Email this article Investigating student choices in performing higher-order comprehension tasks using TED talks in LearnWeb
Abstract
Abstract – The aim of the current experiment was to test the teaching and research potential of interactive features of selection, deselection, tagging and logging in the analysis of reading-comprehension processes. To this aim, LearnWeb – an interactive platform integrating TED talks – was used to involve 25 Italian MA students of consecutive interpreting in analytical tasks gauging their reading-comprehension abilities in English. Their selections, deselections, and annotations were automatically collected by the system and manually analysed by the researchers. The analyses provided an answer to the following research questions: Was any of the tasks perceived as difficult by the students? How was each task faced by the students? How did the logs contribute to understanding the students’ approaches to the tasks? The types of exercises used fit a large range of learning scenarios, and the resources, analytical methods and results described in this paper may be relevant to anyone interested in discourse comprehension.
Abstract – Il presente articolo descrive un esperimento finalizzato a testare le potenzialità didattiche e di ricerca delle funzionalità interattive di selezione, deselezione, annotazione e di log automatico in relazione all’analisi dei processi di lettura e comprensione. A questo fine, ci si è avvalsi della piattaforma interattiva LearnWeb, che integra i video TED. L’esperimento ha coinvolto 25 studenti italiani iscritti a un corso di laurea magistrale e frequentati un corso di interpretazione consecutiva. Gli studenti sono stati invitati ad eseguire tre task online, creati per misurare abilità di lettura e comprensione in lingua inglese. Tutte le selezioni, le deselezioni e le annotazioni degli studenti sono state registrate automaticamente dal sistema e i log sono quindi stati analizzati dagli autori tramite procedura manuale. L’analisi ha fornito una risposta alle seguenti domande di ricerca: La difficoltà percepita dei tre esercizi era uguale? Come è stato affrontato ciascun esercizio dagli studenti? Quale è stato il contributo dei log ai fini della comprensione dell’approccio degli studenti ai task? Si noti che gli esercizi e le risorse qui utilizzate ben si adattano a molteplici scenari didattici e i metodi di analisi e i risultati di questo esperimento possono pertanto essere di interesse a tutti i docenti e i ricercatori interessati ai processi di lettura e comprensione.References
Armbruster B.B., Anderson T.H. and Ostertag J. 1987, Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text, in “Reading Research Quarterly” 22 [3], pp. 331-346.
Aston G. and Rodi D. 2012, Speech corpora for language learning, in “TALC10, 10th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference”, University of Warsaw, 11-14/7/2012.
Azevedo R., Johnson A., Chauncey A. and Burkett C. 2010, Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with metacognitive tools, in Khine M.S. and Saleh I.M. (eds.), New Science of Learning. Cognition, Computers and Collaboration in Education, Springer, New York, pp. 225-247.
Bax S. 2013. The cognitive processing of candidates during reading tests: Evidence from eye-tracking, in “Language Testing” 30 [4], pp. 441-465.
Bortoluzzi M. and Marenzi I. 2013, YELLing for partnership: A social platform for sharing practice and reflection in teacher training for language learning, in Riem Natale A., Dolce M.R., Mercanti S. and Colomba C. (eds.), The Tapestry of the Creative Word in the Literatures in English, Forum, Udine, pp. 249-262.
Bortoluzzi M. and Marenzi I. 2014, YELLing for collaborative learning in teacher education: users’ voices in the social platform LearnWeb2.0, in “International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments (IJSMILE)” 2 [2], pp. 182-198.
Brown A.L. and Day J.D. 1983, Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertize, in “Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior” 22, pp. 1-14.
Charters E. 2003, The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research. An introduction to think-aloud methods, in “Broch Education Journal” 12 [2], pp. 68-82.
Day R.R. and Park J.-s. 2005, Developing reading comprehension questions, in “Reading in a Foreign Language” 17 [1], pp. 61-73.
Frazier D.W. 1993, Transfer of college developmental reading students’ textmarking strategies, in “Journal of Reading Behavior” 25 [1], pp. 17-41.
Garzone G. 2000, Textual analysis and interpreting research, in “The Interpreter’s Newsletter” 10, pp. 69-88.
Hatim B. 2013, Translation studies: History, basic concepts and key issues in Research. Second Edition, Routledge, London/New York.
Hatim B. and Mason I. 1997, The Translator as Communicator, Routledge, London.
Holdack-Janssen E. and Marenzi I. 2012, Learning about literature on the Web in a German school, in Vittorini P., Gennari R., Marenzi I., De La Prieta Pintado F. and Corchado Rodriguez J.M. (eds.), International Workshop on Evidence-based Technology Enhanced Learning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 57-65.
Kalina S. 2000, Interpreting competences as a basis and a goal for teaching, in “The Interpreters' Newsletter” 10, pp. 3-32.
Kamijo T. 2012, Evaluating student reading strategies in a sophomore EAP course using student learning logs, in “Ritsumeikan Higher Education Studies” 12, pp. 145-159.
Long P.D. and Siemens G. 2011, Penetrating the fog: analytics in learning and education, in “EDUCAUSEreview” 46 [5], pp. 31-40. Available at: http://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/erm1151.pdf (8.10.2016).
Marenzi I. 2014, Multiliteracies and E-Learning2.0., Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.
Marenzi I., Bortoluzzi M. and Kalyani R. 2016, YELL/TELL: online community platform for teacher professional development, in Papadima-Sophocleous S., Bradley L. and Thouësny S. (Eds), CALL communities and culture – Short papers from EUROCALL 2016, Research-publishing.net, Dublin, pp. 307-312.
Marenzi I. and Kantz D. 2013, ESP course design – a multiliteracies approach, in Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2013), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 221-223.
Marenzi I. and Nejdl W. 2012, I search therefore I learn. Supporting active and collaborative learning in language teaching, in Okada A.L.P., Connolly T. and Scott P.J. (eds.), Collaborative Learning 2.0: Open Educational Resources, IGI Global, Hershei, PA, pp. 103-125. Available at: http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/search-therefore-learn-active-collaborative/64402 (8.10.2016).
Marenzi I. and Zerr S. 2012, Multiliteracies and active learning in CLIL: the development of LearnWeb2.0, in “IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (TLT)” 5 [4], pp. 336-48.
Moser-Mercer B. 1994, Aptitude testing for conference interpreting. Why, when and how, in Lambert. S and Moser-Mercer B. (eds.), Bridging the Gap. Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpreting, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 57-68.
Moser-Mercer B. 2000, The Acquisition of interpreting skills, in Gran L. and Kellet Bidoli C. (eds.), L'interpretazione nelle lingue dei segni: aspetti teorici e pratici della formazione. Signed-language interpretation and training: Theoretical and practical aspects, EUT, Trieste, pp. 57-61.
Ochoa Delarriva O. and Basabe E.A. 2015, Reading logs and literature teaching models in English language teacher education, in “HOW” 22 [2], pp. 37-53.
Park S.-M. and Cha K.-W. 2013, Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on a blended listening course using TED Talks, in “Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning” 16 [2], pp. 93-116.
Peckham T. and McCalla G. 2012, Mining student behavior patterns in reading comprehension tasks, in Yacef K., Zaïane O., Hershkovitz H., Yudelson M. and Stamper J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on educational data mining, pp. 87-94. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537180.pdf (8.10.2016).
Pöchhacker F. 2003, Introducing Interpreting Studies, Routledge, London/New York.
Rayner K. 1998, Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research, in “Psychological Bulletin” 124 [3], pp. 372-422.
Roberts L. 2012, Psycholinguistic techniques and resources in second language acquisition research, in “Second Language Research” 28 [1], pp. 113-127.
Rosenshine B., Meister C. and Chapman S. 1996, Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies, in “Review of Educational Research” 66 [2], pp. 181-221.
Scott D.B. 2008, Assessing text processing: A comparison of four methods, in “Journal of Literacy Research” 40, pp. 290-316.
Shimizu H., Neubig G., Sakti S., Toda T. and Nakamura S. 2014, Collection of a simultaneous translation corpus for comparative analysis, in Calzolari N. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), pp. 670-673. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/index.html (8.10.2016).
Siemens G. and Baker R. 2010, Learning analytics and educational data mining: towards communication and collaboration. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c245/a3403d6fd4064e6fd7666914a29afc7fe5ea.pdf (8.10.2016).
Smith B. 1996, Learning logs: a tool for cognitive monitoring, in “Journal of College Reading and Learning” 228 [1], pp. 5-11.
Soldner I. 1998, Reflection and developmental readers: facilitating metacognition with learning logs, in “Journal of College Literacy and Learning” 29, pp. 18-24.
Sung S.-e. 2014, Using TED in the Undergraduate Interpreting Classroom to Enhance Listening Competence, in “STEM Journal”. http://scholar.dkyobobook.co.kr/searchDetail.laf?barcode=4010023891873 (8.10.2016).
Taboada A. and Guthries J.T. 2006, Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text, in “Journal of Literacy Research” 38 [1], pp. 1-35.
Taibi D, Chawla S., Dietze S., Marenzi I. and Fetahu B. 2015, Exploring TED talks as linked data for education, in “British Journal of Educational Technology (BJET)” 46 [5], pp. 1092-1096.
Urlaub P. 2012, “Reading strategies and literature instruction: teaching learners to generate questions to foster literary reading in the second language”, in “System” 40 [2], pp. 296-304.
Van Dijk T.A. and Kintsch W. 1983, Strategies of discourse comprehension, Academic Press, New York.
Wang F. and Hannafin M.J. 2005, Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments, in “Educational Research & Development” 53 [4], pp. 5-23.
Williams J.P. 1988, Identifying main ideas: a basic aspect of reading comprehension, in “Topics in Language Disorders” 8 [3], pp. 1-13.
Winograd P.N. 1983, Strategic Difficulties in Summarizing Texts. Technical Report No. 274. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED228616 (8.10.2016).
Winograd P.N. and Bridge C.A. 1986, The comprehension of important information in written prose, in Baumann J.B. (ed.), Teaching Main Idea Comprehension, International Reading Association, Newark, DE, pp. 18-48.
Zushi M., Miyazaki Y. and Norizuki K. 2015, Analysis of learners’ study logs: mouse trajectories to identify the occurrence of hesitation in solving word-reordering problems, in LAK '15 Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2723645. (8.10.2016).
Zwaan R.A. and Rapp D.N. 2006, Discourse comprehension, in Traxler M.J. and Gernsbacher M.A. (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Second Edition, Elsevier, London, pp. 725-764.
Full Text: pdf
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
