Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

TPACK-based professional development on web

2.0 for Spanish teachers: A case study

Carolina Bustamante

To cite this article: Carolina Bustamante (2019): TPACK-based professional development

on web 2.0 for Spanish teachers: A case study, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI:
10.1080/09588221.2018.1564333

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1564333

Published online: 24 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1564333

TPACK-based professional development on web 2.0

for Spanish teachers: A case study
Carolina Bustamante
School of Education, State University of New York at Old Westbury, Old Westbury, NY, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The topic of this study is professional development (PD) on Teacher professional
Web 2.0 technologies for foreign language teachers and development; TPACK; Web
integration of these tools into the language classroom. This 2.0; technology integration
research explored the experiences of eighteen teachers of
Spanish in grades 7-12 from both rural and urban areas in
Nebraska, United States, who participated in a technology,
pedagogy, and content-based online PD. This qualitative
case study included data from interviews, classroom obser-
vations, and documents to explore the learning and inte-
gration journeys of Spanish teacher participants during and
after the PD. While qualitative findings indicated mainly
positive learning experiences in the three areas -technol-
ogy, pedagogy, and content- as well as in technology inte-
gration, the observational data illuminated issues of
technology access and use of the target language (TL) by
the teachers. The article concludes with implications for the
design of PD on technology for foreign language teachers.

Introduction
Foreign language education in the United States (U.S.) has been ener-
gized by some remarkable developments during the twenty-first century.
Proficiency and standards initiatives are now at the heart of language
instruction and assessment, moving toward an emphasis on meaningful
use of language in authentic contexts. Internet resources and tools pro-
vide numerous opportunities for learners to have significant experiences
with the target language (TL) and culture, within and beyond the class-
room environment. Using these resources to extend the potential of the
language classroom represents a constant challenge for foreign language
teachers, especially as technology continues to evolve and provide new
opportunities.

CONTACT Carolina Bustamante [email protected] P.O. Box 210, Old Westbury,

NY 11568, USA
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. BUSTAMANTE

The topic of this study is professional development (PD) on Web 2.0

technologies for foreign language teachers and, consequently, further
integration of these tools in the classroom. The case selected was an
online PD for Spanish teachers in grades 7–12 on Web 2.0, developed by
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and funded through a Teacher
Quality Grant (U.S. Department of Education), called Web 2.0 for
Teachers of Spanish. The purpose was to investigate the experiences of
these teachers during the PD and consequent integration of Web 2.0 in
their classrooms. Data from interviews, classroom observations, and
documents were used to qualitatively explore the learning and integra-
tion journeys of the participants.
A literature review on teacher PD on technology and the
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006), the theoretical lens used in this study, is fol-
lowed by a description of the case and the research methodology.
Themes based on TPACK serve to depict the participants’ experiences
using Web 2.0 tools during the PD and in their classrooms. Implications
for the design of PD programs for foreign language teachers are pre-
sented after discussion of these findings.

Literature review: technology PD and the TPACK framework

Teacher PD on technology
Web 2.0 refers to the second generation of the Internet. Examples of
Web 2.0 tools are blogs, wikis, podcasting, and poster or comic genera-
tors. They are web-based thereby eliminating platform conflicts, collab-
orative, and provide storage for shareable online content (Schrum &
Levin, 2009). Web 2.0 is ‘a change in the way in which users access the
Internet in order to mutually interact and collectively create knowledge’
(Orenga-Rogla & Chalmeta, 2016, p. 3). These tools motivate language
learners to engage in collaboration and communication as they provide a
community-based environment (Wang & Vasquez, 2012). In addition,
they foster students’ interest in learning language (Izquierdo, Simard, &
Garza, 2015; Lan, Sung, Cheng, & Chang, 2015). However, teachers
might not be familiar with these advantages.
Teachers’ knowledge, self-efficacy, beliefs about learning and technol-
ogy, ease of use, and compatibility with current practices have been iden-
tified as barriers to technology integration (Tsai & Chai, 2012; Xiaobin,
Wei, Huiwen, & Lijun, 2014). A way to overcome such barriers is PD,
which can foster changes in teachers’ ability to implement technology-
supported experiences for students (Mouza, 2009). When active learning
opportunities are provided and teachers are not passive recipients of
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 3

information, the effect of PD on teachers’ instruction increases

(Ansyari, 2015).
Computer assisted language learning (CALL) education for language
teachers is essential for an effective normalization of technology in for-
eign and second language classrooms at the K-12 level (Izquierdo, De la
Cruz, Aquino, Sandoval Caraveo, & Garcıa, 2017). Integrating Web 2.0
into teaching requires both technical and pedagogical skills. Many PD
experiences are short term and focus only on technical skills, as opposed
to application of technology to classroom practice. PD experiences need
to be well designed and sustained, and provide opportunities for teachers
to be involved in language learning activities, in other words, to experi-
ence language through the use of technology as their students would
(Fuchs, 2016; Hsu, 2016; Kuure et al., 2016).
However, a problem with traditional face-to-face PD is that it reaches
only a fraction of the teachers that could benefit from it, due to its geo-
graphic limitations, attainable only to teachers close to urban areas or
who are able to drive long distances to participate in these programs,
often in the form of summer institutes. Many teachers are in need of
PD, but have no access to it because of time, distance, funding, or per-
sonal obligations (Boehm, Brysch, Mohan, & Backler, 2012). Online PD
allows broader access; therefore, reaching a larger audience of teachers
that otherwise would not be able to be engaged in a CALL learn-
ing experience.
Mishra and Koehler (2006) discussed that knowledge of technology is
regularly and inappropriately considered to be apart from knowledge of
pedagogy and content. Technologies have their own imperatives that
affect the content that needs to be taught, impacting pedagogical deci-
sions. Interactions among content, pedagogy, and technology are essen-
tial for developing good teaching. Considering the simultaneous
incorporation of these elements into PD might lead to a successful inte-
gration of technology in the foreign language classroom.

The TPACK framework

TPACK is a framework for technology integration and teacher know-
ledge that integrates technology, pedagogy, and content (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006). It is built on Shulman’s (1986) idea of pedagogical con-
tent knowledge (PCK), or the combination of content and pedagogy, in
order to understand how particular content requires specific pedagogical
strategies. Advancing Shulman’s construct one step further, TPACK
emphasizes that for effective integration of technology, teachers’
4 C. BUSTAMANTE

experiences with technology need to be discipline specific (Mishra &

Koehler, 2006).
Several methods to assess teachers’ TPACK have emerged.
Assessments consist principally on survey data (Baran, Chuang, &
Thompson, 2011; Baser, Kopcha, & Ozden, 2016; Hsu, 2016; Xiaobin
et al., 2014). Some studies using qualitative methods (Jaipal & Figg, 2010;
Niess & Gillow-Wiles, 2010; Stoilescu & McDougall, 2010) as well as
mixed methods (Bustamante, 2017; Koh, Chai, & Lim, 2017) have been
conducted in an effort to better understand TPACK for both pre-service
and in-service teachers. Empirical research using this framework has
been limited in the area of foreign language. Mueller (2010) examined
elementary teachers’ TPACK while implementing laptops in writing
instruction in French immersion and English classrooms. Bustamante
and Moeller (2013) examined TPACK in the context of PD for German
teachers; Xiaobin et al. (2014) investigated the challenges in preparing
English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers with TPACK capabilities
and recommended a restructuring of curriculum in teacher training pro-
grams. Hsu (2016) examined EFL teachers’ adoption of mobile technolo-
gies and concluded that participants’ TPACK was critical in their
integration.
Mouza (2011) stated that although TPACK provides a theoretical con-
struct of teacher knowledge, it does not reveal ways of developing and
accessing TPACK within PD settings, stating the need for more specific
guidelines on how to apply this model into PD. Ansyari (2015) addressed
this issue by evaluating a PD for EFL teachers and its impact on partici-
pants’ TPACK, and concluded that this framework provides a basis for
authentic learning experiences. Beriswill, Bracey, Sherman-Morris, Huang
and Lee (2016) studied foreign language teachers’ development of
TPACK after participating in a 20-day PD experience, and determined as
the most effective the activities that integrated subject-area content, peda-
gogy, and a model for technology integration.
Given that previous studies found that for PD on technology for lan-
guage teachers to be effective, (1) well-planned and participatory experi-
ences from the student perspective need to be provided; (2) online PD
results in broader access to in-service teachers; (3) TPACK provides an
adequate framework for teacher technology education, but few studies
have used this lens to investigate PD in foreign language education; and
(4) most studies conducted using TPACK have employed quantitative
methods, this qualitative case study aimed for an in-depth understanding
of an online PD for Spanish teachers that entailed the knowledge envi-
sioned by TPACK—technology, pedagogy, and content. The components
of this framework not only served as the guiding constituents for the
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 5

Figure 1. Alignment Between the Web 2.0 for Teachers of Spanish PD and TPACK
(Bustamante, 2017; adapted from Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1025).

PD, but also as the theoretical lens that led the data analysis in
this study.
This research was guided by the following questions, (1) What are the
experiences of the participants during the PD? (2) What are the experi-
ences of the participants integrating technology in their classrooms?
These questions sought to reveal effective PD practices that would help
foreign language teachers integrate technology in their classrooms more
effectively.

Description of the case: web 2.0 for teachers of Spanish PD

This PD had three basic goals for teacher-participants: To become tech-
nology literate with Web 2.0, expand Spanish knowledge, and create stu-
dent tasks that reflect best pedagogical practices, goals that are aligned
with TPACK (Figure 1). The program was framed under five overarching
objectives: (1) I can create a variety of products using Web 2.0 tools that
demonstrate the use of Spanish language in a meaningful context; (2) I
can discuss how these tools can be used by students in the Spanish class-
room to enhance learning; (3) I can assess the use of the Spanish lan-
guage through a wide variety of products; (4) I can identify and evaluate
Web 2.0 applications to use in the Spanish classroom; and (5) I can
teach my students how to use different Web 2.0 tools applications to
demonstrate the use of Spanish.
This online PD was delivered in Spanish via Blackboard, a learning
management system (https://www.blackboard.com/). During 15 weekly
6 C. BUSTAMANTE

modules, participants learned about Web 2.0 and created a variety of

products collaboratively, in the same way that their students would,
using an array of tools (GoogleSites, Glogster, PhotoPeach, GoogleDocs,
Discovery Education PuzzleMaker, Popplet, TimeToast, Prezi, PodBean,
Storybird, LittleBirdTales, Voki, Wordle, ToonDoo, Poll Everywhere, and
Padlet). Two novels in Spanish (Cajas de cart on [The Circuit] and
Senderos fronterizos [Breaking Through] by Jimenez, 2002) appropriate
for middle and high school levels, served as the context for these Web 2.
0 products. Therefore, participants used interpretive skills while reading
these novels in Spanish, interpersonal skills while interacting with their
group members in the completion of the novel-based projects, and pres-
entational skills for the creation of the Web 2.0 products. This provided
a participatory language practice experience from the student perspective.
They were not only learning about the technology tool, but also engaging
with input and producing output in Spanish, in the same way that stu-
dents do in the language classroom.
For example, one of the modules asked participants to create a collab-
orative mind map based on the story that answered four questions:
Who? (characters), Where? (places), When? (significant dates), and
What? (main events), using Popplet (popplet.com). Another module
required participants to work in a chronology that depicted the main
events in the story using Prezi. In groups of three or four, participants
planned and distributed the work using Skype and/or texting applications
first. Then they interacted via distance using the Web 2.0 application,
adding content and editing work from their peers. Detailed instructions
for each project and directions with screenshots for using each tool were
provided, as well as guidelines for group work, interaction, and publish-
ing products in an ePortfolio created with GoogleSites. The instructions
not only served as a guide for the teachers to complete their tasks, but
also as a model on how to provide instructions to students for technol-
ogy-based projects.
Using proficiency-based rubrics for the presentational mode of com-
munication (Sandrock, 2010), participants received feedback from the
instructor as if they were students of Spanish. Rubrics served to evaluate
their use of the Spanish language in the project using the following crite-
ria: Vocabulary, function and structure, language control, and task com-
pletion. This practice served as a model for the teachers on how they can
evaluate these technology-based projects that move away from traditional
testing formats.
Completion and evaluation of each project was followed by an online
discussion in Blackboard about the participants’ learning experiences
with the tools, use of Spanish, and how their products were assessed
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 7

from a pedagogical standpoint. Each module also assigned a pedagogy-

based reading relevant to the tool and product for that week, to help par-
ticipants connect pedagogy and technology, and to enrich the responses
in the discussion.
All PD materials were available for the teachers to use with their stu-
dents. They were asked to implement one of the modeled activities in
their classrooms three times during the PD and share their experiences.
Each module began with Can-do statements inspired by NCSSFL-
ACTFL’s performance-based objectives (NCSSFL & ACTFL, 2017), which
served as springboard for self-assessment and journal reflection in their
ePortfolios at its completion.

Methods
This qualitative case study was part of a larger mixed methods study
reported elsewhere (Bustamante, 2017). This article describes the qualita-
tive strand—an intrinsic case study—in detail. Case studies describe in
depth how things are at a particular place and time, with the purpose of
allowing the reader to gain an experiential understanding (Stake, 1995;
Yin, 2018). It is an appropriate research method for making visible the
details of a particular situation or phenomenon with the aim of generat-
ing new theory and insights. Consistent with Stake’s (2003) approach of
selecting information-rich, unique cases, the Web 2.0 for Teachers of
Spanish PD was selected for this case study because of its unique and
innovative features to provide online PD on technology for foreign lan-
guage teachers, while integrating best pedagogical practices, and promot-
ing Spanish culture and language development.
A case study ‘explores a bounded system (a case) over time’ (Creswell,
2007, p. 73). This case is classified as intrinsic, because the emphasis of
the study is placed on the exploration of this particular program, its con-
text, and the experiences of its participants. The combined characteristics
of this program for foreign language teachers (TPACK-based, online,
extended over 15 weeks, delivered in the TL) make it unique. This
research provides a detailed description of a PD on technology for for-
eign language teachers, built both from both the experiences of its partic-
ipants during the program and technology integration experiences.

Participants
Eighteen teachers (referred in this manuscript with a pseudonym) par-
ticipated in the Web 2.0 for Teachers of Spanish PD and all took part in
this study. They were purposefully selected as participants using
8 C. BUSTAMANTE

criterion-sampling criteria (Patton, 1990). To be able to participate in the

PD, the teacher participants were required to teach Spanish at the middle
or high school levels in a school district in X state. Ages ranged from 24
to 54. All participants had a language teaching degree, ten of them at the
master level. There were no degrees in educational technology. Their
years of teaching experience varied, ranging from 2 to 25. Six of them
worked in rural areas, and three were the only Spanish teacher at their
school. Most participants at the time of the study taught Spanish as a
foreign language, with the exception of one, who taught in a bilingual
program, and another, who taught Spanish for heritage speakers. Sixteen
were second language speakers of Spanish and two were native speakers,
so the majority was benefitting not only from learning technology, but
also advancing their Spanish skills, since the program was delivered in
the TL.
Participants’ previous PD on technology consisted mostly of sessions
at conferences and 1-day teacher in-service workshops. In terms of a
more extended PD, a few teachers had completed graduate credit hours
on technology courses, and others had participated in summer institutes
and Spanish immersions where a few technology applications were part
of the curriculum. A small number of participants never had PD specific-
ally on technology. One participant had a background on web design
and felt comfortable using technology in his class, but did not have any
pedagogical knowledge related to technology and language learning.

Data collection
Consistent with case study design (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2018), multiple data
sources were used for analysis. Data from documents, interviews, and
observations were gathered at different points during the study. As far as
documents, before the PD, participants filled an application to participate
in the program, which was used to document their background in tech-
nology and teaching experiences. During the PD, participants wrote a
weekly journal in their ePortfolios regarding their learning of Web 2.0
tools and their use in the Spanish classroom. The journal was the final
assignment for each Web 2.0 module, in which they reflected upon the
learning objectives of the week, whether they had achieved them or not,
and what other insights they had gained from the project that were
applicable to their class and students. They also wrote a final essay docu-
menting their learning experience and their plans for technology imple-
mentation, which was also used for analysis. In addition, PD materials
were used to describe the context of the case.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 9

The last day of the PD, participants reunited and a fifty-minute focus
group took place, in which participants talked about their most signifi-
cant learning experiences during the PD. This discussion was recorded
using Audacity software (http://audacityteam.org/).
Immediately after the PD, participants were individually interviewed
using Skype and recorded using Audacity software. The following
exploratory, open-ended questions represent the interview protocol: (1)
What made you participate in this PD?; (2) What was the PD like?; (3)
What and how did you learned in this PD?; (4) How were technology,
pedagogy, and content integrated in the PD?; (5) Do you consider it rele-
vant that technology, pedagogy, and content are integrated in PD?; (6)
How was your experience with the PD?; (7) How did this PD help you
integrate technology in the classroom?; (8) How has your experience
using the technology tools in your classroom been?; (9) What makes this
PD different from other PD experiences?
Lastly, during the following semester after the PD, the researcher
observed participants while integrating the technology tools learned during
the program in their classrooms. A qualitative observational protocol was
used, in which descriptive notes summarizing in chronological fashion the
flow of activities in the classroom, as well as reflective notes on the class-
room experiences, processes, and activities were recorded (Creswell, 2007).
The researcher sat in the back of the classroom, observed two class periods
for each participant, and took notes. The researcher did not interact with
the students, first, to not interrupt the flow of the lesson, and second,
because the main purpose of the observation was to gather data on teach-
er’s integration of technology. Immediately after each observation, partici-
pants were interviewed again regarding the activities they conducted, their
use of Spanish when talking about technology to their students, students’
motivation when working with Web 2.0 tools, their access to technology
in the school and by the students at home, and integration of Web 2.0
throughout the school year. These second interviews were also recorded
using Audacity software.
In order to establish construct validity and reliability of the evidence,
three principles of data collection were used (Yin, 2018): (1) Multiple
sources of evidence provided multiple measures of the same phenom-
enon, in this case participants’ experiences in the online PD and conse-
quent integration of technology in their classrooms; (2) a case study
database with raw data was created using MAXQDA, a computer-assisted
qualitative analysis software (VERBI Software, 2016); and (3) a chain of
evidence was maintained, in which the research questions on partici-
pants’ experiences and the TPACK theoretical lens led the design of the
data collection protocol, generation of codes, and selection of evidence
from the case study database to develop the findings.
10 C. BUSTAMANTE

Figure 2. Categorization of emerging themes and codes within pedagogy, technology,

and content.

Data analysis
The two sets of interviews and focus group were transcribed verbatim
using Express Scribe software (https://www.nch.com.au/scribe/kb/656.
html). These data, together with the applications, journals, final papers,
and observation protocols, were imported into MAXQDA (VERBI
Software, 2016). A combination of inductive and deductive approaches
was used to analyze the data. An inductive analytical strategy (Corbin &
Strauss, 2015) was used first. Emerging descriptive and in vivo codes
were assigned to the body of raw data. Second, using a deductive
approach and following the theoretical framework that guided this
research, the TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) was used to
devise a hierarchical coding scheme (Lewins & Silver, 2007). Codes were
initially categorized according to the three main components—technol-
ogy, pedagogy, and content. Within each of the three categories, codes
that denoted patterns of closely related experiences were collapsed into
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 11

themes, as presented in Figure 2. Tables of themes, codes, and passages

from the different data sources were generated to categorize the findings.
To demonstrate the validity of this analysis, methodological triangula-
tion (Stake, 1995) was used. Coded texts from the documents, interviews,
and observations were compared with see if similar patterns were found
across the different methods of data collection. Also, member checking
was used as ‘a way of corroborating the essential findings and evidence
presented’ (Schatzman & Strauss, as cited in Yin, 2018, p. 241). The
description of the case and the findings were sent via email to the partic-
ipants to check for accuracy. Eleven participants responded to the
request for confirmation of accuracy of the findings, and all responded
affirmatively. A detailed description for each of the themes that depicted
the participants’ experience during the PD and integrating technology in
their classrooms was developed as well (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

Findings
The following narrative describes the TPACK-based (Mishra & Koehler,
2006) themes from Figure 2, identifying corresponding codes in italics.

Pedagogy
Classroom practices
The teachers learned that Web 2.0 tools foster teamwork and collabora-
tive learning. Neil commented:
Before this class, I viewed Web 2.0 as more of a means for producing
creative projects than as a means of fostering student-centered collabor-
ation. I was further impressed that collaboration happened not only as a
requisite for the creation of the project, but also as a means for post-
product evaluation.
In fact, this collaboration was a motivating factor for the participants
to work on their projects. Working with others was also a reason to put
further effort on their language output, as Jane expressed, ‘I really liked
that we had to leave comments on our classmates’ blogs because it made
me think a lot about what I was going to write, I wanted my entries to
be interesting for them.’ Participants also realized that working with
others is something that they sometimes forget to utilize in their own
classrooms, and that designing collaborative activities requires more
planning and attention to detail in order to create a successful experience
for all group members.
The experiences during the PD made some participants question their
textbook-based curriculum, ‘We are tied to learn from this book, and that
12 C. BUSTAMANTE

is not how learning happens,’ Kayla commented during the focus group.
The teachers expressed their frustrations about the lack of meaningful
tasks and communicative activities on their textbooks, and the content of
some units that were of no interest for the students. An important con-
clusion from the PD was that classroom activities should have a purpose
and a structure. This helps students to focus on the language when
working on a technology project. Kayla did not order a Spanish textbook
the school year following the PD and designed her own curricula includ-
ing all web-based projects learned.
Teachers appreciated how the PD modelled for them the incorporation
of literature in the curriculum, as it provides a meaningful context and it
can act as a vehicle to learn culture. ‘Cajas de carton and Senderos fron-
terizos both convey messages that are important for our students to hear:
messages such as ‘never give up’, ‘follow your dream,’ ‘work hard’,
‘family is important’, etc.’, Brandy reflected.

Assessment
Participants consistently reported a change in their assessment practices
as a consequence of the integration of Web 2.0 tools during the following
school year. ‘I will still give an occasional, you know, the pencil paper
test, where they have to write or choose the correct answer, but with the
web-based projects I can just assess so much more and they’ve learned
so much more,’ Mandy commented after her observation.
Teachers reported the use of web-based projects for both formative
and summative assessment. Some used smaller projects at the middle of
a unit that were mainly graded based on completion, and most assigned
a more complex project at the end of the units, as a summative assess-
ment where the students showed what they can actually do with the lan-
guage. When analyzing activities in the online discussion boards during
the PD, one of the topics facilitated by the instructor was how the modes
of communication (interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational;
ACTFL, 2012) were represented in these web-based projects. Brandy
changed dramatically the grading components in her class, assigning 75%
of the total grade to the assessment of the three modes of communica-
tion (25% each component), 15% homework, and 10% ePortfolio for
self-assessment.
Several teachers started to use rubrics in their classes for the first time
after their participation in the PD, reporting in fact that it has made
grading easier. They found the proficiency-based rubrics (Sandrock,
2010) to be a good model that they have been able to adapt or modify
according to their class needs.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 13

Most web-based projects in the PD required peer-review before pub-

lishing for final assessment by the instructor. It was a practice that was
not integrated by many, as Jenna reflected on one of her journal entries,
‘I learned that I do not give my students enough activities that force
them to read others’ work’. They experienced first-hand the benefits that
peer-review has for learning, like being able to realize things that need
correction or improvement after peers’ feedback, needing to focus more
on the language and grammar when reviewing classmate’s work, and
feeling trust on their own products. ‘The extra challenge was explaining
my opinions in the TL. It was a fantastic way to encourage a real-world
and purposeful use of the language,’ Jenna commented on the topic
again. Teachers realized that introducing technology-facilitated peer-
review practices to their classrooms contributed to a more student-cen-
tered environment and alleviated the teacher’s load.

Pedagogical beliefs
Readings on different aspects of pedagogy and the weekly discussion
helped the teachers make a connection between pedagogy and technology,
which was something they were not necessarily expecting from the PD.
Jane noted at the end of the program:
When I first signed up for the PD, I was mainly focused on tools that
I could incorporate into my classroom and not refining my own philoso-
phy of teaching. However, I have found that, just as important as the
tools that I have added to my repertoire, are the pedagogical implications
that come with each of them … I was surprised by technology’s ability
to create community, encourage creativity, and engage students in the
content, where they were the ones doing the work, not me.
These connections to pedagogy made some of the teachers change their
appreciations toward technology, as Diane noted, ‘I thought for a while
that maybe [technology] was just a fad. However, I now realize that it is a
legitimate resource for improving instruction and student learning.’
During the observations, participants were asked about their reasoning
behind the Web 2.0 activities they were conducting in their classes that
day. The teachers talked about communicative goals, practice of different
language skills, encouraging creativity rather than memorization, promot-
ing students’ talents, dual-coding, learning skills that students can transfer
to other areas such as synthesizing, personalizing learning, applying know-
ledge in an original product, peer language input as opposed to exclusive
teacher language input, scaffolding, and mind-mapping, among others.
Participants repeatedly expressed a connection between giving choices
to students and the promotion of creativity in their classrooms, as
Brandy commented:
14 C. BUSTAMANTE

Paper and pencil worksheets in which everyone is expected to do the

same work and come up with the same answer do not work in today’s
society or do they prepare students to meet the challenges of the 21st
century. This is how traditional classrooms kill creativity and kill stu-
dents’ desire to learn.
Anna expressed during her interview how the Web 2.0 tools really
enabled her to give her students more choices. ‘I think we do it less
when they get older, giving them more choice helped me enable them to
be producers, and I think that’s incredible.’ Choice was important, not
just as to which Web 2.0 tool to use, but also having options within the
projects when it comes to content. Some projects asked the participants,
for example, to select a character from the novel and create an avatar, or
choose a chapter and create a word cloud with the most representative
words. ‘I like that I could select myself the events that I thought were
important in Panchito’s life’, Karina wrote on her journal. Participants
that replicated these activities in their classrooms reported success with
the students.

Technology
Technological beliefs
Based on their experiences as learners during the PD, participants real-
ized the benefits that integrating Web 2.0 could bring to their classrooms.
‘Students’ participation can be multiplied with Web 2.0 tools and this is
what is important—learning, collaborating, and being creative’, Neil
wrote on his reflective paper.
Student motivation was connected to a change on students’ role in the
classroom, moving from consumers to producers of information, and
also from passive to active learners. ‘Technology will keep my students
engaged and will give them more ownership of their language learning.
When they have to create a product using the language—they are inter-
nalizing it—not simply memorizing it’, Mandy responded after her class-
room observation.
Another benefit of using these tools, repeatedly noted by the partici-
pants, was the ability to showcase students’ work to an audience, whether
it is peers or parents. ‘[The PD] has reaffirmed my belief that sharing
our students’ work with the world and community can only strengthen
students’ skills and lead to more originality and inspiration,’ Rose stated.
As learners during the PD, they enjoyed looking at their peers’ work and
receiving comments from others on their own products, which motivated
them to put further effort on the projects.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 15

Many participants changed their perceptions about technology as a con-

sequence of their participation in the PD. Some teachers did not think
they could actually be proficient on the use of web-based technologies.
Jenna said in her interview, ‘Technology: I was a little resistant because
it just seemed too difficult to figure out and to solve problems’. Going
through the experience as learners, using the tools and creating their
own products, changed her mind:
By having to create things and forcing me to use the tools, I realized
they really don’t scare me … I was able to use the tools and do things
that I enjoyed creating … Yeah, that was a huge shift for me.
Other teachers used to believe that technology was simply not for
everybody, just for those ‘who were on the cutting edge’. On her reflect-
ive paper, Bailey expressed how she overcame those feelings as she expe-
rienced the learning process herself. She realized that Web 2.0 ‘is
nothing ominous, out of reach, or attainable only by the techies. It is a
playground open to any and all, with very few limits’.

Technology proficiency
Participants repeatedly noted how positive this learning experience was
for them. However, it did not occur without challenges, especially for
those who had no previous experience integrating technology in their
classrooms. Teachers realized how much planning implementing these
projects requires, and how much time the products take for completion,
which helped them anticipate situations that their students might
encounter in the classroom.
Some problems were related to equipment, slow servers, and Internet
access. Laurie reflected in her journal, ‘The activity was not too difficult,
but I had problems again with my Internet and my computer. Ay! It’s a
problem when you live in a rural area where the Internet connection is
not great’. Typing accents in Spanish and publishing their products in
their ePortfolios and the class wiki were some of the tasks that were
referred as challenging by some participants. They shared these problems
in the discussion forum and obtained help from each other and from the
instructor, who was available via Skype. Also, some experienced frustra-
tion and realized they needed to be patient when learning and working
with technology, as it might not always work.
Participants expressed that the detailed directions for the activities and
the visual, clear instructions for each tool facilitated their learning. ‘I was
somewhat intimidated to use and create with new and unfamiliar online
tools, but had very little problems due to the explicit and detailed
instructions for each module,’ Anna stated in her reflective paper. These
visual instructions not only helped the teachers learning how to use the
16 C. BUSTAMANTE

Web 2.0 tools, but also made the technology integration process in their
classrooms easier, since those instructions were available for them to
print and use with their students.
Teachers learned how important instructions are for an effective inte-
gration of technology, where technology actually fosters Spanish use,
rather than detracting from it. Anna wrote in her reflective paper:
The instructions, clear, concise, and descriptive, will help the technology-
based lessons go smoothly and will reduce anxiety and stress of the stu-
dents. Therefore, the students will be able to create and explore, focusing
on the language instead of only on the ‘how-to’ portion of the projects.

Technology integration
During the observations, participants integrated in their Spanish lessons
a variety of tools learned during the PD to work on different topics.
They were confident using and modeling the tools for their students in
the classroom. In most cases, they were clear in directing students to
read the instructions, and walked around assisting students and were
able to answer questions about the tools, the projects, and the content.
‘Excited students’ were common words in the journals and interviews.
Jenna commented when talking about her heritage speaker students,
I remember hearing one of my students say while working on his
PhotoPeach, ‘If Ms. Jenna can make one, I bet I can make one better’
… The hard work they are willing to put into a PhotoPeach is so differ-
ent from the work they do in class. It is no longer just about a grade, it
is about making something that is worthwhile, and I can see that they
are genuinely engaged in the content.
Some teachers mentioned how the use of these tools in their class-
rooms fostered interaction. Laurie added,
I have been able to increase the amount of collaboration in my class-
room, by having students interview each other, check another person’s
work before publishing, and making projects together, such as the Prezi.
Because they did this all in Spanish, there were times I was amazed at how
much of the language they were putting into it without really thinking
about it, because they were focusing on the product, not on the language.
Later in the year during the observation, Kim also said that she had
received emails from parents with positive comments about their stu-
dents’ web-based products. Anna and Neil mentioned on the focus group
that many of their students were also using the tools in other classes.
The teachers mentioned a few instances of negative reactions to the
web-based activities as well. Laurie wrote in her reflective paper:
Occasionally my students have complained about all the tech projects
they have been doing. One said it was ‘easier’ just to do a worksheet, but
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 17

overall, most liked the variety of different projects that we tried, and
were glad for a change from the normal routine.
Although technology access cannot be counted as a consequence of
participation in the PD and is not controlled by the teachers, it was still
an essential condition for technology integration in the classroom.
One of the most common problems was blocked websites.
Interestingly, this was a problem mainly for the teachers in urban areas.
Out of this group, only two teachers had open access to the websites.
Omar talked to an administrator and they unblocked the sites only for
teachers’ use, so he was hoping eventually they would be open for stu-
dents as well. Teachers in rural areas did not report issues with the
school blocking access to Web 2.0 tools.
Also, many teachers complained about the lack of computers available.
‘We have two computer labs and it’s harder and harder to find a spot
because many teachers want to use them,’ Mandy reflected in her jour-
nal. She added at the end of the PD that she was considering ‘finding a
grant that I can write to purchase a class set (25) of either laptops or
iPads that I can have solely for my Spanish classroom.’ Others, like
Anna, said that the laptops at her school were too old and this caused
problems too. In many schools, participants had to share a laptop cart
with multiple teachers, sometimes even from different departments. This
made technology integration difficult for many, as they needed to sign
up weeks in advance to use the computers. In a few cases, when there
were computers available, they were allocated for other purposes, such as
state testing in other disciplines. Both Carrie and Omar commented that
during springtime it was almost impossible to reserve the computers.
The access to technology that students had at home also impacted the
integration of technology in some classrooms. Most teachers reported
after the observations that most of their students had access to com-
puters and internet at home, so they were able to assign web-based activ-
ities as homework, if students did not finish during the class period.
Student without access at home could use the library or study hall com-
puters at the school. However, Laurie and Jane experienced the opposite
situation, with a majority of students without access at home. They made
sure to always allocate enough time during class for the students to com-
plete their projects.

Content: Spanish
Proficiency
The PD not only helped the participants improve their teaching practices,
but also their Spanish language skills. They valued the opportunity to
18 C. BUSTAMANTE

work with authentic Spanish materials, receive input, and produce output
within context. They felt this practice increased their vocabulary, and
reading and writing abilities. Using Spanish for the collaborative projects
and the discussion boards gave them more confidence to use the lan-
guage. At the beginning of the course some felt nervous about speaking
in front of others, and they realized this happens to their students in the
classroom as well.
During the observations, use of Spanish in the classroom varied. Only a
few teachers spoke Spanish almost exclusively throughout the lesson, even
when talking about technology. Anna created her own instruction sheet in
Spanish for the activity, and although the students were asking many ques-
tions, she always referred them to the instructions. Some opted to use the
same instruction sheets from the PD with their students, but used Spanish
instruction verbally in the classroom when talking about it. Diane modeled
the tool for her students, simply saying, ‘Haz click aquı, luego vas aquı
(Click here, then go here)’. Some teachers felt that the instruction sheet in
English was necessary, due to the technical jargon that was above the lan-
guage level of the students, and in some cases, above their own language
level. Bailey mentioned that she had an upcoming unit on technology as
part of her Spanish class, where she was planning to introduce some of
the terms necessary when navigating Web 2.0 tools.
Code switching was a consistent practice among most teachers.
Interestingly, several teachers switched from Spanish to English specifically
when they talked about technology or the Web 2.0 projects. In a way, the
PD modeled this practice since the instruction sheets that contained the
technical details about the Web 2.0 tools, their interface, and settings were
in English. Several teachers followed this format, like Karina; ‘In the PD
those instructions were in English, so I’ll do it in English. But then when I
am interacting with the students I try to insert Spanish and not use so
much English’. Rose expressed during the interview that she wished she
had that technical vocabulary in Spanish to use with the students.
Lastly, there were a few teachers who did not use Spanish during the
lesson, with the exception of the greeting at the beginning of the class
and a few occasional words. One participant, a second language speaker
of Spanish, mentioned after the observation that she felt nervous to
speak Spanish in front of the researcher because she was a native
speaker, which might have influenced the oral performance of other par-
ticipants as well.

Professional community of Spanish teachers

The teachers valued the opportunity to collaborate exclusively with
Spanish teachers during the PD, hear different experiences, and network
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 19

with others across the state. This was especially regarded by those who
were in rural areas and were the only Spanish teacher at their school, as
Kayla commented during the focus group, ‘Now I have a group of people
who know what they are doing, we have been through it together, and I
can find some support. Because I mean, I am the foreign language
department in my school’. The groups for the Web 2.0 projects varied
for each module, so participants had the opportunity to work with all of
their peers, contributing to the development of the learning community.
Although working with others was not always easy, it was regarded as an
essential piece of the PD.
In every module, participants were asked in the discussion forum in
what other ways, besides the specific activity conducted, would they use
those tools in the Spanish classroom. Each week one of the teachers col-
lected all ideas from colleagues and posted them in the class wiki, still
available to the participants after the PD concluded. ‘We would discuss
each week what tools we used and what we did and you know, what
activities we would use in our classroom, which I think it was really
helpful to just see what worked for some people, what did not work, also
to see their ideas’, Mary added during her interview. Several teachers
commented at the point of the classroom observations that they still
used the class wiki to look for ideas for their classes.

Discussion
The theoretical underpinnings of this study rest on the TPACK frame-
work, which advocates for the integration of technology, pedagogy, and
specific content in teachers’ training, in order to enable effective integra-
tion of technology in the classroom. The Web 2.0 for Teachers of Spanish
PD provided participants with the tools to integrate technology in their
Spanish classrooms using best pedagogical practices, as it was corrobo-
rated in the findings.
Learning experiences extended over time, learning situated in authentic
contexts, collaborative problem solving, practice in the classroom, and
follow up of such practice have been identified as characteristics of
effective PD (Landry, Swank, Anthony, & Assel, 2011). This PD provided
the teacher participants with structured context-based learning experien-
ces over a period of 16 weeks, extensive peer collaboration, and opportu-
nities to integrate Web 2.0 activities in their classrooms, coupled with
reflection and discussion of such experiences, in addition to immersion
in their content knowledge/language. The online format of the PD not
only allowed access to teachers in rural areas (Boehm et al., 2012), but
also fostered the growth of a strong professional community, which has
20 C. BUSTAMANTE

been regarded to play a central role in continuous and effective teacher

PD (Vangrieken, Meredith, Packer, & Kyndt, 2017).
Accordingly, findings reported mainly positive learning experiences in
the three main analyzed areas from the framework (pedagogy, technol-
ogy, and content) and indicated that most participants integrated Web
2.0 tools in an effective way. A study by Beriswill et al. (2016) supports
these results. Foreign language teachers in a 20-day PD expressed that
the strongest aspects of the experience were activities that integrated sub-
ject-area content, pedagogy, and a model for technology integration. The
Web 2.0 for Teachers of Spanish PD not only taught technology to the
participants while being immersed in their content area, Spanish, but
also fostered reflection from a pedagogical perspective. It also provided a
model for technology integration via the collaborative group projects,
instructions for the tools, and rubric-based assessment.
Based on a study on PD on technology for EFL teachers, Ansyari
(2015) concluded that PD experiences ‘should include the TPACK frame-
work as a knowledge base, the design approach, active engagement,
authentic learning experiences in a collaborative environment, curricu-
lum coherency, an intensive program schedule, guidance, support, and
feedback’ (p. 699). This study substantiates these conclusions. The use of
the TPACK framework as a guide for the constituting elements of the
PD proved essential. Mishra and Koehler (2006) argued against the sep-
aration of pedagogical from technological knowledge in most PD’s on
technology. Having a technology experiential learning through the proj-
ects, paired with constant discussion on pedagogical perspectives, helped
participants make a connection between pedagogy and technology,
resulting in an acquired capability to support their technology integration
with theoretical underpinnings from language pedagogy. As a result,
observations revealed student engagement with the Web 2.0 projects
integrated by the teachers. Experiential language learning from the stu-
dent point of view via these hands on technology-based projects allowed
participants to change their prior negative perceptions about technology,
and led to a more effective integration in the classroom (Fuchs, 2016;
Hsu, 2016; Kuure et al., 2016).
In addition, having participants experience the collaboration in proj-
ects and evaluation via proficiency-based rubrics as students of Spanish
proved to have an impact in their instructional and assessment practices.
As the field is calling for performance-based assessment to evaluate lan-
guage proficiency (Sandrock, 2010), some teachers might find assessing
technology-based projects more difficult, becoming an additional barrier
to technology integration. This highlights the importance of providing a
clear model for instructions, and rubrics and assessment in technology
PD for language teachers (Bustamante & Moeller, 2013).
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 21

The content knowledge component of the TPACK framework sup-

ported an innovative program on technology for Spanish teachers in the
United States, delivered in the TL, which is unusual. However, the
instructions for the use of Web 2.0 tools were in English. Observations
in the participants’ classrooms, also as a means to triangulate self-
reported data, revealed that this had an impact on code-switching practi-
ces while integrating technology. As it is recommended that ‘language
educators and their students use the TL as exclusively as possible (90%
plus) at all levels of instruction’ (ACTFL, 2010), it is essential that teach-
ers not only learn the technology tools, but also the necessary vocabulary
that pertains to technology in the TL to be able to implement these proj-
ects in the classroom effectively.
Most studies using the TPACK framework utilized quantitative survey
methods to measure participants’ knowledge. This study made a contri-
bution from a methodological perspective by employing qualitative meth-
ods and depicting the thoughts and experiences of the participants,
which helped reveal effective PD practices that would help foreign lan-
guage teachers integrate technology in their classrooms more effectively.
The following recommendations for the design of effective PD on
technology for foreign language teachers are based on the findings from
this study and corroboration of findings in previous studies:

1. PD should address not only technology, but also its relationship to

foreign language pedagogy and content (Ansyari, 2015; Beriswill
et al., 2016; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
2. Teachers need to experience the creation of technology-based prod-
ucts within a meaningful language context, as their students would
(Fuchs, 2016; Hsu, 2016; Kuure et al., 2016).
3. Teachers benefit from receiving feedback via proficiency-based
rubrics on their products and use of Spanish (Sandrock, 2010), so
they can use their learning experiences as an assessment model to
integrate in the classroom.
4. Ample opportunities for collaboration and peer-review should be pro-
vided, so participants experience first-hand the benefits of the use of
Web 2.0 tools for learning (Izquierdo et al., 2015; Lan et al., 2015;
Wang & Vasquez, 2012).
5. PD should allow teachers enough time to navigate the projects, which
is the opposite case in conference sessions or one-day in-service
trainings (Landry et al., 2011).
6. PD needs to model structured activities as well as detailed instruc-
tions on how to use the technology tools that can be replicated or
adapted for their students (Bustamante & Moeller, 2013).
22 C. BUSTAMANTE

7. PD should include a module specific on technology vocabulary in the

TL, so teachers are better prepared to use L2 with their students
when introducing these projects. Providing instructions for the tools
in both English and the TL would help increase teachers’ technology
vocabulary and therefore maximize their use of the TL in the class-
room (ACTFL, 2010).
8. PD should include a reflection and discussion component for the
teachers to deconstruct from a pedagogical perspective the learning
that takes place (Ansyari, 2015; Beriswill et al., 2016).
9. Development of a professional community where teachers can share
ideas and support each other in taking risks and trying new strategies
in their classrooms that continues after the PD should be facilitated
(Vangrieken et al., 2017).

Limitations and future research

Case studies are criticized because of lack of generalizability due to the
number of participants (Jensen & Rodgers, 2001). Even though general-
ization was not a goal when using this approach, but rather to provide
an in-depth examination of the phenomenon, recreating the present
model for PD and study might serve to substantiate the generalizability
of these findings.
The TPACK framework argues that separation of discipline-specific
content knowledge and technology leads to ineffective integration of
technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). If the PD is delivered in the TL
and projects are conducted using the TL, one could argue that both
technological and content knowledge should improve. Although initially
this research did not intend to measure teachers’ proficiency in Spanish,
lack of this measure did not allow for solid conclusions on how the PD
helped the participants expand their TL skills, as the self-reported data
was not confirmed by observational data. Therefore, it is suggested for
future research studies on PD that follow this model to test participants’
language proficiency before and after the PD, or to conduct observations
early during the study to determine how teachers use the TL in
their classrooms.
Also, continued exploration of the use of web-based technologies
through research on classroom implementation is recommended, as com-
puters, tablets, and mobile technologies are continuing to increase avail-
ability in school settings. PD has been considered a vehicle to improve
learner performance, so it is of interest to further study the experiences
of the students after their teachers have participated in TPACK-
based PD.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 23

Conclusion
This research aimed to contribute new insights to the areas of foreign
language education and technology integration. The findings from this
study provide evidence for the effectiveness of a PD model in helping
teachers learn and incorporate Web 2.0 tools in their Spanish classes.
Empirical qualitative research using TPACK has been limited in foreign
language and PD. Using this framework not only to conceptualize the
PD model, but also as a theoretical reference for its evaluation, proved
to be useful in guiding the categorization of data in the qualitative
analysis, which enhanced the understanding of this case study. It is
the hope of the author that this work will provide guidance for
the development and evaluation of PD on technology for lan-
guage teachers.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Dr. Aleidine J. Moeller for the opportunity to develop
this project. This work is derived from the author’s doctoral dissertation
(Bustamante, 2014).

Funding
This work was supported by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln via the Day
Dissertation Award, and the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Association (USA) via the Modern Language Journal Dissertation Support Grant.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributors
Carolina Bustamante is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the State
University of New York at Old Westbury. She coordinates the Graduate Spanish
Adolescence Education Program and teaches courses on foreign language pedagogy,
pedagogy for heritage speakers, language assessment, technology, SLA, and Spanish. Her
published research has focused on professional development for teachers of Chinese,
German, and Spanish, and mixed methods research. Her current research interests are
professional development for foreign language teachers, development of heritage speak-
ers as language teachers, and integrated performance assessment.

ORCID
Carolina Bustamante http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4379-2346
24 C. BUSTAMANTE

References
ACTFL. (2010). Use of the target language in the classroom. Retrieved from https://
www.actfl.org/news/position-statements/use-the-target-language-the-classroom
ACTFL. (2012). Performance descriptors for language learners. Retrieved from https://
www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/PerformanceDescriptorsLanguageLearners.pdf
Ansyari, M. F. (2015). Designing and evaluating a professional development programme
for basic technology integration in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(6), 699–712.
Baran, E., Chuang, H., & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An emerging research and
development tool for teacher educators. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(4), 370–377.
Baser, D., Kopcha, T. J., & Ozden, M. Y. (2016). Developing a Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) assessment for preservice teachers learning
to teach English as a Foreign Language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4),
749–764. doi:10.1080/09588221.2015.1047456
Beriswill, J. E., Bracey, P. S., Sherman-Morris, K., Huang, K., & Lee, S. J. (2016).
Professional development for promoting 21st century skills and common core state
standards in foreign language and social studies classrooms. TechTrends: Linking
Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 60(1), 77–84. doi:10.1007/s11528-015-
0004-5
Boehm, R. G., Brysch, C. P., Mohan, A., & Backler, A. (2012). A new pathway: Video-
based professional development in geography. Journal of Geography, 111(2), 41–53.
doi:10.1080/00221341.2011.584068
Bustamante, C. (2014). Professional development on Web 2.0 for teachers of Spanish: A
mixed methods case study (doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE.
Bustamante, C. (2017). TPACK and teachers of Spanish: Development of a theory-based
joint display in a mixed methods research case study. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 1, 8–22.
Bustamante, C., & Moeller, A. (2013). The convergence of content, pedagogy, and tech-
nology in online professional development for teachers of German. CALICO Journal,
30(1), 82–104. doi:10.11139/cj.30.1.82-104
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory
into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Fuchs, C. (2016). ‘Are you able to access this website at all?’ – Team negotiations and
macro-level challenges in telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
29(7), 1152–1168. doi:10.1080/09588221.2016.1167091
Hsu, L. (2016). Examining EFL Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
and the adoption of mobile-assisted language learning: A partial least square
approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1287–1297. doi:10.1080/
09588221.2016.1278024
Izquierdo, J., De la Cruz, V., Aquino, S., Sandoval Caraveo, M. C., & Garcıa, V. (2017).
Teachers’ use of ICTs in public foreign language education: Evidence from secondary
schools. Comunicar. Revista de Comunicacion y Educacion, 50(XXV), 33–41.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 25

Izquierdo, J., Simard, D., & Garza, G. (2015). Multimedia instruction & language learn-
ing attitudes: A study with university-students. Revista Electronica de Investigacion
Educativa, 17(2), 101–115.
Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2010). Expanding the practice-based taxonomy of characteristics
of TPACK. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3868–3875).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Jensen, J. L., & Rodgers, R. (2001). Cumulating the intellectual gold of case study
research. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 235–246. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00025
Jimenez, F. (2002). Cajas de carton. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. doi:
10.1086/ahr/20.2.396
Jimenez, F. (2002). Senderos fronterizos. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. doi:
10.1086/ahr/20.2.396
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Lim, W. Y. (2017). Teacher professional development for
TPACK-21CL: Effects on teacher ICT integration and student outcomes. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 172–196. doi:10.1177/0735633116656848
Kuure, L., Molin-Juustila, T., Keisanen, T., Riekki, M., Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2016).
Switching perspectives: From a language teacher to a designer of language learning
with new technologies. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29 (5), 925–941. doi:
10.1080/09588221.2015.1068815
Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T., Cheng, C. C., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Computer-supported
cooperative prewriting for enhancing Young EFL learners’ writing performance.
Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 134–155.
Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Anthony, J. L., & Assel, M. A. (2011). An experimental
study evaluating professional development activities within a state funded
pre-kindergarten program. Reading and Writing, 24(8), 971–1010. doi:10.1007/s11145-
010-9243-1
Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2007). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step
guide. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Mouza, C. (2009). Does research-based professional development make a difference? A
longitudinal investigation of teacher learning in technology integration. Teachers
College Record, 111(5), 1195–1241.
Mouza, C. (2011). Promoting urban teachers’ understanding of technology, content, and
pedagogy in the context of case development. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 44(1), 1–29. doi:10.1080/15391523.2011.10782577
Mueller, J. (2010). Observational measures of Technological, Pedagogical, Content
Knowledge (TPACK) in The integration of laptop computers in elementary writing
instruction. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3907–3910).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
NCSSFL & ACTFL. (2017). Can-do statements. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/
publications/guidelines-and-manuals/ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements
Niess, M., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2010). Advancing K-8 mathematics and science teachers
knowledge for teaching with technology through an online graduate program. In D.
Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
26 C. BUSTAMANTE

Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3911–3919). Chesapeake, VA:

AACE.
Orenga-Rogla, S., & Chalmeta, R. (2016). Social customer relationship management: tak-
ing advantage of Web 2.0 and Big Data technologies. SpringerPlus, 5(1462), 1–17.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Sandrock, P. (2010). The keys to assessing language performance. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.
Schrum, L., & Levin, B. (2009). Leading 21st century schools: Harnessing technology for
engagement and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corvin.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of quali-
tative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stoilescu, D., & McDougall, D. (2010). Case studies of teachers integrating computer
technology in mathematics. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 2944–2952).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Tsai, C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The ‘third’-order barrier for technology-integration
instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 28(6), 1057–1060.
Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a
context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher
Education, (61 )., 47–59. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001
VERBI Software. (2016). MAXQDA 2018 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI
Software. Retrieved from https://www.maxqda.com
Wang, S., & Vasquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the
research tell us?. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 412–430. doi:10.11139/cj.29.3.412-430
Xiaobin, L., Wei, Z., Huiwen, Z., & Lijun, J. (2014). Chinese EFL teachers’ application of
E-educology of foreign languages: An investigation based on TPACK framework.
Teaching English with Technology, 14(1), 47–75.
Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.