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

Revue:
ESE: Estudios sobre educación.

ISSN: 1578-7001

Année de publication: 2016

Número: 31

Pages: 117-138

Type: Article

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

D'autres publications dans: ESE: Estudios sobre educación.

Objectifs de Développement Durable

Résumé

This paper reports on a pilot study on the use of telecollaboration to develop TPACK through the joint analysis of CLIL units created by groups of teacher trainees. The instruments to collect the data were a questionnaire, chat transcripts and a voice recording. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed to explore type of TPACK episodes taking place, type of telecollaboration, changes or suggestions for improvement of CLIL units, and perceived advantages and constraints of the telecollaboration. Results suggest students’ attention focused on technology while talking about the telecollaboration, but on pedagogy and content when talking about the unit.

€ Voir financement

Information sur le financement

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.

Financeurs

Références bibliographiques

  • 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.
La source de données: Dialnet