The effects of online glossary quizzes and student autonomy on domain vocabulary learning in business law
- 9 Downloads
While understanding of domain specific vocabularies is essential in content learning, little research informs teaching practices for glossary learning. This study examines the relationship among vocabulary learning, student autonomy, and course performance through the theoretical framework of self-determination theory and second language acquisition. Undergraduate business law students (n = 209) took weekly online glossary quizzes via a learning management system before coming to the class. Students were divided into two groups where (a) glossary quizzes were required and graded and (b) optional and not graded. There was a significant relationship among the number of quiz attempts and overall course performance. While both groups valued the glossary quiz as a helpful learning activity, students in the required group made more attempts at quizzes (t = 17.029, p < .01), received higher scores (t = 2.841, p < .01), and demonstrated higher perceived competence (t = 5.544, p < .01) in their command of vocabularies than students in the optional group. Also, students who reported more autonomous motivation toward the course made more attempts and received higher scores. Findings suggest required glossary quizzes enhance student engagement with quizzes and further improves content learning. However, the use of glossary quizzes proved effective only when students actually completed these numerous times. Educators are recommended to encourage repeated attempts at glossary quizzes where unfamiliar vocabularies are crucial to content understanding and professional practice.
KeywordsOnline glossary quiz Vocabulary learning Self-determination theory Autonomy Competence Engagement Performance Business law
This study was supported by the Research Fund, 2017 of The Catholic University of Korea (Grant No. M-2017-B0014-00008).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Aydin, Y. Ç., Güneri, O. Y., Yildirim, F. B., & Çag, P. (2015). Predicting college student success: College engagement and perceived english language proficiency. Çukurova University. Faculty of Education Journal, 44(2), 229.Google Scholar
- Bloom, P. (2000). Learning, development, and conceptual change. How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences in secondary language acquisition (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
- Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2004). Preview, view, review: Giving multilingual learners access to the curriculum. In L. Hoyt (Ed.), Spotlight on comprehension: Building a literacy of thoughtfulness. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- Garner, B. A. (2013). Legal writing in plain English: A text with exercises. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Krashen, S. D. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. San Francisco, CA: The Alemany Press.Google Scholar
- McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1990). Content literacy: A definition and implications. Journal of Reading, 34(3), 184–186.Google Scholar
- McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1993). Teaching through text: A content literacy approach to content area reading. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Melvin, S. P., & Katz, M. (2011). The legal environment of business: A managerial approach: Theory to practice. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
- Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (1997). Reading, writing, & learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
- Van den Branden, K. (2012). Task-based language education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. 132–139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Wang, L. (2009). An empirical study of differences in the use of English vocabulary learning strategies. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(4), 151–192.Google Scholar
- Yang, H. (2008). On teaching strategies in second language acquisition. US-China Education Review, 5(1), 61–67.Google Scholar