Investigating The Effect Of Student Response System Supported Think-Pair-Share Pedagogy On Preparatory School Efl Students’ Vocabulary Achievement
Author(s):
Sercan Çelik (presenting / submitting) Evrim Baran-Jovanovic
Conference:
ECER 2017
Network:
Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Format:
Paper

Session Information

ERG SES G 08, Pedagogic Practices in Education

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-22
09:00-10:30
Room:
W3.10
Chair:
Pauline Taylor

Contribution

The educational potentials of using mobile technologies in higher education classrooms where English acts as a lingua franca among all nations are growing. The needs have emerged to understand and integrate educational technologies into these classrooms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of Student Response System (SRS) supported Think-Pair-Share pedagogy on vocabulary achievement of EFL students in a private university in Turkey. 154 students and 7 instructors were selected from 4 intermediate and 4 upper intermediate classrooms according to convenience sampling. For this mixed-methods research, the data were collected through vocabulary achievement tests, the perception survey, and semi-structured interviews conducted with students and instructors. Quantitative data analysis was performed with independent samples test using the Mann-Whitney U test and qualitative data were decoded following grounded theory. The analysis of the vocabulary achievement test revealed that SRS supported Think-Pair-Share pedagogy resulted in higher vocabulary achievement. The analysis of interviews with students and instructors revealed that SRS experience increased engagement and concentration of students on in-class activities, provided better quality feedback for both instructors and students, fostered self-confidence and resulted in an increased sense of cooperation and competition among students. Both instructors and students reported that using SRS was a positive experience for both parties. Findings in this study add to deepening SRS literature and present practice-oriented recommendations for classroom teachers. This study presents recommendations for future research on SRS supported vocabulary development, vocabulary retention, and to prep school and undergraduate program curriculum designers in ELT, pre-service and in-service teacher education programs.

Method

This research was conducted in order to determine whether using SRS supported Think-Pair-Share results in higher vocabulary achievement on intermediate and upper intermediate level EFL students of a preparatory school at a private university in Ankara, Turkey. Additionally, students’ and instructors’ attitudes towards SRS experience were analyzed and reported. For this purpose, the mixed-methods design was used in this research. Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2012) explain that “mixed-methods research involves the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study.” (p. 557). Johnson and Onwuegbuzi (2004) point out “a key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently results in superior research” (p. 14). They elaborate on their discussion and say that “the goal of mixed methods research is not to replace either of ... approaches but rather to draw from the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both in single research studies and across studies” (p. 14-15). Zachariadis, Scott, and Barrett (2013) claim that in social sciences, quantitative findings can be seen as problematic and unsatisfactory and needs further reevaluating. They go on to explain that qualitative findings enable the researcher to comment on the descriptive findings. Moreover, the mixed-method research has been gaining popularity recently in the field of social and behavioral sciences (Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013). Therefore, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data for this study enabled the researcher to come up with thoroughly validated findings. Data were collected through multiple sources including: (a) Demographics test, (b) Vocabulary achievement tests, (c) SRS use perception survey , (d) Students’ reflections on SRS use through interview, and (e) Instructors’ reflections on SRS use through interviews.

Expected Outcomes

Analysis of the test results showed that the difference between the test results in experiment groups were higher in comparison to control groups in both levels and across the levels. According to the test results, all the experiment groups that used SRS supported think-pair-share pedagogy in vocabulary activities performed better in the vocabulary achievement test compared to the control groups. The perception survey results regarding SRS use showed that the tool had an obvious positive impact on students. In terms of usability, engagement and learning, majority of the students had a positive response to the questions. The results revealed that student found SRS motivating, awareness-raising and recommendable to others. Nevertheless, more students believed using SRS was a waste of time, which was conflicting with the results of other items in the survey. Therefore, one explanation can be the wording of the item was misleading for the students. Moreover, according to survey results, it was meaningful and easy to use SRS for a great majority of students. The data also showed that using SRS had a positive effect on the participation of students and it helped students to focus more on the activities and think more deeply. The analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with 4 intermediate and 4 upper intermediate students revealed four themes: (a) gamification, (b) quality feedback, (c) anonymity and, finally (d) different perspectives on SRS. The analysis of the semi-structured interviews conducted with instructors who implemented SRS in their classes during the study revealed four themes: (1) engagement, (2) versatile feedback, (3) an increased sense of cooperation and competition and (4) advantaged reluctant students.

References

Agbatogun, A. O. (2012). Exploring the efficacy of student response system in a sub-Saharan African country: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 250–267. Allen, J. (2007). Think-Pair-Share: collaborate for understanding. In Inside words: Tools for teaching academic vocabulary, grades 4-12. Portland, Me: Stenhouse Publishers. Anthis, K. (2011). Is it the clicker, or is it the question? Untangling the effects of student response system use. Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 189–193. Auras, R., & Bix, L. (2007). WAKE UP! The effectiveness of a student response system in large packaging classes. Packaging Technology & Science, 20(3), 183–195. Cardoso, W. (2011). Learning a foreign language with a learner response system: the students' perspective, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 393–417. Chinnery G.M. (2006). Emerging technologies: going to the MALL (Mobile Assisted Language Learning). Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9–16. Dunn, P. K., Richardson, A., Oprescu, F., & McDonald, C. (2013). Mobile-phone-based classroom response systems: Students’ perceptions of engagement and learning in a large undergraduate course. International Journal Of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 44(8), 1160-1174. Gok, T. (2011). An evaluation of student response systems from the viewpoint of instructors and students. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 67–83. Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11–24. Jebur, M. S., Jasim, H. H., & Jaboori, H. R. (2012). The effect of using think-pair-share technique on EFL students' achievement in the course of general English. Journal of College of Basic Education, 15(80), 823–838. Keengwe, J., & Kang, J. (2012). Preparing in-service language teachers to design and implement technology-rich curriculum. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4), 609–619. Keough, S. M. (2012). Clickers in the classroom: A review and a replication. Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 822–847. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shields, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: from content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271–289. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Richardson, A. M., Dunn, P. K., McDonald, C., & Oprescu, F. (2015). CRiSP: An instrument for assessing student perceptions of classroom response systems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 432–447.

Author Information

Sercan Çelik (presenting / submitting)
TED University / METU
Curriculum & Instruction
Ankara
Evrim Baran-Jovanovic
METU, Turkey

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.