Innovations and Challenges in Using Online Communication Technologies in CLIL

References

• Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60–81. Retrieved from http://llt.msu/edu/vol6num1/belz/
   Google Scholar
• Casal Madinabeitia, S. (2007). The integrated curriculum, CLIL and constructivism. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 1, 55–65.
   Google Scholar
• Chun, D. M. (2015). Language and culture learning in higher education via telecollaboration. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10, 37–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching, (May), 139–157. Retrieved from http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/Dalton/SEW07/CLILresearchoverviewarticle.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Council and European Commission (2015). The implementation of the Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020). New priorities for European cooperation in education and training. Online report: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/documents/et-2020-draft-joint-report-408-2015_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Furstenburg, G. 2010. Making culture the core of the language class: Can it be done? Modern Language Journal, 94 (ii), 329–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helm, F. (2013). A dialogic model for telecollaboration. Bellaterra Journal, 6(2), 28–48.
   Google Scholar
• Jauregi, J. (2015). Integrating telecollaboration for intercultural language acquisition at secondary education: Lessons learned. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds), Critical CALL - Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 268–273). Dublin: Research-publishing.net. http://dx.doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.000344
   Google Scholar
• Kern, R. (2014). Technology as Pharmakon: The promise and perils of the internet for foreign language education. Modern Language Journal, 98, 340–357. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12065.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 83–100). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leask, B. (2015). Internationalising the curriculum. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, T., & O’Dowd, R. (Eds.) (2016). Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education.
   Google Scholar
• Müller-Hartmann, A. (2012). The classroom-based action research paradigm in telecollaboration. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), Research methods for online interaction and exchange (pp. 56–192). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118–144. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/odowd/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (2016). Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (Vol. 53). New York, NY: Routledge, Ed.
   Google Scholar
• O’Dowd, R. & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2),173–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peiser, G. (2015). Overcoming barriers: Engaging younger students in an online intercultural exchange. Intercultural Education, 26(5), 361–376. doi:10.1080/14675986.2015.1091238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 79–99. doi:10.1515/applirev-2016-2001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porto, M. (2014). Intercultural citizenship education in an EFL online project in Argentina. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(2), 245–261. doi:10.1080/14708477.2014.890625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porto, M. (2015). Ecological and intercultural citizenship in the primary English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom: An online project in Argentina. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(4), 395–415. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2015.1064094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, S. (2016). Cosmopolitan Learning for a Global Era. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, B. (1994). What works? Retrieved from http://www.iecc.org/discussion/what-works.html
   Google Scholar
• Valtonen, T., Pontinen, S., Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., Väisänen, P., & Hacklin, S. (2011). Confronting the technological pedagogical knowledge of Finnish Net Generation student teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 3–18. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2010.534867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware, P., & Kessler, G. (2016). Telecollaboration in the secondary language classroom case study of adolescent interaction and pedagogical integration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 427–450. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.961481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar