1Many institutions are now striving to include some form of Internationalization at Home (IAH) as part of their educational offerings. These initiatives can take many forms, with the general goal being to equip students with intercultural awareness and communication skills (Beelen & Jones, 2015). Programs like guest lecture series, courses taught with a language of instruction other than the local language, and collaborative projects with foreign universities are just a small sampling of initiatives included in IAH offerings (Finardi & Aşık, 2024). In the present study, we examine one specific type of IAH program, VEs (virtual exchanges), and how they impact students’ feelings towards communicating in a foreign language.
2With online platforms multiplying the possibilities for international collaboration, VEs have gained in popularity and attracted significant attention in teaching and research (O’Dowd & O’Rourke, 2019). In line with the spirit of IAH, VEs provide students with an intercultural and multilingual experience without the constraints of in-person exchanges (Finardi & Aşık, 2024). Aside from being more affordable than in-person exchanges, VEs also offer several pedagogical benefits to participants, particularly regarding foreign language (L2) learning; students who participate in VEs report improved language skills and greater confidence in L2 speaking (Develotte et al., 2008; Rienties et al., 2022).
3Born out of an interuniversity alliance, the VE project described in this paper was offered to undergraduates studying English at the university of Pécs (Hungary) and the université of Paris Nanterre (France). The study is a continuation of the previously developed e-tandem framework from Schug and Simon (2023). The initial version of the program, completed in the spring semester of the 2020-2021 academic year, gave students an opportunity for authentic communication at a time in the Covid-19 pandemic when all courses were online. Student feedback indicated that they became more comfortable working in English over the course of the semester, leading the instructors to renew the program the following year. Focusing this time on another key variable in L2 communication, willingness to communicate (WTC), we examine how students describe their experiences with L2 use when speaking in their exchange groups.
4This study responds to calls for further research on IAH initiatives (Beelen & Jones, 2015) as well as on how students are communicating in their L2 outside of the classroom (Zulkepli & Hussin, 2021). Inspired by studies on VEs and WTC, this study is guided by three research questions.
-
How do students’ descriptions of their WTC change over the course of the 10-week program?
-
How do students evaluate their communication in the VE experience?
-
What factors impacted students’ experiences in the VE sessions?
5The present study looks at online communication, with a focus on two major factors: virtual exchanges (VEs) in language learning and students’ willingness to communicate in the L2. These two factors are very closely linked as research indicates that frequent participation in VEs is associated with higher levels of WTC (Lee & Lee, 2020).
6Willingness to Communicate (WTC) can be defined as “the students’ intention to communicate if s/he is given the opportunity to do so” (Riasati & Noordin, 2011, p. 75) and is a major predictor of L2 acquisition (Kissau et al., 2010). On one hand, it is a very personal concept, closely tied to one’s personality, their past experiences with the L2, their desire to communicate with a specific group, and how they view their future selves as L2 users (Akdemir, 2021; Darasawang & Reinders, 2021; Sak, 2020; Zarrinabadi & Tanbakooei, 2016). It is also impacted by one’s confidence levels, as higher L2 confidence seems to lead to higher WTC (Hashimoto, 2002, p. 36; Lockley, 2013). In online environments, Alqarni (2021) found that personal anxiety towards L2 use was, conversely, negatively correlated to one’s WTC.
7On the other hand, WTC is also a complex phenomenon, subject to changes resulting from external factors in the learning environment (MacIntyre et al., 1998; Peng, 2020; Wiertalak, 2016). Studies on in-person language classes have shown that feelings of enjoyment and a positive social ambiance in class lead to higher levels of WTC (Wang et al., 2021). Boredom and high anxiety, however, are associated with lower WTC (Manipuspika, 2018; Wang et al., 2021). Teachers, therefore, play an integral role in making learners want to use the L2 and creating an atmosphere that is conducive to communication (Riasati & Noordin, 2011).
8The social element is crucial for encouraging WTC in the classroom. VEs, however, differ significantly in terms of socialization. The absence of teachers removes the asymmetrical aspect in the relationship between participants, nonverbal cues are absent, distance perceptions are skewed, and turn-taking can be difficult to negotiate (Debras, 2020; Vassallo & Telles, 2006). Further examination is therefore needed to better understand how VEs influence participants habits and attitudes towards L2 use.
9As indicated previously, VEs fall under the umbrella of IAH initiatives, offering students the chance to include a multicultural element in their university education (Finardi & Aşık, 2024). In language education, VEs generally involve a pedagogical objective and grouping two or more learners with different native languages. Often, these programs take the form of bilingual tandems, with two students practicing each other’s native language. Other formats are also used, such as English as a Lingua Franca exchanges between two non-anglophone students, as in the case of the present study (Guth et al., 2012; Jauregi & Melchor-Cuoto, 2017).
10VEs boast many benefits in education, including increased digital literacy, a deeper understanding of course content, and greater intercultural awareness (Freiermuth & Huang, 2021; Matus-Mendoza, 2024; O’Dowd, 2021; Yeh & Heng, 2022). From an L2 learning perspective, VE participants have reported higher motivation, greater autonomy, and a strong ability to reflect on one’s learning (Baranovskaya & Shaforostova, 2018; Dey-Plissonneau et al., 2023; Vassallo & Telles, 2006). These gains are clearly illustrated in Batardière and Jeanneau’s (2020) report on Irish students participating in tandems to improve their French in a translation exercise. At first, students sped through initial text analysis activities, but they eventually grew to understand the importance of the tasks and started to give them their due time.
11These programs also offer a valuable opportunity for authentic L2 use. Research has long supported frequent L2 practice as a key method for reducing speaking anxiety, gaining confidence, and increasing positive feelings toward L2 learning (Liu & Huang, 2011, Rashed, 2013; Yeh & Heng, 2022), all feelings associated with higher WTC (Lockley, 2013). In the online space, however, the situation is a bit more nuanced.
12It is true that, in many cases, the findings are quite promising regarding VEs. Mueller and Walzem (2020), for example, analyzed student feedback in a VE program offered to Taiwanese and Japanese university students learning English and have found that those who had positive feelings towards the VE also tended to have higher levels of WTC. Similarly, Freiermuth and Jarrel (2006) looked at Japanese university students’ L2 use in an online chat program. They found that participating in the chat led to being more willing to communicate as students focused more on the conversation and less on grammatical perfection. Kissau et al. (2010) found that language anxiety slightly decreased over the course of a semester-long online course, with student output increasing.
13Despite these positive findings regarding L2 communication skills in VEs, some research indicates that factors inherent to online interactions negatively influence students’ experiences. Learners in a similar context to that of the present study, for example, reported being uncomfortable interacting with unknown people online and struggling when technological issues arose, resulting in moments of increased anxiety (Schug & Simon, 2023). In an online exchange organized between a French and an American university, Develotte et al. (2008) found that students from France were especially anxious about speaking to their American peers. The anxiety decreased overtime, but it persisted throughout the program and was exacerbated by technological issues. Jauregi and Melchor-Cuoto (2017) reported higher levels of anxiety amongst participants completing video exchanges, as opposed to participants completing written chat exchanges.
14Even in programs where students described positive experiences, some issues in communication were observed. In Freiermuth and Jarrel (2006), students completing online activities had trouble reaching agreements with their partners and reported difficulties related to turn-taking and following the conversation.
15It is in this context that the present study finds its inspiration. Existing research presents a generally positive view of VEs, but a closer look at the findings reveals that several difficulties can arise adversely impacting WTC. Researchers have thus called for further analyses of the various factors affecting L2 use in online contexts (Alhamami, 2022; Solhi, 2024). By collecting regular feedback from students regarding their experience in a VE program, this study aims to provide a clearer image of students’ communicative experiences in lingua franca exchanges as well as an understanding of the evolution of their WTC and their confidence using English. As WTC majorly affects the cooperation of international groups of students in VEs (Mueller & Walzem, 2020), exploring how and when participants experience it can provide further insights into effective VE implementation.
16The present study analyzes an online virtual exchange program between undergraduate students at the university of Paris Nanterre in France and the university of Pécs in Hungary during the spring 2022 semester of the 2021-2022 academic year. Students from France were enrolled in a B2 level English language elective class and came from a variety of majors in the Humanities and Social Sciences, such as communications, linguistics, cinema, and French literature. Students from Hungary were enrolled in the first year of their BA studies or English teacher training. In the case of the Hungarian students, the VE sessions were offered as part of a compulsory first-year course focused on developing their speaking and listening skills. These students were estimated to have a comfortable B2 level and were approaching C1. Some level of discrepancy in language level between the two groups was expected, based on the findings of Schug and Simon (2023) and the similarities with the groups studied here.
17Ultimately, 30 students participated from each university for a total of 60 participants. They were divided into 15 groups of four, with each group including two students from France and two from Hungary. Some effort was made by the researchers to group students based on approximate language level, to mitigate the risk of one or two students monopolizing the conversation. Beyond that, however, pairings were random. Students were then asked to complete a minimum of three VE sessions over the course of the semester, at a frequency of approximately one meeting every three weeks. Meetings were conducted on Microsoft Teams (Microsoft Corporation, n.d.), outside of normal class time and students were given private channels with their group members to facilitate the VEs and finding a convenient time for everyone.
18The procedures used in the present study were adapted from Schug and Simon (2023). Indeed, students in this prior study indicated that the activities in the VE experience provided them with a much-appreciated opportunity to practice interactive skills and that communication became easier at each meeting (pp. 105-106). By maintaining similar activities, the researchers could ensure favorable conditions for analyzing the impact on WTC. While there are various options available to promote online interaction between language learners, such as “COIL, virtual teams, and virtual exchange,” as listed by O’Dowd and O’Rourke (2019, p. 2), the overall structure was based on telecollaboration. For this reason, the format of the VE involves each participant being given a logbook with a brief description of the project, along with the three collaborative and discussion activities they were to complete in their three required meetings, as described below.
-
Meeting 1: Would you rather...? Students asked each other a series of introductory interview questions about their partners’ interests and background. This was followed by a “would you rather...?” discussion in which students had to discuss their preferences between two items in a list of paired items.
-
Meeting 2: Debating. Students were given a series of warm-up questions to discuss with their partner in preparation for the debate, then they completed a debate on a given topic.
-
Meeting 3: Planning a trip. Students were given a limited budget and asked to conduct research to plan a trip somewhere in Europe as a group. They had to discuss their preferences for activities, modes of travel, and lodging.
19In addition to providing directions for each activity to complete during their VEs, the logbook also served as a source of data collection. The logbook gathered three types of data, collected in the participants’ L2, as described below.
-
Quantitative data after each VE. After each activity, students completed a questionnaire with eleven five-point Likert-scale questions which were coded as sub-items (e.g., Q1.1 was the first Likert-scale item). Likert-scale items Q1.1-Q1.4 targeted WTC; Q1.5-Q1.8 related to technophobia and online communication and were adapted from Fondo and Jacobetty (2020); Q1.9-Q1.11 focused on students’ opinions of their communication skills, as conceptualized by Reinders and Wattana (2012) and adapted to the present context.
-
Qualitative data after each VE. Eight open-ended questions asked students to briefly report back on what was discussed in their language exchanges and how they felt about the experience and their performance, in line with the methodology used by Yeh and Heng (2022).
-
A final questionnaire. This questionnaire, adapted from Schug and Simon (2023), contains 19 five-point Likert scale questions on different aspects of the VE experience. For clarity and to avoid confusion with the post-meeting quantitative data, the Likert-scale sub-items in Q1 were coded as Q1.A-Q1.R. Items Q1.A-F focused on the use of technology, Q1.H-P focused on foreign language anxiety (FLA), and questions Q1.G and Q1.Q-S served as a self-assessment of one’s WTC in the project as whole. Students were also given four open-ended questions to comment on the impact the VEs had on their language skills and L2 confidence.
20The logbook, including the activities and the questionnaires can be found in Appendix 1.
21This study uses both quantitative and qualitative data to understand how WTC is impacted by VEs. To measure WTC in each VE, the mean of participants’ responses was calculated for Likert scale items Q1.1-4, to obtain a score out of five. Similarly, to understand the impact of technology, the mean was calculated of the responses to items Q1.5-8, and the L2 confidence reflection was calculated using Likert scale questions Q1.9-11. The mean for each question in these three measures was calculated for each of the three exchanges to observe changes as the program progressed (RQ1, see Appendix 3).
22Additionally, the final questionnaire allowed us to calculate a final mean for WTC and comfort using technology, as a well as a measure for FLA, a major factor impacting WTC (Kissau et al., 2010). Data from the students’ self-reflection inform how students evaluate their communication (RQ2). Finally, the questions about technology and language anxiety help respond to the factors impacting students’ performance in VEs (RQ3), as these two elements have been shown to be associated with WTC and VEs (Develotte et al., 2008; Fondo & Jacobetty, 2020; Kissau et al., 2010).
23Given the large amount of qualitative data present, a rigorous coding procedure was implemented, in line with recommendations from DeCuir-Gunby et al. (2011) and the coding performed by Finardi and Aşık (2024). An initial set of codes was established by the researchers based on past studies in WTC and VEs, and experience conducting international virtual exchange programs. These codes were refined and modified based on student responses to allow for an accurate and comprehensive representation. Ultimately, a detailed coding guide was established, including seven codes with a short illustration for each category below.
-
FLA (increasing and decreasing traits): “No, I wasn’t nervous.” (FLA1+; a more relaxed trait where students were not anxious or nervous due to the exchange).
-
Technology (opportunities and difficulties): “I liked that we all had our cameras on, so we could see each other while talking.” (T+; opportunities created by technology),
-
Language Development (positive and negative experiences): “At first it was strange but later I realized that it was a great opportunity to develop my speaking skills since I was ‘forced’ to use only English.” (L+; positive comments regarding language development or language development possibilities).
-
Organization (scheduling conflicts): “I didn’t like that we had a lot of trouble with discussing the time for the meetings.” (O; difficulties of organizing the meetings).
-
Attitudes (positive and negative experiences or changes): “I liked that everyone was open.” (A+; positive attitudes and/or experiences during the virtual meeting).
-
Intercultural Experience (positive or negative attitudes): “I liked that we come from different countries because that made speaking English to them more natural.” (IA+; positive attitudes and/or views towards intercultural experiences).
-
Communication (communication strategies, issues and satisfaction): “Absolutely. I enjoyed speaking with them.” (SC+; satisfied with communication).
24Researchers both reviewed the qualitative data and discussed any questionable items (for the complete coding guide, see Appendix 2).
25The language VE diaries collected reflective data on participants’ WTC (primary) and FLA (secondary) through eleven items in Q1 (illustrated as Q1.1 and so on; for the completed tables (see Appendix 3), as described in the Methodology section. The descriptive statistics revealed several key trends for both the French (FR) and Hungarian (HU) students which are discussed individually and comparatively. The mean (M) and standard deviation (S.D.) values are presented below and the detailed descriptive statistics can be found in Appendix 3. The coded open-ended questions provided further details for the descriptive items that contextualized students’ experiences with the VEs.
26Focusing on participants’ general WTC, the first four sub-items collected information on students’ willingness to initiate conversations (Q1.1 & 1.2) and participate in them (Q1.3 & 1.4). The diary data on students’ experiences revealed that they were motivated to organize meetings with their peers to set up a time for the given online meetings (Q1.1: FR: 4.2; HU: 4.36). Similarly, participants indicated that they asked questions in case of communication issues (Q1.2: FR: 4.16; HU: 4.62). Both groups of students were active listeners during the sessions (Q1.3: FR: 4.49; HU: 4.9). The French students’ willingness to ask questions steadily increased over the course of the program. Regarding their participation, there were differences between the groups (Q1.4: FR: 3.86; HU: 4.45), consistent with their previous answers. Based on these findings, in the case of the French students, there was a constant increase in their motivation for communication, whereas the same values were consistently high but fluctuating for the Hungarian students. A major difference between the two groups of participants concerned how the Hungarian students were more confident in their abilities, with relatively stable mean values (see Appendix 3). These findings are consistent with Schug and Simon (2023) where the French students showed higher levels of FLA but were also motivated to participate.
27The second four sub-items (Q1.5-Q1.8) focused on how the participants experienced the virtual nature of the program (see Appendix 3). The French students displayed constantly low values for tech-related anxiety whereas the Hungarian students showed a decrease throughout the VEs (Q1.5: FR: 2.12; HU: 2.27). These answers were consistent with the next item as both groups expressed only minor issues with using videoconference software (Q1.6: FR: 2.09; HU: 1.9). However, there was a major difference in how nervous the groups felt speaking English during the exchanges. While both groups of participants showed decreasing levels of FLA, the French students reported higher numbers (Q1.7: FR: 2.58; HU: 1.91). Still, both groups of students assessed their VE experiences as highly pleasant (Q1.8: FR: 4.44; HU: 4.24). As data collection happened post-Covid-19, the lower numbers for the tech-related anxiety can be attributed to both groups of participants having had experience with it already in their educational contexts and possibly enjoying the more open-ended nature of the VEs.
28The final set of items explored students’ communication efforts and their WTC (Q1.9-1.11). In terms of being able to communicate fluently, while both groups showcased increasing scores, there were noteworthy differences between the French and Hungarian students (Q1.9: FR: 3.5; HU: 4.2). However, both groups expressed that they believed that their communication was successful (Q1.10: FR: 4.33; HU: 4.57) and that they tried to only use English (Q1.11: FR: 4.52; HU: 4.69). These values illustrate high levels of WTC as students were focused on participating actively and making sure that their communication was successful. The major differences in values in Q1.9 further support the claim that the French students experienced higher levels of FLA, though that did not seem to affect their WTC.
29Regarding RQ1, students’ high level of WTC was influenced by multiple factors. Based on their responses, they found the overall VE motivating, engaging and even rewarding as it provided a context for meaningful interaction. Scores generally remained consistently high, with a slight upward trend in several cases. The underlying factors that aided their success are further outlined in the discussion section.
30Students’ experience in the VEs was influenced by several key variables revealed by the open-ended diary items which were grouped into seven connected categories (see Figure 1). These data were further classified into subcategories, to provide information on students’ FLA (five subcategories), technology-related experiences (three subcategories), language development (three subcategories), organizational issues, attitude changes (four subcategories), intercultural views (two subcategories) and communication reflections (seven subcategories). To highlight key trends, this section presents a comparative overview of the seven main categories, with special emphasis on the various subcategories special emphasis on the various subcategories, outlined in the paragraphs below. These data are then used to establish the overall characteristics of the French and Hungarian students’ communication experiences based on possible group profiles.
Figure 1 – Comparative distribution of the categories emerging in the open-ended answers.
Note: C: communication; IA: attitudes towards intercultural experiences; A: attitudes; O: organization issues; L: language development; T: technology-related issues; FLA: foreign language anxiety; FR: French students; HU: Hungarian students
31The largest category in the sample was connected to students’ communication (N = 589) with close to equal distribution (FR: n = 284; HU: n = 305). Both groups indicated that they could communicate successfully (FR: n = 88; HU: n = 99), but they also experienced communication issues that resulted in unsuccessful communication (FR: n = 38; HU: n = 49). The French and Hungarian students were equally motivated to communicate (FR: n = 19; HU: n = 19) and the number of instances signalling participants being demotivated to communicate (FR: n = 2) was negligible. Similarly, there was an almost equal distribution of students reporting being satisfied with their communication (FR: n = 79; HU: n = 80), however, the French students felt largely more dissatisfied with their communication (FR: n = 16; HU: n = 6). Finally, both groups reported using communication strategies (FR: n = 42; HU: n = 52).
32Another factor impacting students’ experience was their attitude during the VEs. In Figure 1, the second-largest category in the sample (N = 360) is related to attitudes; it came up in Hungarian students’ diaries considerably more often (FR: n = 150; HU: n = 210). Both groups expressed positive attitudes or experiences during the VEs but the distribution of these items is skewed towards the Hungarian students (FR: n = 113; HU: n = 188). Reasons for these attitudes can be found in the students’ comments. One French student claimed “I liked discussing with them because we get on well,” while a Hungarian student said “I really liked our group, the girls are nice. There is[n’t] anything I didn’t like about the tandem.”
33Dissatisfaction did not have a huge presence in the negative attitudes or experiences during the VEs category which showed only a small difference (FR: n = 25; HU: n = 22). Furthermore, only French students reported experiencing positive changes in attitudes during the tandem (FR: n = 10) as well as having negative changes in attitudes during the tandem (FR: n = 2).
34The category that provides further context to participants’ experiences and appears to be a key variable affecting communication differences concerns FLA (N = 223, FR: n = 131; HU: n = 92). The Hungarian students reported generally feeling more relaxed and were not anxious or nervous due to the tandem almost twice as often as their French peers (FR: n = 36; HU: n = 67). This trend continued when students described a persistent state of anxiousness during or caused by the tandem, where the French students accounted for 73.7% of the subcategory (FR: n = 28; HU: n = 10). Nevertheless, a promising result was a high number of French students’ responses indicating that they were nervous before the interview/at the start of the interview but calmed down as it progressed (FR: n = 67; HU: n = 12). One French student, for example, claimed “I was much more comfortable than the last few times” following the third meeting.
35Technology-related anxiety only came up in a small minority of the responses (HU: n = 3). The technology category shows the Hungarian group highlighting this aspect of their experiences more (N = 72, FR: n = 27; HU: n = 45). While the distribution for opportunities created by technology was close to equal (FR: n = 4; HU: n = 3), Hungarian students reported almost twice as many problems caused by internet connection and technology issues compared to their French peers (FR: n = 22; HU: n = 38) with only a small sample addressing having solved said issues by using technology-related strategies (FR: n = 1; HU: n = 4). The final major difference between the two groups was connected to their intercultural experiences (N = 38, FR: n = 30; HU: n = 8) with the French students reporting considerably more positive attitudes towards intercultural experiences than their Hungarian peers.
36The final four categories provide supplementary information to the larger three. Both groups addressed language development (N = 117, FR: n = 45; HU: n = 72) and had positive comments regarding language development possibilities, with the Hungarian students stressing this aspect of the VEs more in their answers (FR: n = 40; HU: n = 54). A major difference concerns how many more Hungarian students reported negative comments regarding language development possibilities (FR: n = 5; HU: n = 15) which is further supported by a minority of Hungarian students expressing having experienced no language development during the VEs (HU: n = 3). Lastly, a major difference between the two groups emerged in the organizational issues category (N = 101, FR: n = 11; HU: n = 90) where the Hungarian students made up 89% of the answers.
37Reviewing the data collected for RQ2, the findings complement RQ1 as students reported successful communication in the VE sessions. The level of FLA, differences in language proficiencies in the two groups, as well as the virtuality of the meetings are the main factors that influenced how the participants assess their communication. However, as the VE program progressed and the students got more familiar with their peers, based on their logbook entries, they could successfully solve technology- and communication-related issues and constantly reported positive attitudes regarding their VE experiences.
38The final research question focused on analyzing students’ overall assessment of their VE experiences to pinpoint how much influence factors identified in Schug and Simon (2023) affected participants in the current sample. Data were collected using the final questionnaire with both closed- and open-ended items. The qualitative items (Q2-5) were coded using the categories presented in Figure 1 and are included in that sample. However, the 19 five-point Likert-scale items (coded Q1.A-Q1.S) included in this instrument gathered data on students’ self-assessment regarding technology use (Q1.A-F), FLA (Q1.G-P) and their own performance at the end of the project (Q1.Q-S). Findings here relating to these three areas are addressed.
39As the VEs were conducted online on Microsoft Teams (Microsoft Corporation, n.d.) in a virtual context, technology was a key variable addressed in the final questionnaire. Students overall did not have issues with using technological devices (Q1.A: FR: 1.79; HU: 2.04) and did not feel uncomfortable with online learning (Q1.B: FR: 1.92; HU: 2.12). However, a number of differences emerged regarding disliking talking to new people online (Q1.C: FR: 2.08; HU: 3), feeling uncomfortable during video conferences (Q1.D: FR: 2.25; HU: 2.92), feeling nervous when encountering technology-related problems during video calls (Q1.E: FR: 2.79; HU: 3.35) and generally feeling uncomfortable interacting online (Q1.F: FR: 2; HU: 2.46). These results highlight a general difference between the openness of the two groups to virtual language exchanges. Overall, the French students were more open to interacting with their peers online and were not as affected by the technological issues. These findings are supported by the noticeable differences in the French students’ attitudes regarding intercultural experiences and the number of technical issues reported by the Hungarian group (see Figure 1). The results, however, indicate that participants were open to using technology for these exchanges; both French and Hungarian participants generally disagreed or strongly disagreed with items pointing to negative attitudes towards online learning in communication. Nevertheless, the higher values in item Q1.E suggests that students are aware of the potential for problems in online collaboration. Findings in Figure 1 echo this sentiment.
40The second major variable addressed in the final questionnaire concerned students’ experiences with FLA. Both groups of students expressed that they were highly motivated to speak more during the meeting (Q1.G: FR: 4.3; HU: 4.31), however, the French students experienced higher levels of FLA when encountering communication problems (Q1.H: FR: 2.92; HU: 2.65). While both groups expressed low levels of nervousness in front of their exchange partners, the French students reported somewhat higher numbers (Q1.I: FR: 2.17; HU: 1.85). Similarly, anxiety due to differences in language proficiency levels was also not a dominant factor, but it was somewhat more prevalent in the French group (Q1.K: FR: 2.17; HU: 1.88). Still, students were not nervous communicating online with new people (Q1.J: FR: 2.08; HU: 1.96). Larger differences emerged, however, in how students related to the following: grammatical rules (Q1.L: FR: 2.5; HU: 1.77), pronunciation issues (Q1.M: FR: 3.25; HU: 2.12), self-confidence (Q1.N: FR: 2.58; HU: 1.85) and feelings of anxiousness (Q1.O: FR: 2.54; HU: 2.19). Possible debilitating anxiety, preventing communication, was more present in the French sample (Q1.P: FR: 1.92; HU: 1.38). These findings further reinforce the differences in FLA shown in Figure 1 as the French students reported key aspects of FLA affecting the VE experiences including language- and confidence-related sources.
41Finally, the last three sub-items in the final questionnaire provided insights into how students assessed their own performance in the VE program. Both French and Hungarian students expressed that they were open to asking for repetition and clarifications and did not hesitate to do so (Q1.Q: FR: 1.79; HU: 1.88). However, avoidance strategies were more prominent in the French group (Q1.R: FR: 2.08; HU: 1.73). A major finding of the VEs connects to the final item which asked students to assess how comfortable they became with the format over the course of the program. Both groups rated their development very high, with the French students showing very high values (Q1.S: FR: 4.5; HU: 4.15).
42Comparing the logbook entries completed after the individual VE sessions and the final questionnaire which focused on participants’ overall experiences, the responses show similar results. The main findings connected to RQ3 highlight the importance of contextual factors shaping students’ VE experiences including (1) technology in terms of task- and format familiarity, (2) language proficiency differences that can contribute to FLA, and (3) using communication strategies including clarifications and avoidance.
43The study aimed to answer three main research questions connected to VE implementation involving French and Hungarian university students. Based on the data extrapolated from the participants’ logbook entries, they had highly positive attitudes regarding the VE sessions which resulted in high levels of WTC (RQ1). Students could communicate successfully (RQ2), however, their experiences differed based on their language proficiency and FLA which subsequently helped in pinpointing key contextual factors influencing VE implementation success (RQ3). In this section, various underlying variables are addressed to further analyze the findings of the study and position it in the wider context of language development-related VE projects.
44The goal of this study was to analyze how VEs impacted students’ communication in English as a foreign language. Several findings were of particular interest and shed light on how learners perceive these online experiences. One such example is the number of times students expressed positive experiences about the VE; participants in both universities described appreciating VEs, as represented by the comments from the French and Hungarian students in section 4.2.
45That students enjoy VEs has been documented in past research (Matus-Mendoza, 2023) and, in this case, it can help explain how the enjoyment facilitated communication. First, as illustrated in the two comments referenced above, the social element and group dynamics of the VEs had an important role. Working with people that put you at ease can help reduce feelings of FLA, thereby making it easier for people to communicate. MacIntyre et al. (1998) highlight this connection in their model of L2 use, which presents social climate, intergroup attitudes and the social situations as factors that contribute to one’s decision to communicate in the L2. Increasing “team member familiarity” (Maynard et al., 2018, p. 6) likely played a role here as well, as students became more comfortable with their peers over the course of the program.
46Additional factors also contributed to the reported pleasant experience. Technology has long been thought to have an impact on students’ WTC and communication in general (Freiermuth & Jarrel, 2006; Fondo & Jacobetty, 2020; Kissau et al., 2010). This technological element is important, as Develotte et al. (2008) indicate that it can cause additional stress in online exchanges. The relatively small presence of technology-anxiety, however, suggests that students were, by and large, comfortable using the videoconferencing software, despite the technical problems that did occasionally arise, and the hesitations expressed by Hungarian students.
47Comfort with the VE tasks may also have helped students to participate more actively in their exchanges. A certain level of task familiarity was ensured, by offering prior practice opportunities for interaction and similar activities in their face-to-face lessons, thereby increasing the potential for VE success (Arredondo-Tapia & Garcia-Ponce, 2021, p. 48).
48Furthermore, the drop in FLA is very likely to be a factor in the observed increases in WTC. While some students, from the French side in particular, were nervous at the outset of the program, this feeling subsided as they became more comfortable with their partners, as illustrated by the French student’s comment from section 4.2. As Kissau et al. (2010) point out, L2 users with high FLA tend to be lower in WTC. It is therefore logical that as feelings of anxiety disappear, the participants become more comfortable and willing to participate.
49Aside from students’ feedback regarding the VEs, of particular interest was how it impacted their communication, especially their WTC. As the findings in section 4.2 describe, participants’ comments indicated that they were able to communicate successfully, motivated to communicate, and more satisfied than dissatisfied with their communication. These findings are highlighted effectively in responses to the open-ended questions. After the third meeting, one student from Hungary claimed “I was satisfied with my participation. I was active during the discussion,” while a student from France stated “I liked it because I am generally shy but this pushes me to make an effort and I am proud of myself,” following the second meeting.
50While some students reported feelings of shyness at times, these feelings seemed to be short-lived, as they again became more comfortable with their partners and better understood the activity.
51Despite the general positive nature of their reflections, a key difference between the two groups can be observed concerning their differing attitudes and experiences in the VE, as presented in section 4.2. French students expressed more frequent feelings of dissatisfaction and less frequent positive attitudes. These findings highlight a possible connection between L2 communication and L2 attitudes. The FLA category revealed the underlying factor that influenced students’ assessment of their communication experiences; L2 use in the meetings was highly influenced by the levels of FLA they experienced and their ability to overcome it. Generally, the Hungarian students started the meetings in a more relaxed state, however, as the program progressed, the French students gained in confidence and could more successfully participate.
52However, the French students were overall less satisfied with their communication. Again, this initially higher level of FLA could have impacted their WTC in their exchanges; as Gkonou (2018) alleges, FLA could inhibit one’s language production. Aydin (2008) explains that this FLA may be related to students’ fears about judgment from peers. Some of these negative feelings may be inevitable, given the novelty of these programs, but teachers working with VEs could try to mitigate them. Batardière and Jeanneau (2020), for example, recommend offering an organizational meeting at the beginning of the VE program; such a meeting could help break the ice and offer students a chance to meet each other prior to the start of the program. This is consistent with the point made by O’Dowd et al. (2020, p. 152) on the value of mentoring strategies integrated in the pre-, during and post-VE stages, as they provide additional scaffolding for successful communication, thusly contributing to students’ WTC levels.
53Also, as cultural differences and intercultural experiences were more frequently mentioned by French students, consistent with O’Dowd’s (2021) findings, it may be useful to briefly study the culture and society of their exchange partners; such an approach may help reduce the stress about the mystery before the first meeting.
54Lastly, as shown in section 4.3, participants, particularly from the Hungarian side, experienced some organizational difficulties with the VEs. While this finding seems to suggest that the technology itself was not a source of frustration, the inherent issues of the technologies are likely to impact students’ experiences. Some of this could be addressed with additional institutional support. Indeed, VEs have faced some roadblocks in different countries because of the difficulties of implementation. VEs require quite a bit of preparation from the teacher and the institution, and, in the absence of time, an official framework, and institutional support, it can be difficult to insert them into a syllabus (Guth et al., 2012) and support students adequately. Furthermore, as the participants are in different countries, time differences often need to be considered when organizing meetings, which adds another constraint on university students’ often already busy schedules (Finardi & Aşık, 2024). Future research needs to examine cases of concrete strategies for supporting VEs in the university context.
55The present study had three major objectives: determine how students’ WTC changes over the course of a semester-long VE program, analyze how students evaluate their communication during VE meetings, and identify the factors that impacted students’ experiences in online exchanges. This analysis adds to the growing research on Internationalization at Home initiatives, responds to calls for further analysis on how students use foreign languages outside of the L2 classroom, and contributes to the work on online communication.
56Through a detailed analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data, it was determined that students generally started their VEs with a relatively high WTC. Still, in the case of French students, their WTC increased during the program, with several comments about how they became more comfortable talking to their partners. Building positive group dynamics and ensuring that students know what they need to do with their partners is key to fostering WTC in online exchanges.
57Students’ evaluations of communication during the VE featured several common themes, with the vast majority highlighting how positive the experience was. First, students from both groups reported L2 gains during the program, particularly relating to their oral expression skills and fluency. While Hungarian students were generally calm and open to communicate through the experience, the French students reported initial levels of anxiety that tended to subside once the conversation started.
58Consistent with past research, their experiences were impacted by FLA and the fact that these exchanges took place online. Hungarian students referenced the organizational issues and hesitations about working online with people they did not know, and French students described feelings of shyness and not being used to speaking English in such contexts. Future work on online exchanges should keep these factors in mind during the program design phase.
59Limitations are those typical of case studies, including a small sample size resulting in low generalizability of the findings. The results were also limited by relying on self-reported data which was a concrete step taken by the authors to more effectively identify possible FLA sources.
60Still, the data presented in this study remain consistent with past findings on VEs and can provide important information on how students experience these programs. Based on the findings of the study, there are various future perspectives for continuing the VE research. Including additional data collection instruments, such as recorded meetings where the interactions could be further analyzed, for example, by tallying turn changes, cataloguing communication strategies and comparing these results with the logbook entries could help to triangulate the findings. Furthermore, WTC and FLA are not factors limited to just the context of the VE sessions and their changes can be attributed to several variables outside of the three scheduled meetings. Future implementations of the project could also extend the time spent during the VE sessions with possibly more meetings that give further opportunities for students to interact, develop team familiarity and work on more complex problems by developing meaningful end products such as shared presentations or even interviews with their peers.