BEHIND THE SCENE: STUDENT-CREATED VIDEO AS A MEANING-MAKING PROCESS TO PROMOTE STUDENT ACTIVE LEARNING

• Authors: Anas Ismail
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Although many studies reported that student-created video task could promote learners’ active learning and engagement, the investigation on how the students worked and created the videos is still scarce. The process of video creation in a micro-reality context of English language learning involves social practice and cognition (a socio-cognitive process) of the students. The student-created video is an output-based learning activity that reflects a meaning-making process upon the completion of the project. This paper sheds light on how the students worked on the project through such stages as preparing the materials, setting the scene, selecting the video recording tool and editing the video before the submission. Encapsulated from the videos and semi-structured interviews from 41 Polytechnic students in Indonesia, the approaches that students employed during the process of video creation were explored to arrive at a meaning-making process of learning. As a result, the activity enabled the student active learning, vocabulary building, autonomous learning and self-confidence as well as the student’s technological skill. In addition to that, the challenges encountered by the students during the video-making process will also be presented.

Keywords

EN

student-created video; meaning-making process; active learning; ELL

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 19
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 37-56

Contributors

author

Anas Ismail

• Politeknik Negeri Ujung Pandang

References

• Baker, A. (2016). Active learning with interactive videos: creating student-guided learning materials. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 2918(September), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2016.1206776
• Bangs, P. (1990). Case study: Interactive video and language learning. Innovations in Education & Training International, 27(2), 146-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800900270203
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research. A Practical Guide for Beginners. Retrieved from http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/21156
• Cartelli, A., & Di Nuzzo, A. (2013). Digital literacy and competence in students attending a faculty of humanities. In: A. Cartelli (Ed.), Fostering 21st Century Digital Literacy and Technical Competency (pp. 55-64). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference/ IGI Global.
• Chiang, S. C., & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 130-159.
• Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of Task-Based Teaching. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(3), 19-45.
• Engin, M. (2014). Extending the flipped classroom model: Developing second language writing skills through student-created digital videos. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(5), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotlv14i5.12829
• Gallo-crail, R., & Zerwekh, R. (2002). Language learning and the internet: Student strategies in vocabulary acquisition. In C. A. Spreen (Ed.), New Technologies and Language Learning: Cases in the Commonly Taught Languages. Technical report #25 (pp. 55-79). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
• Bodomo, A. B. (2010). (ed.) Computer-Mediated Communication for Linguistics and Literacy: Technology and Natural Language Education. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference/ IGI Global.
• Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1). Retrieved from https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html#about author
• Hawkes, R. (2009). Digital technology as a tool for active learning in MFL: Engaging language learners in and beyond the secondary classroom. In M. Evans (Ed.), Foreign-Language Learning with Digital Technology (pp. 80-103). London; New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Hughes, J., & Robertson, L. (2010). Transforming practice: Using digital video to engage students. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664539700200032
• Kelly, R. (1985). Video and language learning: An approach to viewing comprehension. RELC Journal, 16(1), 52-67.
• Lin, L. (2011). The video comprehension strategies of Chinese-speaking university students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 297-319. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.3.c
• Lund, A. (2003). The Teacher as Interface: Teachers of EFL in ICT-Rich Environments. Beliefs, Practices, Appropriation. Oslo: The University of Oslo.
• Motteram, G. (2013). Innovations in Learning Technologies for English Language Teaching. London: British Council.
• Naqvi, S. (2015). Student created digital video and language learning: Voices from Omani classrooms. Third 21st CAF Conference at Harvard, in Boston, 6(1), 246-259.
• Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based Language Teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task.’ The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(3), 12-18.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121111107708
• Richards, J. C. (2015). The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal, 46(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214561621
• Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using online video to support student learning and engagement. College Teaching, 59(2), 56-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.511313
• Shih, R.-C. (2010). Blended learning using video-based blogs: Public speaking for English as a Second Language students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 883-897. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.usherbrooke.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ906894&site=ehost-live;
• Shrosbree, M. (2008). Digital video in the language classroom. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(1), 75-84.
• Sindoni, M. G. (2011). Online conversations: A sociolinguistic investigation into young adults’ use of videochats. Classroom Discourse, 2, 219-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.614055
• Sivan, A., Leung, R. W., Woon, C. C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(4), 381-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/135580000750052991
• Terantino, J. M. (2011). Emerging technologies, YouTube for foreign languages: You have to see this video. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 10-16. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2011/emerging.pdf
• Theron, L., & Theron, A. (2014). Meaning-making and resilience: Case studies of a multifaceted process. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 24(1), 37-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2014.904099
• Thomas, M., & Reinders, H. (2010). Deconstructing tasks and technology. In: M. Thomas, H. Reinders (eds.), Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=QGkzsqQ4HaoC&pgis=1
• Ting, N. C. (2013). Classroom video project: An investigation on students' perception. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90(InCULT 2012), 441-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.113
• Wagener, D. (2006). Promoting independent learning skills using video on digital language laboratories. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(4-5), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220601043180
• Widodo, H. P., Budi, A. B., & Wijayanti, F. (2016). Poetry writing 2.0: Learning to write creatively in a blended language learning lnvironment. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 13(1), 30-48.
• Young, C. A., & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English language arts with technology: A critical approach and pedagogical framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-22.