I think CALL activities can really enhance reading instruction and make it a more meaningful and exciting task. I found the reasons Chun gave for the use of electronic and multimedia glosses very interesting. She says they help students perform the bottom-up function of recognizing and/or understand words, and that this frees up working memory capacity, which allows the learner to focus on the top-down processes of reading comprehension. Teachers can integrate CALL acitvites into reading classes working with sites that provide links to newspapers, magazines, radio, and television programs. There’s also web-based reading activities that contain audio (which can help students with their pronunciation), and even video clips that can help illustrate the topic being worked on and activate the students background knowledge, which helps them be more successful readers.
In light of Chun's article, it seems to me that simply making additional multimedia resources and online glosses available to students is a very obvious and beneficial thing to do. Even if you do not explicitly require students to take advantage of these tools, the fact that they are there enhances the language learning experience and may entice students to adopt new and different learning techniques.
I am divided in regards to Polio's argument over the use of online translators. I agree with her point about how translators can explicitly depict to students how vocabulary and exact meanings do not directly correspond between languages. I also think that would be both an entertaining and quite a useful activity to correct online translator generated sentences. Students would not only be learning about the correct usages of certain vocabulary words and grammatical concepts but would also learn something about the vocabulary and grammatical elements that need to be replaced. If supplemented with classroom discussion about the reasoning behind the corrections and illustrations of how to properly employ the incorrect vocabulary and grammar, the activities she suggest could be quite beneficial. BUT I am skeptical about the overall benefits and utilization of time of an exercise with an online translator. Would the time spent and toil really pay off in comparison to a traditional grammar or reading assignment?
I'll try to keep these comments to reading but going from our readings, it seems like a discussion of reading will inevitably include vocabulary and vice versa. I like Chun's comment towards the beginning about first looking at the goals of teaching reading. She states, "Only then can we contemplate how technology can be best employed to achieve these goals." Of course, reading will be made much easier with unknown vocabulary being a click away. I've never really known how to best handle looking up vocabulary in my foreign language reading. So that feature is definitely a plus. Also, we looked at a site in class that I will definitely use in my own teaching. I don't recall the name but on this site you could enter a text and it will give you the frequency of the vocabulary in the text - what a great tool. People don't realize that learners need to know about 95% of the words in a text to determine the meaning of unknown words from context (as was mentioned in class). 95% is a lot. Using a tool such as that site will better prepare teachers to now overwhelm their students with unnecessarily difficult tasks. One more comment, the internet opens the door to much more personalization in extensive reading. This will do wonders in keeping students motivated to read.
Chun's article highlights the importance of reading as inseparable from learning and acquiring vocabulary. Her argument is also informed through cognitive theory. I agree that if a reader achieves automaticity of high frequency (or well-known) vocabulary words, then more attention is freed up to learn and acquire lower frequency (or unknown/less-known) vocabulary words. As a preservice teacher, I feel that technology will be helpful in facilitating vocabulary learning and acquisition. As Chun highlighted, it is important to realize that there a several types of learners. To accomodate these learners, I feel that CALL technology will be beneficial to providing students with more options (such as word glosses, etc.) outside of the traditional textbook.
I liked how Chun pulled research from every angle of reading, but boy, by the time I got to the end of the article, I was a little disappointed in the research, i.e. there wasn't anything definitive in findings for "best methods". It's still quite a work in progress.
I consider CALL to be an upgrade to our classes, so, at least for reading, it's either we haven't nailed down the best way to use the tech, we haven't come up with the ideal tool for better reading performance & vocab mastery, or maybe, the best methods involve offering an array of options for our students - this way they can choose the option that works best for them.
What I deem most important, whether one is using a paper text or an online text, is teaching reading strategies. Technology can make things easier for the student (with pop-up definitions, glosses, multimedia, being able to look at corpuses & collocations, etc.. ) but it's still the strategies that will make the difference in performance.
There was one study that Chun cited regarding the use of internal glossaries created by the instructor versus external glossaries (e.g. electronic bilingual dictionaries), which I found to common sense. Although, common sense does not constitute as empirical data and most scholars would not put too much faith in "common sense" argument. Basically, the study showed that students were much more likely to use internal glosses than electronic bilingual dictionaries. Students used these internal glosses more often b/c they simply clicked on a word and received its translation; whereas, with the bilingual dictionaries, they had many more avenues to pass in order to get the translation. My point is that student are going to use the easier means to obtain their objective. Other studies Chun cites are ones that examine the use of multimedia glosses like pictures and videos in relation to vocabulary acquisition. She states that L2 learners acquire more vocabulary when their translations are supported by visual texts. Again, another point that seems to be common knowledge. Although, I found it quite interesting how too much multimedia may inhibit acquisition and pose as more a distraction that a supportive tool.
I feel that Chun's article, although somewhat inconclusive, encourages teachers to think of their goals and their students while choosing which CALL reading programs can be useful for them. What I thought was great about the gloss and dictionary link features was that things like this may help many students who approach reading as a burden (that is incessantly interrupted by their need to look up words)with a more positive and comfortable attitude. This could boost confidence, and ultimately encourage reading on one's own. I appreciated Chun's comments about trying to incorporate CALL into, not replace, a lot of more conventional techniques, such as pre-reading, and post-reading activities.
I thought that Polio's article about handling the use of Online Translators was interesting, and that it is important as language instructors, not to expect students never to utilize these tools, as they surely will. I appreciated her approaches, though, as they seem to encourage more responsible use of them outside of class. I thought that having students compare the results of 3 different translators was a great idea. While I also appreciated her suggestions about reconstructing unreadable translations, I am not sure that this activity, however entertaining, is necessarily all that useful, and could ultimately be very confusing.
If computer-based vocabulary training can (but not always) aid in rate of speed of high-frequency word identification, ie: CALL helps a student increase their vocabulary of commonly-used words, wouldn't that be the same for computer-based grammatical training?
What forms do the Computer-Based Vocab training exercised take on? Are there correlative exercises for Grammer Learning?
If: der Hund = the dog -- as an explicit explanation of a word -- aids a learner, then: Ich habe einen schwarzen Hund (to explain the indefinite article/adjective endings modifying a masculine noun in the accusative case) would also be helpful in training the readers in high-frequency grammatical structures, thereby "freeing up their working memories"... in this sense, grammar-based computer training can have a positive affect on the student. Also, it would satisfy a seemingly natural urge in adult/young-adult students to have grammar explained explicitly.
*to increase speed of word recognition = good, a goal to have as teachers therefore: increase speed of grammatical structure recognition = good, a goal to have as teachers
With this I propose that computer-based grammatical exercises (yes, even those verging on mechanical drills) would have similar beneficial effects as computer-based vocabulary training, in the sense that L2 Readers' working memories will be "freed up" by their training. The training exercises could give them an inherent/subconscious understanding of some of the various aspects of a text... to enable the L2 learners to navigate the text more fluidly.
Not everyone is a grammar buff, though. Mechanical drills in the classroom setting, as said by VanPatten, are a waste of the Instructor's and the Students' time; with this I can agree, but not entirely. In corporeal Instructor-Student & Student-Student classroom exchange, yes, but in the digital extension of the corporeal classroom environment, I consider the idea that grammar drills could be beneficial to the students in such that through the training and memorization, they eventually just "sorta know what sounds right/wrong".
For a second I was confusing this blog with "Vocabulary and CALL". Reading as a tool for second language learning serves two purposes: vocabulary development and grammar development. Within grammar development, the learner sees word order, verb conjugations, etc... but also the way in which that particular writer expresses himself depending on the type of literature. Some expressions can be picked up and used when speaking, perhaps even a few co-locations...Also dependent on the type of literature is the vocabulary that the learner is going to be introduced to.
Cobb's article focuses on lexical uptake. I feel that Cobb's agenda is different from ours. Reading to increase vocabulary is successful when one sees a newly introduced word over and over, says Cobb. That is true whether one is reading in one's native or non-native language. Reading, to our students, will provide further exposure to the language and will expose students to topics that might not necessarily be discussed in class. So many types of literature are available that the student will have a wide array of topics and levels of difficulty. Reading has many benefits for a second language learner.
Computer assistance allows instructors to manipulate the text in order to emphasize one specific aspect of reading. One can edit the text by or make it interactive. The internet also provides various texts that might not be available as a hard copy.
Chun and Polio mention online translators. Chun discusses them as being used along with online dictionaries. She says that students will use the translators because they make direct translations, but Polio points out that it's for that same reason that they should not be relied on. I agree with both. Polio makes a good point of addressing the unreliability of online translators with students. Students should become well-informed users of the resources available to them although not too much time should be spent on this discussion. I think that the serious students understand that online translators don't write essays.
It's Chun's "Final Four Instructional Implications" that I was really interested in, but, as she states, "very little research has been done"...
I want to mention e-readers as possible tools for ESL ( I am not sure of what other languages they are available in). The downside, of course, is the cost, but they might be a possibility in the future. Some e-readers have a dictionary so when you come across a word you don't recognize, all you do is highlight it and the definition will be provided. The reader also has the option to highlight the text, which might be specially useful for second language learners.
In the article “CALL technologies for L2 Reading”, Chun explains that studies show that multiple media glosses in vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension are effective when image-based annotations (in combination with text-based annotations) are used. Chun summarizes that L2 vocabulary is remembered better when learners see a picture of video through glosses, as well as translations of unfamiliar words, and learners use prefer and use simple translations of words. I think that these findings are parallel to non-digital reading texts, where students benefit most from being given pre-reading and vocabulary activities that will build upon their understanding. In a non-CALL reading activity, students could be given pre-reading activities, such as the following: a set of pictures about the story that they would try to put in hypothetical order, a brainstorming activity about the title or topic the text will be about. However, in a CALL reading activity, I find hard to visualize how exactly students would be given pre-reading activities. Could it be that such structures activities can be replaced by direct lexical instruction? I was playing around with the websites for picture and word matching and found that they are meaningful exercises. As Cobb concludes in his article, the major problem to reading comprehension that learners encounter comes from the extensive new lexical components present. I agree that CALL technology improves the possibilities of reading comprehension. Teachers can use matching exercises online to prepare students to the new vocabulary. It might be that initially translation would be necessary in order for students to comprehend what is going on in a text, but after a while the computer/book dual use could improve word retention.
I liked the versatility of Cobb's Compleat Lexical Tutor and plan to explore its possibilities for my own teaching of reading and vocabulary. As he states, "What is missing...is some way of focusing attention on and proliferating encounters with new words at any level within the act of reading, or shortly after reading, for any type of text, and for lots of texts" (45).
Vocabulary study seems easy enough to incorporate into controlled or class readings, but with individualized extensive reading, particularly with all of the potential texts to be explored on the internet, there are not sufficient opportunities to readily transfer new lexical knowledge from the text to new contexts. I particularly liked the Wordbox feature of CLT, where students can click words to save for later and practice using them in other contexts. In that way, they are able to not only move through the initial text with a higher degree of comprehension but also have the opportunity to recycle that new knowledge and move new lexical items from their recognition vocabulary to their production vocabulary.
(this is a repeat - just so it is tagged w/ my name)
I liked how Chun pulled research from every angle of reading, but boy, by the time I got to the end of the article, I was a little disappointed in the research, i.e. there wasn't anything definitive in findings for "best methods". It's still quite a work in progress.
I consider CALL to be an upgrade to our classes, so, at least for reading, it's either we haven't nailed down the best way to use the tech, we haven't come up with the ideal tool for better reading performance & vocab mastery, or maybe, the best methods involve offering an array of options for our students - this way they can choose the option that works best for them.
What I deem most important, whether one is using a paper text or an online text, is teaching reading strategies. Technology can make things easier for the student (with pop-up definitions, glosses, multimedia, being able to look at corpuses & collocations, etc.. ) but it's still the strategies that will make the difference in performance.
Based on Chun's article and my own experiences, I think electronic and multimedia glosses for vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension are a great idea. First, the text supplemented with a picture appeals to different learning styles- especially visual learners. Second, I think internal glosses created by teachers or publishers of the readings would be extremely beneficial to students because it puts the word in the correct context. Students may choose the wrong definition using an online dictionary or translator. I recognize that this is a skill that they should acquire, but it depends on the purpose of the reading and what skills they are trying to acquire through the activity. For example, if its reading comprehension and they are focusing on top-down skills, then using an internal glossary can help them focus on acquiring these skills rather than become distracted with the term.
First of all, I will have to agree with what some of you were saying about using the effective instruction strategies. Sometimes technology tools and even the topics we are covering may seem interesting and easy to follow, but I have noticed that the strategies we use in class make the students feel more comfortable and engaging in the learning process. I say this because I recently interviewed high school students (two very successful and two F students) and I had this question. They all agreed that how the teacher explains and the activities they choose to make are far more important than anything else. Also, Iliana was saying that when students learn new vocabulary through reading, it greatly depends on the type of literature they are working on. We need to be careful with what readings we use. For example, if they are beginners we need to start with something that explains what we do in a daily basis but not children stories.
I think CALL activities can really enhance reading instruction and make it a more meaningful and exciting task. I found the reasons Chun gave for the use of electronic and multimedia glosses very interesting. She says they help students perform the bottom-up function of recognizing and/or understand words, and that this frees up working memory capacity, which allows the learner to focus on the top-down processes of reading comprehension.
ReplyDeleteTeachers can integrate CALL acitvites into reading classes working with sites that provide links to newspapers, magazines, radio, and television programs. There’s also web-based reading activities that contain audio (which can help students with their pronunciation), and even video clips that can help illustrate the topic being worked on and activate the students background knowledge, which helps them be more successful readers.
In light of Chun's article, it seems to me that simply making additional multimedia resources and online glosses available to students is a very obvious and beneficial thing to do. Even if you do not explicitly require students to take advantage of these tools, the fact that they are there enhances the language learning experience and may entice students to adopt new and different learning techniques.
ReplyDeleteI am divided in regards to Polio's argument over the use of online translators. I agree with her point about how translators can explicitly depict to students how vocabulary and exact meanings do not directly correspond between languages. I also think that would be both an entertaining and quite a useful activity to correct online translator generated sentences. Students would not only be learning about the correct usages of certain vocabulary words and grammatical concepts but would also learn something about the vocabulary and grammatical elements that need to be replaced. If supplemented with classroom discussion about the reasoning behind the corrections and illustrations of how to properly employ the incorrect vocabulary and grammar, the activities she suggest could be quite beneficial. BUT I am skeptical about the overall benefits and utilization of time of an exercise with an online translator. Would the time spent and toil really pay off in comparison to a traditional grammar or reading assignment?
I'll try to keep these comments to reading but going from our readings, it seems like a discussion of reading will inevitably include vocabulary and vice versa. I like Chun's comment towards the beginning about first looking at the goals of teaching reading. She states, "Only then can we contemplate how technology can be best employed to achieve these goals." Of course, reading will be made much easier with unknown vocabulary being a click away. I've never really known how to best handle looking up vocabulary in my foreign language reading. So that feature is definitely a plus. Also, we looked at a site in class that I will definitely use in my own teaching. I don't recall the name but on this site you could enter a text and it will give you the frequency of the vocabulary in the text - what a great tool. People don't realize that learners need to know about 95% of the words in a text to determine the meaning of unknown words from context (as was mentioned in class). 95% is a lot. Using a tool such as that site will better prepare teachers to now overwhelm their students with unnecessarily difficult tasks. One more comment, the internet opens the door to much more personalization in extensive reading. This will do wonders in keeping students motivated to read.
ReplyDeleteChun's article highlights the importance of reading as inseparable from learning and acquiring vocabulary. Her argument is also informed through cognitive theory. I agree that if a reader achieves automaticity of high frequency (or well-known) vocabulary words, then more attention is freed up to learn and acquire lower frequency (or unknown/less-known) vocabulary words. As a preservice teacher, I feel that technology will be helpful in facilitating vocabulary learning and acquisition. As Chun highlighted, it is important to realize that there a several types of learners. To accomodate these learners, I feel that CALL technology will be beneficial to providing students with more options (such as word glosses, etc.) outside of the traditional textbook.
ReplyDeleteI liked how Chun pulled research from every angle of reading, but boy, by the time I got to the end of the article, I was a little disappointed in the research, i.e. there wasn't anything definitive in findings for "best methods". It's still quite a work in progress.
ReplyDeleteI consider CALL to be an upgrade to our classes, so, at least for reading, it's either we haven't nailed down the best way to use the tech, we haven't come up with the ideal tool for better reading performance & vocab mastery, or maybe, the best methods involve offering an array of options for our students - this way they can choose the option that works best for them.
What I deem most important, whether one is using a paper text or an online text, is teaching reading strategies. Technology can make things easier for the student (with pop-up definitions, glosses, multimedia, being able to look at corpuses & collocations, etc.. ) but it's still the strategies that will make the difference in performance.
There was one study that Chun cited regarding the use of internal glossaries created by the instructor versus external glossaries (e.g. electronic bilingual dictionaries), which I found to common sense. Although, common sense does not constitute as empirical data and most scholars would not put too much faith in "common sense" argument. Basically, the study showed that students were much more likely to use internal glosses than electronic bilingual dictionaries. Students used these internal glosses more often b/c they simply clicked on a word and received its translation; whereas, with the bilingual dictionaries, they had many more avenues to pass in order to get the translation. My point is that student are going to use the easier means to obtain their objective.
ReplyDeleteOther studies Chun cites are ones that examine the use of multimedia glosses like pictures and videos in relation to vocabulary acquisition. She states that L2 learners acquire more vocabulary when their translations are supported by visual texts. Again, another point that seems to be common knowledge. Although, I found it quite interesting how too much multimedia may inhibit acquisition and pose as more a distraction that a supportive tool.
I feel that Chun's article, although somewhat inconclusive, encourages teachers to think of their goals and their students while choosing which CALL reading programs can be useful for them. What I thought was great about the gloss and dictionary link features was that things like this may help many students who approach reading as a burden (that is incessantly interrupted by their need to look up words)with a more positive and comfortable attitude. This could boost confidence, and ultimately encourage reading on one's own. I appreciated Chun's comments about trying to incorporate CALL into, not replace, a lot of more conventional techniques, such as pre-reading, and post-reading activities.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Polio's article about handling the use of Online Translators was interesting, and that it is important as language instructors, not to expect students never to utilize these tools, as they surely will. I appreciated her approaches, though, as they seem to encourage more responsible use of them outside of class. I thought that having students compare the results of 3 different translators was a great idea. While I also appreciated her suggestions about reconstructing unreadable translations, I am not sure that this activity, however entertaining, is necessarily all that useful, and could ultimately be very confusing.
blogger dogg for CALL Chapter $4
ReplyDeleteIf computer-based vocabulary training can (but not always) aid in rate of speed of high-frequency word identification, ie: CALL helps a student increase their vocabulary of commonly-used words, wouldn't that be the same for computer-based grammatical training?
What forms do the Computer-Based Vocab training exercised take on? Are there correlative exercises for Grammer Learning?
If: der Hund = the dog -- as an explicit explanation of a word -- aids a learner, then:
Ich habe einen schwarzen Hund (to explain the indefinite article/adjective endings modifying a masculine noun in the accusative case) would also be helpful in training the readers in high-frequency grammatical structures, thereby "freeing up their working memories"... in this sense, grammar-based computer training can have a positive affect on the student. Also, it would satisfy a seemingly natural urge in adult/young-adult students to have grammar explained explicitly.
*to increase speed of word recognition = good, a goal to have as teachers
therefore: increase speed of grammatical structure recognition = good, a goal to have as teachers
With this I propose that computer-based grammatical exercises (yes, even those verging on mechanical drills) would have similar beneficial effects as computer-based vocabulary training, in the sense that L2 Readers' working memories will be "freed up" by their training. The training exercises could give them an inherent/subconscious understanding of some of the various aspects of a text... to enable the L2 learners to navigate the text more fluidly.
Not everyone is a grammar buff, though. Mechanical drills in the classroom setting, as said by VanPatten, are a waste of the Instructor's and the Students' time; with this I can agree, but not entirely. In corporeal Instructor-Student & Student-Student classroom exchange, yes, but in the digital extension of the corporeal classroom environment, I consider the idea that grammar drills could be beneficial to the students in such that through the training and memorization, they eventually just "sorta know what sounds right/wrong".
For a second I was confusing this blog with "Vocabulary and CALL". Reading as a tool for second language learning serves two purposes: vocabulary development and grammar development. Within grammar development, the learner sees word order, verb conjugations, etc... but also the way in which that particular writer expresses himself depending on the type of literature. Some expressions can be picked up and used when speaking, perhaps even a few co-locations...Also dependent on the type of literature is the vocabulary that the learner is going to be introduced to.
ReplyDeleteCobb's article focuses on lexical uptake. I feel that Cobb's agenda is different from ours. Reading to increase vocabulary is successful when one sees a newly introduced word over and over, says Cobb. That is true whether one is reading in one's native or non-native language. Reading, to our students, will provide further exposure to the language and will expose students to topics that might not necessarily be discussed in class. So many types of literature are available that the student will have a wide array of topics and levels of difficulty.
Reading has many benefits for a second language learner.
Computer assistance allows instructors to manipulate the text in order to emphasize one specific aspect of reading. One can edit the text by or make it interactive. The internet also provides various texts that might not be available as a hard copy.
Chun and Polio mention online translators. Chun discusses them as being used along with online dictionaries. She says that students will use the translators because they make direct translations, but Polio points out that it's for that same reason that they should not be relied on. I agree with both. Polio makes a good point of addressing the unreliability of online translators with students. Students should become well-informed users of the resources available to them although not too much time should be spent on this discussion. I think that the serious students understand that online translators don't write essays.
It's Chun's "Final Four Instructional Implications" that I was really interested in, but, as she states, "very little research has been done"...
I want to mention e-readers as possible tools for ESL ( I am not sure of what other languages they are available in). The downside, of course, is the cost, but they might be a possibility in the future. Some e-readers have a dictionary so when you come across a word you don't recognize, all you do is highlight it and the definition will be provided. The reader also has the option to highlight the text, which might be specially useful for second language learners.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “CALL technologies for L2 Reading”, Chun explains that studies show that multiple media glosses in vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension are effective when image-based annotations (in combination with text-based annotations) are used. Chun summarizes that L2 vocabulary is remembered better when learners see a picture of video through glosses, as well as translations of unfamiliar words, and learners use prefer and use simple translations of words. I think that these findings are parallel to non-digital reading texts, where students benefit most from being given pre-reading and vocabulary activities that will build upon their understanding.
ReplyDeleteIn a non-CALL reading activity, students could be given pre-reading activities, such as the following: a set of pictures about the story that they would try to put in hypothetical order, a brainstorming activity about the title or topic the text will be about. However, in a CALL reading activity, I find hard to visualize how exactly students would be given pre-reading activities. Could it be that such structures activities can be replaced by direct lexical instruction?
I was playing around with the websites for picture and word matching and found that they are meaningful exercises. As Cobb concludes in his article, the major problem to reading comprehension that learners encounter comes from the extensive new lexical components present. I agree that CALL technology improves the possibilities of reading comprehension. Teachers can use matching exercises online to prepare students to the new vocabulary. It might be that initially translation would be necessary in order for students to comprehend what is going on in a text, but after a while the computer/book dual use could improve word retention.
I liked the versatility of Cobb's Compleat Lexical Tutor and plan to explore its possibilities for my own teaching of reading and vocabulary. As he states, "What is missing...is some way of focusing attention on and proliferating encounters with new words at any level within the act of reading, or shortly after reading, for any type of text, and for lots of texts" (45).
ReplyDeleteVocabulary study seems easy enough to incorporate into controlled or class readings, but with individualized extensive reading, particularly with all of the potential texts to be explored on the internet, there are not sufficient opportunities to readily transfer new lexical knowledge from the text to new contexts. I particularly liked the Wordbox feature of CLT, where students can click words to save for later and practice using them in other contexts. In that way, they are able to not only move through the initial text with a higher degree of comprehension but also have the opportunity to recycle that new knowledge and move new lexical items from their recognition vocabulary to their production vocabulary.
trischa
(this is a repeat - just so it is tagged w/ my name)
ReplyDeleteI liked how Chun pulled research from every angle of reading, but boy, by the time I got to the end of the article, I was a little disappointed in the research, i.e. there wasn't anything definitive in findings for "best methods". It's still quite a work in progress.
I consider CALL to be an upgrade to our classes, so, at least for reading, it's either we haven't nailed down the best way to use the tech, we haven't come up with the ideal tool for better reading performance & vocab mastery, or maybe, the best methods involve offering an array of options for our students - this way they can choose the option that works best for them.
What I deem most important, whether one is using a paper text or an online text, is teaching reading strategies. Technology can make things easier for the student (with pop-up definitions, glosses, multimedia, being able to look at corpuses & collocations, etc.. ) but it's still the strategies that will make the difference in performance.
Based on Chun's article and my own experiences, I think electronic and multimedia glosses for vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension are a great idea. First, the text supplemented with a picture appeals to different learning styles- especially visual learners. Second, I think internal glosses created by teachers or publishers of the readings would be extremely beneficial to students because it puts the word in the correct context. Students may choose the wrong definition using an online dictionary or translator. I recognize that this is a skill that they should acquire, but it depends on the purpose of the reading and what skills they are trying to acquire through the activity. For example, if its reading comprehension and they are focusing on top-down skills, then using an internal glossary can help them focus on acquiring these skills rather than become distracted with the term.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I will have to agree with what some of you were saying about using the effective instruction strategies. Sometimes technology tools and even the topics we are covering may seem interesting and easy to follow, but I have noticed that the strategies we use in class make the students feel more comfortable and engaging in the learning process. I say this because I recently interviewed high school students (two very successful and two F students) and I had this question. They all agreed that how the teacher explains and the activities they choose to make are far more important than anything else.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Iliana was saying that when students learn new vocabulary through reading, it greatly depends on the type of literature they are working on. We need to be careful with what readings we use. For example, if they are beginners we need to start with something that explains what we do in a daily basis but not children stories.