PANDEMİ SÜRECİNDE ÜNİVERSİTELERDE YABANCI DİL EĞİTİMİ; VAKA ANALİZİ

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Türk üniversitelerinde dil öğretiminin paydaşları olan üniversite rektörleri, Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu yöneticileri ve Uzaktan Eğitim Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi yöneticilerinin karşılaştıkları güçlükleri, fırsatları ve genel görüşlerini incelemektir. Katılımcılar Türkiye’nin çeşitli bölgelerindeki vakıf ve devlet üniversitelerindendir. 3 rektör (N= 3), 4 Uzaktan Eğitim Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi (N= 4) ve 13 Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu (N= 13) müdüründen görüşmeler yoluyla görüş alınırken, görüşler 323 öğretim üyesi (N= 323) ve 652 öğrenciye (N= 652) online anket yoluyla ulaşılmıştır. Araştırma karma yönteme dayalı olarak yapılmış ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla rektör, Uzaktan Eğitim Uygulaması yöneticileri ve Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu yöneticilerinin görüşleri alınmıştır. Ayrıca, öğretim üyeleri ve öğrencilerle çevrimiçi olarak anket yapılmıştır. Görüşme sonuçları ve anket verileri değerlendirildi ve ilişkilendirildi. Buna göre öğretim elemanı ve öğrencilerin çevrimiçi eğitime ilişkin görüşleri çelişkili sonuçlar ortaya çıkmaktadır. Öğretim elemanlarının sürece ilişkin görüşlerinin öğrencilere göre görece daha memnun olmasında yöneticilerin kararlarının etkisinin olup olmadığı incelenmiş ve ilişkilerin “sınırlı” olarak nitelendirilebileceği sonucuna varılmıştır. Yöneticilerin aldığı kararlar doğrultusunda şekillenen uzaktan eğitimde eğitim ve ölçme-değerlendirme yöntem ve programlarının yetersiz olduğu konusunda öğretim üyeleri ve öğrenciler hemfikirdir. Diğer bir sonuç ise üniversitenin idari organlarında yer alan katılımcıların ve öğrencilerin yüz yüze eğitime daha sıcak baktığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uzaktan Eğitim
• İngilizce Hazırlık Programı
• Covid-19

FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING AT UNIVERSITIES DURING THE PANDEMIC PROCESS; CASE STUDY

Abstract

The aim of this research is to study the challenges, opportunities and general views of university rectors who are the stakeholders of language teaching in Turkish universities, the directors of the School of Foreign Languages and the directors of the Distance Education Application and Research Center. The participants are from foundation and state universities in various regions of Turkey. While views from 3 rectors (N= 3), 4 the directors of the Distance Education Application and Research Center (N= 4), and 13 the directors of the School of Foreign Languages (N= 13) directors were obtained through interviews, opinions of 323 lecturers (N= 323) and 652 students (N= 652) were obtained through an online survey. The research was based on the mixed method, and the reflections of the rector, the directors of the Distance Education Application and the directors of the School of Foreign Languages were obtained through semi-structured interviews. In addition, the lecturers and students were surveyed online. Interview results and survey data were evaluated and correlated. Accordingly, the opinions of the lecturers and students about online education emerge contradictory results. It has been examined whether the decisions of the administrators influence the fact that the views of the lecturers about the process are relatively more satisfied than the students, and it could be concluded that the relationships can be described “limited”. Lecturers and students are congruent with the conclusion that training and assessment and evaluation methods and programs in online education, which are shaped in line with the decisions taken by the administrators, are insufficient. Another result reveals the fact that the participants in the administrative bodies of the university and the students look more favorably towards face-to-face education.

Keywords

• Online Education
• Covid-19
• English Preparatory Programs

References

1. Almarabeh, T. (2014). Student’ perceptions of e-learning at the University of Jordan. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. IJET, 9, 31-35.
2. Alsaaty, F. M., Carter, E., Abrahams, D., & Alshameri, F. (2016). Traditional versus online learning in ınstitutions of higher education: minority business students’ perceptions. Bus. Manag. Res., 5, 31.
3. Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2014). The role of e-learning, the advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in Higher Education. Int. J. Educ. Res., 2, 397-410.
4. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K.S., & Waşker, D.A. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Thompson Wadsworth.
5. Basilaia, G., & Kvavadze, D. (2020). Transition to online education in schools during a SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in Georgia. Pedagogical Research, 5(4).
6. Bezhovski, Z., & Poorani, S. (2016). The evolution of e-learning and new trends. Inf. Knowl. Manag., 6, 50–57.
7. Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research (No. 1). Cambridge University Press.
8. Burac, M. A. P., Fernandez, J. M., Cruz, M. M. A., & Cruz, J. D. (2019). Assessing the impact of e-learning system of higher education institution’s instructors and students. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., 482, 1-8.

9. Cantoni, V., Cellario, M., & Porta, M. (2004). Perspectives and challenges in e-learning: Towards natural interaction paradigms. J. Vis. Lang. Comput, 15, 333–345.
10. Chen, X., Xia, E., & Jia, W. (2020). Utilisation status and user satisfaction of online education platforms. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(19), 154-170.
11. Cohen, E., & Nycz, M. (2006). Learning objects and e-learning: An informing science perspective. Interdiscip. J. E Ski. Lifelong Learn, 2, 23-34.
12. Cross, C. T. (2004). Political education: National policy comes of age. Teachers College Press.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2. Baskı). Sage Publications.
14. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. J. Educ. Technol. Syst., 49, 5-22.
15. Engelbrecht, E. (2005). Adapting to changing expectations: post-graduate students’ experience of an e-learning tax program. Comput. Educ., 45, 217-229.
16. Fischer, H., Heise, L., Heinz, M., Moebius, K., & Koehler, T. (2014). E-Learning trends and hypes in academic teaching. Methodology and findings of a trend study. International Association for Development of the Information Society (s. 63–69). 25–27 October 2014, Porto.
17. Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications.
18. Golafshani N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2003.1870
19. Hopkins, K. D., & Weeks, D. L. (1990). Tests for normality and measures of skewness and kurtosis: Their place in research reporting. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 717-729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164490504001
20. Horton, W. (2006). E-learning by design. Pfeiffer.
21. Ji, C. Y. ve Zhao, Y. J. (2012). Design of online leaning system based on web mining. 2012 Spring Congress on Engineering and Technology (s. 1-4). https://doi.org/10.1109/SCET.2012.634 2006
22. Jung, J., Maeda, M., Chang, A., Bhandari, M., Ashapure, A., & Landivar-Bowles, J. (2021). The potential of remote sensing and artificial intelligence as tools to improve the resilience of agriculture production systems. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 70, 15-22.
23. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (1988). İnsan ve insanlar (Gözden geçirilmiş 8. Baskı). İstanbul Matbaası.
24. Kaup, S., Jain, R., Shivalli, S., Pandey, S., & Kaup, S. (2020). Sustaining academics during COVID-19 pandemic: the role of online teaching-learning. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 68(6), 12-20.
25. Koohang, A., & Harman, K. (2005). Open source: A metaphor for e-learning. Inf. Sci. J., 8, 75–86.
26. Li, C., He, L., & Wong, I. A. (2021). Determinants predicting undergraduates’ intention to adopt e-learning for studying english in chinese higher education context: A structural equation modelling approach. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 4221-4239.
27. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology.
28. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
29. Lochner, L., Wieser, H., Waldboth, S., & Mischo-Kelling, M. (2016). Combining traditional anatomy lectures with e-learning activities: How do students perceive their learning. Int J Med Educ., 7, 69–74.
30. Moreno-Ger, P., Burgos, D., Martínez-Ortiz, I., Sierra, J.L., & Fer-nández-Manjón, B. (2008). Educational game design for online education. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(6), 2530-2540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.012
31. Odit-Dookhan, K. (2018). Attitude towards e-learning: The case of mauritian students in public teis. PEOPLE Int. J. Soc. Sci., 4, 628–643.
32. Onyema, E. M., Eucheria, N. C., Obafemi, F. A., Sen, S., Atonye, F. G., Sharma, A., & Alsayed, A. O. (2020). Impact of Coronavirus pandemic on education. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(13), 108-121.
33. Phutela, N., & Dwivedi, S. (2020). A qualitative study of students' perspective on e-learning adoption in India. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(4).
34. Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1), 133-141.
35. Popovici, A., & Mironov, C. (2015). Students’ perception on using e-learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1514 – 1519.
36. Sadeghi, M. A. (2019). Shift from classroom to distance learning: Advantages and limitations. Int. J. Res. Engl. Educ., 4, 80–88.
37. Sangwan, A., Sangwan, A., & Punia, P.(2020) Development and validation of an attitude scale towards online teaching and learning for higher education teachers. TechTrends, 65(2),187-195.
38. Subedi, S., Nayaju, S., Subedi, S., Shah, S. K., & Shah, J. M. (2020). Impact of E-learning during COVID-19 pandemic among nursing students and teachers of Nepal. International Journal of Science and Healthcare Research, 5(3), 68-76.
39. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
40. UNESCO. (2020). Education: from disruption to recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/ educationresponse
41. Wills, S., Devonshire, E., Leigh, E., Rosser, E. S. J., & Vincent, A. (2007). Encouraging role based online learning environments. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning, proceedings ascilite (pp. 1093-1098). Singapore.
42. Woolley, D. R. (1994). PLATO: The emergence of online community: Social media, archeology and poetics. MIT Press.
43. Xie, H., Lui, J. C. S., & Towsley, D. (2016). Design and analysis of incentive and reputation mechanisms for online crowdsourcing systems. ACM Journals, 1(3), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2897510
44. Zacharová, J., & Bomba, L. (2009). Advantages and disadvantages of e-learning in university education. E-learning for Societal Needs, 213-228.