TURKISH PREP CLASS STUDENTS’ VIEWS ON AUTONOMOUS LEARNING AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A BLENDED LEARNING APPROACH

Year 2021, Issue: 87, 563 - 580, 21.09.2021

Serpil Meri Yılan

Abstract

This paper is focused on two issues, learner autonomy and blended learning, in language
education by presenting an empirical study. The study aims to investigate university-
level students’ beliefs about their autonomous learning just after the implementation of
a blended learning approach. In order to set up this approach, the study integrated the
practice of both activities from a course management system and online journal writings
into an English writing course for academic purposes in a Turkish state university. Data
collection took place in December 2019. Among course takers, 21 voluntarily filled out
a survey asking about their views on their learning, particularly autonomous language
learning. Afterwards, five of them agreed to attend a semi-structured interviewing
process. Data from both research instruments indicated that Turkish prep class students
had positive feelings about autonomous language learning. The findings also showed
that the combination of classroom learning with online learning facilitated their learning
of the current course and their adaptable skills for future learning environments.
Accordingly, the study makes some recommendations for course designers, policymakers
and researchers to consider designing a blended learning environment consistent with the
classroom curriculum and learning outcomes.

Keywords

Learner Autonomy, Blended Learning, Beliefs, English Language Learning, English for Academic Purposes.

References

• Adjagbodjou, P. (2015). Aligning sales promotion strategies with buying attitudes in a recession. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. USA: Walden University.
• Alonazi, S. M. (2017). The role of teachers in promoting learner autonomy in secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. English Language Teaching, 10(7), 183-202.
• Arfae, A. M. (2017). Language learner autonomy in Ontario's ESL context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Canada: The University of Western Ontario.
• Aspers, P. and Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 42(2), 139-160.
• Banditvilai, C. (2016). Enhancing students’ language skills through blended learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(3), 223-232.
• Barillaro, F. (2011). Teacher perspectives of learner autonomy in language learning. Unpublished master’s thesis. UK: Sheffield Hallam University.
• Begum, J. (2019). Learner autonomy in EFL/ESL classrooms in Bangladesh: Teachers' perceptions and practices. International Journal of Language Education, 3(1), 12-21.
• Benson, P. (2013). Teaching and researching: Autonomy in language learning. London: Routledge.
• Benson, P. and Chik,A. (2010). New literacies and autonomy in foreign language learning. In M. J. Luzon, M. N. Ruiz-Madrid and M. L. Villanueva (Eds.), Digital Genres, New Literacies and Autonomy in Language Learning (63–80). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
• Benson, P. and Cooker, L. (2013). The social and the individual in Applied Linguistics research. In P. Benson and L. Cooker (Eds.), The Applied Linguistic Individual: Sociocultural Approaches to Identity, Agency and Autonomy (1-16). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
• Bodsworth, H. and Goodyear, V. A. (2017). Barriers and facilitators to using digital technologies in the Cooperative Learning model in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(6), 563-579.
• Bree, R. T. and Gallagher, G. (2016). Using Microsoft Excel to code and thematically analyse qualitative data: A simple, cost-effective approach. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 8(2), 2811-2824.
• Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 85-100.
• Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, 4th edition. London: SAGE Publications.
• Dam, L. (2003). Developing learner autonomy: The teacher’s responsibility. Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment, 126-150.
• De Metz, N. and Bezuidenhout, A. (2018). An importance–competence analysis of the roles and competencies of e-tutors at an open distance learning institution. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5). 27-43.
• Dooly, M. (2017). Telecollaboration. In C.A. Chapelle and S. Sauro (Eds.), The Handbook of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning (169-183). London, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Everhard, C. J. and Murphy, L. (2015). Assessment and autonomy in language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Fabela-Cárdenas, M. A. (2012). The impact of teacher training for autonomous learning. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(3), 215-236.
• Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Autonomous language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 4-11.
• Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Riding the digital wilds: Learner autonomy and informal language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 23(1), 8–25.
• Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. In C. R. Graham and C. J. Bonk (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (3-21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
• Gunes, S. (2019). What are the perceptions of the students about asynchronous distance learning and blended learning? World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues. 11(4), 230–237.
• Ha, T. T. N. (2019). English language learner autonomy in the Vietnamese higher education context: Enabling factors and barriers arising from assessment practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Philippines: The University of Adelaide.
• Hafner, C. A. and Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 68-86.
• Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
• Inal, M. and Korkmaz, Ö. (2019). The effect of web based blended learning on students’ academic achievement and attitudes towards English course. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2603-2619.
• Isti'anah, A. (2017). The effect of blended learning to the students’ achievement in grammar class. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 4(1), 16-30.
• Istifci,I.(2017).Perceptions ofTurkishEFLstudents on online language learning platforms and blended language learning. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 113- 121.
• Jiang, X. (2008). Constructing concepts of learner autonomy in language education in the Chinese context: A narrative-based inquiry into university students' conceptions of successful English language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. UK: University of Warwick.
• Joshi, K. R. (2011). Learner perceptions and teacher beliefs about learner autonomy in language learning. Journal of NELTA, 16(1-2), 12-29.
• Kostina, M. (2011). Exploration of student perceptions of autonomy, student-instructor dialogue and satisfaction in a web-based distance learning classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. USA: The University of Iowa.
• Lai, C. (2017). Autonomous language learning with technology: Beyond the classroom. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Larsen, L. J. (2012). Teacher and student perspectives on a blended learning intensive English program writing course. Graduate thesis and dissertation. USA: Iowa State University.
• Leidner, D. E. and Kayworth, T. (2006). A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS quarterly, 357-399.
• Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-181.
• Little, D. (2000). Learner autonomy and human interdependence: Some theoretical and practical consequences of a social interactive view of cognition, learning, and language. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath and T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (15-23). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
• Ma, Z. and Ma, R. (2012). Motivating Chinese students by fostering learner autonomy in language learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 838-842.
• Meri-Yilan, S. (2020). Humanization of English language teaching through computer- assisted language learning in Turkish tertiary level English preparatory classes.
• In E. Sengupta, P. Blessinger and M. S. Makhanya (Eds.), International Perspectives on the Role of Technology in Humanizing Higher Education (Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 33) (131–148). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
• Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3rd edition. London: Sage.
• Motschnig-Pitrik, R. and Holzinger, A. (2002). Student-centered teaching meets new media: Concept and case study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 5(4), 160-172.
• Murray, G. (2017). Autonomy in the time of complexity: Lessons from beyond the classroom. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 8(2), 116-134.
• Myartawan, I. P. N. W., Latief, M. A. and Suharmanto, S. (2013). The correlation between learner autonomy and English proficiency of Indonesian EFL college learners. Teflin Journal, 24(1), 63-81.
• Nelson-Gray, R. O., Haas, J. R., Romano, B., Herbert, J. D. and Herbert, D. L. (1989). Effects of Open-Ended versus Close-Ended Questions on Interviewees’Problem- Related Statements. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69(3-1), 903-911.
• Orakci, S. and Gelisli, Y., 2017. Learner autonomy scale: A scale development study. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), pp. 25-35.
• Raja, R. and Nagasubramani, P. C. (2018). Impact of modern technology in education. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(1), 33-35.
• Reinders, H. and White, C. (2016). 20 years of autonomy and technology: How far have we come and where to next? Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 143– 154.
• Rungwaraphong, P. (2012). The promotion of learner autonomy in Thailand tertiary education: Lecturers’ perspectives and practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.
• Sadaghian, S., Marandi, S. S. and Iravani, H. (2020). Autonomous language learning in a work-cycle: Learners’ perceptions, beliefs and behaviors. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 11(2), 67–85
• Schwienhorst, K. (2007). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. New York: Routledge.
• Shen, J. (2011). Autonomy in EFL education. Canadian Social Science, 7(5), 27-32.
• Smith, M., Bell, K., Bennett, D. and McAlpine, A. (2018). Employability in a global context: Evolving policy and practice in employability, work integrated learning, and career development learning. Wollongong, Australia: Graduate Careers Australia.
• Smith, R., Kuchah, K. and Lamb, M. (2018). Learner autonomy in developing countries. In A. Chik, N. Aoki and R. Smith (Eds.), Autonomy in Language Learning and Teaching (7-27). London: Palgrave Pivot.
• Snodin, N. S. (2013). The effects of blended learning with a CMS on the development of autonomous learning: A case study of different degrees of autonomy achieved by individual learners. Computers & Education, 61, 209-216.
• Sockett, G. (2014). The online informal learning of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Soliman, N. A. (2014). Using e-learning to develop EFL students’ language skills and activate their independent learning. Creative Education, 5, 752-757.
• Tosun, S. (2015). The effects of blended learning on EFL students’ vocabulary enhancement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 641-647. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
• Wagman, P. and Hakansson,C.(2014).Introducing the occupational balance questionnaire (OBQ). Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 21(3), 227-231.
• Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Wright, B. M. (2017). Blended learning: Student perception of face-to-face and online EFL lessons. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 64-71.
• Yasmin, M. and Sohail, A. (2018). A creative alliance between learner autonomy and English language learning: Pakistani university teachers’ beliefs. Creativity Studies, 11(1), 1-9.