Using Skype in a Primary Class: A Case Study
Abstract
The important role of new technologies to communicate in the globalized world we live in cannot be denied. Teachers must take this fact into account and help their students construct their knowledge through computer-mediated learning in order to better understand how these tools function. In the context of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL), Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) has become a powerful tool for learning, as these resources give meaning and real-world relevance to language teaching practices and activities. This small-scale study describes the implementation of an interactional activity, rooted in sociocultural theory, which used Skype as teaching tool. The data stemming from the investigation provides evidence to support the argument that digital resources for foreign language learning hold great potential as mediating tools for increased motivation and enhanced peer interaction.
Keywords
sociocultural theory, ICT, CMC, interaction, mediationReferences
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish. Language Learning & Technology, 120-136.
Breen, M., & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1: 89-102.
Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2001). Collaborative writing and sources of feedback: How they support second language learning. OISE/UT manuscript.
Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. A J. V. (Ed.) Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskyan, (pp. 21-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Langenhove, Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27-65). London: Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE Publications.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1980). Research methods in education. London: Croom Helm.
Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Dick, B., & Swepson, P. (2012). Action research resources. Retrieved from http://www.aral.com.au/
Dooly, M. (2008). Telecollaborative Language Learning. Bern: Peter Lang.
Dooly, M. (2010). Teacher 2.0. In: Telecollaboration 2.0. Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century. In S. Guth & F. Helm, (Eds.) (pp. 277-303). Bern: Peter Lang.
Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2013). Filling in the gaps: Linking theory and practice through telecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL, 4-29.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1994). Conversation interactions and the development of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16: 183-302.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford Universty Press.
Kern, R. G., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. (Vol. 4). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 243-260.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In: M. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International Perspectives (pp. 284-309). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen,T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
Lam, W. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 457-482.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mehan, H. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In: T. A. Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 120-131). London: Academic Press.
O'Brien, R. (2001). An overview of the methodological approach of action research. Retrieved from Theory and Practice of Action Research: http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html
O'Dowd, R. (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence. Berlin: Langenscheidt.
Pelletieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Kern, Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about. Language, 3(44), 493-527.
Ratner, C. (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and method. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Richards, J. (2006). What is communicative language teaching? In: J. Richards (Ed.), Communicative language teaching today (pp. 2-5). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Riel, M. (2011). Understanding action research. Retrieved from Center for Collaborative Retrieved 21 February 2013 from Action Research:
http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html.
Rivers, W. (1993). Interaction as the key to teaching language for communication. In W. Rivers (Ed.), Interactive language teaching (6th ed., pp. 3-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 38-57.
