Ishii presentation
-
Upload
debopriyo-roy -
Category
Education
-
view
91 -
download
0
Transcript of Ishii presentation
Takahide Ishii s1170047 Supervised by Prof. Debopriyo Roy
1. Introduction
2. The Background this research
3. The Objective this research
4. Research Questions
5. Sample and context
6. Research Design ・ In-class Website Analysis Assignment
・ Actual Experiment
・ Data Analysis – Use of Coders
7. Findings
8. Conclusions
Literature on computer assisted language learning is mostly silent on how web-based design analysis could be effectively used as a tool and framework for developing critical thinking skills and language proficiency in an EFL classroom.
This article reported on how EFL learners perform with English website analysis
tasks in a language reception and product context.
There is substantial research in language studies and cognition that establishes cognition and language development to be closely related
Educators have identified multiple features and elements of reading and writing to have always influenced thinking skills to a large extent.
There has always been a strong appeal to promote
higher order thinking in ESL and EFL classrooms, and research has clearly focused on the need to foster critical thinking in a foreign language classroom
However, unfortunately language learning and thinking skills were almost always treated as independent processes
This study focused on extensive and sustained content analysis using information technology resources.
This study establishes that such attempt helps with both linguistic and cognitive information processing ability.
This study is also influenced by the fact that we have shifted from Web 1.0 towards Web 2.0 where there is an increased emergence of computer-mediated communication, social networking and active interaction between the user and the web environment.
How d id the EFL readers per form wi th var ious des ign quest ions as asked dur ing webs i te ana lys i s ?
I s there any s ign i f i cant d i f fe rence be tween coders who graded responses to the des ign quest ions suggest ing s ign i f i cant d i f fe rence between responses to a des ign quest ion and/or suggest ing that
one or more coder ( s ) have not unders tood the quest ions and responses cor rec t l y and resu l tant l y cou ld not use the assessment rubr i c cor rec t l y for grad ing the des ign responses?
Participants (N=17) are junior level students (age group: 18-20 years) in their third year undergraduate program specializing in computer science in a Japanese technical university
With this specific elective course named Writing and Design for World Wide Web, students mostly focused on the process of online writing, designing and analyzing
websites based on design principles, besides designing concept maps on websites they analyzed.
As part of the website analysis assignment, students were asked to study a specific website in a chosen domain (e.g., education, entertainment, government, tourism, sports etc)
Students provide open-ended responses to 8 standard questions asked of them.
1. Explain whether the organization of information in the site is user-friendly or not?
2. Explain whether the presentation of content is appealing or not?
3. Explain whether the effective use of technology is demonstrated?
4. Who is the target audience? Is the website appropriate for the projected audience?
5. Explain the quality of the text content.
6. Is the information accessible?
7. Explain whether the resources use real-world situations.
8. Here are some common reasons for building this website. Rank them in order of importance to you. Do you have a reason that is not listed?
Open-ended Design Questions asked of the Participants
The experiment was conducted in a controlled environment as an in-class activity, and over two weeks.
students analyzed the Belize tourism website based on the 8 open-ended questions asked during the same assignment that happened over the previous weeks
Students had one-week to complete the analysis, besides the 90 minutes of class time where they could consult their friends.
To encourage writing and proper explanation, the minimum word limit for the assignment was set at 500 words.
Three undergraduate students (not part of the class with the sample) who took the same class at an earlier semester were appointed as coders with the task of grading the first week assignment where readers participated in an open-ended evaluation of the Belize tourism website.
The coders were given a set of criteria on the basis of which they graded each open-ended response, for all the 8 questions assigned.
Each of the 8 open-ended responses for each of the 17 participants was rated thrice, once by each of the three coders.
The group (including the project supervisor and the three coders) then discussed each grade for each question and criterion.
The Coding Schema
N Minimum Maximum Sum of Mean Scores Std. Deviation
Question1 18 9 16 14.56 2.479
Question2 18 3 16 12.56 3.110
Question3 18 0 14 11.56 3.585
Question4 18 3 15 11.50 4.148
Question5 18 3 15 11.33 3.804
Question6 18 2 15 11.28 4.254
Question7 18 0 15 10.33 4.366
Question8 18 6 15 11.67 2.990
Valid N (list
wise) 18
Mean and SD Values for Each Question on 6 Criteria and Each Criteria Scored Thrice by Three Different Coders
Descriptive Statistics for Student Score Calculated over Six Criteria by Coder A
N
Minimum Mean
Score
Maximum
Mean Score
Mean of Total
Mean Score Std. Deviation
S1 6 3 7 5.33 1.366
S2 6 3 7 5.67 1.506
S3 6 2 7 4.00 2.098
S4 6 2 8 4.17 2.639
S5 6 1 6 3.50 2.258
S6 6 5 8 7.00 1.549
S7 6 1 6 3.33 2.582
S8 6 1 1 1.00 .000
S9 6 3 8 5.00 2.098
S10 6 1 8 4.00 3.098
S11 6 3 8 5.83 2.317
S12 6 3 7 4.17 1.602
S13 6 3 8 7.00 2.000
S14 6 2 8 6.33 2.422
S15 6 1 8 3.17 2.639
S16 6 3 8 4.83 1.941
Valid N
(list wise) 6
Descriptive Statistics for Student Score Calculated over Six Criteria by Coder B
N
Minimum Mean
score
Maximum Mean
Score
Mean of Total Mean
Score Std. Deviation
S1 6 3 8 6.00 2.098
S2 6 4 8 6.50 1.643
S3 6 4 7 5.67 1.033
S4 6 3 8 5.83 2.137
S5 6 5 8 6.83 1.472
S6 6 6 8 7.50 .837
S7 6 3 8 5.67 2.338
S8 6 1 2 1.50 .548
S9 6 3 8 6.17 2.483
S10 6 2 8 6.00 2.449
S11 6 3 8 6.50 1.871
S12 6 4 8 6.50 1.761
S13 6 6 8 7.67 .816
S14 6 3 8 6.17 1.941
S15 6 4 8 6.33 1.633
S16 6 5 8 6.83 1.169
Valid N (list
wise) 6
Descriptive Statistics for Student Score Calculated over Six Criteria by Coder C
N
Minimum Mean
Score
Maximum Mean
Score
Mean of Total Mean
Score Std. Deviation
S1 6 6 8 6.83 .753
S2 6 7 8 7.67 .516
S3 6 5 7 6.67 .816
S4 6 6 8 7.50 .837
S5 6 6 8 7.50 .837
S6 6 5 8 7.50 1.225
S7 6 6 8 7.50 .837
S8 6 1 1 1.00 .000
S9 6 5 8 6.33 1.033
S10 6 7 8 7.83 .408
S11 6 8 8 8.00 .000
S12 6 6 8 7.67 .816
S13 6 6 8 7.50 .837
S14 6 6 8 7.50 .837
S15 6 5 8 7.00 1.549
S16 6 6 8 7.67 .816
Valid N (list
wise) 6
This study, Coders were a test of not only understanding what constitutes valid information, and good organization of response, but it also required ability to read through the criteria rubric used in the study
demonstrate at least moderate levels of language proficiency.