Exploring Tolkien’s Literary Universe in the EFL classroom. Ap-proaching Literature through Robotics-enhanced Inquiry-based learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2023.44.1-12Keywords:
Inquiry-based learning (IBL), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), Robotics, Literature, ClasscraftAbstract
This article examines how technology-enhanced inquiry-based learning (IBL) affected students’ language acquisition and the evolution of motivation in the subject of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Furthermore, this study presents a proposal for the collaboration of the subjects of Spanish and English, using translanguaging to establish connections between students’ L1 and L2 and reducing curricular duplications. EFL presents itself as an opportunity for learners to engage with a broader scope of authentic resources, using Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) as the main driving force of problem-solving situations. Thus, the investigation used Tolkien’s literary world as the main theme and topic of research, and robotics (Ozobot), IBL and a gamified learning management system (Classcraft) as the main methodologies. Through a series of diagnostic and proficiency tests (which included a robotic-supported storytelling activity and an ARCS motivation test), quantitative data were gathered concerning the two analysed variables. Results indicated improved language acquisition and motivation in all four parameters. Furthermore, Ozobot showed to have a quick adaptation period for student use at basic levels of functioning, as well as aiding in creative storytelling. Results will contribute to closing the knowledge gap detected in EFL learning since has been mostly used for scientific learning.
References
Akpolat, B. S., & Slany, W. (2014, April). Enhancing software engineering student team engagement in a high-intensity extreme programming course using gamification. In 2014 ieee 27th conference on software engineering education and training (csee&t) (pp. 149-153). IEEE.
Alameddine, M. & Ahwal, H. (2016). Inquiry Based Teaching in Literature Classrooms. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 232. 332-337.
Alimisis, D. (2012). Robotics in education & education in robotics: Shifting focus from technology to pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education (pp. 7-14).
Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of baltic science education, 12(3), 365.
Asiri, A., Panday-Shukla, P., Rajeh, H. S., & Yu, Y. (2021). Broadening Perspectives on CALL Teacher Education: From Technocentrism to Integration. TESL-EJ, 24(4), n4.
Becker, S., Klein, P., Gößling, A., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Using mobile devices to enhance inquiry-based learning processes. Learning and Instruction, 69.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.
Bisquerra, R. (2009). Metodología de la Investigación Educativa 2da. ed. La Muralla.
Carlgren, T. (2013). Communication, critical thinking, problem-solving: A suggested course for all high school students in the 21st century. Interchange, 44(1-2), 63-81.
Chang, C., Chang, C. K., & Shih, J. L. (2016). Motivational strategies in a mobile inquiry-based language learning setting. System, 59, 100-115.
Daniela, L., & Lytras, M. D. (2019). Educational robotics for inclusive education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(2), 219-225.
Engwall, O. & Lopes, J. (2020). Interaction and collaboration in robot-assisted language learning for adults. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 1-37.
Gómez Gutiérrez, A. J. (2018). Collaborative inquiry in the EFL classroom: exploring a school related topic with fifth graders. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 20(2), 248-262.
Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artif Life Robotics 7, 16–21.
Jurado, E., Fonseca, D., Coderch, J., & Canaleta, X. (2020). Social STEAM Learning at an Early Age with Robotic Platforms: A Case Study in Four Schools in Spain. Sensors, 20(13). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s20133698
Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 61–84.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Luke, CL. (2006). Fostering learner autonomy in a technology-enhanced, inquiry-based foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals. 39, 71-86.
McCormick, N. J., Clark, L. M., & Raines, J. M. (2015). Engaging students in critical thinking and problem solving: A brief review of the literature. Journal of Studies in Education, 5(4), 100-113.
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational research review, 14, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Permana, G. A., Parno, P., Hidayat, A., & Ali, M. (2021). Improving creative thinking skill of fluid dynamic through IBL-STEM with formative assessment. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2330, No. 1). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043128
Piaget J, Infelder B. (1975). The origin of the idea of chance in children. New York: Norton.
Pressley, H., Streit, W., & McCartt, S. (2022). Flattening the Learning Curve: Narrowing STEAM Achievement Gaps via a Research Curriculum. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 81(6), 8-13.
Rejeki, S. (2017). Inquiry-based language learning (IBLL): theoretical and practical views in English classroom. English Franca., 1(2), 135–148.
Ruiz Vicente, F.A. (2017). Diseño de proyectos STEAM a partir del currículum actual de Educación Primaria utilizando Aprendizaje Basado en Problemas, Aprendizaje Cooperativo, Flipped Classroom y Robótica Educativa. Alfara del Patriarca (Valencia): Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Comunicación, Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación.
Ruiz del Solar and Avilés, (2004, as referenced in p. 37), where 84% of the 700 participants in an educational robotics program said they would consider enrolling in the STEM fields at university.
Staver, J. R., & Bay, M. (1987). Analysis of the project synthesis goal cluster orientation and inquiry emphasis of elementary science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(7), 629-643.
Suárez, A., Specht, M., Prinsen, F., Kalz, M., & Ternier, S. (2018). A review of the types of mobile activities in mobile inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, 118, 38-55.
Vivas Fernández, L., & Sáez López, J. M. (2019). Integración de la robótica educativa en Educación Primaria. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa. RELATEC, 18(1), 107-128.
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21-29
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Alexander Frank García Vaquero, Maria Alcantud Diaz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication.
- The texts published in Digital Education Review, DER, are under a license Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4,0 Spain, of Creative Commons. All the conditions of use in: Creative Commons,
- In order to mention the works, you must give credit to the authors and to this Journal.
- Digital Education Review, DER, does not accept any responsibility for the points of view and statements made by the authors in their work.
