İngiliz dili öğretiminin uzaktan eğitim sistem değerlendirmesi: Ölçek geliştirme çalışması

Öz

Eğitim müfredatlarının yüz yüze eğitimden uzaktan eğitime dönüşmesiyle birlikte eğitim programlarının değerlendirilmesinde yeni ve farklı araçlar bir zorunluluk haline gelmiştir. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada, uzaktan eğitim sisteminin İngilizce öğretimine etkilerini ölçmek için beşli Likert tipi bir ölçek geliştirmek amaçlanmıştır. Pilot çalışma için bir Türk üniversitesinde İngilizce hazırlık programında öğrenim gören 121 öğrenciye 40 maddelik anket uygulanmıştır. Önce ölçeğin faktör analizi çalışması oluşturulmuş, ardından madde analizi çalışmaları yapılmış ve faktör yükü düşük olan veya birden fazla faktör altında toplanan 10 madde çıkarılarak ölçek güncellenmiştir. 30 maddeden oluşan yeni ölçek 370 öğrenciye uygulanmış ve faktör analizi çalışması sonucunda ölçek “Dil Becerileri”, “İletişim”, “İçerik Değerlendirme”, “Eğitmenler” ve “Değerlendirme” olmak üzere beş farklı yapıdan oluşmuştur. Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları tamamlanan ölçeğin tamamı için Cronbach Alpha iç tutarlılık katsayısı 0,952 olarak belirlenmiştir. Son olarak doğrulayıcı faktör analizi çalışmaları yapılmış ve uyum indekslerinin kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu belirlenmiş ve açıklayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları doğrulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• EFL
• Program değerlendirme
• Uzaktan eğitim
• ölçek geliştirme
• Açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi

Distance education system evaluation of English language teaching: A scale development study

Abstract

As educational curricula have been transformed from face-to-face to distance education, new and different tools in educational program evaluation have become a necessity. Therefore, in this study we aimed to develop a five-point Likert-type scale to measure the effects of the distance education system of English language teaching. For the pilot study, a 40-item questionnaire was applied to 121 students studying in the English preparatory program at a Turkish university. First, the factor analysis study of the scale was created, and then the item analysis studies were carried out and the scale was updated by removing 10 items with a low factor load or collected under more than one factor. The new scale, consisting of 30 items, was applied to 370 students, and as a result of the factor analysis study, the scale consisted of five different structures named as “Language Skills”, “Communication”, “Content Evaluation”, “Instructors” and “Assessment”. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient for the entire scale, whose validity and reliability studies were completed, was determined as 0.952. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis studies were carried out and it was determined that the goodness of fit indices were at an acceptable level and the exploratory factor analysis results were confirmed.

Keywords

• EFL
• Program evaluation
• Distance education
• Scale development
• Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses

References

1. Akgül A. & Çevik O. (2003). İstatistiksel Analiz Teknikleri, Ankara: Emek Ofset.
2. Babori, A., Fassi, H. F., Hariri, A., & Bideq, M. (2016). An E-Learning Environment for Algorithmic: Toward an Active Construction of Skills. World Journal on Educational Technology:Current Issues, 8(2), 82-90.
3. Berge, Z. L., Muilenburg, L.Y., &Haneghan, J.V. (2002). Barriers to distance education and training: Surveyresults. TheQuarterlyReview of DistanceEducation, 3(4), 409-418.
4. Bilican, R. (2014). Impact of a PhD ELT program on academic development of students at a Turkish state university. ELT Research Journa,l 3(3), 111-139.
5. Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş.(2006). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi: İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
7. Canaran, Ö., Bayram, İ., & Altuğ, Ç. (2020). English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Program Evaluation: Perspectives from Three Faculties. Başkent University Journal of Education, 7(1), 20-28.
8. Chan, V. (2001). Determining students’ language needs in a tertiary setting. English Teaching Forum July, 16-27.

9. Chen, H. T., & Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Sage.
10. Clark, J. T. (2020). Distanceeducation. In Clinical engineering handbook (pp. 410-415). Academic Press.
11. Coskun, A., & Daloglu, A. (2010). Evaluating an English language teacher education program throughPeacock's model. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 35(6), 24-42.
12. Coşkun, A. & Mutlu H.T. (2017). Investigating High School Students' Use of Extramural English: A Scale Development Study, İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 6(1), 571-590.
13. Cunningham, P. D. (2017). Bridging the distance: Using interactive communication tools to make online education more social. Library trends, 65(4), 589-613.
14. Davie, L. (1995). Times of turbulence and transition: needed research in computermediated‐communication (CMC) course design. In E. Wagner & M. Koble (Eds.), Distance education symposium 3: coursedesign. Selected papers presented at the thirdi nternational distance education research symposium. ACSDE research monograph #14. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
15. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
16. Dorrego, E. (2016), Distance Education and Learning Evaluation, Revista De Educacion a Distancia, 50,1-18
17. Do Le, T., & Tran, T. N. T. (2021). English Language Training Curriculum: An Evaluation From Learner’s Perceptions. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9(3), 40-57.
18. Efeoglu, G., Ilerten, F., &Basal, A. (2018). A Utilization Focused Evaluation of the Preparatory School of an ELT Program. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(4), 149-163
19. Gorsuch, R. L. (2008). Factor analysis (Second Edition). New York: Psychology Press.
20. Gökdemir, C. V. (2005). Üniversitelerimizde verilen yabancı dil öğretimindeki başarı durumumuz. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(2), 251-264.
21. Gunawardena,C ., Lowe , C., & Carabajal,K. (2000). Evaluating online learning :models and methods. Paper included in the proceedings of the eleventh society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference. SanDiego, CA.
22. Gürbüz, S. (2019). Aracı, Düzenleyici ve Durumsal Etki Analizleri. Seçkin Yayınevi, Ankara.
23. Gürbüz, S. ve Şahin, F. (2018). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri – Felsefe – Yöntem – Analiz. 5. Baskı. Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara.
24. Hair J. F.,Tatham R. L., Anderson R. E. & Black W. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, New York: PrenticeHall.
25. Hsu, L. (2014). Effectiveness of English for specific purposes courses for non-English speaking students of hospitality and tourism: a latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 15, 50-57.
26. İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2014). LISREL ve AMOS programları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen yapısal eşitlik modeli (yem) analizlerine ilişkin sonuçların karşılaştırılması. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 5(2), 26-42.
27. Jenkins, J., Baker, W., &Dewey, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca. Routledge.
28. Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri, Ankara: Asil Yayınları.
29. Karagöz, Y., Mutlu, H. T., Sağır, S., & Celil, M. (2019). Kargo Şirketi Seçimini Etkileyen Faktörlerin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Ölçek Geliştirilmesi: Sivas Örneği. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 15(2), 235-247.
30. Karataş H. & Fer S. (2009). Evaluation of English Curriculum at Yıldız Technical University Using CIPP Model. Egitim ve Bilim, 34(153), 47-60.
31. Khoirunnisa, S. & Supriyadi, S. (2018). ESP teacher’s ands tudent’s perceptions on teaching speaking for a tourism program. Dinamika Ilmu, 18(1), 37-48.
32. Kieyle, R., & Rea-Dickens, P. (2005). Program Evaluation in Language Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
33. Kırmızı, Ö. (2011). An evaluation of M.A. ELT programs in Turkey. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
34. Kroll, R., Schoen, D. (2015), A Holistic Evaluation Approach for Degree Courses in Engineering Sciences For Distance Learning Universities, 16th International Conference on Research and Education in Mechatronics (REM), 1 – 5.
35. Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Keycomponents of a curriculum plan: Objectives, content, andlearning experiences. Schooling, 2(1), 1-4.
36. Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language Program Evaluation: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: CUP.
37. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99.
38. McNulty, T. (2013). Standardized Clients in Case-Based Simulation: Five Years of Development in an Occupation-BasedCurriculum. The American Occupational Therapy Education Summit, Atlanta, October 2013.
39. Moore, R. L., & Fodrey, B. P. (2018). Distance education and technology infrastructure: Strategies and opportunities. In Leading and managing e-learning (pp. 87-100). Springer, Cham.
40. Murphy, D. F. (2000). Key Concepts in ELT, Evaluation. ELT Journal, 54(2), 210- 211.
41. Nakip, M. (2006). Pazarlama Araştırmaları: Teknikler ve SPSS destekli uygulamalar. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
42. Norris, J. M. (2009). Understanding and improving language education through program evaluation: Introduction to the special issue. Language Teaching Research,13, (1), 7–13
43. Nur, R. (2020). Students’ Perception On TheI mplementation Of Intensive English Course For Freshmen At Universitas Indonesia Timur: A Program Evaluation. JISIP (Jurnal IlmuSosial dan Pendidikan), 4(3),545-558.
44. Peacock, M. (2009). Theevaluation of foreign language teacher education programmes. Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 259-278.
45. Petsuwan, S., Pimdee, P., & Pupat, P. (2019). Impacts of DistanceEducationSystem on Teacher Competency of Remote Schools in Lower Northern Thailand. Mediterranean Journal of SocialSciences, 10(3), 41-47.
46. Rao, S. M., & Krishnan, V. (2015). Distance education. Fourth International Conference on Higher Education: Special Emphasis on Management Education, Nitte University, December 29-30, 2014.
47. Rovai, A. P. (2003). A practical framework for evaluating online distance education programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(2), 109-124.
48. Sae-Khow, J. (2014). Developing of Indicators of an E-Learning Benchmarking Model for Higher Education Institutions. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(2), 35-43.
49. Saito, H., &Ebsworth, M. E. (2004). Seeing English Language Teaching and Learning through the Eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL Students. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 111- 124.
50. Sand, O., Davis, D., Lammel, R., & Stone, T. (1960). Chapter III: Components of the Curriculum. Review of Educational Research, 30(3), 226-245.
51. Swart, A. J. (2016), Distance Learning Engineering Students Languish Under Project-Based Learning, But Thrive in Case Studies and Practical Workshops, IEEE Transactions On Education, 59(2), 98–104.
52. Tom-Lawyer, O. (2014). An Evaluation of the English Language Curriculum of the Nigeria Certificate in Education: A Case Study of a College of Education. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 69-79.
53. Tunç, F. (2010). Evaluation of an ELT Program at a Public University Using CIPP Model. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
54. Velicer, W. F. & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231-251.