Developing learners' second language communicative competence through active learning: Clickers or communicative approach?

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 257-269

  Agbatogun, Alaba Olaoluwakotansibe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Active learning; Clickers; Communicative competence; Interaction; Second language

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901245579     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Adesemowo, P. O. (2005, March). Premium on affective education: Panacea for scholastic malfunctioning and aberration. Paper read at the 34th inaugural lecture of Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria.
2. Bahrani, T., & Sim, T. S. (2012). Informal language learning setting: Technology or social interaction? The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 142-149.
3. Basoglu, E. B., & Akdemir, O. (2010). A comparison of undergraduates' English vocabulary learning: Using mobile phones and flashcards. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 1-7.
4. Beeland, W. D. Jr. (2002, June). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education, Trinity College, Dublin.
5. Bozorgian, H. (2012). Metacognitive instruction does improve listening. International Scholarly Research Network, 1- 6.
6. Braxton, J. M., Jones, W. A., Hirschy, A. S., & Hartley III, H. V. (2008). The role of active learning in college students' persistence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 20(115), 71- 83.
7. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE-Life Science Education, 6(1), 9-19.
8. Carnevale, D. (2005). Run a class like a game show: 'Clickers' keep students involved. Chronicle of Higher Education: Information Technology, 51(42), B3.
9. Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265-279.
10. DeBourgh, G. A. (2008). Use of "clickers" to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nurse education in Practice, 8(2), 76-87.
11. Duncan, D. (2006). Clickers: A new teaching aid with exceptional promise. Astronomy Education Review, 5, 70-88.
12. Emerson, T. L. N., & Taylor, B. A. (2004). Comparing student achievement across experimental and lecture-orientated sections of a principle of microeconomics course. Southern Economics Journal, 70, 672-693.
13. Facer K., Sutherland R., & Furlong R. (2003). Screen play: Children and computers in the home. London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer
14. Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4). Retrieved November 11, 2012, from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/ALpaper(ASQ).pdf
15. Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112
16. Fies, C, & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109.
17. FitzPatrick, K. A., Finn, K. E., & Campisi, J. (2011). Effects of personal response system on students' performance in courses in a health sciences curriculum. Advances in Physiology Education, 35, 280 - 289.
18. Fritz, R. (n.d). iClicker pedagogy case study. Retrieved from http://www1.iclicker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Languages-Humanities-Arts-Fritz_case_study_ready.pdf
19. Giri, R. A. (1996). Teaching English: The communicative way. Journal of NELTA, 1(2), 36-39.
20. Gok, T. (2011). Using the classroom response system to enhance students' learning and classroom interactivity. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 49-68.
21. Hanneke, S. (2009). Theoretical foundation of active learning (Unpublished PhD thesis). Carnegie Mellon University, USA. Retrieved from http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/ml2009/CMU-ML-09-106.pdf
22. Hoffman, C., & Goodwin, S. (2006). Clickers in the classroom: Is that your final answer? Public Services Quarterly, 3, 264-267.
23. Huang, C. (2010). Exploring factors affecting the use of oral communication strategies. Retrieved November 12, 2012, from http://www.lhu.edu.tw/m/oaa/synthetic/publish/publish/30/8.%E9%BB%83%E7%A7%8B%E8%90%8D-Exploring%20Factors%20Affecting%20the%20Use%20of%20Oral%20Communication%20Strategies.pdf?-
24. Huffman, S. (2011). Using mobile technologies for synchronous CMC to develop L2 oral proficiency. In. J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 122-129). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
25. Johnson, G. M. (2005). Student alienation, academic achievement, and webCT use. Educational Technology and Society, 8, 179-189.
26. Johnson, K. & Lillis, C. (2010). Clickers in the laboratory: Student thoughts and views. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 5, 139-151.
27. Kay, R.-H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53, 819-827.
28. Kelly, K. G. (2007). Student response systems ("clickers") in the psychology classroom: A beginner's guide. Retrieved March 23, 2011, from http://teachpsych.org/resources/Documents/otrp/resources/kelly09.pdf
29. Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 418-420.
30. Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of clickers in the classroom: Teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 556-561.
31. Lea, B. (2008). Clickers adoption in a small class setting. Decision Line, 39(4), 7 - 11.
32. Littlewood,W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: University Press.
33. Liqun, L., & Xiubo, Y. (2011). Functional outcomes from the communicative approach to college English reading class. Retrieved March 23, 2012, from http://www.celea.org.cn/pastversion/lw/pdf/liliqun.pdf
34. Livingstone, K. A. (2010). Empirical study: A mixed methodology to improve linguistic and communicative competence in Spanish as a FL/SL. Entrehojas - Revista de Estudios Hispánicos, 1(1), 1-38
35. Long, M H., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.
36. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
37. MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clèment, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex, age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence and l2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52, 537-564.
38. Mazur, E. (1996). Peer instruction: A users' manual. Prentice, NJ: Upper Saddle River.
39. Menking, S. (2002, October). Language classroom considerations using the communicative approach. Paper presented at the Annual JALT International Conference held at Granship Centre, Shizuoka City, Shizuoka. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2002/225.pdf
40. Mintzes, J. J., & Leonard, W. H. (2006). Handbook of college science teaching. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
41. Morgan, R. K. (2008). Exploring the pedagogical effectiveness of clickers. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 3, 31-36.
42. Nguyen, T., & Trimarchi, A. (2010). Active learning in introductory economics: Do econlab and alpha make any difference? International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 1-18.
43. Oluwole, D. A. (2008). The impact of mother tongue on students' achievement in English language in junior secondary certificate examination in western Nigeria. Journal of Social Science, 17(1), 41 - 49.
44. Onukaogu, C.E. (2001, July). Second language teaching and learning: The Nigerian experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Washington, DC.
45. Pennestri, S. (n.d). Effectiveness of clickers as a source of feedback in Spanish language classroom. Retrieved from https://cndls.georgetown.edu/media/documents/recentevents/susanEduposter_final.pdf
46. Qinghong, M. A. (2009). Key elements in conducting communicative approach to language teaching. Canadian Social Science, 5(2), 46-55.
47. Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivity: Aligning learner perceptions and expectations with strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 87-103
48. Simelane, S, & Skhosana, P. M. (2012). Impact of clicker technology in a Mathematics course. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 4(3), 279-292.
49. Singh, T. K. R., & Mohammed, A. R. (2012). Secondary students' perspectives on the use of the Interactive. Whiteboard for teaching and learning of Science in Malaysia. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(7), 9-15.
50. SMART Technologies Inc. (2006). Interactive whiteboards and learning: Improving student learning outcomes and streamlining lesson planning. Retrieved March 23, 2012, from http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/whitepapers/int_whiteboard_research_whitepaper_update.pdf
51. Smith F., Hardman F., & Higgins S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-student interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 437-451.
52. Tabbers, H. K., & de Koeijer, B. (2010). Learner control in animated multimedia instruction. Instructional Science, 38, 441-453.
53. Verkler, K. W. (2004). Technology in the foreign language classroom. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 41(4), 455-478.
54. Wu, X., & Gao, Y. (2011). Applying the extended technology acceptance model to the use of clickers in student learning: Some evidence from microeconomics classes. American Journal of Business Education, 4(7), 43 - 50.
55. Zha, S., Kelly, P., MeeAeng, K., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). An investigation of communicative competence of ESL students using electronic discussion boards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 349-367.