#ilt6720

[capeape]

Studies in Vocabulary Instruction

A Review of the Current Research on Vocabulary Instruction - Developed by the National Reading Technical Assistance Center, RMC Research Corporation

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/rmcfinal1.pdf

I found this article by researching best practices in vocabulary instruction.  I was searching for research based and documented strategies, and this document includes fifteen studies that were analyzed to draw broader trends.  All fifteen studies are included in an appendix at the end of the document.

Although I’m still refining the scope of my research, this article is specifically related to the type of learning and instruction that I’m focusing on: vocabulary instruction.  I propose to see if a digital format can increase vocabulary gains and retention outside of the classroom by eliciting practice, and competitive desire to participate.

The article builds off the work of the National Reading Panel’s (“NRP”) 2000 study: “The studies examined in the NRP Report (NICHD, 2000) suggested that vocabulary instruction does lead to gains in comprehension, but methods must be appropriate to the reader’s age and ability. The importance of vocabulary to success in reading is well known, but there continues to be little research that conclusively identifies the best methods or combinations of methods of vocabulary instruction. This publication reviews the most recent research on vocabulary acquisition and instructional practices since the release of the National Reading Panel’s report” (p. 1).

This article also uses the NRP’s criteria for data analysis, paraphrased here:

1. The study must have been relevant to instruction of vocabulary,

2. The study must have been published in a scientific journal,

3. The study must have used a control group,

4. The study must have been published between 2001 and 2009, and

5. The study must have included students in pre-K or above (p.3).

The article reaches three conclusions, two of which support my research questions and one that is outside its purview.  The first conclusions that support my research questions are that frequent exposure to vocabulary will help students better retain the meaning of the words as well as use them with greater frequency (p. 4).  The second conclusion that supports my research questions is that targeted vocabulary instruction increases the probability that students will remember the meaning of words (p. 4).

The conclusion that is outside of the purview of my research is that scaffolding the complexity of questions leads to greater gains in vocabulary retention (p. 5).  This is outside of the scope of my research because I only assess students based on the definition of the vocabulary word and thus do not assess students at different levels of complexity.

However, since research proposal is still being revised I think this would be an interesting question to ask my stakeholder participants, both teachers and students.  Would they prefer a different approach to how the vocabulary app asks questions?  Would that promote greater retention?  Would that help keep the app from getting “stale” and thus discouraging use?  It’s a question that I would like to include in my mid and end of process surveys and see what both teacher and student stakeholders say.  Unfortunately, I would not be able to revise the app for that functionality within the two month window.

I’m excited to add my study to the body of work around vocabulary instruction with an emphasis on the first two outcomes from this article.

[capeape]

Energy Efficiency, Gender, and Gamification

“Lights Off. Game On. The Kukui Cup: A Dorm Energy Competition” by Robert S. Brewer, George E. Lee, Yongwen Xu,Caterina Desiato, Michelle Katchuck, and Philip M. Johnson

The article starts with a bang: “The world is in the grip of an energy crisis.”  Pretty strong language for a scholarly work, but as I’ve now become accustomed to the dry, academic language of scholarly articles, I appreciate the fervor, something in me stirs.  

Though, initially, the article seemed only tangentially related to my topic, the abstract clearly conveyed the parallels:

Our research seeks to investigate the relationships among energy literacy, sustained energy conservation, and information technology support of behavior chang through an advanced dorm energy competition to take place in fall 2011. Game design techniques are used to attract competition participants, keep them engaged, and have a lasting impact in their energy use behavior through retained knowledge of energy obtained via the game environment [emphasis is my own] (p. 1)

“Attract...keep them engaged...have a lasting impact...through retained knowledge…”  Very much what my proposal is attempting to explore: how can digital competition, and gamification, lead to increased success in the classroom?  I’m also focusing on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that digital competition can provide, so I wanted to intentionally bring those lenses to the article.

Second paragraph: “Changing people's behavior is difficult, and to achieve meaningful energy conservation, behavior changes must be sustained. Two strategies that have proven effective are providing direct feedback on energy usage through real-time displays, and a toolbox of techniques such as making public commitments and setting goals” (p. 1).

Again, I find close similarities to my project. I propose to provide direct feedback on how students are progressing through their vocabulary acquisition in “real-time” through the quiz scores on the app.  As for the “toolbox of techniques” I intend to have teachers help set up the process by having their classes set individual goals, as well as, possibly, whole class goals.  To set up an individual goal is an example of intrinsic motivation, but to set a class goal entails two types of “soft” extrinsic motivation: 1) the motivation to not let down your class, and 2) how successful your class is in comparison to other classes.  It seems like a clear way to get some early feedback around how students gravitate toward different types of motivation.  “Soft” is here defined as not having strong consequences regardless of participation.  These consequences may include peer pressure or stigma, but are differentiated from “hard” consequences such as disciplinary actions, grade deficits, or loss of privileges.  

The Kukui project predicts that the greatest risk to its success is its ability to get residents of the dorm excited about an energy competition.  Since they do not have any “hard” consequences, they see the game environment as a way to encourage soft competition.  While I also cannot legislate hard consequences with my vocabulary program, student frequency and accuracy on the vocabulary program will directly correlate with their success on in-school vocabulary quizzes that are directly linked to grade consequences (i.e. hard).  

The Kukui project cites Lazarro’s 4 Keys 2 Fun as a guiding philosophy for their project:

“The 4 Fun Keys create games’ four most important emotions

1. Hard Fun: Fiero – in the moment personal triumph over adversity

2. Easy Fun: Curiosity

3. Serious Fun: Relaxation and excitement

4. People Fun: Amusement”

These echo some of what I had already planned out in terms of soft and hard motivations, but something I had not evaluated was what the Kukui project proposed next.  That different genders enjoy different types of game structures: “Finally, our design must combine and rationalize game elements traditionally considered “male” (mastery, competition, destruction, spatial puzzles, trial and error) with game elements traditionally considered “female” (emotion, real world, nurturing, dialogue, learning by example) (p. 3).”

I had not considered 1) whether my own gender biases have led the game to be more “masculine,” and 2) how to incorporate other types of game elements related to gender.  It’s given me something interesting and surprising to consider both in terms of the rollout of the app, as well as the feedback I collect.

References

Brewer, R.S., Lee, G.E. and Johnson, P.M. (2011). The Kukui Cup: a dorm energy competition focused on sustainable behavior change and energy literacy. In Proc HICSS 44.

Koster, R. (2005). A theory of fun. Paraglyph Press

Lazarro, N. Why we play games: Four keys to more emotion without story. White paper, Xeo Design.  Retried from http://www.xeodesign.com/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf

[capeape]

Scholarly Critique #1

Kim, T.W. Gamification and exploitation. Unpublished working paper.

http://gamification-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GAMICHI15_kim.pdf

Google’s Scholarly Articles search is a fast, easy way to find scholarly articles on a variety of topics.  The search works by looking for articles that have been linked in other works of academia.  Since my research topic focuses on the psychology of digital competition, I searched for “competition and gamification” and found three articles.

The first is entitled “Gamification Ethics: Exploitation and Manipulation” by Tae Wan Kim, an  Assistant Professor of Business Ethics at Carnegie Mellon University.  The article is closely related to my topic because it details some of the pitfalls associated with competitive digital environments.

The objective of the study is to compare gamification work environments “with two influential accounts of exploitation: the fairness account and the meremeans account” (Kim, p. 1).  First is the fairness theory.  Kim writes:

Imagine a labor market in which labor for gamification is clearly specified within employment advertisements. In this market, some number of competing companies advertises, for instance, cashier jobs. The job descriptions of some companies include reference to the gamified working condition; other companies’ descriptions do not. Would the addition of the gamified work change workers’ salaries in the hypothetical market? Probably not, or, at least, it is unclear. In theory, offering a gamified working environment could allow a company to even slightly decrease wages for those who preferred gamified to non-gamified employment. From the fairness account, hence, it’s difficult to say that gamification is exploitative (p. 2).

“Probably not, or, at least, it is unclear.”  Not particularly definitive or valid, but I think that Kim is right that those who would prefer a gamified work environment would preference it over a similar paying, non-gamified environment.  It’s hard to quantify how much less they would be willing to

accept in salary, but logical nonetheless.

In terms of public school in Denver, the equation is quite a bit easier.  Denver already offers “choice” to students in terms of preferencing their top schools, regardless of neighborhood.  A student who was particularly interested in a gamified learning would be more likely to seek out a school that offers that type of environment.  Additionally, online education is also a feasible option.   

The second account is the mere-means account.  Generally, the account details that if people are treated as “ends” then they are denied their dignity, a right as a rational human being.  Kim proposes a simple, action research solution:

In order not to express disrespect to others, we should consider how others would publicly interpret our acts. Hence, gamification designers have a duty to pay attention to the hermeneutical aspect of game elements. How can designers pay enough attention to the hermeneutical dimension? They can invite the input 3 of future interpreters, e.g., the Target cashiers, ask them how they interpret the game, and carefully consider their feedback (p. 3)

I think it’s both appropriate to consider how others will interpret our actions as well as including them in providing feedback.  Both sound economic/philosophical theories to keep in mind in the application of digital competition and gamification in general to educational environments.

References

Kim, T.W. Gamification and exploitation. Unpublished working paper.