Learning English in the digital kitchen

Prof. Paul Seedhouse
Nor Fadzlinda Ishak
advances in digital technologies are changing
the profession of English language teaching
and applied linguistics (Chapelle, 2003)
the practices of teaching and learning will
undergo a technology revolution (Siemens
and Tittenberger, 2009).
‘We live in a world of constantly emerging
new technologies that challenge the field of
education while at the same time present
exciting opportunities. Strategic use of new
educational technologies can enhance
learning and teaching…’ (Webster and
Murphy, 2008, p.1).
the utilization and integration of Instructional
Computer Technology (ICT) tools in English
lessons has proven to be effective in assisting
learners in acquiring English language
competency as well as enhance the quality of
their learning experience (Zaiton and Samuel,
integrating ICT tools in teaching can lead to
increase learners learning competencies and
increase opportunity for communication
(Jorge et al., 2003).
The technology is adapted from the
Newcastle’s existing ‘Ambient Kitchen’.
The kitchen speaks to the users and give
them step-by-step instructions on how to
Sensors are attached to all equipment and
to address the universal problem of
classroom language teaching.
to bring Task-Based Language Teaching
(TBLT) out of the classroom.
How much ‘more’ can the
digital kitchen offer when
compared to a normal
everyday kitchen after one
cooking session?
This comparative study focuses on the
question: What is the outcome of the same
task when it is carried out in a normal
kitchen and a kitchen equipped with digital
Thus, the main purpose of the research is
to determine the impact of utilizing the
digital kitchen towards the students’:
- Achievement in the vocabulary tests.
- Interaction.
1) What is the impact of using the digital
kitchen towards incidental vocabulary
- Does the use of digital kitchen have a
positive or negative impact on student
learning in terms of test scores?
- Will the students able to retain the new
lexical items learned through the cooking
2) To what extend does the technology help to
promote interaction?
 How much language was generated in terms
of word counts?
 Do the learners negotiate to decide on the
meaning of any new vocabulary? How?
 Is explicit clarification of the meaning of
unfamiliar vocabulary through negotiation
necessary for acquisition of the vocabulary?
Mixed Method Study
◦ Quantitative- The pretest, posttest and delayed
posttest results
◦ Qualitative – The interaction (focusing on
vocabulary learning)
-To decide on the lexical items to be tested in
actual study.
Pretest, posttest and delayed posttest
- The same test to be administered before,
after and a week after the lesson.
Video recording of the lesson
– the interaction will be transcribed and
TBLT theories
Input hypothesis (Krashen)
Interaction hypothesis (Long, Ellis and Nunan)
Output hypothesis (Swain)
Task-types and Language output (Skehan et al, Robinson, Martyn)
Incidental Vocabulary learning theory
◦ Involvement Load hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstjin, 2001)
Derived from the depth of processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972)
and elaboration (Craik & Tulving, 1975) cognitive notions.
32 intermediate learners of English from the
Pre-sessional English Course offered by the
INTO Newcastle University learning centre will
take part in the study.
They are all volunteers who will then
randomly assigned to Experimental and
Control groups.
Matching participants approach will also be
considered when putting them into pairs.
◦ The participants will sit for a vocabulary knowledge pre-test at
least a week before they carry out the task.
◦ Prior to cooking, they will watch a video on preparing the same
◦ It is a pair work: They have to use English to interact while
carrying out the cooking task.
◦ While waiting for the food to cook in the oven, they will do some
vocabulary exercises.
◦ A post-test will be administered a day after the cooking session.
◦ A delayed post-test will be carried out after one week.
n.f.ishak @ newcastle.ac.uk