Flipped classroom with gamified technology and paper-based method for teaching vocabulary

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Damar Isti Pratiwi, Sri Wuli Fitriati, Issy Yuliasri, Budi Waluyo
{"title":"Flipped classroom with gamified technology and paper-based method for teaching vocabulary","authors":"Damar Isti Pratiwi, Sri Wuli Fitriati, Issy Yuliasri, Budi Waluyo","doi":"10.1186/s40862-023-00222-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While gamified technology integration in vocabulary instruction within a flipped classroom has yielded beneficial teaching outcomes, specific studies have raised concerns about potential adverse effects linked to this approach. As a result, conducting a comparative analysis between gamified technology and conventional paper-based methods within the flipped classroom framework has become essential. This analysis aims to foster the development of a targeted teaching approach that adeptly addresses the unique needs of students. This study employed a sequential explanatory research design to examine the effectiveness of flipped classroom with gamified technology and paper-based method in teaching vocabulary to students with different proficiency levels. Quantitative data was gathered from a pretest and a posttest, whilst qualitative data was collected through teachers’ guided reflection. Using Academic Word List (300 target words), control groups employed a paper-based, while experimental groups applied gamified technology (<i>Quizlet, Kahoot!, Quizizz, Socrative,</i> and <i>Google Form</i>), which lasted 10 weeks. The participants were 144 non-English major students who took a general English course in the 2nd semester of 2023. Quantitative data analysis ran in SPSS 25 using <i>Paired Sample t-Test</i> and <i>One-way ANOVA</i>. The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic progression. The results showed that gamified technology did not affect students’ learning outcomes, while the paper-based method resulted conversely. It revealed that the paper-based method is more effective than gamified technology for students in general, with low proficiency and high-proficiency level. Further, teachers’ beliefs admitted distinctive issues that gamified technology was more effective for high-proficiency learners, whereas paper-based was more effective for low-proficiency learners. The difference analysis of quantitative and qualitative data sheds light on discussing threats while implementing gamified technology and possible solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":36383,"journal":{"name":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","volume":"195 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00222-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While gamified technology integration in vocabulary instruction within a flipped classroom has yielded beneficial teaching outcomes, specific studies have raised concerns about potential adverse effects linked to this approach. As a result, conducting a comparative analysis between gamified technology and conventional paper-based methods within the flipped classroom framework has become essential. This analysis aims to foster the development of a targeted teaching approach that adeptly addresses the unique needs of students. This study employed a sequential explanatory research design to examine the effectiveness of flipped classroom with gamified technology and paper-based method in teaching vocabulary to students with different proficiency levels. Quantitative data was gathered from a pretest and a posttest, whilst qualitative data was collected through teachers’ guided reflection. Using Academic Word List (300 target words), control groups employed a paper-based, while experimental groups applied gamified technology (Quizlet, Kahoot!, Quizizz, Socrative, and Google Form), which lasted 10 weeks. The participants were 144 non-English major students who took a general English course in the 2nd semester of 2023. Quantitative data analysis ran in SPSS 25 using Paired Sample t-Test and One-way ANOVA. The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic progression. The results showed that gamified technology did not affect students’ learning outcomes, while the paper-based method resulted conversely. It revealed that the paper-based method is more effective than gamified technology for students in general, with low proficiency and high-proficiency level. Further, teachers’ beliefs admitted distinctive issues that gamified technology was more effective for high-proficiency learners, whereas paper-based was more effective for low-proficiency learners. The difference analysis of quantitative and qualitative data sheds light on discussing threats while implementing gamified technology and possible solutions.

Abstract Image

利用游戏化技术和纸质教学法进行词汇教学的翻转课堂
虽然游戏化技术融入翻转课堂的词汇教学取得了有益的教学成果,但具体的研究也提出了与这种方法相关的潜在负面影响的担忧。因此,在翻转课堂框架内对游戏化技术和传统纸质教学方法进行比较分析就变得至关重要。这种分析旨在促进有针对性的教学方法的发展,以妥善解决学生的独特需求。本研究采用了序列解释性研究设计,考察了游戏化技术和纸质教学法的翻转课堂对不同水平学生的词汇教学效果。定量数据通过前测和后测收集,定性数据通过教师的指导反思收集。对照组使用学术词汇表(300 个目标词汇),实验组使用游戏化技术(Quizlet、Kahoot!、Quizizz、Socrative 和 Google Form),为期 10 周。参与者为 2023 年第二学期选修普通英语课程的 144 名非英语专业学生。定量数据分析在 SPSS 25 中进行,使用了配对样本 t 检验和单因子方差分析。定性数据采用主题递进法进行分析。结果显示,游戏化技术没有影响学生的学习成果,而纸质教学法的结果则相反。对于一般学生、低水平学生和高水平学生来说,纸质教学法比游戏化技术更有效。此外,教师的观念也承认游戏化技术对高水平学习者更有效,而纸质教学法对低水平学习者更有效。定量和定性数据的差异分析揭示了在实施游戏化技术过程中存在的威胁和可能的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education
Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
40
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信