Volume 5 (2014) Issue 2
pp. 149-160
pp. 149-160
Promoting
Dialogue using Weblogs in order to
Co-Construct Knowledge
Sara
Quintero Ramírez (Guadalajara, México) /
María
Luisa Arias Moreno (Guadalajara, México)
Abstract (English)
The
use of classroom dialogue combined with technology offer effective
learning resources to establish, expand and deepen learning dialogues
between students, especially since younger students nowadays feel the
need to employ more modern tools in their learning process. The
object of this paper is to show the research results of a Spanish
writing course with B.A. students in a Mexican context using dialogue
to promote the learning not only of specific skills and strategies,
but also to enhance the students’ thinking skills as well as
linguistic creativity and reasoning. We wanted to find out if raising
students’ awareness through the creation of a weblog where they
would publish their texts,
and
at the same time were able to dialogue with their peers, would make
academic texts more relevant to the students and help co-construct
knowledge.
Key
words:
teaching-learning
process, dialogue, weblogs, exploratory talk.
Abstract
(Español)
El
uso del diálogo en el salón de clases combinado con la tecnología
ofrece fuentes de aprendizaje efectivo a fin de establecer, expandir
y ahondar en los diálogos de aprendizaje entre los aprendientes,
especialmente en la actualidad en la que los estudiantes jóvenes
sienten la necesidad de emplear herramientas más modernas en su
proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje. El objetivo de este artículo
consiste en presentar los resultados de una investigación llevada a
cabo en el marco de un curso de escritura en español con estudiantes
de licenciatura en un contexto mexicano haciendo uso del diálogo
para promover el aprendizaje no sólo de las habilidades y
estrategias específicas, sino también para desarrollar en los
estudiantes discernimiento a través de la creación de un blog en el
que publicaron sus textos al mismo tiempo que pudieron dialogar con
sus compañeros de clase, esto hizo que los textos académicos
resultaran más relevantes para los estudiantes y los ayudaran a
co-construir el conocimiento.
Palabras clave:
proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje, diálogo, blogs, habla
exploratoria.
1 Introduction
The
aim of this study is to find out if the use of weblogs with academic
purposes in a
group of B.A.
students
was effective to enhance dialogue between them and the
co-construction of linguistic and cultural knowledge. In order to do
so,
first
the justification and the context of the study will be presented.
Next, the literature review in which concepts such as dialogue,
exploratory talk and weblogs in an academic context will be
discussed. Then, the project will be presented (and its three stages)
in the methodology section. Finally, the findings from the previous
analysis will be offered and some conclusions drawn.
2 Justification and
Context
The
study was carried out on 30 first-year students studying for their
B.A. in Teaching English as a Foreign Language
at the University of Guadalajara in Mexico. During this first year,
they receive instruction in Spanish in order to first develop their
writing skill in their native language, so that in the subsequent
years they can develop this same skill in English - the target
language in which they receive instruction during the rest of the
B.A. The study was conducted over six months during a writing course
in Spanish. Both researchers were also the teachers of this course.
The course program was focused on the writing
strategies and techniques about two types of text: description
and narration.
It
is important to state that students
usually come
from a traditional schooling environment which emphasizes the central
role of the teacher in the classroom, promotes learning through
memorization and suffers from a lack of opportunities for the
students to express themselves in the classroom. Most of the time,
this means that students play a very passive role. As a matter of
fact, they are not used to critical thinking or making links between
what they already know and what they learn in other courses.
Although
they had previously worked in teams during their high school,
students usually divide the task and work individually. They are not
used to discussing their different points of view with their
classmates or even with the teacher because, as has been already
stated, in traditional schooling, the teacher is considered
to be
the only voice with authority to declare what
is true and what is not.
Since
the students of this B.A. are accustomed to a wide variety of
technologies, they usually find traditional school activities (like
reading academic texts, answering questionnaires for reading
comprehension or writing specific text genres) rather
boring. So they demand more dynamic courses with more modern
educational tools. In other words, students nowadays feel the need to
use technology in their learning process. With
this taken into consideration, it was
decided to use dialogue in class, combined with the creation of a
weblog in which learners were supposed to open, maintain, expand and
deepen learning dialogues between themselves and their peers.
3 Literature Review
3.1 Dialogism in
Classroom Interactions
The
concept of dialogue as a constant social process in generating
meaning that occurs between people as subjects (Bakhtin 1981) is at
the core of the
Bakhtinian theory.
This concept has been applied to different fields such as philosophy,
literature or education. In the case of education, dialogue can be
conceived as the discursive construction of shared knowledge through
its co-construction and appropriation (Wegerif
2007). Indeed, as Moate (2011: 21) ascertains, students need
to enter into a dialogue in a Bakhtinian sense, that is, a shared
task with one voice answering another.
At
the university level,
although knowledge can be built through formal,
institutionalized activities,
it can also be constructed through peer learning activities which
result in reflexive and critical reasoning. As a consequence,
promoting dialogue in class becomes important, particularly if this
dialogue is based on exploratory talk (Mercer 2000 & Wegerif
2007), as will be explained below.
Bakhtin
(1981) also considers the implications for self-other
relations
in communication. He emphasizes the ways in which two individuals
engage in a dialogue in order to create coherent understandings of
themselves and the others that expand the representative boundaries
of both. It is precisely at this moment of expanding the boundaries
of both participants in communication that they co-construct
knowledge.
3.2 Dialogue Promoted
by Exploratory Talk
As
has been stated before, promoting dialogue in class is important. For
Moate (2011: 21), dialogue
in education supports creativity, problem-solving, ingenuity,
imagination and expression. According
to Wegerif (2007: 77-78) and Mercer (2000: 98), there are three
significant kinds of talk that can be displayed during the different
activities in the classroom1:
a) disputational talk, in
which scholars express their disagreement through short and
individual exchanges in the classroom;
b) cumulative talk, in
which students offer a positive comment on what the others had done
or said through repetitions, confirmations and elaborations, but
there is a lack of critical comment;
c) exploratory talk, in
which the individuals present critical and constructive comments on
what others had done or said.
According
to our findings, the disputational
talk and
the cumulative
talk
seem to be the most common and basic structural talks that are
offered in traditional schooling, the first one implying disagreement
and the second one just accumulating knowledge. However, both
lack
critical
thinking.
Since we are focusing on
critical and constructive comments, the present study focuses on
exploratory talk, which Wegerif (2007: 77) defines as the kind of
talk in which arguments and reasons must be presented by participants
in the classroom. Mercer offers the following definition that
complements Wegerif’s idea:
Exploratory talk is that in which partners engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas. Relevant information is offered for joint consideration. Proposals may be challenged and counterchallenged, but if so, reasons are given and alternatives are offered. Agreement is sought as a basis for joint progress. Knowledge is made publicly accountable and reasoning is visible in the talk. (Mercer 2000: 98)
Furthermore, Wegerif adds
that this kind of talk should be taught in classrooms as a way of
improving thinking and learning, based on the idea, as Mercer
contends, that reasoning is visible in talk. For Wegerif (2007: 85),
exploratory talk cannot be presented without any regulations. Thus,
for exploratory talk to be effective in the classroom, there is a
series of rules that the participants must consider:
- Everyone in the group is encouraged to contribute.
- Contributions are treated with respect.
- Interactants ask for reasons and justifications.
- Everyone should be prepared to accept challenges.
- Alternatives are discussed before a decision is taken.
- All relevant information is shared.
- The group seeks to reach an agreement.
For
the study with our B.A.
students,
all these rules were considered, and the whole group was encouraged
to participate in the creation of a weblog in order to produce at
least three academic texts. In their written participations, students
were expected to give their reasons, and challenges were accepted.
3.3 Knowledge
Co-Construction through a Weblog
Sun
(2009: 88) affirms
that well-designed Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) can
encourage students to become aware of the content and structure of
any academic subject. In addition to CMC motivating learners to write
different academic texts, it also reduces anxiety and promotes
autonomy and cooperative learning.
Wegerif (2002: 2) adds
that the use of technology can draw people into dialogues which take
them beyond themselves into learning, thinking and creativity. For
him, technology provides a support and a resource that enriches
dialogues in which thinking skills are taught, applied and learnt.
In
the world
of technology, besides other functions, blogs are frequently
implemented for
academic purposes, specifically for improving writing skills (e.g.,
Sun 2009, Murray,
Hourigan & Jeanneau
2007, Lee 2010, Sun & Chang 2012). Lee (2010: 212) affirms that
Blog technology is a potential medium for encouraging reflective writing through self-expression and interactive exchange through social networking.
According
to Sun & Chang (2012: 43), weblogs have
changed the way of using the Internet from searching for information
to creating information. Blogs are very different from Listservs,
discussion boards or Wikis
because they are really controlled by the bloggers; this makes the
blogger feel that he/she is the real owner of the blog because he/she
can organize it according to his/her own likes.
In
academic settings, the effective use of weblogs facilitates knowledge
co-construction because blogs constitute a tool through which
learners have to share a common activity outside the classroom.
Besides, weblogs enable the expression of critical (positive and
negative) comments through students’ own voices of authority (Du & Wagner 2007).
Finally,
Lee (2010) affirms that feedback provided by students in the blogs
can stimulate interaction and discussion of ideas between peers.
As a matter of fact, Lee demonstrates that the creation of a weblog
has a positive impact on students’ writing skills and improves
their motivation to write for an extensive audience.
4 Methodology
4.1 Presentation of
the project
As
mentioned previously, the present research was carried out on 30
first-year students studying for their B.A.
in
TEFL at the University of Guadalajara in Mexico. All of them were
native speakers of Spanish and had graduated
from high school.
Although one would expect that their composition skills were well
developed, their actual writing skills did not correspond to the
required level for a B.A.
Indeed, their writing skills are not fully developed in Spanish nor
in English. Therefore, during the first year of the B.A. program,
some courses are offered in Spanish in order to develop students’
composition skills in their mother tongue. During the rest of the
B.A., courses are offered completely in English.
The
present study was conducted over six months, i.e. a semester on the
B.A.
program, in which both researchers were the teachers of a general
writing course in Spanish. The course focused on improving students'
writing skills in Spanish so that they would be able to write
appropriate academic
and creative texts
in other subjects on the
B.A. The
course program was focused on the main textual techniques and
strategies used in description and narration.
Every student in the
classroom was asked to create and keep a personal weblog for up to
six months. In these blogs students were requested to write three
different texts belonging to two typologies presented in class. We
considered that the weblog would make students feel free to express
themselves through editing it with images, photos and videos. The
project consisted of three main stages:
a) writing the
description of a place in 120 words;
b) writing the
description of a person in 200 words; and finally
c) writing a story for
children in 500 words.
These
word numbers were chosen, taking into account the textual genre, i.e.
the fact that a descriptive
text is usually shorter than a
narrative text. Once every phase of the project was completed, every
student was asked to post some positive and negative comments as
a feedback for
a specific peer. In other words, students had to read each other’s
work and then write some comments about it. So the main idea was that
learners could express themselves through the blog and that they
could interact collaboratively with their peers.
4.2. First Stage
The
first and the second stages corresponded to the first theme of the
program, i.e. description. The instructions for the first text were
the
following ones:
Write a 120-word description (10% more or less is possible) of a place which is important for you. Before you write the text, remember first to think what you are going to talk about, for whom and why. Afterwards remember to make an outline of your possible text. You can add any visual support that you want.
Once students wrote their
texts, they had an assigned partner for whom they had to write
feedback of the descriptive text. They received the following
instruction:
Provide feedback to your assigned partner starting with the positive points and then state the negative points. It is important that you justify your feedback in both cases. Give suggestions that help him/her improve his/her future texts. Please take into account the following criteria following closely the instructions given: give feedback about a) punctuation, b) vocabulary, c) spelling, d) morphosyntax, e) cohesion and f) coherence. Some sentences that could be used are: a) I think / I believe your text is… because…, b) I advise you to pay attention to… for future assignments c) On line ___ you made this mistake because… End the feedback with a comment about the content: a) According to your text, I think your aim was to…, b) Your text made me feel…, c) Have you thought about…? What about…?
4.3 Second Stage
Instructions
for the second stage were the following ones:
Write a descriptive text with a maximum of 200 words. Describe the physical and moral aspects of a person who is important to you. Before you write your text, remember to follow the same steps and pay attention to the same questions you used for the first text, think about the following: What am I going to talk about? Why? For whom? Remember to make an outline. Do not forget to use the appropriate connectors and qualifiers. Again, you can add any visual support that you want.
Once the students wrote
their texts, they were asked to give feedback to their assigned
partner. The instructions were the same as for the first activity.
4.4 Third Stage
The
third stage reflected the second main theme of the course, i.e.
narration. The instructions for the third text were the following
ones:
Write a 500-word fairy tale for children (10% more or less is possible) following the plan / diagram used in class “Ten steps to write a fairy tale”. It is not necessary that your text covers all the steps, but there must be an introduction, development and ending. You can add any visual support that you want.
Once
students wrote their texts, they were asked to read each others’
work and then give feedback to their assigned peer. However, there
was an extra activity that was conceived in order to stimulate more
involvement of students in the texts of their peers. Thus, this time
the instructions for the feedback were the following ones:
Carry out your feedback using the same steps you followed for your previous feedbacks. However, this time you are also going to choose one of the characters in the fairy tale of your assigned partner and try to imagine that you are that character. Write your impressions / feelings: If I were X, I would have done this instead of that, because… If I were X, I would feel disillusioned/ sad/ happy/ overjoyed because… It seems to me that I would not have done what X did. If I were him, I would have done…, for the following reasons…
5 Analysis
Once students followed
the instructions, the different stages of the study displayed
different results. In the first stage, most of the students followed
the instructions regarding the type of text, but they did not respect
the number of words. Twenty one out of thirty students (66,67%)
presented a much longer text and 4 out of 30 (13.33%) students did
not even complete 100 words. Example 1 highlights an introduction of
more than 50 words of one student’s text; this student wrote her
description in more than 180 words instead of 120 words as had been
stated in the instructions.
Example 1:
I only have to close my eyes to be in that place, I’m almost there… The place where I left my childhood, my sorrows and a few smiles. Now I can feel the cold breeze caressing my flesh, smell the indescribable scent of salt and hear in the distance the walruses applauding as if they were welcoming me…
According
to what happened in the description, we expected students to provide
a constructive feedback for their peers, so they could improve their
future texts. Nevertheless, the feedback was not really what we
expected. Therefore, as
Sun & Chang (2012: 58) state, in spite of the
advantages in the implementation
of blogs
in
an academic context,
technology itself does not guarantee
learning.
Indeed, most
of the feedback was neither really helpful nor constructive because
it could be seen that
student feedback was
written arbitrarily and
without any substantial
analysis of the content or the form of the text. This may have
happened for two main reasons:
a)
students are not used to giving a critical comment to a peer because
they believe they do not have the authority to do so and / or they
are afraid of being too severe on a partner,
b)
even if they were asked to give feedback following a specific model,
they probably needed an example of what was expected.
For instance, in example
2, a student offers feedback of less than 40 words reflecting a very
general and vague comment on his peer’s text. He gave a piece of
advice about themes that his colleague could have written about, but
he did not give any explanation that could have helped his peer to
improve her texts in the future (Wegerif 2007: 85). Besides, he did
not provide any comment on whether the instructions were followed,
punctuation, vocabulary, spelling, syntax or textual characteristics.
In other words, he did not follow the instructions.
Example 2:
This is well written, I think you are describing the San Francisco bridge. I think you could have described other things like the cars, the weather, if it looks better during the day or at night.
Thinking
that an
example of feedback could have
helped students to write theirs
better, teachers provided every student with such an example. This
feedback followed the same framework for all the students.
First of all, the teachers suggested to evaluate the text’s
strengths, then
the author's mistakes or weaknesses and how to correct them for
future tasks (spelling, punctuation, morphosyntactic and textual
comments). Afterwards, the second student received feedback on
his/her comments and the teachers gave him/her some ideas about how
to improve them in future feedbacks.
In
the middle of the semester, students were asked to pass to stage 2.
This was the description of a person in a
200-word text. The
texts were written more carefully, following the instructions. In
example (3) a student portrays her sister by describing her physical
traits.
Example 3:
She is my sister. She is one of the best people I know, always happy, nice, spontaneous and intelligent. When I was a child, I admired her so much that I wanted to be like her because for me she is very beautiful outside and inside. She is so beautiful, even though she hates her cheekbones because they are not very prominent as well as her ears which she tries to hide behind her hair…
For this second activity,
students provided better feedback to their peers. In fact, this time
they followed the instructions, which was expected due to the model
that had been given for them to follow. In example (4), the student's
feedback begins with a positive comment which is followed by a series
of comments to help her peer improve her writing techniques for
future assignments. She provides some comments on what she believes a
text should begin with, other comments on punctuation and the use
of connectors, and ends pointing out that, in her opinion, the
purpose of the text had been achieved.
Example 4:
Your description is very well written because everyone can have a clear image of your sister. But, I found some details which you can improve, for example in your first sentence you use the word “she” without previously introducing the character, I think this is wrong. You could begin with the name of the person. You have some commas missing especially in the first part of the text. Also when you mention your sister’s teeth a connector was missing, you only used a comma. Summing up, I think you achieved the teachers’ goals but there are minor details which are easy to correct.
At
the end of the semester, the final challenge for students was stage
three, in which they had to write an original fairy tale for children
in
a 500-word text,
following a diagram presented in class. Twenty-six out of thirty
students (86.67%) followed the instructions carefully ,and the texts
that resulted from this activity were very creative, as can be
observed in example (5).
Example 5:
The thief and the key
In a remote region isolated from everybody, there lived a thief very skilled in the art of robbery. He was so skilled that he became a legend in the towns where he robbed, since nobody knew why they woke up without a valuable object. His home was a hut far from all towns which was hidden inside the mountains…
Finally,
the feedback and the extra activity, in which students were asked to
choose a character and write their feelings and impressions, were
very well done by most of the students. One
sample of
this final activity can be observed in example (6) where the student
first provides a general positive comment about the story. Then she
offers some comments on verb tenses and punctuation. Finally, she
continues with the second part of the activity, i.e. the creation of
a link with one of the characters
of her story:
Example 6:
Hi (...) First I have to say that your story is very interesting, because the character you describe is very shrewd and evasive. However, I think the story is unfinished, but anyway the reader can imagine what is going to happen to this character. I would like to know what was going to happen next, using your own words. I observed that you began your story in past tense and then you continued in present tense. I think you should have continued with the same tense. I also see that you forgot to use commas where they were necessary, for example, after the connectors of temporality (…) If I were the thief you describe I would have put the key into the keyhole of the room I wanted to rob, then I would make sure that nobody were inside and, if there were, I would sort it out as best as I could to stop them from shouting; it is very likely that I would have to do something to leave them unconscious somehow, or if they were asleep…
As
can be seen in example 6, students had no difficulties in doing these
two final activities, the story and the feedback. This could be
attributed to several factors: Firstly, the text genre (a fairy tale
for children) and the number of words (500), which was not
as reduced as had been the case in
the first two activities, may have allowed students to show true
creativity through the elaboration of an original and extensive text.
Secondly, the practice from the two previous activities - the
description of a place and the description of a person - allowed
students to better develop this text, especially
with regards to the first
part of the feedback. Thirdly, in the extra activity, learners could
be more involved and interested because it was not only the usual
academic activity of offering feedback to the assigned peer, but also
that of being
part of the story and interacting with the author of the text and
with the text itself.
Finally,
this last activity allowed true exploratory talk with the
participation of the whole group, as Wegerif (2007) and Mercer (2000)
state. Since all the texts were in blogs, students could read them
even if they did not have to (as a mandatory activity as part of the
course). All the students’ texts received feedback with critical
and respectful comments (all of them with positive and negative
observations). Therefore, the authors could improve their texts and
their general writing for future assignments. Most of the students
provided consistent reasons for their critical comments. All the
students accepted the comments, and 19 out of 30 students (63.33%)
replied with a question or with another critical comment to their
assigned peer when this was not obligatory, but only suggested by the
teachers. Subsequently, peer feedback on the content prompted further
discussion, just as Lee (2010) states. This was a very significant
activity, because, for the first time, students established genuine
dialogues without
being asked to do so. Example (7) provides an instance of this
ongoing dialogue that students established with their peers through
their own initiative after they had received the usual feedback.
Example 7:
Thank you very much for your comments. I am happy to know that you understood the story very well. In fact your hypothesis is totally correct. I really like the ideas you offer me. I will consider them for my next story or as an alternative ending for my story. I will take care of the accents next time. Thank you for reading my story and commenting it. A hug.
6 Conclusions
During this project,
every student had a voice of authority when he/she had to comment on
the text of his/her peer. It is true that at the beginning,
especially in the first activity, this was not an easy task for most
of the students. It was difficult to move away from the traditional
representation that only the teacher has the authority to correct a
student’s text. Nevertheless, in the second and the third
activities, students were able to give constructive comments more
easily, and they were able to create dialogues between peers, without
expecting the teacher's intervention.
The
present research has shown that students were able to construct
knowledge as a result of the dialogues
established between
their peers. This encouraged
student-student
interaction which
had not been very common in this group because of the traditional
schooling environment
students
came from. In other words, students recognized their peer’s voice
and reacted in a positive way.
At the end of the
project, students could understand that teachers were not the only
ones who had a voice in the group. In other words, they realized that
teachers are not the only ones who contribute to the construction of
knowledge. Thus, everyone was persuaded that knowledge is supposed to
be co-constructed by everyone who participates in the class. This was
observed especially in the last activity in which students felt free
to express themselves and to continue the dialogue between their
peers without being asked to do so by the teachers.
Finally,
we agree with Moate (2011: 21) when
she says that dialogue in education supports creativity,
problem-solving, ingenuity, imagination and expression. We consider
that the creation of a blog encouraged our students to write their
assignments more enthusiastically because they were not using the
traditional tools used in the teaching-learning process, but an
instrument that is usually related to pleasure and entertainment.
Thus, even if the instructions for the activities were a limiting
factor, students felt free to express themselves through editing the
blog and through images, photos and videos they could add to their
texts. Therefore, their blogs were really personalized. As Lee (2010)
states, this factor
highlights the sense
of ownership in the blogs because they promote self-expression,
self-reflection, and construction of knowledge collaboratively.
References
Bakhtin
Mikhali. M. (1981). The
Dialogic Imagination.
Texas: University of Texas Press.
Du, Helen S. & Christian Wagner
(2007). Learning with weblogs: Enhancing cognitive and social
knowledge construction. In: IEEE Transactions of Professional
Communication, 50 (2007) 1, 1–16.
Lee,
Lina (2010). Fostering reflective writing and interactive exchange
through blogging in an advanced language course. In: ReCALL, 22
(2010) 2, 212–227.
Mercer,
Neil
(2000).
The
Guided Construction of Knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Moate,
Josephine (2011). Reconceptualising the Role of Talk in CLIL. In:
Apples:
Journal of Applied Language Studies 5
(2011) 2, 17-35.
Murray,
Liam, Tríona Hourigan & Catherine Jeanneau
(2007).
Blog
writing integration for academic language learning purposes: towards
an assessment framework.
In: Ibérica
14 (2007), 9-32.
Sun,
Yu-Chih & Yu-jung Chang (2012). Blogging to learn: becoming EFL
academic writers through collaborative dialogues. In: Language
Learning & Technology 16 (2012) 1, 43-61.
Sun,
Yu-Chih (2009). Voice blog: an exploratory study of language
learning. In: Language
Learning & Technology 13
(2009) 2, 88-103.
Wegerif,
Rupert (2007). Dialogic
Education and Technology, Expanding the Space of Learning.
United Kingdom: Springer.
Wegerif,
Rupert (2002). Literature
review in thinking skills, technology and learning literature review
in thinking skills, technology and learning: a report for futurelab.
Futurelab Series. Bristol, UK: Futurelab.
1According
to other authors like Moate (2011), there can be seven talk-types
that capture the multi-layered, multivoiced context of school
learning environments. Nevertheless, for this study, Moate’s
proposal is not as relevant as the proposals of Mercer (2000) & Wegerif (2007).
Authors:
Sara
Quintero Ramírez
Doctora en
Estudios Literarios y Lingüísticos
Universidad de
Guadalajara
Departamento de
Lenguas Modernas
Calle
Guanajuato 1045
Col.
Alcalde Barranquitas. C. P. 44260
Guadalajara,
Jalisco
México
E-mail: qsara@hotmail.com
María
Luisa Arias Moreno
Doctora
en Estudios Literarios y Lingüística
Universidad
de Guadalajara
Centro
Universitario de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades
Calle
Guanajuato 1045
Col.
Alcalde Barranquitas. C. P. 44260
Guadalajara,
Jalisco
México
E-mail:
marialuisaa@hotmail.com