Telecollaboration to Improve CLIL and TPACK KnowledgeAid or Hindrance?

  1. Bueno-Alastuey, Mª Camino 1
  2. García Esteban, Soraya 2
  1. 1 Universidad Pública de Navarra
    info

    Universidad Pública de Navarra

    Pamplona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z0cah89

  2. 2 Universidad de Alcalá
    info

    Universidad de Alcalá

    Alcalá de Henares, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04pmn0e78

Revista:
ESE: Estudios sobre educación.

ISSN: 1578-7001

Año de publicación: 2016

Número: 31

Páginas: 117-138

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.15581/004.31.117-138 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDadun editor

Otras publicaciones en: ESE: Estudios sobre educación.

Resumen

Este artículo describe una experiencia piloto sobre el uso de la telecolaboración para el desarrollo del TPACK a través del análisis de unidades didácticas creadas por grupos de futuros maestros. Los instrumentos usados fueron un cuestionario, transcripciones de chat y una grabación oral. Se exploró el tipo de episodio TPACK, el tipo de telecolaboración, los cambios o sugerencias de mejora de la unidad, y los benefi cios y problemas percibidos. Los resultados sugieren que la atención de los estudiantes se dirige a la tecnología cuando se habla de telecolaboración, pero hacia la pedagogía y el contenido cuando el foco es la unidad didáctica.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

This work was carried out as part of the R&D project REDTELCOM (EDU2014-54673-R) granted by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher edu cation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281-300.
  • Antoniadou, V. (2011). Using Activity Theory to understand the contradictions in an online transatlantic collaboration between student-teachers of a foreign language. ReCALL, 23(3), 233-251.
  • Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.
  • Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York: The Free Press.
  • Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2010). Synchronous-voice computer-mediated communication: Effects on pronunciation. CALICO, 28(1), 1-25.
  • Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2011). Perceived benefi ts and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 419-432.
  • Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41(3), 543-559.
  • Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & Kleban, M. (2014). Matching linguistic and pedagogical objectives in a telecollaboration project: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 148-166.
  • Chapelle, C., & Hegelheimer, V. (2004). The English language teacher in the 21st century. In S. Fotos, & C. Browne (Eds.), New Perspectives in CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 299-316). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of practice. APAC Monograph, 6. Barcelona: APAC.
  • Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities: A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • De Graaff, R., Koopman, J. G., &. Westhoff, G. (2007). Identifying effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 12-19.
  • Dooly, M. (2009). New competencies in a new era? Examining the impact of a teacher training programme. ReCALL, 21(3), 352-369.
  • Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2013). Filling in the gap: Linking theory and practice through telecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL, 25(1), 4-29.
  • Dudeney, G. (2011). Digital literacies and the language classroom. In S. House, & J. Bascón (Coord.), Didáctica del inglés (pp. 51-55). Barcelona: Graó.
  • Duffy, P. (2008). Engaging the YouTube Google-eyed generation: Strategies for using Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(2), 119-129.
  • Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The culture project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55-102. Retrieved October 29, 2015 from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol5num1/furstenberg/default.html.
  • García Esteban, S. (2013). Three frameworks for developing CLIL materials in infant and primary education. Encuentro: revista de investigación e innovación en la clase de idiomas, 22, 49-53.
  • García Esteban, S. (2015). Teaching CLIL with digital literacies. Verbeia, 0, 47-63.
  • Guth, S., & Helm, F. (2012). Developing multiliteracies in ELT through collaboration. ELT Journal, 66(1), 42-51.
  • Guth, S., & Marini-Maio, N. (2010). Close encounters of a new kind: The use of Skype and Wiki in telecollaboration. In S. Guth, & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0. (pp. 413-427). Bern: Peter Lang AG.
  • Hauck, M. (2007). Critical success factors in a TRIDEM exchange. ReCALL, 19(2), 202-223.
  • Hauck, M. (2013). Empowering students in digital environments: Promoting a critical use of online language learning tools and applications. Paper delivered at PL CALL conference, 9-10 May, Warsaw, Poland.
  • Jauregi, K., & Bañados, E. (2008). Virtual interaction through video-web communication: A step towards enriching and internationalizing learning programs. ReCALL, 20(2), 183-207.
  • Jauregi, K., de Graaff, R., van den Bergh, H., & Kriz, M. (2012). Native/non-native speaker interactions through video-web communication: a clue for enhancing motivation? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 1-19.
  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
  • Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), 635-649.
  • Marsh, D., & Lang, G. (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. Jyväskyla, Finland: UniCOM.
  • Mason, R., & Romiskowski, A. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 397-432). New York: Macmillan.
  • OECD. (2005). The defi nition and selection of key competencies. Executive summary. DeSeCo Project. Retrieved October 25, 2015, from http://www.oecd.org/ fr/edu/apprendre-au-dela-de-l-ecole/defi nitionandselectionofcompetenciesdeseco.htm.
  • Ohana, Y., & Otten, H. (2009). The eight key competencies for lifelong learning: An appropriate framework within which to develop the competence of trainers in the fi eld of European Youth Work or just plain politics?. Bonn: SALTO Training and Development Resource Centre.
  • O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the ‘Other Side’: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English E-mail exchange. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 118-144.
  • O’Dowd, R. (Ed.) (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Polisca, P. (2011). Language learning and the raising of cultural awareness through Internet telephony: A case study. The Language Learning Journal, 39(3), 329-343.
  • Pool, J., Reitsma, G., & Mentz, E. (2013). An evaluation of technology teacher training in South Africa: Shortcomings and recommendations. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 455-472.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Cenoz, J. (2015). Language, culture and curriculum journal (Special Issue): Content-based instruction and CLIL: moving forward in the 21st century. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. M., & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (2011). Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts. Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Schmid, E. C., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). Collaborative research projects in the technology-enhanced language classroom: pre-service and in-service teachers exchange knowledge about technology. ReCALL, 26(3), 315-332.
  • Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J. et al. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
  • Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
  • Tian, J., & Wang, Y. (2010). Taking language learning outside the classroom: learners’ perspectives of eTandem learning via Skype. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 181-197.
  • Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 104(4), 571-596.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Vinagre, M., & Muñoz, B. (2011). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 72-10.
  • Vinagre, M. (2010). El aprendizaje intercultural en entornos virtuales de colaboración. RESLA, 23, 297-317.
  • Vinagre, M. (2008). Assessing intercultural competence in e-learning projects. In A. Lipshitz, & S. Parsons (Eds.), E-learning: 21st century issues and challenges. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
  • Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225.
  • Wylie, M. (2010). An online cross-cultural project in EFL instruction. (Unpublished MA thesis). Krakow: Jagiellonian University.
  • Grosbois, M. (2011). CMC-based projects and L2 learning: confi rming the importance of nativisation. ReCALL, 23(3), 294-310.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet