Technology Integration Designed to Scaffold 5th Graders in Task-Based Language Teaching

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate technology enhanced scaffolding design in Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) for English beginner level students at a middle school with a limited technology infrastructure and low socioeconomic profile. The implementation’s effectiveness was assessed by a comparison of data obtained by researcher-designed pre and posttests from 38 fifth graders in a control and experimental group, as well as an analysis of the latter’s responses to classroom tasks and feedback questions collected periodically. While both groups progressed in the key leaning objectives, the experimental group significantly outperformed the control in the posttest. Paired samples comparisons showed that the learners in the experimental group improved their test scores significantly in all the subtests, while those in the control showed a significant increase only in vocabulary questions. The additional descriptive analysis of the qualitative data collected from the experimental group provided evidence for how this difference occurred. Based on the findings of the study, an amendment to the guidelines for scaffolding design software is suggested from the perspective of teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in limited technology contexts.

Keywords

• technology integrated TBLT
• scaffolding software design in EFL
• limited technology context
• elementary EFL learners in Turkish context

Görev Temelli Dil Öğretiminde Beşinci Sınıf Öğrencilerini Desteklemek için Tasarlanmış Teknoloji Entegrasyonu

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, kısıtlı bir teknoloji altyapısı olan ve düşük sosyo ekonomik profile sahip bir ortaokulda İngilizce başlangıç düzeyi öğrencileri için teknoloji destekleriyle beslenmiş görev temelli dil öğretimi tasarlamak, geliştirmek, uygulamak ve değerlendirmektir. Uygulamanın etkililiği, bir kontrol ve deney grubundaki 38 beşinci sınıf öğrencisinin araştırmacı tarafından tasarlanmış ön ve son testlerden elde edilen verilerinin karşılaştırılması ve deney grubu öğrencilerinin sınıf görevlerine ve periyodik olarak toplanan geribildirim sorularına verdiği yanıtların analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Her iki grup da öğrenme kazanımları bakımından ilerleme gösterirken, deney grubu öğrencileri son testte kontrol grubu öğrencilerinden önemli ölçüde daha iyi performans göstermişlerdir. Eşleştirilmiş örneklem karşılaştırmaları, deney grubundaki öğrencilerin tüm alt testlerde puanlarını önemli ölçüde iyileştirdiğini, kontrol grubundakilerin ise yalnızca kelime dağarcığı sorularından aldıkları puanlarda anlamlı bir artış gösterdiğini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Deney grubundan toplanan nitel verilerle yapılan ilave tanımlayıcı analiz, bu farkın nasıl oluştuğuna dair göstergeler sunmaktadır. Çalışmanın bulgularına dayanarak, kısıtlı teknoloji altyapısı bağlamında İngilizce’nin yabancı dil olarak öğetimi açısından dijital destekleme tasarım ilkelerine bazı tashih önerileri getirilmiştir.

Keywords

• teknolojiyle bütünleşik görev temelli dil öğretimi
• İngilizce öğretiminde dijital destekleme tasarımı
• kısıtlı teknoloji bağlamı
• İngilizce temel düzey

References

1. Alhamami. M. (2018) Beliefs about and intention to learn a foreign language in face-to-face and online settings, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1-2), 90-113.
2. Aydın, Z., & Yıldiı, S. (2014). Using wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology 18(1), 160–180. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. New York: Longman
3. Candlin, C. N. (2009). Towards task-based language learning. In K. Van den Branden, Bygate, M. & Norris, J. M. (Eds). Task-Based Language Teaching: A reader. pp. 21–40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
4. Chappell, P. (2014). Group work in the English language curriculum: sociocultural and ecological perspectives on second language classroom learning. U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Chen, K. T. (2019). The effects of technology-mediated tblt on enhancing the speaking abilities of university students in a collaborative efl learning environment, Applied Linguistics Review. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2018-0126
6. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
7. Dewaele, J-M., Chen, X., Padilla, A.M. & Lake, J. (2019) The flowering of positive psychology in foreign language teaching and acquisition research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02128 Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press, New York.
8. Ellis, R. (2017) Task Based Language Teaching. In Loewen, S. & Sato (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, pp 108-125. Routledge, New York

9. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020) Task-Based Language Teaching: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Estaire, S., & Zanon, J. (1994). Planning Classwork: A task-based approach. Oxford: Heinemann.
10. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Chasing the butterfly effect: Informal language learning online as a complex system. Language Learning & Technology, 22(2), 8–27.
11. González-Lloret, M. (2014). The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT, in M. González-Lloret (ed.), Technology-mediated TBLT, pp. 23-50. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
12. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., Bond, A.: The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning (2020). Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
13. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Fransisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Joyce, P. (2015) L2 vocabulary learning and testing: the use of L1 translation versus L2 definition. The Language Learning Journal 46(3), 217-227.
15. Kırkgöz, Y. (2011). A blended learning study on implementing video recorded speaking tasks in task-based classroom instruction. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 1-13.
16. Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403-417.
17. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Accounting for child-adult differences in second language rate and attainment. In Krashen, S. D., Scarcella, R. C., & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Child-adult differences in second language acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 202–226.
18. Lamb, M. & Arisandy, F. E. (2020). The impact of online use of English on motivation to learn, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33 (1-2), 85-108.
19. Laufer, B. & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation, Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694–716. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn018
20. Nunan, D.(2004) Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
21. Norris, J., Bygate, M., & Van den Branden, K. (2009). Introducing task-based language teaching. In K. Van den Branden, Bygate, M. & Norris, J. M. (Eds). Task-Based Language Teaching: A reader. pp. 15-19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
22. Park, M. (2012) Implementing computer-assisted task-based language teaching in the Korean secondary EFL context. In A. Shehadeh, & C. A. Coombe (Eds) Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and implementation. pp. 215–240.
23. Oskoz, A. & Elola, I. (2014). Promoting FL collaborative writing through the use of Web 2.0 tools. In M. Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks, pp. 115-147. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
24. Ozdener, N., & Satar, H. M. (2008). Computer-mediated communication in foreign language education: use of target language and learner perceptions. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 9(2).
25. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., ... & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The journal of the learning sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
26. Reiser, B.J. (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Science, 13, 273-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2
27. Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. S. (2014) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Saye, J. & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 77-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026
29. Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive learning environments, 15(1), 27-46.
30. Sylvén, L. K. (2017). Motivation, second language learning and CLIL. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds), Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL. pp. 51–65. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
31. Solares M.E. (2014). Textbooks, tasks and technology: An action research study in a textbook bound EFL context. In M. Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks, pp. 79-114. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
32. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M. del Pilar García-Mayo (Ed.) Investigating tasks in formal language learning, (pp. 157–177). London, UK: Multilingual Matters.
33. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
34. Toth, S. (2010). Oral presentation rubric. Retrieved from https://wvde.state.wv.us/teach21/documents/OralPresentationRubricPrimary_000.doc
35. UÜtünel, H., & Tokel, S.T. (2018). Distributed scaffolding: synergy in technology-enhanced learning environments. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(1), 129-160.
36. van Dijk, A. M., & Lazonder, A. W. (2016). Scaffolding students' use of learner generated content in a technology-enhanced inquiry learning environment. Interactive learning environments, 24(1), 194-204.
37. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007) Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.