Vocabulary Learning with the Moodle Glossary Tool: A Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v4i1.170Keywords:
Moodle glossary, vocabulary learning, independent learning, technology, modern languagesAbstract
Vocabulary learning is a vital part of mastering a language and experience has shown that students often neglect to routinely work on this aspect leading to problems with listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills. This case study describes and evaluates the use of the Moodle glossary to support vocabulary learning in the modern language classroom. First-year students of German added 30 vocabulary items to the glossary each week. All students were encouraged to learn the new contributions on a weekly basis and classroom activities were used to reinforce the new vocabulary. Contributions were expected to follow a certain format, and students received a small percentage of their mark for their contributions.
A mixed-method approach using surveys, statistics from Moodle, feedback notes, observation notes, email exchanges, and a focus group with students served to analyse the effectiveness of the Moodle glossary. Results showed that all students contributed to building the tool, though technological support from the instructor was sometimes necessary. Students less regularly read the contributions of others. A comparison of the Moodle activity report and the weekly quiz results suggested that engaging with the tool led to improved quiz results. The tool was successful in promoting independent learning, however extrinsic motivators (such as assessment and quizzes) proved necessary for some students. In general, the Moodle glossary was a useful tool for vocabulary learning and recommendations for a successful implementation are given. This case study will be of interest to language instructors, but also to learners and instructors dealing with specialised terminology.
References
Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2010). Applying constructive alignment to outcomes-based teaching and learning. In Training material for “quality teaching for learning in higher education” workshop for master trainers, Ministry of Higher Education, Kuala Lumpur (pp. 23-25).
Bovill, C., Cook‐Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co‐creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2), 133-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.568690
Brandl, K. (2005). Are you ready to “Moodle”. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 16-23.
Breeze, R. (2014). Moodle glossary tasks for teaching legal English. In Languages for specific purposes in the digital era (pp. 111-128). Springer International Publishing.
Dougiamas, M. (2010). Moodle version 1.9. 7. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 13(2).
Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 61(2), 367-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00613.x
Entwistle, N. (2005). ‘Contrasting perspectives on learning’. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle, (eds). The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (pp. 3-22). 3rd (Internet) edition. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
Hirschel, R. (2012). Moodle: Students’ perspectives on forums, glossaries and quizzes. The Jaltcall Journal, 8(2), 95-112.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university?. Computers & Education, 54(3), 722-732. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00613.x
Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x
Kojic‐Sabo, I., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Students' approaches to vocabulary learning and their relationship to success. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 176-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00014
Kolb, D. (1993). The process of experiential learning. In M. Thorpe, R. Edwards, & A. Hanson (eds). Culture and processes of adult learning (pp.138-156). Buckingham: OUP.
Krasnova, T. (2015). A paradigm shift: Blended learning integration in Russian higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 166, 399-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00014
Lai, C., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2012). What factors predict undergraduate students’ use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong. Computers & Education, 59(2), 569-579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.006
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440.
Pospíšilová, L., Bezdíčková, Z., & Ciberová, D. (2011). English for science using LMS Moodle. 14th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning, 169-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICL.2011.6059569
Thomas, L., Jones, R., & Ottaway, J. (2015). Effective practice in the design of directed independent learning opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Effective%20practice%20in%20the%20design%20of%20directed%20independent%20learning%20opportunities.pdf
Ur, P. (2002). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: University Press.
White, D. S., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3171/3049
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: design and methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
