BibTex RIS Cite

AKADEMİK YAZMA DERSLERİNDE TEKNOLOJİNİN DÖNÜTE UYGULANMASI: EKRAN KAYDI İLE DÖNÜT VERME VE ÖĞRENCİ TUTUMLARI

Year 2019, , 183 - 203, 01.06.2019

Elif Tokdemir Demirel Müge Güneş Aksu

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch019

Abstract

Bu makalede, üniversite düzeyinde İngilizce öğrenen öğrencilerin yazma derslerinde yenilikçi bir yöntem olan ekran kaydı ile dönüt verilmesine karşı olan tutumları araştırılmıştır. Ekran kaydı “screencasting” bir bilgisayar ekranının video kayıtlarının Internet üzerinden yayınlanmasıdır ve aynı zamanda öğrencilerin yazılı üretimlerine dönüt vermek için kullanılabilir. Bu çalışmada araştırmacılar, bu yenilikçi dönüt verme yöntemini Ankara’daki bir vakıf üniversitesi olan Ufuk Üniversitesi’nde birinci sınıf İngilizce akademik yazma dersi kapsamında kullanarak denediler. Çalışmanın katılımcıları Ufuk Üniversitesi Meslek Yüksekokulu bünyesindeki Uygulamalı İngilizce ve Çevirmenlik Bölümü’nde öğrenim gören 20 birinci sınıf öğrencisiydi. Çalışmada iki farklı dönüt türüne yönelik öğrenci tutumları karşılaştırıldı: doğrudan düzeltme olmadan hata sembolleri ve kısa notlar kullanılarak verilen yazılı öğretmen dönütü ve doğrudan düzeltme olmadan ekran kaydı yapılarak ve semboller de kullanılarak verilen sözlü öğretmen dönütü. Öğrencilerin tutumları her iki dönüt türü yazma derslerinde kullanıldıktan sonra, ilk olarak klasik yazılı dönüt sonrası ve ikinci olarak da ekran kaydı ile dönüt sonrası uygulanan anketler yoluyla karşılaştırıldı. Çalışmanın sonuçları öğrencilerin klasik yazılı öğretmen dönütüne kıyasla ekran kaydı ile dönüte yönelik daha olumlu tutumlar geliştirdiklerine işaret etti

Keywords

akademik yazma ekran kaydı ile dönüt yazılı dönüt sözlü dönüt

References

  • Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of Using Screencast Feedback on EFL Students' Writing and Perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106-121.
  • Bellard, F. (2009). Screencast-O-Matic [computer software]. Retrieved from https://screencast- o-matic.com/
  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.
  • Brick, B., & Holmes, J. (2008, October). Using screen capture software for student feedback: Towards a methodology. In Proceedings from IADIS 2008: International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age.Freiburg, Germany.
  • Carr, A., & Ly, P. (2009). “More than words”: Screencasting as a reference tool. Reference Services Review, 37(4), 408-420.
  • Egbert, J. (2005). CALL Essentials: Principles and Practice in CALL Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc.
  • Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
  • Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
  • Fraenkel, J. R.; Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2012) How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Eight edition, New York: Mac Graw Hill.
  • Hamel, M. J., & Caws, C. (2010). Usability tests in CALL development: Pilot studies in the context of the dire autrement and francotoile projects. Calico Journal, 27(3), 491-504.
  • Harper, F., Green, H., & Fernandez-Toro, M. (2012, September). Evaluating the integration of Jing® screencasts in feedback on written assignments. In 2012 15th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
  • Loch, B. & McLoughlin, C. (2011). An instructional design model for screencasting: Engaging students in self-regulated learning. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings Ascilite Hobart 2011, 816-821.
  • Mathisen, P. (2012). Video feedback in higher education–A contribution to improving the quality of written feedback. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(02), 97-113.
  • NCTE Executive Committee. (2008). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies. National Council of Teachers of English, 15.
  • Park, K., & Kinginger, C. (2010). Writing/thinking in real time: Digital video and corpus query analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 31-50.
  • Séror, J. (2012). Show me Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104-116.
  • Techsmith Corporation (2019). Jing [Computer Application]. Retrieved from https://www.techsmith.com/screen-capture.html
  • Techsmith Corporation (2019). Camtasia [Computer Application]. Retrieved from https://www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html
  • Telestream LLC (2019). Screenflow [Computer Application]. Retrieved from https://www.telestream.net/screenflow/
  • Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 1(1), 1-16.
  • Valeri, L. (2015). Screencasting for enhanced teaching and learning in blended and online creative writing classes. Writing & Pedagogy, 7(1), 153-174.
  • Yök’ün “Yükseköğretimde Dijital Dönüşüm Projesi”nde İmzalar Atıldı. (2019, February 18). Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/agri-dijital-donusum- tanitim-toplantisi.aspx

THE APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY TO FEEDBACK IN ACADEMIC WRITING CLASSES: THE USE OF SCREENCASTING FEEDBACK AND STUDENT ATTITUDES

Year 2019, , 183 - 203, 01.06.2019

Elif Tokdemir Demirel Müge Güneş Aksu

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch019

Abstract

This paper explores the attitudes of tertiary level English learners towards the innovative technique of screencasting feedback and its effects on writing improvement. Screencasting is the broadcast of digital video recordings of a computer screen through the Internet and can also be used to give feedback to students’ written work. The researchers tried out this innovative technique of giving feedback in the context of a first-year academic writing course at a private university in Ankara, Turkey, namely, Ufuk University. The subjects of the study were 20 first-year students studying at the Department of Applied English and Translation Studies at the Vocational School of the university. In the present study, attitudes towards two feedback types were compared: written feedback with symbols without direct correction and feedback through screencasting with oral plus written feedback signaling errors without direct correction. The students’ attitudes were compared by means of questionnaires which were administered after each different type of feedback were utilized in the writing course; first after the implementation of classical written teacher feedback and secondly after the implementation of screencasting feedback. The results indicated that students developed more positive attitudes towards screencasting feedback compared to traditional written teacher feedback

Keywords

academic writing screencasting feedback written feedback oral feedback

References

  • Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of Using Screencast Feedback on EFL Students' Writing and Perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106-121.
  • Bellard, F. (2009). Screencast-O-Matic [computer software]. Retrieved from https://screencast- o-matic.com/
  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.
  • Brick, B., & Holmes, J. (2008, October). Using screen capture software for student feedback: Towards a methodology. In Proceedings from IADIS 2008: International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age.Freiburg, Germany.
  • Carr, A., & Ly, P. (2009). “More than words”: Screencasting as a reference tool. Reference Services Review, 37(4), 408-420.
  • Egbert, J. (2005). CALL Essentials: Principles and Practice in CALL Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc.
  • Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
  • Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
  • Fraenkel, J. R.; Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2012) How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Eight edition, New York: Mac Graw Hill.
  • Hamel, M. J., & Caws, C. (2010). Usability tests in CALL development: Pilot studies in the context of the dire autrement and francotoile projects. Calico Journal, 27(3), 491-504.
  • Harper, F., Green, H., & Fernandez-Toro, M. (2012, September). Evaluating the integration of Jing® screencasts in feedback on written assignments. In 2012 15th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
  • Loch, B. & McLoughlin, C. (2011). An instructional design model for screencasting: Engaging students in self-regulated learning. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings Ascilite Hobart 2011, 816-821.
  • Mathisen, P. (2012). Video feedback in higher education–A contribution to improving the quality of written feedback. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(02), 97-113.
  • NCTE Executive Committee. (2008). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies. National Council of Teachers of English, 15.
  • Park, K., & Kinginger, C. (2010). Writing/thinking in real time: Digital video and corpus query analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 31-50.
  • Séror, J. (2012). Show me Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104-116.
  • Techsmith Corporation (2019). Jing [Computer Application]. Retrieved from https://www.techsmith.com/screen-capture.html
  • Techsmith Corporation (2019). Camtasia [Computer Application]. Retrieved from https://www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html
  • Telestream LLC (2019). Screenflow [Computer Application]. Retrieved from https://www.telestream.net/screenflow/
  • Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 1(1), 1-16.
  • Valeri, L. (2015). Screencasting for enhanced teaching and learning in blended and online creative writing classes. Writing & Pedagogy, 7(1), 153-174.
  • Yök’ün “Yükseköğretimde Dijital Dönüşüm Projesi”nde İmzalar Atıldı. (2019, February 18). Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/agri-dijital-donusum- tanitim-toplantisi.aspx
There are 23 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Elif Tokdemir Demirel This is me

Müge Güneş Aksu This is me

Publication Date June 1, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019

Cite

APA Tokdemir Demirel, E., & Güneş Aksu, M. (2019). AKADEMİK YAZMA DERSLERİNDE TEKNOLOJİNİN DÖNÜTE UYGULANMASI: EKRAN KAYDI İLE DÖNÜT VERME VE ÖĞRENCİ TUTUMLARI. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(16), 183-203. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch019
AMA Tokdemir Demirel E, Güneş Aksu M. AKADEMİK YAZMA DERSLERİNDE TEKNOLOJİNİN DÖNÜTE UYGULANMASI: EKRAN KAYDI İLE DÖNÜT VERME VE ÖĞRENCİ TUTUMLARI. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. June 2019;8(16):183-203. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch019
Chicago Tokdemir Demirel, Elif, and Müge Güneş Aksu. “AKADEMİK YAZMA DERSLERİNDE TEKNOLOJİNİN DÖNÜTE UYGULANMASI: EKRAN KAYDI İLE DÖNÜT VERME VE ÖĞRENCİ TUTUMLARI”. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 8, no. 16 (June 2019): 183-203. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch019.
EndNote Tokdemir Demirel E, Güneş Aksu M (June 1, 2019) AKADEMİK YAZMA DERSLERİNDE TEKNOLOJİNİN DÖNÜTE UYGULANMASI: EKRAN KAYDI İLE DÖNÜT VERME VE ÖĞRENCİ TUTUMLARI. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 8 16 183–203.
IEEE E. Tokdemir Demirel and M. Güneş Aksu, “AKADEMİK YAZMA DERSLERİNDE TEKNOLOJİNİN DÖNÜTE UYGULANMASI: EKRAN KAYDI İLE DÖNÜT VERME VE ÖĞRENCİ TUTUMLARI”, Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 8, no. 16, pp. 183–203, 2019, doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch019.
ISNAD Tokdemir Demirel, Elif - Güneş Aksu, Müge. “AKADEMİK YAZMA DERSLERİNDE TEKNOLOJİNİN DÖNÜTE UYGULANMASI: EKRAN KAYDI İLE DÖNÜT VERME VE ÖĞRENCİ TUTUMLARI”. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 8/16 (June 2019), 183-203. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch019.
JAMA Tokdemir Demirel E, Güneş Aksu M. AKADEMİK YAZMA DERSLERİNDE TEKNOLOJİNİN DÖNÜTE UYGULANMASI: EKRAN KAYDI İLE DÖNÜT VERME VE ÖĞRENCİ TUTUMLARI. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2019;8:183–203.
MLA Tokdemir Demirel, Elif and Müge Güneş Aksu. “AKADEMİK YAZMA DERSLERİNDE TEKNOLOJİNİN DÖNÜTE UYGULANMASI: EKRAN KAYDI İLE DÖNÜT VERME VE ÖĞRENCİ TUTUMLARI”. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 8, no. 16, 2019, pp. 183-0, doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9577-1.ch019.
Vancouver Tokdemir Demirel E, Güneş Aksu M. AKADEMİK YAZMA DERSLERİNDE TEKNOLOJİNİN DÖNÜTE UYGULANMASI: EKRAN KAYDI İLE DÖNÜT VERME VE ÖĞRENCİ TUTUMLARI. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2019;8(16):183-20.