İngilizce Öğretmen Adaylarının CALL Aracı Tercihleri

Abstract

Eğitim ortamlarında bilgisayar destekli dil öğretimi (CALL) araçlarının kullanımının hızla artması sonucu, öğretmenlerin de derslerinde Web 2.0 araçlarını etkili bir şekilde kullanmaları beklenmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Yabancı Diller Eğitimi Bölümü'nde öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarına CALL dersi verilmiş ve dersin sonunda her öğrenciden 3 tane ders planı hazırlamaları istenmiştir. Bu çerçevede, öğretmen adaylarının dersin bir ödevi olarak hazırladıkları ders planlarındaki CALL aracı tercihlerinin ve dersin hangi aşamasında kullandıklarının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, katılımcıların en çok tercih ettikleri Web 2.0 aracının Youtube olduğu ve dersin aşaması olarak da ders esnasında kullanmayı tercih ettikleri bulunmuştur. Bu bulguların ışığında, öğretmenlere ve öğretmen adaylarına CALL araçlarının çeşitliliğini artırabilmek ve CALL alanındaki son gelişmelerden onları haberdar etmek adına eğitim verilmesinin uygun olacağı düşünülmüştür.

Keywords

• İngilizce Öğretmen Adayları,Ders Planı,CALL Dersi,Web 2.0 Araçları,Öğretmen Eğitimi

Preferences of Preservice Teachers of English in terms of CALL Tools

Abstract

In parallel with the rapidly increasing use of computer assisted language learning (CALL) tools in educational settings, teachers are expected to use recent devices and Web 2.0 tools while teaching English. In this study, preservice teachers of English studying at a state-run university in Turkey were offered CALL course and they were asked to design lesson plans at the end of the semester. Within this framework, it was aimed to investigate the CALL tool preference of the ELT pre-service teachers in the lesson plans they prepared as a course requirement and in which stages specifically they chose to integrate the CALL tools to their lesson plans. The findings of the study revealed that highest frequency of the CALL tool use in the lesson plans of the participants was found at the while-stage and the most commonly preferred CALL tool was YouTube. In the light of this study, it can be suggested that this kind of training should be offered both for the pre-service teachers and in-service teachers in order to diversify the range of CALL tools to be used for teaching English and to make them aware of the recent developments about CALL. 

Keywords

• Preservice teachers of English,Lesson Plans,CALL Course,Web 2.0 Tools,Teacher Education

References

1. Aslan, A., & Zhu, C. (2015). Pre-Service teachers’ perceptions of ICT integration in teacher education in Turkey. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(3), 97-110.
2. Aydın, S. (2013). Teachers' perceptions about the use of computers in EFL teaching and learning: the case of Turkey, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26:3, 214-233, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2012.654495
3. Blankenship, M. (2011). How social media can and should impact higher education. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 76(7), 39–42.
4. Boon, S., & Sinclair, C. (2009). A world I don’t inhabit: Disquiet and identity in second life and Facebook. Educational Media International, 46(2), 99–110.
5. Cephe, P. T., & Balçıkanlı, C. (2012). Web 2.0 tools in language teaching: What do student teachers think? International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 3(1), 1-12.,
6. Chapelle, C. (2006). Foreword. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/lllt.14.01cha
7. Couros, A. (2008). Safety and social networking: How can we maximize the learning power of participatory web sites while ensuring students are protected and behave responsibly? Technology and Learning, 28(7), 20.
8. Çakır , R., Yükseltürk, E., & Top, E. (2015). Pre-service and in-service teachers’ perceptions about using web 2.0 in education. Participatory Educational Research, 2(2), 70-83.

9. Drent, M. & Meelissen, M. (2008) Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers and Education, 51 (1), p187-199.
10. Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M. & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126.
11. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: A & B Publications.
12. Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014) Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
13. Göktürk Sağlam, A. L. & Sert, S. (2012). Perceptions of in-service teachers regarding technology integrated English language teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 1-14.
14. Gray, K., Waycott, J., Clerehan, R., et al. (2012) Worth it? Findings from a study of how academics assess students’ Web 2.0 activities. Research in Learning Technology, 20: 1-15.
15. Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on Technology in Learning and Teaching Languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 183-210.
16. Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 23-42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17. Kessler, G. & Plakans, L. (2008). Does Teachers' Confidence with CALL Equal Innovative and Integrated Use?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 269-282.
18. Kılıçkaya, F., & Seferoğlu, G. (2013). The impact of CALL instruction on English language teachers’ use of technology in language teaching. Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition, 1(1), 20-38.
19. Kuure, L., Molin-Juustila,T., Keisanen, T., Riekki, M., Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2016). Switching perspectives: from a language teacher to a designer of language learning with new technologies, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 925-941, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2015.1068815
20. Liu, M. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers’ CALL knowledge andcompetencies: In-service program perspectives. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 119–138.
21. Merç, A. (2015). Using technology in the classroom: A study with Turkish pre-service EFL teachers. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 229-240.
22. Oliver, K. (2007). Leveraging web 2.0 in the redesign of a graduate-level technology integration course. TechTrends, 51 (5), 55-61.
23. Orús, C., Barlés, M. J., Belanche, D., Casaló, L., Fraj, E., & Gurrea, R. (2016). The effects of learner-generated videos for YouTube on learning outcomes and satisfaction. Computers and Education, 95, 254–269. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.007
24. Pelgrum, W. J. &Anderson, R. E. (2001). ICT and the emerging paradigm for lifelong learning. Amsterdam: IEA.
25. Pilus, Z. (1995). Teachers' interest in CALL and their levels of computer literacy: some implications. ON-CALL, 9(3), 8-11.

26. Prensky, Marc (2000). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27. Rhoades, E. B., Irani, T., Telg, R., & Myers, B. E. (2008). Internet as information source: Attitudes and usage of students enrolled in a college of agriculture course. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(2), 108–117.
28. Rizza, M. G. (2000). Perspectives on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward technology, The Teacher Educator, 36(2), 132-147.
29. Robb, T. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 335-347). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
30. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers & Education 59, 937–945.
31. Sadaf, A., Nexby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Education Tech Research Dev, 64, 37–64.
32. Savas, P. (2014). Tablet PCs as instructional tools in English as a foreign language education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13, 217-222.
33. Shahrokni, S. A., & Sadeqjoola, L. (2015). Iranian EFL teachers’ perception, familiarity and use of web 2.0 tools in TEFL. Teaching English with Technology, 15(3), 31-46.
34. Son, J.-B., & Robb, T., & Charismiadji, I. (2011). Computer literacy and competency: A survey of Indonesian teachers of English as a foreign language. CALL-EJ, 12(1), 26–42.
35. Stockwell, G. (2009). Teacher education in CALL: teaching teachers to educate themselves. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 99-112.
36. Suvorov, R. and Hegelheimer, V. (2014). Computer-assisted language testing. In A. J. Kunnan (Eds.), The companion to language assessment (p.594-613) Chichester, West Sussex : Wiley-Blackwell.
37. Şad, S. N. & Göktaş, Ö. (2013). Preservice teachers’ perceptions about using mobile phones and laptops in education as mobile learning tools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 606–618.
38. Volman, M. (2005). A variety of roles for a new type of teacher. Educational technology and the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 (1), 15-31.
39. Warschauer, M. (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 453–475.
40. Williams, P., Wray, J., Farrall, H., & Aspland, J. (2014). Fit for purpose: traditional assessment is failing undergraduates with learning difficulties. Might e-Assessment help? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18 (6), 614- 625.