The connection between vocabulary and reading comprehension

If somebody were to ask why I believe mobile language learning or text based language learning can be an effective addition to traditional language instruction I’m not quite sure I would have an articulate answer to give them.  Naturally, I might respond by saying something along the lines of “modern day students are going to use their phones / mobile devices anyways. Why not try to harness that engagement and deliver some English lessons that way?”

A good answer. Possibly. Acceptable but too superficial.  So why is text based language education viable?  To demonstrate this in my thesis I will investigate literature related to the connection between a persons functional language vocabulary and their reading comprehension.  It’s not surprising that based on what I’ve read so far there is a large amount of data supporting my belief that people who understand the words they are reading better comprehend the subject matter.  Comprehension is described as a critical component of a students reading skills (Neddenriep, Fritz, & Carrier, 2011).  Comprehension is especially critical in academic settings.   English Language Learners (ELL) or students who are studying in a language other than their native language are disadvantaged by the lack of academic vocabulary they possess vs native speakers.  When they read text books they may not fully comprehend the subject matter.

So the question then becomes determining how to provide ELLs with effective exercises that will improve their academic vocabulary which will in-turn positively impact their reading comprehension. If through reading they can gain functional vocabulary than surely it can be assumed that exercises that involve reading would be beneficial.  If they are reading on their mobile device which is something they are going to do anyway it would prove that mobile learning does have a place in language instruction.  At this point I would not say that Mobile Assisted Language Learning is an alternative to in-class instruction, rather I would say that it could be used to deliver innovative lessons and to compliment traditional teaching methods.

Refernces:

Neddenriep, C. E., Fritz, A. M., & Carrier, M. E. (2011). Assessing for generalized improvements in reading comprehension by intervening to improve reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 14-27.

 

Learning Object – Consonant-Vowel-Consonant (CVC) Activity

Learning Object Action Plan:

My Mom is a teaching assistant at our local elementary school. She works in the child literacy program and assists young children with their reading and writing skills.

The problem she is having right now is that the kids aren’t interested in doing their current reading and spelling exercises. The material is boring for them.  It’s just plain white sheets of paper really. I would like to use my graphic design skills and technical ability to create a simple learning object that would help kids to learn to read and spell simple words.  This object will be digital and will allow the kids to use the computer or possibly an iPad to complete them.  This should make the exercises seem more interesting to the kids so hopefully they will actually want to sit there and do them. One of the exercises my Mom currently does with the kids is the  consonant-vowel-consonant exercise.  Kids are given a list letters  that can be combined to complete simple 3 letter words in a  consonant-vowel-consonant order (CAT, BAT, HAT, MAT, SAT, etc.).   This form of blending is  an essential skill that children must acquire if they are to become good at reading (Llyod, 1993).

 

Challenges: I will need to find a way to make the materials not only visually appealing but also functional. I have limited knowledge of teaching children to read so I will have to do some research and find out what types of exercises will benefit the kids that will hopefully end up using this learning object.

I will be creating this project using Adobe Photoshop and HTML5.

Time Line: 14 days.

Conceptual Draft:

 

Artifacts:

 

References:

Lloyd, S., Wernham, S., Jolly, C., & Stephen, L. (1993). The phonics handbook. Jolly Learning Ltd..

 

 

What is the difference between Cooperation and Collaboration?

So this week we were introduced to the conceptual differences between Cooperation and Collaboration.  Personally,  I’ve never really stopped to think about the differences. It didn’t seem like a very hard question to answer.

So I stopped and asked myself the questions “What is the difference between cooperation and collaboration? Are they different? How?” I really couldn’t  articulate a rational answer.  So I figured why not turn my Google search into a blog post for the week.

Collaborate according to the Meridian-Webster dictionary:  to work with another person or group in order to achieve or do something (Merriam-Webster, 2014).

Cooperate according to the Meridian-Webster dictionary: to work with another person or group to do something  (Merriam-Webster, 2014).

So by their definitions you can see that both terms are extremely similar. One might not hesitate to even say they were synonymous.

Perhaps the question is lacking context.  Let’s explore the terms in an educational setting. According to Rockwood (Rockwood, 1995a, 1995b) 

Collaborative Learning:   In collaborative learning environments the instructor relinquishes direction and control over the learning process and empowers small groups who are often given more open-ended, complex tasks. 

Cooperative Learning:  In cooperative learning the instructor is the center of authority in the class, with group tasks usually more closed-ended and often having specific answers.

So the key difference using these two definitions and using Rockwood’s line of thinking would be that collaborative learning is a more user centered approach to teaching which empowers the learners to take control over the way they learn while still employing social elements such as cooperation.   Although cooperative learning still allows students to work together and assist one another it is more structured with the instructor controlling the direction and methods being applied.

An interesting comparison between the two terms used music as a contextual setting.  A collaborative learning environment is like a symphony.  In a symphony all of the instruments are working together to achieve a common goal. Harmonious sound.  Although there is a conductor (an instructor) his job is to guide the direction of the music not to instruct the musicians on HOW to play. In a similar context, cooperative learning might be a music lesson with a more experienced musician (a teacher) assisting a group of  less experienced musicians with the specific goal of improving their musical talents. The music teacher’s role is to provide a structured lesson plan and to control the direction of the lesson.

So it would seem that the recurring theme among these two lines of thinking is that although both take place in a group setting collaborative learning empowers the students by giving them more creative control on how they achieve the tasks they are assigned while cooperative learning is more structured with the instructor, not the student, controlling the direction / method of the learning.

 

 

References:

Rockwood, H. S. III (1995a). “Cooperative and collaborative learning” The national teaching & learning forum, 4 (6), 8-9.

Rockwood, H. S. III (1995b). “Cooperative and collaborative learning” The national teaching & learning forum, 5 (1), 8-10.

Cooperate. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2014, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cooperate

Collaborate. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2014, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collaborate

 

 

 

 

Qualitative Research Methodology

Qualitative research methodology

I presented my theoretical framework in class this past Monday. One of the comments I received was to be prepared to counter criticisms that may come from using interviews as a data source.  Based on advice from Dr. Li I have started doing some reading on using qualitative research data.

I did a quick search and found this article A Guide to using Qualitative Research Methodology.

This will be a great resource for me to look back on.  It had a lot of great information on using qualitative data and even had a section on transcribing which is perfect as I will also begin to start transcribing the interviews for this research soon.

References:

Bricki, N., & Green, J. (2007). A guide to using qualitative research methodology.

 

ZPD: Scaffolding Through Technology

Another theory that I will be using in my thesis is the Vygotsky concept of the zone of proximal development.

The Zone of Proximal Development refers to the difference between what a learner can achieve without help and what a learner can achieve with help (Vygotsky, 1979).

The term scaffolding is commonly linked with ZPD and can be described as the support provided to a learner to help them complete tasks that they would not be able to achieve on their own (Bruner 1978).  Typically I think most would associate the term scaffolding with the help or guidance a learner receives from a teacher or more competent peer. However, what if we substituted this peer or teacher with technology?  Does scaffolding have to be person-person?  Can technology be used as effective scaffolding ?

One study published by my mentor Dr Jia Li stated that scaffolding provided through digital technologies can contribute to both vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension (Li, 2010). This will be an important focus in my thesis as well as in the line of study I plan on pursuing once I finish the AEDT program.

I am finding that the more I read about technology and language learning the more the subject of mobile assisted language learning appeals to me.  I may even take some mobile programming courses over the summer to pursue this discipline further.

References:

Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition.

Li, J. (2010). Learning vocabulary via computer-assisted scaffolding for text processing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 253-275.

Vygotsky., L. (1979). : Mind In Society: The Development Of Higher Psychological Processes . American Anthropologist, 81(4), 956-957.

 

Personal Learning Environments and Me

A personal learning environment in a web context can be described as a collection of data channels chosen by the user according to his or her informational preferences and interests. These channels allow the user to interact with both content and other learners and are typically access by using a desktop computer, mobile device or table. Through these channels the user can connect with teachers, peers and learning materials. However, the learning is not dependent on guidance from another rather the learning is self-directed and can occur through the simple act of interacting with the sites contents.(Leslie, 2009)

I personally agree with the concept of a personal learning environment. I find that much of my study and learning is already self-directed. I’ve always preferred to learn about subject matter that interests me personally. Sites like YouTube provide not only access to a community of potential educators but also a wealth of information on seemingly limitless subject matter.

Having said that I do think that there are some pitfalls associated with this type of learning environment. As the user is interacting with learning materials without guidance there may be potentially dangerous consequences if the knowledge or information is misinterpreted by the user. I think that’s the benefit of situations like MOOCS and other forms of guided online learning. As long as there is a mentor or overseer of some sort to guide learners while still allowing them personal control and direction over their learning goals I believe this concept could be extremely successful and popular.
S. Leslie, 2009. “A collection of PLE diagrams,” edtechpost (21 December), at http://edtechpost.wikispaces.com/page/diff/PLE+Diagrams/110782205, accessed 2 September 2010.S.