- viduals (Jensen, 2003, 2011) with millennium, hybrid multilingual/multicul- tural identities (Higgins, 2015) have emerged. These transnational individu- als no longer perceive reality as inertial, traditions no longer influence their learning processes, and they no longer see the possibilities for their future as pre-determined or finite (Helm, 2018). Their fluid identities align with what Appadurai (1996) identified as “transcultural flows” in the domains of ethnoscapes (involving flow of people), mediascapes (flow of information), technoscapes (flow of technology), financescapes (flows of finance), and ideoscapes (flow of ideology or ideas). In order to gain insight into the expression of the linguistic and cultural identity construction processes of such transcultural and transnational indi- viduals, the empirical study conducted adopted the discourse-semantic sub- system of Appraisal Theory (Martin & White, 2005; White, 2000) known as Engagement. It was considered appropriate as a framework to capture argumentation strategies used in online forum discussions (Coffin & Hew- ings, 2004), as it involves “all those locutions which provide the means for the authorial voice to position itself with respect to, and hence to engage with, the other voices and alternative positions construed as being in play in the current communicative context” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 94). In other words, Engagement refers to how writers position themselves in relation to other voices (Hyland & Jiang, 2016) and has been considered “probably the 245Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou The Expression of Learners’ Identity structured forums were generally perceived by students to be more engaging. A study by Mokoena (2013) found that discussion forums are more effective in increasing students’ interaction if instructors establish social presence and provide participants with support. However, Andresen (2009) emphasized that the instructor’s level of intervention in asynchronous discussion forums should only revolve around motivating discussions and keeping students on track as “an instructor that contributes significantly to a discussion tends to decrease the length of discussions (this does not necessarily decrease the quality of the discussion, however) as well as their frequency” (p. 251). Nevertheless, the instructors’ lack of intervention in forum discussions does not mean overlooking the provision of guidance regarding how students can make culturally-appropriate contributions to those discussions. In fact, as pointed out by Hanna and de Nooy (2003), successful participation in forum discussions where participants from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds interact depends on awareness of cultural and generic conven- tions and netiquette rules, as well as on the ability to work within and/or with them. These authors argue that it is the role of instructors to help raise students’ awareness about such issues so that their participation in electron- ic discussions can move beyond simple linguistic training and it becomes actual engagement with other cultural practices. They also remind us that despite the ideal of a borderless, neutral internet society, there are cultural differences which influence communication styles and may incite cultural clashes (Hanna & de Nooy, 2009). In language learning, online discussion forums can be beneficial as they provide EAL learners with an opportunity to join in discussions that “they may not have felt comfortable contributing to in class during face-to-face interactions” (Rizopoulos & McCarthy, 2009, p. 377). Lee (2009) noted that threaded discussions can result in establishing a shared virtual space where students have equal opportunities to express their opinions, offer support and feedback to each other, work collaboratively and create knowledge, and sus- tain communication beyond the classroom walls. Integrating online threaded discussions in language instruction can be an enjoyable, motivating, and meaningful experience provided they are designed with caution (Nicolaou, 2020). A study by Lee (2009) suggests three elements that are needed to optimize the effectiveness of discussion boards in language instruction: “1) use of carefully designed tasks that prompt critical thinking, 2) scaffolding strategies for keeping account of group discussions, and 3) inclusion of on- line etiquette to avoid confusion and minimise personal conflicts” (p. 212). As for virtual exchange, it is “a well-known pedagogical approach in foreign language education which involves engaging classes in online 248 Identity, Multilingualism and CALL intercultural collaboration projects with international partners as an inte- grated part of their educational programmes” (O’Dowd, 2020, p. 1). In the context of virtual exchange, online discussion forums have served as venues for asynchronous interaction, provision of personal opinions, reflections, and reactions to local and international peers’ contributions in many telecollabo- rative projects (Basharina et al., 2008; Chun, 2011; Liaw & Bunn-Le Mas- ter, 2010; Loizidou & Savlovska, 2020; Loizidou & Mangenot, 2016; Nico- laou & Sevilla-Pavón, 2016; Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou, 2020; Turula, 2017; Ware & Kramsch, 2005). Previous research on learners’ intercultural online written interactions has shown that despite possible problems that may lead to communication breakdowns resulting from participants’ dissimilar cul- tural engagement styles (Belz, 2003; Ware & O’Dowd, 2008), expressions of curiosity are common, as well as willingness to engage in discussions that foster intercultural discovery (Elola & Oskoz, 2008). Online discussion forums offer useful locations for engagement in conversations which pro- mote intercultural exploration and discovery, as they provide participants with an opportunity and time for reflection, reaction, search of additional in- formation to support and counteract different points of view, co-creation of knowledge and building of arguments collaboratively when discussing their C1 and C2 (Oskoz et al., 2018), as well as their L1(s) and L2(s). This can be achieved even in cases where “missed communication” (Ware, 2005) may occur. In fact, as Ware and Kramsch note, “discussion of such moments of miscommunication can be valuable learning opportunities for both students and teachers” (2005, p. 190). Therefore, as O’Donnell (2013) explains, the participants’ identity development is viewed from a social semiotic perspec- tive, as the language used to project identities is assumed to be a meaning- making system within which the meanings that language producers make are not constrained by a particular sense of reality. This means that an author can project any identity in a discussion forum, whether it conforms or not with their own sense of identity, and that identi- ties can be negotiated. However, the language user does not need to accept an author’s projected identity and may be more willing to accept a projection which is closer to their perception of social reality. An author could choose to project an identity different from their own perception for multiple rea- sons: renegotiating one’s public identity so as to be perceived in the way they would like to be perceived, adopting the character of another as a joke, or to deceive others (O’ Donnell, 2013). 249Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou The Expression of Learners’ Identity 2.2 Engagement: Expanding and Contracting Strategies The Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) language model proposed by Halliday focuses on the variations of language in use depending on con- text and the inner workings reflected in its surface structure (Eggins, 2004). Based on this model, White (1998, 2001, 2015) and Martin (2000a, 2000b) developed their interpersonal communication framework, the Appraisal Framework (AF). In this framework, Engagement refers to “those resources by which a text references, invokes and negotiates with the various alterna- tive social positions put at risk by a text’s meanings” (White, 1998, p. 13). Engagement can thus be considered a subsystem of Appraisal, the resources of which are used for introducing additional voices into a discourse through a set of different strategies. In other words, engagement has to do with speak- ers allowing space for negotiation of meaning into their talk, and this in turn determines the degree to which a text is relatively monoglossic or heteroglos- sic. The other subsystems of Appraisal, which are beyond the scope of this chapter, are Attitude and Graduation. As noted earlier, the AF assumes a social semiotic perspective, accord- ing to which the language used to project identities is considered a meaning- making system. Thus, the meanings that language producers make are not constrained by a particular sense of reality. This means language producers can manipulate the linguistic resources available to them in order to project the reality they desire. When applied to the analysis of identity, an author can project any identity, regardless of whether it is aligned or not with their own sense of identity (O’Donnell, 2013). Martin (2014) argues that Appraisal as a system is needed to connect feelings with lexical-grammatical choice, thus providing a way to describe evaluation as it relates to the negotiation of identity. The appropriateness of the AF in the exploration of identity and the social construction of the self has been tested in previous studies. McKinley (2018) found out that the AF could be used linguistically to operationalize an analy- sis to explore the “possibilities for selfhood” (Clark & Ivanic, 1997) and pro- vide insights into teachers’ and students’ use of metalanguage for the social construction of selves and the projection of those identities in writing. His main finding was that identity construction in academic settings was mainly influenced by instructors’ expectations and, to a lesser extent, by personal beliefs (McKinley, 2017). Another example of the AF being used when examining identity in aca- demic settings is provided by Alonso Belmonte (2012), who explored the empirical insights that the AF could provide to explore student teachers’ 250 Identity, Multilingualism and CALL analysis survey the languages they spoke (apart from English) as follows: Greek, Spanish, Catalan, French, Danish, Swedish, German, Russian, Chi- nese, Romanian, Italian, Dutch, Bulgarian, Portuguese, Armenian, and Azer- baijani. The learners were divided into multinational groups of 4–5 students, each group having at least two students from either institution who interact- ed with each other throughout the semester (from September to December). Students interacted online both synchronously and asynchronously, sharing knowledge and experiences connected to their own language(s) and culture(s) while developing new knowledge about different languages and cultures. 3.2 Data Collection The data analysed in this study, using both quantitative and qualitative proce- dures, were gathered from the two main forum discussions within the virtual exchange project. In other words, the data were made up of the narratives and reflections exchanged by participants over the course of one semester on the Google+ forum. To obtain informed consent, the participants were asked to give both instructors their permission to use their anonymized data for educational and research purposes. All participants agreed to take part in the study and thus signed the permission forms. A separate Community was created by the instructors in Google+ which served as an asynchronous online milieu for the exchange. The study focuses on the asynchronous component of participants’ in- tercultural discussions in the form of narratives reporting both positive and negative experiences using participants’ additional or target language(s) (L2s),2 in different contexts, as well as a discussion about hypothetically tracing their ethnic origins through a DNA test and the implications of doing so. A total of 235 utterances were selected for in-depth analysis within a corpus of nearly 25,000 words. The 235 utterances were selected based on whether they belonged to one of the two main discussions carried out in the exchange project: the “Language memories” and the “DNA Journey” discus- sions. These were connected to the tasks which provided participants with the most opportunities to reflect on their cultural and linguistic identities as well as to project those identities in their narratives and reflections. Both the “Language memories” narratives and the “DNA Journey” reflections, which 2 Despite acknowledging the different implications and contextual meaning nuances of the terms “second language,” “third language,” and “foreign language,” in this chapter only the terms “additional language” and “target language” (L2) will be used to refer to any of the former terms, unless stated otherwise. 253Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou The Expression of Learners’ Identity are explained below, were framed within the third stage of the project, “In- formation exchange: exploring and sharing knowledge.” In these two tasks, each participant was equally involved in the discussion and contributed an average of three utterances. As for the utterances resulting from other dis- cussions, they are beyond the scope of this study and thus have not been ad- dressed in this chapter. The first part of the project’s third stage focused on exchanging “Lan- guage memories” narratives. The topic was inspired by the celebration of the European Day of Languages, which coincided with the time period when the specific activity took place during the exchange. A total of 116 utterances were exchanged within the “Language memo- ries” task in the form of narratives which described each student’s personal recollections and anecdotes connected to either positive or negative experi- ences related to the use of their L2(s) which, in most cases, was English but also included Spanish, French, and German, among others. These narratives were prompted by the following statement, formulated by the participants’ instructors from both institutions in the form of an introductory forum post which started a new thread: The European Day of Languages is celebrated every year on 26 September. It’s a day to encourage language learning for young and old. Let’s mark this day by sharing our language memories. Write a brief personal story of a good or bad memory regarding the use of language, INDIVIDUALLY, and share it as a Comment to this post. Use linking words, verbs in the past and at least 10 sentences in a paragraph.” Another 119 utterances corresponded to the second part of the third stage, the “DNA Journey” discussion, in which students reflected on questions con- nected to their identity and their willingness to explore various cultural or ethnic affiliations that were present in their genealogical tree. This task was part of the “Global awareness – Discussing social issues: Comparison and contrast” component of the project and it was included in the task sequence of this virtual exchange project with the goal to spark discussion and reflec- tion on the importance of breaking boundaries, being tolerant and respectful to others, and embracing diversity (Nicolaou, 2020). The initial thread on this topic included a prompt which was based on a video the students were asked to watch prior to sharing their reflections:3 3 The DNA Journey video is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyaE- QEmt5ls, last accessed August 11, 2021. 254 Identity, Multilingualism and CALL The DNA Journey: Our DNA reveals so much about where we come from. Most of us are far more diverse and have much more in com- mon with people from other countries than we would ever have thought. We have started The DNA Journey because we want people to understand that there are more things uniting us than dividing us. a) Are you interested in finding out where you come from based on your DNA? b) Would you dare question who you really are? c) How connected do you feel to the rest of the world? d) Is there a country that you feel you are most connected with? e) Is there a country that you feel you absolutely have no connection with? f) What if you are genetically related to a certain group of people you normally associ- ate with bad feelings? g) Would you like to travel to all the countries you are genetically related to? Write your reflections on the Google+ Community and respond to each other. The “DNA Journey,” a video campaign launched by Momondo in 2016, intended to create a more open and tolerant world by showing participants how we, as people, have more things uniting us than dividing us. Their vid- eos were viewed more than 28 million times on Facebook and more than 5 million times on YouTube, as well as being shared more than 600,000 times globally and commented on by thousands of people from all over the world. 3.3 Data Analysis and Procedure Learners’ postings were subjected to quantitative and qualitative content analysis using a modified version of the Appraisal model (Martin & White, 2005; Oskoz et al., 2018). To examine the Engagement strategies used by participants, each narrative was divided into utterances, understood as pieces of speech beginning and ending with a clear pause (Kaplan, 2007), as stu- dents’ informal forum comments resembled spoken discourse. Within each utterance, lexical items, understood as a single word, a part of a word, or a chain of words that form the basic elements of a language lexicon, were identified. In addition, those utterances were categorized as referring to the C1, the C2, general statements referred to the topic (T) but without address- ing any specific culture, and dynamics (D) for instances such as salutations and ice-breaking exchanges (Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou, 2019). It should be noted that C1 referred to the students’ own culture(s) (Spanish and any other additional cultures in the case of students from Spain, Cypriot and any other additional cultures in the case of students from Cyprus, and so on) while C2 255Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou The Expression of Learners’ Identity implications for their future. Similar results were reported by Vega Garrido (2018), who found in her analysis of rhetorical stages that results differed depending on the prompt. In this study, participants’ monoglossic statements were mostly in the present tense as well as the present continuous. As for the most frequently used lexical-grammatical resources within the Entertain subcategory, these included the modal verbs “will” and “can.” In the case of the Contract/Deny subcategory, the strategies used included the negative modals “don’t,” “will not,” and “can’t.” Finally, the Contract/Counter strat- egies were limited almost in their entirety to the conjunction “but” with a few comment adjuncts. An example of a monoglossic statement connected to a highly personal view is provided by Darío (note that all students’ names were replaced by pseudonyms), a student from UV: “Whenever I meet someone from another country, I love asking questions about their way of being, their behaviour, to know other cultures and traditions.” In this case, as in many other simi- lar cases in this discussion, the utterance is monoglossic in nature, but that does not necessarily mean that the underlying ideology is monoglossic, as the student presents a pluralistic, open-minded attitude toward other ways of being, behaviors, cultures, and traditions. In other words, many of the mono- glossic statements found in the “Language memories” discussion could not be considered as “bare assertions” (Bakhtin, 1986, 2010) but they could be interpreted instead as an effort to “create ideological spaces that move away from monoglossic language ideologies toward heteroglossic language ide- ologies and implementational spaces that provide concrete tools for enacting this vision” (Flores & Schissel, 2014). As for the 24 heteroglossic statements found in the “Language memories” discussion, 5 belonged to the subcategory of “Expand,” including the follow- ing examples: “In my opinion, languages are the best way to get knowledge while you are establishing bonds with other people from anywhere around the world” (Darío, UV, Heteroglossic/Expand/Entertain) and “In my opin- ion, learning a language is difficult, but when you finally know enough and you are able to speak in other languages you experience a unique feeling of satisfaction” (Carolina, UV, Heteroglossic/Expand/Entertain). Meanwhile, 19 statements belonged to the subcategory of “Contract.” Some examples are: “My first week there was one of the best experiences of my life, but as time went on, I had to face my first big challenge: the language” (Mara, UV, Heteroglossic/Contract/Disclaim/Counter) and “In fact, language is not a set of words created in order to communicate but to both identify with each other and feel that we all are part of something bigger” (Mara, UV, Heteroglossic/Contract/Disclaim/Counter). 258 Identity, Multilingualism and CALL Following Martin and White’s AF, the examples above can be considered illustrative of contractive dialogue, since in each case the author proclaims and more specifically pronounces an initial utterance which is immediately followed by a disclaiming utterance aimed at countering the previous as- sumption. In the first example, Mara’s initial statement that her first week in a foreign country was one of the best experiences in her life is countered by the subsequent reference to the challenges she had to face when trying to communicate in her L2. As for the second example, the participant uses a similar disclaiming/ countering strategy in order to highlight her view of language as a tool to not just communicate but identify with each other and “feel that we are part of something bigger,” thus “insisting upon her point of view when it […] is in contrast with a preceding proposal or assumption” (Aijmer, 2007, p. 335). Even though the two utterances belong to statements by the same author, and in spite of the fact that both of them fall into the same category within the AF, a contrast in Mara’s portrayed cultural and linguistic identities can be observed. The identity she projected earlier in the project may be interpreted as less open toward other languages, as she frames her experience with the foreign language in such a way that the emphasis is placed on the challenges she faced when trying to communicate in that language. This aspect of her iden- tity coexists with another one projected later on in the project, an identity which appears to be more in alignment with a new multicultural, transna- tional perspective (Jensen, 2003, 2011), which is closer to a millennium, hy- brid multilingual/multicultural identity (Higgins, 2015), since it emphasizes feelings of empathy, connection, and belonging among people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Regarding the second subset of data analysed, it came from the forum posts the participants from CUT and UV exchanged within the “DNA Jour- ney” discussion, which resulted in 119 utterances, as explained earlier. With- in those, 87 utterances were monoglossic, while the remaining 32 were het- eroglossic. Ninety-five of those utterances were connected to the students’ C2, while only 8 had to do with their C1, and the remaining 14 belonged to the categories of group dynamics or general statements not connected to any languages or cultures in particular (and thus were not included in the analy- sis). This again resonates with the results obtained by Vega Garrido’s study (2018), with differences connected to the kind of prompt students were re- plying to. In this case, students had to give a highly personal opinion about whether they would be willing to undertake a “DNA Journey” to reveal their 259Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou The Expression of Learners’ Identity origins and whether this might affect their cultural identities or the way they view other languages and cultures. Examples of monoglossic statements connected to this hypothetical DNA test revealing the students’ ethnic background, which were chosen because of the fact that they were representative of how other students responded, include the following statement from Anna, a Swedish exchange student at UV: “A few years ago my grandmother did some research about our family back in the days and it was super interesting to get information about who we were back then. So yes, I am interested in finding out more about my family’s past.” Another example of a monoglossic statement came from An- tigone, a student at CUT: “I generally love to travel and I would really like to travel especially to all the countries I am genetically related to, if I haven’t been there already. I’m definitely interested in finding out from what other places I come from, based on my DNA.” Similar to the examples selected from the “Language memories” dis- cussion, these monoglossic statements cannot be seen as “bare assertions” (Bakhtin, 1986, 2010) which “present the speaker as a solitary voice unen- gaged with any dialogic partners or alternatives” (White & Sano, 2006, p. 192) but rather as contributions which attempt to create heteroglossic ideo- logical spaces (Flores & Schissel, 2014), as the speakers show their willing- ness to know more about their ethnic backgrounds and even to visit all the places in the world that are connected to their DNA. Concerning the 32 heteroglossic statements found in the “DNA Journey” discussion, 18 of them belonged to the subcategory of “Expand,” includ- ing the following example from an Austrian exchange student at UV from a Croatian background: “I don’t know about you but in my opinion, languages are changing constantly – that’s one of the reasons why languages are so in- teresting for me: Do you like languages? If yes or no, tell me why? I think it’s funny how many meanings a word can have – so we always have to watch out what and how we say it. Especially the different pronunciation of the same word in different countries amazes me” (Krista, Austrian-Croatian student from UV, Heteroglossic/Expand/Entertain). Meanwhile, 15 “DNA Journey” utterances belonged to the subcategory of “Contract,” an example of which can be found in the post by Andreas, a student from CUT: “I do not feel closer to one country in particular but I don’t feel like I don’t have any connections with other countries” (Heteroglossic/Contract/Disclaim/Deny). This and other examples of Disclaim/Deny formulations used by students il- lustrate “maximally contractive” propositions, as they simultaneously negate a position and by virtue of the negation acknowledge its implicit positive 260 Identity, Multilingualism and CALL projection of identities in writing; to inquire into emerging professional identities (Alonso Belmonte, 2012); and to shed light on both the identity assumed by writers/speakers when writing and the identity assigned to the other voices that participate in the text produced by those writers/speakers (O’Donnell, 2013). The limitations of the study lie in the areas of validity and reliability of the research approach. This study has the potential to improve by adopting the principle of triangulation in the analysis of the students’ texts. For exam- ple, analysing different empirical data obtained from various sources, such as interviews and focus groups with students, would render this study more reliable and valid. In spite of these limitations, the project forum discus- sions analysed can be seen as an example of how genres build or enact so- cial practice, and theorizing about this contributes to building a comprehen- sive theory of social action, revealing the usefulness of systemic functional analysis in addressing the social construction of reality (Christie & Martin, 1997; Iedema et al., 1994). Since educational settings provide contexts for apprenticeship into such genres, the application of Appraisal Theory can as- sist professionals in the field of critical analysis of texts in any form (written, oral or computer mediated), upgrading their skills at appreciation/evaluating language usage. As for the analysis of learner discourse, it can provide useful informa- tion about how identities, opinions, and views are negotiated, as well as the evolution of the learner’s value judgment and writing positioning. Appraisal Theory can therefore propose pedagogic ways to enhance transformative change. Thus, future research could focus on achieving this goal by bring- ing divisive topics and deliberatively addressing conflicting worldviews to favor the move beyond the exchange of information, which is deemed as a superficial approach to virtual exchange (O’Dowd, 2018). An additional ad- vantage of using AF to investigate students’ discourse may offer new ways of including an ongoing reflective component that requires learners to con- sider different worldviews. This chapter examined the ways in which students of English as an Addi- tional Language in two dispersed geographical contexts engaged in identity construction in a shared virtual space. By applying Appraisal Theory, the students’ monoglossic and heteroglossic utterances were explored. The study concluded that even though the students’ monoglossic discourse exceeded their heteroglossic engagement, virtual spaces seem to afford opportunities for translingual and transcultural practices in the cases where the topic of discussion incites heteroglossic positioning and global identity formation. 263Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou The Expression of Learners’ Identity Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities for supporting this research through the project VELCOME: Virtual exchange for learning and competence development in EMI class- rooms (Ref: RTI2018-094601-B-100), for the period 2018–2021. References Aijmer, K. (2007). Modal adverbs as discourse markers. In J. Rehbein, C. Hohenstein, & L. Pietsch (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse (pp. 329–344). John Benjamins. Alonso Belmonte, I. (2012). “I feel as if I were a real teacher”: An analysis of EFL student teachers’ evaluative discourse through Appraisal Theory. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 65, 13–28. Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249–257. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press. Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 42. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Vol. 1). University of Texas Press. Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-report contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82–103. Basharina, O., Guardado, M., & Morgan, T. (2008). Negotiating differences: Instructors’ reflections on challenges in international telecollaboration. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(2), 275–305. Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid life. Polity Press. Bauman, Z. (2007). Consuming life. Polity Press. Bax, S. (2003). CALL—Past, present, and future. System, 31(1), 13–28. Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68–99. Belz, J. A., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Introduction: Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education and the intercultural speaker. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education 264 Identity, Multilingualism and CALL (pp. iix–xxv). Annual Volume of the American Association of University Supervisors and Coordinators. Heinle & Heinle. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2000). Assessing intercultural competence in language teaching. Sprogforum, 18(6), 8–13. Cameron, D., & Anderson, T. (2006). Comparing weblogs to threaded discussion tools. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(11), 1–16. Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System, 34(4), 465–479. Chandrasegaran, A., & Kong, K. M. (2006). Stance-taking and stance-support in students’ online forum discussion. Linguistics and Education, 17(4), 374–390. DOI: 10.1016/j.linged.2007.01.003 Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.) (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161–195). Cassell. Chun, D. M. (2011). Developing intercultural communicative competence through online exchanges. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 392–419. Clark, R., & Ivanic, R. (1997). The politics of writing. Routledge. Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2004). IELTS as preparation for tertiary writing: Distinctive interpersonal and textual strategies. In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (Eds.), Academic writing in context: Social-functional perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 153–171). Continuum. Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. (2005). Finding the global groove: Theorising and analysing dynamic reader positioning using appraisal, corpus and a concordancer. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2), 143–163. Cole, M. T., Swartz, L. B., & Shelley, D. J. (2020). Threaded discussion: The role it plays in e-learning. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 16(1), 16–29. Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Identity in intercultural communication: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Series Eds.), International and intercultural communication annual: Vol. 12. Theories of intercultural communication (pp. 99–120). Sage. https://doi. org/10.1080/17405900500283607 Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing. Council of Europe. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. Continuum. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2008). Blogging: Fostering intercultural competence development in foreign language and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 454–477. DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008. 265Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou The Expression of Learners’ Identity Telecollaboration in Higher Education (pp. 113–119). Research-publishing. net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2016.telecollab2016.497 O’Donnell, M. (2013). Exploring identity through Appraisal Theory: A corpus annotation methodology. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 9(1), 1–15. O’Dowd, R. (2007). Evaluating the outcomes of online intercultural exchange. ELT Journal, 61(2), 144–153. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccm007 O’Dowd, R. (2016). Emerging trends and new directions in telecollaborative learning. CALICO Journal, 33(3), 291–310. DOI: 10.1558/cj.v33i3.30747 O’Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the- art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 1, 1–23. 10.14705/rpnet.2018.jve.1. O’Dowd, R. (2020). A transnational model of virtual exchange for global citizenship education. Language Teaching, 53(4), 477–490. DOI: 10.1017/ S0261444819000077 Oskoz, A., & Gimeno-Sanz, A. (2019). Engagement and attitude in telecollaboration: Topic and cultural background effects. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 136–160. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44700 Oskoz, A., Gimeno-Sanz, A., & Sevilla-Pavón, A. (2018). Examining L2 learners’ discourse strategies usage in telecollaborative written interactions. In B. Mousten, S. Vandepitte, E. Arnó, & B. Maylath (Eds.), Cooperation on multilingual writing in global virtual learning environments (pp. 200–220). IGI-Global. Rizopoulos, L. A., & McCarthy, P. (2009). Using online threaded discussions: Best practices for the digital learner. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(4), 373–383. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2014). Exploring academic argumentation in course-related blogs through engagement. In G. Thompson & L. Alba (Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp. 281–302). John Benjamins. Salter, N. P., & Conneely, M. R. (2015). Structured and unstructured discussion forums as tools for student engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 18–25. Sevilla-Pavón, A., & Nicolaou, A. (2019). Business English 3.0: Hands-on online and virtual collaboration tasks. Editorial Comares. Sevilla-Pavón, A., & Nicolaou, A. (2020). Artefact co-construction in virtual exchange: “Youth entrepreneurship for society.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–26 DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1825096 Sull, E. C. (2009). The (almost) complete guide to effectively managing threaded discussions. Distance Learning, 6(4), 65. Turula, A. (2017). Teaching presence in telecollaboration. Keeping an open mind. System, 64, 21–33. Vega Garrido, M. E. (2018). Characterizing level IV students’ use of Engagement resources in academic writing in English: An exploratory study from a systemic functional perspective. Doctoral Thesis. RED Colombiana de información científica: Repositorio Uninorte. http://hdl.handle.net/10584/8125 268 Identity, Multilingualism and CALL Ware, P. (2005). “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a German–American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64–89. Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190–205. Ware, P. D., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43–63. White, P. R. R. (1998). Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Sidney. White, P. R. R. (2000). Dialogue and intersubjectivity: Reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. In M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill, & F. Rock (Eds.), Working with with dialogue (pp. 67–80). Neimeyer. White, P. R. R. (2001). Appraisal: An overview. http://www.grammatics.com/ appraisal/AppraisalGuide White, P. R. R. (2015). Appraisal theory. In K. Tracy, T. Sandel, & C. Ilie (Eds.), The International encyclopedia of language and social interaction. DOI: 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi041 White, P. R. R., & Sano, M. (2006). Dialogistic positions and anticipated audiences – a framework for stylistic comparisons. In K. Aijmer & A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic markers in contrast (pp. 189–214). Elsevier. Wu, S. M. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation. Relc Journal, 37(3), 329–353. DOI: 10.1177/0033688206071316 Wu, S. M., & Allison, D. (2005). Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments: Aspects of appraisal in assigned English language essays. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 105–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v2.i1.105 About the Authors Ana Sevilla-Pavón is an Associate Professor in the Department of English and German Philology at Universitat de València, Spain and holds a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain. She has participated in numerous research projects, including the iTECLA project, which she coordinated, and VELCOME. Her research interests include Com- puter-Assisted Language Learning and Assessment, Intercultural Education, 21st Century Learning, English for Specific Purposes, and Augmented Re- ality in Virtual Exchange. Anna Nicolaou is an English Language Instructor at the Language Centre of the Cyprus University of Technology in Cyprus. She holds a Ph.D. from 269Sevilla-Pavón & Nicolaou The Expression of Learners’ Identity the School of Linguistics, Speech and Communication Sciences at Trinity College Dublin. She has participated in various research projects, such as VALIANT, DC4LT, DE-TEL, and EUt+. Her research interests include Inter- cultural Education, Virtual Exchange, Multilingualism, Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 21st Century Learning, and Extended Reality. 270 Identity, Multilingualism and CALL