BibTex RIS Cite

-

Year 2014, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, 203 - 228, 21.05.2014

Ercan Tomakin

Abstract

The study aimed to teach English subject pronouns (I, you, he, etc.) and to be verbs (am, is, was, been, etc.) to students using transliteration in the Turkish texts easily and implicitly. The Turkish words used were chosen from a Turkish dictionary and the possible Tukish texts were produced specially by the researchers on a systematic study. These texts were used by the English teachers in two elementary schools, and in one elementary school by the English and student teachers together. The study used true experimental design in one application, and simple experimental design in five applications. The study has revealed some promising findings. First, some of the English and Turkish sentences, as seen in “Işıl maketi iter,” were combined meaningfully for the first time. Second, teaching English subject pronouns and to be verbs in an innovative way through the Turkish texts produced higher success in five out of six applications. Third, the reconciliation of the English and Turkish sentences (grammars) could contribute to the foreign language teaching, linguistic studies and the world peace in general.

Keywords

English Turkish language teaching transliteration.

References

  • Adelman, G., Jenkins D. & Kemmis S. (1984). Rethinking Case Study, in Bell, J. et al. (eds.) Conducting Small-Scale Investigations in Educational Management. London: P. C. P, 93-102.
  • Agırman, S. (1996). Use of unfocused communication tasks in teaching of grammar: With a particular reference to “By Phrase” in passive constructions. (MA Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu Universitesi.
  • Altunbaşak, İ. (2010). Turkish English teachers’ beliefs about grammar teaching and their grammar teaching practices. (MA Study). Istanbul: Marmara University. Aslan, A. (2010). A study on the development of approaches to teaching English grammar. (MA Study). Edirne: Trakya University.
  • Atover, S. (2005). Teaching English grammar through games to adolescents. (MA Study). Bolu: Abant İzzet Baysal Unv.
  • Allstop, J. (1983). Cassell’s Students’ English Grammar. East Sussex: Cassel.
  • Azar, BS (1898). English Grammar. America: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  • Bobrow, J. (1986). TOEFL. Nebraska: Cliffs Notes.
  • Budak, Y. (1996). The effect of the communicative aproach end the grammar-translation method on students achivement. (PhD Study). Ankara: Hacattepe University.
  • Canturk, B. (1998). Explicit grammar instruction: A comparison of comprehensionbased and production-based instruction for EFL learners. (PhD Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.
  • Cigdem, M. (1997). The effects of grammar-focused writing instruction on the writing abilities of students. (MA Study). Tokat: Gaziosmanpasa University.
  • Citak B. (2003). Teaching English grammar to young learners through drama, MA Study, Ankara: Gazi University.
  • Coban, F. (2006). Grammar teaching through task-based language teaching and sample grammar lessons. (MA Study). İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik University.
  • Crystal, D. 1993. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (3rd Edition). Cambridge: Blackwell.
  • Derman, S. (2008). A research on choosing texts in grammar teaching (7th class). (PhD Study). Konya: Selcuk Universitesi.
  • Eden, H. (2005). English grammar teaching and methods: A comparative study of the views of foreign language teaching methods on teaching grammar in teaching English as a second language. (MA Study). Ankara: Ankara University.
  • Ellidokuzoglu, H. (2002). Availability of innate linguistic knowledge in second language acquisition and its implacitions for language teaching. (PhD Study). Ankara: METU.
  • Emeli, D. (1999). The Communicative approach and its implications to grammar teaching and learning. (MA Study). Adana: Çukurova University.
  • Erdal, H. (1988). A Comparison of functional-national approach and grammar-syntaxorganization approach in teaching writing in English as a foreign language. (MA Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  • Erdin, H. (2002). Integrating grammar into the teaching of essay -level composition at upper- intermediate level. (MA Study). Sivas: Cumhuriyet University.
  • Erol, N. (2005). The effect of generative learning activities on students performance in teaching of English grammar. (MA Study). Ankara: Ankara University.
  • Erşin, Z. (2011). The effectiveness of commercial software in teaching grammar, MA Study, Ankara: İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent Üniversitesi.
  • Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. (1998). An Introduction to Language (6th edition). Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
  • Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Gokten, D. (2008). Observations on English grammar teaching processes based on deductive and inductive approaches. (MA Study). Ankara: Ankara University.
  • Gonen, M. (2004). Reflections on grammar course book: Listening to students` voices. (MA Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.
  • Kaplan, M. U. (2002). The effectiveness of computer assisted language learning (call in grammar instruction to vocational high school EFL students. (MA Study). Gaziantep: Gaziantep University.
  • Karakus, S. (2005). A study on two different grammar teaching methods: Comparison of sentence level and context-based grammar teaching, MA Study, Mersin: Mersin University.
  • Korkmaz, R. (2001). Teaching grammar communicatively with a referance to kernel one/ two. (MA Study). Erzurum: Ataturk University.
  • Makaracı, M. (2004). The effects of computer assisted English grammer teaching on academic achievement and retention in the secondary level of primary education. (MA Study). Adana: Cukurova University.
  • Mardin, Y. (1970). Turkish Phrase Book. London: Routledge & Kegal Paul.
  • Marriam, B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Mutlu, ESM. (2001). Task-based teaching effectiveness on students achievement in learning grammar. (MA Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.
  • Mutlu, Z.D. (1993). An Experimental study on pattern practice drills (PPD) in grammar teaching. (MA Study). Gaziantep: University of Gaziantep.
  • Nunan, D. (1994) Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP.
  • Oruc, N. (2007). Visually enhanced input, input processing or pushed output: A study on grammar teaching. (PhD). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.
  • Ozbek, N. (1990). Integrating grammar into the teaching of paragraph level composition: A syllabus for the first-year students in the department of fle at METU. (MA Study). Ankara: METU.
  • Ozkan, I.B. (2003). An Alternative approach to communicative grammar teaching: Communicative task-oriented grammar approach. (MA Study). Kayseri: Erciyes University.
  • Ozturk, P. (2004). An experimental study on the effect of games on young adults’ success in learning English grammar. (MA Study). Canakkale: COMU.
  • Oxford Paperback Dictionary and Thesaurus (1999). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Salkind, N.J. (2000). Exploring Research (4th Edition). London: Prentice Hall International.
  • Sarantakos, S. (1998) Social Research (2nd Edition). London: Macmillan.
  • Seckin, H. (2002). Teaching grammar communicatively at intermediate level. (MA Study). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  • Selçuk, M. (2000). Contextualised grammar instruction with communicative language practice. (MA Study). Istanbul: Istanbul University.
  • Simsek, M.R. (2006). A discourse analysis of two gothic stories through Halliday’s functional grammar in language teaching. (MA Study). Izmir: Dokuz Eylul University.
  • Simsek, M.R. (2009). The effects of the use on the achievement of the students in the teaching of grammar concepts. (PhD Study). Izmir: 9 Eylul University.
  • Şaf, N.N. (2010). Three dimensional grammar teaching in foreign language teaching, MA Study, Ankara: Ankara University.
  • Sahin, C. (2006). Teachers’ oral corrective behaviours and learners’ reactions to feedbacks received in grammar lessons. (MA Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu University. Sahin, F. (2002). The use of poetry in teaching English grammar. (MA Study). Canakkale: COMU.
  • Swan, M. (1984). Basic English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Turkce Sozluk (2005). Turk Dil Kurumu, 10. Baskı, Ankara: Aksam Sanat Okulu.
  • Temizöz, H. (2008). The effects of grammar translation method and communicative approach practices on students’ learning ability in foreign language teaching. (MA Study). Malatya: İnönü University.
  • Yarar, G. (2005). The effect of computer assisted language learning method on the student achievement in teaching English grammar. (MA Study). Bursa: Uludag University.
  • Yıldız, M. (2012). Teaching grammar through task-based language teaching to young EFL learners, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. (MA Study). Samsun: Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi.

İngilizce Şahıs Zamirleri ve Olmak (To Be) Fiillerinin Türkçe Metin İçersinde Öğretimi: Türkçe Yöntemi

Year 2014, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, 203 - 228, 21.05.2014

Ercan Tomakin

Abstract

Çalışma, İngilizce şahıs zamirlerini (ben, sen, o, vd.) ve olmak fillerini (am, is,
was, been, vd.) Türkçe metinler içersinde kolay ve örtük şekilde öğrencilere transliterasyon
yöntemiyle öğretmeyi amaçlamıştır. Kullanılan Türkçe sözcükler bir sözlükten
alınmıştır ve olası Türkçe metinler araştırmacı tarafından sistematik olarak üretilmiştir.
Üretilen bu metinler İngilizce öğretmenleri tarafından iki ilköğretim okulunda ve İngilizce
öğretmenleri ile birlikte İngilizce staj öğrencileri tarafından bir ilköğretim okulunda
kullanılmıştır. Çalışma, bir okulda gerçek deneysel desen, diğer beş okulda ise basit
deneysel desen kullanmıştır. Çalışma sonunda bazı yararlı bulgulara ulaşılmıştır: Bir,
“Işıl maketi iter” cümlesinde görüldüğü gibi, bazı İngilizce ve Türkçe cümleler anlamlı
şekilde ve ilk kez birleştirilmiştir / kaynaştırılmıştır. İki, İngilizce şahıs zamirleri ve olmak
fiillerinin yeni (innovative) ve Türkçe metinler içersinde öğretilmesi altı uygulamanın beşinde daha başarılı sonuçlar ortaya çıkarmıştır. Üç, İngilizce ve Türkçe cümlelerin (gramerin)
kaynaştırılabilmesi yabancı dil öğretim ve dilbilim çalışmaları ile dünya barışına
katkı sağlayabileceği önerilmiştir.

Keywords

İngilizce Türkçe dil öğretimi transliterasyon

References

  • Adelman, G., Jenkins D. & Kemmis S. (1984). Rethinking Case Study, in Bell, J. et al. (eds.) Conducting Small-Scale Investigations in Educational Management. London: P. C. P, 93-102.
  • Agırman, S. (1996). Use of unfocused communication tasks in teaching of grammar: With a particular reference to “By Phrase” in passive constructions. (MA Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu Universitesi.
  • Altunbaşak, İ. (2010). Turkish English teachers’ beliefs about grammar teaching and their grammar teaching practices. (MA Study). Istanbul: Marmara University. Aslan, A. (2010). A study on the development of approaches to teaching English grammar. (MA Study). Edirne: Trakya University.
  • Atover, S. (2005). Teaching English grammar through games to adolescents. (MA Study). Bolu: Abant İzzet Baysal Unv.
  • Allstop, J. (1983). Cassell’s Students’ English Grammar. East Sussex: Cassel.
  • Azar, BS (1898). English Grammar. America: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  • Bobrow, J. (1986). TOEFL. Nebraska: Cliffs Notes.
  • Budak, Y. (1996). The effect of the communicative aproach end the grammar-translation method on students achivement. (PhD Study). Ankara: Hacattepe University.
  • Canturk, B. (1998). Explicit grammar instruction: A comparison of comprehensionbased and production-based instruction for EFL learners. (PhD Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.
  • Cigdem, M. (1997). The effects of grammar-focused writing instruction on the writing abilities of students. (MA Study). Tokat: Gaziosmanpasa University.
  • Citak B. (2003). Teaching English grammar to young learners through drama, MA Study, Ankara: Gazi University.
  • Coban, F. (2006). Grammar teaching through task-based language teaching and sample grammar lessons. (MA Study). İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik University.
  • Crystal, D. 1993. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (3rd Edition). Cambridge: Blackwell.
  • Derman, S. (2008). A research on choosing texts in grammar teaching (7th class). (PhD Study). Konya: Selcuk Universitesi.
  • Eden, H. (2005). English grammar teaching and methods: A comparative study of the views of foreign language teaching methods on teaching grammar in teaching English as a second language. (MA Study). Ankara: Ankara University.
  • Ellidokuzoglu, H. (2002). Availability of innate linguistic knowledge in second language acquisition and its implacitions for language teaching. (PhD Study). Ankara: METU.
  • Emeli, D. (1999). The Communicative approach and its implications to grammar teaching and learning. (MA Study). Adana: Çukurova University.
  • Erdal, H. (1988). A Comparison of functional-national approach and grammar-syntaxorganization approach in teaching writing in English as a foreign language. (MA Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  • Erdin, H. (2002). Integrating grammar into the teaching of essay -level composition at upper- intermediate level. (MA Study). Sivas: Cumhuriyet University.
  • Erol, N. (2005). The effect of generative learning activities on students performance in teaching of English grammar. (MA Study). Ankara: Ankara University.
  • Erşin, Z. (2011). The effectiveness of commercial software in teaching grammar, MA Study, Ankara: İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent Üniversitesi.
  • Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. (1998). An Introduction to Language (6th edition). Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
  • Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Gokten, D. (2008). Observations on English grammar teaching processes based on deductive and inductive approaches. (MA Study). Ankara: Ankara University.
  • Gonen, M. (2004). Reflections on grammar course book: Listening to students` voices. (MA Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.
  • Kaplan, M. U. (2002). The effectiveness of computer assisted language learning (call in grammar instruction to vocational high school EFL students. (MA Study). Gaziantep: Gaziantep University.
  • Karakus, S. (2005). A study on two different grammar teaching methods: Comparison of sentence level and context-based grammar teaching, MA Study, Mersin: Mersin University.
  • Korkmaz, R. (2001). Teaching grammar communicatively with a referance to kernel one/ two. (MA Study). Erzurum: Ataturk University.
  • Makaracı, M. (2004). The effects of computer assisted English grammer teaching on academic achievement and retention in the secondary level of primary education. (MA Study). Adana: Cukurova University.
  • Mardin, Y. (1970). Turkish Phrase Book. London: Routledge & Kegal Paul.
  • Marriam, B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Mutlu, ESM. (2001). Task-based teaching effectiveness on students achievement in learning grammar. (MA Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.
  • Mutlu, Z.D. (1993). An Experimental study on pattern practice drills (PPD) in grammar teaching. (MA Study). Gaziantep: University of Gaziantep.
  • Nunan, D. (1994) Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP.
  • Oruc, N. (2007). Visually enhanced input, input processing or pushed output: A study on grammar teaching. (PhD). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.
  • Ozbek, N. (1990). Integrating grammar into the teaching of paragraph level composition: A syllabus for the first-year students in the department of fle at METU. (MA Study). Ankara: METU.
  • Ozkan, I.B. (2003). An Alternative approach to communicative grammar teaching: Communicative task-oriented grammar approach. (MA Study). Kayseri: Erciyes University.
  • Ozturk, P. (2004). An experimental study on the effect of games on young adults’ success in learning English grammar. (MA Study). Canakkale: COMU.
  • Oxford Paperback Dictionary and Thesaurus (1999). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Salkind, N.J. (2000). Exploring Research (4th Edition). London: Prentice Hall International.
  • Sarantakos, S. (1998) Social Research (2nd Edition). London: Macmillan.
  • Seckin, H. (2002). Teaching grammar communicatively at intermediate level. (MA Study). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  • Selçuk, M. (2000). Contextualised grammar instruction with communicative language practice. (MA Study). Istanbul: Istanbul University.
  • Simsek, M.R. (2006). A discourse analysis of two gothic stories through Halliday’s functional grammar in language teaching. (MA Study). Izmir: Dokuz Eylul University.
  • Simsek, M.R. (2009). The effects of the use on the achievement of the students in the teaching of grammar concepts. (PhD Study). Izmir: 9 Eylul University.
  • Şaf, N.N. (2010). Three dimensional grammar teaching in foreign language teaching, MA Study, Ankara: Ankara University.
  • Sahin, C. (2006). Teachers’ oral corrective behaviours and learners’ reactions to feedbacks received in grammar lessons. (MA Study). Eskisehir: Anadolu University. Sahin, F. (2002). The use of poetry in teaching English grammar. (MA Study). Canakkale: COMU.
  • Swan, M. (1984). Basic English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Turkce Sozluk (2005). Turk Dil Kurumu, 10. Baskı, Ankara: Aksam Sanat Okulu.
  • Temizöz, H. (2008). The effects of grammar translation method and communicative approach practices on students’ learning ability in foreign language teaching. (MA Study). Malatya: İnönü University.
  • Yarar, G. (2005). The effect of computer assisted language learning method on the student achievement in teaching English grammar. (MA Study). Bursa: Uludag University.
  • Yıldız, M. (2012). Teaching grammar through task-based language teaching to young EFL learners, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. (MA Study). Samsun: Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi.
There are 51 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language en;tr
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Ercan Tomakin This is me

Publication Date May 21, 2014
Published in Issue Year 2014 Volume: 18 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Tomakin, E. (2014). İngilizce Şahıs Zamirleri ve Olmak (To Be) Fiillerinin Türkçe Metin İçersinde Öğretimi: Türkçe Yöntemi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(1), 203-228.
 Download Cover Image

Creative Commons Lisansı
ATASOBED- Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari-AynıLisanslaPaylaş 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.