Vol. 35 No. 2 (2020)
Research Articles

Exploring Video Conferencing as Possible Tool to Teach English in Public Schools in Paraguay

Leonardo Sandoval
Universidad Nacional de Asunción, Paraguay
Valentina Canese Caballero
Universidad Nacional de Asunción, Paraguay

How to Cite

Sandoval, L., & Canese Caballero, V. (2020). Exploring Video Conferencing as Possible Tool to Teach English in Public Schools in Paraguay. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 35(2). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1129


The Ministry of Education of Paraguay (MEC) has introduced the teaching of English in public primary education in 2012. However, the number of English teachers was not enough to meet the high demand, especially because the majority of those teachers reside in the central department of the country. As a response, this qualitative research study was designed to examine the feasibility of teaching English via videoconferencing. In the process, semi-structured interviews served as the main data collection instrument, leading to the conclusion that videoconferencing could become an effective teaching option, but it will not be feasible until a project fostered by governmental institutions in coordination with departmental governments join forces towards a common and synchronised objective. Technology could become a meaningful teaching tool; albeit, an expensive one. Therefore a sustainable action plan should be elaborated for a successful implementation that yields the expected outcomes.


  1. Anastasiades, P. S. (2009). Interactive videoconferencing and collaborative distance learning for K-12 students and teachers: Theory and practice. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
  2. Anderson, T. Dr., & Rourke, L. M.Ed. (2005). Videoconferencing in kindergarten-to-grade 12 settings: A review of the Literature. Alberta: Crown.
  3. Banegas, D. L. (2013). ELT through videoconferencing in primary schools in Uruguay: First steps. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 7(2), 179-188.
  4. Bates, A.W. T. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education. London: Routledge.
  5. Bell, J. (2010). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science. Berkshire: Open U.P.
  6. Benítez, N. (2016): Personal communication, July 2016.
  7. Bozkurt, A., & Ataizi, M. (2015). English 2.0: learning and acquisition of English in the networked globe with the connectivist approach. Contemporary Educational Technology. 155-168.
  8. Bramble, W. J., & Panda, S. (2008). Economics of distance and online learning: Theory, practice and research. New York: Routledge.
  9. British Council. (2013). The English effect: The impact of English, what It’s worth to the UK and why it matters to the world. London: British Council.
  10. Cisco. (2012). Cisco telePresence sx20 quick set. California: Cisco.
  11. Comber, C., et al. (2004). Report for schools of the DfES video conferencing in the classroom project. University of Leicester and University of Cambridge.
  12. (CONATEL) Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones.(2016). Plan nacional de telecomunicaciones: Paraguay 2016-2020. Asunción: CONATEL.
  13. COPACO. (n.d.). Internet: Servicios y Planes. Copaco S.A. Retrieved from https://www.copaco.com.py/portal/index.php/internet-click/planes-y-tarifas.html. 18 Aug 2016.
  14. CPA-Ferrere. (2010). Principales lineamientos estratégicos. Montevideo: Plan Ceibal.
  15. Demiray, U., & Sharma, R. C. (2009). Ethical practices and implications in distance learning. Hershey: IGI Global.
  16. (DGEEC) Dirección General de Estadística, Encuestas y Censos. (2015). Paraguay-departamentos, Paraguay-municipios. Retrieved from http://www.dgeec.gov.py/. 18 July 2016.
  17. (DGPE) Dirección General de Planificación Educativa. (2011). Paraguay: Educación en cifras 2011. Asunción: Ministerio de Educación y Cultura.
  18. Ehrlich-Martin, S. M. (2006). A Case study of an American sign language course taught via videoconferencing. Cincinnati: Diss. University of Cincinnati.
  19. Fullan, M., Watson, N., & Anderson, S. (2013) Ceibal: next steps. Toronto: Michael Fullan Enterprises.
  20. Goetz, K. (August 2000). Perspectives on team teaching. EGallery 1(4). Retrieved from https://people.ucalgary.ca/~egallery/goetz.html. 22 Aug. 2015.
  21. Hankinson, K. M. (2012). Assessing the relationship between classroom interaction and perceived student learning in videoconferencing in remote sites: A Social learning approach. Michigan: Diss. Eastern Michigan University.
  22. Harris, M. (2003). What the research says about video conferencing in teaching and learning. Coventry: Becta.
  23. Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  24. Lundgren, D. D. (2012). The effects of a videoconferencing implementation project on educators’ level of concern in southwest Michigan schools. Michigan: Diss. Andrews University.
  25. (MEC) Ministerio de Educación y Cultura. (2015a). Mejoramiento de las condiciones de aprendizaje mediante la incorporación de TIC en establecimientos educativos y unidades de gestión educativa, en Paraguay: 2015-2019. Asunción: MEC.
  26. (MEC) Ministerio de Educación y Cultura. (2015b). Presentación del proyecto de presupuesto 2016. Asunción: MECDigital.
  27. Motteram, G. (2013). Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching. London: British Council.
  28. Stanley, G. (2015). Plan ceibal english: Remote teaching of primary school children in Uruguay through videoconferencing. n.p.: Garnet Publishing.
  29. Warry, E. (2011). Developing a video-conferencing model for investigating British archaeology in schools. London: Diss. University College London.
  30. White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.