Student-generated questioning activity in second language courses using a customized personal response system: a case study

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 65, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 1425-1449

  Song, Donggil ^a   Oh, Eun Young ^b   Glazewski, Krista ^c  

^a SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Seoul National University   (South Korea)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Classroom interaction; Personal response system; Questioning; Second language learning; Student generated questioning

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016466707     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-017-9520-7     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abrahamson, A. L., (1998), An overview of teaching and learning research with classroom communication systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Teaching of Mathematics, Samos, Greece.
2. Berry, J. W., & Chew, S. L. (2008). Improving learning through interventions of student-generated questions and concept maps. Teaching of Psychology, 35(4), 305–312.
3. Borich, G. D. (2013). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
4. Boyle, O. F., & Peregoy, S. F. (1990). Literacy scaffolds: Strategies for first-and second-language readers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 44, 194–200.
5. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.
6. Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39(4), 468–479.
7. Cardoso, W. (2011). Learning a foreign language with a learner response system: the students’ perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 393–417.
8. Chan, W. M., & Chi, S. W. (2010). A study of the learning goals of university students of Korean as a foreign language. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(1), 125–140.
9. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521–549.
10. DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(1), 1–25.
11. Ding, Y. (2007). Text memorization and imitation: The practices of successful Chinese learners of English. System, 35(2), 271–280.
12. Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J. Y., Wu, S., Su, J. H., Burgess-Brigham, R., et al. (2012). What we know about second language acquisition. A synthesis from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5–60.
13. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: MacMillan Press.
14. Fößl, T., Ebner, M., Schön, S., & Holzinger, A. (2016). A field study of a video supported seamless-learning-setting with elementary learners. Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 321–336.
15. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
16. Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719–743). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
17. Han, J. H., & Finkelstein, A. (2013). Understanding the effects of professors’ pedagogical development with Clicker Assessment and Feedback technologies and the impact on students’ engagement and learning in higher education. Computers & Education, 65, 64–76.
18. Janudom, R., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2009). Drama and questioning techniques: Powerful tools for the enhancement of students’ speaking abilities and positive attitudes towards EFL learning. English for Specific Purposes (ESP) World, 5(26), 1–19.
19. Jeon, M. (2007). Language ideologies and bilingual education: A Korean-American perspective. Language Awareness, 16(2), 114–130.
20. Jung, E. H. (2004). Topic and subject prominence in interlanguage development. Language Learning, 54, 713–738.
21. Kaleta, R., & Joosten, T. (2007). Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin system study of clickers. Educause Center for Applied Research Research Bulletin, 10(1), 1–12.
22. Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 173–188.
23. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664–687.
24. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303–323.
25. Lee, J. S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 117–133.
26. Li, J. (2010). Learning vocabulary via computer-assisted scaffolding for text processing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 253–275.
27. Lundeberg, M. A., Kang, H., Wolter, B., Armstrong, N., Borsari, B., Boury, N., et al. (2011). Context matters: Increasing understanding with interactive clicker case studies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 645–671.
28. Marinescu, V., & Balica, E. (2013). Korean cultural products in Eastern Europe: A case study of the K-Pop impact in Romania region. Regional Studies of Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, 2(1), 113–135.
29. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30. Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11–37.
31. Moore, K. D. (2005). Effective instructional strategies: From theory to practice. London: Sage Publications.
32. Morrison, J. R., Bol, L., Ross, S. M., & Watson, G. S. (2015). Paraphrasing and prediction with self-explanation as generative strategies for learning science principles in a simulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 861–882.
33. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. Tesol Quarterly, 35(2), 307–322.
34. Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365–386). New York, NY: Springer.
35. Pufahl, I., & Rhodes, N. C. (2011). Foreign language instruction in US schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 258–288.
36. Rodriguez, L. A., & Shepard, M. (2013). Adult English language learners’ perceptions of audience response systems (clickers) as communication aides: A Q-methodology study. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 182–193.
37. Saiz, A., & Zoido, E. (2005). Listening to what the world says: Bilingualism and earnings in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(3), 523–538.
38. Shim, D. (2006). Hybridity and the rise of Korean popular culture in Asia. Media, Culture and Society, 28(1), 25–44.
39. Sireci, S. G. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45(1–3), 83–117.
40. Song, D., & Kim, P. (2015). Inquiry-based mobilized math classroom with stanford mobile inquiry-based learning environment (SMILE). In H. Crompton & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobilizing mathematics: Case studies of mobile learning being used in mathematics education (pp. 33–46). New York, NY: Routledge.
41. Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253–258.
42. Sung, H., & Padilla, A. M. (1998). Student motivation, parental attitudes, and involvement in the learning of Asian languages in elementary and secondary schools. The Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 205–216.
43. Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). 9. Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 171–185.
44. Tan, Z. (2007). Questioning in Chinese university EL classrooms: What lies beyond it? RELC Journal, 38(1), 87–103.
45. Van Blerkom, D. L., Van Blerkom, M. L., & Bertsch, S. (2006). Study strategies and generative learning: What works? Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(1), 7–18.
46. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 87–95.
47. Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.
48. Yang, J. S. R. (2003). Motivational orientations and selected learner variables of East Asian language learners in the United States. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 44–56.
49. Yeh, H. C., & Yang, Y. F. (2011). Prospective teachers’ insights towards scaffolding students’ writing processes through teacher-student role reversal in an online system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 351–368.
50. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.