Publicación:
Online affinity spaces in the foreign language classroom

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.advisorJerez Rodríguez, Soniaspa
dc.contributor.authorDiaz Borja, Gustavo
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-27T15:29:59Z
dc.date.available2023-02-27T15:29:59Z
dc.date.issued2023-02-27
dc.description.abstractOnline affinity spaces (OAS), whether formal or informal, have offered teachers of other languages an opportunity to share beliefs, values, interests, culture, but also to gain knowledge about different issues or topics. Furthermore, the social interactions held in these spaces are not only driven by personal interests but also by a desire to learn, innovate and self-direct their professional learning. However, even if OAS are usually held out of the classroom by teachers since they usually engage with new literacies such as social networks, webpages, blogs, or play video games, there is scarce evidence of studies among teachers of foreign languages and their everyday experiences, memberships, participation in OAS, and the integration of its features in their language lessons. Thus, this qualitative case study aimed at exploring five (5) foreign language teachers’ online affinity spaces living and learning and the features conveyed in their language classes during the Pandemic Covid 19. The study attempts to answer the following questions: How do teachers of foreign languages live and learn in online affinity spaces?, and, what features from Online Affinity spaces were conveyed in their language classes to provide a possible venue for learning during the Health crisis?. Data collection procedures such as online in-depth interviews, observations of video recorded classes, and the researcher’s diary were used. Secondary sources such as visual evidence from the participants’ interaction in online affinity spaces (OAS) was also considered. The results shed light on participants’ profiles, portals, personal and professional endeavors, content, and frequency of their participation in OAS. Most participants exhibit living and learning experiences in OAS driven by personal interests. They also demonstrate attempts to include OAS in their classes to construct social presence and support students’ collaboration, networking and communication, joining students towards a common endeavor, guiding them to participate and share content in their lessons. Further research is suggested to continue exploring the possibilities OAS offer teachers of other languages to become independent and collaborative problem solvers, communicators, negotiators, and designers of texts rather than only consumers.spa
dc.description.degreelevelMaestríaspa
dc.description.degreenameMagíster en Enseñanza del Inglésspa
dc.description.modalityTrabajos de Investigación y/o Extensiónspa
dc.description.tableofcontentsIntroduction 8spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsTheoretical Framework 13spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsConceptual Framework 13spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsLiteracy 13spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsNew Literacies as Social Situated Practices. 15spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsAffinity Spaces to expand the boundaries of the classroom 18spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsComponents and features of Affinity Spaces 21spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsTable 1. 21spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsSociocultural theory and affinity spaces 23spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsLiterature Review 25spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsAffinity spaces: uses and purposes. 25spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsMethods 33spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsResearch approach and design 33spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsParticipants and context 34spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsIntervention 34spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsTabla 2. 34spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsData collection 36spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsEthical issues 37spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsData Analysis 37spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsTabla 3. 37spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsFindings 39spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsTeachers’ Living And Learning in OAS 39spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 1 41spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 2 43spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 3 44spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 4 46spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 5 48spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 6 51spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 7 54spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 8 56spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsFeatures Of Oas In The Classroom 56spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 9 58spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 10 59spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 11 61spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 12 62spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 13 63spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsTranscript 1 64spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsScreenshot 14 65spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsDiscussion 68spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsConclusons 75spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsFurther Research 77spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsReferences 78spa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unicordoba.edu.co/handle/ucordoba/7235
dc.language.isoengspa
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad de Educación y Ciencias Humanasspa
dc.publisher.placeMontería, Córdoba, Colombiaspa
dc.publisher.programMaestría en Enseñanza del Inglésspa
dc.rightsCopyright Universidad de Córdoba, 2023spa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.rights.creativecommonsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)spa
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/spa
dc.subject.keywordsOnline affinity spaceseng
dc.subject.keywordsNew literacieseng
dc.subject.keywordsOnline affinity space featureseng
dc.subject.proposalEspacios de afinidad en líneaspa
dc.subject.proposalNuevas literacidadesspa
dc.subject.proposalCaracteristicas de espacios de afinidad en líneaspa
dc.titleOnline affinity spaces in the foreign language classroomspa
dc.typeTrabajo de grado - Maestríaspa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_bdccspa
dc.type.contentTextspa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisspa
dc.type.redcolhttps://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TMspa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/submittedVersionspa
dcterms.referencesAbrams, S. (2017, November 1). TCRecord: Article. Teachers College, Columbia University. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=21962spa
dcterms.referencesAlbers, P., Pace, C. L., & Odo, D. M. (2016). From Affinity and Beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 48(2), 221-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x16659069spa
dcterms.referencesAllen, J., & Forsythe, L. (2019, June). Collaborating Online: Tools for Improving Teacher Preparation in Literacy. Digital Commons at Buffalo State. https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/lls/vol29/iss1/4/spa
dcterms.referencesAnaniadou, K. and M. Claro (2009), “21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154spa
dcterms.referencesBarton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context, 7, 15.spa
dcterms.referencesBarton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2012). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. Routledge.spa
dcterms.referencesBeach, P. (2017). Self-directed online learning: A theoretical model for understanding elementary teachers’ online learning experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.007spa
dcterms.referencesBouchard, P. (2011). Network promises and their implications. RUSC, Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 8(1), 288-302.spa
dcterms.referencesBlack, R. W. (2007). Fanfiction writing and the construction of space. E-Learning and Digital Media, 4(4), 384-397.spa
dcterms.referencesBritt, V. G., & Paulus, T. (2016). “Beyond the four walls of my building”: A case study of# Edchat as a community of practice. American journal of distance education, 30(1), 48-59.spa
dcterms.referencesBuck, A. (2012). Examining digital literacy practices on social network sites. Research in the Teaching of English, 9-38.spa
dcterms.referencesCampbell, R., Goodman-Williams, R., Feeney, H., & Fehler-Cabral, G. (2020). Assessing triangulation across methodologies, methods, and stakeholder groups: The joys, woes, and politics of interpreting convergent and divergent data. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(1), 125-144.spa
dcterms.referencesCarpenter, J. P., Morrison, S. A., Craft, M., & Lee, M. (2020). How and why are educators using Instagram? Teaching and Teacher Education, 96, 103149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103149spa
dcterms.referencesChan, S. H., Abdullah, A. N., & Yusof, N. B. (2012). Investigating the construct of anxiety in relation to speaking skills among ESL tertiary learners. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(3), 155–166spa
dcterms.referencesClarke, V., & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic Analysis. Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, 1947–1952. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_311spa
dcterms.referencesCrotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.spa
dcterms.referencesCoiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. Handbook of research on new literacies, 1-21.spa
dcterms.referencesCope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044spa
dcterms.referencesCorredor, J., & Gaydos, M. (2014). Language games: How gaming communities shape second-language literacy. In Bridging literacies with videogames (pp. 103-127). Brill Sense.spa
dcterms.referencesCurwood, J. S., Magnifico, A. M., & Lammers, J. C. (2013). Writing in the wild: Writers’ motivation in fan‐based affinity spaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(8), 677-685.spa
dcterms.referencesFreire, P. (1970). The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard educational review, 40(2), 205-225.spa
dcterms.referencesDemir, K. (2010). Predictors of internet use for the professional development of teachers: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Teacher Development, 14(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664531003696535spa
dcterms.referencesFournier, H., & Kop, R. (2010, July). Researching the design and development of a Personal Learning Environment. In PLE Conference (pp. 6-8).spa
dcterms.referencesFriesen, N., & Lowe, S. (2011). The questionable promise of social media for education: connective learning and the commercial imperative. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00426.spa
dcterms.referencesFukunaga, N. (2006). “Those anime students”: Foreign language literacy development through Japanese popular culture. Journal of adolescent & adult literacy, 50(3), 206-222.spa
dcterms.referencesGee, J. P. (2004). New times and new literacies: Themes for a changing world. In Bakhtinian Perspectives on Language, Literacy, and Learning (pp. 279-306). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755002.014spa
dcterms.referencesGee, J. P. (2004). Affinity spaces. Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling, 77-83.spa
dcterms.referencesGee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces. Beyond communities of practice language power and social context, 214232.spa
dcterms.referencesGee, J. P. (2007). Good Video Games + Good Learning: Collected Essays on Video Games, Learning and Literacy (1st ed.). Peter Lang Pub Inc.spa
dcterms.referencesGee, J. P., & Hayes, E. (2012). Nurturing Affinity Spaces and Game-Based Learning. Games, Learning, and Society, 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139031127.015spa
dcterms.referencesGee, J. P. (2013). The anti-education era: Creating smarter students through digital learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.spa
dcterms.referencesGee, J. (2017). Affinity Spaces and 21st Century Learning. Educational Technology, 57(2), 27-31. Retrieved August 16, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44430520spa
dcterms.referencesGee, J. P. (2018). Affinity spaces: How young people live and learn online and out of school. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(6), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718762416spa
dcterms.referencesGilbertson, K., Ewert, A., Siklander, P., & Bates, T. (2022). Outdoor education: Methods and strategies. Human Kinetics.spa
dcterms.referencesGleason, B. (2018). Thinking in hashtags: Exploring teenagers’ new literacies practices on twitter. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1462207spa
dcterms.referencesGómez-Martínez, R., & Romero-Rodríguez, L. M. (2021). Coworking spaces and virtual learning communities in Social Networks: Case Study of #ElClaustroDeIG on Instagram. Aula Abierta, 50(1), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.50.1.2021.453-464spa
dcterms.referencesGrimes, S., & Fields, D. A. (2015). Children's media making, but not sharing: The potential and limitations of child-specific DIY media websites. Media International Australia, 154(1), 112-122.spa
dcterms.referencesGupta, D. S. (2014). Social media for teachers of English: A hub for professional development. Research Journal of English language and literature, 2(2), 34-38.spa
dcterms.referencesHalaczkiewicz, M. D. (2020). Harnessing writing in the wild: Practical applications of affinity spaces for English language instruction. TESOL Journal, 11(1), e00453.spa
dcterms.referencesHargreaves, A. & Shirley, D. (2009). The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future of Educational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.spa
dcterms.referencesHarvey, S., & Hyndman, B. (2018). An investigation into the reasons physical education professionals use Twitter. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(4), 383-396.spa
dcterms.referencesHeale, R., & Twycross, A. (2018). What is a case study?. Evidence-based nursing, 21(1), 7-8.spa
dcterms.referencesHeigham, J., & Croker, R. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. Springer.spa
dcterms.referencesHickmann, M. E. 1985. "The implications of discourse skills in Vygotsky's developmental theories." In Culture, Communication and Cognition, edited by James V. Wertsch, 236-257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.spa
dcterms.referencesHine, C. (2020). Ethnography for the Internet. Taylor & Francis. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781000189667spa
dcterms.referencesHuang, J. (2013). Bridging authentic experiences and literacy skills through the language experience approach. Journal of Adult Education, 42(1), 8-15.spa
dcterms.referencesHutchison, A., & Beschorner, B. (2014a). Using the iPad as a tool to support literacy instruction.Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 24(4), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2014.918561spa
dcterms.referencesHoover, J. J., Eppolito, A., Klingner, J. K., & Baca, L. (2012). Collaborative decision-making in multicultural contexts. Handbook of leadership and administration for special education, 209-222.spa
dcterms.referencesJewitt, C. (2006). Technology, Literacy and Learning: A Multimodal Approach, Routledge, Londonspa
dcterms.referencesJiang, L., Gu, M. M. & Fang, F. (2022). Multimodal or multilingual? Native English teachers’ engagement with translanguaging in Hong Kong TESOL classrooms. Applied Linguistics Review, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0062spa
dcterms.referencesKafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., & Burke, W. Q. (2010). Entering the Clubhouse. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 22(2), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2010101906spa
dcterms.referencesKalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2004). Designs for learning. E-Learning and digital media, 1(1), 38-93.spa
dcterms.referencesKell, M., & Kell, P. (2013). What Is Literacy and Why Is It Important? Literacy and Language in East Asia, 7-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-30-7_2spa
dcterms.referencesKemp, S. (2020, February 17). Digital 2020: Colombia. DataReportal – Global Digital Insights. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-colombiaspa
dcterms.referencesKern, R. (2000). Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.spa
dcterms.referencesKnobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2006). Digital literacy and digital literacies: Policy, pedagogy and research considerations for education. Nordic Journal of digital literacy, 1(01), 12-24.spa
dcterms.referencesKnobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of adolescent & adult literacy, 58(2), 97-101.spa
dcterms.referencesKrutka, D. G., Carpenter, J. P., & Trust, T. (2016). Elements of Engagement: A Model of Teacher Interactions via Professional Learning Networks. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(4), 150-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1206492spa
dcterms.referencesLammers, J. C., Curwood, J. S., & Magnifico, A. M. (2012). Toward an Affinity Space Methodology: Considerations for Literacy Research. English Teaching-practice and Critique, 11(2), 44-58. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ973940.pdfspa
dcterms.referencesLankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). A new literacies sampler. New York: Peter Lang. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.spa
dcterms.referencesLankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).spa
dcterms.referencesLarsen, J., & Parrish, C. W. (2019). Community building in the MTBoS: Mathematics educators establishing value in resources exchanged in an online practitioner community. Educational Media International, 56(4), 313–327. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2019.1681105spa
dcterms.referencesLeavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. The Guilford Press. (CHAPTER 1).spa
dcterms.referencesLee, J. Y., & Pass, C. (2014). Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming and English Language Learning. Bridging Literacies with Videogames, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-668-4_6spa
dcterms.referencesLeu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New Literacies: A Dual-Level Theory of the Changing Nature of Literacy, Instruction, and Assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741719700202spa
dcterms.referencesLi, J. and Greenhow, C. (2015), “Scholars and social media: tweeting in the conference backchannel for professional learning”, Educational Media International, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.spa
dcterms.referencesLi, C. and Lalani, F. (n.d.) The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Changed Education Forever. This IsHow.https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning/spa
dcterms.referencesMagnifico, A. M., Lammers, J. C., & Fields, D. A. (2018). Affinity spaces, literacies and classrooms: tensions and opportunities. Literacy, 52(3), 145-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12133spa
dcterms.referencesMachin-Mastromatteo, J.D. (2012), "Participatory action research in the age of social media: literacies, affinity spaces and learning", New Library World, Vol. 113 No. 11/12, pp. 571-585. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074801211282939spa
dcterms.referencesMahan, K. R., Brevik, L. M., & ØDegaard, M. (2018). Characterizing CLIL teaching: new insights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(3), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1472206spa
dcterms.referencesMcLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement (Vol. 45). Teachers College Press.spa
dcterms.referencesMendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587558spa
dcterms.referencesMerchant, G. (2009). Web 2.0, new literacies, and the idea of learning through participation. English teaching: practice and critique, 8(3), 107-122.spa
dcterms.referencesMercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.137spa
dcterms.referencesMoore, M. G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In Keegan, D. (Ed.). Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). Florence, KY: Routledge.spa
dcterms.referencesPerry, K. H. (2012). What Is Literacy?--A Critical Overview of Sociocultural Perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50-71.spa
dcterms.referencesPiersma, C. (2013). Literacy inside and out: Investigating the literacy practices of adult English literacy learners (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto).spa
dcterms.referencesPowell, M. B., Fisher, R. P., & Wright, R. (2005). Investigative interviewing. Psychology and law: An empirical perspective, 11-42.spa
dcterms.referencesPrestridge, S., Tondeur, J., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2019). Insights from ICT-expert teachers about the design of educational practice: the learning opportunities of social media. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(2), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2019.1578685spa
dcterms.referencesRobinson, L. and Schulz, J. (2009), “New avenues for sociological inquiry: evolving forms of ethnographic practice.” Sociology 43(4): 685–98.spa
dcterms.referencesRosenberg, J. M., Greenhalgh, S. P., Koehler, M. J., Hamilton, E. R., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). An investigation of State Educational Twitter Hashtags (SETHs) as affinity spaces. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13(1–2), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753016672351spa
dcterms.referencesRustin, M. (2012). Infant observation as a method of research. In Infant observation and research (pp. 29-38). Routledge.spa
dcterms.referencesSauro, S., & Sundmark, B. (2016). Report from Middle-Earth: Fan fiction tasks in the EFL classroom. Elt Journal, 70(4), 414-423.spa
dcterms.referencesScotland, J. (2012). Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Relating Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive, and Critical Research Paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9spa
dcterms.referencesSelwyn, N. (2004). The information aged: A qualitative study of older adults’ use of information and communications technology. Journal of Aging Studies, 18(4), 369–384. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2004.06.008spa
dcterms.referencesShafirova, L., Cassany, D., & Bach, C. (2020). From “newbie” to professional: Identity building and literacies in an online affinity space. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 24, 100370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100370spa
dcterms.referencesSheehy, M. (2009). Can the literacy practices in an after‐school programme be practiced in school? A study of literacies from a spatial perspective. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(2), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360902934384spa
dcterms.referencesSimons, R.-J., van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (2000). New Learning: Three Ways to Learn in a New Balance. New Learning, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47614-2_1spa
dcterms.referencesSkerrett, A., & Bomer, R. (2011). Borderzones in Adolescents’ Literacy Practices. Urban Education, 46(6), 1256–1279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911398920spa
dcterms.referencesStake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 435-453). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.spa
dcterms.referencesSteinkuehler, C., Compton-Lilly, C., & King, E. (2010). Reading in the context of online games. International Conference of Learning Sciences, 222-229. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2010.1.222spa
dcterms.referencesStošić, L., & Stošić, I. (2015). Perceptions of teachers regarding the implementation of the internet in education. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 462-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.027spa
dcterms.referencesStreet, B. B., & Street, B. B. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. (Vol. 9). Cambridge University Press.spa
dcterms.referencesStreet, B. V. (2001). Literacy empowerment in developing societies. In Literacy and motivation (pp. 273-281). Routledge.spa
dcterms.referencesSyahruzah, J. K. (2020). Affinity Group In EFL Classroom. ELTICS: Journal of English Language Teaching and English Linguistics, 5(1).spa
dcterms.referencesTang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2017). Using Twitter for education: Beneficial or simply a waste of time? Computers & Education, 106, 97–118.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.004spa
dcterms.referencesTayebinik, M., & Puteh, M. (2012). Txt msg n English Language Literacy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.251spa
dcterms.referencesThanh, N. C., & Thanh, T. T. (2015). The interconnection between interpretivism paradigm and qualitative methods in education. American Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), 24-27.spa
dcterms.referencesThorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language Journal, 93, 802–821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00974.xspa
dcterms.referencesUNESCO (2018, October 17–18). Defining Literacy [GAML Fifth Meeting]. Defining Literacy, Hamburg, Germany. http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/4.6.1_07_4.6-defining-literacy.pdfspa
dcterms.referencesVygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V.spa
dcterms.referencesWalton, S. (2018). Remote ethnography, virtual presence: Exploring digital-visual methods for anthropological research on the web. In Doing Research In and On the Digital (pp. 116-133). Routledge.spa
dcterms.referencesWenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. (New York, Cambridge University Press).spa
dcterms.referencesWertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard university press.spa
dcterms.referencesWilliams, J. N. (2006). Incremental interpretation in second language sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(1), 71-88.spa
dcterms.referencesWu, W., & Chen, T. (2008). Global Synchronization Criteria of Linearly Coupled Neural Network Systems With Time-Varying Coupling. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 19(2), 319-332. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnn.2007.908639spa
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.accessrightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2spa
oaire.versionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aaspa
Archivos
Bloque original
Mostrando 1 - 2 de 2
Miniatura
Nombre:
diazborjagustavo.pdf
Tamaño:
10.43 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Descargar
No hay miniatura disponible
Nombre:
Autorizacion publicacion repositorio.pdf
Tamaño:
729.92 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Descargar
Bloque de licencias
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
No hay miniatura disponible
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
14.48 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción:
Descargar
Colecciones
E.N.A. Tesis