Dinleme Becerisini Değerlendirme Yöntemlerine Yönelik Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma: İnternet Tabanlı Değerlendirmeye Geçiş

Year 2020, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 176 - 194, 11.12.2020

Ghasem Modarresi , Kaveh Jalilzadeh

https://doi.org/10.35207/later.742121

Abstract

İnternet tabanlı değerlendirmenin kuramsal önemine rağmen, bununla ilgili deneysel araştırma yeterince bulunmamaktadır. Bu deneysel çalışma, ortaokul öğrencileri için dinlediğini anlamanın internet tabanlı ve kâğıt üzerinde değerlendirmesini karşılaştırmaktadır. Bu çalışmaya Tahran’da bir ortaokulda İngilizce öğrenen 36 erkek öğrenci katılmıştır. Öğrenciler iki gruba ayrılmıştır. Kontrol grubu kâğıt-kalem sınavları üzerinden değerlendirmeye tabi tutulan öğrencileri içermektedir. Deney grubu öğrencilerine ise araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen yönlendirici sorular ve ipuçları gibi değerlendirme tekniklerini de içeren kılavuzlar, kısa dinleme sınavları ve testlerinin uygulandığı internet tabanlı değerlendirme uygulanmıştır. On beş oturumluk uygulamanın ardından yapılan tek yönlü ANCOVA sonuçları, iki grup arasında dinleme testinde son-test puanlarında anlamlı bir farklılık olduğunu doğrulamıştır. İnternet tabanlı grubun dinleme puanlarında kağıt temelli gruptan daha iyi performans sergilediği görülmüştür. Öğrencilerin ANOVA ile ölçülen Zaman 1, Zaman 2 ve Zaman 3'ten aldıkları internet tabanlı değerlendirme puanları arasındaki farklılık incelendiğinde, sonuçlar üç puan seti için öğrencilerde p<.05 düzeyinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar olduğunu göstermiştir.  

Keywords

internet tabanlı değerlendirme, kâğıt temelli değerlendirme, dinlediğini anlama

A Comparative Study of Two Ways of Presentation of Listening Assessment: Moving towards Internet-based Assessment

Abstract

Despite the theoretical importance of internet-based assessment, there is a paucity of experimental research into it. The present study, as an experimental study, is an attempt to compare internet-based and paper-based assessment of listening comprehension for secondary students. In so doing, 36 male students who were studying English language at a secondary school in Tehran participated in this study. The students were divided into two groups: one control group which was exposed to paper-based assessment and one experimental group which was exposed to internet-based assessment developed by the researchers providing the students with the listening quizzes and tests and guidelines including assessment techniques such as leading questions and hints. Following the treatment which lasted for fifteen sessions, the results of the one-way ANCOVA confirmed that there was a significant difference between the two groups on post-test scores on the listening test. Indeed, internet-based group outperformed paper-based group in their listening scores. Having examined the significant difference between the students’ scores in internet-based assessment obtained from Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3, as measured by the ANOVA, the results indicated that there were statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in students’ scores for the three sets of scores.

Keywords

internet-based assessment, paper-based assessment, listening comprehension

References

• Bachman, F. L., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bacon, S.M., (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies, and cognitive and affective response in foreign language listening. The Modern Language Journal, 76 (2), 160-178.
• Bancheri, S. (2006). A language teacher’s perspective on effective courseware. In P. D. Randall & A. H. Margaret (Eds.), Changing language education through CALL (pp. 31-47). New York: Routledge.
• Bax, S. (2003). CALL- past, present and future. System, 31, 13-28.
• Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching & researching: Computer-assisted language learning. London: Routledge.
• Buck, G. (2001). Assessing Listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cambridge English language assessment for schools (2001). KET for schools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cameron, K. (1999). CALL: Media, design and applications. Lisse: Swets & Zeithlinger.
• Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 2, 22-34.
• Chien, C. N., & Kao, L. H. (2004). Examining the inter-relationship of metacognitive strategy training, listening comprehension, and learning attitude in EFL training. Chung Yuan Journal, 32(2), 241-254.
• Chien, C. N., & Wei, L. (1997). A preliminary investigation of the listening strategies of EFL learners. Chung Yuan Journal, 25(2), 45-66.
• Davies, G. (2000). CALL (computer assisted language learning): Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning. London: Routledge.
• Debski, R. (ed.) (2000). Project-oriented CALL: Implementation and evaluation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 4–5.
• Delcloque, P. (2000). History of CALL. Received January 3, 2017 from: http://www.history-of-call.org
• Esling, J. H. (2013). Researching the effects of networking: Evaluating the spoken and written discourse generated by working with CALL. In P. Dunkel (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 111–31). New York: Newbury House.
• Fotos, S., & Browne, C. M. (2004). The development of CALL and current options. In S. Fotos & C. M. Browne (Eds), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 3-14). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Fulcher, G. (2012). Assessment Literacy for the Language Classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly subscription information. Retrieved June 12, 2017 from: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlaq20.
• Hasan, A. (2000). Learners’ perceptions of listening comprehension problems. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13, 137-153.
• Johnson, E. M. (2002). The role of computer-supported discussion for language teacher education: What do the students say? CALICO Journal, 20(1), 59-79.
• Johnson, K. (2008). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching (2nd ed). Harlow, England: Pearson.
• Lai, C. C., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). The advantages and disadvantages of computer technology in second language acquisition. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 3 (1), 1-6.
• Lambropoulos, N., Christopoulou, M., and Vlachos, K. (2006). Culture-based language learning objects: A CALL approach for a ubiquitous world. In P. Zaphiris, & G. Zacharia, Computer-aided language learning (pp. 22-43). London: Information Science Publishing.
• Lamy, M. N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Reflective conversation in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43-61.
• Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 837-880.
• Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lund, R. J. (1990). A taxonomy for teaching second language listening. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 105-115.
• Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (eds.), Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 1–19). Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
• Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Speaking. New York & London: Routledge.
• Nunan, D. (1997). Listening in language learning. The Language Teacher, 21 (9), 47-51.
• Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
• Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2000). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). University of Illinois: Heinle & Heinle.
• Park, C. N., & Son, J. B. (2009). Implementing computer-assisted language learning in the EFL classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2), 32-50.
• Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(iii), 323-340.
• Popham, W. J. (2014). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
• Rea-Dickins, P. (2008). Classroom-based language assessment. In E. Shohamy & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.) Encyclopedia of language and education: Language testing and assessment (pp. 257–271). New York, NY: Springer.
• Rost, M. (2002). Listening tasks and language acquisition. JALT Journal, 18, 18-28.
• Shepard, L. A. (2013). Foreword. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Sage handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. xix-xxii). Los Angeles: Sage.
• Street, B., Pishghadam, R., Zeinali, Sh. (2015). Changes and challenges of literacy practices: A case of a village in Iran. IJSCL, 3(1), 16-27.
• Tafazoli, D., & Golshan, N. (2014). Review of computer-assisted language learning: History, merits & barriers. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2 (5), 32-38.
• Ur, P. (1984). Teaching Listening Comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Van Han, N., & Van Rensburg, H. (2014). The Effect of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on performance in the test of English for international communication (TOEIC) listening module. English Language Teaching, 7 (2), 30-41.
• Vandergrift, L. (2004). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(4), 463-496.
• Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 70-89.
• Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191-210.
• Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: an overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71.
• William, D. (2008). Balancing dilemmas: Traditional theories and new applications. In A. Havnes & L. McDowell (Eds.), Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education (pp. 267-281). New York: Routledge.
• Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigation new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31-74.