外語環境中的學習者難有機會與年齡相仿的母語者交流，而遠距語言交換當前仍是語言教室裡較為邊緣化的活動（O'Dowd, 2011）。本研究設計一套同步與非同步遠距課程，讓11位美國高中華語學習者與34位台灣高中英語學習者進行語言交換，探究學生在論壇上及視訊中的主題、中英文使用與學習策略，並分析參與者滿意度，以評估遠距交換的成效。
課程設計方面，本研究使用需求分析法。整理同步與非同步遠距互動相關的文獻後，透過問卷了解學生的語言學習背景及對遠距互動的需求，並以教師訪談和學校網站了解雙邊學校語言教學現況。待學生完成兩個月的遠距語言交換後，研究者分析學生的論壇發文、視訊錄音、活動後的學生調查問卷及教師訪談，進一步評估同步及非同步遠距互動是否適合高中學習者。
研究結果發現，學生在視訊中能談論較多非教師指定的話題，而在論壇中則能有較多時間思考、較能表達想法，也較不焦慮。中英文使用上，學生在論壇上多達到要求，在視訊上使用中文則略少於指定時間。策略方面，學生聽不懂時最常要求重複、表達不懂，在幫助對方聽懂的過程中，台生最常使用贅詞，美生最常使用語言轉換策略，這可能與雙方學生的語言程度有關。
教師及學習者對於本次遠距語言交換的滿意度高，其中美國學生的滿意度達8.9（滿分10分），台灣視訊及論壇的學生滿意度也達8.6，而僅做論壇的學生滿意度為7。所有的學生的學習動機皆持平或提高，對於語言學習的看法也有所改變，認為語言變得更加真實，且學習語言不應只拘泥於語法正確。台美學生也建議未來論壇主題能更加開放，並建議未來學習者能積極參與遠距交換，在遠距前做足準備。

In a foreign language environment, learners have few opportunities to interact with native speakers. Telecollaboration still remains a relatively peripheral activity in most foreign language classrooms (O'Dowd, 2011). An online language exchange program was thus designed for 34 Taiwanese and 11 American high school students. This study delved into learners’ discussion topics, language use and learning strategies on the forum and in the video chats. The effectiveness of the program was evaluated with the analysis of the participants’ feedback.
This study employed a Developmental Research Method. A needs analysis was conducted for the course design. Information regarding the learners’ and the instructors’ expectations, as well as the students’ language background, was collected via questionnaires, interviews, and school websites. After the online program was launched, posts and comments on the forum, video chats, questionnaires and the interview with the instructor were analyzed.
Analysis of the video chats showed the participants adapted their conversations beyond the assigned topics. One repeating example was the introduction of a family member that interrupted the video chat. Participants had less anxiety and expressed themselves better communicating on the forum than they did in the video chats. Most participants fulfilled the requirements of language use on the forum; however, in the video chats, the amount of time they communicated in Chinese was less than the required time.
As to strategies, students requested repetition and expressed their non-understanding the most when they did not understand the other speaker. In the process of making themselves understood, Taiwanese students used fillers the most, whereas American students code switched the most. This difference might be related to students’ proficiency level. Participants’ first language, pictures and videos also facilitated their online interaction in the forum.
Both instructors and learners reported high satisfaction with the online program. Specifically, average scores of 8.9 and 8.6 (total: 10) were given by American students and Taiwanese students participating in both synchronous and asynchronous interactions. Taiwanese learners who only participated in asynchronous interaction gave an average score of 7.0. Learners’ motivations either remained constant or increased. That language was real and that forms shouldn’t be the only focus were the two most reported changed views on language learning. Finally, the participants suggested future forum topics be more flexible and that future learners be fully prepared before each interaction.

中文書目：
王文科和王智弘（2014）。教育研究法。台北：台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
呂念慈（2003）。華語視訊遠距教學活動設計—以日籍學生為例。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。　
林金錫和連育仁（2010）。華語文數位教學：理論與實務。台灣：新學林。
林虹瑛和林俊成（2009）。用溝通式教學法來進行遠距跨國交流課程。第六屆全球華文網路教育研討會，178-187。
林翠雲（2013）。華語遠距教學實務與模組化教材設計。中原華語文學報（11），　1-33。　
信世昌（2002）。基於社會互動語言觀的遠距教學原則。漢語國際遠程教育的實踐與前景（補編）。日本：早稻田大學CCDL中國語部會。1-6。
姜滿（2009）。你好，好朋友--網路網際應用於美國高中生中文之學習。第六屆全球華文網路教育研討會，206－212。
高慧真（2010）。華語課室教學與線上遠距教學之互動研究。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。　
陳雅芬（2001）。多媒體與網路在中文遠距教學上之應用。第二屆全球華文網路教育研討會發表之論文，華僑會館。　　
陳嘉怡（2017）。遠距跨國華語文教學－電腦媒介溝通學習成效因素研究。華文世界（120），63-75。　
黃聖芳（2011）。以同步視訊遠距教學為主軸之跨文化華語口語教學設計。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
楊佩芸（2016）。語言交換平臺建製與經營。華語學刊（21），56-63。　
蔡清田（2011）。行動研究的理論與實踐。國家文官學院Ｔ＆Ｄ飛訊，118。　
盧翠英（2004）。華語文同步遠距教學與短期密集課程之整合－以日籍初級學者為對象之課程設計。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。　
謝天蔚（2002）。美國中文遠端教學的問題與探索。漢語國際遠程教育的實踐與前景。日本：早稻田大學CCDL中國語部會。34-39。　

英文書目：
Beatty, K. (eds.). (2003) Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. London: Pearson Education.
Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language learning & technology: a refereed journal for second and foreign language educators, 7(2), 68-117.
Belz, J. A.Thorne, S. L. (eds.) (2006) Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Brammerts, H. (1996). Tandem language learning via the Internet and international email tandem network. In Little, David & Brammerts, Helmut (eds.). A guide to language learning in tandem via the Internet (CLCS Occasional Paper No.46). Dublin: Trinity College
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy (4 ed.): Pearson College Div.
Dooly, M. (2016).‘P lease remove your avatar from my personal space’: competences of the telecollaboratively efficient person. In R. O'Dowd, T. Lewis (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: policy, pedagogy, practice (p. 192-208). New York: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language learning, 47(1), 173-210.
Driggers, A. (2008). Opportunities for language learning and cultural awareness raising during participation in a tandem language exchange program. Michigan State University. Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages.
Egbert, J. (2005). CALL essentials: Principles and practice in CALL classrooms: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Alexandria, VA.
Fondo Garcia, M., & Appel, C. (2016). Synchronous tandem language learning in a MOOC context: a study on task design and learner performance (pp. 2016): Research-publishing.net.
Furstenberg, G., & Levet, S. (2010). Integrating telecollaboration into the language classroom: Some insights. Telecollaboration, 2, 305-336.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. Retrieved from http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/ec/files/books-english-next.pdf
Guillen, G. (2014). Expanding the language classroom: linguistic gains and learning opportunities through e-tandems and social networks. (Ph.D. 3706597), University of California, Davis.Spanish. Retrieved from http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/ddc_open_link_eng.htm?type=ddc&app=13&doi=3706597 Digital Dissertation Consortium database.
Helm, F. (2013). A dialogic model for telecollaboration. Bellaterra Journal, 6(2), 28–48.
Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause quarterly, 31(4), 51-55.
Hsin, S.-C., Hsieh, C. L., & Chang-Blust, L. (2017). Preservice teacher training for online chinese teaching: A case of distance courses for high school learners. Journal of Technology and Chinese Language Teaching, 8(1), 86-103.
Krashen, S. (1977). The monitor model for adult second language performance. Viewpoints on English as a second language, 152-161.
LIN, C. H., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Online foreign language education: what are the proficiency outcomes? The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 394-397.
Little, D., Ushioda, E., Appel, M. C., Moran, J., O'ROURKE, B., & Schwienhorst, K. (1999). Evaluating tandem language learning by e-mail: report on a bilateral project. Occasional paper-Centre for Language and Communication Studies(55), 1-54.
Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis: Cambridge University Press.
Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93-107.
Maddix, M. A. (2012). Generating and facilitating effective online learning through discussion. Christian Education Journal, 9(2), 372.
McBrien, J. L., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3).
Nissen, E. (2016). Combining classroom-based learning and online intercultural exchange in blended learning courses. In R. O'Dowd, T. Lewis (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (p.173-191). New York: Routledge.
O'Dowd, R. (ed.). (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
O'Dowd, R. (2011). Online foreign language interaction: Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign language education? Language Teaching, 44(3), 368-380. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000194
O'Dowd, R. (2015). The competences of the telecollaborative teacher. The Language Learning Journal, 43(2), 194-207.
O'Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (2016). Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315678931
O’Dowd, R. (2016). Learning from the Past and Looking to the Future of Online Intercultural Exchange. In R. O'Dowd, T. Lewis (Ed.), Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice (p.273-294). New York: Routledge.
O'Dowd, R., & Eberbach, K. (2004). Guides on the side? Tasks and challenges for teachers in telecollaborative projects. ReCall, 16(1), 5-19.
O'Dowd, R., & Waire, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173-188.
O’Rourke, B. (2007). Models of telecollaboration (1): E(tandem). In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (pp. 41–62). Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters.
Oxford, R. L., Tomlinson, S., Barcelos, A., Harrington, C., Lavine, R. Z., Saleh, A., & Longhini, A. (1998). Clashing metaphors about classroom teachers: Toward a systematic typology for the language teaching field. System, 26(1), 3-50.
Richards, J., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: Longman Publishing Group.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching: Cambridge university press.
Ringler, I., Schubert, C., Deem, J., Flores, J., Friestad-Tate, J., & Lockwood, R. (2015). Improving the asynchronous online learning environment using discussion boards. i-Manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 15.
Rivers, W. M. (1987). Interactive language teaching: ERIC.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., & Wendt, J. (2015). Technologies that assist in online group work: A comparison of synchronous and asynchronous computer mediated communication technologies on students’ learning and community. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 24(3), 263-279.
Rubin, J. (2016). The collaborative online international learning network. In R. O'Dowd, T. Lewis (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange: policy, pedagogy, practice (pp.263-272). New York: Routledge.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Eds.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 495-508). New York: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Wang-Szilas, J., Berger, C., & Zhang, L. (2013). eTandem Language Learning Integrated in the Curriculum: Reflection from Students' Perspectives. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 18(2).
Watts, L. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: a review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 23.
White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, S. L. (2016). Learning through a CMC-Based tandem project with native speakers: A descriptive study of beginning CFL learners. Journal of Technology and Chinese Language Teaching, 7(2), 58-81.