LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,142
تعداد مقالات10,466
تعداد مشاهده مقاله44,852,578
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله10,729,934
Ghonchepour, Mousa, Jamshidi Shahroodi, Sajad. (1403). Comparing Visual Interaction and Screen-recorded Approaches in English Grammar Learning: An Educational Intervention. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15(2), 192-202. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.98748.1224
Mousa Ghonchepour; Sajad Jamshidi Shahroodi. "Comparing Visual Interaction and Screen-recorded Approaches in English Grammar Learning: An Educational Intervention". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15, 2, 1403, 192-202. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.98748.1224
Ghonchepour, Mousa, Jamshidi Shahroodi, Sajad. (1403). 'Comparing Visual Interaction and Screen-recorded Approaches in English Grammar Learning: An Educational Intervention', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15(2), pp. 192-202. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.98748.1224
Ghonchepour, Mousa, Jamshidi Shahroodi, Sajad. Comparing Visual Interaction and Screen-recorded Approaches in English Grammar Learning: An Educational Intervention. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1403; 15(2): 192-202. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.98748.1224

Comparing Visual Interaction and Screen-recorded Approaches in English Grammar Learning: An Educational Intervention

Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences
مقاله 7، دوره 15، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 57، شهریور 2024، صفحه 192-202    اصل مقاله (893.56 K)
نوع مقاله: Short Communication
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.98748.1224
نویسندگان
Mousa Ghonchepour* 1؛ Sajad Jamshidi Shahroodi2
1Language and Literature Department, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
2Hormozgan Department of Education, Hormozgan, Iran
چکیده
Background: Face-to-face interactions help teachers teach by sharing information with learners directly through body gestures. In virtual instruction, educators are forced to keep up with the instructional programs technologically. This research compared visual interaction and screen-recorded methods in enhancing English Foreign Language (EFL) grammar learning of senior high school students.
Methods: This research is an educational intervention with a pre-test and post-test design and a control group. Using the simple random sampling method, one school was selected from all-boys senior high schools. A total of 40 eligible male students were randomly allocated to two intervention and control groups (n=20 per group) as a statistical sample learning English in Hormozgan from September to February in the academic year of 2022-2023. They were individuals aged between 17 and 18 majoring in mathematics. The intervention group was taught quoted and reported speech using audio files, PowerPoint slides, and recorded videos, while the control group received screen-recorded videos. The data was gathered using two 25-item pre-tests and post-tests as instruments. The collected data were analyzed through Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20 using independent and paired t-tests. 
Results: The Mean±SD of the intervention and control group in the pre-test phase were 87±1.27 and 86±1.19, respectively, showing no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.789). The Mean±SD for the control and intervention groups were 89.25±.93 and 97.50±.51, respectively, indicating that the experimental group outperformed the control group in the post-test (P=0.013). Moreover, the Mean of learning scores in the experimental group increased significantly (P=0.000), while no significant changes were observed in the control group (P=0.091). 
Conclusion: The findings indicate that incorporating video lectures can enhance students’ ability to learn, create an engaging atmosphere, prevent their boredom and disruptions, and ultimately transform an ordinary virtual class into a dynamic and collaborative experience. 

تازه های تحقیق

Mousa Ghonchepour (Google Scholar)

کلیدواژه‌ها
Grammar؛ Learning؛ Reported Speech؛ Teaching؛ Education؛ Distance؛ Visual Interaction
مراجع
  1. Esmaeili Bavili M, Seifoori, S, Ahour T. Investigating Teacher-Learner Classroom Interaction: Learner-Contingent Feedback across Proficiency Levels and Teacher Experience. JLT. 2021;11(4):149-170. doi: 10.30495/TTLT.2021.683892.
  2. Erarslan, A. English language teaching and learning during Covid-19: A global perspective on the first year. JETOL. 2021;4(2):349-367. doi: 10.31681/jetol.907757.
  3. Hew KF, Jia C, Gonda DE, Bai S. Transitioning to the new normal of learning in unpredictable times: pedagogical practices and learning performance in fully online flipped classrooms. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020;17(57). doi:10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x.
  4. Shahrill M, Petra MI, Naing L, Yacob J, Santos JH, Abdul Aziz ABZ. New norms and opportunities from the COVID-19 pandemic crisis in a higher education setting: perspectives from Universiti Brunei Darussalam. Int J Educ Manag. 2021;35(3):700-712. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-07-2020-0347.
  5. Zhai Y, Du X. Addressing Collegiate Mental Health amidst COVID-19 Pandemic. Psychiatry Res. 2020;288:113003. doi: 10.1016/j.psych res.2020.113003.
  6. Munna A.S. and Kalam, M. A. Teaching and learning process to enhance teaching effectiveness: a literature review. IJHI. 2021;4(1):1-4. doi:10.33750/ijhi.v4i1.102.
  7. Ellis R. Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1990.
  8. Izzati N. The Use of Teacher Talk Through Online Teaching and Learning Process in EFL Classroom During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research: Proc. Nine Int. Conf. Educ. L.A. 2020;539:8-13, doi:10.2991/assehr.k.210325.002.
  9. Chen R. How to cut high dropout rates of online courses. E-Learning Industry. 2018 March 11. Available from: https://elearningindustry.com/dropout-rates-of-online-courses-cut-high.
  10. 10. Oria V. Lowering online student dropout rates. Inside Higher Ed. 2017 June 7. Available from: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/views/2017/06/07/tools-lower-student-dropout-rates.
  11. Carroll F, Kop R. Colouring the Gaps in Learning Design: Aesthetics and the Visual in Learning. IJDET. 2016;14(1):92–103. doi: 10.4018/IJDET.2016010106.
  12. Pirrone C, Varrasia S, Plataniaa GA. Castellanoa S. (2021). Face-to-face and online learning: the role of technology in students’ metacognition. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Technology Enhanced Learning Environments for Blended Education. The Italian e-Learning Conference 2021. http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/ftp/pub/publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-2817.zip.
  13. Moreillon J. Increasing interactivity in the online learning environment: Using digital tools to support students in socially constructed meaning-making. TechTrends. 2015;59(3):41–47, doi:10.1007/s11528-015-0851-0.
  14. Ha Y, Im H. The Role of an Interactive Visual Learning Tool and its Personalizability in Online Learning: Flow Experience. Online Learn. J. 2020;24(1):205-226. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339620248.
  15. Leem BH. Impact of Interactivity on Learning Outcome in Online Learning Settings: Ordinal Logit Model. IJEBM. 2023;15:1-10. doi: 10.1177/18479790231203107.
  16. Sun JN, Hsu YC. Effect of interactivity on learner perceptions in web-based instruction. Comput Human Behav. 2013;29(1):171–184. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.002.
  17. Appleton JJ, Christenson SL, Furlong MJ. Student Engagement with School: Critical Conceptual and Methodological Issues of the Construct. Psychol Sch. 2008; 45:369–386. doi: 10.1002/pits.20303.
  18. Pakpour N, Souto I, Schaffer P. Increasing Engagement during Online Learning through the Use of Interactive Slides. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2021;22:e00117-21. doi: 10.1128/ jmbe.00117-21.
  19. Lyster R. Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2007.
  20. Schwartz D, Fajardo C. Adding Voice/Visual Interaction to Online Classes. J.Res.Innov. Teach. 2008;1(1):145-157.
  21. Frischen A, Bayless AP, Tipper SP. Gaze cueing of attention: Visual Attention, Social Cognition, and Individual Differences. Psychological Bulletin. 2007;133:694–724. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694.
  22. Knowles MS. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy. Cambridge: The Adult Education Company; 1970.
  23. Smith PA. Understanding Self-regulated Learning and its Implications for Accounting Educators and Researchers. Issues Account. Educ. 2001;16(4):663-700. doi: 10.2308/iace.2001.16.4.663.
  24. Ouwehand K, Van Gog T, Paas F. Designing Effective Video-based Modeling Examples using Gaze and Gesture Cues. Educational Technology and Society. 2015;18:78-88.
  25. Gibbons P. Mediating Language Learning: Teacher Interaction with ESL Students in Content- Based Classroom. TESOL Quarterly. 2003;(2):247-269. doi:10.2307/3588504.
  26. Al Mahadin L, Hallak L. Proceedings of the AUBH E-Learning Conference 2021: Innovative Learning & Teaching - Lessons from COVID-19; 2021 June 26; Bahrain. American University of Bahrain;2021. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3874420.
  27. Azmat M, Ahmad A. Lack of Social Interaction in Online Classes during COVID-19. J.Mater.Environ. Sci.2022;13(2):185-196. https://www.jmaterenvironsci.com/Document/vol13/vol13_N2/JMES-2022-13015-Azmat.pdf.
  28. Wang H, Pi Zh, Hu W. The Instructor’s Gaze Guidance in Video Lectures Improves Learning. JCAL. 2019;35(1):42-50. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12309.
  29. Pi Zh, Xu K, Liu C, Yang J. Instructor Presence in Video Lectures: Eye Gaze Matters, but not Body Orientation. Comput Educ. 2020;144:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103713.
  30. Khodabandeh F, Karimi B. Comparing Boredom Proneness in Traditional and Virtual English Classes. IJEAP. 2023;12(1):19-30. https://journalscmu.sinaweb.net/article_169721.html.
  31. Mann S, Robinson A. Boredom in the lecture theatre: An Investigation into the Contributors, Moderators and Outcomes of Boredom amongst University Students. Br Educ Res J. 2009;35(2): 243-258. doi:10.1080/01411920802042911.
  32. Conty L, George N, Hietanen JK. (2016). Watching Eyes effects: When others meet the self. Conscious Cogn. 2016;45:184–197. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.08.016.
  33. Syafril EPE, Kurniawati W. PPT-Audio; the Alternative Audio-Visual Media for Online Learning during the Corona Pandemic. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021;1823(1):012046. IOP Publishing. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1823/1/012046.
  34. Lashgari K, Talkhabi A, Shahidian A. Online Classes: Advantages and Disadvantages. World Rural Observations. 2011; 3(3):77-81.
  35. Lyons A, Reysen S, Pierce L. Video lecture format, student technological efficacy, and social presence in online courses. Comput Human Behav. 2012;28:181-186. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.025.
  36. Chen C, Wu C. Effects of Different Video Lecture Types on Sustained Attention, Emotion, Cognitive Load, and Learning Performance. JComputEduc. 2015;80:108-121,  doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.015.
  37. Jarodzka H, Van Gog T, Dorr M, Scheiter K, Gerjets P. learning to See: Guiding students' Attention via a Model's Eye Movements Fosters Learning. Learn Instr. 2013;25:62-70, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.004.
  38. Oudeyer, PY, Gottlieb J, Lopes M. Intrinsic Motivation, Curiosity, and learning: Theory and Applications in Educational Technologies. Prog.Brain Res. 2016;229:257–284. doi: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.05.005.
  39. Kang H. Sample Size Determination and Power Analysis Using the G*Power Software. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021;18(17). doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17. PubMed PMID: 34325496; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8441096.
  40. Efeotor V. Fair, Reliable, Valid: Developing a Grammar Test Utilizing the Four Building Blocks. AWEJ. 2014;5(4):203-225.
  41. Azar BS, Hagan SA. Quoted and Reported Speech. Understanding and Using English Grammar (4th ed.). Pearson Education; 2009.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 113
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 138


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب