“…Because CMC communication does not provide visual or intonation cues, participation does not necessarily establish trust or a sense of community among members (Paulus & Scherff, 2008) and thus the underlying technologies must be able to support artefacts creation, collaboration, awareness, and a friendly user interface (Kostas & Sofos, 2012 these research studies were subject to various conditional factors, such as the need of a sound instructional design in order to achieve reflective practice (Whipp, 2003), the type of messages, i.e. positive vs. negative ones (Ebenezer, 2003), the need for a clear goal for the community, a better framing of the communication with emphasis on the CMC environment (Hough, Smithey, & Everston,, 2004), teacher's presence (Yang, 2009), individual's skills (Hramiak, Boulton & Irwin, 2009) and lack of participants' time (Andersen & Matkins, 2011). Summary of the literature review's outcomes leads to some basic requirements needed for the sustainable pedagogical and technological settings of a CMC platform, as a supportive environment for student teacher's apprenticeship: Members of a supportive community must have access to a set of various tools (asynchronous and synchronous) within the same infrastructure.…”