Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

15
Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse 089045174

Transcript of Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

Page 1: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse 089045174

Page 2: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

advances in digital technologies are changing the profession of English language teaching and applied linguistics (Chapelle, 2003)

the practices of teaching and learning will undergo a technology revolution (Siemens and Tittenberger, 2009).

‘We live in a world of constantly emerging new technologies that challenge the field of education while at the same time present exciting opportunities. Strategic use of new educational technologies can enhance learning and teaching…’ (Webster and Murphy, 2008, p.1).

Page 3: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

the utilization and integration of Instructional Computer Technology (ICT) tools in English lessons has proven to be effective in assisting learners in acquiring English language competency as well as enhance the quality of their learning experience (Zaiton and Samuel, 2006).

integrating ICT tools in teaching can lead to increase learners learning competencies and increase opportunity for communication (Jorge et al., 2003).

Page 4: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

The technology is adapted from the Newcastle’s existing ‘Ambient Kitchen’.

The kitchen speaks to the users and give them step-by-step instructions on how to cook.

Sensors are attached to all equipment and ingredients.

Page 5: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

to address the universal problem of classroom language teaching.

to bring Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) out of the classroom.

Page 6: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

How much ‘more’ can the digital kitchen offer when compared to a normal everyday kitchen after one cooking session?

Page 7: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

This comparative study focuses on the question: What is the outcome of the same task when it is carried out in a normal kitchen and a kitchen equipped with digital technology?

Thus, the main purpose of the research is to determine the impact of utilizing the digital kitchen towards the students’:- Achievement in the vocabulary tests. - Interaction.

Page 8: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

1) What is the impact of using the digital kitchen towards incidental vocabulary learning?

- Does the use of digital kitchen have a positive or negative impact on student learning in terms of test scores?

- Will the students able to retain the new lexical items learned through the cooking task?

Page 9: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

2) To what extend does the technology help to promote interaction?

How much language was generated in terms of word counts?

Do the learners negotiate to decide on the meaning of any new vocabulary? How?

Is explicit clarification of the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary through negotiation necessary for acquisition of the vocabulary?

Page 10: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

Mixed Method Study

◦ Quantitative- The pretest, posttest and delayed posttest results

◦ Qualitative – The interaction (focusing on vocabulary learning)

Page 11: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

Pre-pretest -To decide on the lexical items to be tested in

actual study.

Pretest, posttest and delayed posttest- The same test to be administered before,

after and a week after the lesson.

Video recording of the lesson – the interaction will be transcribed and

analysed.

Page 12: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

TBLT theories

◦ Input hypothesis (Krashen)◦ Interaction hypothesis (Long, Ellis and Nunan)◦ Output hypothesis (Swain)◦ Task-types and Language output (Skehan et al, Robinson,

Martyn)

Incidental Vocabulary learning theory

◦ Involvement Load hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstjin, 2001)Derived from the depth of processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) and elaboration (Craik & Tulving, 1975) cognitive notions.

Page 13: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

32 intermediate learners of English from the Pre-sessional English Course offered by the INTO Newcastle University learning centre will take part in the study.

They are all volunteers who will then randomly assigned to Experimental and Control groups.

Matching participants approach will also be considered when putting them into pairs.

Page 14: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

◦ The participants will sit for a vocabulary knowledge pre-test at least a week before they carry out the task.

◦ Prior to cooking, they will watch a video on preparing the same recipe

◦ It is a pair work: They have to use English to interact while carrying out the cooking task.

◦ While waiting for the food to cook in the oven, they will do some vocabulary exercises.

◦ A post-test will be administered a day after the cooking session.

◦ A delayed post-test will be carried out after one week.

Page 15: Supervisor: Nor Fadzlinda Ishak Prof. Paul Seedhouse089045174.

n.f.ishak @ newcastle.ac.uk