İNGİLİZCENİN YABANCI DİL OLARAK ÖĞRETİMİ ALANINDA YÜKSEKÖĞRETİM BAĞLAMINDA TÜRK ÖĞRETMENLERİN ve ÖĞRENCİLERİN İLETİŞİMSEL GÖREVLERİN YARARLILIĞINA İLİŞKİN ALGILARI

Abstract

İletişimsel görevler 20 yılı aşkın bir süredir dünya çapında ilk ve ortaöğretimin yanı sıra yükseköğretim alanındaki İngilizcenin öğretimi ile ilgili hazırlanan müfredatlara yaygın bir şekilde entegre edilmektedir. İletişimsel görevlerin farklı eğitim kurumlarında farklı öğrenci profilleri ile, yaygın bir şekilde uygulanmasına karşın, sınıf uygulamalarının gözlemlenmesi ve öğretmen ve öğrencilerin kişisel deneyimlerine dayalı kanıtlar iletişimsel görevlerin etkinliğine ilişkin her iki grup açısından farklı algıların olduğunu ortaya koymakta ve söz konusu algıların incelenmesi ihtiyacına işaret etmektedir. Bu nitel çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de İngilizcenin yabancı dil olarak öğretildiği büyük bir devlet üniversitesinde İngilizce hazırlık okulunda çalışan öğretmen ve öğrencilerin iletişimsel görev algılarını incelemektir. Çalışmadaki veriler öğrenci anketindeki açık uçlu sorular, öğretmenlerle gerçekleştirilen standartlaştırılmış açık uçlu görüşmeler ve öğretmen günlükleri yoluyla toplanmıştır. Çalışmada Doff and Jones (1994) tarafından yazılan Language in use intermediate-classroom book isimli ders kitabındaki göreceli olarak yüksek iletişimsel potansiyele sahip sekiz adet görev kullanılmıştır. Veriler içerik çözümlemesi yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular üniversitenin hazırlık okulundaki hem İngilizce öğretmenlerinin hem de öğrencilerin çalışmadaki iletişimsel görevlerin yararlılığı ile ilgili olumlu algılara sahip olduklarını ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca bulgular her iki tarafın algılarının genel olarak benzer doğrultuda olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışmada İngilizcenin yabancı dil olarak öğretildiği ortamlarda çalışan İngilizce öğretmenleri ve müfredat geliştiriciler için tavsiyelere ve yeni araştırma önerilerine de yer verilmektedir.

Keywords

• İletişimsel görevler
• İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğreten öğretmen görüşleri
• İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrenci görüşleri
• yüksek öğrenim bağlamı

A QUALITATIVE STUDY INTO TURKISH EFL TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNICATIVE TASK EFFECTIVENESS IN A TERTIARY EDUCATION CONTEXT

Abstract

Communicative tasks have been integrated into mainstream English language teaching (ELT) curricula and ELT textbooks not only at K-12 but also at the tertiary level on a global scale for over two decades. Despite the widespread implementation of the communicative tasks in different educational institutions with diverse learner profiles, the observation of classroom practices and anecdotal evidence from teachers and students denoted that there were varied perceptions concerning the effectiveness of communicative tasks between both parties, which indicates a need for the exploration of these perceptions. This qualitative study set out to investigate the perceptions of the EFL teachers and students at an English preparatory school of a large state university in Turkey regarding the effectiveness of communicative tasks in relation to the effectiveness of the communicative tasks. The data were collected through the open-ended items on the student questionnaire, the standardized open-ended teacher interviews and the teacher journals. Eight tasks with a relatively high communicative potential from the coursebook called Language in use intermediate – classroom book by Doff and Jones (1994) were used in the study. The data in the study were analyzed via inductive content analysis. The findings revealed that both the EFL teachers and students at the preparatory school of the university held favourable perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the communicative tasks. They also indicated a general alignment between both parties’ perceptions of communicative tasks in the study. The study incorporates some implications for in-service teachers in the EFL contexts as well as some suggestions for further research.

Keywords

• Communicative tasks
• Turkish EFL teachers’ perceptions
• Turkish EFL students’ perceptions
• tertiary education context

References

1. Anderson, J. (1981). Short-term student responses to classroom instruction. Elementary School Journal, 82, 97-108.
2. Alcorso, C., & Kalantzis, M. (1985). The learning process and being a learner in the AMEP (A report to the committee of review of the adult migrant education program. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
3. Allwright, D., & Bailey, K.M. (1997). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
4. Barkhuizen, G.P. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching and learning activities in a South-African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1), 85-108.
5. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon.
6. Block, D. (1994). A day in the life of a class: Teacher and learner perceptions of task purpose in conflict. System, 22 (4), 473-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)90004-3.
7. Breen, M.P. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C.N. Candlin & D.F. Murphy (Eds.), Lancaster practical papers in English language education: Vol. 7. Language learning tasks (pp. 23-46). Prentice Hall.
8. Brophy, J., & Alleman, A. (1991). Activities as instructional tools: A framework for analysis and evaluation. Educational Researcher, 20 (4), 9-23.

9. Clark, C.M., & Creswell, J. L. (1979). Participants’ versus nonparticipants’ perceptions of teacher nonverbal behaviour. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 14, 28-36.
10. Cole, P. G. & Chan, L. (1994). Teaching principles and practice. Prentice Hall.
11. Conrad, D. (1999). The student view on effective practices in the college elementary and intermediate foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 32 (4), 494-512.
12. Cooper, H.M., & Good, T.L. (1982). Pygmalion grows up: Studies in the expectation communication process. York.
13. Doff, A., & Jones, V. (1994). Language in use intermediate classroom book. Cambridge University Press.
14. Eltis, K., & Low, B. (1985). A review of teaching process in the adult migrant education program (A report to the committee of review of the adult migrant education program). Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
15. Green, J. (1993). Student attitudes toward communicative and noncommunicative activities: Do enjoyment and effectiveness go together? The Modern Language Journal, 77 (1), 1-10.
16. Horwitz, E.K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283–294.
17. Jacobs, G.M., & Ball, J. (1996). An investigation of the structure of group activities in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal, 50 (2), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.2.99
18. Johnson, K.E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
19. Jacobs, G.M., & Ball, J. (1996). An investigation of the structure of group activities in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal, 50 (2), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.2.99
20. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Interaction Book Company.
21. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1995). Los nuevos círculos de aprendizaje: cooperación en el salón de clases y en la escuela [The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school]. ASCD.
22. Johnson, K.E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
23. Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 50 (3), 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.3.187
24. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language-learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45 (2), 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/45.2.98
25. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: Emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 27-48.
26. Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (4), 677-703. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588000
27. Long, M. (1990). Task, group, and task-group interaction. In S. Anivan (Ed.), Language teaching methodology for the nineties. SEAMEO Regional Center.
28. Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. N. (1994). Qualitative analysis data: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
29. Nunan, D. (1986). Communicative language teaching: The learners’ view. In R K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language classroom (pp.176-186). Cambridge University Press.
30. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.
31. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Pintrich, P. Cross, D. R., Kozma, R.B., & McKeachie, W.J. (1986). Instructional pyschology. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 611-651.
32. Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and noncommunicative activities in EFL classroom. System,30, 85-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00050-1
33. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in tanguage teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge University Press.
34. Schumann, F.M., & Schumann, I.H. (1977). Diary of a language learner: An introspective study of second language learning. In H.D. Brown, C.A. Yorio, & R.H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77: Teaching and learning English as a second language: ·Trends in research and practice (pp. 241-249). TESOL.
35. Schunk, D.H. (1992). Theory and research on student perception in the classroom. In D. H. Schunk, & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perception in the classroom (pp. 4-23). Erlbaum.
36. Spratt, M. (1999). How good we are at knowing what learners like? System, 27, 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00013-5
37. Thompson, C. K. (1992). Learner-centered tasks in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 25(6), 523-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb01137.x
38. Topuz, S. (1994). Graduate and undergraduate students’ attitudes towards various aspects of communicative classrooms. [Unpublished master's thesis]. Bilkent University. https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/handle/20.500.12812/39543
39. Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language classroom: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Longman.
40. Vygotsky, L.S. (1980). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
41. Weinstein, C.S. (1983). Students’ perceptions of schooling. Elementary School Journal, 83, 288-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461319
42. Winnie, P.H., & Marx, R.W. (1980). Matching students’ cognitive styles to teaching skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 257-264.
43. Wittrock, M.V. (Ed.). (1986). Handbook of research on teaching. Macmillan.
44. Yorio, C.A. (1986). Consumerism in second language learning and teaching. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 42(3), 668-686.