Dialogical experiences in, for, and from technologically mediated contexts in teacher education

This work proposes an analysis of pedagogical experiences developed in the context of university teacher education in dialogue with two different chronotopes: habitual face-to-face teaching modality and exceptional non-face-to-face teaching modality due to the COVID lockdown. We consider here two cases of Language and Literature teacher education courses in two universities in Argentina. Both experiences share the search for an equitable, dialogical interaction, in which there is a recovery of the students’ opinions and criteria for the progressive and collaborative elaboration of knowledge. From a qualitative perspective, we resorted to autoethnographic narratives elaborated by the responsible teaching teams of the courses. In the approach we propose, there is a dialogue among different elements of our inquiry: a dialogue between the conceptions that we assume as teachers and researchers about teaching in face-to-face and virtual environments; a dialogue between the conceptualizations and concrete teaching-decisions; between the contexts of performance and the possibilities offered by virtuality; between the pedagogical experiences and the narratives; between the records and other materials that allow us to reconstitute these experiences; and between our voices and the voices of students and graduates who give us back evaluations and sustain the continuity of the dialogue. The analysis accounts for the definition of different chronotopes in the experiences and moments addressed. In both cases, the differences observed respond to contextual factors, particularities of the courses and the previous experiences that the teaching teams have had with ICT. Beyond the above-mentioned differences, for the exceptional non-face-to-face proposals, a greater stability in the proposed sequences and in the dynamics involved is observed in the two experiences, which seeks to generate greater predictability.

In this regard, the ways in which Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) or digital technologies 1 are integrated into the classroom for educational purposes seems to be associated with three factors: the training that teachers have received, the possibilities of experiencing and re-signifying these technologies in different teaching and learning situations (Garrido et al., 2008) and the potential to reflect upon the new repertoires for the teaching practices (Terigi et al., 2011). We assume that a pedagogy based on horizontal dialogues involving interaction with different actors, resources and digital materials that would allow us to create learning opportunities for teachers being trained provides new meanings to the integration with the ICT in their future practices.
With these reflections in mind, we approach pedagogical experiences developed in the context of university teacher education in dialogue with two different chronotopes (Bakhtin, 1981): habitual face-toface teaching modality and exceptional non-face-to-face teaching modality. The notion of chronotope allows us to recover the intrinsic relationships between space and time, as interdependent social constructions, in the configuration of singular teaching and learning experiences. We are particularly interested in recovering the planning decisions that support the transformations between both scenarios. These decisions were aimed at strengthening their dialogical dimension.
The notion of chronotope places the subjects, their words, values, and their inexhaustible capacity to produce meanings at the center. Likewise, it encourages a reading of time in space, since time cannot be separated from the specific place where a certain event took place (Bajtin, 1982). That is to say: the phenomena -in our case, the pedagogical experiences-must be read in a spatialized and temporalized way. However, the educational chronotope cannot be reduced only to the space-time issue but also involves aspects such as axiology, participation, social relations, and agency (Matusov, 2015).
In this context, we understand time as the fourth dimension of space (Arfuch, 2005;Bajtin, 1975). Therefore, we assume that a chronotope does not appear as a pre-existing or pre-defined dimension, but DT125 is constructed at the time of teaching, and a result of teaching-decisions and communicational dynamics promoted in the context of concrete pedagogical experiences. As Blommaert and De Fina (2017) argue: "A shorthand term such as chronotope enables us to avoid an analytical separation of behavior and context, which is not matched by the experiences of people engaged in such activities" (p. 4).
Here, we consider two cases of Language and Literature teacher education courses in two universities in Argentina. When choosing the cases, we have specially considered that both experiences share the search for an equitable, dialogical interaction where there is a recovery of the students' opinions and criteria for the progressive and collaborative elaboration of knowledge (Velasco & Alonso, 2008).
In the review we propose, there is a dialogue among different elements of our inquiry: our conceptions about teaching in face-to-face and virtual environments, how these conceptions dialogue with concrete teaching decisions, the contexts of performance with the possibilities for doing in virtuality, pedagogical experiences with the narratives, records and other materials that allow us to reconstitute them (Perrenoud, 2007), our voices with the voices of students and graduates who give us back evaluations and who sustain the continuity of the dialogue. In this sense, we assume that dialogic education does not end with the work with students but also involves a work among colleagues that allows us to add new voices to this collective construction in teacher education, from a review of our practices that aims at strengthening the process.

The experiences and their voices
The analysis focuses on two cases linked to the teacher education for teachers of Language and Literature in Argentina: • Language and Literature Teaching, the first subject devoted to Didactics within the study program of the degree Profesorado Universitario de Educación Superior en Lengua y Literatura at Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento (UNGS), an institution located in the northwest of the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires, in the province of Buenos Aires.
• Linguistics Seminar, a subject that closes the part of the curriculum devoted to languages and linguistics within the study program of the degree Profesorado en Lengua y Literatura at Universidad Autónoma de Entre Ríos (UADER), an institution located in the province of Entre Ríos.
Within the framework of these two Teacher Education programs, we have analyzed two experiences: in the first case, one of the three sections that make up the subject; in the second case, one of the projects around which the seminar is structured. Furthermore, we analyzed two instances in each of these courses: the first instance, corresponding to the year before the COVID pandemic (2019), when both experiences were developed as face-to-face courses with some virtual activities, and the second instance, when the virtual mode was the only situation available since the face-to-face meetings had been cancelled in the country due to COVID lockdown (2020). This context of compulsory virtualization offered the opportunity to analyze the decisions concerning planning made to strengthen the dialogical dimension of the planned courses in both instances: conventional face-to-face and exceptional non-face-to-face teaching modality.
In both cases, we focus on the reconstruction of experiences based on narratives that allow us to objectify and rethink them. Thus, we set out a qualitative approach that resorts to records kept by the team of professors involved in gathering information and we propose to recover three concepts by Wegerif (2013) -opening, widening and deepening dialogical spaces -as movements and categories for the analysis of the decisions made, refined through additional emergent categorization. We are particularly interested in DT126 exploring the interaction between dialogue and digital technologies, analyzing transformations that are not necessarily unidirectional (Rasmussen & Ludvigsen, 2010).
Thus, we resorted to autoethnographic narratives (Ellis & Bochner, 2000) elaborated by the responsible teaching teams of the courses at both analyzed moments. These narratives were based on various records, constituted in documents from conservation and safeguarding practices (Narvaja de Arnoux, 2009): teaching planning, narrative class records, student feedbacks obtained in different instances, final evaluations of students, and the teaching team.
Narratives allow addressing the relationship between documented and undocumented aspects of pedagogical experiences from the point of view of their participants. While documented experiences refer to registered facts, undocumented experiences are associated with day-to-day life (Rockwell, 2009). We also recognize that everyday life involves both historical and unique practices. Narrated knowledge is situated knowledge (Vázquez Recio, 2017) from which it is not intended to access "the real" but rather to address experiences in which space, time, and emotions converge in an inseparable way. In this way, we recover what Arfuch (2005) names as a "detail plane," not to stay there but to promote, from its approach, a reading that can be put into dialogue, rethought, challenged by other readings from other spaces-times-emotions.
From this framework, we understand narratives as a way of generating knowledge (Goodall, 2008) that articulates the personal with the cultural contexts. This articulation involves our way of situating ourselves as subjects in the face of what has been done, as well as the evaluations that recover theoretical and methodological positions in the field. In this regard, the versions of these texts that we share here have transformed narrative into explanation, in order to condense the fundamental information of these materials.
Finally, for the communication of each experience, we opted for an expository sequence that starts from the contextualization of degrees and subjects; focuses on concrete experiences, giving an account of their particularities, with special attention to the link between experiences and ICT in the habitual face-toface teaching modality; it presents a sequencing that articulates didactic strategies, activities, and resources in each of the two moments addressed.
We proposed, in each case, an evaluation of the teaching decisions, and we identified a series of dialogues that allowed us to address continuities of experiences and singularities.

Experience 1
Language and Literature Teaching is a four-month course taught throughout a semester. Within the curriculum, it corresponds to the fourth year of the course of studies, more precisely to the eighth semester. The subject, which is usually taught as face-to-face education, is divided into three sections: I. Language Teaching, II. Literature Teaching, and III. Language and Literature Teaching mediated by digital and interactive technologies. In this paper we focus on Section III 2 (from now on SIII), which comprises 32 hours generally distributed in 8 weekly sections of 4 periods of 60 minutes each).
In SIII two units are proposed for the analysis: one that puts digital and interactive technologies in dialogue with the educational field, in general, and the other with the teaching of Language and Literature, in particular. The pedagogical proposal is articulated around two methodological strategies. On the one DT127 hand, it distances itself from the exclusively expository class, centered on the professor, to combine the systematization of concepts in which strategies are deployed to promote student participation with individual and group activities (small and large groups). On the other hand, and closely related to the above, a workshop-like dynamic is encouraged, aimed at the progressive articulation between the theoretical and practical instances. This implies, among other pedagogical actions, that students experiment with tools that favor the production and inclusion of technologies in teaching. In this sense, the development of pedagogical plans is articulated with a virtual space of the subject, designed by teacher in the Moodle platform of the UNGS, as well as with other programs and digital applications. The virtual space of the subject initially provides the bibliography and other general resources of the section, and is then organized by classes, enabling the student to find in each one all the necessary components in relation to the proposed activities (document with instructions, applications, and various resources, among others). Moodle is an educational platform at hand, which is actually a locus for action, a context, and a medium for the establishment of dialogue and interactions. Moreover, SIII is usually taught in a university computer lab, where there is at least one computer with an Internet connection for every two students and a projector. Accordingly, even in the face-to-face course, most of the proposed educational activities involve technological mediation.
Below we describe the dynamics of the proposed activities, initially, during the first instance and, subsequently, in the second instance.
In the first instance, 9 students (all women, 20-30 years old, with basic knowledge about ICT uses) took the course and, due to several holidays, there were 7 weeks of work: six of them with a face-to-face class and activities during and after that class; and another one in which an academic meeting was held. It is important to remember that during face-to-face (on-site) classes and homework assignments, we use the virtual space of the subject in the Moodle platform organized as previously indicated. In fact, face-to-face classes were held in a computer lab where students used the platform and different apps.
Throughout the course and in relation to each proposed activity, the asynchronous exchange channel was enabled by e-mail between the professor and the rest of the students. The professor shared the queries and concerns with the whole group when she considered it relevant.
As shown in the table below, classes 1, 2, 4, and 5 were organized in a very similar sequence: 1) systematization elaborated by professors and students on the contents previously studied (except in class 1 when the beginning was dedicated to introductions); 2) systematization of concepts read involving student participation through specific activities (e.g., comparison of reading and writing practices with printed and digital materials); and 3) planning and development of at least one weekly activity in which students were encouraged to establish different connections between theoretical concepts and diverse situations in which technologies were involved (the participants' own lives, curricular designs, applications, digital didactic materials, educational experiences, and didactic sequences). These activities, which were proposed in the classroom, were in some cases developed completely or partially at home and included individual work dynamics, work in small groups, and with all participants. The activities were presented on the basis of a brief written document that allowed the students to understand what they had to do and for what purpose, with whom, with what digital and non-digital resources, and how, as well as possible criteria for evaluating what they had done and the process of doing it. All activities involved the use of digital technologies (Power Point, video editors, forum, Moodle glossary or wiki, shared documents in Google Drive, among others).

DT128
To show the pedagogical sequence, the activities and resources used during the different weeks are shown in the Table: WEEK ACTIVITIES RESOURCES 1 Before the face-to-face class E-mail from the professor to the group indicating some readings and inviting the students to explore the virtual space of the subject and the syllabus that appears there.
-Presentation of students (how advanced they are in their course of studies, interests, whether or not they are teaching, expectations for the section).
-Presentation of Section III.
-Systematization of fundamental concepts from the proposed bibliography on technologies and digital culture, promoting the participation of the students in this activity using different strategies (questions and specific activities). During this systematization, for example, images are presented that illustrate reading and writing practices of printed and digital materials on screen in a comparative way, and students are invited to characterize similarities and differences between these practices. In this way, concepts about technologies and digital culture are approached in relation to the students' own experience and their reflections on what they have read.
-After having shared a conceptualization of digital technologies and their characteristics, students were invited to write a short paper about their own experience with digital technologies in a wiki. In the approach of this activity, as in the following ones, the possible evaluation criteria were discussed with the students, making adjustments where necessary. In the development of the activity and following the instructions, students included images and hypertexts. The teacher, in some cases, explained, when students requested it, the ways to include them in the wiki.

Homework assignments
-Development of Activity 1.
-Professor's feedback related to the activity in the same wiki. The development of this activity allows to Syllabus of the subject.
Printed and digitalized bibliographic materials.
Power Point document, as a basis for the systematization.
Documents with the instructions for Activity 1.
Moodle Wiki to share Activity 1 and its feedback.
E-mail for interaction between professor and the group of students. DT129 recognize the uses of digital technologies that students make in educational contexts and outside them, as well as their knowledge about the wiki functionalities such as including hypertexts and images. Some specificities can also be recognized with respect to writing practices.
-Reading of materials indicated by the professor for class 2 -Interaction between the professor and the students by e-mail based on feedback and other queries about the contents and the development of the activities. 2 Face-to-face class -Systematization built among professors and students based on Activity 1 and what was studied in the previous class.
-Systematization of fundamental concepts of the proposed bibliography on ICT in the educational field, promoting student participation with different strategies. Thus, during the systematization, students are asked to recall their own experience with the use of ICT in the classroom and also to mention digital resources they have used in educational contexts. In this way, concepts about ICT in education and the changes they bring about are recovered in relation to the students' own experience and their reflections on what they have read.
-Approach and development of Activity 2 in dyads: in relation to the conceptualization and classification of digital resources, an exploration of this type of resources was proposed as well as the creation of an entry in a Moodle glossary on digital resources for the teaching of Language and Literature.
-Discussion over group Activity 3 (3-4 students) carried out over two weeks: according to concepts from the bibliography, analysis of an educational experience with the use of ICT, "Cortos en la Net" (Short films on the Net). This experience is recorded in a video which was shared in Moodle.

Homework assignments
-Resolution of Activity 3.
Printed and digitalized bibliographic materials.
Videos in which various specialists refer to concepts from the bibliography and related notions.
Power Point document, as a basis for the systematization.
Documents with the instructions for Activities 2 and 3.
Video with the educational experience to be analyzed in Activity 4.
Moodle glossary for Activity 2 and feedback on it.
Wikis for the elaboration of Activity 3 and feedback on it.
E-mail for interaction between professor and students.

DT130
-Professor's comments related to Activity 3; in some cases, it was suggested to the rest of the students to include observations.
Interaction between the professor and the students by e-mail, based on questions about the contents and the development of the activities. 3 On-site academic event: I Meeting of Educational Technology. Teaching reading and writing with digital technologies.
Students taking the subject participated together with a group of students taking the subject Educational Technology for the Bachelor's Degree in Education. The same professor is responsible for both subjects. In this event, which took place one afternoon in a face-toface context, two Language and Literature teachers from the university were invited to share their experiences with the integration of ICT to their subjects at schools. The aim was to promote dialogue between digital culture and the teaching of reading and writing through the exchange between these teachers and the participants of the event.
Homework assignments -Resolution of Activity 3.
-Reading of bibliography indicated for class 4.
-Interaction between the professor and the students by e-mail based on feedback and questions about the contents and the development of the activities.
Digital document on the academic event. 4

Face-to-face class
-Systematization elaborated between the professor and the students regarding Activities 2 and 3 and what was studied in the previous classes, as well as the main aspects of the event from the previous week.
-Systematization of fundamental concepts of the bibliography on ICT and Language and Literature teaching, promoting student participation with different strategies. Thus, during the systematization, among other activities, curricular designs related to the area of Language and Literature were analyzed, focusing, particularly, how some of them dialogue with technologies and digital culture.
-Approach and development of Activity 4 individually and in class: according to concepts from the Printed and digitalized bibliographic materials.
Power Point document, as a basis for the systematization.
Documents with the instructions for Activity 4.
E-mail for interaction between professor and students.

DT131
bibliography, analysis of a pedagogical proposal that encourages the inclusion of digital and interactive technologies in the teaching of Language and Literature. Students were asked to take notes of what was analyzed to share it later in class.
-Sharing and systematization related to Activity 4.

Homework assignments
-Reading of bibliography indicated for class 5. 5 Face-to-face class -Systematization elaborated between the professor and the students based on what has been studied in the subject so far.
-Systematization of fundamental concepts from the bibliography on the design of sequences for the teaching of Language and Literature with ICT, promoting the participation of students with different strategies. Thus, during the systematization, we recovered the analysis made in the previous class, in order to establish dialogues with some conceptualizations, among other activities.
-Exposition and initial steps for the development of the final individual assignment: elaboration of a didactic sequence for the teaching of language integrating digital and interactive technologies. Presentation of what was done in the previous class. The instructions were shared, indicating how to develop the sequence and how to present it. The evaluation criteria were also discussed, in some cases making certain adjustments based on the students' comments. The students began to plan this sequence in a shared Google Drive document and, in relation to this, they consulted the professor and their peers.

Homework assignments
-Development of the final assignment and interaction between the professor and each student based on the comments in the shared document.
-Interaction between the professor and the students via e-mail based on the queries that arose.
Printed and digitized bibliographic materials.
Different digitalized materials based on the topic chosen for the final assignment of each student.
Power Point document, as a basis for the systematization.
Documents with the instructions for the final assignment.
Documents shared through Google Drive.
E-mail for interaction between professor and the group of students. 6

Face-to-face class
-Individual tutoring with the professor to focus on the final assignment. During these sessions, each student talked with the professor about the development of the didactic sequence, making adjustments where

DT132
necessary. There was also a dialogue about the ways of presenting what had been done to the whole group.

Homework assignments
Development of the final assignment by consulting the professor via e-mail. Interaction was also established between the professor and each student based on the comments in the shared document. 7 Homework assignments -Individual presentation of the final assignment and dialogue with the whole group about what has been done.
-Shared discussion about the challenges and opportunities of the subject.
Audiovisual or printed documents prepared by some students for their presentations.
Although the sequence of the aforementioned classes is very similar, the dynamics between professors and students gradually changed. This was associated, on the one hand, with the fact that the activities designed to achieve systematization were not the same in all classes, which implied a certain variation in the activity. On the other hand, student participation, which was initially achieved through very specific activities designed especially for this purpose, was also generated more spontaneously as the classes went by. This participation was encouraged and valued by the teacher and also by the whole group. Thus, students who had remained silent in the first classes began to participate 3 .
In classes 6 and 7, the sequence of activities was very different: in class 6, individual tutoring sessions were held, aimed at establishing dialogues that would contribute to the development of the final assignment, as well as its presentation to the whole group in the final class. Class 7 revolved around the presentations of the assignments and the group interaction based on them.
The course is thus based on a series of articulated dialogues: • between the professor and the students in the conceptual systematizations; • between the professor and the students in relation to the different weekly activities, either in person or virtually via e-mail or through the applications used (e.g., comments on shared documents); • between the professor and each student through individual tutoring sessions; • between the professor and each student or some members of small groups in relation to the different weekly activities; • between professors, students and other actors from the educational field through academic meetings; María Beatriz Taboada, Guadalupe Álvarez

DT133
• between previous knowledge and new knowledge related to technologies and digital culture; • between theoretical and practical knowledge, taking into account the experience of the students themselves with digital technologies, as well as the challenges of their integration in educational experiences; • between modes of representation of the contents of the course based on bibliographic materials, but also on shared visual and audiovisual materials; • between the knowledge involved in the different classes, for which the systematization of what has been studied and previously worked on in each class has been relevant, as well as the exchange between professor and students and among students; • between the contents and materials selected in the initial design of the subject and new contents and materials that were shared based on the students' concerns and the needs of the assignments they carried out.
In short, in the different activities developed at the first moment, spaces for dialogue were opened and the points of view questioned were diversified and deepened.
Therefore, as we have anticipated, in the systematizations of the concepts, the participants interacted, and dialogues were also established between the theoretical knowledge derived from the bibliography and the experience and knowledge of the students.
Likewise, the articulations established by professors and students between the contents and activities of one class and the previous one enabled the deepening of the points of view involved and of the concepts developed throughout the course.
Also, the weekly activities generated the opening of spaces for dialogue between the students and the professor and between the students and each other. These activities, in turn, implied a dialogic circuit between previous knowledge and the conceptualizations presented in the bibliography. Sometimes, the need to resort to materials and contents not initially planned was acknowledged, depending on the students' concerns and their activities.
The personalized tutoring sessions also made it possible to deepen the points of view and work on the needs of each student according to the cut-outs made for the designed sequence. In this sense, it should be noted that the students used materials that they requested from the professor or that they found themselves, which had not been initially selected for the subject, but which were relevant for the final assignment.
The diversification of points of view and voices was represented by the diversity of sources consulted and also by the different participants. In this sense, it is worth mentioning the development of the meeting in which teachers from secondary schools in the area and students from other subjects, even from other fields, came together and interacted. This favored the dialogue of disciplinary and professional views.
During the second instance version, the course was developed virtually, enrollment in the course increased considerably, and 52 students took the course (41 women and 11 men, 20-30 years old, with basic knowledge about the uses of ICT). Moreover, that year the course had an assistant student who joined the WhatsApp group of students that the professor proposed to create. The assistant also participated in the interactions generated in the synchronous meetings and in the design of some activities DT134 and their implementation. The number of hours and their distribution were also modified: SIII was taught for three weeks, eight hours every week. This implied an adjustment in the contents and also in the activities to be developed.
Thus, it was decided to work with the fundamental contents of the subject but reducing its scope and depth. Hence, in the first week, the current technological context was addressed, introducing reflection on ICT in the educational field; in the second week, digital resources and their scope in education were considered; and in the third week, reflection on teaching, especially the teaching of Language and Literature, in dialogue with digital technologies was proposed. Therefore, we did not work on the design of didactic sequences.
The activities and the final work were also modified, taking into account, mainly, that the number of students had increased and that it would be necessary to give adequate feedback in a limited time period.
In this regard, it should be noted that the professor had less than a week to close the final grades of the section because she had to share these grades with the other professors of the subject.
Consequently, among other changes, the length of some activities was reduced and the instructions for the final assignment were modified, which implied a group development instead of an individual one.
As for the applications, as in previous editions, we worked with Moodle, and other applications and programs were added, including Google Meet, for synchronous meetings; Active Box to upload materials and use them from a link without spending mobile data; Youtube to share videos by professors and specialists invited to the academic event, as well as for participants to interact.
Taking into account previous comments, various activities and resources were shared during the three weeks of the course: Before the class E-mail from the professor to the group indicating some readings and inviting students to explore the virtual space of the subject and the syllabus and multimedia presentation of the subject contained therein. Indications about the first synchronous class were also provided.

Virtual synchronous class
-Presentation of the subject and the professor.
-Systematization of fundamental concepts from the bibliography on technologies and digital culture promoting, through different strategies (questions and specific activities), the participation of students in this activity. Concepts about technologies and digital culture are recovered in relation to the students' own experience and their reflections on what they have read. Reflection on the role of technologies in the educational field was also introduced. The class was Digitalized bibliographic materials.
Power Point document, as a basis for the systematization.
Recording of the synchronous meeting.
Documents with instructions for the activity.
Google Meet for synchronous meeting.
Forum to share Activity 1 and interact in relation to it.
Padlet to share Activity 2 and feedback. DT135 recorded and the recording was uploaded to Active Box and then shared on Moodle.
-Posting of weekly Activity 1, which proposed a student presentation with microblogging strategies (there was a word limit) and taking into account both the academic and professional profile, as well as the ICT user profile.
-Explanation of Activity 2 (individual): reading a text from the bibliography and selecting a meaningful sentence about reading and writing in the digital context, and searching and selecting a related image. The sentence and the image had to be shared in a Padlet where they received comments from the professor and other students.

Asynchronous activities
-Development of Activity 1. As suggested in the instructions, several students included hyperlinks. The presentations were shared in a forum and commented by the professor and, to a lesser extent, by the students. The development of the activity allowed us to learn about the students' characteristics, which were fundamental to understand their interests and needs.
-Development of Activity 2. The development was shared in a forum and commented by the professor.
-Reading of materials indicated for the following week (bibliography and videos).
-Interaction about the contents and the development of the activities between the professor and the students via e-mail.
E-mail for the exchange between professor and students.
WhatsApp group in which the group of students and the assistant participated. 2

Asynchronous activities
-Students watched an explanatory video about digital resources and their types, and their scope in the educational field.
-Weekly Activity 3 was proposed: the instruction was to write two entries about digital resources in a glossary in Moodle, in groups of 3 or 4 students. These entries involved text, images and hypertexts. In the comments of each entry, the professor gave oral feedback through recorded audio and the students answered or made queries in relation to it.
-Weekly Activity 4 was proposed: the instruction was to complete a questionnaire on the use of digital resources for reading and writing in educational contexts and outside them (programs, applications, websites, etc.). The professor shared with the whole group the general results, socializing the resources used by the whole group, which allowed some

DT136
of them to learn about resources that may have been unknown until then.
-The students, together with the Educational Technology students, participated in the II Educational Technology Meeting, Teaching Disciplines in Times of Pandemic, which took place during a week virtually. The theme of the event arose as a concern of the students themselves. This event had, on the one hand, synchronous lectures by specialists and, on the other hand, an asynchronous section with videos documenting the educational experiences of different teachers during the pandemic, some of them students or former students of the subjects. The recordings of the lectures and videos were shared on a Youtube channel where they were commented by the students and the rest of the participants, including the invited specialists and the professor.
-Reading and viewing of indicated materials (bibliography and videos).
-Interaction via e-mail between the professor and the students based on the contents and the development of the activities.

Virtual synchronous meeting
-The II meeting included videoconferences via Google Meet with specialists in education and digital technologies. These specialists dialogued with the participants and the interactions were recorded and also uploaded to the Youtube channel, where they were commented upon.
E-mail for exchange between professor and students.
WhatsApp group in which the group of students and the assistant participated. 3

Virtual synchronous class
-Systematization about what has been studied so far in the subject, between professors and students.
-Conceptual systematization on ICT and teaching, particularly Language and Literature teaching, promoting student participation with different strategies. Thus, during the systematization, we analyzed curricular designs related to the area of Language and Literature, especially how some of them dialogued with technologies and digital culture. The students' own experiences as teachers were also taken into account. In this way, we recovered the concepts about ICT for the teaching of Language and Literature and the changes they bring about in relation to the students' own experience and their reflections on what they have read.
-Presentation of the instructions for the final assignment in which students were encouraged to elaborate a digital didactic material (in particular, a video with audiovisual support) that could eventually be included as a resource for Digitalized bibliographic materials.
Videos related to the concepts in the bibliography.
Power Point document, as a basis for the systematization.
Recording of the synchronous meeting.
Documents with instruction to make the activity.
Applications for video recording, such as Power Point, Prezi or any other application for the audiovisual support. DT137 teaching and learning in Section III of Language and Literature Teaching. They had to do it in groups of 3 or 4 members. In this sense, each group was assigned a bibliographic material. The groups were the same that had worked together in the realization of the previous group activity.

Asynchronous activities
-Interaction via e-mail between the professor and the students based on the contents and the development of the activities.
-Development of the final assignment. The professor gave feedback via e-mail the following week.
Applications for synchronous and asynchronous exchange among students (forums, WhatsApp group, zoom).
Forum for sharing final assignment.
E-mail for exchange between professor and students.
Throughout the course, asynchronous e-mail communication acquired multiple functions. On the one hand, the professor sent notices and reminders about the activities. On the other hand, professors and students shared concerns, doubts, queries and ideas related to the contents and the development of the activities.
Based on the previous description, we recognize that there were similar ways of opening spaces for dialogue.
On the one hand, in the systematizations of the concepts, a dialogue was established among participants and between previous knowledge and the bibliography. The weekly activities also enabled these spaces for dialogue. However, since the number of face-to-face meetings was reduced (only in the second instance), we consider that there were fewer opportunities to open spaces for dialogue and to deepen the topics. In this sense, some contents of the subject (for example, ICT in the educational field) were worked on without having enough time to deepen points of view on the subject.
On the other hand, by reducing the number of course weeks and the possibilities of synchronous meetings, opportunities were lost to retake previous contents and activities according to the development of the subject, which reduced the deepening of the spaces for dialogue between the concepts developed throughout the course. This is possibly due to the content and activity reduction.
Due to the number of students, we consider that there were fewer meetings between the professor and each student, which also reduced the deepening of the dialogue between concrete situations and materials and the theoretical concepts that arose in the more personalized spaces of dialogue.
Likewise, the assessment was modified: although there were individual evaluative instances, these were reduced, giving way to evaluations that, although in some cases looked at the performance of each student, culminated in feedback that systematized the general performance of the group.
The new edition, however, also presented potentialities. On the one hand, we understand that the dialogue with the logic of digital culture was deepened in the students' own productions due to the fact that they worked on microblogging, multiple modes of representation (productions less governed by the logic of writing), a greater number of channels for the circulation of contents and productions (we added, for example, YouTube) and more group work.

DT138
In addition, the virtual course represented an opportunity to diversify the voices involved in the II Meeting on Educational Technology since specialists in Education and the students themselves were invited to participate in the event. These voices enabled diverse views on education in the digital context.

Experience 2
The organization of the curriculum of the Language and Literature Teacher Education Program at Universidad Autónoma de Entre Ríos provides four pathways: a basic one common to all teacher education programs, a specific one for teacher education, a disciplinary one for teacher education, and an institutional option. The Linguistics Seminar is located in the disciplinary path of teacher education and closes the path linked to Languages and Linguistics. In the design of the course of studies, the seminars are defined as productive practices of research work that seek to intensify the development of other curricular areas.
From this epistemological-normative framework, the Linguistics Seminar is presented as an annual subject based on project work that emphasizes learning by doing around two sequential and complementary proposals: a mapping of linguistic landscapes (group work), in the first semester, and the analysis of a discursive corpus (individual work), between the first and second semester, based on an axisproblem defined by the chair. For the second moment addressed, we proposed 'violence' as a work axis.
Although this initial definition is a planning decision made by the chair 4 , as we shall see, both the violence addressed and the discursive materials subjected to analysis and the theoretical and methodological perspectives brought into play are constructed as a result of sustained dialogic work with those participating in the seminar. Thus, from a common starting point, we expected singular journeys, challenged at the same time by shared activities of reflection, analysis, and evaluation.
For this paper, we will focus on the first of the projects that structure the course of the seminar and, as was done in the first experience, we will initially address the planning decisions related to the first moment, corresponding to an instance of habitual face-to-face teaching modality in regular classroom courses, and then we will focus on the changes implemented in the second moment, in order to strengthen the dialogical dimension of the proposal in an exceptional non-face-to-face teaching modality.
The seminar is usually a lecture with a weekly load of two hours of face-to-face classes and complementary tutorials, as well as asynchronous tutorials through a closed Facebook group that also serves as a space for dialogue and collaboration. This group was created in 2015 with the participation of students taking the course, students who took it since then, and even graduates, who not only have access to the materials and activities that we propose to the students but also raise doubts, queries, share or request resources, give their opinions, etc. This creates a sustained dialogue between current and former students, graduates from the last years, and the teaching team of the chair, who have formed a community of practice: a group of people who decide to deepen their knowledge and experiences by interacting with a certain regularity (Wenger, 2001;Wenger et al., 2002). This group constituted, in the first instance -and also in previous years -the privileged space for the non-face-to-face exchanges of the chair. At the first instance the seminar was attended by 8 students (seven women and one man, 24-29 years old, with basic knowledge about ICT uses).
The initial class of this cycle was oriented to the presentation of the course; its work modalitywhich involves the realization of narratives of each meeting by some of the attending students 5 -and María Beatriz Taboada, Guadalupe Álvarez Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal | http://dpj.pitt.edu DOI: 10.5195/dpj.2022.450 | Vol. 10 (2022) DT139 assessment; the schedule of activities planned, and the realization of a diagnostic activity -in pairs -that asked to link theoretical perspectives in the field of Linguistics and key concepts from the courses of Language and Linguistics learned through the course of studies, to discuss their definitions and to select a concept to develop a dictionary entry. As complementary extra-academic activities, we suggested reviewing notes and materials from the previous spaces of the Linguistics course related to those concepts and theories that had presented greater challenges. This enabled a special orientation, taking the student from the challenge or cognitive conflict to the bibliography, and it is the one we will sustain throughout the academic year where the readings proposed from the seminar come to answer the questions that the students themselves raised in class, to dialogue with the errors as learning opportunities and to interact with the challenges that linguistic analysis poses to them.
Between weeks 2 and 6, we can place the experience of mapping the linguistic landscape proposed to the students.
The notion of linguistic landscape refers to the way in which language is materialized in the public and/or institutional space, in posters, graffiti, signs and also in mobile objects such as t-shirts and other discursive materials that are recovered through registration strategies and analyzed paying attention to what they represent in society (Castillo Lluch & Sáez Rivera, 2013).
The mapping experience that we proposed to our students -future teachers -focuses on violent and resistance discourses and constitutes both an end and a means. As an end, it seeks to denaturalize the landscape in order to build a more critical view of its discourses. As a means, it allows us to address the relationships we establish with objects of knowledge in research.
Within this framework, the proposed mapping experience was developed according to the following schematic didactic sequence, in the classroom: We proposed a continuity in the work with definitions, relating the activity of class 1 (collaborative writing of a dictionary entry based on a key concept) with the reading of the document that we sent by email 6 and that deals with the notions of discourse, utterance and text. The assignment only asked to read the texts, compare the 3 definitions and synthesize their differences.
-We jointly evaluated the readings done and the difficulties they encountered. Given that they did not detect the errors in the definitions of concepts that they have worked on repeatedly in the Linguistics course, we reflected together on the need for epistemic After class 1 we uploaded to the Facebook group different links 8 to access the following resources: -Narrative from the previous class.
-2 photographs of the International Women´s Strike (IWS) that we would work with in class 2 (to download to their cell phones, computers or bring printed to class).
We emailed a text with three definitions from a Linguistics sequentiality -although this does not necessarily refer to a linear progression-and implies reflecting on the learning process, feelings, etc. Furthermore, one of the members of the teaching team also makes a narrative of the meetings, but only the texts elaborated by the students are shared with the rest of the group as a shared Drive document and they are asked to include contributions or comments after reading them. 6 In this case we did not use the Facebook group because the text to be worked on contained errors and we wanted to avoid making this characteristic explicit before it was worked on in class. If we had shared it on Facebook, we ran the risk of someone downloading and using it in another context without realizing that it was a manipulated material with a specific didactic intention. 8 The shared resources are organized in folders available in Google Drive -one for Narratives, one for Bibliography and one for Materials -and the link to each new resource is shared in the course's Facebook group. DT140 reading practices which question the content of the discourses, which do not accept them unreflectively.
-In articulation with the above, we proposed the mapping of the linguistic landscape as a practice of critical reading of the environment, problematizing the notions of landscape, discourse, violence and resistance.
-We shared initial instructions, in oral form, to carry out the experience of mapping the linguistic landscape: group work, need to define in advance the criteria for mapping 7 , shared register.

Homework assignments
-Reading for the next class a chapter on Discourse Analysis (DA) that dialogued with the concepts addressed in class.
-Start the mapping experience, obtaining some first records based on the criteria defined by the group.
dictionary that contained errors, to work on in class 2.
3 -We started from the contributions, doubts and queries arising from the text read in order to recognize the fundamental dimensions of the DA.
-Work on the text previously read and guidelines for the elaboration of a reading 9 report in class 4.
-We explored the Urban Voices platform 10 in dialogue with a teaching sheet that explained the necessary dimensions to reconstruct the context of the mapped materials. As a group, we completed the recording of one of the IWS images that we had shared to evaluate difficulties, doubts, etc.
-As a group we analyzed the IWS images, paying attention to contextual and enunciative elements (elements that allowed us to think about the construction of an image of a sender and a receiver in the discourse).
-From the previous exercise we proposed to work in groups in the analysis of some of the signs that had After class 2 we uploaded links to the Facebook group to access the following resources: -narrative from the previous class -chapter suggested in the previous class and two articles on linguistic landscape and violence, respectively -guide for the elaboration of a reading report -images of previous mappings made in the seminar

DT141
been mapped, based on the categories that emerged in class.

Homework assignments
-Writing reading report.
-Continue mapping, uploading the mapped signs to the Urban Voices platform.

4
-We reviewed together the notions of field, tenor and mode (previously addressed in the Linguistics course) and proposed to rethink the contextual dimension of the discourses analyzed from these categories.
-Each group presented orally the progress made in the analysis of the sign they selected in the previous class and received suggestions, feedback and questions from the rest of the groups.
-We proposed instructions for the final presentation of the mapping experience to be carried out during class 6: a brief presentation explaining what they mapped (criteria), why they assumed those criteria, presenting the images recorded, making a general commentary on what they observed and stopping in the analysis of one or two images.

Homework assignments
-Advance the analysis of the images selected for inclusion in the exhibition.
-Elaborate a support for the oral presentation After class 3 we uploaded links to the Facebook group to access the following resources: -narrative from the previous class -APA-formatted citation and referencing worksheet 5 -Presentation of the progress of the analysis and dialogue on doubts and questions raised, receiving feedback, suggestions, comments and contributions from the rest of the groups.
-We analyzed together the evaluation criteria for the oral presentation of the mapping.
-We collaboratively reviewed the supports already elaborated.

Homework assignments
-Prepare the oral presentations of the mapping experience.
After class 4 we uploaded a link to the Facebook group to access the narrative of the previous class.

6
-Oral presentations of the mappings made.

DT142
-Observations, questions and contributions from the rest of the groups and the teaching team.
-Oral feedback based on the evaluation criteria addressed in the previous class.

Homework assignments
-For those who passed the exposition 11 , answering a virtual survey was suggested.
The project is thus based on a series of articulated dialogues: • with the class group, in the articulation of views that allow the construction of collaborative analyses on signs of the linguistic landscape and also to discuss meanings around their own and shared reading itineraries; • among the members of the group defined for the experience, from the construction of agreements, the definition of criteria for the mapping and the shared work that sustains the activity; • with other students and recent graduates who have already attended the seminar, from the interactions held in the Facebook group 12 ; • with the teaching team that takes the role of orienting and guiding the process and that encourages the sustained exchange in face-to-face and virtual instances as a condition of possibility of the course proposal; • with the nearby context, from the mapping experience; with previous knowledge and representations, around key concepts of the DA and the notion of violence; • between previous readings and proposals, from a critical position that invites to read discussing meanings, recovering reading experiences, allowing doubt and challenging what appears as certainty; • with different theoretical perspectives, from the way in which they are called upon and questioned in the experiences of collective analysis, evaluating their contributions and limits; • between more theoretical and practical knowledge, from the challenges posed by the approach to discourses; • with the discursive genres, from the reading and writing proposals presented in the course; • between different versions of their own productions, based on feedback from the teaching team that seeks to encourage them to rethink and deepen what they have worked on; 11 Based on the evaluation, some of the groups were asked to rethink aspects of their presentations and to present their work again to the rest of the participants in subsequent classes. 12 The group also shares pedagogical experiences related to the analysis of violent discourses carried out by recent graduates, who also participate in the Facebook group, thus showing the didactic possibilities of the experience they are going through.

DT143
• with their own learning experience and that of other students, from the paths recorded in the narratives and the contributions made to those texts.
In the second instance, the habitual face-to-face teaching modality became an exceptional nonface-to-face teaching modality. In this context, the professors needed to rethink the course and, in this regard, we will focus here on the planning decisions we made to strengthen the dialogue in this technologymediated context. On this occasion, the seminar was attended by 10 students (seven women and three men, 24-46 years old, with basic knowledge of the uses of ICT).
The first decision about the course was linked to keeping the mapping of the linguistic landscape as the initial project of the seminar, looking for ways to overcome the limitations imposed by the impossibility to circulate, to go around the city. In this sense, we proposed to share a citizen science experience with friends and family, that is, collective research open to the collaboration of different people that would allow us to understand different aspects of social life, in this case, linked to the linguistic landscape.
From this proposal of collaborative construction of knowledge, we could resort to different options of mapping: from one's own, friends', relatives', etc. windows or doors; along authorized routes -going to the supermarket, to the pantry, etc. -one's own, friends', relatives', etc.; or registering one's own, friends', relatives', etc. clothes or objects, who were isolated due to the governmental restrictions but used to be part of the external linguistic landscape. In all cases, feedback linked to the experience was essential, i.e., that those who participated also had access to the way in which the contributed discourses had been recorded and analyzed.
The next decision was linked to the platform on which we would create the virtual classroom for the seminar and, in this sense, the adoption of Google Classroom in its free version was crossed by urgencies and linked to institutional constraints that prevented us from accessing a classroom on the Moodle platform of the Faculty. The adoption of this version of Classroom imposed different challenges to the practice, among which we need to highlight those derived from the impossibility of creating forums for exchange. In view of this, we resorted to spaces on the platform that were not created for this purpose and which involved various limitations, such as the fact that the interventions and responses are presented chronologically, without the possibility of linking them directly to previous interventions.
Along with the adoption of this platform, we sustained interactions on Facebook to share materials and complementary activities.
As for the organization of the course, we decided to structure it around modules, setting deadlines for the development of activities as a guide but adjusting them according to the needs and complexities arising from forced virtualization that was crossed by possibilities of access to equipment and adequate connectivity. Unlike what usually happens in the classroom, these modules were not defined at the beginning of the course, but we organized them as the course progressed, to some extent due to the lack of precisions about a possible return to the classroom. Thus, the seminar was structured in seven modules: We proposed two initial contextualization modules, one for the linguistic landscape mapping project (module 3) and another four for the second project of the chair. The development of the first modules revealed connectivity difficulties on the part of our students, which prevented us from sustaining a fluid dialogue in the synchronous work instances. Therefore, we had to choose to space these instances, record them when they were carried out and make them available on the platform for those students who could not connect or had unstable internet connections.
This technical difficulty was perhaps the greatest obstacle we had to face, and this forced us to multiply the instances of asynchronous interaction, such as spaces set up as exchange forums or "tasks"functionality of the platform that allows uploading activities -to share progress and receive feedback from the teaching team in the modules.
In the case of the linguistic landscape mapping experience, which is the one that allows us to propose the first relations between theory and methodology for discourse analysis, these contextual difficulties forced us to sustain a more individualized work, which affected the group collaborative work dynamics that we had been working with.
The module was organized around the following sections, loaded chronologically in the virtual classroom:

Sections Description Module Presentation
Intended for the presentation of the module and the activities to be carried out.

Let's talk about linguistic landscapes
This section was structured around two questions: -What are we talking about when we talk about linguistic landscapes? -To what extent are we aware of the languages and discourses present in the public space?
To address these questions, we used the following resources: -An explanatory video elaborated by the team of professors.
-A section on the website of the Observatorio del Discurso de la Asociación Internacional de Estudios sobre Discurso y Sociedad (EDiSo) 13 -to which we had already referred in the introductory module of the seminar.
-The introduction to the thematic section of a journal on the subject 14 .
-An article in a scientific journal.
13 Available at https://edisoportal.org/investigacion/observatorio-del-discurso 14 Also in the virtual version, we used the creation of folders to organize Bibliography and Materials provided by the professors.

DT145
Mapping as experience and opportunity Presentation of the basics of the mapping experience based on two questions: Why? What for?
To address these questions, we proposed a video presented by the team of professors at an EDiSo congress. Towards our mapping experience We propose the instruction for the mapping experience, we approach the notion of registration. Resources: -Section of the EDiSo Observatory website where the notion of citizen science is addressed.
-"Guidelines for mapping the linguistic landscape"(worksheet), which explains the decisions to be made and the dimensions to be considered in the register.
-Photos with images of previous mapping experiences. Activities: -Map at least one element of the linguistic landscape for the first planned synchronous encounter.
-Carry out the mapping according to the proposed instructions.
-Participate in the first forum to define violent and resistant discourse and raise doubts arising from the mapping activity. Virtual meetings for Module 3 Scheduling of 2 synchronous meetings, in consecutive weeks, by Zoom platform 15 Task 16 / Report of the mapping experience Task created to share the report of the experience, explaining the organization foreseen for it. Task / Checking citations and bibliographic references Activity for the revision of citations and bibliographic references. We used the following resources: -APA citation styles and format of citations and references.
-Working document with citations and references containing errors, on which we asked students to intervene by correcting them. Task / Analyzing... Space created to share progress in the analysis based on an image of the mapping assigned by the teaching team.
As an accompaniment for this activity we proposed: -Ask questions in the space of the task itself 15 Here we also have to talk about the limitations imposed by the platform since it only allows 40-minute meetings in its free version, which is why we needed to schedule two consecutive meetings -with their corresponding links and access times -for each meeting planned. 16 We thus mark the use of the functionality known as Task within the platform that allows the uploading of activities by the students, on an individual basis.

DT146
-Send the progress made to receive feedback from the teaching team.
-Connect to an optional synchronous tutorial via Zoom. Task / Oral presentation of the mapping Space created to share the oral presentation of the mapping through a video or audio presentation, in which students needed to take into account the same criteria explained for the presentations the previous year, but adding a final evaluation of the experience as a closure. To continue reading We shared complementary bibliography related to aspects addressed in the synchronous meetings, challenges that arose during the analysis or specific requests from the students. We also invited them to elaborate and share bibliographic references of these resources.
In all cases, the synchronous meetings were recorded and the recordings of the meetings became resources available to the students in the classroom.
The proposal carried out in the second instance was the first teaching experience in the virtuality of a space designed for face-to-face teaching, in some cases mediated by digital technologies. In this sense, the option to sustain the experience of mapping linguistic landscapes was a bet on the possibility of encouraging collaborative work from a dialogue that involved family and friends in the academic activities. We evaluate it as a positive planning decision that recovered, in fact, practices that appeared in an isolated way in previous courses -students who added to their mappings images taken from people close to them -but this time encouraged by the teaching team.
However, although we consider that this expansion allowed us to open new spaces for dialogue, we also felt that we were unable to deepen those related to group work or with the class group, which only appeared superficially in the forums -largely due to technical difficulties related to the use of spaces not designed for that purpose in the platform. Likewise, although synchronous dialogue spaces were multiplied and deepened, sustained feedback among peers -as an instance of deepening dialogue from the proposed activities -was weakened by connectivity difficulties that prevented a fluid collective dialogue. We also omitted, in the virtual proposal, the elaboration of narratives 17 by the students that implied a dialogue with their own learning process, feelings and sensations, a return on the pedagogical experience enriched from the viewpoints of their peers and their contributions.
The same difficulties previously mentioned influenced the proposed dynamics: if in the classroom we always started with collective activities that multiplied the spaces for dialogue, the forced virtuality made us opt for a more direct approach where the instructions and some readings, for example, appeared as texts prior to the agreements that we could later negotiate with our students.
The self-evaluation carried out by the team shows an imbalance between teaching work in this forced virtuality and real opportunities for dialogic learning on the part of the students, largely due to a precariousness -of access to applications, adequate equipment, good connectivity -that interfered constantly, forced us to multiply strategies and to rethink all the time new strategies to achieve a more fluid dialogue among students and professors.
In spite of this, we did feel that the other articulated dialogues that we explained for the first moment were maintained in the second moment.

Experiences in dialogue
Reviewing the planning decisions proposed in the two experiences, in their habitual face-to-face and exceptional non-face-to-face teaching modality, we observed the definition of different chronotopes, in one case with greater continuity (experience 1), in the other, to a certain extent opposed (experience 2).
In both cases, as we anticipated, the differences observed in the designs respond to the particularities of the courses and to the possibilities of experiencing and redefining the scope of ICT in teaching and learning proposals, from the previous experiences of the teaching teams in the courses proposed to the students in different years.
Thus, we can see that experience 1 recovers the work done with ICT in previous academic years as well as the reflection on the use of these tools in and from education, which becomes both a means and an end. We observe here a certain continuity between chronotopes, in its two editions, which evidences a sustained mode of teacher-student interaction in face-to-face and virtuality. In any case, it is important to point out that the work during the second moment had both potentialities and limitations with respect to previous editions. We believe that the changes in course time together with the increase in enrollment had a direct impact on the number and type of activities, as well as on assessment. At the same time, the virtualization process enabled a more intense work with different ways of representing the content and with the diversification of points of view. Experience 2, which presented in its 2019 version a course strongly anchored in face-to-face classes, with some interactions mediated by ICT, shows different chronotopes: for face-to-face sessions, a more open one, with a marked predominance of dialogue and professor-student interaction for the definition of the course, more recursive and horizontal; for forced virtuality, a more stable, linear and to some extent vertical chronotope, crossed by material working conditions that hinder fluid synchronous interactions.
Beyond the above-mentioned differences, for the exceptional non-face-to-face proposals, greater stability in the proposed sequences and in the dynamics involved is observed in the two experiences, which seeks to generate greater predictability.
Moreover, in view of the commitment to strengthen the dialogic intentionality of the proposals, expanding contexts, broadening and deepening the dialogue (Wegerif, 2013), the analyzed experiences show the way in which various contextual factors -among them, less time and a greater number of students in experience 1, material and connectivity limitations in experience 2 -go through the professors' planning decisions, materializing in proposals that respond to the profile of the spaces, of the professors, of the objects of knowledge addressed, of the diagnoses carried out.
From the objectification of the practices allowed by the documents reviewed and the narratives elaborated -and without losing sight of the material conditions that frame the teaching work in the courses -we can observe creative processes with the author's stamp in the redefinition of the pedagogical experiences. This marks a more or less stable (or unstable) relationship between initial planning decisions, time, and space, in the search for a sustained dialogue, increasingly diverse in its spaces, broad and deep. This author's stamp is also evident in the effort to sustain the assumptions of the pedagogical proposal of each subject even in unforeseen conditions, which sometimes presented themselves as complicated scenarios to respond to the logic with which the professors had managed so far. Perhaps it is in experience 2 where the greatest tensions are observed between teaching decisions that frame the seminar proposal and the possibilities and limitations of ICT in a specific institutional context to respond to its objectives. In experience 1, the increase in enrollment and the transformations in terms of time also represented challenges for the development of contents and activities.

DT148
The teaching decisions made and the importance given to dialogue in both proposals are also materialized in interactions that prolong communication among participants beyond the course periods.
In this sense, we describe here two examples.
In the context of experience 1, a former student who had studied at the first instance, writes to the professor the following year to tell her experience as a teacher in a pandemic context. In her message, she comments, "I found the Teaching glossary helpful for this situation. If you have other resources, I would be grateful if you could share them with me. (...) I am sharing with you the link to a Google quiz I prepared for the kids because the idea is for them to do one with other readings. If you have the time and desire to see it, I ask you to make suggestions to improve it." In this way, the professor-student dialogue is transformed into teacher-teacher dialogue, but recovering interaction dynamics of the initial relationship given that suggestions, approval, and revision are sought on practices that are carried out outside the shared education instances.
In the context of experience 2, the professor recovers and shares in the seminar Facebook group a pedagogical experience related to discourse analysis carried out by a former student, currently a teacher. Likewise, she turns this experience into a singular answer to a question that the course itself poses to those who take it, thus recovering the importance of the articulation between teacher education experiences and professional practices.

DT149
While the experiences recovered here allowed students to become aware of their learning processes (Loroño et al., 2010), technology also allows for sustaining the relationship between formative spaces and the evaluation of their own practices.
Returning to the notion of chronotope, we could think that planning decisions are made in the present, recovering the past and projecting into the future. Thus, chronotopes linked to the formation of a teaching self in face-to-face and virtuality are articulated, with more or less evident changes in the positions assumed and in the modes of professional performance (Barbato & Caixeta, 2014;Ligorio et al., 2013). These are not static chronotopes but chronotopes-in-action (Ligorio & Ritella, 2010) that make certain spaces and times significant according to the teaching decisions we assume. We even suggest thinking about chronotopes of continuity among students -professors -recent graduates that allow us to recover the protagonism of certain didactic interventions based on the views that former students, now colleagues, propose.
From the shared examples we reinforce the ideas that we anticipated in the introduction: dialogic education does not end in classroom work, but also involves work among colleagues. The articulation of voices and, therefore, of positions, is what allows us to reconstruct the experiences considering their limitations and strengths.